Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 4

message: Just musing that: Overwhelming evidence that Pontian Greek civilisation was wiped out + Denial that it existed = Denial of Pontian Greek genocide. Politis 14:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can feel sorry that Hellenism deosn't exist in turkey anymore, that's your POV, and you have a right to feel that way.. But please settle old scores somewhere else.. Baristarim 15:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: He didn't say he felt sorry for it. --Awiseman 20:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? It is not up to us, people who were born decades after these events to say that we are sorry or not.. Life is like that and many events happen, good or bad, feeling sorry is demagogic word, for anything.. My mother's father was born in Thessaloniki, and, apparently, we don't live there anymore.. I cannot feel sorry for that either, that's how life unfolded back then.. That's just how life is, you can say I wish that it didn't happened, if you think carefully in fine, it is not the same thing as being sorry.. But just for comfort, I wish that no-one had died during the Greco-Turkish conflicts after the First WW, happy? :)) I had said this before, it is in the archives.. As for trolling, I have posted pages and pages of posts, a quarter of the archives are my posts, they include many where i raise in fine a lot of questions regarding original research, reliability of sources etc.. In any case, I am on a break from this article for a while, it has health implications :))Baristarim 19:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Genocidisputitis? •NikoSilver• 20:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[(Denial of) Pontian Greek genocide]]

message: Please, do consider this as part of the section above (i thought it would not be right to modify the section). Khoikhoi was kind and helpfull enough to summarize and present all the possible titles that have been proposed so far. However, i would like to propose rename and expansion of this article into Hellenic Genocide. and these are the reasons:
:1. 'Hellenic Genocide' gives 15,500 google hits (i am using Google UK in order to avoid speculations about Google Hellas). (if i use the word 'greek' instead of 'hellenic' i get about 2,000 results, and since these words are synonyms, the 2 thousand results can be added). 'Pontian Greek Genocide' returns 1,420 results, still more than any of the titles mentioned above (even if they are counted all together).
:2. 'Pontian Greek Genocide' was (according to all those first 17,500 results) a chapter of the 'Hellenic Genocide'. so 'PGG' can become a section.
:3. 'Hellenic Genocide' also gives a total of 532 photos, for those who have asked for photos...
:4. The articles of New York Times are not talking exclusively about Pontus.
:5. About academic proof, and since the 'PGG' was part of the Hellenic Genocide (always according to those 15,500 sources), the same sources can be used, as well as sources about the 'Smyrni Catastrophe' and greek populated cities/towns/villages in the Aegean coast, Cappadocia, etc (everyone can find them on the net).
:6. The only problem is that this title lacks official recognition (at least not entirely). but, obviously this is not a problem... since in this article the recognition of Greece and 6 US states (that have an "incredible greek majority" of 1-3%!) equals no recognition for some users who consider them biased. and since in wikipedia exist 'genocide' articles with no official recognision.
:*note: if i use the term Hellenic Holocaust (or Greek) google returns 7-8 thousands more results (some of them are about the Greek Jews during WWII). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectorian (talk • contribs) 09:39, September 28, 2006
::Just as a note, a Hellenic Genocide article was deleted by afd sometime ago... --A.Garnet 09:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it sourced? or just a floated with POV stub? i am asking in renaming and expanding this one. at least it has more potential than all the other proposals. Hectorian 09:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this proposal. Should have been made earlier. It is more comprehensive and generally all sources speak about all those genocides without discrimination.•NikoSilver• 10:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, I don't like seeing the word "Hellenic" used in English (I must prefer "Greek", a term which has been used in the west for centuries), but whatever. --Tzekai 12:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I fail to see what exactly would be talked about in this article.. You mentioned Greeks of WWII, so I am a bit confused.. I mean, what timeframe are we talking about? Baristarim 13:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (To hectorian) The article was no stub, it was large and full of the usual nationalist sources. If i remember correctly the Greek nationalist editor got banned for trying to rig the afd...--A.Garnet 14:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no idea if an article Hellenic Genocide could stand in Wikipedia. but have in mind that in this case the non-greek sources would be more. My proposal (which i forgot to sign since it took some time to edit it...) was to show that if the turkish-pov is about to prevail (with one of those 'deportations', 'massacres', 'allegations' etc next to the current title), there is also a greek-pov which can be used in the other way round: instead of decreasing the singlificance of this article (event, genocide, history), there is a way to increase it by renaming and including in it all what happened in Asia Minor the first quarter of the 20th century. official recognision was never a problem for those who dispute this article, so this would not be a problem... google hits (a way wikipedia uses to name articles) favours it a lot. To Khoikhoi: when did the Holocaust begin? in the respective article i see 2 dates: Early elements of the Holocaust include the Kristallnacht pogrom of the 8th and 9th November 1938 and Starting in 1933, the Nazis set up concentration camps.... there are events that took place in both the dates u mentioned above, but not all agree which is the starting point. To Mukadderat: the word 'genocide' is not a common swear word like 'racist'. it is defined perfectly when an event can be called genocide. I agree with Tzekai about the usage of the term 'hellenic' and i also have to note (for it was mentioned somewhere in this page before) that capitalisation of the word 'Genocide' does matter! To A.Garnet: if that editor filled the article with nationalistic sources, i understand why it was deleted and why the admins blocked him. but this is not the only way to create an article, u know... To Baristarim: i meant that the term 'Greek Holocaust' returns in google uk results that are talking about the Greek Jews during WWII who were exterminated by the nazis (so, i cannot say if the majority of the results are for the Asia Minor Greeks or for the Greek Jews-two unrelated cases). lastly, a title Hellenic Genocide justifies its existance more than any of the other titles proposed so far: it has all needed, apart from official recognision (but as said, this is not a reason for some). i am not gonna create or rename and expand this article later, though. not cause i am afraid i will be blocked (i would be very careful about the sources and the language i would use:)...), but cause i prefer to have an article that has all, which is the current one under its current title. Hectorian 02:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal the [[gazillion]]-quel 

message: *(de): + de:Völkermord an den Pontosgriechen --84.164.237.173 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki

message: Since the main issue here is the article title, and WP:NAME says so, let's google it:
*  "pontian genocide" OR "hellenic genocide" OR "greek genocide -wikipedia" 23,900 hits.
*  "pontian massacre" OR "hellenic massacre" OR "greek massacre" -wikipedia 56 hits, mostly irrelevant (casualties in WWII etc). Also, note that many 'massacre' sites may naturally contain the word 'genocide', but I thought I shouldn't exclude it.
Please specify an alternative name with more hits.
It is absolutely irrelevant if the genocide happened or not. The sources say a lot of things that indicate such a thing happened, but that is beside the point. This is absolutely the most frequent term used for the events, and even Turkish sources that dispute it, they name it as such (i.e. Turkish media dispute the 'Pontian genocide'). The article is clear in illustrating the controversy, therefore the article title 'itself' does not in any case condemn past governments of Turkey (nor should it regard them as innocent).
Many articles in WP (see White supremacy, Black supremacy, UFO, Dolchstosslegende, Abduction phenomenon etc) which are proven (or mostly accepted as) fictional or biased or propagandistic, bear their article titles without any controversy or dispute or fallacy or bias illustrated in the article title. Why should a recognised, documented, cited article be the exception?
The issue now includes the Smyrna catastrophe etc. So Hectorian's proposal about Hellenic Genocide is valid. Kindly visit http://www.hellenicgenocide.org/ (Brazilian author) for more details and sources.
The Turkish side will never stop disputing this article. This is not a reason to go against WP rules (namely WP:NAME) and common sense. This is neither a reason to tag the article eternally (especially under protection). On the contrary, the Turkish side has to be pushed to include their position in the article, thus the tags have to be removed.•NikoSilver• 23:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should search first if this Brazilian author is married to a Greek (sarcasm... lots of...). Hectorian 23:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're staying up, Hector, I urge you to browse it for its numerous sources. Many that have not been included here. We probably never visited this site because we thought it was an obvious partisan source! Goodnight. •NikoSilver• 23:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will stay up for some time more... In fact, i am surprised by the number of sources, quotes and photos that this cite has. Just a first look in the index , and then all the "additional" info that has been requested is here! i think i run upon this site in the past, but never took a closer look, considering it a "partizan" one as u correctly said... But apparently, this is not at all... Goodnight. Hectorian 00:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute? 

message: Can an admin remove the german interwiki-link? The german article was deleted today... -- 62.178.231.146 11:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah of course... 11 people (only three of them turks) was for the deleting and only two people was against... and the only one who makes all the time propaganda are you, Asteraki, Kamikazi, Jamaikaner, Pontier, IP: 84.164.xx.yy... so let it be, sockpuppet! -- 62.178.231.146 10:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No german interwiki-link 

message: See you (2.3) The german article was deleted today... from Turkish ethnic nationalist. (Turkish black propaganda...!) --84.164.225.219 21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah of course... 11 people (only three of them turks) was for the deleting and only two people was against... and the only one who makes all the time propaganda are you, Asteraki, Kamikazi, Jamaikaner, Pontier, IP: 84.164.xx.yy... so let it be, sockpuppet! -- 62.178.231.146 10:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Skandal of German Wiki

message: I ask the protectors of this page to remove the tags from the article. The reasons are all over the talk page. I 've also talked with User:Mikkalai about that. Mitsos 13:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not forget `'mikka (t), that it was u who re-added the tags, without taking into accont what other 3 admins said. for me, it just seems like an admin's pov-pushing... Hectorian 17:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, colleague. This is a reversal of admin's abuse or negligience. A blocked page with an ongoing heated discussion should have triggered a red flag or two. The recent deletion of this article from German wikipedia hints that I am not exactly wrong here. I have absolutely no knowledge on the issue and not going to waste my time on research about who is right or wrong in the article, but tag removal  is an unacceptable way of dispute resolution. And personally for you, Hectorian, once more, please take a look into Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, the link I provided for your convenience, but you obviously ignored it and decided to attack me instead.  `'mikka (t) 17:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was also a proposal for the other side to take the issue in WP:RM. but apparently u chose not to see that it was proposed 3 times ! as for my comments, i am sorry if u considered them as attacks to u personally... I commented on your acts, not on u. I am not sure if u want to waste your time time on research about who is right or wrong in the article... i will wait to see what will happen when the tags will be removed again. Regards Hectorian 18:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's easy from someone who hasn't followed the dispute. I urge you, 'mikka' to just read a little bit the contents of this page. Or better, just read the short article at hand and its sources. Please. •NikoSilver• 18:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I will try to read a bit. `'mikka (t) 19:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another request... 

message: I've been keeping an eye on the discussion in the last week, and I feel there are some points I may as well leave here.
*Civility: I have, honestly, some concerns here. The whole discussion is overheated, and some editors have occasionally indulged in overt personal attacks and utter uncivility. To make an example, phrases like "a bunch of bedouins with a lot of camels and a lot of oil", or calling a fellow editor a "nasty troll", may force me to consider imposing blocks if they are repeated. Everybody is free to have his opinions, but WP:CIV and WP:NPA are there to be sure that wikipedia doesn't become a chat.
*Tags: It must be clear that the tags can't remain forever; they are only a temporary solution.
*Title (and genocide): In my opinion, solutions like Pontic Greek genocide allegations, Pontian Greek genocide thesis and Pontic Greek genocide controversy are unacceptable; these titles would be OK if it was clear that the discussion only involves genocide/not genocide question, but its quite uncertain if the article is not interested in explaining the historical facts, and I immagine this latter tendency will progressively expand itself. It is correct to say that a genocide does not to have to be universally recognized to enter in the title; but it's true that the term isn't much used in non-Greek scholarship. There is a consensus that there were large-scale massacres of Pontian Greeks, while eminent historians like Mazower seem at least prudent, from what has been quoted. And Fran is right that Rummel is an author that should be treated with caution; I also have previously noted that he tends to use the word genocide too easily, as he selects easily in his works the highest numbers. While I'm not against keeping Pontian Greek Genocide, maybe Pontian Greek massacres would help reaching a compromise, with Pontian Greek Genocide maintained as alternative title. It could be, just an example, The Pontian Greek massacres, also known with the name of Pontian Greek Genocide, are the massacres ecc.. Obviously alleged would disappear: it can be discussed if there was a genocide, but not large-scale massacres.--Aldux 16:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur completely, what I have been trying to say all along.. Baristarim 16:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think User:Awiseman's suggestion of Pontian Greek genocide (with a small 'g') might do. --Tzekai 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Mukadderat, please observe WP:AGF.--Aldux 17:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were massacres of Pontian Greeks, they should go in an article called "Pontian Greek massacres". If there are specific notable examples, e.g. similar to what happened at Smyrna, then those should have articles too.  - Francis Tyers · 17:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I have said. the discussed article does not give a single example of massacre, only an essay about an alleged genocide, so there cannot be any talk about renaming, only about deletion. Mukadderat 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever is done here will have to be done to the Assyrian Genocide article. An event with a lower death toll and less recognition. --Tzekai 17:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can be in charge of compliancy work. - Francis Tyers · 17:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  We discuss one article in one place, another article in another place. Each case is unique and must be judged by its own merits. You are free to compare. Less recognition because Assyrians keep lower profile. I know several assyriand in the United States. they basically told me (personal opinion of course) that keeping low profile was a survival strategy of a small christian people in the middle of islamic world.  Mukadderat 17:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We use the most common name in English. The latter is better sourced, as can be noted from the above Google results that show "massacres" used more than "genocide".  - Francis Tyers · 17:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Although looking at it, it appears that most of the results of "Greek massacre" appear to be Greeks doing the massacre-ing. - Francis Tyers · 17:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some considerations

message: Copied from my talk page.
Hi, what do you think of the following quotes from the text:
*In the last hundred years, four Eastern Anatolian groups—Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, and Greeks—have fallen victim to state-sponsored attempts by the Ottoman authorities or their Turkish or Iraqi successors to eradicate them. Because of space limitations, I have concentrated here on the genocidal sequence affecting Armenians and Kurds only, though my approach would also be pertinent to the Pontic Greek and Assyrian cases.
*By ridding themselves of the Armenians, Greeks, or any other group that stood in their way, Turkish nationalists were attempting to prove how they could clarify, purify, and ultimately unify a polity and society so that it could succeed on its own, albeit Western-orientated terms. This, of course, was the ultimate paradox: the CUP committed genocide in order to transform the residual empire into a streamlined, homogeneous nation-state on the European model.
Now I can't access that PDF easily now (it's a large file and I'm on a 44 kbit/sec connection at the moment), so if you want to say something to me, you'll have to quote it. I got the extracts above from the article's talkpage. --Tzekai 17:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (copied from above) I got the paper. I'm reading it now, and he specifically deals with the Kurds. What is interesting to note is that while he uses the term "Armenian genocide" over 4-5 times, he never once mentions the term "Greek genocide". He is also very careful in referring to "series of massacres". He even notes that, "Unlike the Armenian case, in each of these other instances the scope, scale and intensity of the killings was limited, though this does not rule out comparison." — he also points out that, "Historians, perhaps concerned not to magnify these events by comparison with those of 1915-16, tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them". - Francis Tyers · 16:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Those quotes are interesting, but it is necessary to properly read them. "... I have concentrated here on the [genocidal sequence affecting Armenians and Kurds only], though my approach would be pertinent to the Pontic Greek and Assyrian cases." - Francis Tyers · 17:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "The CUP committed genocide (on who?) in order ..." — this quote does not state that the actions and events which befell the Greeks were genocide, it just notes that the CUP committed genocide on one or more of the groups. - Francis Tyers · 17:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It is also important to note that this is the research paper of one scholar. While it is a good paper, it is  by no means authoritative. Besides, he doesn't once mention the "Greek genocide". - Francis Tyers · 17:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Levene

message: I am glad that at last some serious people came to this article who are not Turks or Greeks. Now I will go away. If you look into my contributions, you will see that usually I don't take part in politically heated articles, with the exception of this one. 
I apologize before Tzekai for calling him troll. I didn't pay attention that in his repetitions he required third-party sources. My excuse is that because he did it repeatedly I didn't read carefully to the end of his phrase. I guess this is the problem of all political discussions: you don't listen your opponent carefully; you think you know what he is going to say and you already don't like it and don't want to see it. Mukadderat 17:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Retiring from topic

message: Is there any one that can translate the writings on the picture? 
 
Have found the picture |here and as translation i quote: 
"To the Commander of the Central Corps.
I call your attention to the following:Death to the Hellenes who lack honour. As soon as you are given the first sign, immediately destroy all. As for whatever regarding the women, don't hesitate. Don't consider neither honour nor friendship when comes the moment of revenge.
The commander of the corps
Mehmet Azit."
  Aristovoul0s 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who made the translation? Could we get that confirmed? - Francis Tyers · 10:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks - Francis Tyers · 10:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I didn't know. The picture is from http://www.hellenicgenocide.org , which deals with both events. I think the article should be exanded to contain those two very chronologically close events. After all, there is a whole third-party site that backs all this up, plus the links in google are in tens of thousands for the term hellenic genocide... We'll have to readd it when we sort this out.•NikoSilver• 10:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hardly think that this site is a reliable source. Can you not find any good sources on this? Like the one I found? You know, books, journal articles etc. Not just self-published stuff on the INTERNET! - Francis Tyers · 11:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy of an Order

message: Suggested introduction to the main article (by a non-expert) to clarify its status:
*Note: the use of the term ‘genocide’ in this article refers to the Greek definition for the fate of Hellenism in the Pontic region. Between 1916 and 1923, the near entire population of Pontians disappeared from their historical homeland in (today’s) north eastern Turkey. The ultimate result was that a 2,500 year old Pontic Greek presence came to a sudden end. The Greek state commemorates that event as the ‘genocide of the Pontic Greeks’. Though no one doubts the presence of that population and its subsequent ‘disappearance’, its fate has not been recognised by the international community as a ‘genocide’ and the term is rejected in Turkey itself. 
*ps, the poster picture of the Armenians seems out of place in this article and seems to accuse by association.Politis 12:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested introduction

message: *Turkey (muahahahaha)
*Mazower (these deportations were on a relatively small scale and do not appear to have been designed to end in their victims' deaths.)
*Midlarsky (Under these conditions, genocide of the Ottoman Greeks was simply not a viable option) Book review: 
*Valentino ("the Turks did not seek to exterminate the Greeks, as the previous regime had done to the Armenians") [p. 296 -- Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century]
*Levene "Unlike the Armenian case, in each of these other instances the scope, scale and intensity of the killings was limited, though this does not rule out comparison." — "... I have concentrated here on the [genocidal sequence affecting Armenians and Kurds only], though my approach would be pertinent to the Pontic Greek and Assyrian cases." — "Historians ... tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them."
*Reid "Some of the most striking instances of slaughter included the massacres of the Greek Revolution"
*Add yours
•NikoSilver• 12:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not genocide

message: Interested parties might like to read: "Tito’s Slaughterhouse: A Critical Analysis of Rummel’s Work on Democide TOMISLAV DULIĆ Uppsala Programme for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Uppsala University" - Francis Tyers · 14:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a general discredit of Rummel, or does it focus on Tito? To put it otherwise: Do you have a source that directly discredits Rummel for either his entire work or for the Pontian case? (I don't have access.)•NikoSilver• 15:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Focuses on Yugoslavia, but generally discredits his methodology. - Francis Tyers · 15:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discredits his methodology in the eyes of whom and where are the sources to back this up, especially that it has anything to do with his view on the Pontus events?--Tekleni 15:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rummel

message: What does this quote have to do with anything? He says they probably weren't designed to be killed like that and then. He doesn't say they weren't actually killed. He doesn't say there weren't other methods too! Please remove it. •NikoSilver• 16:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he is relevant, he makes a point about the deporations and that is that. --A.Garnet 17:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure he's relevant for the article and says about the deportation and that is that. He doesn't claim no-genocide though...•NikoSilver• 17:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am baffled guys, what is the quote? If it is the article 'g-word', he does not seem to tackle the Greek issue in a quote worthy manner one way or the other. Politis 17:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mazower

message: * Example search
Does anybody have access? •NikoSilver• 00:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The New York Times

message: The title of the book is "From Empire to Rebublic - Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide", by Taner Akcam
-  Although mainly about the Armenian Genocide it touches on the Turkish plans of eliminating the Greeks of Anatolia by various methods and means in pages 146 to 149. In pages 239 and 240, he refers to Kemal's association with and promotion/reward of Topal Osman to higher level posts ( this one is for one of the Talk/Discussion participants that has doubts about this). He also refers to Kemal's use in the war of idependence, and promotion of various individuals who were sought/arrested/accused for been involved in the Armenian Genocide. - Rizos01 03:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Relevant Book by a Turkish Author

message: The following papers would make an interesting read if anyone could get access to them:
* EFFIE VOUTIRA Pontic Greeks Today: Migrants or Refugees? Journal of Refugee Studies. 1991; 4: 400-420
* JAMES J. REID ‘Genocide in the 20th Century’ THE CONCEPT OF WAR AND GENOCIDAL IMPULSES IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, 1821–1918 in Holocaust and Genocide Studies 1989 4(2):175-191
*PATRICIA FANN  The Pontic Myth of Homeland: Cultural Expressions of Nationalism and Ethnicism in Pontos and Greece, 1870–1990 Journal of Refugee Studies 1991 4(4):340-356
:I downloaded two of them (Reid and Fann). They are both irrelevant, mostly dealng with Pontic Greeks within modern Greece. The other (Voutira) is a Greek name (=Buttery). If you feel she's still a third opinion, I can find details, but the title sounds more like falling in the first category too.•NikoSilver• 14:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it not give any historical background? Could you paste the parts that cover the history? Or somehow otherwise allow me to view them? - Francis Tyers · 15:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for location

message: Must be explained why this date was picked. The page May 19#Events lists nothing special besides "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk moves to Samsun from Istanbul with a few followers". If there was nothing special indeed, then the choice is a clear insult. Mukadderat 19:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there is some intention (unintentionally - by assuming great good faith) to equate the Turkish War of Independence and the turkish republican revolution with this, as if the only thing that Turks did was just hunt down Greeks, rather than create a Republic, overthrow the sultan, abolish the caliphate, abolish Islamic Law and create a new country.. Baristarim 20:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't be that bad. May 19 was also Pontus Genocide Remembrance Day in New York and Illinois.--Tekleni 21:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's none of our business why the Pontian lobby in Athens selected that date. The article currently says that some Turkish politicians consider it a provocation (which is likely true). All we need to add is why the think that (you don't need an academic source for that, a simple news website would be sufficient). It's not really relevant, but it is interesting trivia.--Tekleni 21:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is one of our businesses to report relevant facts. If someone seen a Greek explanation why Greeks selected it, then this explanation is directly relevant to this article. There must be some rationale under the choice. Even if Greeks did want to be nasty,  I'd rather believe in some coincidence of events played by Greeks upon, rather than pure choice of Turkish date, for revenge alone. Mukadderat 22:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what i know, 19th May was chosen cause it was the beginning of the end for the Pontian Greeks in Pontus, or, if u prefer, the final stage of their extermination. With Kemal landing in Pontus, whose Greeks had enjoyed a brief time of no-persecution after the Ottoman defeat in WWI, this was a dead-end. that's why this date was chosen... If the Turks consider it as an "insult", to have the Genocide remebrance date on that date, how about the Pontian Greeks who see the Turks celebrating on that date? Do not think oneway, please... Hectorian 23:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly, even though I agree with your comment about not thinking oneway, and I can see the logic behind, it really seems to be an affront to Turks to say that the day they consider as the beginning of their republican revolution and war of independence was the starting point for a genocide.. I mean, at least the Armeanians have picked a date when many Armenian notables were hanged in Istanbul as the commeration date, I am sure Ponti could have chosen another more consistent date; such as the date of one of the first massacres, killing of a prominent Pontus Greek etc.. That's why i said that I feel a whiff of direct affront to Turks.. Baristarim 23:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to find some sources, but since they consider this date to be the most important, i can't see why they shouldn't pick it up? The same way, i could ask why the Turks chose that date as national day? couldn't they had picked October 16 (Sivas Congress) or the date of a military victory? Thangs are simple: each side had to pick that date for different reasons. Hectorian 00:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: But that's also a confusion of events: the genocide is supposed to have been perpetrated by the Young Turk administration of the OE, and 19th May is the day when the republican movement has started. I mean, I fail to see why some people would consider Ataturk's landing as the beginning of the gen, since the original thesis supposes that it was done by the YT admin of OE.. I mean, 19th May is the day when Ataturk made a clean break with the sultanate and started a republican movement, I fail to see the connection between these two, on one hand he makes a clean break with the sultanate and at the same time that day is responsible for the beginning of a genocide purpatrated by the Empire??? I really do sense an animosity against Ataturk beneath all this, even though, contrary to what is thought in the ex-provinces of the OE, he really had a huge animosity against the empire and the sultanate above anything else..
Hectorian, u r still dodging the issue as to the real reasons why this was chosen. Seriously, I have a question: all of the diplomats' accounts date to the WW I, and even go back to 1907, so how the hell is the 19th May, 1919 considered the commeration day for the genocide???. I mean, in that case maybe we should remove all of the diplomats' accounts?? That would be logical since ALL of them refer to the period before 1919.. I have said this before, I will say it again, the validity of the genocide question not-withstanding, there is seriously an animosity against Ataturk and Turkey beneath all this - and most of the animosity against Ataturk comes from the 19-23 war and consequent linguistic unification and assimilation of the new republic.. And some people let out their anger via the genocide issue by smearing it with this.. I can understand the logic in the sense that the start of the Turkish War of Independence was one of the turning points along the road to wiping out of Greek influence on Anatolia, but I cannot agree that it is for the reasons u mentioned, what we are talking about is the genocide and not just the end of hellenic influence.. You see the difference? I still fail to see how it is related to former and not the latter.. If it is only related to the latter, what does pontic greek gen refer to exactly?? genocide proper, or end of any hellenic presence in turkey? They are not the same thing u know.. In any case, let's drop this, we have other issues to settle :)) Baristarim 03:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am willing to drop this if u are too... If u consider Ataturk the best politician above all, this is just your own pov... For the Greeks (and especially for the Pontic Greeks) Ataturk is the equivelent of Hitler in the region, and whatever u may say, or no matter how much u may praise him, he will always be! I really cannot unterstand u people!!! u look at attaturk as if he was Mohamend, or the Christian equivelent, Jesus!!! well, start thinking of this: Ataturk was a mass murderer... we did ethnic cleansing in Anatolia, he was a nationalist racist Pan-turkist and nothing more...! He killed hundrend of thousand of Greeks, Armenians etc... and his succesors in the modern turkish deep state keep doing the same... (if u are gonna ask me how, i an ready to inform u about 10s of "laws" and persecution aiming the minorities... and give u thousands of links about his racism!). Do dare ask me, if u feel that the modern kemalist turkish state has no skeleton in her closet! Lastly, if i get a message in my talk page that blaming ataturk is "a personal attack" (huh?!), or anti-tuskism, i will immediately revert it, and i will tell to an admin that i am being under "harrashment"! (i had templates and posted many messanges against Bush, and no American ever though of imposing censoship on me! i will never tolerate it for the Turks, the Russians, the (?) or whoever!). Lastly, Baristarim, think about that: he did not even make peace on his own country! how can he been considered of wanting "peace in the world"? Hectorian 03:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 19 May

message: Based on the book "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark" published by Headline 1996. 
1- The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments: 
*1 Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts 
*2 Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. 
*3 Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities"). 
*4 Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy. 
*5 Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. 
*6 Quantify, wherever possible. 
*7 If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work. 
*8 "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler. 
*9 Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result? 
2- additional issues are 
*1 Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects. 
*2 Check for confounding factors - separate the variables. 
3- Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric 
*1 Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument. 
*2 Argument from "authority". 
*3 Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision). 
*4 Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). 
*5 Special pleading (typically referring to god's will). 
*6 Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased). 
*7 Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses). 
*8 Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes). 
*9 Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!) 
*10 Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved"). 
*11 Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down. 
*12 Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect. 
*13 Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?). 
*14 Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is). 
*15 Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?"). 
*16 Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile). 
*17 Confusion of correlation and causation. 
*18 Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.. 
*19 Suppressed evidence or half-truths. 
*20 Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public" 
As such, my responses taking into account the scientific method presented above:
*1-1: No confirmation of events as genocide by outside and impartial sources.. Accounts of the diplomats (six-seven total) are hearsay and in no way, do they affirm the genocidal character of events, they simply affirm that there were massacres, and still, none of them are detailed observations, they are a few sentences ex turks are killing greeks
*1-2: Lacking
*1-3: Recognitions (turkey's, greece's, Us states, NGOs) mean jack shit - They can only be used to preove the thesis Greece has recognized the events as a genocide and not the thesis the events were a genocide - A + B doesn't mean C.
*1-4: These events dont neccessarily have to be genocide, there are many words that can describe what happened, with different degrees of meanings.. See diff between genocide/massacre/ethnic cleansing/deportation/war
*1-5: A note to all my Greek friends
*1-6: Six hearsay accounts, couple of uncorroborated eye-witness stories cannot prove the extent of the allegations put forth - ie - death of 350000.
*1-7: This is the most important: To prove a genocide, and link it to the Ottoman and Young Turk administrations (and eventually the Turkish army, there has to be proof that proves the link between the events and the administration, this is not the same as saying the genocide did/didn't take place - this is to prove who did the genocide, if there was one. Until now, there has been no proof that has been shown that proves such a link..
*1-8: There are other hypothesis that about the nature of these events, and they could be easily classified as the aftermath and side-effects of the World War as ethnic strife, since there is still NO PROOF that Ottoman Empire initiated the war and the following armed conflict with the aim of exterminating Pontus Greeks, there were many other events that had much more importance: Battle of Gallipoli can easily show that..
*1-9: The same analysis can be applied to nearly all the events of human history: ethnic tensions caused by a greater war, if we applied the arguments behind the genocide thesis, nearly all the wars of the last 1500 years can be proven to be genocide.
*2-1: We definitely need the continued involvement of non-Greeks and non-Turks
*2-2: People who are taking a look at the article should seperate the variables mentioned: Turkish War of Independence, population exchange, Pontic Greeks in the USSR, report of Horton about the good treatment of Turks in Greece at the same time, invasion of Constantinople by Allies - since none of them are about the genocide itself, and just distract the reader from the matter at hand..
*3-1: pan-turkist fascist, kemalist pig, nasty troll, greek megali idealist, genocide-denialist just to name a few of the implications that have been made recently
*3-2: Again, recognitions are out, big time
*3-3: Threat of labelling everyone who asks to prove the genocide thesis as a genocide-denialist or Turk-hater for vice versa.
*3-4: This is also important: There were so many Greeks, where did they go?? is not a valid argument, we are talking about hundred years ago, there were census figures that were reliable enough, but we also have to take into account other reasons: extremely high levels of diseases common to a century ago, compounded by war conditions (World War I), assimilations, eventual deportations to other countries without reliable census figures.. The number in question needs to be established using the scientific method, which, to this day, is still lacking.. Please see 1-8 above about the nature of conflicting theses.
*3-5: Not relevant in this case
*3-6: Again, similar to 3-4: there seems to be X numbers of Y missing, they must have been wiped out because of a genocide is also not a valid argument.
*3-7: Not enough attention paid to the number of remaining Greeks: a million Greeks were transferred per population exchange agreements, 300000 Greeks were still living in Istanbul as of 1923, the date by which the Genocide is supposed to have ended per genocide thesis supporters. Many Pontus Greeks became assimilated into the Turkish population through the policies of unification and turkification of the new Republic, most of the presumed-missing 350000 might have been too simply assimilated over the course of 90 years.. Again see the lack of reliable census figures argument mentioned above.. This goes to the heart of the argument about the will of the ottoman administration to wipe out the Greeks, at least for the Armenian Genocide, there is proof that many prominent Armenians were hanged in the heart of the capital, where as no such evidence exists in this case.. 
*3-8: This goes to heart of the quality of sources mentioned in the article: Hearsay accounts from six-seven diplomats and couple of eye-witness accounts are used to prove the thesis that 350000 people died, this is not acceptable in a scientific, and therefore academic, debate.
*3-9: Again, similar to 3-7..
*3-10: Inclusion of sources that don't have a relation with the subject matter and thesis proposed: Labor batallions; the account of a Jew in the labor batallions, during the First and Second W War, has no relation to this whatsoever. His account is the account of a pseudo soldier/worker during the War. Claim that non-Muslims were bundled together to prove the ill-intent of the Ottoman authorities w/o taking into account the millet system of the OE and similar policies of other European countries (Algerian Arab regiments of France that were fighting the Germans, African regiments of many countries, UK, France etc during the same time). Similarly any comparison with other events, Armenian Genocide, Holocaust etc are not relevant. This only distracts the reader from the matter at hand and resorts to a psychological Democles sword, see  3-3: u recognize Holocaust as a genocide, and this is similar, should we deduce from your doubts about this that u r a filthy Holocaust-denying Nazi??
*3-11: General logical inconsistencies mentioned above
*3-12: Turks were killing Armenians, who are christians, so they must have been killing other christians as well, such as Greeks; Turks bundled non-Muslims together, therefore they must have wanted to kill all of them through a genocide(see 3-10); Turkish Republic was proclaimed as a nation state (similar to every single country in Europe), therefore they must not have wanted other ethnic groups, and as such they must have wanted to kill all of them; TR pursued a policy of linguistic unity (similar to Italy and France that have resulted in the wiping out of all regional languages of all these countries), therefore they must have hated other ethnicities, and as such they must have have wanted to kill all of them.
*3-13: Not very relevant in this case
*3-14: Genocide or pure ethnic paradise: there could be a middle way you know..
*3-15: A similar tendency among quite a few editors: Why should we consider that this was not a genocide since Turks also butchered Armenians and have fought with the Greeks for centuries??
*3-16: A subset, but an important one: Turks have butchered the Armenians, therefore they are barbarians by nature, so they must have also committed a genocide against the Greeks, Assyrians, Bahai, Arabs, Kurds, Chinese, Laz, Turks (?!)..
*3-17: Extreme confusion of events implied by certain sources to make the reader think Turkish army was fighting the Greek army in the heartland of Anatolia, therefore they must have wanted to exterminate all the Greeks in Pontus just to get back at them
*3-18: Again, a common tendency certainly present in the mind of certain editors, similar to 3-15, 3-16.. those damn genocide-denying Armenian, Greek, Assyrian, Kurdish, Arab-butchering pan-turkist fascists are at it again: they have massacred all the world, and now they are denying this one too
*3-19: Similar to any argument raised above about not considering other probable hypotheses about the nature of events..
*3-20: A lot of weasel words (phrases) thrown out to influence the reader, intentionally or unintentionally,  such as: "According to the International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples it was a genocide"; "one of the most inspiring and beautiful chapters in all that country’s history" - comparing the fate of Turks in Greece with that of the Pontic Greeks etc..
The article has gotten much better especially with the addition of some new sources and some nicer prose, but the title still pushes the reader to consider the events as genocide first, and discuss later.. I haven't taken a very close look at the new additions to the article, but I still think that the title needs to be changed and section(s) added discussing its recognition as genocide and a sentence in the intro saying some/most/many/few historians agree/think that if the events were to happen today, they would be considered a genocide.. Regards Baristarim 23:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too long, didn't read all of it. What you should note is that no one rules out changing the title. The question is to what should it be changed? If it's something hypocritically weasely, e.g. Pontian deportations, then no way, amigo. In my case, you can see the ones I don't oppose in the straw poll above. BTW the people setting up straw men around here are the people who keep repeating genocide has no academic backing, genocide has no academic backing, repeating it again and again, hoping that it will change reality or at least make people think doesn't.--Tekleni 08:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As for the reported death toll, it is quoted from independent academic sources, and the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (see WP:V).--Tekleni 08:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pontian expulsion will never be accepted. Ethnic cleansing of Pontos (1900 - 1923) or Massacres of Greeks in Pontos (1900 - 1923) or Mass killings and expulsion of Greeks from Pontos (1900 - 1923) are reasonable alternatives . - Francis Tyers · 09:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A scientific and academic take on the issue

message: The following paragraph was removed from the article by Aldux (minor formatting by me):
:Pontic Greeks in the then Soviet Union also suffered purges and heavy casualties under Stalin, they were forced to change their Greek surnames and were scattered across the country. Many were deported to Siberia.Ascherson, Neal, "Black Sea" page 188 Initial findings on their fate suggest much higher losses of life than previously thought.Pontic Greeks under Stalin (in Greek) In 1942, for example, thousands were deported to Kazakhstan (where, according to the 1999 Kazakh census, there were still 12,703 Greeks). Japan External Trade Organization: Institute of Developing Economies: Ethnodemographic situation in Kazakhstan Many of the survivors, their children and grandchildren eventually found refuge in Greece after 1990.
I am not sure it should be inside the article, but it seems that the article is called 'Pontic Greek Genocide'. It is not called 'Pontic Greek Genocide by the Turks exclusively', nor is it called 'Genocide of Greeks in the Pontos area exclusively'. Should we include it back, maybe not in the intro, but somewhere? I mean, it speaks about symptoms of genocide (or general suffering) for these people, just in another place and by someone else. It also 'completes' the story for some of them. •NikoSilver• 23:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? It actually does say that PGG  is a controversial term used to refer to the massacres and other sufferings during the expulsions and deportations by the Young Turk administration of the Ottoman Empire of Pontian Greek populations in the historical region of Pontus Seriously, can't u see the logical inconsistency?? Please man.. Baristarim 00:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? I suppose we should also remove that the rest were deported to Greece, because Greece is outside the Yung Turk administration too huh? All I can see is an obsessed inflamatory response in every single trivial or non trivial issue! •NikoSilver• 00:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Edit conflict - So one of them needs to be out, either the intro statement or the info about USSR Ponti. No there is no such inflammatory response Nikos, please keep calm and civil; you made a claim that this article was not exclusively about Greeks killed by Turks, or Greeks killed in Pontus, and I showed you, by using the intro statement that it was in fact so.. I don't see why u r getting so worked up about this - I have the impression that the only way u might not have been offended is if I pretended that your claim above was true while it is in fact not, the intro refutes that.. Please be calm, why all the rhetoric? I mean, what should have I said then? - Don't I have a right to verify a claim that has been proposed to all the contributors to this article and try to see if it has logical consistency? Baristarim 00:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: They weren't killed in Greece either, but we still mention they went there. It's just a paragraph for a small percentage of them who fled elsewhere. Please shorten your responses (this is a general goodwill comment). I'll check about the Native Americans tomorrow. •NikoSilver• 01:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is: what does "Pontic Greeks" mean referring to the USSR? From the text, one understands that all Greeks in the USSR are "Pontic", and the use of the numbers strengthens this idea: which is quite confusing, as I don't think Odessa can be called the Pontus, and it's hard to treat it in the same article, since the events described mainly took place in the 1940s. A very nice article could be written on the fate of the Greeks in the USSR, but this should be done in a brand new article, not here.--Aldux 11:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Then the only thing we will have to add to this article is a sentence pointing to that other article. Like, Many were deported to the USSR, where they joined the fate of Greeks in the USSR... •NikoSilver• 14:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviets 

message: I have raised the issue of innacuracy in the sources in this section before. Elias Venesiz is a Greek from Asia Minor, not a Pontian from Pontus. Leyla Neyzi uses the example of a Jew sent to a Labour battalion in the Greco-Turkish war. So nowhere in this article, are we yet to see a source actually referring to what happened to Pontians. I would suggest Both these sources be removed. --A.Garnet 15:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is AIHGS also unreliable for you?--Tekleni 20:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Background' 

message: Or alternatively you could suggest like i would do the change of the title to Hellenic Genocide so that all the regions are included. Do you honestly support that Pontians as well as all other Greeks were asked to leave their homes nicely and they complied? I think it is evident that Turks had to use a considerable amount of force; and an extermination effort to force people out. Is it a coincidence that so many authors state unprecedented violence,  massacres and looting at the same period. Pictures, articles, books and 3 ethnic peoples point out Genocide against them respectively for the same era. Aristovoul0s 15:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So i take it, you agree that the current sources are out of place in this article? As for you suggestion: 1)Hellenic Genocide was deleted by afd some time ago. 2)Not even Greece recognises a Hellenic genocide. 3) Much like this article, it is backed by no impartial academic research. --A.Garnet 15:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That is original research, your trying to prove your own argument. Your saying x number of people die therefore = genocide. What you should be doing is finding an academic source so you can say according to x, y number of deaths constitutes a genocide. --A.Garnet 12:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: lol - exactly! --A.Garnet 13:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: why are you laughing? which academic source states that a specific number of people must die for it to be a genocide? Aristovoul0s 17:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats one of the points I raised in the RfC in the first archive.. I for one dont dispute that the number has nothing to with the genocide, thank you for agreeing with me.. Some people said that i recognize this as genocide coz there were so many people killed, that was my response to them.. Genocide is an allegation that needs to be proven by sources, because it is an accusation. Massacre on the other hand is descriptive word, from a linguistics POV.. What I was trying to say was: X numbers of Y are missing, so therefore they must have been wiped out by a gen is not a valid argument..Baristarim 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am still waiting to see proof on who committed this genocide... As I had said before, there has to be a link to the perpetrators.. Germans didnt kill the jews, Nazis did, the fact that nazis were primarily german is not relevant.. Where did the orders come from and where are the proofs? Did it come from the top, the sultan, YG admin, regional military commanders, vigilante gangs, bandits, who? Even the pro-genocide sources cited dont contain this vital info, all we have is a letter written by a non-existant Turkish lieutenant in Smyrna, coming from hellenicgenocide.com. Baristarim 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't read the arabic script, but i am sure the translation is not wrong , , and do not forget what i had mentioned about Topal Ozman... Have u found anything about it yet, Baris? Hectorian 03:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For topal osman, no.. There arent many sources out there.. However, my question was not about the script being correct or not.. This guy didn't even exist, so what makes u so sure that it is not a forgery? I didn't doubt the translation, but a letter sent to a non-existent officer in Smyrna should raise couple of red flags.. In any case, still dodging the issue: who ordered this? This is extremely relevant since in the intro it says YG admin of OE.. I would like to point out that this is not the same thing as the genocide/non-genocide issue, blame should be appropriated to the correct people, groups, commanders etc.. I still see no proof on who ordered this.. going back to Topal, u see, that's exactly what I am saying, the existence of a vigilante bandit group who werent even soldiers doesnt back up the claim that this was organized by the Ottoman admin.. Baristarim 04:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one thing, what Ataturk told him or what monument was build is not relevant either.. We are talking about the genocide proper and who ordered it.. I am sure u wil agree from a logical POV that, even if Ataturk told him how great a job he did, it is one thing to say Kill the Greeks Topal before the events, and it is definitely different to say I see that u did good Topal, congratulations after the events.. That's all i am saying Baristarim 04:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but the one does not exclude the other, right? anyway, i doubt if Ozman was just a bandit with no connections with kemal and/or his followers. are u asking about a paper signed by kemal ordering the extermination of the greeks? do i have to remind u that during the Nuremberg trial there was never presented a paper with Hitlers signature to exterminate the Jews? labour battalions could only had taken place under orders from the top. White Death as well. Hectorian 08:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I create a special article labour battalion, to demonstrate that labour battalions were widespread in the world and they had nothing to do with genoicide: their purpose in many case was forced labour. Masive deaths during massive migrations is also nothing newe in hostory: a limilar fate was for Muslim that fled from Caucasus, see "Muhajir (Caucasus)" article I wrote, and I did not call the article Circassian Genocide, as other people do: . May be I will do this, after all. Wikipedians seem to be obssessed with doing historical accusations and axe-grinding. Mukadderat 17:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Labour battalions and forced deportations are means of genocide, not always, but sometimes. If their purpose in Turkey were forced labour, they would also include muslims, not only Greeks and Armenians. Trying to reduce the importance of virtually everything (labour battalions, deportations, "white death", massacres, etc) by saying they were widespread and a normal thing to be done, doesn't help, u know... Hectorian 20:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ding ding ding: logical fallacy detected: Labour battalions and forced deportations are means of genocide. You have to cite a secondary source that has analyzed this and thus claimed that it was a means for genocide against the PG, info that there were labor batallions in itself can only be used to prove the thesis labor batallions existed and not labor batallions were a means for genocide.. Baristarim 21:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You never change your tune, do you?--Tekleni 21:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ? Really? well, if trying to keep a logical consistency and pointing out deliberate logical inconsistencies is something to be ashamed of, then let it be.. Please try to get involved academically, instead of engaging in sniping, you dont think so Tekleni? Baristarim 21:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reality check

message: The photo came from a dubious site, has no author, nor timeframe, no description of circumstances, in other words, non-verifiable. Not to say that Kerasond was a town, not a village. According to wikipedia:Verifiability, the photo is deleted. Mukadderat 20:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either that, or you have just commited vandalism and POV pushing by way of blanking. I'm not going to guess which one it is...--Tekleni 20:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I will not try to guess what your purpose is: to write a neutral article or to have fun provoking people. Mukadderat 00:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not make personal attacks on other contributors. Consider this a warning. —Khoikhoi 08:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, thje website mentioned does not have neither author not circumstances when it was taken. It does have a caption, but there is no reason to believe that this highly biased website will stick to truth: for example, once again, Kerasond (Giresun) is a town, so how did villagers appear there? Please provide a book or newspaper reference, and we shall talk. Such serious accusations must be 100% fool proof.  Mukadderat 17:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're arguing against this because it says villagers and it's really a town? Those are basically synonyms. Would you be ok with it if it said "townspeople" instead of "villagers"? --Awiseman 16:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Hellenic villagers from Kerasond"

message: Does anyone know where we can view this memorandum? I would like to see what he says. --A.Garnet 12:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you perhaps quote me the parts dealing with labour battalions and white death? Also is he referring to the Pontians or Asia Minor Greeks? Thanks, --A.Garnet 15:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't hold your breath Rizo, just go ahead and list those too. •NikoSilver• 12:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, from what i see he provides evidence of labour battalions, and white death. But he doesnt claim either were used in systematic elimination of the Greek community, or as a genocide, as this article claims. This is original research, using A+B and making C. --A.Garnet 12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign Office Memorandum by Mr. G.W. Rendel 

message: I fail to see how the picture of NY Times entry on Armenians is relevant.. If it mentioned at all the Greeks or Pontic Greeks, then I could understand. In this case it only says christian population of Trebizond (Greeks? Armenians? Georgians? Russians? Assyrians?) way at the bottom of the headline... This could definitely be relevant in AG article, but here it only leads to a confusion of events.. I am sure that for an event of this magnitude there must have been seperate newspaper entries in the west. So please find one or i will remove this one.. (the claim all the christians were considered the same back then is not valid: the headline makes a clear reference to armenians, and not just christians, it could have done the same for Greeks.. Ergo there needs to be a specific picture of a NP entry about the Pontic Greeks)
:In fact, the photo from NY Times says Entire christian population of Trebizond. Having my mind that the vast majority of the Christians of Trabzon that time were Greeks, it is perfectly relevant. Hectorian 08:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would be tweaking the corners.. NY Times is not a tabloid, they could have easily used the word 'Greek'.. Again, see above.. Bring the sources that say that the vast majority of the Christians of Trabzon that time were Greeks.. In any case, that bit about the Armenians is irrelevant, see what I wrote in the section a scientific and academic take on the issue, I will photoshop that picture so that only relevant pieces will remain, ie where it is mentioned the entire christian pop of Tbd - even then, somebody will have to bring in a source that proves that entire christian pop of tbd=a vast majority of Pontic Greeks Baristarim 19:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly, NY Times is not a tabloid, that's why it was granted the Pulitzer price for its work that exact historic period. Have a look at its other articles . so, for such arguments, i can also add the January 1 1918, talking about as many as 1 million Greeks killed in Anatolia, Pontus included. and as such, i we can also expand it. Mukadderat, seriously, u think that by deleting or removing photos we are making a constructive job here? Hectorian 19:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still dodging the question my friend :))): How are the armenians relevant? The entry clearly talks about the armenians, trebizond people are mentioned way at the bottom.. Exactly, NY Times is not a tabloid, it could have mentioned the Greeks and it chose not to do so.. Please get a relevant picture - i will edit it so that only christian people of trebizond remain, I can't see a reason why u would see that as a problem.. Still deliberate confusion: Pulitzer prize - that's not relevant with the picture being relevant, the parts that mention the armenians will be taken out..As for Greeks killed in Anatolia, the title is PGG.. There has to be clear reference to Pontus, in that case instead of Anatolia, we can use the words the world, the galaxy, the universe - since, by definition, they all cover the Pontus region :)).. Baristarim 20:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. We must minimize publicity of Ottoman atrocities against Armenians at all costs!!!--Tekleni 21:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't go down that road.. i would like to remind that the title is PGG.. There are already articles that deal with the armenian genocide.. Such deliberate confusion and use of democles' swords is not respectful, nor are they academic.. People should not engage in such unacademic and blatantly disrespectful insults if they want to contribute positively. I wanted to ask how come the only picture in the article mentions only the armenians in its headline.. Baristarim 21:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Baris, (some pictures for you) you were presented with multiple sources stating repeated killings, death marches and starvations of primarily a religious group (christians) subdivided into three ethnic groups namely armenians syrians and greeks. The definition of genocide (yes i agree) does not state that numbers make a difference (being genocide or not), rather what makes a difference is if an ethnic group or religious group (no matter its numbers) has been a. killed    and/or suffered serious bodily mental harm , and/or  inflicted its conditions of life 12 in an attempt to bring its destruction in whole or in part. "The Armenians are not the only subject people in Turkey which have suffered from this policy of making Turkey exclusively the country of the Turks. (intent)The story which I have told about the Armenians (genocide) I could also tell with certain modifications (fewer numbers) about the Greeks and the Syrians. Indeed the Greeks were the first victims of this nationalizing idea." Ambassador Morgenthau's Story CHAPTER XXIV Henry Morgenthau - 1918Aristovoul0s 22:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the Georgians and Bulgarians who were also Christians? How about the Jews? I mean, kinda funny really, Turks, a Muslim nation, supposedly tried to wipe out non-muslims, but didnt touch the Jews?? Really interesting.. I never heard of Georgians, Bulgarians or Russians getting killed either.. Therefore, the issue at hand is not religious but ethnic, religion was a secondary consideration.. In the case of Armenians, even the most fervent supporters of Armenian Genocide agree with this.. ergo, in this case, Armenians are not relevant, the title is pontic Greek gen, you cannot just bundle everything as u wish in this case, for u to do that, u can try renaming the article Christian Genocide by the OE.. On the other hand, u r still missing the crucial issue.. You have to bring in sources that say Pontic Greeks were victims of a genocide and labor batallions and death marches were used as a means for genocide from outside sources.. The proof that there existed labor batallions can only prove that.. I had read your post before, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, well 'nuff said.. This is not Canterbury Tales, u know (for those of u who read that book).. :)) Please try to avoid mentioning the Arm Gen every single time to give the title more credibility.. This is called credibility-jacking :)) Baristarim 19:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The credibility-jacking is pretty sickening. It's almost as if everyone "wants their own genocide". Of course, I can't decide if it is more or less sickening than the continual Turkish government denial of the Arm Gen. - Francis Tyers · 07:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Guys, this edit war over the caption at the pic is LAME! It is a crappy low-fi picture and you're making a huge fuss over it... I mean, come on guys!!! And yes the "Dead inhabitants of Giresun" is the most accurate thing to say. After all, why try to make a point with this picture when there are many text sources of better quality?? I mean look at the picture, it looks like Neil Armstrong's suvenir from the Apollo 11 mission... --Michalis Famelis (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture has to be verifiable Famelis, it could be a picture of dead people from anywhere, and not necessarily Pontians. We need sources for where this picture came from. If i remember a previous picture that was included was a well known one which Armenians used, so they have to be verified that they are indeed relevant to this article. --A.Garnet 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture says it's from this website. But how do you determine if the website is right or not? It seems like a slippery slope to me. --Awiseman 16:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely Awiseman, we have no idea where the creator of that site got this image from, it therefore makes the image unverifiable as such should not really be here. --A.Garnet 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what I mean by slippery slope is, how do you know any information about a photograph is right? I could put that photo on a website, say it was taken by John Doe in 1912, and how would you know that was wrong? --Awiseman 16:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know that information about any photograph is right? Even Armstrong's pictures have been questioned...--Tekleni 16:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly! I think that at some point you have to assume a photograph is of what it says it is, unless there's evidence to the contrary. --Awiseman 16:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course we can never be 100%, but if image is taken from an academic source concerning this alleged genocide, then it is verifiable. www.hellenicgenocide.com is not an academic source. --A.Garnet 16:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations...--Tekleni 16:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So far every source on this article has been disputed by the same users: diplomats' accounts as baseless, authors as pro-Greek (or having been married to a Greek!), other authors for been Armenians, NY Times articles and Australian Institutions as 'non-academic', now the photos... then what? And cause i think i have understoond what is going on here, let me say this: this article is not going to be renamed nor deleted nor slowly and steadily dismembered (as u do now with the photos). It is time to bring sources about what u dispute... Do find a source that it says the photo comes from somewhere else, otherwise, it remains. Hectorian 19:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, the photo could be of Pontic Greeks, but in science, when someone puts forward something, it is up to them to prove it.. In any case, the photo is way too low-fi to be identifiable, at least there has to be a statement from a historian and photography expert to say that this photo is dead Pontic Greek inhabitants of Giresun. Until now, we dont know who took it, when and where.. hellenicgenocide.com definitely didnt take the photo, coz they were not around back then.. In any case the photo will be deleted in two days by Wiki exactly because of this reason since it's copyright status is not clear (ie there are no sources to prove who took this picture, and therefore who holds the copyright to it). I was mostly concerned over the caption since i knew the copyright issue all along.. Baristarim 20:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dead inhabitants of Giresun" 

message: Dear friends. This is a slightly abreviated translation of the text that appears in the standard Greek history text book for schools (2nd Lyceum year). The manual is intended as a suplement to the main text book and deals with the Diaspora, the Macedonian issue, Greek Turkish relations, Cyprus (the Cyprus section is both anti-Greek and anti-Turkish, while the Greek Cypriots emerge as the innocent victims).
START OF TRANSLATION Historical matters - 2nd Lyceum - Athens 2003 - pp.244-245
:[sub-chapter]The systematic extermination (genocide) [sic] of the Pontic Greeks
The 1915 genocide of the Arminian people by the Young Turks is known, but the systtematic extermination of the Pontic Greeks, between 1916-1923 is not known, though proportionally it was comparable numerically and morally to the genocide of the Armenians.
Out of 697,000 Pontians who lived in 1913 in the Pontus, over 353,000, or over 50% had been put to death by 1923 by the Young Turks and the Kemalists in the towns and villages, in exile and in prisons, as well as in the work brigades, the so called 'amele tabourou'.
[...] The systematic percecution of the Pontic Greeks [...] shared may characteristics with the genocide of the Jews, but differed in two fundamental ways, according to P. Enepekides. There was no question concerning, genetic, eugenic and arian or semitic races founded on an ideological, cosmological or pseudo-genetic theory. It only served the specific political expediency of clearing Asia Minor of its Greek element. [...]
The situation in the wider area of the Pontus deteriorated when the Greek army occupied Smyrna on 15 May 1919 and some of the hinterland. On 19 May 1919, Kemal himself organised the second stage of the persecutions when he disembarked in Trabzon. [...]
The archives of the Foreign Ministries in Europe and America, as well as the reports of international organisations confirm the size and type of percecution suffered by the Greeks of the Pontus."  END OF TRANSLATION AND OF QUOTE Politis 12:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I must say that when compared to the notorious propaganda-loaded Turkish schoolbooks, Greek schoolbooks are authoritative academic sources ;-) --Tekleni 12:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL :-) Politis 13:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek school book

message: I see not only 'Pontians', but also 'Greeks' in these sources for Greek recognition.
* 
* 
Does anyone know, if by 'Pontians', certain sources may mean all Anatolian Greeks? •NikoSilver• 00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So despite the existence of such documents , people continue to call this poorly treated subject original research? Miskin 16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Original Research would mean that this title was invented by us editors. Let's have a look:
Then the result: a European Parliament report that establishes, for the first time, the recognition of the Armenian genocide as a precondition to Turkish accession to the European Union. It adds two other "genocides" -- that of Pontic Greeks and Syriacs to the bill.
Is anyone silly enough to insist that this title falls under OR, i.e. that the term "Pontic Genocide" was invented by myself, Nikosilver and Hectorian? I hope not. I would advise the people who are wasting their time trying to rename the article, to save their energy for the article's content. Miskin 19:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's normal, Greek nationalism had also needed at some point to defocus itself from its Byzantine past. The problem is that the 3 alleged Turkish genocides were all committed primary by the "Turkish nationalists" and secondarily by the Kemalists. The Ottomans had little or nothing to do with it. Miskin 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek recognition

message: For those who dispute/deny that this was a Genocide, I am repeating below what I have already provided above under "Foreign Office Memorandum by Mr. G.W. Rendel"
The last sentence clearly states what the purpose was of all these deportations, massacres, etc. Note that this exerpt is the least graphic account of all the other eyewitness accounts in the memorandum.
"On the 1st September, Mr. Hopkins of the same organization ( American Near East Relief) met 12,000 (women and children) being driven southwards between Harpoot and Malatia.....Mr. Hopkins saw "many corpses of Greeks lying by the roadside where they had died from exposure. Many of them were corpses of women and girls." About 1st October he and two other relief workers passed about 10,000 Greeks. He says: "I remember one group of about 2,000, being women alone, most of them with no shoes, many carrying babies...A driving cold rain was falling... they had no protection whatsoever and their only place to sleep was the wet ground." Mr. Hopkins continues: ... Greek vilages are deported entirely, the few Turkish and Armenian inhabitants are forced to leave and the villages are burned.. The purpose is unquestionably to destroy all Greeks in that territory and to leave Turkey for the Turks".  
This is definately not original research. This is independent/third party, non-Greek, eyewitness account/assessment. Therefore, A+B = C.
Note: The term Genocide did not exist at the time. Please do not look/request for accounts referring to these events as genocide. There are similar statements/admissions from other third parties of Turkish plans to eliminate/destroy the Greeks in Anatolia. - Rizos01 16:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A + B = C 

message: Do users agree? We have brought in impartial users, we have conducted straw polls, but the article (mainly from its title) is still in dispute. I see mediation, and if that fails, arbitration, as the only way of solving this dispute. I need to know if editors agree so i can initiate it. --A.Garnet 16:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's about time. Go for it. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it needs it. So do most Greek-Turkish issues, really. --Awiseman 18:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A comment here: It may be true that there are many such articles that could use some serious cooling down, but I wouldn't say that most greco-turkish related articles fit in that category. Take a look at the (imho very good) Greco-Turkish relations or even the (imho "risky" in terms of potential pov-pushing) Istanbul Pogrom for example. I may sound a bit idealistic here, but I've seen it work: whenever cool minded wikipedians from both sides try to stick to the rules they cooperate magnificiently. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree. Hectorian 15:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to rally support from various Greek forums if it goes to a vote. 14/88 --DigenisAkritas 12:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Where he's coming from? Check "GreekWarrior" arbitration. He already is permabanned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would possibly help to inform the 14/88 guy that wikipedia is not a democracy and that decisions are not made by voting. Voting is a tool to help determine concencus, nothing more. Decisions are made per consencus and policy. He can meatpuppet all he likes, that won't change anything. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry people but i have simply been too busy to make any worthwhile contribution to Wikipedia and will most likely be more busy in recent weeks. If anyone else wants to initiate the mediation go ahead, and i will argue my position as best i can, otherwise it will take some time before i can get it going. Thanks, --A.Garnet 15:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alf, you can't expect the supporters of the current status quo to initiate mediation. It is the disputing side that has to build up its arguments against something. Otherwise, the supporting side does not know what to defend! Either some of the disputors asks for mediation, or I am afraid we can't keep the article hostage with tags. Please find time, or ask someone from your side to do it. •NikoSilver• 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Mitso it is unprotected for registered editors. The lock is for unregistered or newly registered IP's. •NikoSilver• 11:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, that's a legitimate request. I thought you didn't know, since I myself frequently confuse those two very similar lock templates. •NikoSilver• 16:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take article to mediation. 

message: Resolutions of state legislatures have no legal force (see the article resolution (law) which I wikilinked) and can be passed for almost anyone as long as there is not organized opposition.  Just take a look at the Massachusetts resolutions passed at the same time as the Pontian genocide resolution:
* a resolution congratulating Alice Grennell on the occasion of her ninetieth birthday;
* a resolution on the two hundredth anniversary of the First Baptist Church of Hanover;
* a resolution congratulating John E. A. Schoeck on receiving the Eagle Award of the Boy Scouts of America
This should give you a sense of the weight that legislatures attach to these resolutions.  It is pathetic and embarrassing to cite these as evidence that the Pontian genocide is 'recognized' by various U.S. states.  That is why I tightened up the language and put the list in a note. --Macrakis 00:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when does it have to have legal force for it to constitute recognition? The article already has that irrelevant bit about individual states not promoting their own foreign policies. As I said in my edit summary, until I see similar changes at Armenian Genocide and everywhere else where such resolutions have been passed and are called recognition, I'll oppose double standards here.--Euthymios 09:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Macrakis, but i find your comparison of resolutions as an unlucky one... It is like comparing the Danish law that granted autonomy to the Faeroe Islands, to the also Danish (and much older) law, that says it is "illegal" to start the engine of your car if someone is sleeping under it! btw, the article clearly states that it is about recognitions, not about penalising the denial of... So, i can't see what legal effects u would expect a recognition to have. Hectorian 11:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? The point here is that state legislative resolutions are a joke.  A few solid citations from reputable scholars are worth all the legislative resolutions in the world.  YouWe are only making Greeks look ridiculous and pathetic by mentioning these resolutions in this article.  I am embarrassed. --Macrakis 16:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your feelings about the legislative branches of any state (sovereign or not) in the world, is certainly beyond my interests. These resolutions consist political acts, and thus should be mentioned. Btw, many laws are indeed jokes, but it is not up to us to decide whether to include them or not! we, simply, have to. PS: Start feeling embarrassed by things youself do... Hectorian 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The point Hectorian, is that the academic weight of those resolutions is about the same as congratulating a boy scout! --A.Garnet 16:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A.Garnet, are u sure u want to begin "measuring" the academic weight of many resolutions/laws/theories in existing articles? Hectorian 16:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Amazing, there was actually no debate here for 6 weeks from Oct 28 till Dec 5? That shows you what a hangover many people had from the earlier discussions :)) Baristarim 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thymio, my proposal is expressed in my edit, which is only about the presentation of the resolutions in the article.  Please reread my edit and my comments, as your questions seem to indicate that you are confusing my edits with someone else's. My edit had nothing to do with the reality of the events, only the use of US State legislatures' resolutions in the discussion.  You will note that my edit does not remove the reference to the resolutions, or the links to them.  All it does is move them to a footnote, which is where I believe they belong.  These legislative resolutions are just not that meaningful or important, as shown by the other resolutions passed at the same time, and no doubt with equal amounts of debate (zero).  They tell you a little bit about U.S. domestic politics, but not much else. --Macrakis 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: State resolutions