Talk:Greek genocide

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

Lead

See previous discussion: Talk:Pontic_Greek_Genocide/Archive_8#Lead Talk:Pontic_Greek_Genocide/Archive_8#Article title

I propose that the article is moved to Pontic Greek genocide so that it is a descriptive name (see WP:MOS#First sentences) so that the lead can be rewritten to say:

During and in the aftermath of World War I the Ottoman government conducted a campaign against the Greek population of Pontus. The campaign included persecutions, massacres, expulsions, and death marches during which the number of deaths that occurred according to various sources ranges from 300,000 to 360,000 Anatolian Greeks. The survivors and the expelled took refuge mostly in the nearby Russian Empire (later, Soviet Union). The few Pontic Greeks who had remained in Pontus until the end of the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) were exchanged in the frame of the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations in 1922–1923. The Turkish government (Turkey is the successor state to the Ottoman Empire) maintains that there was a large scale pacification campaign carried out in the region because the Greek population was seen as sympathetic to the enemies of the Ottoman state and a potential fifth column. The Allies of World War I took a different view condemning the Ottoman government sponsored massacres as crimes against humanity. More recently the International Association of Genocide Scholars have passed resolution that Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire, including the Pontian Greeks, was a genocide. Some other organisations have also passed resolutions recognising the campaign as a genocide including both the parliament of Greece and that of Cyprus.

It explains what happened (at least as far as is currently mentioned in the article) and it mentions the three major POVs and it would allow the article to be unprotected. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed move and most of the text save for the pacification part. Maybe we can clarify Turkey's position without resorting to euphemistic terms or state propaganda, especially in the lead section. The same goes of course for any other state involved be it Cyprus or Greece. Overall this is the first time in this discussion that I can see real hope in ending this stalemate and for this, Philip, I give you credit. Dr.K. (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Pacification is the correct term for such a campaign, and since antiquity there is more than one interpretation of the term "Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant." Tacitus, but in the interests of moving this article forward we can strike it out, if on reflection you still think it is not appropriate. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Philip for your answer as well as the delightful Latin excerpt. In the lead I think we can include the positions of the various governments on the recognition of the event as a genocide or not, without going into the details. However if the position of the Turkish government is that it was "pacification" this can be included in the section where the various governmental positions are expounded. This will allow for all the positions to be featured, analysed and compared in one section without the need to prematurely clutter the lead with the details of the viewpoints of the individual state parties. This was the last point of disagreement with your position but after this modification I am in full agreement with you. Thank you for your excellent effort Philip. Dr.K. (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

From a grammatical point of view, the second sentence should be split up into two. For example, "The campaign included persecutions, massacres, expulsions, and [deportations involving] death marches [STOP]" and then a separate sentence can deal with estimates for death toll. Note that using the term "campaign" in solitude is not particularly concise. What type of campaign was it? -- genocidal campaign? Using the term "persecutions" is also ambiguous as many of the following terms (massacres, expulsions, etc) can be categorized as persecutions. Pontian Greeks were indeed "Anatolian Greeks" but the phrase "300,000 to 360,000 Anatolian Greeks" is misleading since one might assume that only 300,000 to 360,000 Anatolian Greeks died as a whole, when really you are referring in particular to the Anatolian population of Pontus. I assume the reason you chose the term "Anatolian Greeks" is because death toll estimates (Rendel etc) in the article are not restricted to Pontus. If you want to be exclusive and speak only of the plight of the Pontians perhaps material in the article should be restricted only to Pontus too -- otherwise, one might accuse the compilers of the article of historical distortion. "The survivors and the expelled took refuge mostly in the nearby Russian Empire (later, Soviet Union)". This is misleading. Only a small portion of Greeks ever sought refuge in Russian. What is your source for statistics pertaining to the Russian influx? "Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations in 1922–1923". Remember an "exchange" of populations was only formalized and legalized in 1923. Be concise – consider using terms like expulsion, migration, etc instead. "Some other organisations ... including both the parliament of Greece and that of Cyprus." Perhaps use another word to describe governments and states; they are not "organizations" per se. Finally, remember that the IAGS didn't recognize or endorse the term "Pontic Greek Genocide". I am not saying you claimed it is so but I want to make a point. The term actually endorsed and used by the President of the IAGS in the resolution press release was "Greek Genocide". The organization affirmed that all Anatolian Greeks (incl. Pontians) were subject to genocide. This article as it stands is awfully exclusive and replete with sophistries. Please see "Regional Isolation in the Greek Genocide Thesis" on http://www.greek-genocide.org/pontus.html for more info. I also see the article attaches much significance to Fotiadis’ works. Consult http://www.greek-genocide.org/review_photiades.html Bebek101 (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article it is awful, but it is protected at the moment so it can not be fixed. We have three choices. Try to fix it (and the best place to start is the introduction) because if that is written from a NPOV we may be able to fix the rest. The other options are: to put it up for an AfD, or move it and have just one article on what happened to the Greek population in the territories of what is today the Republic of Turkey.

I took the information from the article (as the lead is meant to be a mini version of the article) for example the point you raise about "The survivors and the expelled took refuge mostly in the nearby Russian Empire (later, Soviet Union)2 comes from the last paragraph in the Aftermath section.

I agree with some of the points you have raised, but take strong exception to one. There is a very good reason for using campaign without qualifying it in the first sentence. There is agreement that a campaign took place but there no agreement on what type of campaign it was: See my Latin quote above "You make a desert and call it peace" which sums up the different POV's in this type of campaigns quite well. Please read the article on Genocide and the section European Court of Human Rights in the Bosnian Genocide article. From that you will see that the term genocide has a very specific meaning and there is not universal agreement that the events described in this article was a genocide. I also suggest that you have a read of the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities and consider that as a possible template for this article. Also please consider Let the facts speak for themselves and Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy.

The use of persecution on its own is not enough because it has a specific meaning under international law.[1][2]

I think it would be much better if this article was laid out:

• Prelude
• Events
• Aftermath
• Genocide debate

but we can come to an agreement on that once we have agreed on the content of the lead and the article is unlocked.

Personally I think that this article should be moved to a more neutral name and include what happened to the Greek population in the territories of what is today the Republic of Turkey, but I suspect that there would not be a consensus for such a move. However to see if that is possible, I'll start another section below, and float that boat. But in the mean time if we can agree to the move and the wording above (which can be tuned once the article in unprotected) then we can get on with the development of this article--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. So far as "There is agreement that a campaign took place but there no agreement on what type of campaign it was". Yes, this is true for the case of the Pontian Greeks, that is when treating their experience as an isolated incident without taking into account the genocidal experience of other Ottoman Greeks. When examining the broader picture, however, the only 'scholars' who disagree with its genocidal quality are the likes of McCarthy et al -- in other words, the same group that dispute the Armenian Genocide. The other party, of course, is the Turkish Government. I can't see any harm of calling it Greek Genocide and then adding a note such as "Terminology is consistent with that adopted by the International Association of Genocide Scholars. However, it should be noted that some individuals, along with the Republic Turkey, dispute the genocidal quality of the campaign" or some such.Bebek101 (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

At the moment the sources used in this article often do not distinguish between the different Greek populations in what is today the territory of the Republic of Turkey, so rather than having this article as a stand alone article how about moving it to a name that encompasses the Ottoman and Turkish governments campaign against the Greek population in the territories of what is today the Republic of Turkey. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In favor, but I would like to go a step further. Can this article not be scraped completely and a new article (as suggested) compiled with a more encompassing and inclusive perspective, dealing with the genocidal experience of all Ottoman Greeks in the period 1914-1923 (which is what you are suggesting by territories of contemporary Turkey). However, I think we should restrict ourselves to the Ottoman Campaign (1914-23); pogroms and acts of ethnic cleansing towards Greeks perpetrated by the Republic of Turkey can be dealt with in other articles. Bebek101 (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not replied before in the hope that othes would express an opinion, but as none have done so: I do not think that using a name such as "Greek Genocide" is a good idea for the the same reason as "Pontic Greek Genocide" is a good name. It effectively forces a non neutral point of view on to the introduction. Far better to use a descriptive name. For that reason "Pontic Greek genocide" is better than "Pontic Greek Genocide." Particularly as this is hot international political issue (see for example a and b) and Wikipedia must present information from a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view].

Similarly if we are going to write an article about the Turkish/Ottoman governments campaign against the Greek population in the territories of what is today the Republic of Turkey it should have a neutral descriptive name. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree. Remember that genocide affirmation is solely a historical issue -- not a "hot international political issue". Genocide recognition by foreign states is an entirely separate matter and we should not confuse the two. You pasted a link where Turkey requested Athens to cancel a commemorative day. One can paste a thousand such links on the Armenian Genocide too. Does that mean a NPOV Armenian Genocide article would be giving the view of the Republic of Turkey and the view of the international academic community with equal weight? Please remember the highest ranking affirmation of the genocidal quality of the Armenian Genocide is that of the IAGS. This is the case for the Greek and Assyrian Genocides too. I am afraid it is only logical to attach more weight to an independent, unbiased, international academic organization than to Turkey's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is not independent, nor unbiased, nor academic and so on. I suggested above that we use the term Greek Genocide but add a note such as "Terminology is consistent with that adopted by the International Association of Genocide Scholars. However, it should be noted that some individuals, along with the Republic Turkey, dispute the genocidal quality of the campaign" or some such. What is the harm in doing this? There are always going to be groups or individuals opposing the very obvious -- this is the case for the Jewish Holocaust, Rwanda, Armenian Genocide, and the list goes on -- but we can't let ourselves be held hostage to such views. I am afraid neutrality doesn't come by accepting all views as equal and balanced. Just my thoughts. Bebek101 (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It was not the Turkish complaint (dog bites man is not news) it is the second one that indicates that the Greek government is considering listening to the Turkish complaint (man bites dog is news). You and I will have to agree to differ as does the international community. For example the new Additional Protocol to the Convention on cybercrime Article 6, Section 1 of the Protocol specifically covers the denial of the Holocaust and other genocides recognized as such by other international courts set up since 1945 by relevant international legal instruments.[3] So your argument about "There are always going to be groups or individuals opposing the very obvious -- this is the case for the Jewish Holocaust, Rwanda," and the Srebrenica massacre are not the same as other genocides because they are recognised as such under international law. Take for example this BBC report from 2001 that says the British government's position is "The Foreign Office accepts that the massacres [of Armenian civilians] took place, but insists that they do not qualify as genocide." Now it may be that the British government has changed its position since Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale made in clear a statement in 1999 (Lords Hansard text for 14 Apr 1999 (190414-09) Column 826: 6.43 pm), but it may not have as former British governments have also been accused of genocide in places like Ireland, -- I don't know -- but what is certain is that the labelling of mass killings of people before 1939 as genocide is controversial because there is nothing like the universal agreement that such mass killings were genocides as there is for those genocides found to be such in post 1945 international court cases. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all the "Greek Government" did not consider appeasing Turkey. In fact every single member of the Greek Parliament voted in favor of both of the two genocide resolutions on the Greek Genocide (2645/98 & 2193/94). Let me stress that they were both passed unanimously by the "Greek Government". It was only later that the Greek Prime minister was pressured by the Turkish Government not to use the word "genocide". However, the resolutions were not changed and both contain the term genocide. The press report merely highlight that the Greek Diaspora responded firmly and in advance to the Prime Minister's possible consideration of appeasing Turkey in response to Turkey's request.

I'm sorry but it is plain silly to say we can't use the word "genocide" retrospectively to define pre-WWII genocides as "genocide" . It's about as silly as saying we can't call Cain killing his brother Abel "murder" because the term didn't exist then and international law hasn't recognized it as such. One only has to consult Lemkin's writings to see the application of the term -- see also [4]. By the way, I trust you are being fair by citing these same arguments on the Armenian Genocide wikipedia talk page and the Herero and Namaqua Genocide talk page and so on? No, the British Government to this day doesn't accept the Armenian Genocide -- even more reason to scrap the term "genocide" from that article too, right? -- it's controversial after all. Or are these arguments only for the Ottoman Greeks? If so, why? Bebek101 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

First to clear up a misunderstanding. Government does not mean the same thing in Commonwealth English and American English, Americans include all three branches. Under British English there is a clear distinction between HMG and Parliament. I was using the term Government as it is used in Commonwealth English (so the Greek government passed nothing, it was passed by the Greek Parliament, and the Greek Prime Minister as head of the Greek Government and the "possible consideration of appeasing Turkey in response to Turkey's request"). The second point about titles, I don't think that the American Revolutionary War is the best title, but I realise that Wikipedia consensus makes it pointless to change the name. The events that we are discussing here are relatively little known in the English speaking world so we have more freedom on deciding a title. This is a very bad article because it puts the cart before the horse (it focuses on the genocide debate and not on the events -- There is no section in the article which explains what happened). If such articles have neutral names hopefully we can focus on the events and not the debate which is what a good article should do. The issue of whether something is a genocide or not revolves around very technical issue about intent of the perpetrators and the percentage of the population killed, (it does not focus on the events, other than whether the technical definition is met). For example the ICTY ruling on the Srebrenica massacre has thrown up the bizar situation where under international law one person could be found guilty of genocide because the proportion of the victim population they had access to fulfils the "in part" requirement, while theoretically their superior who has access to a large proportion of the victim population did not commit genocide, although (s)he ordered the killings, as in the superior's case the in part requirement was not met!

Mass murder as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population (a crime against humanity) is just as bad for the victims and a crime of similar magnitude under international law as the crime of genocide, and it is easier to reach agreement on (as there is no need to prove intent or that the threshold for in part has been met). By presenting the facts of the events and laying out the debate about the different interpretations of events creates a much better article than prejudging the debate in the title. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, let's not be pedantic. The distinction between government and parliament is not relevant to the discussion at hand and, anyway, it is a little different in Greece. But to clear up any confusion, both resolutions were endorsed by the "Government" and published in the "Government Gazette" with the term "genocide" in each. Both the Greek Parliament and Greek Government endorse the term genocide. In any case, this issue is just distracting us from the matter at hand. This article is a historical matter and we shouldn't put the focus squarely on what political stance countries have adopted (indeed, it can be mentioned somewhere as a note in the article but it should never be the core of the text). I tried to communicate earlier that genocide affirmation by academics and political recognition of genocide by nations and states are two distinct issues which we shouldn't confuse -- nor should we attach equal weight to both.

There are serious problems with the conceptual definition of genocide that you are citing. The percentage of those killed has absolutely zero to do with whether an extermination campaign constitutes genocide. No definition of genocide, whether it be an international convention or a conceptual definition of genocide scholars, includes such criterion. What is your source for this? In fact, if only one person were killed, under a particular set of circumstances, it could still constitute genocide.

We have already both agreed this article is plain awful. This is not up for debate. What I am suggesting is an article, inclusive in nature, on the Greek Genocide and which is supported by appropriate documentation and has an outline of the events. We could use terminology consistent with the world's leading academic organization on genocide studies but also mention Turkey's position.

You didn't answer me before but I would be interested in an answer. Are you fighting for the removal of "genocide" from other articles on pre-1939 events because, as you say, it's "controversial "? Bebek101 (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the issue here is controversy. The issue here is that there is no extensive body of literature on the subject that refers to the event as the "Pontic Greek Genocide," (notice capitals, signifying the name of a specific event). Almost all sources provided in the archives refer to "a genocide of the Pontians" or "Greek genocide" or something similar, but there clearly is no single name for the events, and the fact that there lacks significant literature on the topic in English makes opposition to the titling (or at least the way the article is being presented, particularly in the lead) considerable. Indeed, google probably returns more hits for "Native American genocide" or "American Indian genocide" or "Aboriginal genocide," but that doesn't mean these are appropriate page titles for Wiki since none of these are as thoroughly recognized as the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, Rwanda and Srebrenica (notice Srebrenica's article still has some titling conflict). As Phillip has already stated, this article primarily discusses the conflict over the titling rather than the event itself. Remember that Wikipedia is not intended to be persuasive; report the verifiable facts only and let readers decide. Also, why is the second image on this page an image of the Armenian Genocide? 130.74.116.18 (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Change to the lead 10 July 2008

I am removing this addition to the lead paragraph:

known as the Pontic Greek genocide (Greek: Γενοκτονία των Ελλήνων του Πόντου Genoktonía tōn Ellēnōn tou Póntou; Turkish: Pontus soykırımı iddiaları)

because the name of the article is now a descriptive one, so there is no need to include the name of the article in the lead (WP:MOS#First sentences: "If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive ... the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface.") The genocide issue is addressed in the second paragraph in the lead and the section "Genocide debate" where it can be delte with with a neutral point of view. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear Philip, thanks for making this change. I was considering making some very small changes to the first paragraph but want to run them past you first. They are much like I suggested earlier. Would you mind if I edited the first paragraph to read:

"During World War I and its aftermath (1914-1923) the Ottoman Government conducted a campaign against the Greek population of Pontus, north-eastern Anatolia, as well as some other regions of the Empire. The campaign included massacres, forced deportations involving death marches and summary expulsions. According to different sources the number of Greek deaths in the region range from 300,000 to 360,000. Some of the survivors and the expelled took refuge in the neighboring Russian Empire (later, Soviet Union). The few Pontic Greeks who remained in Pontus until the end of the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) were later exchanged in the framework of the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations (1923)."

Let me know what you think and if anything bothers you. Cheers Bebek101 (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I see with it is "the number of Greek deaths in the region range from 300,000 to 360,000" you of course mean for the Greeks in all the regions, not just Pontus, but your wording does not make that clear. -- Perhaps we could incorporate the number given by Harry Psomiades, professor emeritus of political science at Queens College the City University of New York, "of the 275,000 Pontian souls who where slaughtered outright or were victims of the 'white death' of disease and starvation - a result of the routine process of deportations, slave labor, and the killings and death marches." (Talk:Pontic_Greek_genocide/Academic_quotes) If we can find the source for this quote and a range if another source for just the Pontian deaths can be found. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought "Anatolian Greeks" was a typo on your part and you in fact meant Pontic Greeks. I did not realize that you mean all of Anatolia.

In recent years historians have cited figures ranging from 730,000 to 1,700,000 for the death toll amongst Ottoman Greeks as a whole. Please know that the pre-genocide Ottoman Greek population numbered at least 2.5 million but some sources give exorbitant figures as high as 5 million (e.g. the Near East Relief). Yet only 1,104,216 Ottoman Greeks were ever recorded as having reached Greece through migration, expulsion or exchange. Therefore, even when taking into account a number of other crucial factors, it is clear that no less than a million Greeks (Thracian + Anatolian) died during the Genocide period.

What's more, later on the in the article, in the section Casualties, the two figures given for the Anatolia Greek death toll are 480,000 and 500,000. On the other hand, death toll for the Pontus region in that same section are all around 350,000. So, in any case, we are not even reflecting the material in the article by saying "300,000 to 360,000 Anatolian Greeks" died.

To this end, I think this should be changed promptly to "Greeks of the Pontus region" or some such because it is erroneous and doesn't reflect the material cited in the article.

I like your suggestion about including the 275,000 figure by Psomiades and we can then bring down the lower figure of the range that way too. I know the source of that quotation. It was a paper that Psomiades presented some 15 years back titled "The Phantom Republic of Pontos and The Megali Catastrophe". Do you want me to include in the casualties section?

I'm pleased that all else is okay by you. I'll make all changes apart from the sentence in question until we reach a solution.

Let me know your thoughts on this matter of death toll so we can proceed on this point. If you want specific sources for any of the aforementioned information, just let me know for what. Cheers Bebek101 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

When I constructed the new introduction I made an error (it might have been a typo but more likely a cut and past error) you are right it should have been "300,000 to 360,000 Pontian Greek". Having made it I did not check it and assumed that the info in the quote was correct. I intend to fix it as soon as I post this paragraph. But in your edited version, I think you should also mention Pontian Greek so there is no confusion in the numbers presented as to the region they represent. By all means include the Psomiades figure in the casualties section providing he is a reliable source. We should present a range of figures but if one of them is out of kilter that should be noted so we do not give undue weight to unusually high or low figures. Richard J. Evans (David Irving's nemesis) is quoted in Historical revisionism (negationism) "Reputable and professional historians ... do not eagerly seek out the highest possible figures in a series of statistics, independently of their reliability or otherwise, simply because they want for whatever reason to maximise the figure in question, but rather, they assess all the available figures as impartially as possible in order to arrive at a number that will withstand the critical scrutiny of others." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

Bebek101's edits

I initially reverted Bebek101's edits because they appeared to be controversial. However, it seems that most of the edits were rearranging of text and other minor changes. If anyone disagrees feel free to restore the article to the last stable version by Philip Baird Shearer. Khoikhoi 19:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please know I mostly made corrections, rearranged the text and added more info on the IAGS resolution. For example, the census referred to in the article was listed as 1926 when it was actually 1928 so I corrected that. The IAGS resolution was listed as adopted on December 15th when it was actually December 1st and so I corrected that (press release was December 16th). I also added the text of the resolution. All other changes were minor and improved the quality of the article. Nothing I did was controversial. Bebek101 (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The tension on editing this page is still palpable. Its manifestations include new and red linked users' edits becoming collateral damage. I hope the atmosphere improves in the not too distant future. Dr.K. (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Btw, why am I a red linked user? What is such a user? It is true that I am new on wikipedia but I am not a vandal.Bebek101 (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are not a vandal Bebek101. The red link appears if you have not edited your user page. It is not a problem. Unfortunately some proportion of vandals enjoy this kind of user page as well. Therefore if someone is new and red linked and makes an edit in a controversial area other editors could possibly check and double check his/her edits. By the way welcome and thank you for your contributions. Dr.K. (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's great. I just noticed you are no longer a red linked user. Not that it mattered before but I guess being blue linked creates less wiki anxiety for some reason. But please do not quote me on that; it's just a casual observation. Dr.K. (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Dr.K. for both the welcome and the friendly advice. Cheers!Bebek101 (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies to Bebek for jumping the gun a bit too early. You are indeed welcome here! Khoikhoi 04:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

deported/conscripted

Currently the article says: "deported Greek men of military age from Thrace and western Anatolia into labor battalions in which hundreds of thousands died." It would be better if it said "conscripted Greek men of military age from Thrace and western Anatolia into labor battalions to work on xyz during which hundreds of thousands died." where xyz is "constructing military infrastructure" or "working in the salt mines" or whatever it was that they did. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. However, the source doesn't indicate what work they were doing but from other sources we know in many cases they were killed outright or died through privations and ill-treatment. Some sources indicate that some of these battalions were involved in building roads or working on the railway, at least temporarily.

I was actually intending to give the section "events" particular attention. I think it will be worthwhile mentioning the anti-Greek boycott implemented to induce the mass migration of Greeks. It's also important to deal with deportations of the civilian population as a whole (women and children) and the death marches which brought about their destruction. We can add that such death marches began in Pontus with earnest in January 1916.

Anyway, to deal with the matter at hand, do you think it would be worthwhile following it up with another separate sentence to explain the fate of these Greek men? I've made some changes. Let me know if they are acceptable.

PS. Thanks for your note re. red-linked username. Bebek101 (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Trebizond

Having looked up the source for the image

800,000 ARMENIANS COUNTED DESTROYED; Viscount Bryce Tells House of Lords That Is the Probable Number of Turks' Victims. 10,000 DROWNED AT ONCE Peers Are Told How Entire Christian Population of Trebizond Was Wiped Out. New York Times, October 7, 1915.

A little more investigation turned up the House of Lords session to which the press report refers:

The Armenian Massacres Hansard 6 October 1915

Perhaps someone would like to mention the incident. But one word of warning. This was a debate taking place in a Parliament of a sate at war with Turkey, and as the Earl of Cromer said in the house that day "There are many special reasons why the facts should be made public. In the first place, it is very desirable to lose no opportunity to let the people of this country know for what we are fighting." so it is not what could be called a neutral source. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job. The question is: where did Bryce et al read about the death toll? ("In one newspaper I read that the number of 995 victims amounted to as many as 800,000.") Right now we are on really shaky ground: a newspaper reporting on a parliamentary debate about the veracity of an unnamed newspaper article. I really think the picture should be pulled. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 00:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

VISCOUNT BRYCE: "I am sorry to say that such information as has reached me from many quarters goes to show that the figure of 800,000 which the noble Earl thought incredible as a possible total for those who have been destroyed since May last is, unfortunately, quite a possible number." Meowy 20:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The question is not directly about the 800,000, but the comment that "How Entire Christian Population of Trebizond Was Wiped Out" and that because it was a war time report by an enemy belligerent it is not the most reliable of sources. What is needed is an academic source that confirms the statement in the Lords. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire Christian Armenian population was wiped out, and there are plenty of sources that say it. And that newspaper article clearly exists. A legitimate reason for the picture to be there was illustrate that the events were reported in the World's press. But the headline (and the Commons debate that initiated it) concerned the Armenians of Trebizond, not the Greeks - so the illustration shouldn't have been there for that reason. However, the text should be mentioning the fate of the Pontic region's Armenian population as a scene setter for the subsequent anti-Greek events, and the illustration could perhaps be put back to accompany that addition. BTW, some modern research suggests that most of the Armenian population was not drowned and that they were killed just like everywhere else - marched inland and then murdered a few miles from Trebizond. Many of the bodies later washed downstream - the subsequent finding of so many bodies in the sea and washed up on the shoreline encouraged the story that they were all drowned at sea. Meowy 19:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?

The Article itself in my opinion is something which has not anything to do in an encyclopedia. Is Wikipedia now trying to accept this Propaganda articles? How the hell can sources like greek-genocide.or g seriously be used here? And than tommorow some guy comes with a side called turk-genocide.or g and tries to sell the deaths of the Turks in the first World War also as a genocide. Of course you all will agree with him am I right? ...

This article hasn't anything to do in a serious encyclopedia. I would understand it if there had been court decisions or something like that (serious historians) but nothing like that exists.

I will list this article for deletion! We will see what will happen. --P223 (talk) 09:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, passed a resolution affirming the 1914-1923 Ottoman Greek Genocide. This would seem to satisfy your requirement.

As for the website, it presents unedited documents, press reports and articles, there is nothing wrong with linking to such a website when sources are stated. Bebek101 (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't get funny with this kind of suspect sources and unsubstantial statements. Look just on the sources which are used more than one time like the source I brought before. The so called experts didn't even take one step in the Ottoman archives so how could they be experts about Ottoman history? Of course they will call it Genocide when they even call themself Genocide Scholars and don't know anything else than the perception of the Armenian Diaspora and its lobby. It's always the same where some lobby has something to say they get some voices for them like in France or America with the Armenians or the Greeks in Australia. But the most historians didn't know that even such myths and cases against the Turks are existing by the Diaspora it belongs to.

Get some serious historians or experts. The content is based on lies so how can it be true and not wrong? The Armenian Diapsora fakes documents to get their so called Armenian Genocide through. A lie won't get true if you repeat it again and again just like in this case about Pontic Greeks or Assyrians.

It is just a typical complex of some Greeks, Armenians or others who were ruled by Turks to take this position. Especially the Christians in the former Ottoman Empire try to make every one who died a victim of a genocide so even your behavior doesn't surprise me. What especially the Greeks and Armenians try is to sell a lost war (for them) as a genocide. You can call it even prevarication but it hasn't anything to do with the reality... it would be like selling the over 500.000 Turkish victims which died in the same way as a product of the genocide Greeks and Armenians did. For example on the same way some guys doing it on this article. By taking frivolous sources and quote them out of context to give it a new identity or just take a few historians who say that there was a genocide made on Turks. This is a generally complex of some nationalists who can't accept what happenend and that was no and will never be a genocide! But maybe some Turks should also make the same and try to sell it as a genocide in front of the world like Greeks and Armenians try to do it. A start would be by creating a new article about it. Get your eyeglasses down and see how much sense this would make? It wouldn't make any sense just like the articles in here about Assyrians and so on are excisting. The Armenians have made a good job with their lobby so you won't get that one out of here until a joint commission of historians tells the world the truth. But funnily enough that especially the Armenian Diaspora groups are against them. The truth would make all the years of work and money they spend on this issues for nothing. Just like in other cases with the Pontic Greeks and the Assyrians.

As you only edit about this so called genocides I also think that you can't be taken as a neutral User. In fact a lie can never be neutral and that is the reason why I will get this article for deletion. Other admins (from which some will of course be also take a pro vote for this article) can judge about my reasons for deletion. Before I will make it I will post the link in here so that you guys can bring your points based on this Propagandasites like greek-genocide.or g and so on. I have something other things to do right no so it can take a while before I post it. So you have your time to think over why this kind of article should stay in an encyclopedia as you won't find it in a serious taken encyclopedia anywhere else. --P223 (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply but I'm afraid I couldn't read all that. I did pick out that you deny the Armenian and Assyrian Genocides too, which indicates that you're probably a genocide revisionist and no amount of logic will make the slightest difference. Thanks for replying though. Bebek101 (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! And please keep your irrelevant and unsubstantial stuff out of the issue I am talking about. If you can't read all Wikipedia is the wrong place for you! Of course you picked out only this words I wasn't excepting anything else as all three articles are based on each other. Not I am the one jumping and editing on articles with the word genocide. So you have to ask yourself! There can't be logic if you are talking about an issue which doesn't exist or is made by yourself.

Neither is Wikipedia a place for this kind of myths nor it should be a place for effusing propaganda. So please talk about the issue I pointed in my introduction your personal view or what you think is true and believe in this case is unimportant as this isn't a chat or a forum. A friendly advice for everyone who makes and will make the same kind of comments. --P223 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And this is after several months of the article being hacked away at by Adoniscik and Philip Baird Shearer! Meowy 19:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression my copy-editing left the article considerably better off. Care to provide some diffs to prove me wrong? Better yet, why don't you fix it? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 02:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits made over the last few months

In light of Philip Baird Shearer's recent activities on the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article, I thought I should have a look at what he has been doing here. In the past I have criticised the Armenian Genocide article for its unstructured nature and its over concentration on trivial incidents while still lacking most of the important details. But it is nothing compared to the mess here! Undoubtedly it is partly due to Shearer and Adoniscik editing an article on a subject they clearly know little about. I am not going to repeat their mistake, but I wish some editors with a proper knowledge and with access to sources would work on this article. There are quite obvious mistakes even in the introductory section. It says "the few Pontic Greeks who remained in Pontus until the end of the 1919-22 Greco-Turkish War were later deported under the terms of the population exchange between Greece and Turkey in 1923". This is clearly false, most of the Pontic Greek communities were substantially intact until they were destroyed as a direct result of the "population exchange". That intro statement is also contradicted in the body of the article where we are told "182,169 Greeks from the Pontus region had migrated to Greece during the population exchange". 182,000 plus the 50,000 (?) or so that went to Russia, is hardly a "few" people. And why is off-popic stuff like Smyrna given so much space in the article? And why the multiple citations of "Horton" without any actual source being given? And why nonsense like "deportations of the general Greek population of western Anatolia commenced in 1914"? Meowy 20:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Statements like "deportations of the general Greek population of western Anatolia commenced in 1914" are useful because they put deportations in the region of Pontus in context with respect to other Ottoman provinces, e.g. Thrace, western, central and southern Anatolia which began earlier. A background and overview is important. Bebek101 (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Meowy IMHO you really need to lean to use the talk pages to talk about the content of the article and not your opinions about of other editors.

You think the article is bad "for its unstructured nature and its over concentration on trivial incidents while still lacking most of the important details." then please look at it when it was protected and neither myself or Adoniscik had edited it (27 February 2008). Both the sections on academic views and the eye witness accounts were tacked onto the end in what seemed like an afterthought! I think that user:Bebek101 and others have done a good job of improving the article, but no one would dispute your opinion that more needs to be done.

All the information about Smyrna was already in the article by 27 February 2008, and it was included I suppose because the editors who included it thought that the events in Smyrna had indirect affect on the treatment of the Pontic Greek population during the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922.

I think the reason for the word few in the introduction is to emphasise that even using the low estimate of the death total more than half the population were killed before the population exchange took place. However if you object to that word, I for one would not object if you removed it.

Horton is cited as a shortened footnote as is normal with such a style the details of the source can be found in the References section. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake that didn't see it earlier, but I've now noticed that the book title by Horton does appear in the reference section. However, it is not in the notes section where it should also be listed. I'm not confident in using the shortened footnotes method for adding references, so I will leave it for someone else to add it. "Indirect affect" is the correct word to use when mentioning Smyrna, so it shouldn't be given such detail, especially when it has its own article. The Black sea region was not directly involved in or affected by the Greek-Turkish war, and was firmly under the control of the Turks by that period. The claim that its Greek population was "sympathetic to the enemies of the Ottoman state and a potential fifth column" is not valid for that period and this region. There is far too much in this article which concerns only the Aegean side of Anatolia. The point of having a separate "Pontic Greek Genocide" article is that the circumstances are separate and very different. There is also far too little that distinguishes between (and explains) the pre-war situation, the wartime situation (1914-1918) and the post-war situation. I don't know enough on the subject to correct this article's many flaws, but I do know enough to see them. Meowy 16:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"the circumstances are separate and very different" -- can you substantiate this statement? What are the (a) separate and (b) differing circumstances? Bebek101 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

For a start the populations were different. Greeks on the Aegean were ethnic Greeks, those on the Black sea were the indigenous population who had become assimilated into Greek culture. There was never any Greek army marching through Pontus, thus never any circumstances of the Pontic Greek population rebelling, or supporting Greece, or wanting to join Greece during the Greco-Turkish war. Nor was there any history of such activities. The Pontic Greeks had their own culture that had almost nothing in common with the Greeks of the Aegean or Greece proper beyond speaking roughly the same language and belonging to the same Church. That is why during the deportations so many chose to go to Russia rather than Greece. What happened to the Pontic Greeks is a much more straighforward example of genocide than what happened to the Aegean Greeks. Meowy 01:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your view. However, I have a number of problems with it.

Firstly, you seem to be under the impression that Ottoman (or at least Anatolian) Greeks are divided up into two categories; namely those along the Aegean coast and those in Pontus. Anatolian Greeks had significant communities in all parts of the Ottoman Empire, not just western and north-eastern regions. Both Greek Patriarchate and Ottoman statistics validate this.

You say "never any circumstances of the Pontic Greek population rebelling, or supporting Greece, or wanting to join Greece during the Greco-Turkish war" - wow! This is almost wrong at every level. Are you unaware of the numerous memorandums submitted by the Pontic Greek delegation to the 1919 Peace Conference calling for union with Greece and if that was not feasible then the establishment of a Pontic Greek state. Pontic Greek volunteers played a substantial role in the Greek army as part of the Balkan wars, in the Great War and in the Greco-Turkish war. Pontic Greek delegates never failed to point out the Pontic Greeks' commitment to Greece in this respect. The guerrilla movement in Pontus might also be viewed by some parties as a form of rebellion -- it was a movement that openly called for the union of Pontus with Greece and formed what the Pontians called the "Black Sea Army" which vowed to take up arms to achieve this.

Yes, many did flee to Russia -- an estimated 75,000 -- but it was hardly out of a greater closeness and affinity to Russians as opposed to the mainland Greeks. It was due to the proximity of Russia and this migration was facilitated by the Russian occupation of Pontus in 1916.

"There was never any Greek army marching through Pontus", no, but there was a Greek military bombardment of the sea port cities of Pontus in 1921. There are also some corollaries that may be drawn with the Russian occupation of Pontus.

Your comments about ethnicity are also misguided. You should read about the expansion of Greek colonies throughout Asia Minor beginning with the Ionians and then the Dorians and so on. It is true different Greek communities of the Empire had different dialects and different traditions but don't distort things by claiming they are a race in their own right. Bebek101 (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph 1. Please don't make assumptions about what I do or do not know. I am aware of the many Greek communities that existed in central Anatolia and other parts of the Ottoman Empire, maybe more aware of them than you are (have you heard about the Orthodox Greeks in the Egin region who spoke Armenian and worshiped in Armenian Churches?)

Paragraph 2. It doesn't matter how many memorandums exist, the fantasies of irredentist did not translate to a reality on the ground. There was never the slightest chance of Pontos becoming part of Greece or part of Armenia, and most of the guerrilla movement was actually just for self-protection. It's rather amusing how today's Turkish-backed genocide-denier tracts often find the pronouncements of Greek nationalists (and their Armenian equivalents) at that peace conference so useful.

Paragraph 3. I think you are mixing up 1916 with 1923.

Paragraph 4. 5. Way to difficult a subject to be discussed here!!

Meowy 16:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Point 1 What you previously wrote didn't suggest you were aware of other communities or at least that you weren't prepared to give them consideration in your argumentation. However, if you are aware of the existence of Greek communities throughout the Empire, I still can't see your logic of subdividing Ottoman Greek communities between Aegean and Pontian or perhaps it was just an example or you felt it was only these communities that were subject to deportation. If so, you should consult Patriarchal provincial statistics for deportation. Hope I haven't assumed to much here.

Point 2 You seem to have backtracked on your comments re. "never any circumstances of ... supporting Greece, or wanting to join Greece ...". It is not about whether you think they had a fighting chance. The point is an army called the "Black Sea Army" was established, a "Pontic Congress" was established and delegates representing the Pontians were sent before the statesmen of the world to make their claims for union with Greece before the Paris Peace conference et al -- no insignificant event. Doesn't this contradict what you originally said?

Point 3 No, I am not. There were two significant influxes of Pontic Greeks into Russia. The first was between 1913 and 1916 (when there was an anti-Greek boycott in the Empire and deportations and massacres of Ottoman Greeks elsewhere) and the second was following the Russia occupation of Trebizond in April 1916. Very few Pontic Greeks were migrating to Russia in later years, only a marginal number out of the estimated 75,000.

Point 4 Not really. I think the Greek military bombardment of towns along the Black Sea is an important factor especially given some of the arguments you employed before. Bebek101 (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, when I wrote "paragraph 4" I meant to write "paragraph 5". But re. paragraph 4, wasn't it just Zonguldak (with its coal mines) that was shelled (or an I thinking of another incident) Meowy 23:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

The statements in the lead that were recently changed were taken from the body of the article. Regarding these changes:

How do we know that "all" and not "most" Pontic Greeks were part of the exchange. For example what about those who were part of mixed marriages or what about those who had converted to Islam? Is there a reliable source that states all?

What is the source for states that during the population exchange between Greece and Turkey that a substantial minority went to the Soviet Union? No such claim is made in the population exchange between Greece and Turkey. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Philip, you are right. The exchange legalised the transfer of "Greeks" but at that time and part of the world the term "Greeks" was a religious identifier (not ethnic). Therefore, Greeks that had converted to Islam were officially not included in the exchange.

We know all Pontic Greeks weren't part of the exchange because some fled to Constantinople, others escaped south to Syria with the assistance of American missionaries and so on.

Using the term Soviet Union is misleading because most Pontic Greeks fled Pontus in 1916 (or earlier) when Russia occupied Trebizond and when no "Soviet Union" existed. Very few Pontic Greeks migrated to Russia post 1922. We should use the term 2Russian Empire". Bebek101 (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not incorrect to say that all Pontic Greeks still living in Pontos in 1921 at the time of the population exchanges were deported. If you want to be pedantic about it, you can make the argument that all of them were not deported because undoubtedly there were some Greeks still remaining, such as those with certain foreign passports, those married to Muslims, those living in very remote areas, and so on. But if 97% or 98% of them were deported, then essentially it was "all". And to make it an "all" was the intent of the Turkish authorities.

You are wrong in your claims that "most Pontic Greeks fled Pontus in 1916 (or earlier)" and that "very few Pontic Greeks migrated to Russia post 1922".

Here is a quote from T. A. Sinclair, "Eastern Turkey, an architectural and archaeological survey", vol.2, 1989, p182-183, "The size of the Greek population was not seriously affected by the fighting or by the Ottoman government's policies in the war in the way that other minority populations were affected. Russian forces advanced along the coast as far as Trebizond and entered the Gumushhane basin, and in the latter case they did take some of the Greek population with them when they left. The Armenian population of Trebizond however, was massacred. The situation after the war is obscure. It seems that the Christian Greeks were not menaced, nor was there any more animosity between them and the local Muslims than before the war. The expulsion of the Pontic Greeks in 1923 probably came about because the leading lights of the new republic felt there was no room in the new Turkey for large non-Turkish, non-Muslim minorities outside Istanbul.

I don't have a specific source to hand saying how many went to Russia rather than to Greece during the population exchanges, I might have seen it in Bryer's "The Empire of Trebizond and the Pontos", 1980. Meowy 16:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that quotation negates anything I have said.

As for estimates, to my reading they range from 75,000 to 150,000 in contemporary accounts. Bebek101 (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I'll quote it again then, with the bits that negate your words made bold.

"The size of the Greek population was not seriously affected by the fighting or by the Ottoman government's policies in the war in the way that other minority populations were affected. The situation after the war is obscure. It seems that the Christian Greeks were not menaced, nor was there any more animosity between them and the local Muslims than before the war. The expulsion of the Pontic Greeks in 1923 probably came about because the leading lights of the new republic felt there was no room in the new Turkey for large non-Turkish, non-Muslim minorities outside Istanbul. Meowy 23:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)