Misplaced Pages

Talk:Greek genocide: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:18, 6 January 2008 editRizos01 (talk | contribs)156 edits Last two sentences in the lead were deleted← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:14, 8 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,459 edits Assessment: banner shell, Human rights (High) (Rater
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheaderlong}} {{talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WPGR
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid}}
|class=B
|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Death|importance=High}}
{{WPTR|class=B|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=Mid}}
{| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk"
{{WikiProject Former countries|Ottoman=yes|Ottoman-importance=Mid}}
|-
{{WikiProject Greece |importance=High |topic=history}}
| ]
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}}
| This article can be in the scope of ]. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the ] or peruse ]'''''.
{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|B-Class-1=no |B-Class-2=yes |B-Class-3=yes |B-Class-4=yes |B-Class-5=yes|Ottoman=yes |WWI=yes}}
<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=Low|ethics=yes}}
|-
{{WikiProject Turkey|importance=High}}
]
{{WikiProject European history|importance=Mid}}
</noinclude>
|} }}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2011-05-19|oldid1=429898988|date2=2012-05-19|oldid2=493383700|date3=2013-05-19|oldid3=555790565|date4=2014-05-19|oldid4=609062599|date5=2015-05-19|oldid5=663133050|date6=2016-05-19|oldid6=721080926|date7=2018-05-19|oldid7=841865950|date8=2019-05-19|oldid8=897842329|date9=2020-05-19|oldid9=957246510}}
{{WPMILHIST|class=start}}
{{GR-TR}}
{{Round In Circles}}
{{Round in circles}}
{{Archive box |auto=yes |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index |
*]
*]
*]
*]
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 14
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Greek genocide/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}


== "Pontic genocide" ==
{{Archive box|]<br />]<br />]<br />] (Rename poll)<br />]}}


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


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


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


:Here are 5 sources on the Pontic Genocide: (last one is included in this article). And yes, Sjöberg says that the Pontic Greeks that died were 100–150,000 but he also says this some lines later (it's literally the 1st source in this page). Nevertheless, that still doesn't make Kostopoulos (or McCarthy) reliable here per ]. Also, the sources say 100–150.000 but your calculations say 65.000? Well, you need a reliable reference for the 65.000 which you probably won't find. ] (]) 20:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I also amended the first sentence to reflect the definition of genocide as set out in Britannica


::Kostopoulos is ], and while Sjoberg reports his view, he does not endorse them. The "mathematical calculations" (as opposed to "non-mathemetical"?) of[REDACTED] users are out of the question. ] (]) 21:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
"the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race." (Britannica, 2007 ed.)


:::As a matter of fact Dr Kostopoulos is both a journalist and a historian, as stated in scientific journals that publish his writings and refer to him mentioning both aspects of his work -- see e.g. : "About the author - Tasos Kostopoulos - Historien et journaliste". He holds a PhD in History and is currently employed in one of Greece's leading research centres, as one can see in its .
http://genocidescholars.org/images/PRelease16Dec07IAGS_Officially_Recognizes_Assyrian_Greek_Genocides.pdf


:::It is also false that "while Sjoberg reports his view, he does not endorse them". He clearly writes in p. 47 of his monograph ''The Making of the Greek Genocide'' that Dr Kostopoulos "has demostrated" that the figure of supposedly 350,000 deaths in the Pontus area is a forgery of Pontic Greek journalist Valavanis.
] (]) 16:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


:::Other than Dr Kostopoulos being a historian and a journalist and his view being endorsed by Sjoberg, it is widely known to all those familiar with contemporary Greek historical writing that the mainstream position among members of the community of Greek historians is that labelling the events dealt with in this article as a "genocide" is wrong from a historical point of view. This assessment of the field can be found in books, such as Sjoberg's ''Making of the Greek Genocide'' (2017), p. 4 (" despite the predictable Turkish efforts to discredit it, '''Greek mainstream historians''', educators and influential commentators oppose this claim as founded upon "ahistorical and anti-scientific opinion"."), or the abstract of a paper Sjoberg read in 2015 (see : "Though the Greek state recognizes two instances of genocide against Greeks of Ottoman Anatolia, the claim is mostly advanced by non-state actors, and has in the early 21st century become the object of fierce controversy in the "culture wars" of Greece, as mainstream historians and debaters dismiss it as a politically distorted memory.") or scholarly reviews in scientific historical journals (see Alexander Kitroeff reviewing ''The Genocide of the Ottoman Greeks'' in the ''Historical Review'' vol. 11 (2014), 201-2 :"those disputing the usefulness of the term genocide belon to to the mainstream of the historical profession in Greece"). To dismiss this mainstream historiographical position as supposed "WP:FRINGE" is actually an egregious case of ]. ] (]) 19:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
:Britannica may define ''genocide'' as that, but since there is a large amount of people that disagree with it being called a genocide, you cannot use the definition in such a manner. It has not been proven enough to these people that it was deliberate and systematic in Pontus, hence the controversy. You cannot say they are all Turks, and to call them ''all'' denialists is to paint with a broad brush. I should have restored the POV tag, but I didn't. [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>]-]
</sup> 18:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


::::The only thing that Sjoberg says Kostopoulos has "demonstrated" on p. 47 is that Valavanis added 50,000 to the death total: {{tq|as the '''journalist''' Tasos Kostopoulos has demonstrated, Valavanis had reached this figure by simply adding a rough estimate of 500,000 "neo-martyrs" to the figure 303,238...}}, and '''not''' the figure of 100,000-150,000. Regarding the figure of 100,000-150,000 dead, all Sjoberg says is that this is Kostopoulos' own figure, and does not endorse it: {{tq|Kostopoulos' own estimate of dead is considerably lower; between 100,000 and 150,000}}. That is not an endorsement; Sjoberg is decidedly neutral. You surely also noticed the part where he described Kostopoulos as a "journalist" and not a "historian"? If he considered Kostopoulos a historian, he would have described him as such. Regarding Sjoberg's own views on the number of casualties, on page 234, he seems to endorse {{tq|the cautious assessments ranging between 300,000 to 700,000}}. ''Those'' seem to be the figures that Sjoberg is endorsing (given his description of these figures as "cautious"). As for Kostopoulos himself, having a Ph.D. does not automatically absolve one from ]. Kostopoulos' main activity seems to be a journalist for the fringe far left "Efymerida ton Syntakton" (https://www.efsyn.gr/), where he writes numerous fringe articles in which among other things, he compares the current center-right Greek government to the ] , describes the ] as "200 years of Orthodox Jihad" , or writes in support of the release of convicted far left terrorist ] . But this aside, what really makes Kostopoulos ] is that his figure of 100,000-150,000 dead ''is contradicted by all scholarship on the issue'', which is the very definition of ]. I do agree with you that we have a case of ], just not quite the way you imagine. We may also have ] or intellectual honesty issues, not sure which is worse. ] (]) 22:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
*Please specify who you mean by "a large amount of people" do you imply laymen or scholars?
*If the relevant academic body has pronounced on the issue wouldn't that indicate that the scholars scholars most competent to do so have decided that it was in fact a genocide? One of the arguments previously leveled against use of the term was that of non-recognition, specifically by IAGS and the UN. The first is now moot while the second argument conflicts with counter-arguments regarding the use of US resolutions that recognize it as deriving from political as opposed to scholarly bodies.
*I will awai response before reverting. Thank you.
] (]) 21:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


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


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


I am including him as well. Last, regarding the Greek mainstream historians, neither Sjöberg nor Kitroeff refer to all of them; if that was the case, which it isn't, it would be ] and would require many more reliable sources.
:I think it is perfectly clear as I have edited it that it is under debate, and a '''majority''' of people still do not recognize it as a genocide, be it scholarly or no. I am not the one to share the burden of proof in this case- it is up to you to '''prove''' that it is so by using balanced references rather than me prove it did not happen. I am not a Turk, a sympathizer, nor a denialist- I fully believe that facts taken in a neutral, scientific manner prevail over facts taken from a nationalist or emotional view point and skewed to a particular POV. To me, newspaper articles and scholars who get together for the sole purpose of labeling ganocides are NOT valid references- they have biases (i.e. sell newspapers or promote their genocide work) over being truly neutral. They can say they are neutral, but are they truly? I have seen so many times certain British authors be decried for their biases while others are quoted like gospel who have the same kinds of biases argued by others. I want the truth, not rhetoric. [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>]-]
</sup> 22:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


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


*{{tquote|Meanwhile, despite the predictable Turkish efforts to discredit it, Greek mainstream historians, educators and influential commentators oppose this claim as founded upon "ahistorical and anti-scientific opinion".}}
* "Greek genocide and Pontic genocide are two different subjects." Actually I kinda wondered about that one. I searched for "Greek genocide" in WP and there is no such article. While I am new to the discussion could someone enlighten me as to whether there were similar killings in other parts of modern Turkey and if so why use the adjective "Pontic" as opposed to talking about a "Greek" or "Hellenic" genocide?
* While I conced the possibility of bias in any source this begs the question of what it would take to decide the matter? If we can agree on that first then we can set about looking if such information exists or not. Otherwise people argue against inclusion due to non-recognition by IAGS and when that is forthcoming, other issues arise and we have wasted time discusiing it in the first place. From what I understand at any rate the bone of contention is not whether the massacres occured but whether they should be labelled genocide. Again I fail to see how the opinion of one historian (who is if anything more likely on an a-priori basis to be biased) convince those unmoved by that of a group of such. Perhaps we can attempt to discern the current opinion of the scientific community by listing those scholars of the period who do and those who don't recognize these massacres as genocide. Criteria of objectivity (e.g. not ethnically involved, no ethnic agendas, no political biases) could be discussed.I agree that WP should reflect as opposed to influence estavlished scientific opinion.
] (]) 09:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


Furthermore, i find it interesting that Sjöberg bases this claim on a 2001 article written by journalist ] (a famous ] in Greece) in the politically-left newspaper ], and even quotes him. Even though i haven't read the newspaper article, a personal view of a biased journalist from 2001, even if indeed valid, is not necessarily true for 2021 (regardless of the fact that it is being reproduced in Sjöberg's 2017 publication); just something to think about.
:I have wondered myself why there was no such article, and yet this one exists. Of course the problem has always been the use of the term ''massacre'' versus the term ''genocide''- I think what the problem rightly is is the automatic linking of the term ''genocide'' to what Hitler did, and that is what causes all of the vitriol.


Kitroeff speaks of an institutional split among Greek historians (not them as a whole); with the ones who dispute it belonging to (he means being counted among) the mainstream of the historical profession in Greece:
:As far as the sources, I have found it particularly difficult to find distinct references regarding Pontic genocide, but there are many more regarding Greek genocide subjects. If there was a proposal to delete and merge this article into Greek genocide then it would easily get my vote. By doing so, sourcing everything would really be simple. I would hope you'd agree by your comments above. [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>]-]
</sup>


*{{tquote|There is also an institutional split, with those disputing the usefulness of the term genocide belonging to the mainstream of the historical profession in Greece.}}
*I agree that this is the reason behind the reaction, most people who object object on that term alone as opposed to the historicity of the facts presented. Again though genocide does not imply nazism, e.g. the genocides in Darfur and Rwanda which are called such without anyone linking their perpetrators with nazism.
*I agree with your proposal and support removing the adjective Pontic.
*My last proposal would be to try to list historical sources and establish whether the term genocide is widely accepted.
] (]) 19:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


Though, Kitroeff that was cited to support this claim, continues in the very following sentences with the following:
== Map of Ethnic Groups at beginning of 20th Century ==


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


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


::I see that as i was editing the article, ] removed the claim pertaining to Greek mainstream historians. Personally i have no problem removing the claim until consensus is reached in the talk page. ] (]) 07:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I've read through the article, and feel that it is written in a Greek POV tone. I suggest the lead mention that the International Association of Genocide Scholars hasn't recognized it, and that Turkey refuses to call this "genocide", as those things are quite important, and having them near the top (as well as where they are) would reduce the bias towards the Greek end considerably. Also, should the title not be "Pontic Greek genocide", with "genocide" lowercased? · <font face="Times New Roman">] <sup>]</sup></font> 17:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


If you give me 5 or even 10 scholars who acknowledge the "Pontic genocide" out of hundreds or thousands of historians who have studied the subject, that does not mean that it is generally accepted. Again, most sources describing the Ottoman Empire's involvement in World War I and the Turkish War of Independence describe the Armenian (and Assyrian) genocide, but almost all do not mention the "Pontic genocide". Neither Patrick Kinross, Rudolf Rummel, Reynolds, Eugene Rogan, nor Taner Akcam even use this phrase in their works. Most authoritative sources describe the Greek/Pontic Greek exodus not as genocide, but as an population exchange. The handful of researchers who define it as "genocide" are not well known and constitute only a marginal minority in the academic discussion whose opinions you push into the article. Also, you have answered nothing to the fact that there is no serious international organization has recognized this "genocide". Stop baselessly trying to prove the so-called "Pontic genocide" by equating it with the Armenian genocide. The second is recognized by most scholars and several international organizations, is a big part of today's politics and diplomacy and is very popular, the first - I have already written about it before... ] (]) 08:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
:If you want to add anything to the lead, feel free to, about the title that seems to be the general practice (], ], ], ]...). Anything else?--] 17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Now let's move on from the term "genocide" to the number 353,000. As far as I know, Tassos Kostopoulos has a history degree, plus he has written many books on Greek history that have been published by various publishers. We have at least 2 authoritative sources directly stating that the number 353,000 is inflated (Kostopoulos and Sjoberg), which is enough to at least add their opinion to the article, so as not to give the impression of "the only true number 353,000". One of them (Kostopoulos) gave his estimate of 100,000-150,000 and I would like to see it in the article too. Recently I found a Greek site (https://greekreporter.com/2021/05/19/greek-genocide-pontus-asia-minor/) suggesting 200,000 and saying that 350,000 IS SUPPORTED ONLY BY SOME HISTORIANS ("By the time of the Asia Minor Catastrophe of 1922, the number of Pontians who died had exceeded 200,000; some historians put the figure at 350,000"). Also you have never proved that McCarthy's opinion cannot be used in the article, so his 65,000 can be included too. It has never been commented that the Greek source gives the number of 400,000 Pontic refugees in Greece, and given the population of 700,000 before the events (according to Sotiriadis 450,000), the large number of refugees in the USSR, it is obvious that based on this source the number of deaths is clearly under 300,000, which clearly contradicts the number of 353,000. Also keep in mind that Rudolf Rummel gives a number of 347,000 for all Ottoman Greeks in 1914-1922, which contradicts the number of 353,000 for one Pontus. Thus, we have 2 authoritative sources directly pointing to the incorrectness of the number 353,000 and 2 indirectly. Add to all this McCarthy and the Greek site and you get an inconvenient truth. Again, most historians who give an estimate of 350,000-360,000 refer to either Valаvanis or other historians who refer to him. Moreover, it has been proven that its 353,000 is nothing more than a beautifully forged fake. ] (]) 09:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
::Okay, I thought I'd ask because there's an edit war going on though. · <font face="Times New Roman">] <sup>]</sup></font> 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


:{{tq|hundreds of thousands of historians who have studied the subject}}?? Give me a break. You're not doing your credibility favors with wild exaggerations like that. Rather, it shows someone with ], ], ], and ] issues.
:::It says that the International Association of Genocide Scholars, European Union, Council, and UN haven't made reference to the genocide, but that isn't sourced... I only added the Turkish Minister's view (since that did have a source). · <font face="Times New Roman">] <sup>]</sup></font> 18:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
:{{tq| but almost all do not mention the "Pontic genocide"}}? Who is "almost all" How do you know they are "almost all"? This kind of statement needs to be sourced. Do you have a source that it's "almost all"? Incidentally, the views of Akcam and others that do not consider it a genocide are already in the article. If you are calling for the removal of the views that it was genocide, that is a complete non starter. And it seems you are dropping names without reading your sources, because Rummel for example does consider it genocide (see, he included the Greeks of Anatolia in a ''book about genocide''. See how that works?).
:{{tq|The handful of researchers who define it as "genocide" are not well known and constitute only a marginal minority}} More wild unsubstantiated exaggerations, possibly also violating ] (yes, ] applies to talkpages too).
:{{tq|Also, you have answered nothing to the fact that there is no serious international organization has recognized this "genocide"}} Perhaps you haven't heard of the ]? Perhaps you haven't read the article, since the IAGS is ''mentioned in the article?
:{{tq|Tassos Kostopoulos has a history degree}} that's not the issue, the issue is that this figure is contradicted by all other scholarship on the subject, even by those who do not necessarily consider these events a genocide. Kostopoulos' view is a fringe view, in fact the very definition of ].
:{{tq|We have at least 2 authoritative sources directly stating that the number 353,000 is inflated (Kostopoulos and Sjoberg)}}. Sjöberg does not say the figures are inlated, and does not endorse Kostpoulos' figures. In fact in his book he refers to "the cautious estimates of 300,000 to 700,000 dead" on p. 234. Again, it would help your credibility if you actually ''read'' the sources you mention, instead of wild rants on the talkpage.
:{{tq|suggesting 200,000 and saying that 350,000 IS SUPPORTED ONLY BY SOME HISTORIANS}} Shouting in ALLCAPS aside, it's pretty funny you took "some historians say 350,000" to mean "only ''some'' historians say 350,000". Nice try, but no dice. Greek Reporter is new website, and not a scholarly source anyway.
:{{tq|It has never been commented that the Greek source gives the number of 400,000 Pontic refugees in Greece, and given the population of 700,000 before the events (according to Sotiriadis 450,000), the large number of refugees in the USSR, it is obvious that based on this source the number of deaths is clearly under 300,000}} No ] "mathematical calculations" please. We've been over this.
:{{tq| Again, most historians who give an estimate of 350,000-360,000 refer to either Valаvanis or other historians who refer to him. }} More wild unsupported exaggerations.
:{{tq|Moreover, it has been proven that its 353,000 is nothing more than a beautifully forged fake. }} This has got to be the cherry on the cake. Using colorful language doesn't make wild unsupported exaggerations ''true''.
:You also ''completely ignored'' everything Demetrios wrote above, and all the sources he gave, in what amounts to a whopping case of ]. Unfortunately, all of the above seems to point to a strong case of ], ], ], ] and so forth. It is impossible to reach any kind of consensus with this type of behavior, and we already deep into ] as a result. ] (]) 13:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


I advise you to read your opponent's words more carefully during the discussion. This will not only facilitate discussion, but is also a show of respect. I did not write about hundreds OF thousands of historians, but about hundreds OR thousands of historians. This is the first and simplest case when you don't read my comment carefully. Further, in general, tin. We are talking about the "Pontic genocide", damn it, about PONTUS, and not about the entire territory of the empire where the Greeks lived. Rummel never even once mentioned the phrase "Pontic genocide" or analyzed it in any of his most famous books. Moreover, he gives an estimate of 347,000 for all Ottoman Greeks that you wanted to roll back, because this number is very uncomfortable for you, including because it completely contradicts the number 353,000 for the Pontic Greeks alone. "More wild unsubstantiated exaggerations, possibly also violating WP: BLP (yes, WP: BLP applies to talkpages too)." - please argue. In fact, what I wrote is true (maybe a little exaggerated, but still true), and you have not given any explanation for your conclusion about my words. Now about the International Association of Genocide Researchers. I am familiar with the article quite well, otherwise I would not have started the discussion. You misunderstand her conclusion. As far as I know, the association really came to the conclusion that there was a genocide of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians. However, we are not talking about all Ottoman Greeks, but about Pontic ones. And then it turns out that the association did not recognize any "Pontic genocide". Now it will be even more interesting. You accuse me of not carefully reading the sources, but you are not reading carefully what I am writing. I did not say that Sjöberg agreed with Kostopoulos on the estimate of 100,000-150,000. But at least he supports him in the sense that the number 353,000 given by Valavanis is overstated: But Greek journalist Thassos Kostopoulos HAS DEMONSTRATED that... "Greek Reporter is new website, and not a scholarly source anyway." - okay, the only thing I agree with from what you've written. I didn't ignore what Demetrios wrote. I analyzed his sources and came to the conclusion that 2 of them talk about genocide, but do not talk about 353, 2 - on the contrary, and 1 - neither about one nor the other. But I gave 5 sources, of which 4 are indisputably authoritative and McCarthy, which contradict the number 353,000. And of the authoritative and neutral historians who studied the subject, the "Pontic genocide", I repeat, recognized up to 10, and the rest, who form the overwhelming majority, are completely silent about it. ] (]) 15:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
::::I understand this is how this article works. Unless a source is found saying that they do recognize it this article shall write they do not (regardless of sources). Perhaps the title of this section should be renamed from "Greek POV" to "Yet more Turkish POV".--] 18:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
:The International Association of Genocide Scholars explicitly stated the following ():
:*{{tquote|The resolution passed with the support of over eighty percent of IAGS members who voted. The resolution (full text below) declares that "it is the conviction of the International Association of Genocide Scholars that the Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire between 1914 and 1923 constituted a '''genocide against''' Armenians, Assyrians, and '''Pontian and Anatolian Greeks'''." It "calls upon the government of Turkey to acknowledge the genocides against these populations, to issue a formal apology, and to take prompt and meaningful steps toward restitution."}}
:By the way, it isn't difficult to find additional sources. Also, note that the genocide of the Pontian Greeks, is just one branch of the broader Greek genocide, so it is natural that some sources won't address it directly as a Pontic genocide, but under the broader term Greek genocide; hence why we have the same article addressing the subject. ] (]) 07:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


The reference that you gave is not working. However, finding the conclusion of association independently, I have to agree that it confessed a genocide both: against Pontic and Anatolian Greeks. But most organizations "Pontic genocide" do not acknowledge. Neither the UN, nor Council of Europe, nor European parliament, nor Genocide Studies Program, nor Genocide Watch (despite all the delusional interpretation of events, namely about the 1 million lost Greeks and that Mustafa Kemal is one of main guilty - that is one-sided Greek propaganda, the "Greek", but not "Pontic" genocide acknowledges only), nor In Support of the Legal Determination of Genocide, nor Institute for the Study of Genocide do not recognize "Pontic genocide". Obviously, that one International Association of Genocide Scholars is simply nothing as compared to all of them. As well as about ten of historians confirmative him, against other hundreds that studied subjects and mentioned no "Pontic genocide" in their works. ] (]) 09:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Just commenting on this . I find it very rich comming from the land where admitting that the Armenian Genocide took place is a criminal offence but denying that an Algerian Genocide took place is also to be a criminal offence . Turkish Foreign Minister speaks of a "traditional Greek policy of distorting history" ... is the ]?--] 18:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


:{{tq|Neither the UN, nor Council of Europe, nor European parliament, nor Genocide Studies Program, nor Genocide Watch}}. So the Swedish Parliament isn't reliable but the European Parliament is? Nevertheless, the European Parliament HAS recognized the Pontic genocide . On the other hand, the rest of the entities that you mentioned haven't recognized the Greek genocide (as a whole) at all, so there's no point in having a discussion about them. See for countries that have recognized the genocide either as Pontic, Greek, Anatolian, etc etc. ] (]) 15:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
:Perhaps you like the title better? By the way, I'm not Turkish, I'm Greek, born in America. · <font face="Times New Roman">] <sup>]</sup></font> 21:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


::I've stayed out of this up till now, since I don't have access to the sources or know them as well as others but my understanding has always been that the Pontic genocide, was simply one aspect of the broader Greek genocide. Am I wrong? If I am not, then saying that some scholars/governments don't mention the Pontic genocide is like saying the Holocaust didn't happen in Holland because some scholars don't mention a distinct 'Netherlands genocide'. Not everyone breaks matters down in the same way. My understanding has also always been that some scholars treat all the anti-Christian genocides in Ottoman lands ''(inc Armenian, Assyrian and Greek)'' as one event. Am I wrong? What is actually being argued here? ] (]) 16:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
::I note that you self-declare as an "American" of "multiple ancestries" on your userpage. ] 21:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


"On the other hand, the rest of the entities that you mentioned haven't recognized the Greek genocide (as a whole) at all, so there's no point in having a discussion about them" - why? If the organization recognized the "Pontic genocide", then it recognized it, if not, then no. And here it is no longer important whether she recognized the "Greek genocide" as a whole. By the way, you were wrong about the fact that none of them recognized the "Greek genocide". Genocide Watch, as I wrote, acknowledged. However, it did not recognize the "Pontic genocide". ] (]) 17:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
:::Yes, American (born), multiple ancestries (my family's never stayed in one place too long), and Greek (as far as I know, that's the origin of my family tree; my last name is also Greek). · <font face="Times New Roman">] <sup>]</sup></font> 21:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Now I’ll answer the Pincrete member. Yes, the "Pontic genocide" is part of the "Greek genocide". But the recognition of the first does not mean the recognition of the second and vice versa, because there are two different things. If the preamble says "including Pontic genocide", then the "Pontic genocide" should be recognized by the world community as, for example, the Armenian genocide or the Holocaust. However, most historians and international organizations that have studied the subject do not recognize him. Therefore, at least it should not be in the preamble, so as not to create a false preference in the reader, giving the view of a small minority. Next is the dispute over the number 353,000. ] (]) 17:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
::::Not quite the same as a "Greek, born in America", e.g. ]. ] 22:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
:But the Armenian genocide is not part of the holocaust! So of course they need seperate recognition, the Pontic genocide IS part of the Gk genocide. The equivalent argument is saying that no Holocaust happened in Poland, because some, but not all sources treat the subject as a distinct sub-event of the broader Holocaust. It's purely semantic argument frankly. I cannot even see its relevance to the article, since we treat the Pontic events as being part of the bigger Gk event. Are you really arguing that some national and international bodies have recognised something that YOU say didn't happen, despite your acknowledging that it is part of the Gk genocide?] (]) 17:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
::Again, the "Pontic genocide" is a reference to the subevents of the broader "Greek genocide", which occurred in Pontus or in relation to Pontic Greeks. Having it in the lede in the form of {{tquote|The Greek genocide (...), '''including''' the Pontic genocide, was the ...}} is nothing out of the ordinary, considering that a number of authors make the distinction; even the International Association of Genocide Scholars cited above, does. But i believe a slight rewording would be ideal, namely to change the "including" to "which includes". By the way, the reason the link didn't work for you, is probably due to your internet connection, which might also be the reason that each time you post in the talk page, a number of duplicate comments are being published; you should have a look at that. As for the number of ~350,000 deaths, there is not really any notable dispute. We have one author who disputes the estimate, and since this subject is highly charged and politicized, more reliable sources endorsing this isolated view, would be required for its inclusion in my opinion, per ] and ]. This very subject has already been discussed in the past and consensus wasn't reached; it's not something new. ] (]) 05:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


And I didn’t claim that the Armenian genocide was part of the Holocaust! I wrote that in order for this phrase to be used in the preamble, it is necessary that most historians recognize the "Pontic genocide" (just as most historians recognized the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust). We are arguing about the degree of recognition of the "Pontic genocide" and, accordingly, whether it should be used in the preamble.
:::::Well, I doubt eating 500 gyros will convince you I'm Greek, so I'll stop trying. :-) · <font face="Times New Roman">] <sup>]</sup></font> 22:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
"Are you really arguing that some national and international bodies have recognized something that YOU say didn't happen, despite your acknowledging that it is part of the Gk genocide?" - you yourself said why I do it. Only SOME national and international organizations recognized him as well as SOME historians who are an overwhelming minority. By the way, I do not deny that deportations and persecutions took place on Pontus. But I do not recognize this as genocide and will never recognize it, like most of the historical society. I am strongly opposed to overstating the numbers (the 353,000 dispute) and the manipulation of terms (the genocide dispute). ] (]) 05:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


"We have one author who disputes the estimate, ..." - are you serious? Can't you count? Or just inattentively reading? Kostopoulos, Sjöberg, Rummel and McCarthy are by no means one author. ] (]) 05:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::Your ancestry is irrelevant. I'm merely noting inconsistencies. By the way, proclaiming your "Greekness" doesn't legitimise anything, if that's what you thought. ] 22:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


I found a Greek source that preferred the number 200,000: An Introduction to Pontic Greek History by Sam Topalidis (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333667150_An_Introduction_to_Pontic_Greek_History), page 1 ("Pontic Greek associations have been lobbying
:::::::Ploutarchos said I was Turkish, which I'm not, but rather (in this article at least) the opposite. I wasn't trying to legitimize, I just wanted to clarify (I'm not Turkish, I pointed this out, and you say it's irrelevant). And I'm not sure what "inconsistencies" you're refering to. · <font face="Times New Roman">] <sup>]</sup></font> 22:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
governments worldwide to have the deaths of over 200,000 Pontic Greeks (Note 1.3) in the Ottoman empire in the early 20th century, recognized as genocide."). ] (]) 08:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


:I meant to write "one author who strongly disputes". Anyway, in my very first comment above i wrote that i agree with what Deji Olajide1999 and Khirurg wrote, which included their criticism on ] (especially ]) from your part. We are repeating ourselves. Kostopoulos is the one i referred to, in terms of strongly disputing the conventional estimation of deaths in Pontus. Sjöberg doesn't adopt Kostopoulos' view of 100,000-150,000 deaths, as you originally wrote in the first and second comment, and then you retracted (per Khirurg's observation) by saying that Sjöberg agreed with Valavanis' figure simply being overstated, because he added an additional 50,000 "neo-martyrs" per the data he had in his hands. So no, Sjöberg doesn't adopt Kostopoulos' position in terms of estimates; if anything he seems to agree with Valavanis' 303,238 figure (namely prior of the addition of 50,000 "neo-martyrs"). This position is already included in the article, since it says:
::::::::Um, I never said you were Turkish. In fact, I never said you were anything. All I was doing was bitching about Turkish Foreign Minister's hypocrisy and the Turkish POV standards which have overwhelmed this article. Could we please stop discussing Andonicos's ancestry; I'm sure it's a very interesting tale, most people have an interesting story behind them, but it makes this section confusing and hard to read.--] 22:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
:*{{tquote|According to various sources the Greek death toll in the Pontus region of Anatolia ranges from 300,000 to 360,000.}}
:So please, don't cite Sjöberg again in order to reinforce Kostopoulos' 100,000-150,000 figure.
:What about ]? You falsified him as well, when you wrote in regards to the total number of casualties for the Greek genocide:
:*{{tquote|This is more or less consistent with the estimates of Rummel, not a pro-Turkish scientist. That is, the total number of deaths (not 300,000-900,000, but 200,000-300,000) is less than 350,000.}}
:*{{tquote|Also keep in mind that Rudolf Rummel gives a number of 347,000 for all Ottoman Greeks in 1914-1922}}
:In reality, Rummel estimates that 384,000 Greeks were exterminated by the Ottomans during the period 1914-1918, while an additional 264,000 Greeks by the ] during 1920-1922; no estimate for 1918-1920 (). This gives us an estimate of '''at least''' 648,000 for the total number of casualties. Does he give any estimate of Pontian casualties exclusively? If not, you cannot say he disputes the 300,000-350,000 figure, because it clearly fits within his broader estimate. In fact, the only quote of Rummel i am aware of, in relation to Pontus, is this following:
:*{{tquote|In Trebizond (or Trabzond) province, the Pontic Greeks were "savagely persecuted ... until the community was virtually wiped out."<sup>71</sup>}} ()
:Now it would be extremely interesting if reference 71 pertained to Valavanis, but unfortunately i don't have access to the full book.
:As for ], i haven't checked what exactly he writes, but then again, there is probably a reason he isn't cited anywhere in the article, and might have something to do with what his respective article says (something that was also addressed above by Deji Olajide1999):
:*{{tquote|McCarthy's work has faced harsh criticism by many scholars who have characterized McCarthy's views defending Turkish atrocities against Armenians as genocide denial.<sup></sup> Hans-Lukas Kieser considers that McCarthy has "an indefensible bias toward the Turkish official position".<sup></sup>}}
:Now, on your new source. I don't know what kind of credentials Sam Topalidis has and whether he has received any recognition, in order for him to be considered a reliable source, but on page 9 he says the following:
:{{tquote|'''During 1916–23 at least''' 200,000 Pontic Greeks died in the genocide. ... '''We will never know the real number''' of Pontic Greeks who fell victim to the genocide during 1916–23.}}
:Doesn't look like much of a dispute to me. Also, take note that this estimate doesn't account for the years 1914, 1915, and 1924, which are included in Valavanis' ~303,000-353,000 estimation. ] (]) 11:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


"if anything he seems to agree with Valavanis' 303,238 figure (namely prior of the addition of 50,000" neo-martyrs ")." - you are wrong. Sjöberg does not support 303,000 (until May 1922) Valvanis as well as 100,000-150,000 Kostopoulos. He personally does not comment on either assessment in any way. The only thing he maintains is that 353,000 is overpriced. Now about Rummel. 648,000 is a gross falsification. I proved my point in the discussion and rightly removed it. Rudolph gives the number 347,000 in his book, which can be seen both in the text and in the tables. If you still disagree with this, head over to the talk page discussing Rummel's assessment and write your arguments. I don't know where Rummel got his nonsense about Trabzon. In fact, more than 100,000 Greeks from the Trabzon region moved to Greece through a population exchange in 1923 (source: Baum, Wilhelm (2006). The Christian minorities in Turkey. Kitab. P. 162. ISBN 978-3-902005-62), which in no way matches the words "virtually wiped out". About McCarthy - I agree that he is pro-Turkish, but so what? This does not mean that it cannot be used in the article. For example, the pro-democratic Rummel, who very often overestimates the number of deaths from nationalist and communist governments and has been criticized more than once for this, is used in the article. Just from 1916, the Young Turks began organized repressions against the Pontians. Of course, some killings took place in 1914-1915 (as, for example, 7 thousand Armenians killed in 1914 before the genocide of 1915), but they suffered a very low number of people (less than Armenians, that is, less than 7 thousand). All Pontic Greeks were evicted in 1923, so how could they have been killed in 1924? And over 200,000 is 205,000, 212,000, 220,000, but not 300,000 or 350,000. ] (]) 14:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Ah, sorry, I misread your comment. And I would gladly stop discussing my ancestry. · <font face="Times New Roman">] <sup>]</sup></font> 22:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


:Sure, Sjöberg doesn't explicitly adopt any estimation, but he indirectly kind of does, when prior of mentioning Kostopoulos' reference to a 50,000 ovestimation by Valavanis, he wrote the following:
I agree with the edit. I'd just remove "however", since it is ]. ]] 23:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
:{{tquote|In 1925, a total of 353,000 Greek casualties in Pontos '''was established''' by the refugee scholar Georgios Valavanis.}}
:The only criticism on this number he seems to agree with, is the addition of 50,000 "neo-martyrs" (out of which some surely must have died, it just wasn't ultimately verified according to Kostopoulos).
:I don't care what your own opinion of Rummel's estimation is. This is what the sources say, that you initially misunderstood; his real estimates are at least (not including 1918-1920) 648,000 for the total number of Greek civilian casualties.
:You write the following:
:{{tquote|(source: Baum, Wilhelm (2006). The Christian minorities in Turkey. Kitab. P. 162. ISBN 978-3-902005-62), which in no way matches the words "virtually wiped out".}}
:Are you claiming that the aforementioned reference 71 in Rummel's text, is Baum (2006)? Because if you do, that is another mistake from your part. Rummel's "Death by Government" was published in 1994; years prior of Baum (2006), and 2006 is the original publication year. Thus it cannot be him as reference 71.
:McCarthy has been harshly criticized by other scholars, not just as having a bias towards Turkey (we all have our biases after all), but as someone with "an indefensible bias toward the Turkish official position", and a ]; more specifically he seems to fall under what the article describes as an ] who tries to rewrite history in order to support a political agenda (read the ] section) using rhetorical fallacies to obtain his results. A controversial person such as him has no place in this article, until consensus is reached. Personally i disagree with his inclusion, and obviously a number of other editors do as well.
:You try to explain the deaths of 1914, 1915, and 1924, but this falls, again, under ]. You also, disregarded that Topalidis wrote "at least 200,000" (during 1916-23), and "We will never know the real number of Pontic Greeks who fell victim to the genocide during 1916–23.". In another book of his he cites Valavanis' 353,000 estimate as well.
:You write:
:{{tquote|All Pontic Greeks were evicted in 1923, so how could they have been killed in 1924?}}
:Just because the population exchange between Greece and Turkey was signed in 1923, it doesn't mean that they were all instantly transported/exchanged; broadly speaking (not just pertaining to Pontic Greeks) it wasn't completed until approximately 1927. ] (]) 06:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
=== Included or involved the Pontic genocide? ===
], during the above discussion, in the lead sentence i.e. {{tq|The Greek genocide … which includes/involved the Pontic genocide,}}. I meant to query this change at the time, but missed the chance to do so. I openly admit that I know very little about the topic and only 'watch' the article as a result of coming for an RfC a few years ago, BUT, I have to say that whilst I understand the use of 'include' - meaning that the Pontic genocide was a big part of, but not the whole story of the Greek genocide - I don't even really understand what 'involve' means in this context. I wonder if it is the right term. ] (]) 05:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
:I do remember this change, since it came after i had reworded this part myself (). Indeed, "''which involved the Pontic genocide''" makes it look as if the "Greek genocide" was a chapter of the "Pontic genocide", while the opposite is true; the latter was a chapter of the former. ] (]) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
::I honestly don't remember why I changed it. I think it sounded better to me when I made the edit, however I've changed my mind since then. My bad, I'm sorry. ] (]) 16:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


:Already done. ] 23:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


" ] has been widely criticized for being a pro-Turkish genocide denier . 4) “given by me”. Misplaced Pages isn't based on ],"
::Yeah, saw it. AndronicO, I don't want to be close when you ]! ]] 23:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Please provide some reliable sources on this. Is he pro-Turkish? Why would he be? Is he Turkish? Who is "Genocide Denier"? Who is responsible to define events as "Genocide"? Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/Perin%C3%A7ek_v._Switzerland
::: ;-) · <font face="Times New Roman">] <sup>]</sup></font> 00:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Please check court verdict:
The same sources youre using in the article says that there were organised atrocities between the years 1919-1922 on the part of greeks, what is has to do with "trivializing" the genocide? And the genocide nobody but greece recognize in the face of earth..Ah sorry ı forget to mention cyprus recognize it as well--] 20:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


"The Grand Chamber also made clear that the court was not required to determine whether the massacres and mass deportations suffered by the Armenian people at the hands of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards can be characterised as genocide within the meaning of that term under international law"
İm really bored with all these silly games of reverting articles, there are enough and credible sources quite clearly stating organized greek massacres in western anatolia during the greek occupation of it, and there is nothing wrong to say thhat massacres in the period 1919-1922 was mutual..--] 22:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


There is no international law on this matter.
Regardless of of who commits massacres, they are regretable. However, there is a big difference between massacres that
constitute a genocide and a few isolated massacres/atrocities. The Turkish victims numbered several thousand ( see Rummel's
accounts), the Greek victims hundreds of thousands. The Turkish atrocities were premeditated and centrallly planned (see
Akcam's accounts). The Greek atrocities were spontaneous, isolated individual or group acts of violence. There was no
premeditated and/or central Greek plan. Please provide a third party source which states that there was a premeditated and
centrally directed Greek plan. - ] 16:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Finally, is it all about "anti-turkism"? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Rizos, both Arnold J. Toynbee and Taner akcam actually argues that Greek atrocities were organised in nature, they were not some isolated acts..And these opinions are shared by Inter allied commission reports and by the representative of red cross..--] 10:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


== Edit Request 2023 ==
Please provide book titles and page numbers, as well as report titles, page numbers, and date of reports. Otherwise your arguments are not credible.--] 22:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


The academic discussion section contains the following statement: "These horrendous acts were committed by three entirely different regimes:"
:Kekrops, do not change the content of citations the way you want please, ı merely quoted the authors. toynbee states in his book that "There were both spontaneous and organized atrocities on either side since the Greek ]".. he doesnt say outside of Pontus, what he says includes Pontus as well..And that is also true for the citations taken from Akcam..--] 10:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


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


::Seeing that the sentence I proposed to change is a quote but an overly long one, I propose removing the parts: "It's deeper because it isn't just about World War I, but about a series of homicidal ethno-religious cleansings that took place from the late 1890s to the 1920s and beyond. It is wider because" and "of starvation and sickness, and millions of others were deported and lost everything. In addition, tens of thousands of Christians were forced to convert, and many thousands of girls and women were raped by their Muslim neighbors and the security forces. The Turks even set up markets where Christian girls were sold as sex slaves." for the sake of brevity. The first part goes on to explain why the situation is "deeper than the Armenian genocide" (which I think is unneccessary to include) and the second part goes on to detail about the "horrendous acts" that were committed by the Ottomans and probably also should not be included. ] (]) 20:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
A millenium of Turkish inhabitance should be enough to secure the city's name as ]. I've deleted Smyrna in the parentheses. Anyone who wishes to find out the past names of the city can click its link. By the way, I didn't see Selanik in parentheses after Thessalonika...{{unsigned|207.38.194.49}}
:::] any neutral, factual paraphrasing of that long quote - even retaining some short quotes if helpful, and some comparisons if useful, - would fix the problem. Have a go. There's nothing inherently wrong with 'graphic' language in moderation, as long as it is clear that it is the source - not us - that has used it.] (]) 07:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
::::This is not part of the original quote, but a translation of a Hebrew text, by whoever added the content. I went ahead and replaced it with the respective text from the English version of the Hebrew article, which was published about a week later; it uses "atrocities" instead of "horrendous acts". ] (]) 03:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


== Another page based on hatred and political propaganda? ==
: What's the big deal? Izmir comes from the Greek name anyway; it's not as if it constitutes such a grand example of Turkish authenticity that it must be guarded so zealously against the hated ''gavurlar''. Thessaloniki, on the other hand, does not derive from Selanik, but rather the contrary. ] 16:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
:: ] and lol for gavurlar. The argument wasn't about etymology, that's your argument. Should we write next to each word the word it derives from in parentheses? The argument was probably the Greek name vs Turkish name for a Turkish city. Turks might have taken the name from the Greeks, and changed it a little bit over years to make it easier pronounceable for a Turkish speaker, but so did Greeks changing the Hittite or Assyrian name or the name of the Amazonness queen into Greek. Also Turkish name of the city is İzmir (note the capital letter). ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> , the ] (infidelis) (writing the word it derives from)


"It was perpetrated by the government of the Ottoman Empire led by the Three Pashas and by the Government of the Grand National Assembly led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, against the indigenous Greek population of the Empire. " so your only source is one greek source to involve Ataturk into this? resentful national feelings towards outcome of the Turkish-Greek war during Turkish liberation? I know that writing history objectively is very difficult. However whenever i come across this type of hate propaganda or any other form of political religious agenda which divides nations and people even more i get seriously disappointed into Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 16:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
It's not a question of Greek vs Turkish names, but a question of accurate chronology. The fact of the matter is that the names Smyrna (and Constantinople, for that matter) were in common usage and were the internationally recognized names of the cities during the time period. Ataturk changed the names in 1930. Hence we should write Smyrna, perhaps with "modern-day Izmir" in parentheses, for any reference to the city in question that is pre-1930, in order to be historically accurate. After-all, no one would think in antiquity of substituting Tunis for Carthage, etc. and the same principle applies here.
Cheers,
] 23:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


:@] Turkey is isolated country and many Turcs are brainwashed by the government with Turkish nationalism like Greeks are brainwashed by their own government with Greek nationalism. Only reason you are not having serious problems in this page is that Turcs cannot speak English. It is shameful to feed on two nation's pain in close history and hatred. Ataturk was a great leader with modern ideas, vision and world peace, equality in mind. You don't only trick the world to take your subjective point of view when you write things like that, you also divide people even more and contribute into continuation of this quarrel. I felt like i should have elaborated what i meant by hatred and political agendas. ] (]) 17:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
"The Greek name vs Turkish name for a Turkish city" is not a serious argument, as the city has been Greek much longer than it's been Turkish. I was simply noting the absurdity of the seemingly pathological aversion of many Turkish editors to the original Greek names of places in modern Turkey. However, I agree with the second anonymous editor that it is a matter of accurate chronology, so İZMİR is fine when discussing the Turkish mayor's rather amusing spitting of the dummy, as it occurred in 2006. Finally, please note the city's name in ''English'' is ] without the dotted I; this is '''en'''.wikipedia.org, after all. ] 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


== Misrepresentation of Kitroeff's views ==
== Pontus versus Smyrna ==


The historian, Alexander Kitroeff, is cited as supporting the contention that the events in question constituted genocide ("The historians Samuel Totten and Paul R. Bartrop, who specialize on the history of genocides, also call it a genocide; so is Alexander Kitroeff.") The footnote appears to quote him. But in fact it quotes a historian he is quoting in his extremely balanced and nuanced book review, in which he concludes that "Beyond what it achieves, this volume does not neutralize the concerns raised by those who believe the term genocide is not appropriate." ] (]) 23:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
] has reverted my clarifications on the nature of the Genocide. He would like us to believe that the massacres in Pontus were somehow the direct result of the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-22, which took place in ''western'' Anatolia, several hundred kilometres away. There were no Greek forces in Pontus at the time and hence no war there. It is essential to distinguish between these two discrete historical events. ] 10:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2024 ==
Kekrops thats the problem they were not two discrete historical events, according to a multitude of historians, that includes Toynbee and Akcam as well, there wouldnt be such a thing as Turkish national Movement without Greeks occupying smyrna..There was a war between Greece and Turkey regardless of where the Greek army was..Btw, ı recently noticed that Rummel calls the masssacres greeks committed in western anatolia a "genocide" as he calls the Turkish massacres of greeks as such..--] 10:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Greek genocide|answered=yes}}
:You admit then that the Greeks were slaughtered in Pontus in retribution for the Hellenic Army's landing at Smyrna, at the other end of the Anatolian peninsula; they were not casualties of any fighting between Greece and Turkey as such. That is a crucial distinction to make. Your attempt to present the victims of the Genocide as mere casualties of war is historical revisionism and has no place on Misplaced Pages. ] 10:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Below the table "Total population figures for the Ottoman Greeks of Anatolia" in the Section labelled "Balkan Wars to World War I", there is a "clarification needed" tag in the second sentence of the paragraph.


For clarification, change the sentence to:
::Historical revisionism? This article cannot find one monograph to its name, not one encylopedic article, nor one journal article. The title is unsourced, the only country to recognise a so called genocide is Greece, the editors who wrote this are Greeks, and the editors who blocked an arbitration to resolve the title are, again, Greeks. So I find it odd, actually laughable, when you get on your high horse and talk about "historical revisionism having no place on Misplaced Pages". Honestly, a joke! --] 11:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


"The Ottoman government adopted a "dual-track mechanism" whereby official government acts were accomanied by unofficial
:::The only joke here is your suggestion that Greeks are the problem. That's exactly what the perpetrators of this genocide thought. ] 21:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC).
"covert, extralegal but state-sponserd acts of terror under the protective umbrella provided by the official state policies" (Akçam 2012, p. 30.), thereby allowing the Ottoman government to deny responsibility for and prior knowledge of this campaign of intimidation, emptying Christian villages."


"" was altered from "were committed" for clarity. ] (]) 18:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Spare us the melodrama and read what I said. --] 10:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


:{{done}} ] (]) 17:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::You haven't said anything new that would warrant a serious response. Just the same old insecure Turkish denialism ("so-called") and blatant lies ("unsourced"). ] 11:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Then Kekrops Turks who were slaughtered in occupied lands were also not the victims of casualties of war, they were also massacred in areas where there was not an organized Turkish unit..What distinction are you referring to? And you keep changing source content the way you want, toynbee doesnt say "outside of Pontus" but he says "There were both spontaneous and organized atrocities on either side since the Greek occupation of Smyrna"..what's the point of having citations if youre going to change them according to your personal ideas?

:And im not representing them as causalities of war but ım simply citing reliable non-pro turkish sources which shows that there were massacres towards civilianss at both side..--] 13:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::No, what you're really trying to say is that because Greeks killed Turks too in a different part of the country, Turks did not commit genocide against Greeks in Pontus. It's the same pathetic relativist argument used in the case of the Armenian Genocide and is equally unconvincing. ] 21:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

::I do not think going until detail is really right, we should focus on the article it self instead of adding more controversial material. --] 08:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Vonones what is that controversial material are you talking about? the article itself is controversial as Garnett said.Im making reference to absolutely non-pro turkish sources like Toynbee and Akcam, toynbee's book is perhaps the only book which is written exclusively about the atrocities of the greco-turkish war..Plus you are changing the source material to something the sources doesnt say..--] 09:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

== A Shameful Act ==

The references of shameful act are all fine except for this, this is really irrelevant this has nothing to do with the text in the book and in the article, ''and throughout 1920-23, the period of the Turkish War of Independence''. --] 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

how it is irrelevant can you explain it vonones? That is how it is written in the book and that is completely relevant with the article..The citations from Toynbee are also quite relevant..--] 09:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, you add ''"here were both spontaneous and organized atrocities on either side since the Greek occupation of Smyrna"'' than that sentence which is irrelevant you cannot speculate. --] 19:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I still cant see how it is irrelevant, obviously you dont like the naming of turkish war of independence..--] 07:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:The "Turkish War of Independence" is the name given in hindsight in official Turkish nationalist discourse to a series of wars fought against a multitude of enemies on numerous fronts over several years. As your attempt to relativise the Genocide pertains specifically to the war between Greece and Turkey in western Anatolia, a link to ] is more appropriate. ] 20:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

== ''Middlesex'' (novel) ==

Scenes of the ] are prominent in the initial chapters of '']'', the ] ]-winning ] by ]. Under which heading would this best be added to the ]? As it's a work of fiction, '''Further reading''' seems inappropriate. <s>For now I'll add a heading, '''In literature'''</s> — <s>though</s> I'm unfamiliar with the ] on this point. ''-- Thanks, ] 10:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)'' <br>
'''Further''' to the above: other pages ''do'' use the heading '''Further reading'''; however the page is presently protected from editing. ''-- ] 11:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)''

:Thanks, Deborah. No doubt the author's Greek surname will cause it to be deprecated by Turkish editors. See above. ] 11:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

== Nationalist hate sites, again ==

"hellenicgenocide.org" and the likes of it are most emphatically ''not'' reliable sources by any standard. I will strongly object to the inclusion of just about anything sourced to nationalist hate sites like that. We've been through it before. These are completely unacceptable. ] ] 11:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

==Completely laughable==
"British historian Arnold J. Toynbee wrote that it was the Greek landings that created the Turkish National Movement led by Mustafa Kemal and it is almost certain that if the Greeks had never landed at Smyrna, the consequent atrocities on the Turkish side would not have occurred." '''Well i guess Toynbee was either a fortune teller or a retarded man as i can't remember Armenian army landing in Turkey before the ] and i can't remember Greek army landing in Asia Minor in 1915 when "Amele Tamburu" (=forced labour aka work till you die in Lake Van etc) where at their prime.All in all i can't see how a totally personal view based on someone's "good wi$$" (to say at least) can be presented as a fact here.'''] 11:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

=="Both sides"==

Kekrops enough is enough we have been over this before, and now you turned back to do the same kind of editing again without trying to initiate a discussion over it..These two sources are relevant to the article, Akcam`s work perhaps the newest book written on the subject, Toynbee was an eyewitness to the whole series of massacres committed by Greeks and Turks, citing them is completely relevant for this article..
:And these info belong to the intro, as they summarize what happened, they are not about why it happened-that would suit to the background section- but what happened in this period..--] 08:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Kekrops, youre just pushing me to create an article, which i thought should exist anyway, that of the massacre committed against Turks by greek army of invasion, naming it Greek atrocities in Anatolia(as it would be the translation of Turkish expression of the atrocities committed by greek army `anadoluda Yunan mezalimi`)..There are enough sources to do this..I already have two neutral sources to begin with which uses the word genocide in relation of what greeks had done..Rummel and Cedric James uses the word genocide in describing these acts..--] 10:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

:Kekrops, i know that you noticed this section, but as always you are just pushing your POV without having a discussion over it, in other words you have nothing to say..Your remark is again ridiculous, im quoting you the expert historians about the issue, you`re naming it `relativising the genocide.`
:I think you should have been banned beacause of your insistent edit warring in several articles with your deliberate tactic of running away from discussion and changing the topic when you stuck up.. However as none of this happens i get completely dissatisfied with how this place is being ruled.. You did the same thing in several articles and you have gone away with it..--] 20:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

*Can you please justify what is the connection of the Pontic genocide (with anti-Christian measures being traced as back as 1915) with the Greco-Turkish war of '''1919'''-1922 and in which way is justified the extermination of Greeks in Pontus with the Anatolian campaign in Smyrna several thousand miles away;] 21:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You may read the talk page of the greco turkish war article for similar extending discussions, but just to summarize my point:
: first i dont justify anything, massacre is a massacre and it has to be condemned..
:2-There wasnt such a thing as a Turkish national movement before the Greeks invaded Anatolia, Greek invasion created it and thats why toynbee blames partly Venizelos and Llyod George for the atrocities committed by both sides during the conflict.. The Ottoman government in Istanbul was already under British control, and rulers of the previous regime had already fled as they were being sought as war criminals..
:3-Greek army starting from the first day of the invasion had committed atrocities towards Turks in the occupied areas or forced expelled Turkish populations inhabiting those regions, dont you think it may somehow lead to unjustified acts of violence against greeks who are inhabiting elsewhere in Anatolia..
:4-Greeks were not exterminated in Pontus, however there were massacres towards them thats something i dont dispute..Often they were forced to flee inwards Anatolia, however there were still about 200.000 greeks in the Pontus region at the time of the population exchange..
:I can reverse your question, greek army had complete control over the areas it occupied, it also had nothing to do with the war between greece and turkey at the time, how do you justify then massacres committed by greek army in the regions it had complete control over, where there wasnt an actual war..
--] 22:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

*I don't justify any massacre by the Greek army whatsoever.I am a Pontic Greek and my grand-parents fled to Russia and Greece because they saw their houses looted, their beloved ones either massacred or convicted (to death) in the "Labour battalions" near lake Van and all that justified in the name of being "infidels".They were expelled from a region they inhabited for several thousands years, and the remaining survivors had to try to rebuild everything from the scratch living the lives of refugees in a alien place (Makedonia) where the others saw them as aliens, just because the were an easy pray for the Turkish nationalists.Naming what the Greek army did in Smyrna (which i very much doubt if a Muslim in Pontus could learn taking into account the distance ) as an explanation is disorienting the reader.i must remind you that at the same time 500,000 Muslims lived in Macedonia(and they remained in tact during the war).How would you feel if Greeks started to massacre them as a retaliation for what was happening in Pontus;In your eyes ones explains the other;Just asking.] 10:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

:Eagle, my point here is that both Greek and Turkish nationalists tried to build homogeneus zones and they did so by either massacring or expelling the populations under their control..i dont think it is disorienting the reader but it explains what had happened in this period..

About the Muslims in Macedonia, youre right but there wasnt much a point of expelling or killing these people beacuse they were in the established Greek lands however that wasnt the case in much of the western anatolian coastlans, where there was a mixed population, and both sides were claiming it is their right to have their state upon that territory as they were constituting the majority..

Btw, Turkish nationalists used the excuse for forced marching Pontus people that Venizelos had already claimed right on black sea coastal areas in the Paris Peace conference and if Greeks would remain there, they would facilitate a possible greek invasion..I dont explain one massacre with another massacre, i am simply saying there were massacres committed against Turkish civilians by the greek army in that same period of time, and we need to mention of these acts in terms of some historical accuracy..--] 11:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Laertes, basically your discussion has made it clear that you are attempting to justify the Turkish massacres of Greek civilians.
] 09:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I ignore your comment, and i assume you either havent read what is written above or simply trying your best not to discuss the issue in hand..--] 07:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop your mindless reverting. The subject of this article is the Pontian Genocide; any complementary information on the casualties of the Greco-Turkish war in a geographically distant part of Anatolia belongs outside the lead. ] 13:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)



:Point you insist not understanding is, as usual, the lead is to give info about what happened in this period of time, you cant use it to present isolated segments of events, in which only the atrocities that Turks had committed would be shown, whereas the Greek atrocities moved elsewhere..
::By simply following your `logic`, i now have to open an article called `Turkish Genocide in Asia Minor`, since there are enough sources about the atrocities performed by Greek troops and there are also sources who use the `Genocide` word..
Unfortenetly i agree with Garnett when he said: `Its like talking to a brick wall.`..Regards..--] 10:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Laertes, there's a huge leap between the info being included below, and a separate article. We're not discussing whether the information should be included at all or not. We are discussing if it has such high relevance to the subject to warrant inclusion in the lead. And it hasn't. ]] 12:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet it has been there for over months, it gets truly pathetic of what you two have been doing in several articles..Youre supposed to make up your own minds, not to back each other in each and ever occasion no matter what the discussion topic is..
:About your recent comments, it certainly has such a relevance to be included in the lead and thats obvious why it has, since both sides committed similar atrocities, singling out what one party had done is definitely not a neutral way of presenting what actuallly had happened at that period..
::Alternative to it would be a separate article about isolated segments of events in which Greek atrocities against Turkisn civilıans would be mentioned, and perhaps with the genocide word in the title, as you Nıko like to use that word so often..--] 12:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

:::I'd like to see you try. ] 19:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dont worry you`ll get what you want..--] 22:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

:How about some real argument why this background piece is worthy being included in the intro? I say it is ] in the intro, and irrelevant. It is the one who makes the claim who has to back it up, not the other way round, and you are not doing a good job at it. ]] 22:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to me quite relevant, we`re not talking about a background info, but about what happened in this period of time..i keep backing it up, as you may read from above, {{RPA}} ..thts quite simple, the Turks being systematically massacred, just in the same period of time, is not a background info but the info itself..
:Most ridiculously, after waiting for so long you showed up with your discussion offer just when i revert the article back into its old format, and when i said that i`m going to open a separate Greek atrocities article if that normal format would be continued to {{RPA}}
] 23:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, but the point is that these things that happened (if they happened), it was during the retreat of the Greek armies, which was preceded many years by the events on the Pontic Greeks and not "in the same period of time". So, this is the definition of "background information" (or better it could be in the aftermath section, but since bits of the Smyrna catastrophe are mentioned here, then it is complete "background"). Oh, and ] too, please. ]] 20:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

:Im really sick and tired of such an attitude persistently repeated by you two, these events had not taken place during the Greek retreat, but started to occur by the time greek army had set its food in Anatolian soil..All the citations that ım quoting are demonstrating this fact and youre still talking about the retreat of the Greek army as if you have not noticed the citations from Akcam and Toynbee, and yet you expect calmness and call people for a "debate"..You dont debate anythıng just delibaretly turn a blınd eye to the sources cited..
::Akcam and Toynbee clearly states that there were organized Greek atrocıtıes throughout the period of Greco Turkish war, which retreat are you talking about?--] 13:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

:::The genocide of Christians in ''eastern'' Anatolia began ''years'' before the Greek army set foot in ''western'' Asia Minor. They simply aren't directly related. ] 15:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And thats your own private point of view that you keep repeating, which is unsupported by sources..You just keep repeat the same things, and call it a debate? In any case, there had been organised Greek atrocities in the same period of time(1919-1922), Toynbee and Akcam and several other sources make ıt quıte clear, what is your aim then Kekrops other than pushing your POV? --] 19:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

:Ummm, calm down Laertes please. 1919 is three years after 1916. ]] 20:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So? What despises me the most with your behavior is that youre acting like you dont understand, these specific citations are about the atrocities of the Greco-Turkish war, and that happened during the period of 1919-1922..
:Article already mentions about the atrocities that took place before that time, so again what is your point other than pushing your POV relentlessly without saying one single word worthy of consideration?..--] 21:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

:Two words: ''Causality'' and ''excuse''. You make it sound like the ''cause'' for PGG was the Greek atrocities by including it in the info. Well, no. It is the other way round. Also, this info in the intro serves you as an "excuse" or as a "hell, both of them did ugly things there", while it is not so. So you are committing ] by elevating this paragraph to that status. No scholar ever equated the two issues, no scholar ever linked causality to one another, and therefore WP will not mention a background info in the intro to serve your purpose of excusing the inexcusable. And for the millionth time, ]. ]] 21:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

::My point is, and has been that Greek army, according to non-pro Turkish historians had committed severe atrocities towards the Turkish population in the invaded lands. And obvioulsy someone called ], a well known, respectable historian, who happened to be an eyewitness to the massacres committed by both sides durign the war, had actually equated thse massacres..
:But that is not my purpose, im not trying to produce excuses but im trying to make this article reflect what happened durign this time period, not to let this article be the show case of ugly nationalist rhetoric..Check your talk page top see what some scoholars had actually said..--] 22:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering about another thing: "undue weight", how many Turks were killed by Greeks, do you have a number? I think this is relevant when we talk about hundereds of thousands of Greeks killed (I'm pretty sure that a Jew killed a German at some point in time, is that relevant in the discusion of Holocaust? OK, this is an exageration, but you see my point) -- ] 22:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

:Check line 382 in and line 473 in vs line 428 in the first. The source is Rummel, so 15,000 Turkish civilians as a low estimate should be considered "exaggerated". ]] 22:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
:Again that is the same problem, these are you private opinions, i am showing you reliable, non-pro Turkish historians who claim that there were organised atrocities -massacres and expulsion numbering some not so important thousands of causalties- since the time Greek army invaded anatolia.. We`re not talking here about the Jews but the organised units of an established state in the areas it has complete control..--] 22:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

::I understand that, but it would be nice if we could find a number, that would make things more clear for all the parts interested in the issue. -- ] 22:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks Niko, I didn't see your response when I replied. -- ] 22:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
:Oh common, Rummel mostly relies on ] and Marjori Housepian Dobkin, at the other opposite end, ] would say the Turkish civilian deaths were either the same or more..Plus that list also ignore the forced expellings..But the issue i think a serious discussion has to focus on should the intent on the part of Turkish and Greek national movements, not how many could have they managed to kill..--] 22:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
::]. ]] 22:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

i meant for the numbers, he relies the `estimates` of this horton guy for the numbers..

Anyway, i think there is enough source that the Greek army had tried to build up homogenous or majority greek populations in western anatolia by expelling or massacring the Turkish civilian population there, as the Turkish forces were doing it elsewhere in the exact same period of time, so these informations has to be included in the intro of this article..There is nothing wrong with having cited neutral, respectable historians

Add this source to Toynbee and akcam, note that he uses that word genocide in relation with what the Greek army had done in the occupied zones:

''`The short-sightedness of both Lloyd George and President Wilson seems incredible, explicable only in terms of the magic of Venizelos and an emotional, perhaps religious, aversion to the Turks. For Greek claims were at best debatable, perhaps a bare majority, more likely a large minority in the Smyrna Vilayet, which lay in an overwhelmingly Turkish Anatolia. '''The result was an attempt to alter the imbalance of populations by genocide,''' and the counter determination of Nationalists to erase the Greeks, a feeling which produced bitter warfare in Asia Minor for the next two years until the Kemalists took Smyrna in 1922 and settled the problem by burning down the Greek quater..`'' By C. J. Lowe, M. L Dockrill Published 2002 Routledge ISBN 0415265975--] 23:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Niko if you dont want to discuss and reply to the comments made in this article, then why are you so fanatically revert the article? I happen to wait for an answer from you..--] 10:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

:Note the word "'''''attempted'''''" you quoted, which is very different from the words "''perpetrated''", "''committed''" etc that apply to the Turkish atrocities. Also note the numbers above for comparison (15 vs 350 thousand). Finally, Rummel relies on two methods for his estimations: First, he adds up all the documented massacres as they appear in academic sources, and second, he calculates the population deficit of the remaining Greeks versus the Greeks that existed before. The numbers absolutely coincide. ]] 17:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

:Note also (for the other related articles) that the "Turks burnt down Smyrna" and the "determination of Nationalists to erase the Greeks". ]] 17:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

:Finally, you are not welcome to discuss public edit disputes privately in my talkpage, especially with your continuing ] tone. ]] 17:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh.., as i keep saying i already quoted you enough sources, please stop your immature behavior of changing the sourced content to something that the sources actually dont say..Believe me I really dont want to waste more time in here, make sure you just dont change the sources the way you want..--] 10:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

== Added OR tag ==

Can editors tell me whether Tatz, Rummel, or Jacob specifically use the term "Pontic Greek Genocide" since they are being used to source this as a verifiable term? I know for a fact Rummel does not use term. If it is a case of these authors saying there was a "greek genocide" or "genocide of greeks" it still does not source the title of this article which the sources are apparently being used for. To me this is only one example of the OR running through this article. Other sections such as "Reasons for limited recognition" are purely original research, using a mish mash of sources to prove an editors own position. This is a problem I've highlighted from the very beginning, and something obvious to any editor with a basic knowledge of wiki policy. --] 10:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

:Don't be ridiculous. The term is used specifically in relation to the subject of this article; the notion that it means anything else is ''your'' original research. ] 10:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

::I point you to a we had on this preivously. To quote Fut. ''"The wording of the lead sentence is very specifically about the question to what extent people use that "controversial term" for it. So, if it is indeed the case that those particular authors don't use it (as Domitius seems to agree), then those refs shouldn't be at that place. I'm sure the positions of those authors can be adequately covered elsewhere."''.

::So according to your position Kekrops, I can create an article called "Turkish genocide of Asia Minor" and cite Rummel who uses the term "Greek genocide" for the conduct of Greek soldiers. That is A + B = C = Original reserach. If the present title is academically verifiable and part of the mainstream literature, then there should be no problem finding a source that does spefically use that term right? --] 11:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

:::Tatz refers very specifically to Turkey's "genocide of the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontian Greeks", Rummel refers to a democide or genocide against the Greeks, and Jacobs includes the fate of the Pontians in a comparative study of genocide. If you have a suggestion for the name of the article that better sums up the subject they are referring to, you're more than welcome to make it. ] 11:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

::::We shouldnt have to sum up or interpret anything. Those lead references are being specifically used to prove the common usage of the term "Pontic Gree Genocide", therefore those sources should be explicit in their use of this term to prove it is a commonly held academic position. If this were the case then you would have no such problem doing this. For example go to amazon.com and type "Armenian Genocide", that gives you which prove the term is verifiable among literature. Now type "Pontic Greek Genocide", result: .

::::It is has always been very clear that the current title is not in common usage, that is why no sources can be found explicitingly supporting this articles thesis. That is why it rests on interpretation and original research. Also, about Rummel, if you look at the where he uses the term genocide for Greeks, most references are for the West of Turkey in Marmara and Smyrna etc. The only reference to Black Sea is for those who were deported, there is no mention of Black Sea Greeks being killed as part of his use for that term, so this proves how original research is being used to reach conclusions not supported by those authors. --] 11:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::Your arguments are getting increasingly desperate; they ''all'' refer to a genocide committed by the Turks against the Greeks. Would you prefer Tatz's ]? That's fine, too. ] 12:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::I think my arguments are quite clear and logical, it is your reasoning to ignore them that is getting more desparate. Those opening references are there specifically to prove common usage of that term, therefore is it asking too much that those sources refer explicitly to that term alone? I mean if I was an editor on the Armenian genocide article (of which your fond of claiming similarities), then I'd have no problem sourcing that title, heck I'd have 950 books at my disposal which use that term explicitly. As for your suggestion, no, we dont base articles on scraps of sentences which say what we want to hear. We base them on a large body of academic work - monographs, journals, encylopedias etc - which confirm a common position.

::::::Face it, this article is a good candidate for deletion. It violates Undue weight, npov, original research and personal synthesis. There is not even an article to be found here, where is narrative for the events? There is a background and a casualty count and nothing in between. The whole thing is an exercise in pov pushing, from top to bottom. I'm not saying there isnt an article to be made on what the Pontians experienced, just not in this ugly form. If you want my suggestion it is this, rename the article to something general such as ], or ] or ] that way you do not restrict yourself to pushing one pov (a genocide one) throughout the article, but can actually focus on what happened to the Pontians --] 13:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Face it, your burning desire to uphold the sanctity of ] will remain a mere fantasy, because we have enough sources that use the term ''genocide'' in reference to the plight of the Pontians to justify the article's current title. Your "argument" that we cannot call it that because the words in the sources cited are not used in that ''exact'' sequence - but refer to the exact same thing - is a rather pathetic attempt at ], frankly. ] 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::Its like talking to a brick wall. If your going to source a TERM "Pontian Greek Genocide" (with a capital G no less), then those sources should refer to PGG...That is not sophistry, its simply ]. --] 14:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::Let me get this straight, once and for all. In your opinion, does Tatz's "genocide... of the Pontian Greeks" have a different meaning from ]? ] 14:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::Let me ask you, does "the Turks did not seek to exterminate the Greeks, as the previous regime had done to the Armenians" (Valentino) and "Under these conditions, genocide of the Ottoman Greeks was simply not a viable option" (Midlarsky) or "these deportations were on a relatively small scale and do not appear to have been designed to end in their victims' deaths" (Mazower) mean ]? There is clearly no academic consensus for the use of this title. --] 14:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What utter hypocrisy. You denounce the sources you dislike for not referring ''verbatim'' to a ''Pontic Greek Genocide'', but happily parrot passages that don't refer specifically to the Pontians at all. I've had enough for one evening. Cheers. ] 15:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

== Latest changes ==

# ''(No Nikosilver, youre not entitled to change the sourced content the way you want, neither Toynbee nor Akcam use the word `limited`.)''
#:: Rummel uses that word, and it is "limited" by all means of reason when you compare numbers like 15,000 vs 350,000. I had added Rummel as a source right next to it, if you noticed. ]] 12:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
:He might have used that word but definitely that word isnt used by Toynbee and Akcam, even more definitely it wasnt used by that quotation i presented above which claims Greece attemted to make a `genocide`..Several sources say that there is nothing limited about it..I dont use Justin Mccarhty in the armenian genocide article, nor even in that article, so you rather refrain from using rummel as an ultimate source..--] 12:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
# ''(Background - Again, do not add something that the authors do not use..)''
#:: Same here. ]] 12:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
# ''(→Academic views - im still not sure about the accuracy of the quote, as it was added by Alexiuscomnenus at the time, but at least say who made such a claim..)
#::Sorry, but , actually puts all the following words in Ferguson's mouth, which isn't so. I choose to mention who said what only below in the refs, and I apply this to everyone. The other solution would be to add all the names of all the authors next to each word, but I'm afraid that it would really be unreadable. Feel free to try this. ]] 12:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I will, i think that is the correct way doing it, many of these citations are not reliable..--] 12:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
# ''(lets make it sure that who says what, instead of presenting them as a majority point of view..Still thats is a hell of a confusion, who says what for which exactperiod isunclear)'':
#::This adds more to the confusion. If your concern is the majority vs minority point of view, then please add sources to enhance what now appears to you as a majority view presented like a minority one. There sure isn't any intent to do so. "Primary sources" is an accurate description, and I would argue that it helps the Turkish position more than a mere reference to their names (which says less if the reader doesn't know them in my view). ]] 12:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
If primay source is cming someone like George Horton, surely we have to mention qho is saying it..--] 12:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
:How many do you think know him by name? Indeed "primary sources" is a much better description for your purpose I believe. ]] 13:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A final comment: I am really tired with your repeated insults (
), and I am seeking the ]. ]] 12:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

i cant see any insult at all, if somebody just bother to read what you have been doing in several articles for a long period of time..And believe i am tired of people like you, and i still dont get how such a blatant, ugly nationalist POV pushing rhetoric demonstrated by you for such long period of time can still be tolerated...--] 12:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

:The exact problem with your behavior is that you can't see the insults. ]] 13:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

:niko, just stick to the dispue in hand, and if you have anything relevant to say, say it, or do not revert the article, or do not put your own ideas in it..Clear?--] 13:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

::The relevant stuff is right above, along with a response to your latest aphorism. Your incivility is a separate issue. ]] 13:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have again placed the distinct events of western Anatolia outside the lead and reworded the text to avoid some of Laertes's more inane repetition regarding the atrocities. As for the word "limited", my inclination is to avoid it if it isn't used in the source. ] 14:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

:There has to be a quantitative comparison of the number of Turks killed in atrocities vs that of Greeks. If "limited" is not the word to describe a difference of 1/23d (i.e. about 4%), then I can accept any kind of rewording that does so, but I will not accept equal terms for things that are simply unequal. ]] 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Kekrops says see the talk page, but I can't seem to find the rationale for his edit. It might be time to archive. Also to avoid ], Niko, we should maybe split that sentence, if you do not want to insist on violating ] and ] ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 02:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

:No problem with that, but I think it would give even more emphasis. I am open to suggestions. ]] 13:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

== Attribution tag ==

An attribution tag was requested on the "reasons of limited recognition" section. In my view, the attribution is right below, in the whole section. It is attributed to Constantine Fotiades, and one of the "excuses" he uses concurs with a (very descriptive IMO) comment by Levene. Denizz, can you please explain if there is an additional reason why the tag is needed? ]] 13:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

== Hannibal Travis block quote ==

Why is the following passage being used in this article?:

''The Turks extended their policy of exterminating the Christians of the to the Armenians, Greeks, Syrians, and Lebanese.... According to an Associated Press report, of 500,000 Greeks deported from Thrace, in Asia Minor, an estimated 250,000, or half, died of disease and torture. Starting in 1910, the Ottoman Turks made about one million Greeks homeless and deported hundreds of thousands; as many as 300,000 Greeks died of hunger, disease, and the cold as a result. In the 1920s, the Turkish nationalists massacred about 200,000 more Christians, mostly Greeks, in cities such as Smyrna. Greek men became victims of murder, torture, and starvation; Greek women suffered all this and also became slaves in Muslim households; Greek children wandered the streets as orphans ‘‘half-naked and begging for bread’’; and millions of dollars’ worth of Greek property passed into Muslim hands''

Can anyone tell me where it a)mentions Pontians or Pontus or b)a genocide of Pontian Greeks? Are we going to paste is any large passages which allude to a massacre of Greeks, even if they dont refer to Pontians? Just in case you forgot what the intro of the article says, it states "Pontic Greek Genocide is a controversial term '''used to refer to the fate of Pontic Greeks''' during and in the aftermath of World War I." Can anyone give a justification for it? --] 12:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

:My interpretation would be that those that "started in 1910" would be the Pontic Greeks in question. For the rest, I think it gives a pretty good idea of the background. I mean, if we're gonna list the estimate of 15,000 Turkish civilian casualties as background info, then the info on the Thracian, and Smyrnan Greeks is much more relative. ]] 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

::Well the beauty of mainstream academic positions is that interpretation is not necessary. An abundance of sources should allow you to pick the most explicit sources which support your position. In this case, Travis could be referring to the Aegean Greeks who were deported in the run up, and after, the Balkan wars of 1912. For the sake of this vague sentence, I dont think the block quote provides any additional value to the article, it should be removed. --] (]) 19:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Aegean or whatever, they'd still be more relevant than the 15,000 Turks (you do not choose to argue about). And what's with the "just Pontians" argument again? Is this serious? ]] 19:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

::::Ok, so you agree it could basically mean anything. As for what you call "just Pontians" argument, that is not my argument my friend, it is the thesis of this article, that what Pontians endured is recognised as a genocide (the intro again: "a controversial term used to refer to the fate of Pontic Greeks during and in the aftermath of World War I") except the majority of quotes refer haphazardly to Smyrnans, Aegeans and Thracian Greeks, there is scant mention here for Pontian Greeks. If you cannot find sources which specifically refer to Pontians in the context of a genocide, not what you think constitues genocide (that would be OR), then do not put it in. It violates, WP:OR, WP:SYN and so forth. Once again, this block quote should be deleted, it is irrelevant. With regards to the sentence about Turks, I agree, it is OR, but no less than rest of the statements being made in this article, when you realise this you will realise the article needs to be blanked and start from scratch. But I doubt that day will come soon, unless of course you want to seriously discuss resolving this dispute... --] (]) 21:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

:Also why was Levene reinserted as an intro reference, didnt we agree he was not explicit enough? --] 12:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

::Yes. We are not adding this as an explicit or non-explicit justification. We are adding it as a reference which very much relates with that term. The reader will judge how explicit or non explicit that is, if they want to read more. I presume you agree that the number of references next to a term is not an index for veracity. It always depends on their actual content, its interpretation, and its reliability. My view is that Levene's most successful comment is the one about "historians, perhaps concerned not to magnify the events in comparison to those of 1915". ]] 13:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

:::Look, read the large arguments above with Kekrops. If your going to source the term "Pontian Greek Genocide", and state that it is a TERM used to refer to Pontians, then at lest used academics who explicility use that term. Levene does not, he does not even use the term genocide. Myself, Fut. and Francis all argued for this and since it was added without discussion I'm going to revert it. --] (]) 19:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

::::I said, I am ''not'' "sourcing" the term "Pontian Greek Genocide" with it. Levene has done an excellent job in highlighting its use, or lack of it, and not including him next to the term is an omission IMO. ]] 19:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::Well then excuse my bluntess, but what the heck is it doing there then? Those references are specifically there to show use of the term, if there is no use of the term, then the reference should not be there. Since Levenes views which you consider essential are at the bottom, there is zilch reason for his reference in the intro. --] (]) 21:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

* How many Pontic Greeks were accounted in Ottoman census of early 20th century;How many came to Greece through population exchange;What's the difference in numbers;That's the answer to all revisionists.Enough is enough.Ottomans did it to Armenians to Assyrians.Someone has to see what Kurds are going through the last 80 years to understand how credible is the ""virgin Mary" aka ultra-innocent picture of Turks you are trying to pass.You did it and the biggest proof is that you continue to do it as we speak. ] (]) 18:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

==You should all hang your heads==
I am astonished as to what is going on here- this is absolute editing chaos. You all need to calm down and get down off of your grandstands and stop this edit warring post haste. These are my points from what I have seen:

* This article ahould not be a candidate for deletion- there is enough verifiable information on this belief that it does deserve its own place here.
* The references presented are generally balanced and are not all that bad. I have no problem with the sources for the most part.
* Levene is a '''bad''' source because if you are going to link to it, it should be ''available'' to all and not by subscription only. I think he should be removed until you find a source that can be verified.
* This article, despite good sources, is full of POV problems, a lot of which can be solved if no more edit warring takes place. The article reads like a propaganda pamphlet, and that should not be so. We can do better.
* Take the attitudes and the personal enmity and get rid of them... these events happened, no matter what you call them, and the ''way'' they happened is merely ''interpretation''- not by us, but by academics who are unbiased. ] (]) 19:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

:Monsieurdl, what I said was the article is a good candidate for deletion in its current state, which is why I said "I'm not saying there isn't an article to be made on what the Pontians experienced, just not in this ugly form." No one disagrees that events happened, no is trying to suppress or hide material - despite the frequent insults I receive of being a "Turkish denialist" and my "burning desire to uphold article 301" (I'm not a Turkish citizen btw). Where the disagreement lies is how to represent these events in the most encyclopedic fashion possible. The route taken by Greek editors is essentially to put whatever happened to the Pontians (and to be honest, from this article I still don't know what happened to them) on a par with the Armenian genocide. This position is recognized only by one country, Greece (the reference for Cyprus still hasn't been made clear), but most importantly lacks any coverage in mainstream academia. No journal articles, no monographs, no encyclopedic articles are dedicated to these events. You simply cannot equate the academic work behind the Armenian genocide article which lends credence to that thesis with this article.
:To have one or two authors use the term genocide in a few sentences, or ethnic cleansing, or massacres or atrocities in relation to Greeks (of which few explicitly refer to Pontians) does not automatically mean that this is evidence of a large body of academic work in favour of calling these events a genocide or the Pontic Greek Genocide or whatever. Consider for example an eminent historian like Mazower in the London review of books who states the fate of the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire was not the same as the Armenians (i.e. no genocide). Now how are these views being accommodated under the current title and current article which simple states the position of the Greek government and few non-descript authors as fact? Articles should not be based on minority views, they should not give undue weight to these views and they should not synthesise varying sources into a new thesis. These are Wiki policies which i've tried to explain fail in this article. In return, I've witnessed the arrogance of editors who rely on reverting in groups to push their view and rather than counter the arguments I raise, instead label me a "denialist" and what not. I stand by my view, the title needs to change, the article needs to be rewritten, I've more than justified this position and would not support it unless I had good reason to do so. --] (]) 20:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

::I see your points, and I have stated how I feel after perusing the state of the article and the discussion. It doesn't help to go on in this manner by edit warring- taking a break and calling for help from others is the right thing to do. I can see this article badly needs more reviews from third parties, and I am here to help. The language is indeed a problem within the article, and like I said, we can do better. Calling each other names is unacceptable behavior in any case, and it is '''not our job to label others as deniers and such'''. We are not interpreters, we are supposed to be historians with high standards of performance. ] (]) 20:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

:::I and ] have the Levene text; if anyone is interested for verification, e-mail me. I think he is the best source in terms of content, and in terms of careful language. ]] 22:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

==My first edits: Rummel is not a source for Pontic Greek Genocide==
R.J. Rummel does '''not''' mention Pontic Greeks in his calculation chart, and does not differentiate between them and the rest of the Anatolian Greeks. Any mention of Turkish massacres are not to go beyond the scope of the region of Pontus- anything beyond that makes this a ''general'' article on Anatolian Greek genocide, which it is not. '''Please''' stick with Pontus only references. ] (]) 20:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
:To be fair, Rummel does mention "Black Sea coast" deaths of 10,000, which would cover Pontus, but not all of it was Pontus. It says it . <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Use ref #19: ''Merrill D. Peterson, Starving Armenians: America and the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1930 and After''. Or ref#20 ''G.K. Valavanis, "Contemporary General History of Pontos" 1925, 1st Edition''. In general, I must note that most academics I've seen don't make a distinction between Pontic and non-Pontic Greeks, because they are both ...Greeks. (BTW, I find it very silly that the Greek government restricts the Greek deaths to just Pontians, when relatively few academics do so, and when the numbers are logically less). I think we should note in the article that most academics don't make such distinction (or would it be ]?) ]] 22:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:::Well if few academics refer to just Pontians, that that works against the case for even having the article separate. That's why it is vitally important that we find some that ''are'' specific to validate everything- even if it refers to the Black Sea, Trabzon, etc. Statistics don't have to be mentioned if they are not present- mere passages refering to it in a general sense would suffice. ] (]) 18:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

== Pontic Greek Genocide ==
If the term is controversial to begin with (as the first sentence suggests), then why is the controversial term used as the title, rather than as an alternative name? Why not change the title to something like:

:"XXXXXX" was a mass murder perpetrated against the Pontic Greeks by the Young Turk Administration during and immediately after World War I. Many historians in retrospect now refer to this event as the Pontic Greek Genocide; however, this term is still very controversial. The title "Pontic Greek Genocide" has no standing in any nation other than Greece and is not recognized by the United Nations, the UN Security Council, or the European Union. The Turkish government opposes the inclusion of the word "genocide" to describe the events that took place and has disagreed with the number of Pontic Greeks that died.

...Or something else that is more suitable. I think I made my point. The title itself shouldn't be controversial. Is this internationally recognized as a genocide like the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust? I do not believe it is. When I type Pontic Greek Genocide into google, I only get Greek websites. It appears the Greeks are clearly the ones with the bias in this article. - ] 01:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

:The term seems to be well sourced -- there are 6 (SIX) sources quoted there, that's what matters here on Misplaced Pages. "The Turkish government opposes the inclusion of the word "genocide" to describe the events that took place" that is quite irrelevant. Also, there's no need to start an argumentation about what the "truth" is, Misplaced Pages is not about truth, it's about providing referenced info from reliable sources, since the 6 sources seem to be reliable I don't see what you can do about it. Unless you can prove that the sources don't follow ] policy and have them eliminated... or if you can bring more reliable sources (not T. government) that claim that "genocide" is not an appropriate term in this case. -- ] 06:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No international body accepts the term, including the United Nations. I think that makes the term genocide POV. The only nation that recognizes it is Greece (and Cyprus). Several of the academics quoted are Greeks themselves (since the nation of Greece is the only nation that accepts the term, one has to question the partisanship of Greek scholars). The term is not found in any major encyclopedia... Misplaced Pages is INTENDED to be an encyclopedia, and therefore one has to question the validity of this article as a whole. Calling the Pontic Greek Genocide a Genocide is intended to evoke sympathy for Greeks, who were perpetrating War Crimes against the Turks themselves. No one calls the extermination of entire Turkish cities during the Greco-Turkish War to be "genocidal," even though it had the same effect as this event. It is a blatant POV term and would be similar to declaring the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo to be "genocides." We all know that that would be nonsense, even if 2-3 million people were displaced and at least half a million were killed in those 4 bombings alone. The fact that this source is missing from encyclopedias, from textbooks, it is not acknowledged by the international community, and it has almost no representation online other than through Greek websites, one really has to question whether or not this article can legitimately be called a genocide. An unencyclopedic term has no place in an online encyclopedia (wiki). -] (]) 21:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
:If you feel that way, then bring this article to ]. Otherwise, the article is staying and being edited properly with good sources. That's how it has always been done here :) ] (]) 21:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
:I fail to see why Turks are so adamant against the word "genocide" but they gladly accept "massacre" (slaughter: the savage and excessive killing of many people), they probably think that massacre means less planning than genocide, and this for some strange reasons is "better". -- ] (]) 22:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Funny, because I'm not Turkish? I acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. This article seems like a silly way to elevate what occurred to the Greeks to the level of what occurred to the Armenians and that's nonsense. If the term is not located in any encyclopedia, then it's an unecyclopedic term. If the "genocide" really occurred, why does not a single major international body on PLANET EARTH acknowledge it? Even the EU doesn't acknowledge it! This is blatant POV and Greek chauvinism. It would be equivalent to Turks creating an article on cities that the Greek forces exterminated during the Greco-Turkish Wars and label those are "Genocides." Elevating such events to the level of things like the Holocaust or Armenian genocide in which millions were killed systematically is nonsense. -] (]) 05:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
::I didn't know that there's a quantitative requirement... where do you draw the line? 1,000,000... 500,000... 300,000 deaths? Please provide a quote that 300,000 to 360,000 victims are not enough to qualify as "genocide". No source? please count, there are 6 (six) sources listed in the article that use that word. -- ] (]) 07:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

More people died in the combined Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings. Was it genocidal? If something is not internationally recognized or included in any modern encyclopedia, then how can this possibly be encyclopedic? Finding sources is great, but you can't point to any international body or any encyclopedia that includes this, so the entire article is fundamentally questionable, hence why the it will never be neutral if a word like genocide is included. -] (]) 18:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

:Misplaced Pages is not supposed to follow other encyclopedias or to follow official positions, the main issue is to present info from reliable sources and this seems to me is respected here, I'm not a main editor of this page, I think I just reverted some vandals this is how it came to be on my watch list but since I see 6 sources that support that I don't find this discussion very persuasive. Please raise the issue in other place, bring this article to ] -- somebody else gave you this advice before... -- ] (]) 19:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

== QUESTIONS re ARTICLE'S PREMISE & SOURCES ==

The entire premise of this article is suspect. However, before concluding either way, would one of the authors of this article please address the following questions.

:1. Can someone please explain why the man who was Greece's Prime Minister during the events alleged nominated the President of the Republic of Turkey for the Nobel Peace prize some 10-15 years later? That would be like Israel's first President nominating Hitler for the Nobel Peace Prize. This article's premise is inexplicably at odds with the actions undertaken by those who were officials of Greece's government during the period discussed and makes no sense whatsoever.

Some of the citations also raise questions:

:2. This article cites Niall Ferguson for the assertion that "According to a German military attaché, the Ottoman Turkish minister of war Ismail Enver had declared in October 1915 that he wanted to 'solve the Greek problem during the war... in the same way he believe he solved the Armenian problem.'" However, if one looks at this assertion in Ferguson's book, Ferguson makes this statement without citing anything. Ferguson then immediately states that the Greeks were more likely a 5th Column during WWI than Armenians, which argues against concluding a genocide occurred. The citation to this reference is misleading. Moreover, the accuracy of Ferguson's narration of history is suspect. Within the same chapter, Ferguson attributes the existence of the nationalist movement solely to the Greek invasion of Izmir. This is factually incorrect and counter to all archival documents from the time. Ferguson's bio at Wiki even writes that Ferguson's views are highly controversial and not universally accepted and that he is considered a "revisionist" historian. As I understand it, Wiki is not here to revise history. As such, this seems to be an inappropriate reference.

:3. This article also cites Colin Tatz, who has degrees in political science and earned his Ph.D. from the Australian National University, for work on the policies and practices of Aboriginal administration in the Northern Territory and Queensland. The Tatz publication cited is an opinion piece, it is not a scholarly work resulting from historical research. Can someone explain why an opinion piece is an appropriate source of citation for this article?

:4. RJ Rummel is also cited as a source, but he too is a political scientist, not a historian. He conducts demographic studies and admits that "There are therefore many items in my references that no self-respecting scholar would list normally. I include them because I use their estimates and not because I believe them objective or of high quality." This Wiki article is not about population studies. It is asserting a genocide was committed. Thus, this wiki article should reference scholarly works by historians that have concluded a genocide occurred based on archival research. This article should not be referencing political scientists, revisionist historians, or those conducting demographic studies who rely on references no "self-respecting scholar" would use.

:5. This article also cites numerous legislative resolutions, e.g., items 34-39. Can someone explain why political activity is deemed reliable evidence of facts? We all know that legislative bodies in the American south passed Jim Crow laws (which are much more potent than resolutions) establishing that African Americans were inferior and not entitled to equal treatment, yet we now know that was wrong. We also know that politicians are motivated by constituencies and not historical accuracy, and that the Greek and Armenian constituencies in the U.S. are hugely larger than those of Turks. References to legislative resolutions like these smacks of bullying less populous ethnic groups by those that are more populous, as legislatures are swayed by votes, not facts. Hence, references like these to resolutions are point of view as they provide no evidence of historical accuracy.

:6. What evidence from historical archives, or scholarly works that reference historical archives, has been cited to support the premise that there was a genocide committed against Greeks?

Thank you in advance for your responses. ] (]) 21:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


* 1)Venizelos was a pragmatist politician and his move was like to solidify the peace between the countries.After all he agreed to population transfer just for the shake of realpolitic.Greeks from mainland who experienced the arrival of 1,5 million refugees after 1922 didn't see their struggle for recognition of the genocide other than an obstacle for good relations between the countries just after the Greek elit had doubled the size of the country(Balkan wars etc) and now wanted to harvest the goods.And yes there used to be great deal of hatred between refugees and mainlanders up until WW2.

*6)According to Ottoman archives there were close to 700,000 Christian Rums(Greeks) in Pontus and less than half of that number made it to Greece after the population exchange.Just do the maths.Anyway there is a ton of memoirs from ambassadors Humanitarian volunteers in the region so on.
] (]) 14:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

==The second image==
The describing 800,000 Armenians being murdered by the Turks seems somewhat tangential to an article on this event. The Armenian Genocide, the Assyrian Genocide and this event are not universally acknowledged as pieces of one larger genocide. The image of Armenians being killed, however, reinforces that point of view. Shouldn't an image on Armenians being killed be kept in an article on the Armenian Genocide, not the Greek one? I thought I would come here before deleting anything. -] (]) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
:That image has been around for some time and the same question been in my mind since.--<tt class="plainlinks">] ]</tt> 01:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

==POV Tag==
The POV tag was removed without discussion. I re-added it, since this dispute has obviously not been resolved (nor was the removal ever discussed) and the article is susceptible to POV pushing. Moreover, the '''title''' of the article immediately pushes for a specific POV (that the event is worthy of being called a "genocide"). If the article refers to the event throughout as a "genocide" even though the event is not officially recognized internationally, then the article is clearly pushing for that POV. The Greeks themselves did not even refer to this event as a genocide until the 1990s. Moreover, this is a sensitive topic and it should be known that this page is and has been susceptible to bias. I'd be willing to discuss this more thoroughly.-] (]) 06:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

:Why is the tag necessary? It is absent in both ] and ], despite those terms being equally controversial in Turkey. After the recognition of the genocide by the IAGS, the insistence on calling it a "controversial term" and retaining the tag is in itself POV. ] (]) 06:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Major works of history does not call the events as a genocide, thats the the basic point which separates it from the armenian genocide article.Thus tag is necessary.--] (]) 12:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

::There was a short discussion above in ], which was initiated right after the ] recognition. Obviously you are the banned ], as you admit in my talkpage, so your edits and remarks are not welcome anymore. Nobody knows what are those "major works" you say are, and how they call the events. ]] 13:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank heaven, i dont waste my time in here anymore-at least not so often-, people often refer to the works of ] as major hisotrical works, and he is a respected historian of the region as he had been in Turkey throughut this period..Then Taner Akcam also is considered to be a major historian of the region, the book that he wrote is the most recent work about these events.. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Some many other historical works can be added to the list, like the book from `C.J. Lowe and M.L. Dockrill`..

:But then i remembered what is the point of discussing these things with you niko, you seem to learn all your facts from your mom, of course you wont know what are those major works..--] (]) 13:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Whatever the case and no matter who you are, ], you are being disruptive and deliberately provoking a fight here with your highly controversial edits, particularly the one saying that if the Greeks had never landed there would have been no atrocities. That alone is ludicrous and points directly to your attempt. I am in full support of any revisions to counter these actions, be it by admins or not. [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>]-]
</sup> 16:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok monsieur, you are probably right about being disruptive, however the source is legitimate, definitely not `highly controversial`..It basically says that there wasnt such a thing as `turkish national movement` following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire afterworld war I and the basic factor of its emergence was the Greek occupation of Smyrna..And actually it is not simpy the personal point of view of Toynbee, many other historians actually repeat the same thing..Plus, article for a very long time actually has been in this shape, just check the past records, only one day it occured to Niko to change it all of a sudden and rewrite it..--] (]) 19:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


::The IAGS is not the arbiter of this naming dispute, the decision to identify a correct name and remove the tag depends on consensus between the editors involved. Simply ignoring this on the basis of a resolution by the IAGS is not acceptable considering the amount of energy that has been put into the this dispute. With all due respect Monsieurdl, I am dissapointed that you stood by and allowed Xenovatis to remove the tag when you acknowledge you shouldnt have, this despite his bigoted comment of labelling all opposing editors as "genocide denialists and kemalist apologists". Nevertheless, Xenovatis himself made a point that criteria should be established for what constitutes a good source and then these should be listed. This is perhaps one way to have another try at a consensus. Until then, I'm going to replace the tag. --] (]) 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I wasn't commenting on the tag, but the edits which contain the objectionable material. As far as I am concerned, a tag is not the ultimate problem- it is the sourced material. I'm not going to get into the dispute over the tag unless things get really outrageous (and it is getting to be close), but I will object to any edits of material that intentionally provokes an open fight, regardless of side. Now maybe you'll be much less dissapointed...! [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>]-]
</sup> 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

::::I thought by "I should have restored the POV tag, but I didn't." you were refering to the pov-title tag? --] (]) 20:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

:::There is nothing wrong with this title. It's a perfectly valid title for a genocide. It has been recognized by scholars as the Pontic Greek Genocide. Stop trying to foment more controversy by adding POV tags. Adding a POV tag won't make it less of a genocide event in history. &mdash; <small><small>]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 17:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)</small></small>

::::Your edit summary was uncalled for- POV tags have been requested for many different reasons, and you shouldn't take out problems on others who are trying to legitimately discuss things rationally. I'm almost ready to accept the tag if this continues- I don't want to, but the rancor in here is just intolerable. [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>]-]
</sup> 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Read wikipedia's file on POV tags/disputes. If the dispute has not been resolved between editors, then it is inappropriate to remove a POV tag. There was no thorough discussion in the talk page about this at the time of its removal (only two editors were involved, and one was a troll). That is a violation of[REDACTED] policy. Simply because one non-governmental organization recognizes this event does not mean this dispute was resolved between editors. '''Certainly there are scholars that recognize it, but there were scholars that recognized it before the POV tag had been added in the first place.''' Nikosilver, you do bring up a good point; this was discussed briefly. However, that discussion was initiated by a troll (Xenovatis) whose recent edits clearly show he is not editing in good-faith. The IAGS, as noble of an idea as it is, is a consensus studies organization akin to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. These organizations are notoriously politically correct and want to please everyone (e.g. Amnesty International is more critical of Israeli human rights or Guantanamo Bay than Saudi Arabian human rights). These organizations certainly deserve citation in this article in defense for the naming, '''but they are not the last word and they do not override Misplaced Pages consensus.''' The POV tag cannot be removed under such grounds, it is a violation of[REDACTED] policy. It should be included again. I do not oppose using the title, but unless this dispute is properly resolved, then the POV tag should also be included.-] (]) 19:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

:Tags are not intended for indefinite use. There will always be those opposed to the very existence of this article, not just its title. But at the moment we have more editors opposed to the tag than in favour. ] (]) 19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The current sample of editors would not be enough to come to a logical decision on the POV tag (which I am more than willing to discuss). Three of the users that have posted in this thread are trolls/ bad faith editors (EliasAlucard, Xenovatis, 88.242.196.76). -] (]) 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

:Let's avoid the slurs, shall we? ] (]) 19:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

::Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. How many are for and against is irrelevant, only that consensus be achieved is the most important thing. And yes, tags are indeed not meant for indefinite use, but that did not stop the same editors here applying it indefinitely to all the ] articles. Only when a compromise was struck over the title did those pov-title tags go. --] (]) 20:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I had to request an RfC- this has gotten to be far too much. [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>]-]
</sup> 21:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

==RfC: Is POV tag necessary for this article?==

{{RFChist|section=RfC: Is POV tag necessary for this article? !! reason=Is the POV tag necessary for this article based upon its content and history? !! time=21:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)}}

Is the POV tag necessary for this article based upon its content and history?

*'''Uninvolved'''. According to the article
:''Turkey maintains that the incidents referred to cannot be considered to be of a genocidal nature''

I would therefore expect that a NPOV article which is nevertheless titled ''Genocide'' would give more weight to this view including expanding on it in the article introduction. ] (]) 13:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== Time to include Mazower, Midlarsky and Valentino view also ==

To recap:

Mark Mazower (eminent historian on Greece): "It had already deported Greek civilians from the Anatolian shoreline into the interior (the Russians were doing much the same with Russian Jews in Tsarist Poland, the Habsburgs with their border Serbs). But these deportations were on a relatively small scale and do not appear to have been designed to end in their victims' deaths. What was to happen with the Armenians was of a different order." (Mark Mazower, The G-Word, London Review of Books, http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n03/mazo01_.html)."

Midlarsky: Midlarskys argues while there may have been statements made towards massacre of the Greeks (he uses the alleged statement of Rafet Bey) "there is a strong disjunction between intentions and actions" and that "Under these conditions, genocide of the Ottoman Greeks was simply not a viable option." (Midlarsky, Killing Trap, p.342).

Valentino: "Although many thousands died during the expulsions, particularly in years before the deportations came under international supervision, the Turks did not seek to exterminate the Greeks, as the previous regime had done to the Armenians. See Marrus, The Uwanted, pp 96-106." (B.A. Valentino, 2005. Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century., p.296)."

Three scholarly, western and reliable authors, where should their views be included? --] (]) 00:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps to clear up the neutrality dispute, we could include a section on "Naming dispute" and include reasons for and against there? As of right now, the only portion that is represented is the pro-"genocide" title (the recognition section, for example). The article says that the name is controversial, but it never elaborates on why. It simply insinuates that Turkey is alone in that position like it is on the Armenian Genocide, which is not true at all with the Pontic Greek situation. Even under places like "Reasons for limited recognition," it still has a sympathetic tone towards why the Greeks themselves did not acknowledge this as a "genocide" until the 1990s. I wouldn't recommend placing it under "academic views of the genocide," since that entire page is based on synthesized information and should, if anything, be nominated for deletion (as should the the page with the laundry list of New York Times articles on this event) -] (]) 00:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

==Last two sentences in the lead were deleted==
The first sentence (the quote from the Turkish government) I deleted because it is already quoted verbatim in the Turkish stance on recognition; we don't need to be redundant. The second sentence was about Turkey's stance on the Assyrian and Armenian genocides, which is irrelevant to this article and pushes the POV that Turkey's denial of '''this event''' is ] (which, thus, reinforces the stance that the term "genocide" is appropriate for this article). This event is much more debatable than the Armenian Genocide is, but the last sentence was using Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide as a cheap way to try and invalidate the Turkish position on '''this event'''. Unnecessary and irrelevant. The Greek position and Turkish positions are (and should remain) further down in the article; the lead already provides a sufficient hint to an existing dispute or controversy over the name. I still think this dispute deserves its own section in the article (right now it is brushed off in the recognition section, and the rest of the article below that is synthesized original research). How would others feel about adding a section discussing the name's controversy on its own? That seems like the easiest way to get settle this dispute. -] (]) 01:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:How is it irrelevant to this article? The very statement by the IAGS on the recognition of the genocide places it in the larger context of the fate of Anatolia's Christians. It is no coincidence that the Greek and Assyrian genocides were recognized simultaneously. Furthermore, the Turkish denial of the other genocides is the result of precisely the same policy. ] (]) 12:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

::I'm not sure these two sentences are redundant. They underscore the fact that Turkey insists on not recognizing all the genocides during the beginning of the 20th century for which it has been accused (which is fact and NPOV). Furthermore, these genocides are interconnected. They all occurred in close geographical areas (Anatolia), close time periods and they all targeted Christian populations. And after they took place, they were treated by the official Turkish state in the same way: as if they never occurred. Thus, they constitute indeed a part of a broader context. These are facts a reader not familiar with the issue should know.--] (]) 14:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Both sentences (the Turkish government stance and the IAGS position) are included under "recognition" (one of them is mentioned almost verbatim). The first sentence especially, because it's just a repeat of the same quote. You do bring up a point about how the second sentence gives one a picture of the "fate of Anatolia's Christians," but these genocides are interconnected according to the Greek POV. A Garnet already furnished sources by ] that argue they were "of a different order." ], another eminent scholar, actually has even stronger opinions. Considering that Lewis is an eminent scholar on the Ottoman Empire and Mazower is an eminent scholar on Greece and the Balkans, that position shouldn't be overshadowed. Insinuating that the events are all interconnected or a part of the same policy would thus be pushing for one POV over another in a lead paragraph. Moreover, by synthesizing the Armenian Genocide and the Pontic Greek Genocide together, you are trying to lend the academic verifiability of the Armenian genocide to the not-so-verifiable Pontic Greek Genocide. It's an insinuation and it's a synthesis of data (]). Synthesis has been a repeated villain in these Pontic Greek articles, and it needs to be tackled now.
<blockquote>
Editors sometimes make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. - Misplaced Pages's policies on OR/Synthesis
</blockquote>
-] (]) 20:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:That isn't a problem here, as the subject is already adequately sourced in its own right. If published sources treat them together, then we cannot silence that view. On the other hand, no one is stopping you or Garnet from adding the views of Mazower and Lewis. Anyway, I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the Armenian and Pontian genocides were "of a different order". Of course they were; a million more Armenians died. ] (]) 02:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is important to note here that neither Toynbee, nor Mazower, Midrasky, Akcam or Lewis had or have sufficient knowledge or done any in depth research on the Pontic Greek experience. What they offer and express is simply their opinion on these events based on what they have read in the course of studying Greece, Turkey, the First World War, etc. One would consider Toynbee and Akcam as the only ones that could come close to have some weight in this matter. However, Toynbee's travels in Turkey, were limited to the west coast of Anatolia. He never set foot on the Pontus region before, during, or after the subject events. The Turkish regime's efforts to keep reports about these events from reaching other areas of Anatolia and the West are known and were quite effective. Similarly, Taner Akcam's research is limited to the Armenian Genocide in 1915-1916. He has not done any research on the Pontian Greek Genocide. This is obvious in his comments to the IAGS (see IAGS Blog). Therefore, none of the above mentioned sources should be considered authoritative or the last word on the Pontic Greek Genocide issue. - ] (]) 22:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:14, 8 December 2024

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

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

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


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


"Pontic genocide"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Included or involved the Pontic genocide?

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

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


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

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

Please check court verdict:

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

There is no international law on this matter.

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

Edit Request 2023

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

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

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

Another page based on hatred and political propaganda?

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

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

Misrepresentation of Kitroeff's views

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2024

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

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

For clarification, change the sentence to:

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

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

 Done Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Greek genocide: Difference between revisions Add topic