Talk:Greek genocide: Difference between revisions

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Ottoman / World War I C‑class This 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Ottoman military history task force World War I task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 19, 2011.

This article can be in the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Academic quotes List of eyewitness accounts Sources Relief

Editors might be interested in this piece of research published in book form as “Ships of Mercy” [1]. The title of the article is, 'Christos Papoutsy Dispels Myths of 1922 Catastrophe'. It is about the experiences of Asa K. Jennings in 1922.Politis (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"During World War I and its aftermath (1914-1923), the government of the Ottoman Empire instigated a violent campaign against the Greek population of the Empire"

This statement is plainly false, the Ottoman government was not involved in those massacres. It was the party of Turkish nationalists, enemy to the Ottoman government, who were doing all the genocides and ethnic cleansing. At a lesser extent, the Neo-Turks were also involved. This is a fact of huge historical significance. Miskin (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Actually, the statement is factual. The Ottoman government initiated the genocide in 1914 and the Turkish Rebels under Kemal continued that policy in 1919 up to 1923. Fact. --Nikoz78 (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have two criticisms about the narration of this period in this article:

There are two distinct articles and one sub-article that deal with the massacres Turks committed against the Greeks during this period: Great Fire of Smyrna, Greek Genocide and the Turkish massacres of Greeks in the article of Greco Turkish War 1919-1922. I think there also needs to be a separate article about the atrocities that the Greek state had committed during this same period against the Muslim population under the occupied territories. There are enough documentation from the third party sources about such atrocities and some of them are already included in the atrocities section of the Greco-Turkish War.

Secondly, even though that would not justify the violence agaisnt the Greek civilians, it has to be pointed out in this article that there was a war between Turkey and Greece between the years of 1919-1922, and according to numerous sources Greek occupation of Izmir provided the stimulus for the formation of Turkish national units.

              If by justify, you mean equaling in numbers, it surely would.
               
              It would do more then just equaling in numbers considering the truths, eighty percent of population 
              was Turk in Anatolia (where massacares happened.) and Turk civillians who died because of Armenian 
              or Greek terrorist groups which you call national parties would overshadow any number you might give 
              based on false evidence.

The Greek Genocide is a fictious term invented by Greek nationalists. The article should be more neutral and mention that no country on earth has ever accepted the so-called Greek Genocide (even Greece). Calling war attrocies as "genocide" shouldn't be this simple. In this case a regular Turk can come up with pictures and documents about attrocies commited by Greeks during the Turkish War of Independence and label them as "greek genocide." Come on, really... POV and neutrality are completely ignored here. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Diren Yardimli,

a genocide denier such as yourself, it is clear, that you would say such a thing. However, the evidence is crystal clear.

Turks committed genocide against the Anatolian and Pontian Greek, Assyrian and Armenian people.

These people were Christians that your Muslim forefathers annihilated, simply because of their religious belief.

The autochthonous people of Anatolia are the Greek, Armenian and Assyrian people, and certainly not the Turks. You are a recent inhabitants to this land Anatolia. It is unusual, that when you travel through present day Turkey, there are no Greek, Assyrian, or Armenian populations to be found. Where did these autochthonous people of Anatolia suddenly go, Diren? Did you ever ask yourself this question?

My suggestion is that you Turks should consider packing your bags and moving back to where you came from. That being the central Asian steppes and allow the Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians to resettle back into their original land.

I say, Anatolia for the Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians.

By the way, the Armenian, Assyrian and Greeks, have a sate of evidence demonstrating that your forefathers participated in genocidal acts. You on the other hand will not be able to do likewise.

Accept your history, and stop denying the undeniable. The rest of the world has already done so. Ικονοκλαστη (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so even more propaganda. I have nothing against you firmly believing that your were tried to be wiped out from the face of the earth by the evil Turks, absurd as it may sound. BUT, I'm not here to discuss your personal beliefs and superstitions. What I'm trying to say is that there are no encyclopedic or histocial facts about a Greek genocide. It's a term invented by Greeks and Greeks only. But what really bothers me is that you're consciously ignoring what I just said in my previous post; I openly stated that if the term "Greek genocide" is valid, then any Turk can come up with dozens of pictures of what the Greek army did when they were forced to leave Anatolia after they tried to invade Turkey during the War of Independence. They burned down villages, killed thousands of civilian Turks. Yet I'm not saying that this is genocide either. War attrocies, unfortunately follow every war. Lastly the reason that no one comes up with documents explaining WHY there weren't any Greek genocide is that no one really takes it seriously. No one tries to come up with facts that try do deny any Swedish genocides or any Bengalese genocide for that matter. It's simply absurd to waste ones time trying to deny something that's not mentioned anywhere (apart from the vast number of posts on the net by Greek ultra-nationalists). And lastly, the reason there are so few Greeks in Turkey today is not because they were killed, but because during the 50's they were unjustly deported to Greece. That was in fact a dark period for Turkey and a great embarrasment as well. But that's a whole other story, and one that many Turks inc. myself openly critisize. Yet you trying to show the lack of the Greek population as proof of a genocide shows just how much you really know about the history on both sides of the Aegean sea. Or maybe you do know, but you have no problem twisting the reality to be able to look at yourself as a "poor genocide victim" that we should feel sorry for. As a last advice from a friend, you actually don't need to be victims for the world to feel symphaty for you. All the best, --Diren Yardimli (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diren, you come across as a decent fellow. Please take the time ot consult the following list of academic sources I have compiled and come back with your take on them. Best regards.sources--Anothroskon (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anothorskon, thank you for finding me to be a decent person, but this is not the answer to my concernes. You can find an equal number of articles by Turkish and foreign scholars and historians telling stories about all the people the Greek army killed during the Turkish War of Independence. Please bear in mind that the Greek army was the invading force, they came to Turkish soil, not the other way around. But the simple fact is that historians and scholars from both sides aren't always objective. The problem is not the one-sided stories told by pro-Greek scholars. The problem is that whenever someone tries to add the "other side of the story" (without deleting the Greek version) it gets erased faster than the speed of light. That's what makes this article a well orchestred propaganda article. All the very best, --Diren Yardimli (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have moved from saying that the genocide claim is one only shared by Greeks (as I have provided numerous western academic sources describing the events as genocide) to the tu-quoque logical fallacy (basically saying "you did it too"). There are allready pages dealing with the Greek army's actions (and indeed attrocities) in that campaign. This page however is about the kemalist plan of extermination against the Greek citizens of the Ottoman Empire. It could be argued that the Greek army's actions paint the genocide in a different light and put the kemalist plan in context but that does not alter the fact that it was a plan of extermination. Again though this relates to the content of the article and not the title which simply reflects how modern western scholarship views these events. Best regards.--Anothroskon (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not stating "you did it too" as for the genocide argument. I state there were attrocies and even terrible crimes committed by both sides during the war (and most probably any war). But none of these can be called acts of genocide, since Greeks rebelled against Turks, Greek armies invaded Anatolia, and Turkish soldiers and civilians attacked back. In none of the sides, was the aim to wipe out the other's race. Yet, as the invading side was the Greek side, Greece's morale in this context is on a much more slippery ground and should be critically dealth with, especially under such a hilarious Wikipedia article. Wikipedia seems more and more to be the show ground for Armenian and Greek anti-Turkish lobbies, something that should concern those responsible for running Wikipedia.

As for the "kemalist" plan, as you call it, the plan was not to exteminate any races or religions from Anatolia (which can be understood very easily if you look at Atatürk's friendly and even brotherly correspondences with the Greek leader right after the war), but simply to free a country that was being invaded from all sides. Even if it would have been the plan in the long run (which it wasn't), Turkey was at that time being occupied and split apart. The goal of the campaing against the Greek army as well as any other army, was to still be able to point out on the map, a country called Turkey. That's not exactly the best time to commit a genocide, is it? Long story short, if you decide to call what happened in Anatolia a genocide, then suddenly you'll have all sorts of genocides commited by all sorts of nations, popping out in every corner of the world, throughout history. And even worse, you are twisting the reality and making fun of history. Again, when you talk about a war you should critically deal with the ivading force, not those that are being invaded. Genocide is something very different from what you (and this article) tries to prove. So please, make the article at least "sound" more objective. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The counter-argument to my point about a kemalist (turkish if you will) extermination plan is weak as both Kemal and Venizelos were pragmatic politicians who wouldn't let personal feelings impinge on their politics. OTOH if you took the trouble to look at the sources I pointed you to you would have noted that there are several academic journals and books claiming that the genocidal quality of the CUP's aims was clear. This in no way dilutes or alters the meaning of genocide, which remains "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", except that it is shown how the CUP's policy wrt Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks, was aimed at exactly that. So your second argument is also addressed as the definition of genocide is not changed simply to be able to use the term for the Ottoman Greek experience of 1914-1923.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I have trouble finding any of my arguments addressed. In my previous post, I talked about Greece being the invading force and the Ottoman army, the force that was trying to defend itself. Under such a circumstance, even if the Greeks in Anatolia suffered and were murdered, what on God's green earth was the Greek army doing in Anatolia invading the Turkish mainland? (And please don't tell me that Anatolia actually belongs to Greece, all sorts of people lived in Anatolia 1000 years ago) The Wikipedia article is not only subjective, but it lacks any kind of information about what led to the attrocies, the aggression. (This too, is one of my constantly ignored arguments.) Civilians suffered yes, and sincerly, my heart goes to any person who suffers from the greed any agression of another being. Yet there were THINGS that led to civilians being murdered. Add to that, the fact that hundreds of thousands of Turks died too during the same period. I sadly need to inform you, that they were muredered not by the "genocide-hungry" Ottoman army, but mainly by the Greek army. Not only soldiers,but Turkish civilians,women and children were brutally murdered .

Anyway, previous to that I mentioned why there are so few Greeks in Turkey now. It is not, as stated somewhere above, because of a "genocide", but because of a tax policy imposed on minorities in Turkey during the fifties (which led to hundreds of thousands of Greeks leaving Turkey). This tax should be dealt with critically, but let us not mix apples and tomatos in thesame bowl. (Remember, knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.) This argument too has been constantly ignored.

This is turning out to be a monolog, about an article I honestly, find to be non-sense. Yet, as people can believe anything they want, and it seems some Greek people really feel they need to be "victims" of some sort, it's perfectly OK for such an article to take place in Wikipedia. After all, there is an article about God too, which some people find to be non-sense as well. YET, the article should deal with the controversies surrounding the argument. That's requiered if it shall be an objective article. But the controversies are deliberetly LEFT OUT from the article. (Another thing I pointed out in all of my previous posts, but has not been addressed so far.) Even if you, my dear Anothkroskon, think a genocide took place, don't you think, the article should mention that it is a controversial argument (since officially even Greece does not believe it took place.)

Otherwise its a finely crafted propaganda article, full of prejudices with a touch of Greek ultra-nationalism. Don't worry, we have the same kind of ultra-nationalists here. A country without them, would be colorless. I am sure many in Greece are proud to read this article and are filled with hatred and an urgent need for revenge. But that does NOT change the fact that this is a poorly written enyclopedia article. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been pointed to numerous, independent, academic, western, scholarly and modern sources describing these events as genocide. It is ludicrous to describe these people ss Greek ultra-nationalists. Yet you just did exactly that.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My home town was burned by Greek Army on its way back yo the sea! İt is a coincidence that almost all the towns of Anatolia were burned just before they have been captured by Turkish Army! It is also a coincidence that any Greek (You can ask them) who lived in Anatolia or the Aegean Islands speaks good for Turks! What you are writing is meaningless and most importantly you are aware of that better than anyone else Mr. Anothroskon.

Well you made a small mistake which has a big impact on the subject. What a coincidence that almost all the towns of Anatolia were burned just AFTER they have been captured by Turkish Army. While the city of smyrna was burning Mustafa Kemal told this sentence '"çocuklar, bu manzaraya iyice bakın! bu alevler bir devrin sona erip yeni bir devrin başladığını gösteren bir yangındır. osmanlı imparatorluğu'nun son yüzyıllardaki bütün günahları şu ateşle temizlenirken, yeni türk devleti'nin kuruluşu ve türk milleti'nin yükselişi de cihana ilan ediliyor!"

' Which translates to " Look brothers, look at this view carefully. This fires indicate the end of an era and the beginning of a new era. All the sins of the ottoman empire is cleaned by this fire and this fire indicates the rise of the new Turkish state and the rise of the Turkish people "

The sins of the ottoman empire in this sentence means the "multiculturalism" There were lots of greek and armenian churches, houses, cemetaries in Smyrna. After the fire most of them destroyed because the fire started where armenian and greeks were mostly populated. Mustafa Kemal is proud of this fire, he is very happy that the Greek and Armenian heritage is destroyed. Ali55te (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well i read this ... how to say..... little discussion of yours and i can clearly say that you are going to nowhere. I even laughed at some parts. The claim of so called greek genocide you are talking about is contstructed on false evidences. The documents that are used to back up this claim are often crafted. These documents often bend the truth, exaggerate numbers or include crafted evidences which could be easly proved to be fakes if so called worldwide historicans spent more time on their research and at least tried to come Turkey and take a look at national archieves. (İ am sure there are even evidences in other nations archieves that are often overlooked or buried deep to bend the truth.) İ mean i really find it laughable that they write their books without even coming to place where this so called genocide happened. Even Russian national archieves alone would be enough to prove genocide talks as false. İ agree Anatolia is full of massacare sites and still in our day we found skeletons of the innocent civillians in mass graves but suprisingly they all belong to Turks not armenians. Most historians dont show a sincere effort the uncover truth. They just try to hide the real truth in the favor of politicans. Anothroskon, there are historicans in Turkey whom whould be happy to tell you the truth which is backed up by REAL evidence and with more details so come visit Turkey sometime my friend and after that you may claim that you are talking based on truths. --Special:Contributions/Berk (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman government is responsible for the atrocities that had taken place in the first period. Yet, between the years of 1919-1922, during the Greco-Turkish War, there was two different governments, one was in Ankara the other was in Istanbul. They were sometimes collobarating but had often been in conflict with each other. And the atrocities against the Greeks in this latter period was carried out by the forces belonging to this second group during the timeline of the Greco-Turkish War.

I think that has to be pointed out in the article, and to this end I have made some little changes in the introduction section but it is just reverted without any explanation. May I ask why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.241.21.242 (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Ottoman Empire existed until 1923. A clarification can be made about the various regimes that were operating and/or came to power during the Genocide period of 1914-1923 (ie. Young Turks vs. Ottoman Sultanate vs. Kemalists) but that is not communicated in the changes you made. There were other problems with some of the changes you made also. For instance, you referred to the "Greek population of Anatolia" in the context of the population exchange. In actual fact those migrations pertained to almost the entire Ottoman Greek population and not those just restricted to Anatolia (e.g. consider eastern Thrace).Bebek101 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Empire existed until 1922, not 1923, and after 1918 it was a dependent state —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.230.67 (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a recent article to be published in the TEXAS WESLEYAN LAW REVIEW by Hannibal Travis * Associate Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law

The text, there is much more than helow quoted, should be helpfull in establishing the series of events of the genocide. It lays forth the main events chronologically and very clearly.

--Anothroskon (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the following endorsement of the Kemalist policy of extermination as constituting genocide.

p.59 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.384

--Anothroskon (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting particular sources only is a good way to make an article biased. But the main thing here, isn't this copyrighted? I think we should remove this. --Seksen (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of Genocide: M-Z, Samuel Totten.PauI Robert Bartrop.Steven L Jacobs, 0313346445 978-0313346446 Greenwood (November 30, 2007) p.337

--Anothroskon (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know about books that deny the Holocaust. Also there is a book that says UFO's regularly visit earth. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but i find it laughable when I saw the first section of the article where it is mentioned about the 11th century Turkish conquests. I think this article truly and definitely went out of hand and became a piece of propoganda material.--88.241.16.92 (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with `denialism` of any sort, the article is supposed to cover the time span of 1914-1922, the Ottoman conquests of the 11th century has nothing to do with the topic of this article..--85.108.187.152 (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The origins and background section are meant to provide a brief context on the genocide. More material from Travis' article will be added that deals with the 19th and early 20th century persecution of Greeks by the Turks leading up to and including the events described as genocide. Again as per the published academic article.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the whole problem with this text, 11th century has nothing to do with the context of the atrocities, in order to do that you should be looking to the period starting with the late 19th century..--85.108.187.152 (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main component in the background section will in fact relate to the 19th century. I will be adding that in future.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the data about the 11th century is irrelevant. If you really want to write about the context of the atrocities you need to specify to the 19th and early 20th century. Oh, by the way, why you keep deleting sourced content?--85.108.187.152 (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a quote repository, this is the purpose of wikiquote. Plus the fact that you have been banned and should be reported doesn't much help.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then i suppose one can shorten the quotations, but deleting them all together is a totally different thing, which you happen to be doing all along.--85.108.187.152 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, if there is any POV pushing in this article, it is the totally irrelevant section that you added which is about the 11th century ottoman conquests. if you have any criticisms about the nature of quotes you should be discussing in here without deleting them first.--85.108.187.152 (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must simply stop treating any article as the personal belongings of 3-4 people and let other people make their edits as well. So, in the face of unexplained reversions, i am going to continue to revert the article --85.107.38.237 (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not impressed with the changes that have occurred to this page since I last looked at it last year.

The section (First created in pril 2010) and called:

Greek genocide#Earlier Ottoman Efforts to Achieve the Extinction of the Greek Culture and Religion

has a title that is leading and biased. The very frist sentence advances one point of view. "The process of Turkification in Asia Minor began with the first incursions by nomadic Turkic peoples in the tenth century and was intensified in the following centuries culminating in the Greek genocide." The whole point of the article is that yes there were crimes against humanity, but whether there was a genocide is still being debated. Yet here we have a definitive statement in the passive neutral voice of the article that it was a genocide.

The whole of the section "Pre 19th c." seems to me to be a synthesis of a number of sources which do not establish that there was government lead policy to achieve the extinction of Greek culture and religion. BTW the section "19th c." is referring to 20th century events.

The recognition of the is badly skewed, and trawling through the internet looking for local governments and statements in various countries does not help build a balanced encyclopaedia article, instead it makes the page look like a desperate advocacy website. For example mentioning Stephen Pound one MP out of 600 in the British House of Commons is hardly significant as you can probably find a British MP who holds opinions favourable to any pressure group that one can name. There are also serious problems with the sources used as some of them are not reliable ones or do not support what is being said. For example take this one http://www.angelfire.com/folk/pontian_net/News/proclomations.htm is given as justification for including Souoth Carolina in the list yet the images are barely legible and the Governor's proclamation says in large letters persecution -- which is a crime against humanity -- not genocide. -- PBS (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Presenting the medieval Turkish conquest in the context of a narrative of "efforts to achieve the extinction" of Greeks is just incredibly idiotic. It's not even worth dicussing as a serious POV. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is idiotic ir rushing into a debate without first checking the sources. Your opinion has no value in and of itself. The mention of the pre-19th c. events in the background section follows the pattern in the academic and published journal paper used as a reference. As such it has a place in the article. In future I will add more material from said paper to include events leading up to and part of the genocide.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that article did that. Maybe you should think a moment about the difference between a lawyer and a historian, and why an article in a student-run "Law Review" isn't a reliable source about medieval history. Exceptional claims require exceptionally good sourcing: if you want to seriously push the idea that the Selcuks established their rule in Anatolia as part of a concerted "effort to achieve the extinction" of Greeks, you will need first-rate references from peer-reviewed publications by specialised academic historians, and more than one of them; nothing less than that will do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fut.Perf. I have started to read the paper] The Cultural and Intellectual Property Interests of the Indigenous Peoples of Turkey and Iraq and Hannibal Travis does not seem to have a very good grasp of international law. For example, on page 609 he states "Under international law, a people’s indigenous status derives from living in a given region or country" yet the footnote give "18" is not to a treaty, now he may be right, I don't know, but citing a working paper as international law is iffy to say the least. He goes on to make a lot of other claims which as it is not an area that I know much about I am not going to comment on other than to say that he seems to be using similar techniques. He then mentions a source that I do know quite a lot about. On page 614 he has made a classic mistake that we see often made by Wikipedia editors. He has misunderstood that the only part of GCIV that applies to civil wars are the general articles specifically Article 3 yet he quotes "religious convictions and practices" which is in Art. 27. part of the convention that covers international not civil wars, (his footnote is 50 ). If he can not get a simple points of intentional law correct which is the area where he is supposedly an expert how can we trust his assessments of information extracted from areas in which he is not an expert?

To try to explain some of my specific problems with the section now called "Earlier Ottoman Efforts to Achieve the Extinction of the Greek Culture and Religion" The title implies that it was a systematic attempt by an Ottoman government or governemts, because if Ottoman is not being used that way why use Ottoman and not Turkish if one is going to use Greek and not Hellenic?

Let us look at the first few sentences:

Starting in the 11th century Seljuk Turks attacked the Eastern Roman Empire and began the process of replacing the indigenous Greek and Armenian populations with Turks. During the next three centuries for instance the Greek city of Smyrna was destroyed three times, first by the Seljuk Turks, then by the Persians and finally by the Turkic-speaking Mongols under Timur Leng

The first sentence contains "began the process of replacing" the next sentence contains "for instance ... then by the Persians and finally by the Turkic-speaking Mongols" So the Persians and the Mongols were part of a "process of replacing the indigenous Greek and Armenian populations with Turks"? Anothroskon can you see how bias this is? I could construct a similar German centric view of how the Slavic move east into areas inhabited by German tribes, was part of a "process of replacing" Germans in Poland with Slavs culminating in the expulsions after World War II. None of the facts presented would be wrong, but the accumulation of facts it would present a distorted one sided view of history to advance a specific point of view. History is never that simple and to present it in this way is not acceptable if we are constructing articles with a neutral point of view. Far better that this new section is removed as in my opinion. Instead we should add a couple of sentences to "Origins" explaining when the Turkish tribes arrived in the area and their rise to power, (which is similar to that of other tribal movements into lands all over the Roman Empire). -- PBS (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider PBS being mistaken in his comparison due to several reasons:

• Different tribes cannot be organized or carry out AN organized policy
• Those same tribes could not have communication methods to cooperate in any goals, even if They had
• Unlike 1 Turkish Imperial state with different ruling systems but on the same territory.
• The German tribes (including Goths, Anglo-Saxonic tribes, Germanic or Franks) were migrating into all regions of Europe themselves whereas Greeks and Armenians lived compact for thousands of years and had an established culture and history on those lands as well as ownership rights, moral, political, historical and legal.
• The results of the the 2nd as well as 1st world wars for Germany were results of their own initiated wars, whereas the Greek or Assyrians and others are not the initiators.
• The results of Slavic countries "benifiting" from the WW2 is because of WORLD wars, and not their own invasions or massacres on THEIR territories of 1 poor German nation. Whereas the Turkish ruled state destroyed the invaded cultures and nations which were by the way unarmed.
• The last but not the least, Turkish rules state was 1 country. Slavic states were many. Dont want to go into what work it needs to organize and direct them.

As for the rephraze, I am for it. It surely doesn't help to have several not connected incidents though with the same goals be connected to the Turkish policies. That section of the article needs to be considered for changes and I think with proper help we can contribute to that section.

Do we have doubts that the policy of cultural "extermination" was not there?

--IsmailAhmedov (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Different tribes cannot be organized or carry out AN organized policy" Quite so how do you justify "first by the Seljuk Turks, then by the Persians and finally by the Turkic-speaking Mongols under Timur Leng"? The point is that the whole section is a synthesis of facts put together to advance a point of view. To make such an argument it would be necessary to show that for hundreds of years the rules of the Ottoman empire had strived to homogenise the populations that they controlled and that this was a consistent policy that pre-dated the rise of the concepts behind the nation state, which is one of the usual reason given for the massacres during the first quarter of the C20th. -- PBS (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this section could be removed altogether from this article, reworked and perhaps placed on the Ottoman Greeks page? I fully understand why it was felt appropriate to include a background but perhaps this could be a solution to some of the comments expressed here recently? I also think PBS makes a good point about the recognition section. I think it might be an idea to cut out all the waffle and have just a few lines explaining the current position.Bebek101 (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Philip that there is a need for cleanup in the areas he indicates. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 11:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, PBS. And this is the part i said has to be worked on, but simply deleting the information would not suffice. I was showing how much your general comparison of the Turkish reign of the region and the Slavs are irrelevant and i hope u understood it. Also I didnt get if you argue, that after the conquest of those countries the Turish rule aimed on the distruction (and assimilation) of the local civilizations/cultures and peoples. Pls clarify this. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have put out my stall, I think I have made my point clearly. I think you need to addressed the points made by the other editors to this section. -- PBS (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see PSB making sense in either his comparison or comments and it is clearly seen he evades answering direct questions. Of course the Ottomans, Seljuks and even current Turkey continues the destruction of the cultural heritage of other civilisations and it is the continuation of the cultural genocide. Should be worked on to find proper reliable sources for these policies and reflected in all relevant articles. Emilio1974 (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which direct question have I not answered? -- PBS (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think emillio meant the direct question if you doubted that turkish rule always had a goal to desolve or destroy the native cultures and peoples of the region. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which region? The territories of modern Turkey or those of the Ottoman Empire at its zenith? But as a general answer to your question I have no idea. To present such an analysis of the motives behind the rule of the Ottoman Empire as an exception to the usual motives of imperialists you would need to present histories from the majority of top draw historians to show that "Turkification" (as used by nationalists that lead to genocidal acts in the C20th) is the established understanding for the motives behind the government of the Ottoman Empire over the centuries it existed. If it is the accepted norm then sources will be abundant. If on the other hand if is a minority view then see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. As an example of how such minority views (or majority views) can be presented see the section genocides in history#France. -- PBS (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for an "excurse" through the rules. i only wanted to know your opinion and knowledge. seems it is the "positive" u know of ottomans. good that wikipedia can give u more than that. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Philip does know about that ongoing policies of the Empire and how they continue today. Somebody active on Greek, Armenian genocides and other issues like this in the POV of "against" surely has some relevance to Turkey or knowledge about Turkey and knows it was not a few years' activity to erase the native cultures. But let's assume good faith, if Philip presents it not to be so. Emilio1974 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya to all. A question on the titling, as this article came up in a discussion about use of capitals in article naming on Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide#Requested move; specifically and NARROWLY PLEASE, about the capitalization of titles of events like these. Is Greek genocide a proper noun, and if so, shouldn't it be Greek Genocide? Here's my sense of it, copied from over there at the RfM, [where the proposal (not mine, I had questions that led to you) was to move the page from Denial of the Armenian Genocide to Armenian Genocide denial]: This was my first question, because I thought, "Well, this would conform better to the Manual of Style (which does not cover this specific point...YET):

• "However, should it not be Armenian genocide denial, unless there is some legitimate reason why in this case genocide should be capitalized? Further, why should not (for examples) the articles Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Srebrenica Genocide, Rwandan Genocide follow the same naming conventions as do Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, and Burundi genocide? I have the same question concerning titles containing the word massacre: Why Parsley Massacre but Rohingya massacre? Perhaps if such topics are considered events and as such are considered proper nouns...but I'd like to see all such titles conform across the board, to a coherently stated convention, whichever convention is supported by either clear policy or robust consensus. I haven't looked hard for it at all, but maybe someone else has: Is there any established WP policy, guideline, or village pump decision on precisely this?"

The response was:

• "I'll explain my vision. In the titles it is a name of an event ("Greek Genocide"), a term and not word-combination (adjective + noun) to mark the belonging of the event. The same way the terms for Cuban Missile Crisis or Caribbean Crisis and not Caribbean crisis with Caribbean as an adjective and crisis as a noun. Or the Berlin Blockade, for another example."

to which I queried further:

• "Is your vision... supported by a WP policy, and if so, please point me to that policy. I studied WP:Article titles and WP:Naming conventions#Capitalization to no avail. Where is this 'an event, or series of events, is a proper noun whose terms shall be capitalized' policy, if there is one? Declaring that something is an Event (not to opine in any way that this E/event isn't one) and thus is a proper noun that should be capitalized, could be controversial to some, and might encompass different scopes for different folks, so please explain also, if you can, why (as examples--there are a vast number of 'E/events' that might have this issue) the E/events currently titled (and capitalized like this-->) Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, Burundi genocide, and Rohingya massacre should not be capitalized as you propose for the move to Armenian Genocide denial, if there is a good reason to handle each differently. Staying arbitrarily within the narrow category of death and dying-themed events only, why Moors murders and Soham murders, but Parker-Hulme Murder? (the current examples suggest, somewhat irregularly, that single death is an Event, but multiple death is an event, unless it's a whole lot of death, in which case it's an Event??) What is the WP policy, if there is one, that sets these sorts of boundaries (or not) for E/events of all flavors?"

and got this answer:

• "I do think that massacres or genocides you noted above should be capitallised. Those are events. A murder is an event, a pogrom is an event, a mass murder (massacre) is an event, a genocide is an event, but an article "Mass murders" is not an event, an article "The genocides of Europe" is not AN event or Sexual disorder is a collective word-combination and a collective article but Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder is a name of one disorder. the same way Greek, Assyrian or Armenian Genocides are separate events and not some variety of genocides or something. I don't even thing this was ever discussed. Just all the WP:RSs write it with a capital letter so no doubts."

Please share your thoughts on the idea of changing the name of this page to Greek Genocide, a proper noun. I'm going to try to edit the Manual of Style to address this question, and before I do, I'd like to find out what community consensus is on the matter.

Sorry so long-winded. =) Duff (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Pontic Greek genocide/Archive 7 Talk:Pontic Greek genocide/Archive 8 Talk:Pontic Greek genocide/Archive 9. Having the name as a descriptive one makes it much easier to write a balanced NPOV lead. If the reliable sources overwhelmingly called it the "Greek Genocide" then this would be the name we would use, but as there is as yet no clear agreement in reliable sources to use that name, keeping it as a descriptive name can be justified under NPOV issues. -- PBS (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your 3 links, hope that's ok. Hmmm. I also read through just the first, for about an hour...how many hours must it have taken you all just to argue that archive, let alone all the others. Dear. I don't want to re-open that discussion specific to this page, especially if it's been clearly settled by consensus here. Has it? Can you point me directly at the consensus-making moment? In your opinion, how much easier has the decision to keep the word genocide in lower case made the article to edit from NPOV in practice? I agree with the bit about reliable sources and how they use it. Did you find a WP Policy aimed right at what I am asking about? I did not, yet. Duff (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first section Talk:Pontic Greek genocide/Archive 9 seems to be when we finally agreed. The article was then moved and later moved again to Greek genocide, as it was agreed that the content covered more than just the Pontic Greek genocide. As it was a descriptive name it was much easier to agree to the move as we did not have to find reliable sources to justify the move. Personally I would have preferred a more neutral descriptive name but this one has the advantage of being concise. -- PBS (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read about the Greek Genocide and I have seen it written as a proper noun just like the Bosnian or Assyrian Genocides. I can present those reliable sources if required. Emilio1974 (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis and what proof the term genocide is being used on this article? Wikipedia is turning more and more into a propaganda site. I mean look at this; Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Greek genocide, and Dersim genocide. On Wikipedia there is no topic dedicated to genocide of native Americans, the obvious genocide on Australian natives is called "genocide debate", there is no genocide topic for the mass murder of Turks during WW1, the Khojaly genocide is called Khojaly massacre but whatever Turks did in wars are called genocide without any documentation or proof merely by the sentiments of the editors who belong in associated nations. I dispute this article's title and suggest a name change to Greek war casualties in the Aegean theatre during world war 1 --Tmhm (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the first to voice these concerns. Please look at the article's talk pages, read them and the accompanying academic quotations clearly labelling the events as genocide and pay special attention to the sections where your POV is debated and a concensus to name the article using the word genocide is arrived at.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tmhm. Thanks for your comments but one reason your suggested title would not be applicable is because the events described in this article also refer to atrocities committed at times of peace and outside war zones. In other words, this article is not about war casualties. If you are interested in casualties as a result of some war, you can consult the relevant Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Bebek101 (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well its still does not change the fact that this genocide talk is nonsense. This page shouldnt even be open. And why Tmhm wanted title change is because what you call as genocise is exaggerated numbers of the civillian who died as war attrocities not genocide. Same with the so called Armenian genocide. And Tmhm you know what we say wont make them look for the truths. Turks have been at the crosshairs of other nations since they came to Anatolia. Its because they occupy Anatolia. It would have been same for any nation because most humans are ruled by greed and lets agree on that the land which Turkey Republic occupies has many riches (underground resources, natural resources, strategical position, etc.). Other nations want it and they need Turks out of the picture. Just like what happened in Iraq and Suriye. They try to use all in their arsenal. Greeks and Armenians are only two of their tool. Using genocide talks to create an image of evil Turks. And it has been succesfull so far. They are trying to bury the truths and write a history based upon their own lies. İ am telling you this Genocide talk is only beginning. Capitalism uses whole nations like Greeks and Armenians as its attack dog. Whole nations are turned into weapons. Fed with lies and false ideas from the childhood.

A sentence from the biography of George Horton which is also cited in the article "He was also a professional diplomat who loved Greece." So, he isn't a reliable source because since he loved Greece, he would write from the Greek POV. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC) "James L. Marketos (2006). "George Horton: An American Witness in Smyrna". ahiworld.org. http://ahiworld.org/pdfs/George_Horton_remarks.pdf. Retrieved 11-03-2009" is the source that I have mentioned. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valavanis, G.K. (1925). Contemporary General History of Pontus (Σύγχρονος Γενική Ιστορία του Πόντου), Athens. is not a reliable source. Using a Greek source is as wrong and biased as using a Turkish source which says "this is completely a lie". Additional sources are needed in order to prove the sentences which cite this book. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But anyway, the book of Valavanis is not widely used, but there are many Greek sources, and in order to ensure neutrality, there should be more Turkish sources used. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, feel free to find and add Turkish sources on these matters as well, of course. No need to remove reliable sources just because they're Greek, though. Mundart (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never removed sources, but I think there should be other sources in order to verify the information. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Morgenthau, the United States ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916 accused the "Turkish government" of a campaign of "outrageous terrorizing, cruel torturing, driving of women into harems, debauchery of innocent girls, the sale of many of them at 80 cents each, the murdering of hundreds of thousands and the deportation to and starvation in the desert of other hundreds of thousands, [and] the destruction of hundreds of villages and many cities", all part of "the willful execution" of a "scheme to annihilate the Armenian, Greek and Syrian Christians of Turkey."

This is in 1922. But the "genocide" seems to end at the end of the World War I. In 1922, it seems like both sides committed massacres, but this is not a part of the "genocide", at least it looks like it in the article. So, it seems like Morgenthau describes the events during Turkish War of Independence, which is irrelevant with this "genocide". --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for the larger part these were bona-fide deportations; that is, the greek inhabitans were actually removed to new placed and were not subjected to wholesale massacre. It was probably the reason that the civilized world did not protest against these deportations

This one seems to be about the events called "genocide", but it contradicts the claim that massacres took place. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to read the lede you would have seen it clearly states that the time period is 1914-1923.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly states, but without citations. Can you please give me a source which says "a Greek genocide happened between 1914-1923"? I cannot see any sources talking about the time period of a "genocide". And I cannot see information on any persecution of Greeks in the article either. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by saying sources, I mean reliable sources, not a propaganda site like greekgenocide.org or a book published in Greece (if those were reliable for the definition of genocide or time period, it would mean it is possible to create an article called "Turkish genocide" based on publications by books published in Turkey). --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of reliable material supporting this [[4]], [[5]], [[6]][[7]]Alexikoua (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This says 1922 in the same time, while the article about the "genocide" seems to be written by a Greek author anyway. And the remaining three sources are not plenty, and as I told before, only 44 reliable books use the term "Greek genocide", even this is not plenty. And anyway, I still cannot see any persecutions in 1923, and the sources that you have given seem to lack it. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turks didn't genocide Greeks. This article is nothing more than a westernist antiturkic propaganda. Greek genocide will be the first "socially constructed" genocide of human history.

--78.167.51.130 (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is really a popular naming with only 44 sources. Using to the article, it is one source for every 10,000 people. Seems like impossible, but the impossible happens on Wikipedia. --Seksen (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am smelling Greek lobby in here. There's clearly no genocide. Koc61 (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume we have just a trolling opportunity by an ip editor, since the previous move proposal was unsuccessfull due to lack of arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not due to lack of arguments, but due to lack of contributors. --Seksen (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the following addition, twice now, because it is original research:

...whose accounts are often accused to be one-sided and unreliable,<ref>[[Brian Coleman]], [http://www.maney.co.uk/search?fwaction=show&fwid=466 Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies]</ref><ref>Kirli, Biray Kolluoglu. Forgetting the Smyrna Fire, Oxford University Press, 2005.</ref><ref>Heath Lowry, “Turkish History: On Whose Sources Will it Be Based? A Case Study on the Burning of Izmir”, ''The Journal of Ottoman Studies'', IX, 1988.</ref>

It is original research to say: whose accounts are often accused to be one-sided and unreliable, if these are your words and not the words of a scholar who analysed the work of the American consul. Therefore please do not add this original research into the article. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to note that this removal [[8]] appears to be without the appropriate edit summary, since the caption doesn't mention who was rensponsible for the fire.Alexikoua (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is with a justified reason, for if Greeks were responsible for the fire, it would not be a part of this "genocide", would it? These are not my words at all. See this for example please. --Seksen (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is gradually becoming a propaganda service and I condemn this. To prevent this, I will do anything I could. This is not the Wikipedia I dream of. Please change this article. Here is something which my Greek fellow-wikipedians might be interested. An article by Nasos Theodoridis on "Trabzon" and "Black sea region"

"ΑΙΜΟΣΤΑΓΗΣ ΠΑΠΑΣ" Ο ΓΕΡΜΑΝΟΣ ΚΑΡΑΒΑΓΓΕΛΗΣ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΝΑΣΟ ΘΕΟΔΩΡΙΔΗ ΤΗΣ "ΑΥΓΗΣ" ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΥΝΑΣΠΙΣΜΟΥ Οι επετειακές κραυγές που συνήθως ακούγονται και γράφονται κάθε άνοιξη για το ζήτημα της όντως απεχθούς και μαζικής εξόντωσης των Ποντίων επιτάσσουν μια ψύχραιμη προσέγγιση και αποτίμηση του ιστορικού αυτού ζητήματος. Δυστυχώς μέχρι σήμερα ουδείς ειδήμων ασχολήθηκε αντικειμενικά με την ιστορική ανάλυση της άλλης πλευράς της αλήθειας στο θέμα του ελληνισμού του Πόντου.... Η επιχειρηματολογία της εθνικιστικής μερίδας των Ποντίων, σε σχέση με αυτά που υπέφερε ο ποντιακός λαός από το 1915 έως το 1924, αναφέρεται πράγματι σε πολλές αλήθειες, ταυτόχρονα όμως δεν διστάζει να χρησιμοποιεί μισές αλήθειες, να αποκρύπτει άλλες αλήθειες και να διαδίδει πολλά ψεύδη.... Από κοινωνικής και πολιτικής σκοπιάς το πιο αναληθές κατασκεύασμα είναι η θεωρία του λεγόμενου επαναστατικού αγώνα προς «απελευθέρωση» του Πόντου από τον «τουρκικό ζυγό». Θεωρητικά ο όρος «απελευθέρωση» μπορεί να έχει αποδεκτό περιεχόμενο μόνο όταν αφορά σε μια σχετικά μεγάλη εδαφική περιοχή όπου η φίλια εθνική ομάδα αποτελεί την πληθυσμιακή πλειοψηφία.... Στην προκειμένη περίπτωση ο ελληνικός πληθυσμός των τριών νομών ή Βιλαετίων, του Πόντου αποτελούσε μια σημαντική, μια μικρή ή μια εντελώς ασήμαντη μειοψηφία. Τα επίσημα αυτά στατιστικά στοιχεία, που αφορούν στο έτος 1912, προέρχονται από τον καθηγητή του Πανεπιστημίου Αθηνών Σωτηριάδη. ...Συγκεκριμένα, στον νομό, δηλαδή στο Βιλαέτι της Τραπεζούντας οι Έλληνες ανέρχονταν μόνο στο 25,9% του συνολικού πληθυσμού, συγκεκριμένα οι Τούρκοι αριθμούσαν 957.866 άτομα ενώ οι Έλληνες ανέρχονταν μόνο σε 353.533. Το πραγματικό αντάρτικο στον Πόντο άρχισε μόλις το 1916, όταν οι Ρώσοι κατέλαβαν την πόλη της Τραπεζούντας μεταφέροντας το ρωσοτουρκικό πολεμικό μέτωπο στην περιοχή εκείνη. Οργανωτής του ελληνικού αντάρτικου ήταν ο φανατικός «στρατηγός» Καραβαγγέλης, ο οποίος ήρθε στη Σαμψούντα το 1908 ως μητροπολίτης...Μετά τη δημιουργία των ανταρτικών σωμάτων με χρήματα και πολεμοφόδια που πήρε ο μητροπολίτης από τους Ρώσους, τα εξαπέλυσε να προσβάλουν τον τουρκικό στρατό στα μετόπισθέν του, τη στιγμή κατά την οποίαν οι Τούρκοι πολεμούσαν τον ρωσικό στρατό στο μέτωπο της Τραπεζούντας....Οι αντάρτες του Πόντου συντάχθηκαν κατά τη διάρκεια του πολέμου με τα εχθρικά κατοχικά στρατεύματα της Ρωσίας, καταπολέμησαν τον στρατό του κράτους του οποίου ήταν υπήκοοι, καταπιέζοντας και σκοτώνοντας αλλόθρησκους συμπολίτες τους....Οι ταλαίπωροι αντάρτες, το πλείστον τουρκόφωνοι και αναλφάβητοι, έπεσαν στην παγίδα του αιμοσταγούς αυτού παπά χωρίς να αναλογιστούν τις συνέπειες του λεγόμενου απελευθερωτικού αγώνα, δηλαδή δεν συνειδητοποίησαν καν το τι θα απογίνονταν αυτοί μετά το τέλος του πολέμου, όταν ο μεν παπάς θα εξαφανιζόταν για να σωθεί, όπως και έγινε, αυτοί όμως θα παρέμεναν....Κάτω από την εγκληματική καθοδήγηση του Καραβαγγέλη οι χριστιανοί άρχισαν να πυκνώνουν τις τάξεις των ανταρτών χτυπώντας πισώπλατα τον τουρκικό στρατό και ληστεύοντας κυρίως τουρκικά χωριά, για να μπορέσουν να επιβιώσουν....Λόγω των πράξεων αυτών ο τουρκικός στρατός άρχισε στην περιοχή της Μπάφρας το κυνήγι εναντίον των ανταρτών, που μετεξελίχθηκε βεβαίως σε μαζική εθνοκάθαρση, απολύτως κατακριτέα αλλά και διακριτή από μια «γενοκτονία», που θα προϋπέθετε «άμεσο δόλο εξόντωσης μέχρις ενός», πράγμα αναπόδεικτο...Όμως στα ελληνικά ΜΜΕ γίνεται συνεχής αναφορά στα εγκλήματα που διέπραξαν οι Τούρκοι εναντίον των Ελλήνων στον Πόντο παρασιωπώντας συστηματικά τις εγκληματικές πράξεις των Ελλήνων ανταρτών, τις οποίες παρουσιάζει κομπάζοντας σε μια μελέτη του ο εθνικιστής Πόντιος συγγραφέας Ανθεμίδης («Επαναστατική τρομοκρατία – Αντίποινα των Ελλήνων κατά του τουρκικού πληθυσμού»)....Συνεπώς είναι ανεπίτρεπτο να ζητούμε με θορυβώδη τρόπο από την Τουρκία να καταδικάσει τα δικά της εγκλήματα, χωρίς όμως να ζητάμε συγγνώμη για παρόμοια εγκλήματα που έκανε η «δική μας» πλευρά."

Thanks for reading, have a nice day.- F.Mehmet (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Greek genocide" -Llc 53 (minimum 34)

• Greek Genocide: Internment, Convention on the Prevention..., Alphascript is one of the Wikipedia derived encyclopedias
• Dictionary of Genocide: A-L, p. 26. Pontic Greek genocide
• Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction - Pontian Greeks, p. 163. Pontian Greek genocide
• Rudolph J. Rummel, Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900, p. 85. WWI Greek genocide & a final Greek genocide
• Richard G. Hovannisian, The Armenian genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies, p. 251. - The number of "Greek Calamity" occurences was nagligilbe. It was not so, however, in the case of the expression "Greek Genocide".
• Congressional Record (Bound Volumes), Part 7, p. 8757. - Pontian Greek Genocide.
• Nikolaos Hlamides, The Greek Relief Committee: America's Response to the Greek genocide, ???
• Travel Greece for Smartphones and Mobile Devices - Illustrated Guide, Phrasebook, and Maps, [9] - Pontic dialect came to Greece from Asia Minor after the Greek genocide... Anyway, is MobileReference a reliable source ?
• British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Anatolian Studies, Volume 58, p. 154. - what is called the "Pontic Greek Genocide" (p. 154), Pontian Greek Genocide (p. 169).
• Hannibal Travis, Genocide in the Middle East: The Ottoman Empire, Iraq, and Sudan, ???
• Son of Refugees, K. I. Selinidis, Ioannis Konstantinos Selinidis, p. 17., Greek Genocide, but this is nothing but memory of a Greek. And sources of this section are wibsites.
• R. Rummel, Death by government, p. ix. Greek Genocide
• Ani Kalayjian, Dominique Eugene, Mass Trauma and Emotional Healing Around the World: Rituals and Practices for Resilience and Meaning-Making, Volume 2, p. 311. - Greek Genocide
• MARKO GROBELNIK, WRAY BUNTINE, Machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases, Volume 1, p. 81. - Only sample words. This book is not specific work on topic.
• The Middle East: Abstracts and index Volume 20. Part 3, same as Congressional Record, No preview
• MobileReference, Calendar of Historical Events, Births, Holidays and Observances, "The anniversary of this event is the official date of commemoration of the Pontic Greek Genocide in Greece and Cyprus". Pontic Greek Genocide, Is this a reliable source ?
• Chris U. Agbedo, Problems of Multilingual Nations: The Nigerian Perspective, p. 92. - Pontian Greek Genocide, The Armenian/Assyrian Genocide, under the Three Pashas of the late Ottoman empire and the later Pontian Greek Genocide, both perpetrated by the Young Turks during 1914-1922. Massacres of the Turkish population by the Greek army of occupation and Greek scorched earth policy by Greek troops after their defeat in the Greco Turkish war. Massacre of Greek population and sack of Smyrna by Turkish troops.
• Hasan Minga, Hilmi Saqe, Greek genocide against Çameria continues, This is about the genocide against Albanians in Chameria by Greeks.
  • cf. Indeed, under the DP government in June 1994 a new law was passed, which proclaimed 27 June as "The Day of Greek Chauvinist Genocide Against the Albanians of Chameria" and set up a memorial to the Chams... (Südost Europa, Volume 5, Die Abteilung, 2002, p. 237.)
• Doris T. Myers, Understanding language, p. 34. about etymology.
• Christos C. Evangeliou, Themata Politica: Hellenic and Euro-Atlantic, p. 43. - "This book tells the secret story of the Greek genocide at the hands of the Christians between the fourth to the sixth centuries".
• Greek Society: Minorities in Greece - Source: Wikipedia.
• South Pacific Association for Commonwealth Literature and Language Studies, SPAN: Issue 18, And Smyrna, as all students of Patrick White know, symbolises for White Greek genocide at the hands of the Turks. The 'loyeliness' imputed to Smyrna is nothing if not ironic, but the claim nevertheless is not too different from lvan Karamazov's, for Smyrna is also a graveyard.
• Amos N. Guiora, Top Ten Global Justice Law Review Articles 2008, p. 42.

"genocide of the Greeks" -Llc minimum 13

• Katerina Zacharia, Hellenisms: Culture, Identity, and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity, p. 300. genocide of the Greeks of Pontus
• Halil Ibrahim Salih, Cyprus: Ethnic Political Counterpoints, p. 251. only refers to commemoration.
• Rudolph J. Rummel, Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder since 1900, p. 86.
• Niki Karavasilis, The Whispering Voices of Smyrna, p. 324.
• The paths of history, p. 276. genocide of the Greeks in Smyrna
• Ani Kalayjian, Dominique Eugene, Mass Trauma and Emotional Healing Around the World: Rituals and Practices for Resilience and Meaning-Making, Volume 2, p. 311. genocide of the Greeks of Pontus
• Official journal of the European Communities: Debates of the European Parliament, p. 42. Only debate.
• Rockford Institute, Chronicles, Volume 30, p. 42, ...the Young Turk regime that committed the Armenian genocide during World War I. After the war, the genocide of the Greeks of Pontus and the ethnic cleansing of the Greeks of Ionia and the rest of Asia
• Christos C. Evangeliou, Themata Politica: Hellenic and Euro-Atlantic, p. 45.
• Joseph Slabey Rouček, Bernard Eisenberg, America's Ethnic Politics, p. 41.
• Athena magazine, p. 67
• Wilhelm Baum, The Christian minorities in Turkey, p. 144., The Entente repeatedly stressed the necessity of Turkey's "punishment" for the genocide of the Greeks and the Armenians. (Entente's claim at the time)
• James Pettifer, The Turkish Labyrinth: Atatürk and the New Islam, Viking, 1997, p. 174. Greek genocide

"genocide of Greeks" -Llc minimum 6

• Charēs Tsirkinidēs, At last we uprooted them: the genocide of Greeks of Pontos, Thrace and Asia Minor through French archives, p. 65. genocide of Greeks of Pontos, Thrace and Asia Minor
• Balkan studies, Volume 45, p. 241. genocide of Greeks of Pontus
• Middle East Contemporary Survey, Volume 3, p. 863. about film & censorship
• Aryeh Shmuelevitz, Republican Turkey: Aspects of Internal Affairs and International Relations, p. 143. about film & censorship
• Index on Censorship, Volume 8,
• Adam Jones, Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction, p. 642.
  • genocide Armenians by, see Armenian genocide
  • genocide Assyrians by, see Assyrian genocide
  • genocide Greeks by, see Greeks, as a victim of the Ottoman genocide

• Asia-Minor "Persecution of Greeks" -Llc 58 (minimum 34)
• Anatolia "Persecution of Greeks" -Llc 7

• "Asia Minor" "Ethnic cleansing of Greeks" -Llc 3

• "Greek massacres" -Llc 257, but this results includes massacres committed by Greeks, and other massacres.
• "massacre of Greeks" -Llc 385, but this result includes other massacres.

• "Asia Minor" "massacre of Greeks" -Llc 77
• "Asia Minor" "massacre of the Greeks" -Llc 74
• "Asia Minor" "massacres of the Greeks" -Llc 21
• "Asia Minor" "massacres of Greeks" -Llc 52
• Anatolia "massacre of Greeks" -Llc 25
• Anatolia "massacre of the Greeks" -Llc 8
• Anatolia "massacres of Greeks" -Llc 33
• Anatolia "massacres of the Greeks" -Llc 9
• "alleged massacres of Greeks" -Llc 2

• "Pontic Greek genocide" -Llc 5
• "Pontian Greek genocide" -Llc 5
• "Pontian genocide" -Llc 14
• "Pontic genocide" -Llc 3

Takabeg (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remind that a genocide is the murder of an important part of a nation, hundreds of thousands of people, and for such a big event, 34 results are not enough. See the comparison of the usage of the term "Greek genocide" with other "genocide"s: Richard Hovannisian p.258-9. Massacres of Greeks (1919-23) or Persecution of Greeks (1919-23) are the most suitable names, I think. It should be noted that the state of South Carolina calls it persecution. --Seksen (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its clear that the present title is the most popular in literature compared to 'persecutions', especialy if we take into account the Pontian Genocide which is part of this article.07:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The term "Genocide" is not used for all of these atrocities and massacres. Even some scholars use the term "Genocide" for all of only for all of them, it is not general trend. In short, Greek genocide is not common name of entire events. We'd better create the article Pontic Greek Genocide or Pontian Greek Genocide. I'm not sure but I felt Pontic Greek Genocide or Pontian Greek Genocide can be common name of events in Pontus. Otherwise, we cannot normalize and neutralize this article. UUnfortunately, at present, we must add {{NPOV}} to this article. Takabeg (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takabeg, the fact that we should also have an article about the Pontic Genocide which is part of the Greek Genocide, is irrelevant with tagging this article as pov. Since this is the most used term in bibliography, as you proved (persecutions etc are less used), I wonder what's your argument on this.Alexikoua (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible. Maybe it's difficult for you to understand this problem with your {{systemic bias}}. But research on Google Books proved that this article cannot be kept under this title. As you know, the Greek ethnic cleansing in Chameria, massacre of Chams, Albanian massacres of the 1943-44 in Charmeria had taken place. If these persecutions, ethnic cleansing, massacres　was explained by combining with relatively smaller persecutions by Greece gov. and/or Greek people, under the title such as Albanian massacres by Greeks (instead of “massacres of Chams”), “Albanian genocide" (instead of Albanian genocide in Chameria; somebody call “genocide” to these events), are these article neutral or not ? As you know, Pontic Genocide is not same as other massacres in Asia Minor. Apart from contents, this title abuses WP:COMMONNAME & WP:POVTITLE. Takabeg (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you claim that 'Genocide' isn't widely established in literature, but your search in gbooks makes it the most popular term copared to 'Persecution' etc.. If you suggest another name or a split, feel free to make or explain your proposal.Alexikoua (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How come Pontus is a small place ? It is the whole BLACKSEA REGION. There were more then 350.000 Greeks were living there before the genocide. Apart from there most of the remaining ones were in Costantinopole and Smyrna. Your hypothesis about this small region is not valid here. Ali55te (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot understand how it can be understood that "genocide" is widely estanlished in reliable literature from those results and analysis. Is it just me seeing that there are about ten reliable sources calling this event "Greek genocide"? And is it just me who thinks that this is very few for the murder of a great number of people? Or is it me who does not know what a genocide is? I think an analysis of the "persecution" / "massacres" results would be helpful. And the NPOV tag should remain on the article until we settle this dispute with third party editors who has not yet commented on this issue, I think. --Seksen (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think this is just a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT by Turkish editors, as with the Armenian Genocide. Because the only ones that complain about POV are Turkish editors. I have yet to see a "third party" editor come here and complain about the name, POV, etc... 17:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Turkish editor. But I understand that this article is not neutral. Takabeg (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean is right, whole discussion is ludicrous. And Takabeg, you may not be a citizen of the Republic of Turkey, but it's clear from your username and edit history than you are a pan-Turkic nationalist of some kind - Azeri or what not. Not that such agenda-driven accounts - or even articles - are anything unusual in Wikipedia it seems... Manocihr (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, POVs of User:Athenean and Manochihr are not neutral. Their approach are very biased. I think it's difficult to solve this issue for Greek and Turkish peoples. Of course, we can find some educated persons without systematic bias among both Greek and Turkish, but the number of them is very small. Takabeg (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? And how am I biased exactly? Anyone who disagrees with you is biased? I'm not Greek, Turkish, or from a country anywhere even close to Anatolia or Europe. I'm not even from the same continent! I'm not religious, or ethno-nationalist. So pray, tell me, how is it that I am biased? Manocihr (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is right, and I believe Takabeg's approach to this issue is neutral, at least more neutral than Athenean, who is a Greek editor, at least his/her username is related to Athens. I should add that Takabeg is often accused of being anti-Turkish, pro-Greek and pro-Kurdish by some Turkish users, see Talk:Zilan massacre for instance. --Seksen (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Greek editors are biased and Turks aren't? Look, I have a degree in History, and I'm not ethnically or politically related to either side - and it's quite clear to me where the denial-of-history is coming from. Manocihr (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not said that, I just said that Takabeg is not pro-Turkish, and according to some Turks he is pro-Greek. And I accept that I am naturally biased, I believe that a Turk or a Greek cannot be completely neutral when it comes to such issues. By the way, calling someone who disagrees with you as "denialist" is very annoying. --Seksen (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]