Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 1

'Light Death'
Can somebody pls back this accusation up?? If not I am going to take it out.. Look people, it is one thing to talk about the past and analyze it, but it is one thing to just fuel ethnic-hatred.. It has been needing a citation for months..

These are serious allegations.. Turkish and Greek people are very close, let's not dwell on the sad moments of our history.. Calling each other child-killers, baby-killers is not going to get anybody anywhere, at least not in Wikipedia.

And let's not forget Wikipedia is not for original research, as was mentioned below... Baristarim 16:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The correct term is "White Death" or "White Massacres". A citation has been added. The term refers to various forms of atrocities, i.e., boycott, deportations, death by starvation in labor camps, etc.Rizos01 01:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Previous discussion
I think everyone should note that Turkey doesn't deny people died. They deny that it was genocide (the elimination of a ethnic, religious, racial etc group with intent), but more like war casualties. --Telex 15:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's right. it is the same thing that Turkey's leadership is saying 'bout the Armenian Genocide. --Hectorian 01:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, and Eichmann insisted that he was just "following orders". Miskin 14:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The events herein referred to as Pontian Greek Genocide took place during the expansionist and opportunist Greek assult on the Turkish homeland in the aftermath of the World War I. The Ottoman Empire had disintegrated, the Ottoman capital Constantinople had been seized by the Allies.  The fragmented and indigenious Turkish population of Anatolia mounted a defense against the invading Greek army, which eventually led to the formation of the Republic of Turkey.  Basically in 1919, there was no Turkish or Ottoman state in control of Anatolia or Pontus.  This article claims that an ethnic group (Turkish) without a state, defending itself against a well-organized and well-armed intruder from another country (Greek Army), committed a genocide.  No country other than Greece has ever taken this highly dubious theory seriously.  The numbers of Pontic Greeks who died during that period is almost impossible to establish.  The Turkish losses during the same period in the same geographic area far exceed any probable Greek losses in that region.  The Pontic Greeks belonged to the same ethnic group as the invading army of Greece, thus they were automatically at war with the Turkish people.  This was  a war and the belligerent party was the Greeks.  Pontic Greeks have suffered as a result of the miscalculated, poorly fought and unjustified assault by their fellow Greeks.  Same thing happened to the Smyrnian Greeks.  Turkish people exercised their right to self-defense.  That's what the World community has accepted as the truth regarding the Pontian Greeks.  Despite the repeated attempts by certain Greeks to establish the so-called Pontian Greek Genocide as fact, so far no World body or no state other than Greece has ever recognized Pontian Greek Genocide. --- Vikiyazar 14:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we know that the states of New Jersey and South Carolina  (at least) have recognized it. Be that as it may though, what exactly are you proposing? While I agree with some of your points, as far as I know, the Greek army progressed beyond the Smyrna zone for the purposes of self defence - apparently, the Turks were not happy with certain aspects of the Treaty of Sèvres and were trying to expel the Greeks. --Telex 14:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is true that Smyrna was a city with Greek plurality but it was essentially a Greek island in a Turkish sea. The same can be said of Pontus.  Neither locations were contiguous with Greece.  It was totally unsustainable in the long term to annex them to Greece.  (Look how Armenia and Azerbaijan are still in a state of war over Nagorno-Karabagh.) Similarly, Salonica was mostly Jewish and Turkish.  Greeks were in the minority in Salonica.  Yet, it was completely Hellenized in the 20th century.  I think the evacuation of Greeks from Smyrna and Pontus, although it was deplorable from a human rights point of view, has been beneficial for the preservation of peace between Greece and Turkey.  The same thing can be said for Turks who were forced to move to Turkey from Greek lands.  I believe we should all move on with respect to the atrocities of the past.  Surely, Turks did some terrible things to Greeks in the past.  However, Turks also suffered during the Greek Independence War, the Balkan Wars and the Greek Invasion of Anatolia.  Labeling any of these atrocities as genocide is inflammatory.  The label is not technically true.  It causes both sides to compete with each other to prove which side suffered most.


 * As far as the U.S. state recognition of the Pontian genocide: Ah! you know those politicians.  They will recognize anything if they could get a few more votes.  The U.S. states have no authority and responsibility to conduct foreign policy.  That responsibility rests solely with the Federal Government.  State politicians are fully aware that their foreign policy decisions carry no weight, that's way they use those proclamations and recognitions as symbolic gestures to gain political support.  Those are meaningless acts of legislative manuvering.  Any state with an organized and numerous ethnic lobby can have state legistlators pass such proclamations.  Especially if it doesn't cost the taxpayers any money!!!    ---Vikiyazar 18:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What about Cyprus? Was it also a "Greek insland in a Turkish sea"? I think Turkish people overestimate the size of their "sea" (whatever that is). Miskin 14:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction
The "Arguments against" section of the article says:


 * A letter was submitted to The United Nations Commission on Human Rights by the "International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples" to request such recognition in 1998 but so far it has not been granted.

However, the "Official recognition" section says:


 * The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has recognized this genocide as such in 1998.

Which one is true? Here is the PDF. To me it doesn't look like a letter, but an offical UN document. Correct me if I'm wrong. &mdash; Khoikhoi


 * I think this is what you're looking for. --Telex 01:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The link you gave me doesn't work. :( &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sure - it works for me :-/ --Telex 01:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it just says this:

There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web link, - Through your internet options, adjust your privacy settings to allow cookies or - Check your security settings and make sure this site has not been blocked or - You are probably using a very slow link that may not work well with this application. Otherwise you have reached this site through unauthorized means.

&mdash; Khoikhoi 01:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well just go to and serch for  . The above link works for me though. --Telex 01:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I got it to work. :) It's the exact same PDF as the one I linked in the References section. Anyways, what do you think about my initial comment? &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoikhoi] wrote: Which one is true? Here is the PDF. To me it doesn't look like a letter, but an offical UN document. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

The U.N. document referenced in the article starts with the following statement: The Secretary-General has received the following written statement which is circulated in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1296 (XLIV) Basically the document implies no endorsement of the statement's contents. It just acknowledges the receipt of the statement from a NGO called International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples (LIDLIP). There has never been a vote on the U.N. floor to approve a resolution on this issue. Therefore, the following statement in this Wikipedia article "The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has recognized this genocide as such in 1998." is a gross misstatement. The absence of any follow-up on the alleged Pontian genocide by the U.N. commission on Human Rights since 1998 (8 years) indicates that this issue has not been taken seriously. I propose that the statement "The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has recognized this genocide as such in 1998." be removed from this Wikipedia article. There is no such recognition. ---Vikiyazar 15:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your reply. I'll contact some other users and then we can delete it . Cheers. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've decided to remove it. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

1 million Pontian Greeks killed????
Oh my God, how did you come up with such an inflated number? Is there any limit to one's imagination? What is the basis for this number? You just can't manufacture historical facts like that. It is doubtful that 1 million Greeks ever existed in Pontus in any period of history. The article on Pontic Greeks claims that there are more than 2 million Pontic Greeks living in the world today. This number boggles my mind and it can't be true. 1 million Pontian Greeks killed and still 2 million Pontian Greeks living in the World today???? Considering the fact that the entire population of the Ottoman Empire at the turn of the century was 40 million people (including Muslims and Christians) and that Greeks didn't even constitute the majority of the Black Sea population, all these numbers about the Pontian Greeks living in the World today and those that were killed sound utterly fantastic to me.

I am also quite offended that the paragraph that I added to the Pontian Greek Genocide article called "Arguments Against" was deleted by the same user with an IP number of 87.203.236.72  Clearly this person wants to dictate his opinions to Wikipedia by brute force regardless of the truth. I will make one more attempt to reinstate the version by Khoikhoi dated 04:25, 25 May 2006. If the User:87.203.236.72 deletes that version and reinstates his imaginary 1 million number, I refuse to play this silly game. He can have his way. In the meantime, the victim is Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Let's not allow Wikipedia to be turned into a political battleground. ---Vikiyazar 15:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree to that version (with the data at hand). I will help you defend it, unless someone provides sources...  N i k o S il v e r   (T) @ (C) 15:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought the number was more like 350,000. --Telex 15:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, me too, but 300.000 is not far off. Now, if you cite this, however...  N i k o S il v e r   (T) @ (C) 16:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1 million is definitely an exaggerated figure, my sources say that some 1,3 million was deported and some 300-360,000 was killed in the process. This is a very good article, I was thinking to start it myself. We also need to work on the Pontic Greeks article which is a miserable condition. I think the same anon is edit-warring in "Greco-Turkish war" and refuses to accept the sources. Miskin 16:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * About the disputes over population figures (both concerning the genocide and the number of the pontians today): circa 350,000 is what all the reliable sources say. i've never came across a source claiming 1 million or something close to that number. unless such a figure is sourced, it cannot be added here, according to the wikipedia policy and historic facts. perhaps 1 mil was their number prior to the genocide (the numbers i've seen are talking about 7-800,000. about the number of the pontians today, 2 millions should not surprise anyone... After the Lauzanne Treaty, Greece accepted about 1,5 mil refugees, many of whom (not the majority, of course) were greek pontians. the vast majority of the greek diaspora in the countries of the former USSR as pontian greeks (who fled Pontus in varous waves after ottoman conquest). if we also consider the fact that there have been many mixed marriages between pontians and other greeks, this number seems more than accurate! not to forget that pontians also migratted in other countries (along with other greeks), notably germany, usa, australia. (i am writting all these in order to prevent any change of that number in Pontian Greeks, under the claim that it is utterly fantastic. --Hectorian 00:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Added disputed tag
For the simple reason that no one but the Greek parliament seems to recognise it as genocide. A more acceptable name is needed for this article. --A.Garnet 16:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And your proposal would be? (bear in mind that a Google test would have to be conducted) --Telex 16:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We'll see about that Garnet. Leave the tag though for the time being, until of course I provide the sources. Miskin 16:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We know there are sources for this title - the matter is to do with POVs. Some people don't think this is a case of genocide, and it's their right. Garnet proposes renaming the article to "something", but that's no good - to where do you want it renamed? Pontian Massacre perhaps? --Telex 16:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That test means nothing Telex. You will get more results for "Turkish Cypriot genocide" than you will for "Turkish Cypriot massacres", doesnt justify the former. Almost all the results for "Pontian Greek genocide" are either on Greek websites, or posted by Greeks - and to be fair, it returns only 590 results. "The Holocaust" returns 51,800,000, "Armenian genocide" returns "1,590,000" - I hope you can see the insignificance of 590 google results. --A.Garnet 17:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Straw man - this is a relatively obscure topic, and I'm sure that "genocide" would outweigh whatever you have in mind. --Telex 18:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So what are you proposing? --Telex 17:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I propose Pontian ethnic cleansing so that we also include the deported alternative. It doesn't include genocide, although it is one alternative method for cleansing. Right?  N i k o S il v e r   (T) @ (C) 17:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How about Mysterious disappearances: the Pontian Greeks of Anatolia? --Telex 17:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I propose to stick with "genocide", this term has an academic basis, whether or not it is recognised by an international organization is irrelevant. Miskin 17:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What academic basis? Armenians can always hit back that they have a load of academics and international organisations to support their cause, but i cannot see anywhere near the same amount of support for this alleged genocide. Where can you refer me to which suggests the majority of impartial scholars support your argument that Pontians suffered a genocide? --A.Garnet 17:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What academic basis? something like that I suppose: "Finally we can sum up the overall nationalist genocide. It totals almost 880,000 Armenian and Greek deaths, as we can see from the table 10.1... Since the post-World War I years, few remember or write about the Greek genocide. I know of no work in English focusing on it. But numerous scholars have studied the Armenian genocide and since the 1960s it has become particularly well publicized... Perhaps general appreciation of this genocide [Armenian] is now second only to that of the Jews... To this day, Turkey absolutely denies that her past governments committed any genocide or mass murder. In this she is aided by the silence of those nations whose archives amply document it. Among them is the United States, which, despite the official contemporary reports of its ambassador and consular officials, now adamantly refuses to recognize this clear genocide. Turkey is a member of NATO, was deemed essential for defense of the southern tier against Soviet aggression during the Cold War, and has since that time been deemed an important Western friend in a hostile and volatile region..." R. J. Rummel, Death by government. This is only an example of how the Pontic genocide is recognised within academic circles. There are of course many more. Miskin 17:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thats a quote from a book, but again can you point me to anywhere which suggests there is an academic consensus that Greeks suffered genocide - enough to justify the title of this article? Are there any other encylopedias which carry the same title? --A.Garnet 17:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when does wikipedia restrict its article naming policy according to the variety of other encyclopaedias? Unbiased books are as credible as other encyclopaedias, and I can bring up more citations if this one doesn't convince you. Miskin 18:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A.Garnet, what do you want to rename it to? Make a proposal - I prefer fix attempts over complaining. Propose a different title - you're the one wanting to change it. --Telex 18:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not complaining Telex. I dont know what else we can name it, but if your going to name it genocide, and argue it a definiteve case of genocide as this article attempts to do, then you better have some solid academic foundation to base it on which i dont believe exists. Just look at the article, theres not a single citation referring to the events itself. --A.Garnet 18:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

However you see that the citations exist, which means that the article will be expanded sooner or later. Do you really believe that credible sources will have any reason to lie about this? It's called genocide, and by the definition of the word that's what it was. I can't understand how someone can be as disrespectful as to not even be willing to admit it. Miskin 19:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, dont turn this into a sentimental issue. I'm already aware that the majority of people contributing to this article are Greek, and i would ask you take a more neutral stance than accuse people who question it as being disrespectful. Authors dont have to lie, but they can represent views which are not necessarily held by the majority. Can you point me to any books by non-partisan historians which specifically cover this event on its own? --A.Garnet 20:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You know that this type of work doesn't exist, since it is already mentioned above. This is exactly the proof of why this article should be named as such. Everybody recognises as a genocide which is hasn't received the proper attention. Miskin 21:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought you told me this topic had a strong academic basis, and now your telling me there is not one book devoted to the event? --A.Garnet 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not an English source that is. There's weren't any english sources specifically devoted to the Armenian genocide either before the 1960s either. That doesn't mean that it was not acknowledged. What's your argument? That because there is no english source specifically devoted to it we don't have the right to name the article like this? I suppose we'd have to cut down some good 1/4 of wikipedia's articles then. Miskin 22:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, thats exactly what i'm saying. Not just English, but any language for that matter except Greek. It seems the only country to recognise it is Greece, the only people who write about it are Greeks, and the people writing this article are Greeks. That is why we ask for non-partisan sources so we do not promote one point of view. Your justification for this article is to rectify the lack of academic support - this is called original research and is strictly forbidden from Wikipedia, especially concerning an article likes this. --A.Garnet 22:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok point me to the WP:POLICY which remotely implies such a rule and we'll speak seriously then. Miskin 22:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No original research --A.Garnet 22:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't I just prove that people who deal with it regard it as a genocide? I want to see a policy which says that "if no english, non-partisan source is not exclusively devoted on a topic, it's not allowed to have an article". Miskin 22:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No you havent proved it. We can argue this all night, but the fact remains this topic lacks academic and international support, you may have a few people who say the word "Greek genocide", but you cannot cite one non-partisan book specifically covering this subject matter, and as such this article has to be renamed. --A.Garnet 22:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

From Midlarsky's "The killing trap": "According to the Austrian colsuls at Amisos, Kwiatkowski, in his Novermber 30, 1916, report to the foreign minister Baron Burian: 'On 26 November Rafet Bey told me: 'we must finish off the Greeks as we did with the Armenians...' on 28 November Rafet Bey told me: 'today I sent sqads to the interior to kill every Greek on sight.' I fear for the elimination of the entire Greek population and a repeat of what occurred last year'. Or according to a January 31, 1917, report by Chancellor HOllweb of Austria: 'The indications are that the Turks plan to eliminate the Greek element as enemies of the state, as they did earlier with the Armenians. The strategy implemented by the Turks is of displacing people to the interior without taking measures of their survival by exposing them to deah, hunger, and illness. The abandoned homes are then looted and burnt or destroyed. Whatever was done to the Armenians is being repeated with the Greeks'" No mention of genocide here but emphasis must be given on "as we did with the Armenians". Miskin 18:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

R. J. Rummel has a table entitled Turkey's Armenian and Greek Genocide in which he states: Miskin 18:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Armenians killed: 2,108,000
 * By Young Turks: 1,487,000
 * By nationalists: 1,404,000
 * Greeks killed: 347,000
 * By Young Turks: 84,000
 * By nationalists: 264,000
 * Total killed: 2,449,000

An idea
I think one way we can make the article more neutral, particularly in the "Background" section, is instead of presenting the information at 100% absolute facts, we can say "according to John Smith, one of the methods was to..." Also the "Arguments against" section needs sources as well. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. but maybe we should not talk like this way in all the article, but only concerning the disputed facts. some facts are undisputable. --Hectorian 01:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I'm guessing this article shouldn't have pictures, right? &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but i fail to see what is undisputable considering not one academic source has been cited for this article - undisputable according to whom exactly? Khoikoi, considering the effort so often put into neutralising articles relating to Turkey, i am surprised you do not even question the notability of this articles title, especially when one of its contributors admits there is not one English related work to its name. --A.Garnet 01:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the fact that it's something recognized by at least one country and several sub-national entities makes the term notable, but it's just not clear if it's necessarily NPOV or not. When I first came across the article, it looked like this. It was clearly biased. The thing is, now that we have a section that provides the Turkish point of view, I think it's a lot better. You or Vikiyazar may not see the "Background" section to be the "truth", but I'm sure that the Greek anon sees it the other way around. I'm not saying that you guys are his/her counterparts or anything, what I'm trying to say is that "Pontian Greek Genocide" is the most common term to describe the events, regardless of it's accuracy or not. I was thinking of adding "alleged genocide" in the article, but that might get people confused. Hmmm, I hope you can make some sense out of my rambling. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is the most common term among Greeks Khoikoi, and a subject which lacks any academic debate. This will make both the for and against argument original research. Its like me creating an article entitled "Turkish Cypriot genocide", a position held by many Turkish Cypriots and even backed by a British author. This is a minority view, and one that has no academic debate to it, so what sources would Greek Cypriots use to defend themselves? Do you understand what i'm saying? There is not enough discussion on the subject to try and portray the article as a debate. I would suggest Pontian casualties of World War I and state within it that The Greek government recognises the event as genocide. That way we are bound to have more credible sources discussing the fate of the Greeks than you will of sources claiming it to be genocide. --A.Garnet 02:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand what you're saying now. I could live with Pontian Greek casualties during World War I, as by checking the Google hits, all the sources I could find were Greek. I'll look more into it, I did manage to find a reference on Google books, the author doesn't appear to be Greek, but then again, it's not really academic. I sometimes wish we had a time machine to see what really happened, but I guess we must work with what he have. &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh no! there should be pictures! even if someone wil dispute what they present. in fact, the turks dispute the term 'genocide'. i do not think they dispute that people died...:/ --Hectorian 01:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A.Garnet, people died in Pontus, as the difference in population figures of the ottoman census proves, as the refugees in russia and greece say, etc. what exactly do u dispute? only the title? the genocide has been recognised by greece and 2 States. if u think this is not enough, first u have to change TRNC's title, cause it is recognised only by turkey as such... --Hectorian 01:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hector, how many people died does not matter. What matters is unanimous academic support which would support your position, otherwise you are just placing your own interpretations of events i.e. original research. Are you seriously suggesting Greece, and American states populated by Greeks are neutral sources proving this titles worth? As for the TRNC, comparing it with this is like chalk and cheese. TRNC is not an academic position or thesis, and doesnt need academic support to make it notable. It exists and is therefore notable. --A.Garnet 01:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * These events existed and are also notable. btw, how are these events seen in turkey? as war fatalities, or as a greek tale? (just curious to see if it is generally accepted that people died). note that most greeks in the states live in Chicago and NY, so i guess if it was cause of us, Illinois and NYState would be the first to recongise it (NY's governor, George Pataki, has made some moves to this direction). --Hectorian 02:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, there should definately not be pictures. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox, i.e., a place for propaganda or advocacy. Look what a user tried to add at the top of the PKK article (eh, it appears to be deleted...). Anyways, we shouldn't sway the reader to one point of view or the other. Upon thinking of what I just said, perhaps the title should be changed... &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, i see no reason for the title to be changed... the Armenian Genocide is not recognised by all countries, but the article is titled this way. Pictures exist in similar articles (about genocides or massacres, if some prefer to call them) although many deny that such events really took place. i do not see it as a matter of propaganda, but as a historic issue. --Hectorian 02:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Armenian Genocide is recognized by 21 countries, this one is recognized by 1. As for the pictures, remember the whole conflict with User:Jeune Zuercher and Metb82? I could just as easily add these pictures to articles if I want to, but as I said, we shouldn't try to sway the reader into one POV or the other. &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hector, the Armenians can cite countless authors and organisations, that is why Turkey faces so much pressure from them. Greece can cite none. --A.Garnet 02:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I just realized that "Pontian Greek Genocide" gets 642 Google hits, while "Pontian Genocide" gets 18,200. &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not know if the Turks can object that or not, but when the Greeks say 'Pontian', they simply mean 'Greek Pontian', i.e. a greek from pontus. (in turkey the word 'Pontus' is not in use). --Hectorian 02:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you find a reputable, published, non-partisan source among those 18,000, let me know. --A.Garnet 02:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What do contributors here think of the title Pontian Greek casualties during World War I? --A.Garnet 13:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that this title doesn't fit, cause the events extend after 1918 (official end of WWI) --Hectorian 13:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Garnet the way you try to mask such a blatant massacre is disgusting. It's obvious that you don't give a crap about the article being NPOV, you're just trying to hide another Turkish genocide from public view, and from my part there's not much of a point trying to reason with you. I have already provided some sources and I'll find more. For the time being you should be looking for some credible sources which can be used as counter-arguments, i.e. that this was not a genocide but something else. Until you succeed in doing so, you don't have a point. Then we'll ask for RFC and let non-Greek and non-Turkish editors decide. Miskin 13:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think arguing with you is pointless. --A.Garnet 14:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. This is why I'm suggesting a RFC. Miskin 16:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Then go for it. --A.Garnet 18:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

References to the Pontic Genocide
"Finally we can sum up the overall nationalist genocide. It totals almost 880,000 Armenian and Greek deaths, as we can see from the table 10.1... Since the post-World War I years, few remember or write about the Greek genocide. I know of no work in English focusing on it. But numerous scholars have studied the Armenian genocide and since the 1960s it has become particularly well publicized... Perhaps general appreciation of this genocide [Armenian] is now second only to that of the Jews... To this day, Turkey absolutely denies that her past governments committed any genocide or mass murder. In this she is aided by the silence of those nations whose archives amply document it. Among them is the United States, which, despite the official contemporary reports of its ambassador and consular officials, now adamantly refuses to recognize this clear genocide. Turkey is a member of NATO, was deemed essential for defense of the southern tier against Soviet aggression during the Cold War, and has since that time been deemed an important Western friend in a hostile and volatile region..." R. J. Rummel, Death by government.

R. J. Rummel has a table entitled Turkey's Armenian and Greek Genocide in which he states:
 * Armenians killed: 2,108,000
 * By Young Turks: 1,487,000
 * By nationalists: 1,404,000
 * Greeks killed: 347,000
 * By Young Turks: 84,000
 * By nationalists: 264,000
 * Total killed: 2,449,000

From Midlarsky's "The killing trap": "According to the Austrian colsuls at Amisos, Kwiatkowski, in his Novermber 30, 1916, report to the foreign minister Baron Burian: 'On 26 November Rafet Bey told me: 'we must finish off the Greeks as we did with the Armenians...' on 28 November Rafet Bey told me: 'today I sent sqads to the interior to kill every Greek on sight.' I fear for the elimination of the entire Greek population and a repeat of what occurred last year'. Or according to a January 31, 1917, report by Chancellor HOllweb of Austria: 'The indications are that the Turks plan to eliminate the Greek element as enemies of the state, as they did earlier with the Armenians. The strategy implemented by the Turks is of displacing people to the interior without taking measures of their survival by exposing them to deah, hunger, and illness. The abandoned homes are then looted and burnt or destroyed. Whatever was done to the Armenians is being repeated with the Greeks'"

Venezis
"They were held to concentration camps and amongst the survivors was the well known writer Elias Venezis, who later described the situation in his work the Number 31328 (Το Νούμερο 31328)."From what I know Venezis was not a pontian- he was from the aegean coast of Minor Asia.--Greece666 23:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But what u 'probably' do not know, is that he was held in a concentration camp in eastern anatolia (i.e. where Pontus geographically is located). --Hectorian 02:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is about Greeks "living in the Black Sea province of Pontus". Venezis simply was not one of them.--Greece666 03:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But he wrote about these events. Thus he should be included. --Hectorian 03:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Other Pontian Genocide
According to the Wikipedia article Mithridates VI of Pontus, the history of Pontus started out by another genocide, that of the Romans by Greeks in the first century B.C. According to the same article, 100,000 Romans living in Anatolia was massacred by Mithridates VI, the Pontus Greek king. Although the word "massacre" was used in that article, instead of "genocide", I think the term "genocide" is no less fitting for this incident than the Pontian Greek Genocide. The numbers are in the same ballpark. The goal was the same, ethnic cleansing of the Romans by the Greeks from Anatolia. When we do a google search for Pontian Genocide, perhaps we should be more careful. There is another Pontian Genocide. This time the perpetrators were Greek. I also suggest that racist comments about how Turks are likely to commit the Pontian genocide, because they committed the Armenian Genocide, should be avoided because we have a record of Greeks committing a similar scale genocide against the Romans in history. Sure, it was almost 2000 years earlier but it was a genocide regardless. ---Vikiyazar 15:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Totally irrelevant with the article. it could be called (if it ever happened) 'Anatolian Roman Genocide'. surprisingly enough, noone talks about it, and this makes me wonder that u have read a really biased source... In addition, any possible genocide by the greeks against the romans (and vice versa) has absolutely nothing to do with the genocide of the pontian greeks by the turks. instead of going back 2,000 anf more years in history, u should stick to what happened the past century... --Hectorian 16:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What on earth does the Mithridatic war have to do with the Pontic genocide of the 20th century? Those are pretty desperate arguments, let alone original research. Miskin 16:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If this subject is so close to Greek hearts, how come there is no article on it in the Greek wikipedia? Η γενοκτονία των Ποντίων, right? It's a blank page. There's just a dry statement on the page on Pontians that they are commemorated every 19 May. It's not serious. In politeness. --Cretanforever


 * Perhaps cause noone so far bothered to write it... U know, many turkish users have said that the Greek wikipedia has not even exceed 10,000 articles... that it is still in an 'infant stage'... is that the only missing article from the greek wiki, or just the one u want to make a big deal of? --Hectorian 23:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to neutralize the opening paragraph
After giving it some thought, I think I've finally come up with an idea for making the 1st paragraph NPOV:

''The Pontian Greek Genocide is a term mainly used by Greeks to describe the events that occured from 1916 to 1919 in the Black Sea province of Pontus. After the 1922 Asia Minor Catastrophe, most of them fled to nearby Russia and eventually to Greece.''

or:

''The term Pontian Greek Genocide is mainly used by Greeks to describe the events that occured from 1916 to 1919 in the Black Sea province of Pontus. After the 1922 Asia Minor Catastrophe, most of them fled to nearby Russia and eventually to Greece.''

What do you guys think? &mdash; Khoikhoi 06:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, the 353,000 number should fit in there somehow. &mdash; Khoikhoi 06:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't devoting an article to one viewpoint called POV pushing? If i created an article entitled Armenian relocation, and stated "Armenian relocation is a term used mainly by Turks to describe the events of 1915", would this be ok with you? --A.Garnet 20:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Pontian Genocide is _not_ a term used only by Greeks. There are few english sources that treat this topic, but the ones that do use invariably "genocide" (cited above). A. Garnet's argument is that we don't have the right to use the term genocide because it's underdocumented. He's completely ignoring the sources I provided and continues to claim that only Greeks call it a 'genocide'. Furthermore he's inaware of the fact that "genocide" besides a legal term, is also a term with a dictionary definition. I'm not aware of a wikipedia policy which forbids the use of term "genocide" unless it's legally recognised by all international organisations. Therefore A. Garnet's claims would fall under "original policy". I don't have too much time to deal with this topic on my own, but I'm in agreement to seek RFC or mediation. Miskin 13:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well i've tried to contact admins over this, but one was busy, and the other has not replied. Miskin, have you read the Killing Trap? I managed to track down the pages concerning the Greeks plight, and the author is quite explicit that Pontians and Greeks did not suffer a genocide. --A.Garnet 13:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've cited the killing trap above, you can see that the author explicitely claims that the treatment of Pontians was repeating the methods of the Armenian genocide. Where does the claim that the Pontians did not suffer a genocide? Can you please cite the paragraph? The author says "given the large number of surviving Greeks, especially relative to the small number of Armenian survivors, the massacres were apparently restricted to Pontus, Smyrna and selected other "sensitive" reasons". He does not question the number of Pontians killed not the act of genocide, which he compares it to the Armenian. He only points out that the Armenian genocide was at a much larger scale, something that nobody has ever challenged. Miskin 13:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What?! Have you read a complete different source? He is telling you genocide was not an option, that actions did not follow any possible intentions, that too many Greeks survived, and any massacres were too limited to be compared to the plight of Armenians. And from this, you tell me "he author explicitely claims that the treatment of Pontians was repeating the methods of the Armenian genocide" - Have you read a complete different source to me? I really cannot waste my time and energy on these arguments. Let just wait for an administrator. --A.Garnet 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

From Midlarsky's "The killing trap": "According to the Austrian colsuls at Amisos, Kwiatkowski, in his Novermber 30, 1916, report to the foreign minister Baron Burian: 'On 26 November Rafet Bey told me: 'we must finish off the Greeks as we did with the Armenians...' on 28 November Rafet Bey told me: 'today I sent sqads to the interior to kill every Greek on sight.' I fear for the elimination of the entire Greek population and a repeat of what occurred last year'. Or according to a January 31, 1917, report by Chancellor HOllweb of Austria: 'The indications are that the Turks plan to eliminate the Greek element as enemies of the state, as they did earlier with the Armenians. The strategy implemented by the Turks is of displacing people to the interior without taking measures of their survival by exposing them to deah, hunger, and illness. The abandoned homes are then looted and burnt or destroyed. Whatever was done to the Armenians is being repeated with the Greeks'" I'm citing directly for the book, you're citing from memory. But of course, "you cannot waste your time and energy on these arguments". Like I said, the author claims that the Greek genocide was not as large-scale as the Armenian, he never denies the figures of 350,000 deads nor he questions the act of "genocide". Unless you have a new definition of genocide which means "the _total_ elimination of a certain ethnic or religious group", those massacres remain a genocide. Oh but I forgot that by the Turkish definition of the term there's never been a genocide in Turkey. 5% of the 2,000,000 strong Armenian population of Turkey was alive in 1922, therefore there's no such thing as Armenian Genocide right? Miskin 14:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not citing from memory - read here: p342 --A.Garnet 14:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you point me to something I just quoted? Miskin 14:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Because you seem to focus on one part, read both pages. Like i said, I wont waste my time and energy on arguing with you, because it is obvious you will disagree with whatever i say, so lets wait for an admin to get involved. --A.Garnet 14:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What about the Axis genocides of WW2? Should we also categorise them as "WW2" casualties? Miskin 14:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So let us enumerate how many genocides found in wikipedia alone does Turkey, and apparently Turkish people deny: Coincidence or pattern? Miskin 14:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Armenian Genocide
 * Assyrian Genocide
 * Pontic Greek Genocide

Mediation
Ok, Alf asked me to look at this, and I'm slightly confused. If people want me to get involved can they state below their preferred title of the article and use sources to back up its use per WP:NAME. - FrancisTyers 15:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We should be listing all possible names. - FrancisTyers 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please leave the commenting within these sections up to me for the meantime.

Greek genocide

 * "Finally we can sum up the overall nationalist genocide. It totals almost 880,000 Armenian and Greek deaths, as we can see from the table 10.1... Since the post-World War I years, few remember or write about the Greek genocide." R. J. Rummel's 'Death by government' (what I regard as my most credible source). Miskin 15:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If we had this we'd probably have to go for something like Greek Genocide (Pontos). - FrancisTyers 15:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Greek Pontian Genocide

 * "Finally we can sum up the overall nationalist genocide. It totals almost 880,000 Armenian and Greek deaths, as we can see from the table 10.1... Since the post-World War I years, few remember or write about the Greek genocide." R. J. Rummel's 'Death by government' Miskin 15:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "That this Legislature hereby joins in commemorating the Greek Pontian Genocide of 1914-1922" Miskin 15:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Pontian massacres

 * "Under these conditions, genocide of the Ottoman Greeks was simply not a viable option. Many however, were massacred by the Turks" Killing Trap --A.Garnet 16:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman Greek casualties
Much like Ottoman Armenian casualties. Could encompass pontians, Greeks from Izmir etc. --A.Garnet 21:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with having a Ottoman Greek casualties, but where are sources that use this? - FrancisTyers
 * Where are the sources which use Ottoman Armenian casualties? The point is there is not a definiteve name for what the Greeks experienced. Greeks call it genocide, some have called it massacres, others deportations - rather than create an article based on one of these viewpoints, would it not be better to have a more general title which encompasses them all? --A.Garnet 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see where you are coming from, but is there not a neutral name generally used? I mean, if we disregard partisan sources, what do other encyclopaedias, independent news outlets etc. call it? - FrancisTyers 22:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no other encylopedia entries on this. I have tried looking for journal articles through JSTOR and have come up with nothing. There are even no non-partisan books which are devoted to this subject - this is why i strongly oppose trying to categorise what Greeks suffered into genocide since there is no credible academic basis to build such an article on. --A.Garnet 23:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Make discussion here. - FrancisTyers 15:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

From the article genocide: "Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Isn't the general definition of genocide another factor to take into account? Miskin 16:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any sources for the others? - FrancisTyers 16:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not us who decides whether this definition applies to Greeks. As i have said all along, we have to represent the academic opinion on the subject - and there are simply no non-Greek, non-partisan sources which cover a Pontian, or a Greek genocide, and i am talking about published books, journals, or unaffiliated organisations. All we seem to have is one source who uses the word "Greek genocide" to cover both Pontians and Aegean Greeks. Well you know, i could create many articles such as the Armenian relocation or Turkish Cypriot genocide based not on sentences, but on entire books, by western authors - yet i am entirely willing to accept that those articles would be completely POV, even if one author here or there covers it. And in this case, we dont even have works covering it. We have sentences here and there, which is why there is absoloutely no reference to this article in its present that, because there is nothing to reference from. Any article trying to portray the events as genocide will be original research. --A.Garnet 16:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Could we get some more sources please. I've dropped the unpopular ones. - FrancisTyers 17:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How come you excluded Telex's proposal for Mysterious disappearances: the Pontian Greeks of Anatolia? I mean, Yunan is the name Greeks have in the Arabic, Turkish, Israeli world. The name derives from "Ionas", which is how Greeks called themselves for living in Ionia. I don't see many of them around nowdays, but the name is still there, to remind us that UFOs abducted them in the 1920's... N i k o S il v e r   (T) @ (C) 21:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How about Something which never happened? This is the view promoted by BHRM .--Telex 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How about those?  N i k o S il v e r   (T) @ (C) 23:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear all, some corrections. Yes, there is no monograph devoted entirely to the Pontian Genocide written by a non-Greek author. However, recent publications tend to discuss it in context with the Armenian and other genocides. I could add reference from German, French etc. sources - but perhaps you'll judge that as "sentences here and there". The fact that only Greeks seem to write about the topic is because international research is just starting to develop. Another thing to keep in mind is that many (educated) people don't even know who "Pontians" are - this is slowly going to change, cf. books like Thea Halo's "Not Even my Name" or movies like Yesim Ustaoglu's "Waiting for the clouds" (a Turkish production which talks about the persecution of Pontian Greeks). As a start, I've added one source (in German), a congress volume edited by Tessa Hofmann on the persecution and planned mass extermination of members of Christian minorities in the late Ottoman Empire - with a section on the Pontian Genocide. The term "genocide" is explicitly used in the context with Pontians, as for example by the editor herself on p. 7. I'll try to find some English or French language references too. --Simela 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why did you qualify the source as POV? Someone asked for academic research which refers to the Pontian Genocide - and that's what I supplied. I added a description for non-German-speakers, but if that's the problem I'll delete it. --Simela 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you please add the citations and quotes to the above subsections. - FrancisTyers · 09:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * They are not POV Simela. Turkey denies 3 genocides already, and apparently Turkish editors do as well, so you can't expect much neutrality from G. Garnet. Miskin 09:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how Garnet still goes on about "no-one uses the term genocide except Greeks". Does this guy even read what we post for him? Are R. J. Rummel, the state of New Jersey and all the people mentioned by Simela Greeks? Miskin 09:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is you who does not read what i post! I have told you, there are plenty of sources which will write about an Armenian relocation, and there are plenty of books which will refute an Armenian genocide. These are entire books dedicated by western authors. Does this make it the majority position? No it does not. In this case, you do not even have one monograph dedicated in favour of your position, yet you continue to state one sentence by RJ Rummel as proof for the validity of this articles title. The other source you gave me (killing trap), proves the complete opposite of what you are saying, and says quite clearly, the Pontians and Greeks did not suffer genocide. Again I ask you, are there even any journal articles dedicated to this "genocide"? Are there any other encylopedia entries dedicated to this entry? You have the state of New Jersey who "recognises it", a state full of Greeks with governors pandering to their vote, and this is proof? --A.Garnet 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually Rummel devotes an entire chapter in the Greek genocide and explain that it's an event not well documented in English. He also includes tables and detailed data of victims, so I don't understand how this in your opinion comes down to "one sentece" (actually I do but that's a different story). You still tend to ignore the official recognition by the state of New Jersey. Is that also another sentence? You must work really hard to hide all those sentences on the 3 genocides Turkey is accused for. Miskin 13:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added an example for efforts being undertaken in Germany in the "Official recognition and general interest" section. Examples from other countries will follow. I told you the reason why there still aren't any monographs exclusively on the Pontian Genocide. The current academic discussion tends to examine the cases of Armenians, Greek Pontians and other minorities together, as the reason(s) for genocide were the same for all these population groups. A lot of work (examination of archival material etc.) which has already been done with reference to the Armenian genocide can be applied to the Pontian case (as for example the motives of the perpetrators, the Young Turks). There is not only the "one sentence" you continuously refer to. I've supplied some examples already, and as to historical sources there's a passage in Morgenthau I could cite - if this is acceptable to you.--Simela 03:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For similar reasons I'd like to delete the last sentence in the passage "Arguments against," which says: "The fact that the events took place at a time when a well-organized Greek Army was invading a geographically contiguous land, not populated by a majority of Greeks except for two pockets (Smyrna and Pontus), complicates the picture." This simply is not true. The events which we are talking about started in 1916 (with singular episodes even before that), way before the Greek army arrived on the scene.--Simela 03:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Arguments Against?
The arguments against section doesn't really have any arguments against the genocide, is it supposed to? As such, I think it should be renamed, or changed to include any arguments against the genocide, if they exist. I have no knowledge of this stuff, I'm just cleaning up the prose. --Awiseman 07:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the problem i have warned about. The whole article has become original research, therefore there are hardly any sources able to refute the theses being proposed here, since there are hardly any that support it. It seems people have lost interest in having the article renamed. --A.Garnet 10:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No it has no arguments, the real name of the section is "How to hide a Turkish Genocide in 5 easy steps", this is why it must be removed. Miskin 13:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way keep singing that "original research" song. Everybody has seed and accepted the sources except yourself, I bet this will be settled by ArbCom and you'll be still going on about how it's "unsourced" and original research and "based on one sentece". Miskin 13:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If there was a section called "Arguments against," then there are surely some arguments out there, right? Either rename the section or put them in it. This is supposed to be a balanced enyclopedia - if one side says there was a genocide and the other doesn't, the article should mention that. As of now, it doesn't really say much. --Awiseman 13:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The section 'Arguments against' is ironically the only Original Research about this article. Anyone who has basic historical knowledge knows that the Greco-Turkish war started after the genocides of Armenia and Pontus. Unless someone provides a source for possible "arguments against", please don't restore such idiotic claims which contradict every existing historical record on the Greco-Turkish war. Miskin 13:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If Elias Venezis (Mellos) is put forth as a reference, since his novellized account covers the period after September 1922, the section "Arguments against" remains valid as a counterweight to that reference. If Anyone who has basic historical knowledge knows that the Greco-Turkish war started after the genocides of Armenia and Pontus, Elias Venezis has no place here. That reference should be erased. If the basis for his inclusion as a reference is "Look! There were Labour Battalions between 1916-1919, and there were Labour Battalions in end 1922 and 1923 and Elias wrote about the second ones, then he should be used as a reference in a rather sparing manner, stressing it is an indirect and by-extension type of reference. And then the issue of whose extension it is can be discussed in length. Cretanforever


 * If arguments for and against this exist, they should be noted. It can also be noted that the arguments are argued against by so-and-so. --Awiseman 21:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Photo?
What's that photo? The caption on here says it's of Elaziq, which is in eastern Turkey. What does the Greek on the photo say? --Awiseman 17:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It says what the summary I gave says. I know Elazig is far from Pontus ;-) but that's (one of the places) where they were deported to; after all, this was a mass deportation/evacuation (whether it was to a concentration camp, I don't know; it doesn't say). --Telex 21:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, most in this photo are Armenians from Elaziq, there was also a significant Assyrian community there next to a Greek community, I don't have figures though. Fad (ix) 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's Armenians, it doesn't apply to this article, right? If it's Greeks, that should be noted in the caption, such as "Greeks from Pontus deported to Elazig in eastern Turkey." or whatever. --Awiseman 15:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's actually a hard one, it would help to know the year of this national geographic issue. The thing is that in places like Elazig you can not pinpoint Greeks alone, unless we are talking about a picture taken after the Armenians have been evacuated. But even if we document it, I think it'll be better to find a picture at the heartland of 'Pontus.' Fad (ix) 17:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How about this one from Giresun? Beneath the picture it says Κάτοικοι της Κερασούντας δολοφονημένοι από τους Τούρκους, which meant inhabitants of Giresun murdered by the Turks (POV?). --Tēlex 17:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, the National Geographic date is 11/25. --Tēlex 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What's to say? Beneath the photo on the picture, it says Μια πολυάριθμη ομάδα εξορίστων Ελλήνων από το Χαρπούτ (φωτ. The National Geographic Magazine, 11/25)., which translates to a large group of exiled Greeks from Kharput. At the page where I found it, in the caption it says Ελληνες εξόριστοι βαδίζοντες προς την εξορία και τον θάνατο., exiled Greeks walking to exile and death. The only reason I chose that picture is because it was attributed to the National Geographic Magazine. --Tēlex 17:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we should include it then, as it doesn't say anything about Pontus in particular. --Awiseman 14:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is in very bad shape
Far from being neutral, mixing two different event (the general policy against the Greeks and what happened in Pontus), the subsequent dates, the ranges of casulties etc., this article should have been first worked before being created. Also, the title..., I don't have alternatives that I can think of, the reason being that this event is called by various names. I could work on this article, but from its current shape it should probably totally be rewritten. Fad (ix) 00:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you and A.Garnet could collaborate on such an effort, that would be ideal. El_C 00:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. Fad (ix) 15:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd help, but it would only be superficial edits, not really my subject area to provide any meaningful content. If you want to rewrite it, that fine. --A.Garnet 16:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Question
I wanna ask a question. How many greeks were there in pontian region just before the "Pontian Greek Genocide"? --Doluca 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's disputed. I think Eleftherios Venizelos (Greek POV) once claimed 700,000, although IMO this is far to high. --Tēlex 21:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research
I apologize for deletion of a large piece of the article about "general interest". It was the description of various statistics based on google search. This in 100% original research, which analyses certain facts and draws specific conclusions, which is inadmissible in wikipedia (WP:NOR). If there is a similar analysis published in reputable publications, please quote it. Mukadderat 22:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I paste the deleted paragraph below. "The 100% original research which analyses certain facts and draws specific conclusions", amounts to observing that the issue treated by this article is not visible in the Google Trends. At that count, "the sky is blue" becomes original research, "the sea is wavy" becomes original research, "the world is round" becomes original research. Let's close shop! :)

"References to the issue have been made at different times by several Greek politicians of various levels. Taken as a tool for providing insights into general interest, Google Trends for several possible keyword combinations indicate that, Turkey on country basis, and Turkish among languages occupy prominent places for the term Pontus. The word is generally used in a context of tourism in Turkey and Pontus or Pontos are also common male names in some countries. Trends also indicate an interest in North America for Pontic. The terms Pontian Genocide or Pontian Greek Genocide did not generate significant search volumes since 2004 anywhere, nor is Greece or the Greek language seen in the lead for any of the possible terms. (For comparison purposes, the term "Armenian Genocide" generates notable search volumes strictly restricted to the period March-April-May each year since 2004 with the lead talen by Armenia, Lebanon and Turkey respectively, for understable reasons, and these are followed by a number of Californian communities centered around Glendale, Irvine, Los Angeles etc.) " Cretanforever


 * Please don't pull a red herring for me. I can easily find a refernce that supports the claim "the sky is blue", if comeone will be ridiculous enough to request it. Now, I am repeating my quiestion: what publication is the base of the deleted section? Please answer it and let's close shop. Mukadderat 00:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Since you seem to know the issue, please add the greek term for the event into the article. Mukadderat 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The publication that is the base of the deleted section is called Google Trends. The details are as follows:

    

as well as variants within. I have put these details in the references section. Cretanforever


 * Sorry for late answer. Google Trends is not a publication. It is a tool. You did some search using this tool. What you found is not a publication. It is an analysis of google database. The results may change in a year or if you use different words for search. I don't dispute that the term is not widely used. But is is officially used by at least one country. Please undertand, using a search tool to draw a conclusion about something is research. Inshallah. Mukadderat 03:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I also fail to understand the encyclopedic value of your Trends result. The "pontic greeks" does not show on Google Trends either. The same for "valide sultan", Şeyhülislam and many other things. So what? That some topics are not interesting to  americans? Mukadderat 03:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I read your message only today! Google Trends is a tool that provides insights into general interest (that's how they define themselves). It's not a perfect tool and its information content should be taken with a lot of care and cautiousness (exactly like the wikipedia:), and still more so if one is seeking means for indication or for measurement.

For your question, if someone declares Britney Spears to be a star, and if, when one looked her up in the Google Trends, one had remarked that no significant google search volume had been generated for her, not many people had googled her, was curious about her, cared about her; one could then put quite reasonable question marks about her star status.

Of course, a lot of different dynamics may become pertinent in a google search. Another example is Inanna, the Sumerian goddess :) The term Inanna is sought after the most in Sweden, because there is a Swedish electronic music group of that name, popular mainly in that country. Sweden is followed by the United States, Australia, Turkey and the Netherlands on country basis (same link). Swedish, Dutch, Turkish and English are also the primary languages in which google searches on Inanna were made. . And what is interesting is that searches on Inanna surged in the second half of 2005. There was a rock opera of that name by an American composer named John Crater but it was composed in 2003, and was not really a huge hit. Therefore, one may wonder why the other countries figure in the results (apart from Sweden)? It becomes really interesting when one looks at the primary cities where an explosion of interest toward Inanna, perhaps the Sumerian goddess or perhaps someone else, was noticeable:) San Fransisco comes first!!! Followed by New York, Amsterdam etc.. It is really interesting to ask how many times she must have been googled (perhaps by only a few IP's) to generate such search volumes? There is another catch about google, but let me keep to that much explanation for the moment. Regards. :)

Cretanforever

Rename to Pontian massacres
I think the current title has gone on long enough. There are far few sources which refer to genocide, at least any credible non-partisan ones. Do people agree to this title? --A.Garnet 09:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Find some reliable sources and make your case. You've got one that prefers "massacres", you'll need more. - FrancisTyers · 09:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps in the meantime, you could find me sources which justify the current title. --A.Garnet 09:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no particular attachment to the current title, as I'm sure you are aware. - FrancisTyers · 13:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to find any clear name for this event, but it is certainly not a genocide. Its been two months now since i voiced my concern about this title, and people seem content to allow it to go on. If there is no consensus soon, i will change it myself. --A.Garnet 17:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree the title is misleading and POV. Why do we even have this page anyway, is there any truth in these stuff? Anyways, I guess renaming the page is good. --User:Takhisis


 * I think it's fine the way it is. "Alleged Pontian Greek Genocide" is the only better title I can think of it, and that's kind of wordy. --Awiseman 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How does Pontic Greek Genocide Thesis sound ? It indicates that the Greek view is hardly accepted as fact, and also keeps the G-word which shouldnt cause too much conflict with greek users.--Kilhan 09:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Current reverts
The citations that are asked, concerning the first 2 cases, can be found in many of the external links along with the links in the references' section. about the 3rd requested citation... i have no idea why it was added... (perhaps to counter-balance the first two?). anyway, in USSR-, Stalin-, etc related articles someone can find all the info he wants. --Hectorian 11:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That is not how it works Hectorian. When you make a claim, or present it as fact, then that specific fact must be substantiated through a citation. The reader has to be able to see where you are getting your facts from, you cannot just tell them "search through the links". As i have said, if the facts are verifiable, then these claims can be referenced without trouble. --A.Garnet 19:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Florida and Massachusetts
It seems that the Pontian Greek Genocide may be also recognized by Florida and Massachusetts. --Tēlex 12:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

--

From: xxxxxxxx@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 12:55 PM To: Governor Jeb Bush Subject: Pontian Greek Genocide claims

Sir,

I am writing you from İzmir, Turkey.

My question relates to the issue of the Pontian Greek Genocide alleged to have taken place, according to a number of Greek authors, between 1914-1922, although there are also Greek sources such as the journalist Iakobos Pretenteris and researcher Dr. Georgios Nakracas who believe that nothing of a genocidal nature occurred. American historian Mark Mazower also puts forth observations in a similar vein. (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n03/mazo01_.html)

I see that, in the wikipedia article on the Pontian Greek Genocide(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontian_Greek_Genocide), Florida is named as one of the U.S. states that have officially recognized the historical existence of a genocide in this case. Although, the reference shown for the recognition seems to consist of a draft proposal by a senator.

I would like to ask if there is such recognition by the State of Florida. The issue is sensitive through a number of viewpoints, and would inevitably implicate, even when not specifically named as in the Florida House of Representatives text that is on the wikipedia page, the Turkish nation as a whole. I do believe that genocide allegations are serious matters and the presentation of this particular issue, as far as I could judge, lacks the seriousness and the unanimity required. As regards the first, one "Turkish Prime Minister" named in Greek sources has not been recorded by history, he simply never existed. The Turkish Prime Minister in 1909 (that would be, the Ottoman Grand Vizier) was not named as such. Creating fictitious prime ministers for neighboring countries is not the best way for Greece for being taken seriously.

Could your office please confirm me if there is a recognition by the State of Florida or not?

Respectfully yours

--

From:Garrastazu, Tony  Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 7:58 PM  To: xxxxxxxx@gmail.com Cc: "Mohrland, Meghan" , "Pilver, Michael" 

Dear Mr. xxxxxxxx:

Thank you for writing Governor Bush regarding the Pontic Greek populations that resided in the Pontus region of the Ottoman Empire. Regarding the issue of Genocide, the State of Florida, as a State within the Union, does not make nor promote its own foreign policy. The question of genocide, its definition and labeling is strictly a matter for the U.S. Federal Government in general and the U.S. State Department in particular.

After reviewing the links provided in your email, it appears that State Representative Gus Bilirakis of the Florida House of Representatives (via House Resolution 9161) and Florida State Senator (via Senate Resolution 2742) Mike Haridopolos placed a ceremonial non-binding resolution on this issue during the 2005 legislative session.

You can visit http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=17788& to see a copy of the resolution. You can also visit the Florida House of Representatives website at http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/

Thank you, Tony Garrastazu

Cretanforever


 * I don't understand why you're removing these. There are resolutions passed and they are sourced. --Awiseman 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What's the signature? The Governor? Cretanforever


 * You mean Tony Garrastazu? That's not the governor, could be some other person in the office. --Awiseman 19:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What's the signature on behalf of the State of Florida for the recognition? The Governor Jeb Bush? The President of the Senate? Who signed the recognition? Cretanforever

who is s.ker pasha?
can someone explain who s.ker pasha is? Even the citated artıcle does not mentıon such a name. Also the citated artıcle says Sefker Pasha was the Turkish prime minister (I guess it means Ottoman!!!!) but as far as I remember Hüseyin Hilmi Pasha was the prime minister at that time. --Hattusili 05:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

totallydisputed tag
This article is a mess. The title is still POV, the 10% of it that is relevant (the intro and the first paragraph) contain no verifiable sources. I have made it abundantly clear before, there are no non-paritsan monographs dedicated to this event, no encylopedic articles, no journals articles - this article cannot be anything other than totally disputed. --A.Garnet 11:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an overkill of tags accompanying this article. I have to remove at least one. I am not sure what you mean by 'non-partisan'. There are testimonials, there are historians who wrote about these events in Greek. Do we assume that there is a conspiracy between them? If so, what a conspiracy, it sure beats the Da Vinci Code! I agree that a POV element may accompany such writings, but the underlying facts cannot be disputed. Your vehemence (on this question only) reminds me of some people who simply refuse to include anything about the Armenian genocide in the Turkey article. We cannot erase what happened in the past, but also we should treat it with proportionality and we should not use events from the past to creat unbalanced articles in the present. Politis 14:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I mean really, i get so tired of all this pov pushing on Wikipedia. How many times will i say it, there are no impartial sources for this event in this article - therefore its neutrality, factual accuracy, as well its lack of references of any substance must be highlighted to the reader. No one is trying to erase this article, only make it more accurate, and more representative of academic opinion. --A.Garnet 11:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are tired of POV in wiki, then it may be best to take a long break from it :-). It is absolutely inevitable. What is really POV is the overkill of tags. There have been other, more contraversial disputes with just the single tag. I agree with the presence of one tag; it alerts people to provide more information and references. But I would like a clear explanation for this overkill, otherwise 2 of the tags will have to go. Politis 11:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If there was a single tag which encompasses neutrality, factual accuracy, disputed title and lack of references, as well as original research, then i would be happy to have it. But as it is, we can't remove tags because there are too many. Imho, only a complete rewrite of this article, and a change of title will remove all of the tags. --A.Garnet 10:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Change of title? As pointed out, the genocide is recognised as an official commemoration day in Greece. If you think that the Greek state, people, survivors and others are lying, then I suggest you back up such a belief; it must be the greatest conspiracy ever if a state and its people are faking genocide... But the vehement reaction is not just a cause to LOL, but it deserves to be registered by historiographers. The Pontus used to be - within living memory - a thriving Greek region. It was wiped out, thousands were murdered, the buildings were distroyed, thousands fled to Georgia and Russia and suffered further pogroms under Stalin and then in the 1990s. There are very few survivors in the Pontus and a documentary was made. What dont you believe? Politis 12:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Am i meant to take yours, or the Greek governemnts word for what happened? I, like most readers, want to see impartial and credible sources, not the word of Greek politicians. You or other (mainly Greek)users have not provided a single credible source that recognises this as genocide. All you do is come here and tell me "Greece recognises it, lots of people were murdered, why wont you believe it". Honestly, it is your position that is laughable, not mine. This page has become a nationalist cause for Greek users, and they are applying different rules for this article than they are for others. I include fact tags and they are removed, i add neutrality tags and they are removed, i propose a title change and i am opposed. There is no point in me wasting energy trying to talk sense, because none of you are willing to listen. --A.Garnet 13:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * With all respect A.Garnet, but u have also asked for a re-write of Turkish invasion of Cyprus article (though u did not support a re-name of it). In addition, in Kurdish- or Armenian- or TRNC-related articles are loans of turkish (including turkish governmental) sources. If greek sources are not reliable enoygh to be used in this article, turkish sources should also be immediately removed from Armenian Genocide, for example, and many many other articles... --Hectorian 14:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe since we've all been brainwashed to pretend our grandparents died there, while they were possibly accidentally abducted by UFOs, we should rename this article to Pontian Greek Semi-caust. That is, a holocaust (="all+burnt" in Greek) which is not whole, but rather 'semi' (="half"). Thoughts? :N i k o S il v e r:  14:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't mind the title used for the article at trwiki >> Pontus Genocide Allegations, but if all tags but one are still going to be hanging there, then there's no point in it. --Telex 14:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that Greek sources are unreliable, only that on their own, they mispresent the academic opinion on the issue. In the Armenian genocide article, Turkish sources are not used to push a pov, but to explain all positions related to the event. By only using Greek sources here, we are not explaining that the event is rarely considered a genocide by anyone other than Greeks. With regards to Turkish invasion of Cyprus, have a look at Cyprus dispute and tell me which is better. The latter was written by an professional analyst on Cyprus, the former by a banned GC nationalist who couldnt get his way in Cyprus dispute. So rather than slyly accuse me of acting as a nationalist, try to see whether my suggestions will actually improve those articles.


 * Also Nikos, rather than throw rhetoric around, why don't you do what i keep asking, provide impartial sources which describe the event as genocide? Telex, personally i think it is better to come up with a name for the event, rather than create articles based on allegations. The problem is there doesn't seem to be a common name for this event. We could use Pontian massacres, for which there are sources, or a more catch all one such as Ottoman Greek casualties in which casualties from Smyrna and elsewhere can be mentioned. Those are my suggestions. --A.Garnet 15:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A.Garnet, have u read what u editted? I am not calling u nationalist, but u say that the turkish sources in Armenian Genocide are not there to push POV, but to show another explanation of the event. so, why the greek sources here are POVish and not "an explanation of the event"? why don't u add turkish sources to counter-balance the greek ones? for me, sources from 4 US states and from a Turkish-Jewish eyewitness cannot be sonsidered "greek sources". as for the 2 cyprus-related articles, i'll soon take a better look at them... --Hectorian 15:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the Turkish sources are used to highlight the Turkish POV, but nowhere does it pretend that it is the mainstream view. That article is based mainly on Western, non-Armenian sources, and the Turkish sources are placed in that context. This article attempts to show a "Pontian Greek Genocide", based on Greek sources (I dont count politically motivated voting as academic sources, or eye-witness accounts which talk oflabour camps to be proof of genocide) as the mainstream view, and does not take into account that nearly no-one outside of Greece considers it a genocide. --A.Garnet 15:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Has anyone outside Greece addressed the issue academically (i.e. are there any independent sources saying it wasn't a genocide)? If not, then it's simply a case of Greece's word against Turkey's, not Greece's against the world. --Telex 20:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (to A.Garnet) I would support a rename to Pontian massacres, that sounds like a fair compromise to me. What does everyone else think? &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Garnet, please don't misunderstand humor for 'throwing rhetoric around'. I really thought 'semi-caust' was a nice sense of black humor. My wife's grandfather was killed in Smyrna, so kindly treat the subject with the respect such loss of life deserves. I agree that the third sources are not equivalent to the ones about the Armenian genocide, but that does not make them moot. On the other hand, as Telex pointed out, there are no third sources (at all) on the non-genocide position. :N i k o S il v e r: 20:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think that a rename of the article is appropriate. There are sources (even only Greek or 'politically motivated' American) that call it 'genocide'. however, i do not think that there are turkish sources calling it a 'massacre'. Perhaps according to the turkish government, nothing ever happened there, and the Greeks just disappeared... Under the definition of Genocide, the loss of the 50% of an ethnic group is indeed a genocide. if someone comes with sources providing another view of what happened to those 350,000 Pontians, then we discuss it again. --Hectorian 21:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, simply because there is little academic coverage of the issue outside of Greece, does not mean we take Greece's word for it. There are infact sources which mention the plight of Pontians and Ottoman Greeks, two that have been mentioned already in these discussion pages:


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


 * "Under these conditions, genocide of the Ottoman Greeks was simply not a viable option. Many however, were massacred by the Turks" Killing Trap

Also Nikos, i don't see what Smyrna has to do with this article, which is about Pontians, and why you accuse me of disrespect, when i proposed a title (Ottoman Greek Casualties) which could include casualties of both Greeks in Smyrna, and Pontian Greeks. --A.Garnet 11:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Man! Garnet stop taking everything the wrong way! Nobody accused you of disrespect! It was just a response to your misunderstanding for 'throwing retoric around' of my innocent joke about the 'semi-caust'. Jesus!
 * Re Smyrna/Pontos issue, I guess it is off topic, but I just mentioned it to show you why there may be some sensitivities on the issue.
 * Additionally, you can call 10 or 100 or 1000 people simply 'casualties', but when you reach numbers of 350,000, I guess you can only call it a genocide. There are sources for that, and the fact that it is disputed (only by Turkey), while it is not disproved by any third party source, is good reason enough for it to keep the present title. "Massacre", or "casualties" are not sourced to the extent "genocide" is.
 * Finally, to cut the long story short, the title is supposed to describe how something is known. I am certain that the appellation 'Pontian Greek Genocide' (17,700 hits) is far more familiar than 'Pontian Greek Massacre' (880 hits), regardless if it happened or not to that extent. In view of that, I am removing your tag for the title, and will not compromise for that issue. You can add your concerns in the text if you so wish. :N i k o S il v e r:  11:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS As I was writing this, I noticed that anon User:84.164.253.240 removed it before me. Good job. :N i k o S il v e r:  11:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is getting beyond a joke. I just gave you two third party impartial sources which said it was not a genocide, and your response is to tell me "it is not disproved by any third party source". You take non-recognition by every nation except Greece, for recognition by every nation except Turkey. I wont budge on any of the tags until proper action is taken to improve this article, that includes its name. --A.Garnet 12:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And I will not allow your pov-title tag unless you prove that the fact is known by a more familiar name. The word 'alleged' in the first sentence of the intro should be more than satisfactory for you. :N i k o S il v e r:  12:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Your selective quoting of the first source is one more reason. The quote continues:
 * ... But these deportations [of Greeks] were on a relatively small scale and do not appear to have been designed to end in their victims' deaths.

Meaning: There were not as many Pontian Greeks deported, as Armenians. That signifies that the method of genocide could be different (i.e. Armenians' deportation to desert and series of masacres rather than whatever other). The paragraph does not aim to disprove the Pontian Greek Genocide, it rather aims to prove the Armenian one.
 * ...Between 1894 and 1896, at least a hundred thousand Armenians had died in massacres in eastern Anatolia.

I suppose the above means there was no Armenian genocide either! It was just a series of little 'massacres', according to your reasoning! :N i k o S il v e r: 12:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And Jesus! Talking about selective quoting, did you by any chance read the rest of the text in the page of your 'Killing Trap' quote? "...today I sent off squads to the interior to kill every Greek on sight..." Garnet? What is wrong with you? :N i k o S il v e r: 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Both have the same bottom line no matter how you interpret them. Midlarsky is telling you the near same amount of Greeks arrived in Greece as refugees as the pre 1914 census of Greeks in the Ottoman Empire, therefore while there may have been an intention to massacre Greeks "there is a strong disjunction between intentions and actions". --A.Garnet 13:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I give you that, although I'd like to cross check the numbers cited below. Now, let's please tone down and discuss:
 * You didn't respond on the most 'frequent appellation of the incident' issue. (google above).
 * "alleged" in the intro.
 * Also, kindly read the whole article again. I find it tremendously balanced. It shows both versions of truth, and leaves the 'uninformed reader' with the question if the incident happened to that extent or not. I am certain that all those tags are redundant now. :N i k o S il v e r:  13:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Google results mean nothing. There are more important criteria for issues such as genocide than what Google returns. Is it commonly discussed amongst historians? Are there third party academic sources on the event? Are there any credible encylopedic, journal or monographs dedicated to the issue? In almost all cases the answer is no. All Google is showing is what we already know: there are a lot of Greeks who use this term (99% of the results are either on Greek websites, or from Greek users).


 * As for the word 'alleged', are we meant to forget about its disputed title, irrelevant information, confused events, original research and lack of citations because of this word? I have read the article, lots of times, and so have other users who agree it needs a rewrite. I don't find it informative at all, like i said earlier, the only relevant bit i see is the intro and first paragraph, and these are unsourced. If you want the tags removed, then take the time to research and write a proper article. --A.Garnet 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Official" recognitions
Of the documents referenced as sources for the claim of official recognition of genocide by U.S. States, only the one from New Jersey seems to have any claim to such a status. The one called "South Carolina recognition" has print of about 2 pixels high, not exactly legible, and yet I'm pretty certain none of the words there is "genocide". For those for Florida and Massachusetts there is no indication of any kind that the resolutions were accepted, at best that they were introduced. If they had been accepted, no doubt there would have been people eager to introduce clearly officially accepted versions as evidence, and capable of doing so. My conclusion is that, for serving as sources for the claims of recognition, these are bogus. --Lambiam Talk 02:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Genocide
If I am correct, A.Garnet is disputing the term 'genocide' not the historical fact that thousands of Pontian Greeks were massacred. But, can we agree that, (1) there existed a Greek based civilisation in the Pontus for over 2,000 years. (2) In 1922, it suddenly vanished and most of the Pontian Greek Orthodox, Greek-speaking people disappeared and (3) there was much bloodshed. If so, how do we call such an event? The Greeks call it genocide; that is the reason it exists as an article. Politis 17:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * American consul Oscar Heizer extensively reported the deportations and massacres occuring in Trebizond to ambassador Henry Morgenthau in Constantinople. Although much of his reports concerns the killings and deporations of the Armenian population, there are some references to "similar fates" in regards to the Greek population. See also Leon Surmelian's book I ask you Ladies and Gentlemen (Dutton & Co., 1945) for an eyewitness account of the destruction in the city and also in the United States press in Armenian genocide : news accounts from the American press (1915-1922) edited by Richard Kloian.--MarshallBagramyan 17:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The title issue
Look, this title issue is much more serious than some people think.. It is really not fair to accuse a nation of genocide just on a whim.. It is a serious allegation that must be backed-up by serious academic research. The definition of the United Nations and the international law must be taken into account. Pls let's not use Wikipedia to fuel ethnic hatred. The article still doesn't have even one impartial source or citation. Pls reply... If not we can easily witness a proliferation of 'genocide' sites on Wikipedia, claiming that every nation in this world has committed genocide against each other...

Turkish and Greeks are very close, focusing on the sad moments of our history and calling each other baby-killers, child-killers is not going to get anywhere. Turks and Greeks don't need to prove something to each other, so let's calm down people... Baristarim 11:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Talking about the past does not represent current feelings between Greeks and Turks. Inj the same way that other genocides that have occured during history and do not consist current threats for nations' friendships. The article has 15 footnots, many references, quotes by foreign diplomats, official recognitions (or steps towards recognition) by Greece, US states, an Australian state, eyewitnesses accounts. If someone could provide credible source that the half (350,000) population of the Pontian Greeks was not killed, maybe then we can rename the article. If not, the death of 50% of them, fits perfectly to be called 'genocide'. --Hectorian 17:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Look dude.. Pls chill.. I am just pointing out the fact that genocide is a serious allegation, it has to be backed by serious academic research.. Pls, are you telling me that the recognition by Greece gives it more credibility?? If Turkey adopts a resolution saying that there was a Turkish Genocide perpetrated by Greeks, would that make it true?? Come on dude, u know politics.. 'And you are asking others to prove a negative.. How can someone possibly prove that 350,000 didn't die?? You have to prove that THEY DID DIE..' Also pls assume that others are acting in good faith..

But there is a more serious issue, this article LACKS gravely the kind of proof that would be needed to prove without a reasonable doubt that this article needs to be titled 'Genocide'. Baristarim 18:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Read the references, footnotes, eyewitness accounts, diplomats' words. It is not what just Greece says. There are sources (and i repeat: not only greek) naming the event 'genocide' (ie 'deliberate extermination'). If u dispute this, u need to find credible sources saying the opposite.
 * PS:I think i know about politics, i am calm and i did not say anything about "bad faith". --Hectorian 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok.. I didn't mean any disrespect.. I am sorry if u took it that way.. Look, if 350,000 people died, there would have to be so much more evidence than this.. Mass graves, photos, many more accounts by people who survived it etc to justify that number.. And the evidence present would only support the title 'massacres', not 'genocide', until there is much more overwhelming evidence.. Even Cyprus doesn't recognize this as a genocide!! I read the references and everything. It is not enough to label these as genocide man, seriously.. After the Armenian Genocide there was at least some trials to try those responsible, in this case nobody even tried to propose a trial.. And the only country to this day that has approved this as genocide is Greece, that's not impartial and you know it... Some American states? Those states pass many resolutions of the kind, Mississippi had a law saying that it was OK to kill a Mormon, until the abrogation of the law in the 70s. All I am saying is that this is really not helping this article, pls let's not use Wikipedia as a sandbox.. It is really not fair on anyone.. This article is a mess, it really looks like it was never thought out and planned... BTW, can I have a reply for the post below? Seriously, if you got impartial and credible sources, cite them to support these allegations... Otherwise let's ask for arbitration and edit-protect on all these issues... Baristarim 20:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * More evidence? there are accounts by many people who survived, but apparently they are Greeks... so, it would seem as 'POV-pushing' if an editor (and especially a Greek one) added them. Mass graves? Do u really believe that Turkey allows searches in the area? As far as i know, Turkey does not even allow archaelogical excavations in Pontus (so as not to show the greek heritage of the area). Photos? we are talking about early 1900s! who could shoot pictures that time? Perhaps only the turkish army had such capability in central Anatolia, were these people were deported. About survivors' accounts, as u can see in the sources provided, whole villages were whipped out... Cyprus does not recognise it for obvious reasons: shall Cyprus recognise it, Turkey will have a reason not to negotiate for the problem in the island. The Armenian Genocide recognition begun as 'resolution' by many countries and US states. The sources provided cannot justify a rename of the article. which title would u propose? 'massacre'? 'ethnic cleansing'? these terms are found nowhere concerning the events. Apropos, u said if 350,000 people died, there would have to be so much more evidence than this. so, tell me: what is the view of the issue u represent? what happened to those people, if they did not die? and about whether it was planned or not, don't give a damn of what the Greeks say! just read what the American, Austro-Hungarian and German officials were saying back then (note that the last 2 were ottoman allies at that time!). I don't think there is need to say why it was not recognised by Greece earlier... --Hectorian 21:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the survivors being Greeks. First of all, there has to be a PROOF confirming the 350,000 number, the article has no citations whatsoever to any impartial source on the specific allegations it makes. Light Death, Turkish casualties being 15,000? Where is the PROOF?? You have not been able to find any citations for months now, this is getting ridiculous.. I only pity you for harboring so much anger.. As for the accounts of the diplomats, they are nowhere close to proving the extent of the allegations leveled. What, they travelled around all around war-torn Anatolia that had no railroads looking for what happenned to the Greek population? And as for their conversation with other Turkish officials and what they might have heard from them, I got only one thing to say: FYI I happen to be a practicing Intl lawyer, and in law this kind of proof is called HEARSAY, they are not valid in a court of law as absolute proofs, they are called preuves relatives, since they can only confirm such person told them so, and not that such an event has taken place. And for you to prove that it was a genocide and not a massacre, you have to scientifically prove the existence of a co-ordinated attempt to wipe-out a nation, major parts of it, seperate them in whole from their territory for eternity etc.. There is NO PROOF of such a command structure, individual events provided don't prove this as genocide.. I know that some people are trying to jump on the genocide bandwagon since they have realized that how much pressure it can put on a country.. And as such I propose the name 'Pontus Greek Massacres'. As for the photos, there are thousand of photos of the Armenian Genocide, considering that they happenned to be at the same time, I guess there would be AT LEAST SOME photos to back up the allegation that 350 thousand Ponti were killed. Baristarim 21:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to 'feel pity' for me, and i do not have any anger for the Turks! The anger i have is for those who are trying to hide the historic truth. I will say it once more: there are sources, references, quotes, bibliography (greek or not) who support the Genocide claim. So, the article's title will remain as is, unless someone provide more credible sources about the opposite. so far, u have presented... nothing! NOT EVEN ONE source. so, it seems u are talking only according to your POV. Thus, i have no reason to support your claims. Regards --Hectorian 21:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, what part of it is hard to understand?? THE PERSON MAKING A CLAIM HAS TO PROVE IT, if you say that 350,000 Greeks were killed, it is up to you to prove it, not for me to disprove it.. Haven't u had ANY SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION??? You make the claim, you prove it. Nobody is under no obligation to prove that 350,000 Greeks DIDN'T die... If you continue to sing the same tune, you will have confirmed yourself as someone who doesn't understand how the scientific process works, haven't you ever heard of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD??? You say something, you prove it... You make the claim that 350,000 people died, you have the obligation to prove that claim to others.. You sound like people who say 'prove that God doesn't exist' while replying to people who question their faiths!!! And apparently you do have anger for the Turks, if it is not towards the Turks, it must be some personal psychological issue then.. There can be no other logical explanation... NO PHOTOS, NO ACADEMIC RESEARCH UNDERTAKEN BY ANY WESTERN UNIVERSITY!! THIS THING IS AN UTTER JOKE. Baristarim 23:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has the obligation to disprove the genocide claim, you have to prove it... If you want, have a look at the transcripts of the Nuremberg Trials.. I PERSONALLY prepared a sub-thesis on it in Law School, GENOCIDE CLAIMS ARE SERIOUS CLAIMS THAT NEED TO BE BACKED-UP WITH SOLID, HARD-AS-A-ROCK, UNCONTESTABLE PROOFS.. Three web-sites with dodgy web-designs, HEARSAY from a bunch of diplomats and whipped-up and out-dated Nationalistic rhetoric is not ENOUGH, DO YOU HAVE A 20 FOR IQ or what???????? What part of it don't you understand?????????? Baristarim 23:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * U did made some WP:PA and u should be reported for this, but i won't report u. Once more (cause apparently i am not the one who fails to understand) read the references, sources and bibliography. --Hectorian 00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I did some WP:PA, eh? I am such a badboy, aren't I?? Well, I must be punished then!!! You are a naughty boy Baris, you are a badboy Baris, pls somebody spank me!!! I would rather be doing WP:PA rather than trying to fuel ethnic hatred on some obscure corner of the net, believe me. Well, you still haven't been able to respond to my post, so I will accept that as your admission that you are unable to face the truth and/or not come up with an adequate response in a scientific manner... That's alright, because I knew that u wouldn't be able to do so... I have read everything that you have mentioned, one of the references you have mentioned doesn't even mention this issue!!! Have you read what I wrote?? Pls stop the propagation of ethnic hatred, and please don't manipulate Wikipedia to satisfy your own ego.. It is really lame, believe me. Baristarim 02:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Proof Needed, Urgently!
Can somebody paste some proof pls for:

The numbers of Turkish and Greek casualties (currently it is 350000 for Greeks, and 15000 Turks), for someone reason these numbers seem not to emanate from serious academic proof but from the transcripts of some high-school debate club...

And for the claim that 'were deported to RUSSIA', in the beginning of the article it is claimed they escaped to Russia, that's a good claim and I am sure there is proof for this out there.. But DEPORTED?? There was a population exchange agreement, why the hell would they be deported to Russia?

And 'Light Death', see below...

Pls reply...

Regards... Baristarim 17:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * About your first question: talking about academic sources: the Armenian historian Vahakn Dadrian (he is an Armenian, does it count?), the Australian Institute Of Holocaust and Genocide studies, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS). I think u can find some info yourself. Here is a list of some istitutes.
 * Your second question: yes, those who survived before the Treaty of Lauzanne, fled to Russia. U are right, they were not deported: they fled, in order to escape DEATH! Greece was far away... Russia was near and friendly. those who remained and survived, came in Greece with the population exchange of 1923. Perhaps the best wording would be: were chased till Russia... --Hectorian 21:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, International Association of Genocide Scholars doesn't mention EVEN ONE WORD about this, you must be really having a laugh, aren't you??? Baristarim 23:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I was also wondering where the Turkish casualties number came from... For Russia issue, I made the appropriate change... Ok, now I see where the number 353,000 comes from. ON THE OTHER HAND, I fail to see any PROOF in the web-sites you have mentioned. Just because someone repeats something that doesn't make it a proof.. None of these sites have PROOF, no photos, no VERIFIED EYE-witness accounts to overwhelm the reader to convince him that THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND GREEKS WERE KILLED.. Most of the diplomats' accounts depend on HEARSAY, it cannot prove anything.. The quote from the German Chancellor is a great example, what, he was in Anatolia at the time???? Some guy told a German diplomat so and so, he telegraphed so and so, and he said so and so... THIS IS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY-ADMISSIBLE PROOF!! These sites claim to have hundreds of photos, funny that they DON'T show ANY... The evidence you have presented doesn't even prove that massacres even occured, let alone be able to classify them as genocide, what part of this do you fail to understand??? There were 20 million people living in the Ottoman Empire, many foreigners included, if there was such a mass organization that managed to kill so many people, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE MUCH MORE PROOF, SOLID, CONCRETE PROOF, NOT HEARSAY, REAL DAMN PROOF... Show me Western newspaper entries from correspondents in the Ottoman Empire at the time!! There are many for the Armenian Genocide.. Where the hell are they??? You WANT TO BELIEVE that there is such proof, but it's time to wake up and smell the roses, THERE IS NONE.. This is really sad, I just don't understand why you have so much hate and anger towards Turkish people. It is really sad you know... Baristarim 23:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I still can't see any proof about the 'Light Death' except bland statements, if someone can't back this up, I will remove it, or at least add 'according to unverifiable sources, it has been alleged that'... Seriously dude, blaming a nation of committing genocide ain't no joke, when you say something you should have the balls to back it up, if not, don't say it... Baristarim 23:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * U know, there are also people who deny that the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide ever happened... so, i am not surprised u dening this... U ask for more valid, more scientific, more academic, more clear, more VERIFIED EYE-witness accounts (huh?), more respected diplomats, more more and even more! well, i say that u just do not want to admit it, and that u just do not want to understand... And even when all the states recognise it, u will continue to reject it ever happened. U said that u saw were the number '353,000' comes from, and, as 'counterbalance', u filled your last edit with caps. U know what? u sound familiar... In conclusion, i do not hate the Turks, but i will never get to like Kemal, his ideas and the turkish 'deep state' that follows them. Fullstop and cheers! --Hectorian 01:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, u said The evidence you have presented doesn't even prove that massacres even occured. why don't u just say openly what u aim at? Seems that u want this article to be deleted... --Hectorian 01:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING.. And you know it.. I was trying to point out that the evidence put forward is so flimsy that it can barely support the massacre claims... If there is evidence out there, bring it!!! Where the hell are the photos??? I am willing to accept any suggestion as long as it can be substantiated. But I am not stupid enough to lay down and accept the words of anyone without seeing scientific proof. Baristarim 02:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well again, here we go... U don't know me, so you cannot say 'i am not surpised so and so'. Treating every Turk that asks for more proof of these allegations as Holocaust-deniers, clearly shows your stereotypical visions of Turks and doesn't do much to help your credibility. I am personally offended by your implication that just because I ask you to substantiate these claims, I must be a Holocaust-denier (don't say that you didn't imply that, you did and YOU KNOW IT). This issue has nothing to do with the Armenian genocide neither the Holocaust. Don't try to win sympathy from others by pretending that you were the victims of a genocide. You LOST the war fair and square. Maybe you should try accepting that (huh?). Greeks lost Istanbul and Izmir fair and square, how about trying to admit that for a change??? (huh?) And the only state that recognizes the Pontic 'Genocide' is Greece, even Cyprus doesn't recognize it (but they recognize the Armenian Genocide, funny, eh??). So I am guessing from your reasoning that you are recognizing TRNC because, like this 'genocide', only one country recognizes it.. Good...

Nobody has asked you to like Kemal, he never pretended to be the leader of the Greek nation, and let's face it, he was much more successful on all fronts than jokers like Venizelos, or any Greek leader, for that matter...

Furthermore, the fact that there are NO citations for many of the allegations is different than saying that proofs presented can't prove that it was a genocide. FYI, again, I am an intl. lawyer by training, and I know what I am saying when I say that the sources and proofs presented CANNOT back up the claim that this was a genocide... If this truly happenned, I want to understand, but the proofs that are being put forward are not enough to support the charges levelled, and you KNOW IT.. If I am presented with convincing proof and I see that impartial states have recognized this as Genocide, I give you my WORD that I will recognize it..

Stop demagoging as well.. I said I SAW where the number comes from, I didn't say that it is enough proof that the claims of some hate-filled web-site that calls Turks baby-killers that so many Greeks were killed.. As you wish, you can avoid responding to my specific comments.. Baristarim 02:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing can get accomplished when you just scream at people...please understand this. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to take this all the way up to arbitration if the unscientific and hate-oriented version of the title of the article is not changed. I call on all concerned Wikipedians to join the debate, they can see for themselves.. R U ready for the ride Hector?? Baristarim 11:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If u think that this is an issue between u and me, u are mistaken... --Hectorian 20:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: The title of the article
This is a dispute about whether the title of the article should be changed


 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute


 * The reason why I am requesting for comment is because the outstanding issue regarding the appropriateness of the word 'Genocide' in the title has not been resolved for months...

I contest the word 'Genocide' and the inclusion of the latter in the title for the following reasons:

From the article genocide: "Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

1- Title of an article speaks a lot for itself, inclusion of the word genocide in the title, implicitly states that the article will be able to provide enough proof of this claim.. And if it fails to do so, the word Genocide should only be included in the body of the article,

2- Claim of Genocide is an extremely serious allegation to make, one that needs to be backed up by serious and constant academic research and solid proofs.

3- And that there is a clear line seperating 'Genocide from 'Massacre', in that for a Genocide to have taken place, there has to be the proof that there was a clear commanding structure and a chain of command that expressly strived to commit the acts that would be described as 'Genocide' (see above)...

4- For more information regarding the line that seperates between Genocide from Massacre, pls see the Nuremberg trial transcripts. Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide have been defined as such not on the massacres themselves, but also by proving that there existed such a command structure that effectively and continously strived to commit the acts that constitute a Genocide... Extensive data is available on both of these events, and the legal framework for Genocide acceptance has been clearly established, as the minutes of ICJ trials show.

5- As such, I claim that the article fails to provide such credible proof. In other words, the article fails to deliver the sort of scientific, academic, universal and solid proof that would be neccessary to verify the claim of a Genocide.

6- Moreover, I hold that these claims are being used to only fuel ethnic-hatred:

6.1- The only sovereign country to have recognized this as Genocide is Greece itself, and that only 9 years ago, the choice of day to commemerate these events is also suspect: May 19th, a national holiday in Turkey since the 1920s.

6.2- Even Cyprus, a country that is extremely close to Greece politically as much it is far from Turkey has not recognized this as genocide.

7- In the article itself, there is not enough proof to substantiate any of these claims:

7.1- The article makes many serious allegations for which citations have been missing for months. Ex. Light Death,

7.2- An overwhelming majority (app. 95 percent) of articles on this subject found on the net have been written either by Greeks or published in Greek web-sites,

7.3- References cited in the article are either completely biased, have no-connection to the subject whatsoever, or have questionable backgrounds. Ex. International Association of Genocide Scholars, that is cited in the article has no link in its website whatsoever concerning this issue. The page devoted to this issue by the Australian Institute Of Holocaust and Genocide studies is highly-biased, it claims to have hundreds of photos in its possesion, but none are published, the tone of the writings are clearly racist and not-scientific, and most importantly, has no proof delivered that has been derived using the Scientific Method, none of the allegations are substantiated, no interviews with impartial researchers and none of the claims are signed (by anyone whatsoever, let alone Professors of international standing)

7.4- The other 'proofs' are accounts by a handful of foreign diplomats stationed in the Ottoman Empire. Half of them are considered as HEARSAY, accounts of the stories told by other people, and the accounts of the remaining two or three are not enough to substantiate the claim that 350,000 people were systematically killed.

7.5- Most importantly, there is no link, source, proof or whatsoever to substantiate the claim that the Ottoman and Turkish adminstrations had the will, the command structure and the continuity and generalization of acts to commit a Genocide against the Pontus Greeks.

8- Finally, after 90 years of alleged events taking place and the claim of such a high death-toll, there are absolutely NO photos, no mass-graves, not enough corroborated eye-witness stories that would have resulted from the massacre of such a great number of people, even though there are many for the Armenian Genocide that took place at approximately the same time in geographically close lands.

9- And thus, the 'Genocide' title cannot be substantiated because of a lack of sources, and as such it makes this article on Wikipedia 'original research', which is contrary to the policy of Wikipedia.

10- As such, I propose that the title of the article should be changed to 'Pontic Greek Massacres' to conform with the spirit and philosophy of Wikipedia, since, in my opinion, this article was given this name only with the purpose of igniting ethnic-hatred. Baristarim 04:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Suggestion: There was a suggestion a while back (it may have gotten lost in shouting match somewhere), by User:Kilhan: Pontian Greek Genocide Thesis. This should be amenable to all reasonable parties. The word "thesis" in English (I'm explaining this carefully, because I know it comes from Greek -- it may have changed meaning or connotation) implies that somebody holds this belief... However, it certainly does not imply the belief is wrong or inaccurate. One thing to bear in mind is that the word Genocide is extremely weighty. Other than that, you guys can do what you want with this article and this suggestion will be my first and last post on this talk page. --Storkk 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable, but, by wikipedia standards, we would be generating a POV title, especially with a word such as 'thesis' which implies personal research. As mentioned, Greece has an official day commemorating the Pontian Greek Genocide.
 * Regarding Baristarim's statement that the article was established, "only with the purpose of igniting ethnic-hatred": It is good to try and avoid hurting the feelings of other people. In this case, Baristarim is, to say the least, offended by the article and its contents, but also, the author of the article is probably equally offended as Baristarim (and others like) him who claim that such events did not take place. I am sure that no neither side is promoting, 'ethnic-hatred'. Politis 15:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I can understand some of the greek users' feelings on the issue, but the subject should be approached using the "Innocent until proven guilty" principle. The current title implies that the pontic greek "genocide" (whatever you call it) is a historical fact whereas there is miniscule or no evidence to substantiate the claim. There is very little support or recognition for it outside the Greek sphere and various anti turkish groups (you know them) who would readily swallow anything that implicates Turks. The title is POV and cannot be allowed to stand if wikipedia is to be a credible source of information, especially when it involves something as serious as genocide allegations. --Kilhan 11:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just looking through the section of Pontian Greek Genocide of the web-site of the Australian Institute Of Holocaust and Genocide.. Now can people please stop citing that non-sense??? First of all, none of the claims are signed by researchers (a must for all academic research), and I also just realized that the only person that has signed this page is Panayiotis Diamadis, hmmm... that's kinda funny... Look people, can you tell me with a straight face and like a man that this is impartial?? There is no list of academicians working on the research unit of Pontian Greek Genocide of this institute.. It doesn't look like it is presenting the results of a serious search, but the thesis of one individual that has been given a page on this website... I call on everyone to have a second look at the section of this web site about the Pontian Greek Genocide and tell me how exactly it would be considered reliable... Pls don't cite verifiablity, not truth.. Have a second look at that policy, it also demands that the sources have to be reliable... The tone of the writings are not academic and they are, to say the least, not serious, and at worst, racist.. Pls have some common sense...Regards... Baristarim 17:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to log out, I am on vacation, but when I get back to France I am removing that source from this article and from the articles where it is cited.. If u don't want this to happen pls say according to Panayiotis Diamadis of the Australian Institute Of Holocaust and Genocide has claimed that.. On second thoughts that's what I will put since it is the TRUTH.. Truth will set you free, right?? take care y'all!! Baristarim 17:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you challenging the figure? Then why not just say according to the Governor and Senate of the State of Illinois in April 2006, 353,000 Pontian Greeks died during the Greek Pontian Genocide. --Telex 17:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I got no problem with that.. Clearer the sources, the better.. Please be my guest and put that in and let the readers make up their mind.. But I am also going to change every section where it is mentioned Australian Institute Of Holocaust and Genocide by according to Panayiotis Diamadis of the Australian Institute Of Holocaust and Genocide (has claimed that) in all the articles in Wikipedia that mentions it.. So how about that? Again see RfC above for my response to the figure. I am also going to dig more and call this institute if neccessary to learn the exact status of Panayiotis Diamadis in this institute. Baristarim 21:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be very interesting to find some more thing about the articles on The Times from that period. They quote many people, and i wonder about the status of theirs in that era... Hectorian 21:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that, based on the data put forward in the article itself, there is insufficient cause for the use of the political inflammatory word "genocide." There is however the question of the usage of that word by the various states of the United States which have recognized it as a genocide.  Maybe changing the title of the page to "... massacre" and adding a redirect for "... genocide" would be the best alternative.   Badbilltucker 13:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There are the cases of the Assyrian genocide, Bosnian Genocide, Burundi genocide, Rwandan Genocide, that have never been recognised by any country, but such articles exist in Wikipedia. On the other hand, there are the cases of the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide that have not been recognised by all the countries in the world (the word 'holocaust', if not synonymous, is stronger in meaning than the word 'genocide'), but articles concerning them also exist here. The Pontian Greek Genocide has been recognised by a country (Greece), several American and one Australian state. Lets face it, there is no real reason to change the title. Having in mind that the article about the 'Armenian Genocide' has been proposed twice (!!!) for deletion, i am not surprised of attempts to at least rename this article... --Hectorian 14:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Those who question the credibility of the AIHGS should take a look at the list of its Directors and Associates at http://www.aihgs.com/images/InfoBooklet2003.pdf. I doubt they would allow anyone to use the Institute to promote his or her agenda without credibility and sufficient historical evidence? But let's assume that the individual mentioned above (Panayiotis Damantis)is biased. What about R. J. Rummel who, based on his research, states that 347,000 Greeks died as a result of atrocities in Turkey at that time? Was he Greek too? Was he biased too? One only has to take a look at the Citations, Bibliography, and References that were recently added and will see that a good number of the authors were/are not Greek. Some of the books and documents are rare or out of print, but with a little persistance one should be able to locate them.

This article is not about ethnic hatred or racism as one mentions above. It is about ackowledging a Genocide that took place approximately 90 or so years ago. If such events are not acknowledged, tought, and those responsible brought to justice; dictatorships, and authoritarian regimes, would have no disincentive or fear of repeating them. Cases in point Darfur, Rwanda, etc. '''Let's also make clear that the perpetrators of this, the Armenian, and Assyrian Genocides involved only the leadership, and a minority of the Turkish military, and population. Both of my parents were born in Turkey and were in their teens during those horrible events. Both cited examples of Turks who at great risk helped and protected many Greeks from sure death. We are greatful to them.''' Rizos01 03:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)