Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 5

message: *The poll ended with consensus in one of the numerous options, namely Pontic Greek genocide. The other options were either opposed, or marked with no consensus.
*The initial debate was that the "acts" defined in genocide were not sourced. At present the article has practically every sentence cited by independent, verifiable, reliable sources.
*The debate later evolved as to if it is original research to assume that the facts to their extent provide adequate reason to name the article as such. A response was provided here. Academic sources explicitly or inexplicitly stating it was a genocide were also provided. Namely:
Note: Only third party sources are included here. For all sources, check Pontic Greek Genocide#Academic views on the issue. For eyewitness quotes, check Pontic Greek Genocide#Eyewitness accounts and quotes. For recognition, check Pontic Greek Genocide#Recognition.
:*Turkey, still struggling to achieve its ninety-five-year-old dream of becoming the beacon of democracy in the Near East, does everything possible to deny its genocide of the Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontian Greeks.
:*democide against the Greeks...genocide...347,000 dead
:*systematic extermination...annihilation...in a persistent campaign of massacreNote: Term "genocide" had not been coined yet.
:*compared experience to the Holocaust
:*series of massacres, pertinent to the Armenian GenocideCreating a Modern "Zone of Genocide": The Impact of Nation- and State-Formation on Eastern Anatolia, 1878–1923, by Mark Levene, University of Warwick, © 1998 by United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
:*ethnic cleansingNorman M. Naimark, Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe, Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2001.
----
*For a comparative analysis of the academic sources, kindly refer to this section.
*Various NGOs recognize the events as a genocide.
*Apart from the (obvious) recognition by Greece and Cyprus, the events have been recognized by the states of South Carolina, New Jersey, Florida, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Illinois. New York State issued a proclamation designating May 19, 2002 as Pontian Greek Genocide Remembrance Day.
*Apart from Turkey, no other country has explicitly expressed they dispute the genocide thesis.
*Google searches:
**Pontian genocide -wikipedia: 17,700 hits
** Pontian massacres -wikipedia: 11,600 hits
**Pontian ethnic cleansing -wikipedia: 1,190 hits
**Pontian deportations -wikipedia: 720 hits
***Note: These google results are included only to illustrate the relative preminence of the used terms (i.e. which is more popular). There are, of course, other searches that produce millions of results, such as:
**Greek genocide -wikipedia: 1,120,000 hits
**Hellenic genocide -wikipedia: 135,000 hits
*For a previous analytical reasoning regarding the tag removal, kindly refer to Archive 2#Why the tags should not stay.
Please read the article and decide for yourselves. For the reasons stated above, this summary supports that the title should include the term genocide.
NikoSilver 10:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by NikoSilver

message: My position has been since the beginning that this article does not reflect academic opinion. It is recognised by Greece, written by Greek editors and supported by Greek editors. None of the sources are credible, none of the scholars notable, not one monograph can be found to its name, not one journal article, not one encylopedic article - in short it is the culmination of a few scraps of sentences in which a non-notable author has used the term Pontian greek "genocide" and original research whereby a number of quotes are being used to prove the genocide thesis. 
You only have to look at the "Background" section, the section supposedly dealing with this genocide, to realise how poor the academic material in support of this article is. It is so poor that they rely on sources from a different location (Asia minor as opposed to Pontus) and  from different people (Aegean Greeks and Turkish Jews as opposed to Pontian Greeks). So nowhere in this article do we have one ounce of explanation as to how these Pontian Greeks were supposodly exposed to genocide by Turks, simply becauase our Greek editors cannot find any research material on this beyond a few sentences which use the term Pontian Greek genocide. 
Lets look at some of the arguments used to justify the title. Firstly, there was no consensus on the title whatsoever. Do not try and justify the collective votes of a number of Greek editors to mean a consensus, it is anything but. Consensus is achieved in reaching an agreement with disputing parties, not reaching an agreement with people who already agree! The fact is not only do all of the Turkish editors disagree, but a number of admins and third party editors have also raised questions and opposed the current title.
Another arugment used: "Apart from Turkey, no other country has explicitly expressed they dispute the genocide thesis." This is really quite a childish argument. It assumes non-recognition outside of Greece and Cyprus (i really do want to see a proper source that Cyprus recognises it) to somehow mean silent worldwide recognition. Well surely if recongition was so forthcoming you would be able to present me with one monograph from one notable historian. They ask for sources opposing a genocide of Pontians before they provide any credible or substantial sources which support it! This whole attitude is sheer nonsense and one employed to defend and indefensible position.
Also, as for the supposed recognition of American states, as another Greek editor proved, these resolutions are of little academic or political weight. Anybody can file a resolution, in fact one of "genocide" resolutions is mentioned next to happy birthday wishes for an old granny! They are, as Mackracis put, an embarassment to this article. Furthermore, on the topic of NGO's, the most notable of all NGO's dealing with genocide, the Association of Genocide Scholars, does not recognise this event as genocide, nor do any of the scholars associated with.
Let us also put those Google searches into perspective:
*Holocaust -wikipedia 29,700,000
*Rwandan genocide -wikipedia 1,340,000
*Bosnian genocide -wikipedia 1,300,000
*Armenian genocide -wikipedia 1,190,000
*Pontian genocide -wikipedia 17,700!
Now have a look at those 17,000 results, all it shows is that there a lot of Greeks on the internet like the editors here who are using the term Pontian greek "genocide". None of these superficial arguments count for anything Nikos, nothin detracts from the minority nature of this thesis and the complete lack of notable scholarly research, no matter how many straw polls you initiate or how many Greek editor revert the article. 
Put simply, this article is a minority view. If the editors insist on defending it, then they will have to accept that the pov-title   tag is here to stay until it is renamed and rewritten. Just to add i wont be here from Friday onwards, but i think i've made my argument pretty clear here. 
Some sources:
*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." --A.Garnet 02:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by A.Garnet

message: # NikoSilver 10:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # Per A. Garnet. I will also include a statement later on.. Baristarim 12:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: There is an RfC combined with a staw poll running in this page here. Your contribution is valuable both in the discussion and in the poll. Please study the case and express your opinion to achieve the widest possible consensus...
:Just to add, i consider this poll irrelevant. --A.Garnet 17:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How uncooperative you are! //Dirak 17:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if you insist on reducing this rfc to signing your name under a support heading, then it is you who is being uncooperative. This is a request for comment i.e. a discussion,  not a demonstration in block voting. --A.Garnet 17:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed - the poll demonstrates how unpopular your views/proposals are around here. You'll have to cede ground if you want some sort of compromise to be reached... //Dirak 17:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unpopular among Greek editors yes. But that is to be expected. --A.Garnet 18:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus emerges your "uncooperativeness". //Dirak 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems that according to A.Garnet, Greek views are worthless. Turkish views OTOH are something akin to the word of Allah. //Dirak 18:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a different story. Do we agree on what we disagree on? Garnet? NikoSilver 18:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Aha.. Dirak, may I ask you something? After the AfD on the article that you created six days ago "Kurdish Genocide (Turkey)" was practically deleted as speedy with many delete votes coming from non-Turks, you created another article "Kurdich Genocide" and made it a redirect to "Human Rights of Kurdish people in Turkey". May I ask why? Kurdish genocide can easily get redirected to "Human Rights in Iraq" and much more rightly so. I found it a bit curious to say the least. Freudian slip, I dare say? Cough cough. Please do not continue your disruption of Wikipedia.
Please do not emotionalize this issue. Greek views are of course important, but they are not impartial nor do they represent the global academic concensus. I am sure that there are thousands of Turkish sources out there about how Greeks committed a genocide against the Turks in Cyprus, but they cannot be included at face value since they are not impartial. Baristarim 18:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, straw men flying all over the place! Refuting an argument never advanced - a common logical fallacy. Are the supporters of the genocide title relying on all Greek sources? No Do the majority of the non-Greek non-Turkish sources we have endorse the genocide thesis? Yes. Why are you still here? //Dirak 18:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What majority of "non-Greek, non-Turkish sources"? Did you see WP:OR? First of all, all those witness accounts of some American ambassador ninety years ago are not important since they do not support the fundamemtal problem of the title. And the sources that directly address the title issue are divided, not to mention the fact that there are only a few who have looked into this in more than just in a paragraph or so. That's not extensive academic research. This doesn't return any hits on Google Scholar, so do you have a reliable, academic source who only researched this issue? No. That's all I am saying.Baristarim 19:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Look, nobody is trying to slight any suffering of anyone. I hope that you do not think this. I am more than willing to seriously work on this article and devote hours, not to "expose the Turkish POV", but to really make it a comprehensive and encyclopedic article about the situation of Pontic Greeks during the WWI and later. I really mean it, I will spend hours expanding this article if neccessary. But I will also be honest when I say I cannot simply do that if this title issue is not addressed since I cannot see it being more than a minority interpretation. So please don't think that there are some editors who are trying to disrespect someone or their past. This title is so disputed and represents a minority view among the already few reliable academic sources that actually do talk about them to begin with. Baristarim 19:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I consider the problem here. You keep repeating "genocide is a minority view" again and again, knowing it isn't true. I say sources, not eyewitness quotes... again you are setting up straw men. If you get all the sources we have on the topic and look at, them, the majority support the genocide thesis. Additionally, if we apply the tight screening process we use on the sources supporting the genocide thesis to the sources Garnet cites saying they oppose it, it seems that there are no independent sources denying it. Garnet is using a liberal method of interpretation in those cases, for example one source says that what happened to the Pontic Greeks was "different" to what happened to the Armenians - Garnet assumes this means that the scholar is saying that the Pontic Greeks did not suffer genocide. I don't see that! All I see is that the scholar says there is a difference. Well, even I agree there is a difference: the scale for one thing. The majority of Armenians living in the area died, whereas about half the Pontian Greeks managed to escape with their lives. Does this mean that it was not genocide? Not in itself. On the other hand, we do have independent sources that do say that yes, what happened to the Pontian Greeks was genocide. Why do you cover it up? Again, I repeat: out of all the sources we have on the issue the majority affirm genocide. Where is the minority view? //Dirak 19:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Pff. Do not say things like "why do you cover it up?". Noone is trying to cover something here and such approach to the subject is really childish. I stated my position: Noone is asking for deletion, nor am I advocating the deletion of the genocide controversy from the article. I am talking about the title. What sources are you talking about Dirak? Rummel who claims that 200,000,000 people died in the last centuries because of genocide? Is this it? He considers every single colonial war as democide/genocide!! Not to mention the fact that he confuses the scholarly definition of genocide with the obscure term "cultural genocide" which is an extremely controversial terminology. I looked into the sources, and I am still saying that there needs to be more than couple of paragraphs in random books, preferably much more hits on google scholar (compared to the actual zero) and recognitions by the best friends of Turkey, Cyprus and Greece. Again, see the Native American genocide who redirects to something else and the AfD of this article in German Wiki in which a majority of the deleters were Germans, not Turks. Nikos, you said that you were going to take a look at the Native American article, what happened? Baristarim 19:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If Google Scholar and Google Books hits are everything, then WTF was my Kurdish Genocide article renamed for? Did you see my comment at the AFD? //Dirak 20:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are important to establish that the matter at hand is serious enough to be in the preoccupation of academia. Did you read my comment about the whopping EIGHT hits the kurdish genocide (turkey) had in Google scholar? Three of them were from the same site and two of them were directly from the only thesis (of the Spanish guy, who is definitely not a notable historian) that you included in the article. Are you joking? Are we going to create articles for the thesis of every pseudo-historian out there? Nearly all the hits that "Kurdish genocide" gets refer to Iraq. Did you read the "strong delete" votes that came from many non-Turks? Baristarim 20:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't get why different standards have to be applied at different pages to maintain the turkish POV. //Dirak 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ? What "different standards"? Eight hits is not enough, and zero is definitely not enough. What Turkish POV? Your article was AfDed by an Englishman, what are you talking about Dirak? Cut down on the paranoia. Many admins and non-Turks also voted for deletion of that article, I would read the AfD one more time if I were you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baristarim (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What "majority of sources"?? There are practically NONE. Pontic Genocide get ZERO hits on Google scholar , what "sources"? A crackpot who claims that nearly every colonial war was a genocide is not a "majority of sources", let alone "a source". Even a simple google search for "greek genocide -wikipedia" gets only 1,450 hits.Baristarim 20:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ummm, talk to A.Garnet who put Armenian genocide above without quotes. I sincerely clicked his link and then only replaced Armenian with Greek. And, also, why does it have to be exact quote? Your exact quote excludes Rummel in scholar... Weird logic... NikoSilver 21:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re Baris! :-) Please stop spamming your comment also in my talk-page! I read you the first time! NikoSilver 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not "spamming" :) Ok then, A. Garnet also should correct his google search. Exact quote is pretty much the concensus google search tradition. Otherwise things can get too complicated; even with "exact words" search, you can still hit snags like I pointed above with the macedonian example. So both Nikos and Alf should correct their figures, it is extremely confusing. We all know what kind of wacko results Google can give; therefore it should be the exact quotes version, no matter what you are arguing about. And this is also a note to everyone: pls bring in google searches that use that feature, and if need be try it with different similar spellings "mike's car", "car of mike" etc, then list them all - that will be only fair to the uninformed reader. I was way too confused when I saw such discrepancies in numbers. But no biggie Nikos, I know that it was an honest mistake. Alf should have also used that search version.Baristarim 22:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Nikos didnt use quotes with the searches in his statement so i had to do the same for comparison. --A.Garnet 22:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a problem with quotes. It removes legitimate hits. Equally forced terms, same results. Check above. NikoSilver 22:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll notification

message: To repeat my earlier observations is about as reliable as a chocolate fireguard. - Francis Tyers · 22:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree (not explicitly discredited for this and very well backed up by third sources), but in any case, what do you think about the rest of the sources so far? Do they suffice for you? I refer interested users to the earlier discussion about sources here. There is a discussion about each and every one right below, titled by each source's name. NikoSilver 11:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other sources are reliable. - Francis Tyers · 12:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rummell

message: Insert here verifiable sources and quote how they refer to this event. Keep it brief and easy to distinguish by using bullets(*). Here is NO place for a DISCUSSION of the sources. Open another thread for such a purpose. Wandalstouring 14:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I just see "Google" in there?? Was it a typo? Baristarim 05:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, per WP:NCON#Identification of common names using external references and the google tests in my statement. No debate please, it's under "other sources" anyway. NikoSilver 16:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Doesn't matter if those accounts are true or not. The question is not the content, it is the title. You are interpreting the sources that you mention to justify the title. Such interpretation is forbidden per WP:OR. That's all. Baristarim 08:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And what selective interpretation of history btw. Millions of Muslims were expelled from the Balkans between 1900 - 1923, then let's label it the Muslim Genocide (Balkans)? Stop interpreting history anachronistically and in a way that suits you.. Baristarim 08:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please move your comments to a discussion section. If I am not mistaken this space is reserved only for accounts supporting The Genocide. --Rizos01 18:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no... This is the RfC. This the talk page for discussing improvements to the article. However, I am not going to post long messages, if that's what you are implying. Baristarim 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for the title 

message: *Greek recognition
*Cyprus recognition
*Numerous Greek academics
*6 US states recognition
*3 NGO's recognition
Check also Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 4#Genocide for a comparative analysis of the sources.
Also, these sources are limited to the ones that explicitly call it a genocide. The eyewitness quotes, the documented individual massacres and all other secondary sources are numerous.
Hate to repeat myself, but since you asked... Note: There are others that escape me right now, will add them probably later. Happy new year! NikoSilver 19:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I just see "Google" in there?? Was it a typo? Baristarim 05:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, per WP:NCON#Identification of common names using external references and the google tests in my statement. No debate please, it's under "other sources" anyway. NikoSilver 16:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Doesn't matter if those accounts are true or not. The question is not the content, it is the title. You are interpreting the sources that you mention to justify the title. Such interpretation is forbidden per WP:OR. That's all. Baristarim 08:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And what selective interpretation of history btw. Millions of Muslims were expelled from the Balkans between 1900 - 1923, then let's label it the Muslim Genocide (Balkans)? Stop interpreting history anachronistically and in a way that suits you.. Baristarim 08:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please move your comments to a discussion section. If I am not mistaken this space is reserved only for accounts supporting The Genocide. --Rizos01 18:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no... This is the RfC. This the talk page for discussing improvements to the article. However, I am not going to post long messages, if that's what you are implying. Baristarim 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other sources supporting "Genocide"

message: If you want to link to this website, then please also add a link to tallarmeniantale.com in the Armenian Genocide article. Khoikhoi 09:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a previous discussion about that site. The arguments that "saved" it last time were two: 1) that it is written/maintained by a third party (Brazilian Roberto Lopes), 2) it cites a number of academic sources, quotes, testimonies etc. I wouldn't compare it to any sort of other tendentious nationalistic sites (of either side), which is also evident from its modest non-flashy layout and design. The site is down a couple of days now, and I will re-post when it is up again. Please revisit it then and respond (not reverting yet). NikoSilver 12:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is that discussion? If you're talking about the website whose earlier version is now at , then no, that's the very epitomy of a non-reliable source. No way. And it's not third-party either; it's "© 2001-2003 HEC and Roberto Lopes", where HEC stands for "Hellenic Electronic Center", and it's a project of "Themis" (), "an independent grass-roots project conceived by Hellenes of the Diaspora. [...] The objective of Themis is to protect the Hellenic history, culture and heritage. [...] Additionally, this international grass-roots endeavour also aims to sensitise elected representatives of relevant world legislatures, international organisations and non-governmental organisations on issues relevant to Hellenism and Greece." In other words, a Greek nationalist pressure-group, pure and simple. Again, no way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, it's got nothing to do with the site you're linking to. When I had checked it, it was completely different from that, and the copyright mark said Roberto Lopes -period. Indeed, no way if it were that, but let's not jump into conclusions while it's anyway off the air, shall we? This Roberto Lopes is a Brazilian who became a philhellen on his own (or at least he says so). NikoSilver 13:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, Khoikhoi and FPS are correct, and we should not link to this website. I particularly agree with FPS words, in defining it the "the very epitomy of a non-reliable source". That the author is Greek or Brazilian is of hardly any importance, in my view.--Aldux 14:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO this site contains info and pictures that are not presented in the article, since most of the pictures have been removed. This could be interesting. maybe the site is considered biased by non-Greeks and i can understand that, but i suppose we could include it, even if we have to place a note informing the readers about possible POVish statements in it. Since that webpage is not made by a Greek, not is it a .gr page, i find it a bit hypocritic to remove it; this way we open a gate to remove pro-X webpages from the external links of other articles, even if these pages do not come from the X nation, simply because it does not fit our own POV. Hectorian 18:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, saw it too. I stand by my assessment: definitely unsuitable. No need to even go near sites like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.hellenicgenocide.org www.hellenicgenocide.org] 

message: I had said above that I can provide a source about actual detailed numbers and villages, but none seemed to "care" enough to ask for... So, I am providing it myself. It was published in 1922 in Athens (some will have to take back the things they had said, implying that the Greeks "suddenly" began to care about the subject). It is called "Black Book: The Tragedy of Pontus, 1914-1922", it is downloadable, written in English and French and can be accessed from here... "Enjoy" Hectorian 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will take a look at it. Thanks.. Baristarim 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work. Wandalstouring 23:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are dozens of sources written by Greeks (like the one above) and the use of the word Genocide is rather frequent. Not to mention, the book was written in '22, while the term genocide was coined in '44... NikoSilver 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I really don't get it. Please let's not rush to adopt an earlier Greek source that has a convenient name, while ignoring the WP:INDY sources that say genocide... NikoSilver 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Wandalstouring, agree with your comments above.  Pontic Tragedy or some variation of it sounds like a better title for this article. Lima6 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize that I have not read the majority of the discussion here thoroughly, but a brief skimming seems to indicate that this will be a good idea, and that, presumably, hopefully, most people can agree to it. LordAmeth 01:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The word tragedy may mean a number of things. In Greek, it is used to either refer to ancient Greek tragedy or to an unfortunate event, something that bad for which no other word could be used. Renaming the article into "Pontic Tragedy" or a variation of this, will create several problems: the readers will not understand if it is about a series of events, or about a sub-section of ancient Greek tragedy; also, it implies that the extermination was not deliberate or even that it was not committed by human beings (compare phrases like "tsunami tragedy", "hurricane tragedy", "earthquake tragedy"). Hectorian 01:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That appears to be the motivation behind the proposed name change, i.e. to suggest that the suffering of the Pontians was an unfortunate event for which the Turks bear no particular responsibility. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, many other titles have been suggested by editors besides Wandalstouring.  As a number of editors have objected to the current title as not being appropriate, are there any other titles that you'd be willing to compromise for?  Anything at all? Lima6 04:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, several. Pontian Genocide, Pontic Genocide, Hellenic Genocide, Genocide of Pontian Hellenism, etc. are all quite acceptable alternatives. But the word "genocide" itself is non-negotiable, as in the case of the Armenian Genocide and the Assyrian Genocide which were part of the same campaign of extermination. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 04:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is obviously the "genocide" part of the title that editors have been objecting to. Looks like this debate will keep going around and around in circles. Lima6 05:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right, but it needn't. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in order to keep in line with the terms used to refer to the Armenian Genocide, as Kekrops says, the term "genocide" should probably be included, particularly if it is a term used by a number of third-party sources. Has anyone looked at any general encyclopedias or general European/World History textbooks not written for a Greek or Turkish audience, or by Greek or Turkish scholars? Assuming people in other parts of the world learn about this event at all in, say, secondary school, what is it called? LordAmeth 08:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a huge amount of debate over this (4 archived discussion pages, a mediation and dispute resolution) all of which you understandably wouldn't have time to read through.  Looking through the evidence presented on this site, there is a total of 2 third-party historical sources that explicitly use the term "genocide" in reference to Pontic Greek deaths.  One of these two is R.J. Rummel, whose credibility has been strongly questioned.  Greece (and perhaps Cyprus) is the only nation in the world that calls the deaths a "genocide" (and a few US states).  As for other encyclopedias, none of them refer to the Pontic deaths as genocide. (Unlike the Armenian deaths, which encyclopedias will refer to as genocide or massacres or some variation)  No one has mentioned any non-Greek textbooks that call it a genocide.  Association of Genocide Scholars doesn’t call it a genocide. Basically, there's been little historical research published specifically on the Pontic deaths by third party sources, part of the reason why naming the article is so difficult. Look under #Request for Comment: Article name for a summary of the two sides' arguments. Lima6 12:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Reply to LordAmeth (above): Both "sides" have exhaustingly searched for sources, and all of them are listed within the article. Generally, it's not referred to. But when it is, it is referred to as 'genocide'. Check #Sources for the title right above for a list. There are also 3 NGO's, 6 US states, and various commemorations (NY, AU), monuments etc. Disputed or not, it is indeed the most frequent appellation, and I think that WP is very clear in this dispute, from the fact that it is using the most frequent term to describe these events, while it illustrates more than adequately the dispute in the lead (for the term). NikoSilver 11:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: I made a separate article for the List of eyewitness accounts related to the Pontic Greek Genocide and ed out the contents, providing a summary in text. I also made a new article for the List of press headlines relevant to the Pontic Greek Genocide. I think the article at hand is greatly relieved from these removals, and the summary reflects the content adequately without sentimental details. NikoSilver 16:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this change. - Rizos01 16:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Rizo, feel free to expand those lists, and if new witnesses and descriptions emerge, we can expand the summary in this article accordingly. NikoSilver 16:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I was just about to comment here to suggest that the number and length of quotes included in this article are a bit excessive, and only serve to promote a further bias view. The vast majority of the content of any article should be on what happened, its causes and significance, described in a distanced, academic, and objective manner. These sorts of quotes, using the type of elaborate language intended to promote a given view of the event, and to paint one side as villains, the other as victims, has little place here. The elimination or minimization of these types of quotes, I believe, is the first step towards making this article more appropriately encyclopedic, objective, and academic. Regardless of events, our goal at Wikipedia should be to educate and inform, not to accuse or denounce. LordAmeth 01:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the title is still disputed, the eyewitnes accounts and quotes are needed to bring out the events/facts/results of the systematic and deliberate genocide and ethnic cleansing. They provide solid evidence, and support the thesis that the events constituted a genocide. If not in the article itself, they should at least be referenced somewhere else. I am not sure how they "promote a further biased view". They are eyewitness accounts and quotes of neutral third parties. American, British, German, Austrian, etc. In fact the Germans and Austrians were allies of Turkey. Doesn't that tell you something?  How can they be biased? What sources would you then consider unbiased? --Rizos01 02:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at the articles on the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Nanking Massacre. None of these articles contain a lengthy list of quotes aimed solely at relating how horrible the event was. Doing so would be horribly biased. The purpose of any of these articles is to describe what happened, in an academic manner, and not to expound upon the evils of a particular country or administration. I by no means deny that Turkey was very much in the wrong here, but our purpose needs to relate directly to these events, and not to arguing or proving their villainy. To add this kind of content turns the entire article into a lament for the Pontian Greeks, a memorial even, and detracts from the academic discussion of the political and cultural forces at play, the events which led to this, the outcomes and consequences over the eighty years or so since. Imagine if the Hiroshima & Nagasaki article contained dozens of quotes of eyewitnesses describing how horrible the suffering was. Would that not detract from the rest of the article, the discussion of the events leading up to it, the context of the war, the lengthy debates that went on in Washington over whether or not it should be used...? History is not about naming villains and lamenting losses; it is about analysing trends and events, causes and effects, cultures and societies. LordAmeth 08:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got what u mean, LordAmeth. If I remember well, the quotes were added when some users objected not only the article's title, but even the fact that something happened in Pontus in the '10-'20s... For the same reason, I was ready to provide a full and lengthy list of all the villages and casualties; something that would make the article 4 times longer, but less readable (instead I gave a link for the book where I found that info). The examples u listed above are quite clear of what u mean, and I agree with u that lengthy lists of quotes would make these articles less academic and informative. However, I am 101% sure that the Japanese users, for example, would be ready and willing to make the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article 15MB long, filled with eyewitness accounts and quotes, if other users disputed that these bombings ever took place... Hectorian 10:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I have already voiced my concern in one of the articles discussion page. --A.Garnet 12:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: @A.Garnet: Your concerns have been addressed where you expressed them. NikoSilver 12:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: @LordAmeth, Rizos and Hectorian: Guys, you all agree. Ameth, user Rizos did not mean to re-add those quotes (he said he agrees). I presume he misinterpreted your comment, and thought you meant that not only they should be excluded from the article, but shouldn't have a separate list either. I'm sure you didn't mean that, since they are significant evidence, and since they are all sourced, and more importantly piled together by independent sources. They are not linked anywhere else, (and shouldn't be) and I feel that the compromise of separating them to relieve the article is more than fair. NikoSilver 12:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've understood me perfectly, Niko. Thank you. LordAmeth 14:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of eyewitness accounts 

message: :From User:Politis: Is it possible to offer a dual solution? We keep 'Pontic Greek Genocide' as a short(!!) artile and present it strictly as a Greek national commemoration day that is especially remembered by the descendants of that tragedy. We also present, en passant, Greek views that argued against the term 'genocide' (though none doubt a tragic event occured). After all, it is an official day of an EU state. But we also create a longer article such as 'Pontic Greek massacres' (or whatever) where a comprehensive historical perspective is shown. Politis 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everytime there is someone who does not agree with an article he can create his own stub? Wandalstouring 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean it would be a WP:POVFORK? Thulium 20:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey! Dont use the 's' word ;-). But seriously, one article will be dealing with a national Greek day. The other article will be explaining how a 2,500 year old civilisation just about ceased to exist. Just an suggestion. Politis 20:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea of creating a potential fork, but one thing is certain in my opinion, that is that the disute genocide/non genocide has created an ugly article, that seems to forget to tell what actually happened in a coheent narrative. I feel that for a non-greek this article is of little use, exactly because it doesn't narrate even the basic facts and circumstances.--Aldux 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think FayssalF's proposal regarding the Bibliography of Pontic Greek Genocide would me more than welcome in two aspects: First it would clear out the article from the repetitive quotes in the 'Academic views section' (like the wo lists above), and second it would allow for a compiled list with all references, both from local and third-party scholars. I'll try to help dealing with that in the next few days. NikoSilver 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all respect for those who have a different opinion, I am against the splitting of this article, whether or not povforks will be created. I honestly cannot understand why the Turkish users insist so much in renaming, partitioning or whatever-ing it. What if we rename it into "Pontic Greek massacres, rapes, ethnic cleansing"? what will be the positive effect of this? will anyone look better? trust me, none will. only, it could potentially serve as a precedent for some other articles (no examples will be given by me). Aldux made a point above, and I think he is right. I will try, when i will have the time to make it more informative and better narratively written. not sure if I can make it, but sources do exist, i have them, and everyone can find them as well. Hectorian 00:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could ask the same way: Why do the Greek editors make such a fuss against renaming it as it wouldn't alter the content of the article. See, you have presented a very onesided POV. Wandalstouring 00:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so... Cause this would not create a precedent (I was accused above for making generalizations, so, I am not gonna give examples again). After all, I am still waiting for sources naming collectively the article's content as "massacres" or whatever. My point is that Greek sources name the events "Genocide" and English sources as "Genocide" or "Tragedy". Turkish sources... hmmm... which Turkish sources? are there any? according to Turkey, nothing ever happened! (Someone would have a great time thinking of potential theories concerning what happened to the Pontic Greeks...). Whatever my POV might be, I have not seen not even one solid argument for the renaming of this article... Only the fact that some users do not like its title (not to mention that when the article was created, they "threatened" to list it for deletion). Hectorian 01:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read again. Not all Greek sources call it genocide. But you seem to have missed the point that the tiny group of Turks has now a chance to provide their arguments on a fair basis. If they fail, they failed to prove and the dispute ends. Wandalstouring 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Not all Greek sources call it genocide"? Then I guess it must never have happened and it was just a dream. Those 300,000 people should be coming home any day now! Thulium 17:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then what is the dispute about? Thulium 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a German proverb: "Wer lesen kann ist klar im Vorteil"/Who can read has a clear advantage. It is about searching the right name. For example from a legal perspective the term genocide is clearly defined and the events happaneing to the Pontic Greeks have not yet been assessed whether they qualify as genocide, etc. So the dispute is about the correct title. Wandalstouring 18:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we were seeking for the most common name in English. Thulium 18:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: To be honest, I wouldn't oppose that idea. The problem is I suppose the people disputing (i.e. denying) the genocide would want it to be called "Pontic Greek Massacres Day" or something like that! Thulium 17:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have enough to report about a Greek holiday you can make an article on this Greek holiday and naturally call this holiday just the way its name translates into English. None here ever argued against that and it is entirely off topic. Wandalstouring 17:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Come on Politis, I asked for people to make their position on arbitration clear, do you agree or not? As for your proposal, surely you can see it makes more sense to mention that Greece commemorates these events as genocide within an article based on the events itself, whether entitled genocide or not. For now however, all i want is for people to state whether they are willing to resolve this through arbitration or not. We are, the admins are, the only people who are still sitting on the fence are those who support the status quo. So lets clear this up please. --A.Garnet 17:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further comments

message: There has been a lot of talking, but I would ask the supporters of this articles current title to explicity state whether they agree to arbitration or not. We have 5 arbiters ready to look into this article, and i appreciate their efforts in trying to resolve this. I would ask anyone who is sitting on the fence (perhaps in case they get a result they dont like) to make their position clear so we can go ahead. --A.Garnet 17:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can talk about the memorial day within the article, whatever the title, why do you require a separate article? In fact, why dont you go ahead and add it to this article now. Meanwhile, can you please tell me why exactly you are neutral to any arbitration attempt? We are all committed to a solution, so the more specific you are in what is troubling you about this process, the quicker it can get on road. Thanks, --A.Garnet 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I will get more info about the memorial day and upload a picture of the monument, maybe a separate article will need to be created about the 'Genocide Day'. We'll see... Hectorian 22:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. In the meantime, can you agree to the arbitration? This is really tiresome. For one bloody moment can we concentrate on this and get it started instead of talking about more genocide articles. Is it really that difficult?! --A.Garnet 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you. Although I initiated the arbitration, I can't see that it would lead to any good as long as people are not willing to do so. The main problem about arbitration is that people tend to misunderstand it as a POV-maker while it would show people a way to discuss and solve issues. At least I'm reassured now that there are enough people contributing here who know better. Wandalstouring 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are currently going nowhere with this arbitration. It is evident for all to see why. Greek editors have their article with their genocide title, albeit with a pov title tag, why risk losing it when you can rely on bully tactics to keep it here? I thank Kyriakos for being the only Greek editor to spare us the bullshit and make his position clear. I thank also Dirak for not hiding his stubbornness behind vague replies to simple questions. I am going to see if i can secure more support for this process from other people who were once involved and we'll see how it goes from there. --A.Garnet 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to let everyone know that according to his talk page, Dirak has voluntarily retired from Wikipedia. Kyriakos 20:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I already said I was prepared to accept their decision. It seems none of the Greek editors bar Kyriakos are willing to do the same... --A.Garnet 17:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we in agreement to go ahead? 

message: Garnet asked me to take a final position, and vote a "yes" or "no" for this arbitration after the interim interviews. I'm afraid that my answer can't be a "yes" or "no" (at least, for the time being), and this has nothing to do with the committee itself or with the integrity and the quality of its members. Although I must point out that the fact that one of its potential members questions the effectiveness of this procedure ("I dont count on finding the final plan for this article which is too controversial") is an issue.
My main problem, however, as I expected from the first moment, is that we have more than one open issues in this article, coming to the surface all the time. Controversies, repetitive POV claims etc. I'm afraid that under this atmosphere (for which I do not hesitate to blame also some Greek users (e.g. some incomprehensible reverts in the lead of the article during the previous days) - all sides must be held responsible for their wrongdoings here) the arbitration committee will not be able to fulfil its role, and its work will be distracted and undermined by parallel controversies. But when all this POV controversy remains unresolved, when the  editors of both sides cannot find a "modus vivendi", when trivia issues attract our attention all the time, what, on earth, can this arbitration committee contribute?
This article looks to me right now as a minefield, where initiatives like this arbitration procedure, started with good intentions but not gathering an outright consensus, are destined to perish. Under the present atmosphere and controversy, I'm honestly afraid that this initiative may entail the opposite results than those hoped by its inspirators: A fierce edit war that will break the communication channels between the two sides and will bury once for ever any efforts for the quality-improvement of this article, which is my main agony, and my main interest not only here, in a Greece-related article, but in Wikipedia as a whole.
For all these reasons, I decided to express once again my reservations for the possible outcome of the whole arbitration initiative, and to abstain from the poll, hesitating to offer my support. Because of my disappointment, I also intend to abstain from now on from all the discussions taking place here, until I see a better atmosphere between the various editors and between the editors and those attempting to mediate (which must have in mind that they must not become part of the problem; some dialogues here reveal this danger as well). I do not intend right now to support an initiative, which may lead to worse edit-waring rather than to prompt logic and collaboration.--Yannismarou 17:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Although I initiated the arbitration, I can't see that it would lead to any good as long as people are not willing to do so. The main problem about arbitration is that people tend to misunderstand it as a POV-maker while it would show people a way to discuss and solve issues. At least I'm reassured now that there are enough people contributing here who know better. Wandalstouring 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are currently going nowhere with this arbitration. It is evident for all to see why. Greek editors have their article with their genocide title, albeit with a pov title tag, why risk losing it when you can rely on bully tactics to keep it here? I thank Kyriakos for being the only Greek editor to spare us the bullshit and make his position clear. I thank also Dirak for not hiding his stubbornness behind vague replies to simple questions. I am going to see if i can secure more support for this process from other people who were once involved and we'll see how it goes from there. --A.Garnet 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to let everyone know that according to his talk page, Dirak has voluntarily retired from Wikipedia. Kyriakos 20:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I already said I was prepared to accept their decision. It seems none of the Greek editors bar Kyriakos are willing to do the same... --A.Garnet 17:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where are we actually going with this arbitration? To a solution or to a worse controversy?

message: Why was my edit reverted?! There was no explanation, only an automatic edit comment and a baseless threat on my talk page. Thulium 18:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thulium. Please calm down. We are trying to sort out the whole issue here and not only your edit. You have to respect the status quo for now as most people are discussing how we would proceed to resolve the issue. I am afraid i'd have to protect this article if edit warring persists. So please let the process follow its way. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 18:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thulium, you made the same modification 4 times in the 17 hours between 20:41 GMT on the 29th and 13:10 GMT on the 30th, so you're already sailing very close to the wind, which is why I gave you a warning against breaking 3RR (or, for that matter, repeatedly gaming the system by narrowly avoiding 3 reversion per 24h), and I advise you to seek consensus on the talk page before making changes.  yandman 18:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, there is no 3RR violation. This is not "gaming", my reverts reflect the fact that no one actually explained why I was being reverted. In fact, I still don't know why I was being reverted! Would anyone care to tell me? Thulium 18:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Addendum: Could you guys (everyone editing this article) refrain from editing controversial edits until we move forward? Could you also please concentrate on the process we are into and leave disputes out of this talkpage for now? Thanks. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 18:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yandman did no POV-pushing here. I'm sorry but you are keeping the POV-pushing, although I had told you in your talk page not to! I suggest that you restrain yourself.--Yannismarou 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV pushing by Yandman 

message: Saying "it is a controversial term" in the first sentence is denialist POV. All genocide labels are controversial, the Armenian Genocide, the Assyrian Genocide and even The Holocaust are disputed by some people. Nothing has universal acceptance, I don't see why this article should be treated any differently. Thulium 18:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your knowledge of English isn't very advanced? None argues that the events did not take place. The only problem is the right name. For example if someone turned Holocaust into Jewish Genocide there would be rightful objection. Wandalstouring 18:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holocaust refers to the genocide of many ethnic groups, not just Jews, of course there would be rightful objection. Thulium 18:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For gods' sake Thulium. Could you please have a break and relax? A dozen of people are concentrated on the issue as a whole. I am afraid the process is getting disturbed. Could you please refer to Are we in agreement to go ahead? and give your yes or nay? -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is getting tiresome, all we're seeking here is an agreement to commence arbitration. We will have plenty of time to discuss and argue over the events after that. --A.Garnet 20:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has denialist POV 

message: Is there going to be an appeal mechanism? We should agree on this if we are going to go into it beforehand. Thulium 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No appeals. If you are not satisfied you can start your usual nasty pissing contest again. Wandalstouring 06:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeals 

message: I have the full text, and I fail to understand how the bolded phrase below falls within the context of this particular article:
During the period 1894—96, Armenian communities across Eastern Anatolia
were devastated in a series of massacres orchestrated by the Ottoman Sultan Abdul
Hamid II. Quasi-irregular regiments, the Hamidiye (named after the Sultan and composed
mostly of tribal Kurds) were the chief agents of these massacres, though they
were often aided by gendarmerie, the regular army, and other elements of the local
Moslem population. Though the entire Armenian community was not wiped out, estimates
of the death toll range from 30,000 to 200,000, with some concentration around
80,000.[l2] Historians, perhaps concerned not to magnify these events by comparison
with those of 1915-16, tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them.[13] In my
formulation, however, these events would constitute partial genocide.
Check how POV-ingly (sic) this sentence appears in the article text:
Neither the United Nations, the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, nor any other country with the exception of Greece and the House of Representatives of the Republic of Cyprus recognise the events as genocide. The events are also not recognised as genocide by the International Association of Genocide Scholars. The historian Mark Levene notes that many historians would, "tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them".
I'm making the following changes:
#The blatant POV wording referring to the international organizations rephrased to "A, B, C, ..., have not made any relevant reference".
#Removing this particular Levene comment completely as a blatant selective quoting POV practice, because (a) he refers to particular Armenian (!) massacres 20 years before 1914(!!), (b) even so, he says: "In my formulation, however, these events would constitute partial genocide."
NikoSilver 15:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levene 

message: I see the continuingg attitude of linking this article with TRNC has persisted. Unlike the TRNC article, we have an arbitration process waiting to start, if Dirak or whoever wants to resolve this dispute, let us agree to this arbitration and resolve it once and for all. I am still unsure what certain editors dispute about the process, so I will ask here that people make a concise bullit pointed list of how they want this arbitration arranged before we get started. Thanks, --A.Garnet 17:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Garnet. As I've said before, I refuse to agree to your set up arbitration. If you want to change the title, be my guest. Do you seriously believe this "arbitration" stuff is going to work? No, you don't, it's just an excuse (which incidentally has no backing in policy and there is little reason for anyone to pay attention to it) to keep the tag on. Dirak 18:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Set up?! It was not even my idea! And yes i believe it will work, because as i have said, i am willing to accept its decision. All that i care is that the decision is made by a group of respected editors, and not people who shout over, deride and bully others. If you are confident in your argument, then support it! What are you afraid of? I have as much to lose as you. Perhaps this unqualified backing of the arbitration by myself is worrying some of you, let me reiterate, I dont care what the outcome is, so long as I know it was arrived at in a fair manner, which given the current circumstances is not possible. --A.Garnet 18:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I defer to this comment. Dirak 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: user:Hectorian, if you continue blind reverts like you did with my recent fixing the correct name, I will have to request to discuss your intolerant behavior incompatible with editing wikipedia. Mukadderat 06:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blind reverts

message: Here is the United Nation's definition of genocide.
There's no doubt that the acts in question were committed with intent to destroy the Pontic ethnic group in Turkey, else so many Pontic Greeks would not have perished.  There's no doubt that the acts occurred.  No source in the world would say that the acts never happened or that they were committed without intent to destroy all or part of the Pontic Greek population in Turkey.  So, why is there so much opposition to the title of "genocide?"  This whole thing seems very black and white to me, and I personally see no reason for such a large debate over plain facts.
If you feel that "genocide" is "too strong a term," (number one, you're probably in the denialist point of view, but onwards we move) would you be more comfortable if we used the term like, oh, say, "ethnic cleansing?"  Well, we might be able to use that.  But this very website describes ethnic cleansing as "various policies or practices aimed at the displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory." (Check it out here.)  The article does state that such "policies or practices" may include killings, but cites displacement as the primary "goal," shall we say, of the act (in the very first sentence of the article), whereas in genocide, the primary "goal" is killing.  Clearly, killing was most prevelant method of "displacement" in the acts of brutality against the Pontic Greeks.
Some of you continue to state that there are a lack of sources that label the events as genocide.  Well, the event is not part of "popular history;" you simply can't expect there to be many sources on the topic at all.  We aren't talking about something that people would write millions of books about, like the World Wars.  There simply aren't many popular, available published sources to begin with.  In essence, the event has never really been given a name by history, has it?  Oh, and... what difference does the nationality or religion (or region of residence) of an author make in their work?  I've read that some of you have a fixation on the nationalities or religions of the authors of the sources used in the research of this topic.  But how can you just assume that an author has bias just by judging his nationality or religion?  The truth is, you cannot.  I hope you were joking (some joke you were out to make).  Either that or you're being descriminatory, or you've read the sources personally and found evidence of bias.  What is so wierd or suspicious about most sources on the issue being written by Greek authors when the event itself is directly tied to the Greeks?
Let us take it upon ourselves to give this time in history a name.  We know what happened - historians have let us know that much, though they may not have agreed upon a name for the events.  Those acts are defined as genocide even by the United Nations.  As a result of the acts, hundreds of thousands of people died - I would say that that number constitutes an act of genocide moreso than a massacre.  Furthermore, the eyewitness accounts page confirms that the Greeks were systematically eliminated as the Armenians were, and we all know that on a whole, both the Pontic and Armenian genocides were part of the larger apparent "Christian" genocide in Turkey.  If one part of the "Christian genocide" is called a genocide itself, it is only proper for another smiliarly large-scale killing that was another part of this "Christian genocide" to also be called a genocide.
Thank you, and good night from Massachusetts, USA.
Thegreek431 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello from Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.  No one expects everything to be documented in "popular history".  But it has to be documented somehow for Wikipedia to talk about it.  Wikipedia is not in the business of "giving this time in history a name"; see WP:NOR. Instead of ranting, find some good, third-party sources and add them to the article; that will make the article much more convincing.  Why third-party?  So there isn't even the suspicion of bias, especially important for such highly-charged topics. --Macrakis 14:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listen and Listen Good 

message: Ashkani, are you aware youre deleting a properly sourced material written by a scholar who has no such a will to make propoganda or defend turks? Thats why i chose him to quote and youre reverting it..And at the same time there are quotations from people like Horton who are real propagandist in the article..You cant delete anything properly sourced. The place of the quotation may not be the proper location but there is not any place else to put such a quotation.--laertes d 07:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concern addressed. NikoSilver 08:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It gives an opinion as to why the events were led to happen. Certainly this information does not belong in the intro. The "Background" section, from its name, should definitely deal with past. We can move some Soviet related parts in the "Aftermath" section, but I wouldn't want to touch it yet. Let's digest each edit one by one in this highly controversial article. I'm sure Toynbee has said other stuff as well, so we need an expert to summarize it all. NikoSilver 10:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Toynbee

message: As seen as I have engaged with the usual suspects in the past few days, I may as well divert my attention back here. The above section is basically devoted entirely to a few sentences where refence is made to Greeks and genocides. This is undue weight. In the section just above under the title "reasons for limited recognition", we state the International Association of Genocide Scholars, that is the foremost academic authority on genocide, has made no declaration affirming this as genocide. So why on earth do we have large passages of quotes which focus on a minority pov when the most credible authority has made no "relative reference"?
In reflecting academic opinion, the article should state something like "The ASGS has made no declaration affirming the events as genocide, some academics such as Tatz and Jacobs make reference to the Pontian experiene as part of the greater Armenian genocide". That is the weight of academic position, yet this article has chosen to concentrate entirlely on a few sentences, some with no mention of genocide. I'm not even going to ask why the references I provided months go by credible authrors saying there was no genocide has been left out. My priority here is to first reflect academic opinion correctly. 
Also, as for the pictures of the texts, neither of them are so signficant that they deserve a picture. Seems like another rather poor attempt to give this whole pov more credibility than it deserves. --A.Garnet 18:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't really know what they are doing. I see that Domitius reverted again. Breaking the Wikipedia rules only damages the article's credibility (non fair use of images, primary sources, etc). That's what you are doing Domitius/Ploutarchos, Hectorian, and Aristovoulos. DenizTC 09:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Removed non-fair use book covers and primary sources I could spot. Removed unnecessary blockquotes. Also Morgenthau etc. are not academic. DenizTC 09:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair use covers the book covers because the article discusses them. As for the quotes, inclusion can't depend exclusively on what you consider academic. Feel free to add contradicting sources if you think that this is undue. NikoSilver 10:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, this article is not about those books (it is just using one or two sentences from that book). Why do we keep primary sources? Removed ones are primary sources (not the 'non-academic' ones). I just removed the claim that some other people were academic, when they were not. See academic. DenizTC 10:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proving non-existence of something is usually unnecessary, and quite hard, in fact the burden should be on the people that claim the existence. People died of course, many people died from many ethnicities. It does not mean there was a genocide. The authoritative sources don't mention such a thing, we should write the article accordingly. See WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Again we should follow Wikipedia rules. In my opinion, you (Nikos, Domitius, Aristo, Hectorian (and maybe Garnet and me as well, sorry if that's the case)) are not doing that, and insisting on breaking the rules to the state of edit warring. DenizTC 10:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources have been cited proving the "existence" of it. Now the onus has shifted to those wanting to disprove it (or at least prove that it's "existence" is disputed and you haven't even managed to do that).--Ploutarchos 10:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proving its existence is not the point, proving this is the most commonly used name by academics is the point. e.g. Srebrenica genocide = Srebrenica massacre, despite Serbia being found guilty of genocide. What you and others have failed to do is find enough credible sources which prove this the favoured name by academia. Instead, we are interpreting Hortons usage of the word massacre, or Rumme's usage of the term "Greek genocide" (lets ignore the fact that he also applies the term genocide to the Greek conduct in Anatolia in Greco-Turkish war). In reality, this whole article is being legitimised on the basis of a few sentences. It is completely undue weight. --A.Garnet 10:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is the most common name? Pontian Greek Kindergarten Expedition? That's one of the problems, you dispute the name, but are there any alternative titles? What's the guarantee that if this article is renamed it won't go the same way as the Kurdish one, you trying to delete sourced text claiming it is "undue weight" without citing counter sources proving that it's actually disputed.--Ploutarchos 10:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I wanted to delete reference to these events (which is bad faith assumption) I would have initiated an afd in the year I have been disputing the title. The Kurdish "genocide" article, which you created as part of your games on Wikipedia, was decided by consensus to merged into the present Human rights article. Nowhere has there been a consensus to devote a section to more genocide pov pushing. In fact, the consensus I see emerging is that of Yanni's proposal that the section must be contextualised. --A.Garnet 11:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, there was no consensus for that move. It was pulled overnight by someone while no one was looking and then CoolCat messed up the redirects (by adding CSD templates, so it may not have been deliberate scorched earth). And by "contextualized", I understand adding sourced material proving what "real" academics have to say about the "paradise" the Kurds are living in, not deleting sourced text.--11:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I will rewrite it when I have time. Won't be for a couple of days though. --A.Garnet 10:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And, for shame, Horton and Morgenthau were definitely not academic authors. They were politicians with an agenda. I mean, come on, that's obvious... --Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Lol, twisting what I said (is that "poisoning my well"?). Like I mentioned above, "I just removed the claim that some other people were academic, when they were not" We have a sentence like "[Rummel] uses 14 third party academic sources" and Morgenthau et al are among these academic sources. He is not an academic. DenizTC 15:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion.--Ploutarchos 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, don't forget that this was a time when Government, and especially quasi-bureaucratic posts such as Ambassadors were filled by people who were members of a landed or commercial elite (like Morgenthau), sure, he's not 'academic' in the strictest sense of the word. I.e. Holding a phd in the earlier history of the Ottoman Empire, and that leads me on to another point. Morgenthau wrote his book in 1919, when there was no general scholarly field of study on the Pontic Greek or Armenian genocides.--NeroDrusus 22:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic views on the issue 

message: Since no discussion is taking placing to resolve this I have reverted again. I would also like whoever provided the Rendel and Akcam source in the following paragraph to clarify whether the authors are referring to Pontians or Aegean Greeks. 
"One of the alleged methods used in the systematic elimination of the Greek population was the Labour Battalions (Turkish: Amele Taburları, Greek: Τάγματα Εργασίας Tagmata Ergasias). In them, mostly young and healthy people were forced to work by the Ottoman Administration during the First World War and the Turkish Government after the creation of the Turkish Republic." --A.Garnet 21:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, the Eyewitnesses sections states "German and Austro-Hungarian diplomats, as well as The Memorandum by Mr. G.W. Rendel on Turkish Massacres and Persecutions of Minorities since the Armistice, have provided evidence for series of systematic massacres of the Greeks in Asia Minor" - As I have said all along, this article is not about Asia Minor Greeks. If this article is as verifiable as its authors claim, why are we still referring to Asia Minor Greek and not the Pontians? Unless relavant quotes can be found in relation to Pontians this section should be removed. --A.Garnet 21:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I took into consideration some of Garnet's concerns and reorganized the article. I mainly did the following modifications:
*Kept the "Casualties" section and expanded it from other parts of the article. I moved there all relevant sources and figures, mainly from the "Academic sources" and "Background" sections.
*Removed all detailed references regarding recognition from the lead and pasted their sources where applicable.
*Added in their place a couple of summarizing sentences from the "Casualties" and "Recognition" sections.
*Corrected a few glitches here and there.
Further development of the "Background" section may be necessary, especially related to the Greco-Turkish war and the Greek invasion. NikoSilver 23:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concerns have not been taken into account Niko. Where in this article is there a narrative for what the Pontians experienced? There is none, rather 90% of the article is concerned with pushing the genocide pov, that it is why only the most relevant material to Pontians must be kept and the rest scrapped. --A.Garnet 01:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganizing 

message: Please have a look at the following:
http://pontosforum.4.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=12
--   Avg    22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NYT articles

message: I'd like to make a statement addressed to A.Garnet and all others who would hack apart this article because it deals with matters not directly involving the Pontic Greek Genocide. One of the tricky things about writing articles is where to begin and where to end. Obviously, someone discussing the Fall of Constantinople in this article would be wrong to do so (and no one is proposing we trace this back to 1453). By the same token, though, events do not happen in a vacuum. Other massacres of Greeks were happening elsewhere in Anatolia at the same time. True, they weren't going on in Pontus, but given a)the scarcity of data on Pontus itself, and b)the fact that the atrocities bore strong similarities to each other, warrants inclusion of supplementary information. Indeed it would be foolish to remove such information for tendentious purposes, as appears to be happening. Biruitorul 21:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me my friend, but there is nothing tendetious about my purpose here. Scarcity of data on Pontus is not an excuse to introduce massacres which you personally judge to bear similarities (another instance of OR), especially when such supplementary material outweighs the subject of the article itself. This is the Pontian Greek "genocide" remember, if it is as academically verifiable and notable as its editors claim, then there should not even be any scarcity of data in the first place. Furthermore, none of this justifies the complete absence of a narrative of the events, the undue weight given to its academic and international recognition and the "poor and tendetious writing" (Fut.'s words, not mine). --A.Garnet 22:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - I apologise for impugning your motives. However (and the authors can correct me if I'm wrong), it's not people here who have drawn a connection to similar massacres, but those scholarly sources that have been used to construct the article (i.e., no OR). Could the scarcity of data be due to the relative obscurity of the event? Not all genocides are equally well documented, after all. I agree that the narrative is perhaps lacking, but I trust that shall improve with time. Let's work to improve that narrative, not cut away from it. Biruitorul 02:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well perhaps you could point me to a source in this article which draws such parallels since you believe this to be the case? In fact, maybe you could point me to a source which discusses these events at all? Other than the casualty figures, we have nothing of worth which goes into depth about how and what the Pontians suffered without dipping into original research. As for your statement that not all genocides are equally documented, this is not really relevant, the purpose of the article is reflect academic research, if this is lacking this does not mean editors carry out their own research in its place. You want to improve the article, so do I, to do that means removing all the accumulated nonsense in the past year of pov pushing and starting from scratch. --A.Garnet 11:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pontic Greeks were a [large] subset of Anatolian Greeks. Sources discussing Anatolian Greeks are therefore highly relevant, not to mention that the Greek government's newer thesis calls for a "genocide of the Hellenes of the Asia Minor" in general. What I observe is that most academics don't treat Pontians alone (because it doesn't make sense?), but they were the first to be expunged (and those mostly expunged). I oppose every removal of sourced material that discusses Anatolian Greeks without explicitly excluding Pontic Greeks. The article bears their name because this is the most frequent term, but a redirect should also exist from Genocide of Greeks in Asia Minor and Anatolian Greek Genocide. I don't know what it is you contest about, but deleting sourced material is not the right way to do it. I suggest you add material that backs up what you dispute, rather than deleting material backing up the other opinion. Biruitorul 04:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most academics dont treat Pontians alone? That is generous, no academics treat Pontians alone, in fact, barely any academics treat the Pontians at all. Like it or not that is a fact. I have said it a hundred times, you will find not one monologue, not one journal article, not one encylopedic article dedicated to these events which makes the assertions being made here. You oppose any sourced material which does not explicity exclude Pontian Greeks? Well I oppose any material which does not explicitly mention Pontian Greeks. Since this article is supposedly academically verifiable, then my view point should be far easier to satisfy no?  As for your title recommendations, please tell me, based on what academic sources have you established that genocide occured to Greeks in Asia Minor, so much so that it warrants a title and redirect? While you are looking, tell me based on what academic material the current title of this article is justified also, since you have decided it is the most frequent term. --A.Garnet 15:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources discuss Christians in Asia Minor, including Armenians and Greeks. Sources discuss Anatolian Greeks. Sources discuss Pontic Greeks. Primary sources call it names ("annihilation", "persistent campaign of massacres", "atrocities"...). Secondary sources call it a "genocide", "eradication", "ethnic cleansing"... And then we have a global thesis by a couple of countries, NGOs, and subnational entities that call for recognition of a "Pontic Greek Genocide". Your claim that there has to be a dedicated study for this title and incidents is rarely heard on Wikipedia. It has been cited numerous times that the death toll was about 360,000. This is the crux of the matter; I see the minutiae of the naming dispute as being of little importance in comparison. You have been deleting sourced material which I see as highly relevant for the article. Do tell: are your intentions for expansion sincere? What direction do you see this going in? If you do want to add something, please go ahead: there is absolutely no problem with that. But - first you add, then we see what and if it will be deleted. The point is we should be focusing on expansion rather than contraction at the moment, as we've got a good starting base to work with. Biruitorul 00:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On context