Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 10

Wikipedia is not

 * Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote (See WP:NOTDIRECTORY).

So I have removed the list of quotes: --PBS (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They are not loosely associated but directly relevant to the article's subject.--Xenovatis (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to remove the quotes you need to add them as references to the citations and add these citations.--Xenovatis (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for including list of quotes in an encyclopaedia article. This is a long standing agreement and the reason that Wikiquotes was launched. It is acceptable to have the occasional quote to illustrate a point, but Wikipedia is not a quote farm. --PBS (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed quotes and linked to wikiquote.Left the most relevant quote from the Journal of genocide studies.--Xenovatis (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
I wonder whether it would be more appropriate to have this page titled "Greek genocide". I raise this point for a number of reasons. Firstly, the majority of the content in this article refers to a more general campaign against the Ottoman Greeks. Secondly, this would ensure consistency with the international scholarly community, in particular the International Association of Genocide Scholars and academic journal articles. Bebek101 (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, certainly Zimmerer et al don't differentiate between the various Greek populations either. In fact if we want to be in line with current research we should merge the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek articles into one and include the Kurds as well. The Young Turks implemented a bloody policy of homogenization that targeted first the Christian but eventually all minorities.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think such an extensive merge will not be digested well by other victim groups. Historically, however you are right but I think a note within the text will suffice to address that point of a shared history with other groups.  Thank you your support on this issue.  I agree, it is important to use terminology consistent with such genocide scholars. The title could be "Greek genocide" or "Ottoman Greek genocide". That would also go a long way in making the page title more representative of its content.Bebek101 (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As there hasn't been any opposition to date (only support), I will move the page now. Bebek101 (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please put in a WP:RM request for this move as the current name of the article was only settled on after a long debate. We should also consider other names that are used in reliable sources and try to pick one which is within Wikipedia policies guidelines. --PBS (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What did you have in mind?--Xenovatis (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Greek genocide" as opposed to "Greek Genocide" was proposed to avoid past issues cropping up again. A week later and there still hasn't been any objection so I think it's okay. I, for one, believe it's important to keep the name as "Greek genocide" to maintain consistency with western scholars and to reflect the contents of the article. Bebek101 (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Monuments/Memorials
I have significantly cut down parts of this section because they do not contribute anything to this article. Firstly, there are several dozen monuments on the Greek genocide around the world. What is the particular significance of the monument in Canada and a small commemorative plaque in Australia above all other memorials? If there is a reason why these memorials should be mentioned as opposed to all others then this should be clearly stated. Secondly, phrases like "well attended, emotional ceremony" are not fitting to wikipedia. Moreover, the wording of the Australian plaque is erroneous and so including it undermines the objective of accuracy. I can explain more on this point if necessary. Please don't engage in an edit war but use this discussion page to resolve the issue. For the time being, I am reverting back to the original page. Bebek101 (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How is it weasel?
It describes a fact. There are scholars who have called it a genocide. This is the fact that is reported. It doesn't say it was a genocide bur reports on the fact that it has been labelled such.--Xenovatis (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus I checked the WP:Weasel_word page and nowhere does it say that writting so and so said this and that is weasel wording.--Xenovatis (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt just say it has been described as genocide but actually lists a number of reliable sources that do in fact describe it as such.--Xenovatis (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * See who, WP:ASF paragraph that starts "It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion...", WP:SUBSTANTIATE (both from WP:NPOV) and the guideline Avoid weasel words . As the next paragraph goes on to describe and attribute two interpretations of the events, there is no need to place an interpretation in the paragraph that is describing the events as it gives a bias to that paragraph. --PBS (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok then saying "which has been described as having..." covers the mass atribution issue, since it is a fact that it has been described= as such supported by the citations--Xenovatis (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your change does not get around the problem of bias. One could replace the phrase with, "which several scholars have not described as having a genocidal character". There is no need to put in such a phrase in the first paragraph which covers the events as the opinions are covered in the second paragraph with attributions. The whole point of the lead is to reflect the article which is structured events and then opinions on the events. --PBS (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved it to second para. But first para still needs work since the mention of the pop exchange is misleading, most of the Greeks evicted (over a million) were ethnically cleansed before the Lausanne treaty was signed.--Xenovatis (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is unhelpfull to unilaterally remove something after I just accepted your pov and moved it to the second paragraph. It doesn't really help in establishing mutual good faith.--Xenovatis (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrt to what I said above about the population exchange most Greeks had allready been deported by the time the treaty was signed, so saying that most were exchanged as part of the treaty is not accurate.

I'll be adding more here.--Xenovatis (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't it just clutters up the talk page. --PBS (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 9 User:Meowy does not agree with you (and )s)he uses a source to support that POV). But IMHO the way to develop this article is to add to the events section the details of the changes you want to make to the lead. Then and only then edit the lead to reflect the new content.


 * I am not debating this with meowy or any other feline. I am debating with you and expect to hear any arguments you have from you. If anyone else cares to join I am happy to discuss it with them as well. I agree with that.--Xenovatis (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that you consider it important to score points ("I am not debating this with meowy or any other feline." rather than trying to reach on consensus on how to write a balanced article which is constructed within the three content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR and (most important for articles like these) WP:NPOV). If you have not read it before you might find Writing for the enemy instructive, I know that I did when I was shown it a few years ago. --PBS (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The events section is pitifully small and needs expanding.


 * I agree with that.--Xenovatis (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * With regards to the lead section what additional information does the addition of the new sentence add to the lead? AFAICT all it does is to try to reinforce one POV with weasel wording. "This campaign has been described by genocide scholars as having a genocidal character." This implies all genocide scholars you do not have a source that says that and the same point is covered in a sentence that attributes the statement "More recently, the International Association of Genocide Scholars passed a resolution in 2007 affirming that the Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire, including the Greeks, was genocide." So what additional information is added to the article with the additional weaselly worded sentence? --PBS (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I used many but you didn't like it. Then I used some and you didn't like that either. Now I didn't use any qualifier and you still don't like it. So your issue is not with the qualifier but with mentioning that there are members of the academic community who have individaully described it as such and not one organization of academics.--Xenovatis (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I am of the view that the sentence "This campaign has been described by genocide scholars as having a genocidal character" is redundant and unnecessary, especially where it has currently been placed. Firstly, the phrase "having a genocidal character" is vague. Secondly, the message you are trying to convey is firmly and fully contained in the mention of genocide affirmation by the IAGS, i.e. that a whole group of scholars acknowledge the events as genocide -- and that's explicit and straightforward as it contains none of this nebulous "genocidal character" stuff. I suggest deleting the sentence "The campaign ... genocidal character" and working on the rest of the article to let the events speak more for themselves. Just my opinion.Bebek101 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. You are right, we do have more important things to work on in the article. I have begun compiling a list of sources for the 1914 expulsions and the population exchange in addition to the ones I had already collected for the main issue. Hopefully we will have enough soon to start filling in the events section. --Xenovatis (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good job, Xenovatis. It's good to hear that. Thanks a lot. We need key information on massacres and deportations (as opposed to expulsions) of Greeks throughout Ottoman Turkey in the period 1914-1923; essentially a chronicle of all such events in a digestible form. As you know, the population exchange (which already has a wikipedia page) is a tragic chapter of both peoples (Greeks and Turks) but clearly cannot be considered part of the Genocide. Bebek101 (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Xenovatis, please try to use recent secondary sources rather than contemporary accounts as there is a danger that we will fall foul of WP:PSTS and [WP:SYN]] if we do. --PBS (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Great job all
I am very pleased to see the merge of the various topics on genocide has finally happened. Bravo to everyone who made it possible! Monsieur dl  mon talk-mon contribs 17:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why, as the content of the Pontic Greek Genocide article on wikipedia is seemingly "gone", which was definitely the purpose of the 'merger' proposed by certain Turks who deny these Greek Genocides, sadly enough.Smith2006 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Νot at all, the article on PGG was renamed as Greek Genocide to conform with the current scholarship and the IAGS recognition that speaks of a Greek genocide and not just about the Pontic Greeks in particular. The content is still there.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Genocide?
Is these events actually recognised as a true genocide? If not then the Turks might as well make there own article 'Turkish genocide'. Justinz84 (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been recognized, please look at the relevant section in the main article and the IAGS recognition.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please revert?
Can someone please revert back to version by Philip Baird Shearer on 22:44, 23 January 2009. The last three edits by Smith2006 are not helpful at all. I don't want to go in to great detail but here is some brief justification: For example, "the government of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turk forces instigated". First of all, the Young Turk regime was the ruling party in the Ottoman Empire -- they were not a distinct entity as this wording implies. Secondly, referring to the Ottoman Empire as just the perpetrator (at least in the introduction) is more reasonable as it covers the entire period 1914-1923 while the Young Turks were only in power until 1918 and so is an incomplete statement. Also the Trebizond press article should not only be hidden but removed altogether. It does not specifically pertain to the Greeks while there a whole host of articles that do. I don't think "Turkish wikipedians" objected to its inclusion but a consensus was reached that it was the appropriate thing to do for a number of reasons -- see archive for more. Can someone at least hide it? Essentially can someone revert back to the last PBS edit? Thanks Bebek101 (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can do it by clicking on the date next to the edit you want to revert to and saving. I did it but would suggest discussing it with Smith since he has some good ideas and wants to help. --Xenovatis (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. I'm sure his edits were well intentioned. Cheers. Bebek101 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Added more sources which highlight need for pov tag.
When I was last involved in this article it was called Pontic Greek genocide, despite the intense debate such a title caused. Now the article seems to have escalated in its use of pov terminology by stating that genocide is a word most commonly used to describe what ALL Greeks of the Ottoman Empire had apparently suffered. This is I believe a clear regression in the development of this information into a viable, neutral and factual article. I have added a number of credible sources which a)question the worthiness of the IAGS resolution as a credible source, the main argument for the new title, b)state specifically that what happened to Greeks was not a genocide and/or cannot be compared to the Armenian genocide and c)highlight that scholarly work on the treatment of Greeks is almost non-existent and therefore no major scholarly position can be claimed. For these reasons, and the fact that genocide is still being "pushed" as a way of describing the events, I have added the pov-title tag. --A.Garnet (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you were very selective in your edits. To this end, I have not deleted what you wrote but I have complimented your text by a series of facts and quotations that you neglected to include. The paragraph on the IAGS resolution now makes for ugly reading and is not digestible at all but I guess you were trying to make a point. Bebek101 (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am disappointed that the cart yet again seems to be before the horse. A description of the events should be much much larger than a description of who and who does not think the events were a genocide (Let the facts speak for themselves).


 * I suggest that interested editors agree to reduce the size of the section academic views to a couple of paragraphs than engaging in an arms race over who can find and list the most academic view to present one or another POVs. --PBS (talk)

I am dissapointed PBS, that during my absence, it seems no objections were raised towards renaming the article to Greek genocide, an even more pov proposition than the Pontic Greek genocide, which at least dealt with a specific group, in a specific location, in a specific timeframe. So forgive me for feeling the need to weigh in and highlight just ridicolously out of hand this has got. If you want to downsize the academic views, go ahead, I will help if you want, but so long as all the views are represented clearly I dont care. I am however going to re-add the pov-title tag, I think I have provided enough sources to warrant this. --A.Garnet (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article refers to a specific group, namely the Ottoman Greeks, in a specific location, namely the Ottoman Empire, in a specific time frame, namely 1914-1923.
 * The article was previously titled "Pontic Greek Genocide" it is now titled "Greek genocide". Note the drop to a lower case for genocide. Note also, that unlike before, there is no attempt to define one particular term in the introduction to this page. As such the POV tag should be removed, unless of course certain facts in the article are disputed, in which case this issue should be raised.
 * Actually it had been moved to "Pontic Greek genocode" on 8 July 2008, it was not until 23 December 2008 that you move it to "Greek genocide". --PBS (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I distinctly recall at some point it was a PGG page but if I'm mistaken, my apologies. Bebek101 (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "Greek Genocide" is a term used by the IAGS, it also happens to be more widely used in English language scholarship, e.g. more recently, the Journal for Genocide Studies and Prevention. Nevertheless, the title page is simply "Greek genocide" to more accurately reflect the approach to this period by historians.
 * At this moment the Academic section is in tatters. I could now come along an add, say, another dozen odd quotes of scholars who supported the resolution and endorse the term Greek Genocide. What would this achieve? Does it not suffice to make mention that some academics fail to endorse the GG just as quite a number of academics fail to endorse the Armenian Genocide. No?
 * We could also note that the resolution was passed overwhelming but not unanimously. Would this not resolve the problem?
 * The current text is very misleading and it also misleading to quote scholars who at other times and occasions have endorsed the application of the word genocide, and not make mention of this fact. For example, Robert Fisk refers to the events in 1922 but Garnet has used his comments out of context.
 * PROPOSAL: I suggest all edits made in recent days, including my own, are removed and we simply make mention that (a) the resolution was not passed unanimously but "overwhelmingly" and (b) that some scholars reject the application of the word "genocide" to describe these events. Is this not reasonable? And since the title is "Greek genocide" and no attempt has been made to define one particular term in the introduction, the POV tag should also be removed. Otherwise, if it takes just quotes from a number of academics to change an article's title, the a POV tag should be placed on the Armenian Genocide page too. Comments welcomed. Bebek101 (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You obviously haven't been sufficiently exposed to agarnet. Everyone else has agreed to this change and the article has been without a pov-tag for months. The "points" agarinet brought up have been discussed to death in previous talk pages and proven to be nothing more than tendentious reading on his part. There is nothing more to say. --Xenovatis (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The only way to npov'ise this article: Rename it Ottoman Greek Casualties, create a narrative about the massacres, expulsions etc either by geographic location e.g. Pontus, Izmir, Istanbul or by year e.g. 1915-1918, 1919-1923 etc. Then you create a section entitled "Controversy", under this you mention the resolutions made by Greece and the IAGS and the controversy it has caused. That is the ONLY way to make this article npov. The focus remanins on a narrative of the events instead of pushing a genocide pov which, as I have shown, has not entered mainstream academia in the way the Armenian genocide has. That is my proposal. If people agree to this, I will help write it since it will be a valid, factual and encylopedic. As it is, it is too messy and if people want to keep it this way I certainly disagree to removing my additions which at least provide some context to academic "recognition" of this event. --A.Garnet (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Changing the title is not the only way to do it take a look at the Bosnian Genocide article for an example. --PBS (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tell me PBS, why should we not change the title? I mean based on what rationale is keeping the title more favourable than changing it, in your opinion? --A.Garnet (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As the title is only a descriptive one, I am more interested in the content the the title. I would consider using a less POV title, and you can probably make a case for that, but I am not sure you will get a local consensus to change it as many editors seem wedded to including genocide in the title. If you put it up for [WP:RM]] you may get a sympathetic brave admin who will close it in favour of the policies and guidelines (instead of just counting opinions), but if you fail then you make it more difficult to move it again. The recent change to WP:CONSENSUS (see the section "Purpose of consensus").


 * Rather than debating the name of the article, I suggest that we trim back the genocide debate -- including getting rid of the large IAGS quote -- and concentrate on the events. --PBS (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * With reference to the PROPOSAL above how about reverting to the version in the section Can someone please revert?, and then agree changes to the article along the line that the PROPOSAL suggests? --PBS (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You know that genocide is more than just a descriptive term, it has implicit connotations relating to crime and murder. You cannot brush aside a title with genocide in it and hope the rest of the article will turn out neutral. Wikipedia is not a democracy, just because some groups of editors with an interest in a point of view can shout louder than others does not mean their views carry more weight or even carry and legitimacy at all. --A.Garnet (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS, your last post sounds like a reasonable and constructive approach to end this deadlock. :::::We can also address all of the issues A.Garnet raises -- in particular, that there are some scholars who reject the application of the term Genocide and that the IAGS resolution was not passed unanimously -- but this needs to be done concisely; i.e. without listing a set of quotations as it will only incite others to overload the page with a list of quotations by scholars in support of the term -- we don't want this page turning into a quote farm.
 * At this moment in time, there are sufficiently many publications and scholarly affirmations to warrant the page being titled "Greek genocide", [but!] without a capital G and merely as a descriptive term without any attempt to define one particular term or phrase for the events in the page itself or insinuate that one particular phrase exists.
 * I hope someone else can promptly revert back to the version suggested by PBS above because I don't have experience reverting anything but the last edit. If not, I'll give it a go myself. Once we've done that we can begin to draw attention to the issues in question.
 * As PBS pointed out, this state of affairs only reemphasizes the need to develop the "events" section. Xenovatis, you mentioned a while ago that you were compiling relevant information. How is that going? Cheers. Bebek101 (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Teach a man to fish". All you do is go into the history select the version you want to see by clicking on the date. Select the edit tab in the usual way -- It will warn you that you are editing an old version -- save it with a suitable comment in the edit summary. --PBS (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done. Bebek101 (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry no, I absoloutely dont accept the removal of the material I added. It has more right and carries more academic credibility than any of the material here. The views of Mark Mazower, Taner Akcam, Elefantis, Feinstein, Melson, Balakian etc as renowned scholars in their field are infinitely more noteworthy than the other sources here. If the article was not about portarying the event as a genocide, then I would of course not mind trimming down the section, but since it is the material I added is important to show readers how ridicolously a fringe view is being fleshed out here. --A.Garnet (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To further add, if peoples idea of consensus here is "giving in" to what most Greek editors want then sorry its not going to happen. I am more interested in this article meeting wiki criteria of neutrality, verifiability and imporant policies such as undue weight and original research not being violated. There is no onus on me to compromise on these policies. --A.Garnet (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In the next few days I will be editing the page to mention that point exactly; that there are a number of scholars who had their reservations about the resolution and that, in general, there are some who reject the application of the word "genocide" to the events.
 * Keep in mind, however, we are not grading academics and of those that you list it is questionable how much weight their view should carry. For example, Balakian, who is not a historian but an English professor and is best known for his poetry outside Armenian circles, has contradicted himself on a number of occasions regarding the Greeks and used the word "Genocide" for the Greeks both before and after the resolution. Then, Melson in his writings has spoken of the Armenians as the only Christian race in the Ottoman Empire thus indicating his lack of familiarity with even the existence of Greeks, Assyrians and others; and so on.
 * In any case, rather than plague the page with a series of quotations and counter-quotations, we will draw the reader's attention to this controversy concisely and accurately. This is the best way forward. Cheers. Bebek101 (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My friend, to say "in general, there are some who reject the application of the word "genocide"" is a gross understatement. If there really was such a scholarly consensus, then for heavens sake find me one published book by one reputable scholar and then you may gain enough credibility to mention a few sentences on the genocide controversy. To create an entire article based on a few flimsy statements, political resolutions and one contested academic resolution is simply lunatic. You say your going to rewrite to include scholars to oppose, why? Didnt I already do that but it seems some were only to happy to remove it and now rewrite it as they wish. --A.Garnet (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made some edits, to include the point that it was not unanimous see what you think.
 * I think that there may be an interesting parallel to be drawn here between these events and those of the Tasmanian Aborigines extinction. No one doubts that the extinction happened and many genocide scholars have in the past basing their conclusions on the published histories of the day drawn the conclusion that the extinction was a genocide. But in the 21st century Australian historians who are working in that area (beavering away with primary sources in the usual way that good historians do), are not convinced that it was. I have recently rewritten the section Genocides in history using articles by two authoritative Australian historians, it might be of interest to those editors here to read it. There is also a more detailed article called History wars which has some problems because it assumes that historians like Keith Windschuttle and Henry Reynolds disagree on this point, although Reynolds more recent publications show that on Tasmania they broadly agree. --PBS (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted to my last edit because, if all the facts were in then there could still be a dispute over interpretaion (more than one meaning of genocide), but AFAICT from the text that was deleted, all the facts are not in. The fact template is needed because I have not produced citations for theses scholars' statements. --PBS (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously you reverted some grammatical corrections that I made and you reinstated WP:WEASEL wording as well. Quote: "The IAGS resolution was passed with an "overwhelmingly" majority but not unanimously". Now I heard about "overwhelming" majorities. But "Overwhelmingly" majority? I corrected this but you reverted it. Secondly what is the purpose of telling the reader that something "passed with a majority" and then tell the reader that majority means "Not unanimity". That's a WP:WEASEL way of expressing things if I ever saw one and it also is not very complimentary to the level that we think the intelligence of the reader is at. Dr.K. logos 18:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The last edits by PBS have done a world of good. Thank you. I have a slight worry that the text as it stands might lead many to believe that the six scholars listed are some of the IAGS members who opposed the resolution, which is of course not true (Elefantis and Mazower). Might it be better to name them in a separate sentence? I'm also uneasy about listing Balakian as someone who raised concerns without also pointing to the fact that he himself has used the term frequently for the Ottoman Greeks. I wonder whether an alternative could be "a number of IAGS members and other academics have voiced concerns ..." or would this not be explicit enough? I think it is clear "majority" implies a non-unanimous vote but perhaps it's better to keep what PBS wrote in order to be explicit. It's not a big deal either way really. Bebek101 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Bebek. Nice talking to you after such a long time. Although I agree with you most of the time, this time allow me to disagree. We cannot be explicit about obvious and self evident facts. A majority of something automatically implies the existence of a minority, i.e. not unanimity. To overspecify this is insulting to the intelligence of the average reader. I tried to fix this yet again but if anyone reverts me so be it. I will not revert further but I will not be happy with the unnecessary redundancy which puts in question the intelligence of the reader and guides them as if they were IQ challenged. The question also arises: Why do we need the term "unanimity", in the presence of the word "majority"? Does it serve some particular purpose? Did anyone else use this phraseology or is this our invention? (Shades of WP:OR and WP:WEASEL, unfortunately). At least A. Garnet fixed this "overwhelmingly" I complained about. Dr.K. logos 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't disagree with you. Essentially I wanted us to end a deadlock and reach a compromise so that we could move forward. My personal preference is that it read "an overwhelmingly majority" but I knew others wanted to emphasize the point that it wasn't passed unanimously. Arguably the same thing but one sounds sweeter than the other. Bebek101 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was not worried about up on the precise wording (I took what had been suggested in PROPOSAL), although I though it important to get over the point that it a major objection was the lack of research on which to express an opinion. I am glad that User:A.Garnet has re-written it, as it is much clearer, and with that clarity there is no need for a mention of unanimity. --PBS (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry no, I absoloutely dont accept the removal of the material I added. It.. I suggest we alert the administrators about the tendentious and disruptive behaviour exhibited by user:agarnet.--Xenovatis (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have yet to make a single revert, let alone the 3 allowed by wiki policy, so alert as many administrators as you like. --A.Garnet (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

POV in section headings
Renaming title sections such "Views on the genocide" and "Turkish denialism" carry a POV. The words assert that the genocide took place. I am reverting the first to "Genocide dispute", deleting the "Turkish denialism" and renaming "Academic" to "Academic debate" and "Political dispute" On the assumption that academics debate a point and the politicians dispute the same point. --PBS (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Words like dispute and debate imply that one is going on. Turkish denialism aside a couple of sentences trawled from a website do not constitute a debate. Unless there are say articles on journals that dispute the use of the term genocide there can't really be considered to be a debate. At most the statements should be taken to represent a small minority opinion which should be represented but in proportion to its significance, as per wp rules.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See this article in the Independent. Xenovatis have you read the essay WP:Writing for the enemy? --PBS (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This eight-year old article is only usefull for citing Elefantis who is incorrectly cited as an eminent historian when he was a marxist sociologist, which by the way is not the same thing. There are other factual errors as well, e.g. the referrence to a million turkish expelees (in fact it was half a million), the non-reference to the fact that most of the 1,5 million Greeks had allready been evicted etc. Philipp have you perchance read Rs, particularly the part about opinion pieces which states Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact?

Regardless of whether the events were genocide or not, the section refers to specific cases of their recognition as genocide. As such, giving the section the title "Genocide recognition" is not misleading nor does it carry POV. It simply accurately reflects the material. I agree with Xenovatis, in so far as the Independent article contains a number of errors and it's flawed in logic because Robert Fisk seems to believe the Greek law pertains to the Smyrna massacre and nothing more. As we should all know by now, this article is not about the Smyrna massacre. Further, there is no evidence to suggest there is an ongoing debate or dispute apart from Turkey's longstanding denial of all atrocities, which is not news, right? I've now updated the section title to read "Genocide recognition". Bebek101 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe I've made a legitgimate case, backed by credible authoratative sources, which highlights the neutrality issues of the title. To keep removing it as if there is no dispute over the title, or no potential for dispute, is not constructive. Whether people like it or not, the title IS a problem and NEEDS to be discussed, for that reason I am going to reapply the tag. As for the rest of the article, why are certain sourced statements simply being erased? For example that certain academics worry the IAGS resolution will harm the credibility is sourced and a notable point to add, please refrain from removing this. Furhtermore, to use the term "Political" in reference to recognition is a huge generalisation, there are two countries who specifically recognise this and that is Greece and the Republic of Cyprus both of whom are Greek speaking peoples, therefore for npov it would be wiser to state "Greek parliament resolution" which is far more specific. --A.Garnet (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Greek parliament issued a law, not a resolution. Calling it "Greek parliament resolution" does not accurately reflect the contents of the section since it fails to encompass Cyprus' recognition and Turkey's political response. Recognition of the events as genocide by Greece and Cyprus are instances of political recognition whether you like it or not. The fact they are just two countries with Greek speaking peoples doesn't make the recognition any less political. A.Garnet, you are responsible for the removal of sourced statements. The title is merely descriptive and all facts are sourced so any POV-tag will be promptly removed. Bebek101 (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If the tag is to be prompty removed it will be prompty reapplied when I have the opportunity, that is not me being stubborn, it is me upholding wiki policy on npov and undue weight. As for your reasoning that it is merely "descriptive", that is not good enough. As I said to PBS, genocide, big G or little g, has implicit pov connotations and consequences for the neutrality of the article. It is like seeing a rather plump woman and calling her a fat cow, when she is insulted, you tell her "I'm just being descriptive"!. Do you see what Im getting at? The anon edit was made by me btw. --A.Garnet (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WP specifically prohibits avoiding certain words just because some groups might take exception to them. If Turks are unhappy that their genocides are labelled as such they should have thought of this before commiting them. While it is iillegal in Turkey and occupied Cyprus to refer to any of the genocdes commited by the Turks this does not apply to the world at large. Agarnet cannot accept the fact that these events constitute a genocide since to do so would be illegal in his country of residence. The article is the result of several pages of arguments and satisfies a long-standing consensus. Agarnet you will not attempt to make any more changes before achieving consensus in talk.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, this is not about me. It is not about what I want or believe. It is not about what Turkey wants or believes (take note, I am neither a Turkish, nor TRNC citizen). It is the fact eminent scholars such as Mazower, Elefantis (yes, a Greek who called the government a idiot for passing the resolution!), Melson, Feinstein etc have basically ridiculed the whole notion of a Greek genocide, the fact that academically it has no representation. The fact that Levene says genocide is not the commonly used term, the fact Akcam says there is almost no scholarly work on Greeks in WW1. What I want is THEIR view to be represented here above the absurdly fringe view that Greeks suffered a genocide during WW1. I mean honestly, this a good candidate for deletion since it is now a pov fork of Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, Great Fire of Smyrna and Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) among others. Luckily for you such a move wouldnt achieve anything since a flood of Keep votes by Greek editors will unfortunately render a no consensus. Nevertheless it is something I will think about. In the meantime I will insist on the pov-title tag and I want to remind you to comment on content and not the editor. --A.Garnet (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of errors in the material you persist on posting. For one, and as I've already tried to communicate, the Greek Parliament did not issue a resolution but passed two laws. Similarly, for Cyprus. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that genocide affirmation by the Republic of Cyprus was in response to Greek recognition. It is also misleading to refer to two Greek parliamentary laws, recognition by Cyprus, and Turkey's dispute of the genocide as simply "Greek parliament resolution and reaction". It fails to accurately represent the contents of the subsection. Another problem pertains to the individuals you are quoting. Elefantis remarks indicate that his perception that the 1998 Greek law was claiming the Smyrna massacres were genocide -- the errors of Fisk's article have already been documented here. The word Smyrna is no where to be found in the law and the actual decree pertains to the period of 1914 to 1923 in "Asia Minor". To mention the likes of Elefantis is severely degrades the quality of the article. If you are going to make POV edits, which will be promptly reverted to uphold the integrity of wikipedia, then please try to keep edits factual and accurate without distortion. Thank you. Bebek101 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A.Garnet's edits and Weasel Words
"Since there are few contemporary scholarly works on the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire during this period, there is no consistent term used to describe their fate." This sentence was inserted by A.Garnet. First, the statement on there being no consistent term is not sourced. Second, relatively few works do not imply an absence of inconsistency of a particular term. Bebek101 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)#


 * It was sourced, but deleted in the endless reverts of my edits. The observation was made by Taner Akcam, if you care to look through the history you will see this. --A.Garnet (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, what was sourced was the statement regarding there being few contemporary scholarly works. What was NOT sourced was "there is no consistent term used to describe their fate"; and one certainly doesn't imply the other. Bebek101 (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Going back on a deal
I thought we had a deal as per this agreement. Noone from the regulars objected then. Now some of the regulars are objecting. Is this consensus by backsliding? New improved version of WP:CONSENSUS perhaps? Maybe we can add this to the policy. Seems the perfect way to unglue and undo countless of agreements all over the project. Dr.K. logos 00:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess from now on, after each agreement leading to consensus, if the question is asked: Deal or No Deal? The answer should be: Yes. Now I get it. Dr.K. logos 00:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Following the fortuitous re-appearance of our resident turkish genocide denialist, who by the way was present during most of the discussion that lead to the article's stable form sans the pov-tag, the issue of the pov-tag has been re-introduced. Now before the IAGS recognition and the two articles in academic journals (Journal of Genocide Studies, Genocide Studies and Prevention) that are solely devoted on the genocide and explicitly refer to it as such one could grant that those who insisted on the pov-tag had half a leg to stand on. This quite clearly no longer applies. To insist on it given that the concensus, no longer a trend, in the academic community is to label these events a genocide is pov-pushing and counter to WP interests and guidelines of neutrality and reflecting current secondary source consensus.--Xenovatis (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I have warned you before to stop make comments directed at me. Referring to me as "our resident turkish genocide denialist" is insulting. I have not throughout this whole discussion made any attempt to deride anyones character personally. To my knowledge, when I was last present, we were disputing the title Pontic Greek genocide, which still had a disputed title tag. Then, in my absence, a new title Greek genocide emerged and the tag dissapeared. The best reason I can come up with why it dissapeared is that editors are too intimiated to get involved, and I dont blame them. It has taken me over a week to get a simple tag up and every edit I have made has been reverted and I've been called a genocide denialist to top it all off. To reiterate the reasons why the tag is valid:


 * The absence of a large body of scholarly work which shows genocide to be the majority held view
 * It is true that English language works on this issue are not particularly numerous in number, but of those published and focusing centrally on these events the majority employ the term genocide.Bebek101 (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The absence of even one published text which synthesises these events as a genocide in the way the article does.
 * Here are three for you: ,,; For more, see here: . Bebek101 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact this article is pov forking other articles such as the Great Fire of Smyrna, Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)
 * The fact the IAGS resolution was disputed by those scholars whose research specifically deals with the Ottoman Empire i.e. Balakian, Akcam, Feinstein, Melson. The fact sourced statements can be found by eminent scholars such as Mazower, who probably carries more academic weight that any of the others, who states explicitly genocide as a term cannot be used.
 * Yet, some of those you repeatedly cite as "disputing" the resolution, used and continue to use the word genocide in their own writings and talks for the Greeks.Bebek101 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You cant brush all this aside by saying there is no dispute, revert edits that try to highlight these aspects or engage in personal attacks/intimidation of other editors. --A.Garnet (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The way forward
Since we are agreed that there is a dispute over the title, there has to be some discussion now of an alternative. Any title with genocide in it will never be neutral for the reasons outlined above. I did make a proposition earlier in the discussion which was for an article called "Ottoman Greek casualties" along the lines of Ottoman Armenian casualties. Within this there will be different subsections either by area or by year to explain the narrative. At the bottom will be a section called "Controversy" which will highlight the Greek parliaments and IAGS's view. What do people think of this proposal? --A.Garnet (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I vote against it.
 * I think it is far more reasonable to employ terminology consistent with the IAGS, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, and the vast majority of its members, genocide scholars, historians and academics. I also think it is important to employ terminology consistent with contemporary English scholarly publications as they appear in academic journals. This would imply the appropriateness of the term "Greek Genocide". At least, in this case, we are employing a largely established term, unlike the proposed "Ottoman Greek casualties". However, the term could be used descriptively which would mean a lower case "g" genocide and no attempt to define any particular term in the introduction.
 * There are far more 'scholars' who have argued that the term 'genocide' is an unfitting description for the fate of Ottoman Armenians, yet that page still stands. Thus, using the logic above, the Armenian Genocide page "will never be neutral" either. The same for the Holocaust page too.
 * A page titled "Ottoman Greek casualties" should provide a quantitative perspective to the events, not a complete narrative of the persecutions and atrocities.
 * A subsection "controversy", as suggested above, implies that recognition is controversial. It is only controversial in Turkey.
 * I suggest the article title stays as it is. Bebek101 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there is also an Armenian Genocide article. My question is on the usage of the term 'Ottoman'. Either Turkey is the inheritor of the Ottoman Empire, or, as I have argued in wikipedia [], it is the last state to emerge out of the empire. The article Ottoman Empire states in its first paragraph that “was succeeded by the Republic of Turkey”. The article Turkey also makes that succession clear. Also, while it existed, the empire was often referred to as 'Turkey'. So it seems curious that we filing articles such as Ottoman Armenian casualties and wishing to classify certain historical events as Ottoman and not as Turkish. Politis (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Politis, I fail to see your point. During the period in question, i.e. the genocide spanning the period 1914 to 1923, the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire were Ottoman subjects. The Republic of Turkey has little to do with this discussion. Bebek101 (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

@A.Garnet: Please don't use euphemisms as section titles. You should have named this section "The way backward" as in "Going back on a deal". Thanks. Dr.K. logos 19:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The IAGS is not the final say on what to name a Wikipedia article. The organisation is not infallible, its word is not final, we have to consider a whole host of other aspects when naming articles besides the views of one organiastion. Is the notion of a genocide greek part of mainstream academia? Are discussions on it regularly published? Can we source a statement that most scholars do recognise this as genocide? The answer in all 3 cases is no, whereas in the case of the Armenian Genocide article the answer to all 3 is yes, that is the difference between the two and one resolution cannot change that. Also Politis, Turkish Armenian casualties or Turkish Greek casualties would not make much sense. Pre 1923 we are dealing with the Ottoman Empire, when Turkish nationalism was still in its infancy. As Bebek notes Turkey has little to do with this discussion. --A.Garnet (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The terminology employed by the IAGS -- to repeat, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide -- does carry weight. No one is saying their resolution should act as the final say on the article title but given that "Greek Genocide" is also a term employed in contemporary western scholarship, especially in peer-reviewed academic journals, it does make for a fitting candidate. I think it is important that the article employs established and recognized terminology even if it is just in a descriptive way.
 * To counter your other points, note that far less has been written and published on the Herero and Namaqua Genocide than on the Greek Genocide, but that page title boldly features the term "Genocide" (with a capital G, unlike this page) and also in a definitive way (unlike this page, which has a descriptive title). It is true there are more statements affirming the Armenian Genocide, but there are also far more statements and works disputing it than in the case of the Ottoman Greeks. It's important to understand a coin has two sides.
 * So far as your question, "Can we source a statement that most scholars do recognise this as genocide?" The IAGS resolution which was passed overwhelmingly by the majority of its scholars, hundreds of leading historians, academics and genocide specialists, is testimony to this fact. Even some of the scholars who raised concerns about the resolution, still use the word "genocide" for the Greeks today. Bebek101 (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Bebek, "Greek genocide" is not, as you say, an "established and recognized terminology", far from it. The fact one cannot find a single monograph to its name, or which synthesises the material as this article does, show it is not established or recognised. If you could find perhaps one or two texts, then perhaps you have reason to include a few sentences on genocide accusations, the fact that you cannot find any gives more reason to delete the article as a pov fork. I have said before the IAGS resolution is not infallible, it is notable but it does not prove a large body of scholarly work which supports the thesis of a genocide against Greeks. The fact that those academics who opposed the resolution included those who studies deal specifically with the Ottoman Empire shows this.


 * Regarding your statement that there are more people disputing the the Armenian Genocide than the "Greek genocide" misses the point completely. There are very few people who even support the notion of a genocide of Greeks, therefore you have very few people who publish articles to counter it. The point is there is hardly any "Genocide debate" or "Genocide controversy" surrounding these issues because it is more or less completely absent from mainstream academia, something Taner Akcam was trying to point out. Also please tell me which academics who opposed the resolution use the term genocide for Greeks?


 * Now I want to make a point about the tag here. This article, and its predecessor, the "Pontic Greek Genocide" HAS been disputed not just by myself but other editors who have come and gone. No matter how many editors, be they Greek or other, turn up to remove the tag it does not change the fact that the title IS STILL DISPUTED, along with the subject of the article and is disputed with good reason. --A.Garnet (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All these issues have already been addressed and I'm afraid you are repeatedly making the same false claims over and over again. Examples of works which meet the criteria you have specified and which you claim don't exist have already been cited (e.g. see the section above this). If you followed past discussions you would also know that I have already named an IAGS member who raised concerns about the resolution prior to the vote (there is no evidence that he 'opposed' the resolution as such) but continues to use the word genocide for the Greeks (and did so before the resolution too). Bebek101 (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just once...
Hehe, I see old friends are back in this... Too bad they didn't follow my example and disappear permanently letting the third parties decide for this, as they alone originally did. Also, too bad the third parties tolerate the stance of one disputing user, after months of stability of the version they themselves wrote... Maybe I should be back? Naaah... I trust the WP community in sorting this out. I'll just go bold once and remove the silly and unjustified tag. I invite any third party to reinstate it with their own reasoning. Please, stuff like "we can agree it is disputed", or "pov-title tag is legitimate" without a justification in the talkpage are simply unsubstantiated. Give'em some academic substance, will you? (if you find any...) NikoSilver 17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. I am finished playing this silly reverting game with edit warriors who do not appear to have a cause. I might add I find it uncouth for someone to keep putting the tag back, without ever discussing anything on the talk page. This is simply not the way to build WP:CONSENSUS or show respect to the other editors. Dr.K. logos 17:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the faith Dr. K. Just continue to backup the facts with reliable sources and documentation. That's all any of us can do. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Kansas Bear for your nice and encouraging comments. It is always a pleasure seeing you. I agree completely. Take care. Dr.K. logos 11:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

From the history of the page:
 * 22:52, 6 February 2009 Future Perfect at Sunrise (pov-title tag is legitimate.)
 * 10:26, 7 February 2009 Xenovatis (article has been stable and w/out pov title for months, take any issues to talk before engaging in such major revisions)
 * 11:11, 7 February 2009 A.Garnet (There is a dispute over the title, it has been explained in the talk page.)
 * 12:06, 7 February 2009 Xenovatis (rv as per talk, need to establish consensus before major changes as per wp guidelines)
 * 16:25, 7 February 2009 Philip Baird Shearer (rv: "need to establish consensus before major changes as per wp guidelines" (a) this is not a major change, (b) where does it say that in the guidelines? and (c) we can agree it is disputed.)
 * 21:37, 7 February 2009 Bebek101 (rv as title is merely descriptive and, in any case, is a fitting given its usage by the IAGS and its use in academic journals. The only dispute is coming from revisionists.)
 * 21:37, 7 February 2009 Bebek101 (rv as title is merely descriptive and, in any case, is a fitting given its usage by the IAGS and its use in academic journals. The only dispute is coming from revisionists.)

I think there is some misunderstanding going on here:
 * Xenovatis adding pov-title to an article is not a major change: Ask at WP:ANI if you do not believe me. In my opinion it is misleading to put such comments into the history of an article, when there has not been a major change to large portions of the text, and is similar to adding the comment vandalism to a good faith edit.
 * Bebek101 the tag is not used to indicate that there is a dispute among outside agencies, or people, it is used to describe a dispute among Wikipedia editors (the comment "Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." is an indicator of this. Further it is predominantly descriptive titles (which this is) that are likely to have NPOV issues (see NPOV).

Personally I do not think that the tag is necessary, but I do recognise that if some editors wish to discuss the title further then there is a dispute for which it is legitimate to include such a template at the start of the article (it is the old summation of Voltaire's POV "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it": although in this case A.Garnet, that statement (the death bit) is for me OTT :-)

However if "Greek genocide" is to be used as a NPOV title, then the section headers must remain neutral so show that the title of the article is NPOV. To do that we should go back to "Genocide debate" or "Genocide dispute" rather than "Genocide recognition", which when tied to the page name "Greek genocide->recognition" implies that there is no debate over this issue. --PBS (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you PBS for your comments. At least you are a user who has engaged in constructive and continuous dialogue and I really respect that. As far as your comments about the alleged debate, I would counter with WP:UNDUE, given that only an insubstantial minority holds that view, but at least I respect your opinion. I also think that even if we implemented your suggestions, the tag would be reinserted because the objection of the inserting editor is not with the subsection headers but with the title of the article, even if downgraded at that. Dr.K. logos 11:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS, in that case I propose that the "Genocide recognition" section is left as it stands and not renamed, because that title accurately reflects the contents of that subsection, i.e. particular instances of the events being recognized as genocide, BUT a new section or subsection titled "Genocide dispute" is inserted. In such a section we can draw attention to entities or, if necessary, certain individuals that have questioned or reject the application of the term "genocide" to the fate of Ottoman Greeks. Thank you also for the clarifications you offer. Bebek101 (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I see Mr. A.Garnet has added again the tag, for the reasons he alone supports. As evident from above, no other editor shares those reasons. Following that logic, we can all go ahead in whichever article and state whichever reason we think of, even totally unsupported by anybody else, slap a POV-title tag on top, and force everybody else to accept it on the grounds of Voltaire's "defense for his right to disagree". Shall we start with today's featured articles maybe, to illustrate the WP:POINT better? Naaah, this is a privilege of Mr. A.Garnet alone. NikoSilver 12:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputing this article.
I appeared on this article on January 27. I have since, both through discussion and edits, tried to highlight the fact that this article, in its present state, is a violation of several wiki policies relating to neutrality, undue weight and original research. The result has been that a number of editors (who appear to be Greek, lest I be accused of some sort ethnic attack) engaging in what I believe is an attempt to silence any editor who tries to challenge the ridicolous nationalist piece that this article is. Four editors in the past few weeks have tried to place a pov-title tag at the top of the article, which simply alerts readers that the title is being questioned by other Wikipedia editors. These include myself, Fut., PBS (though I acknowledge he thinks there is no need for it) and Aramgar. In response, other editors have appeared to remove the tag, providing token "reasons" such as "back to consensus", "revert to stable", "need to establish consesus for major changes" (since when was a tag a major change?) or "if you have issues take them to talk before" (I think I have arguing these issues for ... 3 years?). The point is I believe that a group of editors here are making it very difficult to change this article in a way which would conform with Wiki policy. Any edit which goes right to the core of what is wrong here i.e. disseminating fringe nationalist views as mainstream academia, is reverted straight away. That is why I am going to now re-apply the tag in the hope it will generate a proper discussion and if it is reverted I will seek an administrtors intervention to make sure it stays. --A.Garnet (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The tag has only been inserted by your own reasoning which is not shared by anybody else. Your reasoning appears to be Turkish (lest I be accused of some sort of ethnic discrimination). The other editors you mention:
 * First they modified the article themselves.
 * Then they removed the tag themselves
 * Since I removed your tag asking them to provide their own reasoning, they simply rejected your reasoning -or abstained from talk despite that they were notified in their talkpages by me.
 * They never reinstated the tag themselves again -or abstained from editing the article.
 * So basically you are on your own, and you happen to appear heavily biased. NikoSilver 20:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What does "your reasoning appears to be Turkish" mean? Does such a sentence even make sense? I didnt know there was a Turkish mode of reasoning, if that is what you are suggesting here, please elaborate because that is indeed an ethnic attack. Relating to your other points, if any user really does think I am the only stubborn editor refusing to accept the "consensus" here, or rather "the consensus of notorious POV-pushers" as Fut. nicely put, then please take a long reader through the archives to see I was never alone in disputing these articles, if you can call them that. --A.Garnet (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The official Turkish mode of reasoning is described perfectly in Article 301. If you find it different, well, probably you are right, but it is you that said it, not me. Fut.Perf. or anybody else didn't make any supporting comment or any revert to reinstate your bogus tag which was originally removed by third parties, in an article which has totally been rewritten by third parties, even though they were notified in their talkpages. You are referring to a period before the article was rewritten, and before I went bold removing it once and asked any third party to reinstate it with their own reasoning. The only way for your tag to be justified is to revert the article to its condition prior to the third party rewriting... You are on your own, and you appear to be heavily biased. So let's make a (second) test: Let's remove it, and see if anyone else will come in support in the talkpage or in reinstating it. NikoSilver 11:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but what on earth does aritcle 301 have to do with my argumentation here, or anything to do with me at all? All my arguments are based on the fact that I have a fairly good grasp of what constitutes a neutral article on an encylopedia, it has absoloutely nothing to do with "Turkish reasoning".
 * Your arguments are based on over-emphasizing selective sources to the point of absurdity. And they are still not shared by anyone else here. NikoSilver 13:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding third party editors and tags, did Aramgar, Fut. or PBS not revert the tag also? Did Fut. not say it was legitimate and that regarding the problematic nature of the title, I was "simply right"? I know admins views carry no more weight than others here, but I take the views of experienced editors seriously. Now if you want to remove the tag I cant stop you, but it would be just another sign that you are not taking this issue seriosly, preferring instead to play a game of who can get the most supporting reverts. --A.Garnet (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No Garnet, NONE of them did after they were challenged to provide their own reasoning. And none of them will. Let's test that. NikoSilver 13:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For my part I am really curious to see on which grounds is the article's title disputed and/or on which grounds is the article's content considered "pure Greek nationalism" by any editor. And I do not mean simple tag-inserting and quotes of the style "I have the right to dispute something". Clear reasoning here, in the talk page, before any possible tag addition.
 * I also couldn't stop noticing that this article differs from the other two closely related ones (Assyrian Genocide, Armenian Genocide), for the fact that "genocide" isn't written with a capital G. The article has way too many sources and references to justify its title, at least. Hectorian (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A. Garnet, regardless of the POV issues you perceive here, could you please refrain from tagging the article? One editor is not enough to enforce such an ugly and unnecessary tag in an article totally rewritten by third parties, especially an editor who is an involved party. - Biruitorul Talk 04:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Biruitorul for your excellent comments. Dr.K. logos 16:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Terminology
I don't know who wrote this: "If the members of the United Nations pass appropriate legislation such incidents as the pogroms of Czarish Russia and the massacres of Armenians and Greeks by Turkey would be punishable as genocid". But they were not very well versed in international law, I can't think of a case where such treaties are retrospective. To present such an opinion from a newspaper, when it is clearly a minority POV is unbalanced.

Also as far as I know Raphael Lemkin, who was not a professional historian, and he based his analysis on secondary sources written before or during World War II. -- I know this because I recently came across a chapter on the extinction of the Tasmanian Aborigines, in which Henry Reynolds cites "H. Fein,''Genocide;A Sociological Perspective' (London 1990) p. 13" stating that "Many of them have named Tasmania in their list of legitimate case studies, although their usual slight grasp of island history might of counseled caution." (A. Dirk Moses, Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History, Berghahn Books, 2004 ISBN 1571814108, 9781571814104. Chapter by Henry Reynolds "Genocide in Tasmania?" p.128).

With a controversial subject such as this, it is not a good idea to base a section on sources 60 years old presenting one point of view (that it was a genocide and a criminal act). -- PBS (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi PBS. Thank you. I don't think you read the quote correctly. The NYT author only said "such incidents" like blah blah would be punishable as genocide; not that the convention would be applied retrospectively. My introduction to the quote was misleading, I apologize and will correct that now. Also, this is not a unique article. There is another NYT article from 1946 which makes a similar point. I agree with where you moved the section. Bebek101 (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The quote says: "If the members of the United Nations pass appropriate legislation such incidents as the pogroms of Czarish Russia and the massacres of Armenians and Greeks by Turkey would be punishable as genocide" the word "as" (in "incidents as" would have to be replaced with "like" to be read as you read it. --PBS (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are going to mention the CPPCG then an explanation needs to be given that not everyone who uses the term genocide means the CPPCG definition or we taint any other mention of the word genocide after that, that does not mention the definition that they are using. --PBS (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, although I wouldn't necessarily want a disclaimer as wordy as the one you put in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS, thanks for your feedback. I agree so far as we can surely mention there are other definitions of genocide beyond the CPPCG legislation but it shouldn't be as extensive as the text you inserted, interesting as it was.
 * Both quotes are particular important and I don't think the one you take issue with is as misleading as you suggest especially in light of the introduction to the quotation (... "that future cases similar to"...). The quote says if action A happens then "such incidents as" [a number of examples are listed]"would be punishable as genocide". I think it is obvious that such legislation could not be applied retrospectively to cases that occurred several decades ago and the article is merely citing examples to add context. Bebek101 (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Clear reasoning
Apologies for the delay in replying, engaging in Wiki disputes is often time consuming and I cannot stay consistently involved.

User:Hectorian has asked for clear reasoning as to why the articles title is disputed. My reasoning is as follows:

The Title

Wikipedia policy on descriptive names states the following: "Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications." Some editors have tried to dismiss the pov title tag on the grounds that it is simply "descriptive" since it uses a little 'g'. This is semantics. Genocide carries implicit connotations of crime and murder and must only be used where it is beyond doubt that its usage is part of mainstream academia.

Again, Wiki policy on article naming states "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization...A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality...Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing."

I have stated before that unless that there is a neutral title, there can be no neutral article. This article does not encourage multiple viewpoints on a certain historical event nor promote responsible writing, its sole aim is to further a pov that the Ottoman Empire committed a genocide against Greeks, that is the articles intention and its not a neutral one. Could the same accusation not be covered say in Greco-Turkish War, Great Fire of Smyrna or Population exchange between Greece and Turkey? Is there sufficient academic material which allows this allegation to have an entire article of its own like it was a documented fact?

Undue Weight

This brings me on to what is the fundamental failure of this article: There exists no scholarly work dedicated to such claims. Those are not simply my words, those are the words of scholar Taner Akcam. If I can source such a statement then surely that is a good starting point over judging these allegations prevalence in mainstream academia. Again, another scholar, Mark Levene, states explicitly that most scholars do not use the term genocide. So we can source two statements by two scholars which give us an overall idea about how developed these claims are in academia: one states there is no academic work which covers Greeks in the Ottoman Empire, another states most scholars do not use the term genocide.

We can further confirm this by a Google Scholar search, "Greek Genocide" returns just 11 results. "Armenian Genocide" returns 3,240. "Rwandan Genocide" returns 5,410. "Holocaust" 229,000 results. Undue Weight states "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all...To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."

The IAGS resolution has become the focal point for this article, it IS notable and deserves a mention, but is it enough to justify an ENTIRE article on? Its criticisms by scholars (which can be found above) range from either that it is not based on a scholarly process or that it will make the IAGS look like a joke.

Summary

Does the articles title reflect the "highest degree of neutrality" as required by Wikipedia? Is the subject an accurate representation of academic support for such claims? I have argued for over two years now that it fails on both these measures. My argument has nothing do with ridicolous responses such as I am using "Turkish reasoning", it is based on the fact that there is an obvious violation of basic wikipedia policies here and I dont believe the article should be allowed to continue in this state indefinitely. --A.Garnet (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I find myself largely in agreement with this statement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As a long-time observer of this discussion, I too can support A.Garnet's arguments, along with his efforts to ensure NPOV in this area. Aramgar (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with all of the above. As a long time participant to this discussion my clear reasons are in the archives. I find it useless to repeat myself. I would also like to add that lurking is really a behaviour and thus it cannot be used as an explanation as to why the tag should be imposed on this unfortunate article. But that just shows on what shallow grounds this tag keeps getting inserted. Dr.K. logos 23:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For every single statement in Garnet's rationale above there are clear counter arguments (which have been, and would be presented again below at a later date). I am tempted to judge the early commentators above, who rushed to opine without re-hearing the other side first (as they re-heard Garnet's position), but I will not indulge. I will wait for them to retract themselves their irresponsible !votes (because this is what they are) in anticipation of the other viewpoint, and then I will bother to post a counter-statement. If not, then so be it, do as you like (because your mind is already set, hence I need not bother attempting to change it in vein). NikoSilver 00:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What I see is that the lead of the article was changed a few months ago, in a rather uncommon, non-Wikipedia-standard way, and now introduces the term "genocide" only at the very end of the lead, after almost 200 words of prior explanation. This was probably a good decision, exactly because it is an implicit acknowledgment that the term is problematic. If all the editors here in so many months of discussion have not found an acceptable way of packaging the term in a standard wiki-intro wording of "The Greek genocide was...", that's obviously because they realised it's not a universally accepted term. If it's too problematic to go into the lead sentence, if it requires 200 words of hedging before we can even in good conscience begin using it in the text, then it's also too problematic to go into the title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Future, but with all due respect this kind of unilateral wishful thinking goes against the principles of compromise and consensus that have built Wikipedia. Apparently you miss the point that some editors have compromised to accept this new title. It is you and the editors who agree with you that are relentlessly pursuing this "non-genocide" POV. By accepting this lower-case "genocide" term we did not acknowledge any problems with the use of the term. We simply tried to WRITE FOR THE ENEMY. Apparently you and your side are not willing to do the same. Dr.K. logos 16:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What, you mean the change from the big "G" to small "g" is supposed to be a big concession? Sorry, but with all respect, that's just ridiculous. To the normal reader, this typographical difference has precisely zero significance. This is not the kind of level I'm going to debate on. You haven't addressed my point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) To alleviate your surprise you have to read the archives where all of this is explained in detail. Unlike you, I think this change from capital "G" to lowercase "g" is a profound one. But then I was one of the participants of the original debate and I have the advantage of an insider. Since you were not, please consult the archives and maybe you can understand the reason why this change is so big. If, after reading the relevant sections, you still can't understand the reason, like you said, I am not interested in debating this at the level you want. Dr.K. logos 17:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not particularly interested in what you "insiders" thought you were doing when you changed "G" to "g". I'm interested in what effect it has on the outside reader. That effect, I maintain, is negligible. Sometimes being an "insider" may in fact not be an advantage at all; if you get locked in such a conflict for too long it can make you not see the forest for the trees, and I think this has happened here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends on the IQ of the average reader and how low you think it is. Otherwise you may be surprised how a reader can catch such subtle nuances, if you just give 'em a fair chance. No insiders needed here. Just plain old IQ power. Thanks though. Dr.K. logos 18:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I usually tend to take my own spontaneous reactions as representative of those of a not-terribly-far-below-average-IQ-endowed reader. In this case my spontaneous reaction was that there isn't any significant difference. Now, on thinking a bit further about it and skimming over the archives, my IQ tells me more clearly: whatever you thought the nuance was, it isn't there. You were mistaken. The expression never was a proper name to begin with, so the old version wasn't very sensible, but whether we treat it as a proper name or not, it always remains also a descriptive phrase, in either spelling, and the factual claim made by that description is precisely the same in both cases. It makes no difference for the issue at hand, at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't try to make it seem as if I am the single editor who thinks that this is a nuanced approach. This was not even my idea. It was PBS's. He conceived it and I accepted it as well as others. I still think it is a good compromise but if you are so bent on breaking consensus despite all the academic evidence and the comments of the other users here such as Bebek, Biruitorul and Kansas Bear then there is really nothing that I can or I am willing to add to help you change your mind. In short: If you think that this has not been established clearly as a genocide let's just end this discussion here because I am not willing to waste my time further. Dr.K. logos 20:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be fooled What continues to be neglected are the errors in A.Garnet's fallacious arguments. There exist a number of scholarly works dealing with the Greek Genocide, some appearing in reputable peer reviewed academic journals such as 'Genocide Studies and Prevention' and others published as books. Examples of these have been listed above and explicitly discount A.Garnet and Akcam's claim that "there exists no scholarly work dedicated to such claims". Do I need to give such examples again? I did above and A.Garnet ignored my reply. In any case, not only are there specific publications focused on these events but there are also a multitude of references in other academic works, such as Samuel Totten and Paul R. Bartrop's "Dictionary of Genocide" and Adam Jone's "Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction" to name but two prominent publications. There are also many important statements supporting the application of the term genocide by world renowned pioneer genocide scholars such as Israel Charny and Gregory Stanton. The reason why the IAGS resolution is important is because it indicates that the majority of the world's genocide scholars support the application of the term genocide to the fate of the Ottoman Greeks. Although A.Garnet has pointed to a few scholars who raised concerns about the resolution prior to the actual vote, some of those actually use the term genocide for the Greeks in their own writings which undermines his argument further. Again, I pointed to a case of this above but A.Garnet ignored my reply. A.Garnet would have you believe that only a few scholars support the Greek Genocide thesis but, in fact, the contrary is true. If you like, we can compile a sourced list of those who support and reject the application of 'genocide' on this particular piece of history. Believe me, the minority view is held by A.Garnet and this can be easily demonstrated. A.Garnet would have you believe that the Greek Genocide is some product of the Greco-Turkish War, Great Fire of Smyrna or Population exchange between Greece and Turkey despite the fact it is a completely distinct event which predates all of those. Please don't be fooled. Bebek101 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that references/sources had to be published. ....should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
 * Therefore, any statements by historians(or anyone for that matter) on a blog, is an unpublished source and should NOT be used to over-ride reliable, third-party, published sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case, the criticisms that A.Garnet has sourced off blogs (e.g. by Akcam) should be disregarded and the numerous affirmations of the Greek Genocide in published works should be given proper credit. The references and sources I was referring to are published. Bebek101 (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding Kansas Bears comment, they are pefectly acceptable. Wiki polocy on Reliable sources states "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer". Since these are all well-known scholars in their field, especilly relating to Ottoman history, and the blog site is hosted on a reputable scholarly website, their comments do indeed carry weight.


 * To clarify however, I am not basing my arguments solely on these comments or those by scholars in published sources such as Mark Mazower, Midlarsky, Elefantis, Fisk or Valentino. No, my argument is based on the fact the degree of academic material on these claims is so small that one cannot reasonably ask an editor to provide counter sources since the number of sources even using the term "Greek genocide" are so sparse e.g. 11 Google Scholar results (look at the results, there is an interesting one on "nationalism on the internet"...). This is not the same as the Armenian Genocide dispute, that dispute has reams of published material, coverage in mainstream academia, coverage in mainstream journalism and a clear divide between scholars who support and oppose the claims. In that dispute we can make an observation on the large amount of material available as to which claims garner most support.


 * In this dispute however, we have a resolution, some statements which use the term genocide in different contexts (some for pontians, some for greeks as a whole) and sources which again refer to Greeks in different context (some for Asia Minor, some for Pontus, some for Smyrna). The subject simply lacks the academic foundation on which to build an article on, that is my argument here. --A.Garnet (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your listing of names like Mazower, Midlarsky, Elefantis, Fisk, etc should be given context, otherwise you are likely to mislead unfamiliar readers with such distorted and manipulated arguments. For example, in the case of Fisk and Elefantis you are referring to one article authored by Robert Fisk and published by The Independent in which Fisk reports on the passing of a decree by the Greek Parliament and cites Elefantis as a negative critic of the resolution. But both Fisk and Elefantis incorrectly interpreted the resolution as pertaining solely to the events in Smyrna in September 1922. However, clearing neither Fisk or Elefantis had even read the resolution because if they had they would have seen that it doesn't even mention Smyrna but refers to the genocide of Greeks in Asia Minor as a whole. A.Garnet, in your numerous attempt to marginalize this piece of history, you are repeatedly referring to blatantly incorrect sources of information.
 * You have a handful of names which you repeat time after time. In fact, if people go away and examine the original statements, they will see that few of these people actually explicitly reject the "Greek Genocide" and some of them, despite their various concerns or criticisms, use the term "genocide" for the Greeks.
 * The website "Google scholar" and its search term count is not an intelligent approach to this debate. The fact you chose to weight the Greek Genocide against the two most studied genocides in history indicates that you are not interested in approaching this fairly. If you 'google scholar' the term "Herero and Namaqua Genocide", the title of a wikipedia page, you will return zero results. And there are many other examples but this is just plain childish.
 * So far your last point, most of the important works or references to the Greek Genocide treat the Ottoman Greeks' fate as a whole. This is true with the IAGS resolution, passed by the overwhelmingly majority of genocide scholars, and this is true with scholarly works in genocide journals and other published accounts. Again, please don't mislead people with false claims.Bebek101 (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To Kansas Bear: about the reliability of sources, let's keep in mind that the debate about that resolution is not part of normal academic discourse. Neither the resolution nor the statements of concern about it are academic publications in the normal sense; they are essentially political statements. For such an issue, I would consider the web source in question an appropriate source, just as I would consider a politician's website a reliable source about that politician's opinions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:A.Garnet what would you suggest as an alternative name for the article? --PBS (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You didn't ask me, but my own suggestion would be: Persecution of Greeks in Turkey (1914-1923) (I'm open to changing "Turkey" for "Ottoman empire" or whatever else is preferred; I'd just personally opt for the shortest possible version in the title. To forestall an objection: No, "Turkey" is not historically incorrect or anachronistic. But that's a minor point anyway.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

'Persecution' can imply that the Greek indigenous population survived the 'persecution'. In fact, as many observers noticed, a 3,000 year old presence came to an abrupt end. With all due respect to our 'Turkish' friends whose reservations I respect, I suggest we leave the current title and keep looking for an agreed phrasing. Or perhaps, Greek genocide (1914-1923)? Politis (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Persecution" does not imply that they survived (but neither does it imply they died). It is a term under international law see for example Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court paragraph 1.h. (and also paragraph 2), so it may not be a better word than genocide unless there is general agreement that persecution took place. --PBS (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there'd be factual objections against "persecution". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine there would be serious objections to the appropriateness of the term.Bebek101 (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From those who think nothing below "genocide" is strong enough, or from some other quarter? If the first, well, of course, I was taking that for granted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not as simple as you suggest. For example, atrocities against Ottoman Greeks carried out by the CUP between 1908 and 1913 are usually thought of as the "persecution" era so by applying the same term to a later period may result in some confusion and ambiguous terminology. PBS has also pointed to the fact that the term is defined under international law. In any case, there is far more literature employing or addressing the application of 'genocide' to these events than any other term. As a descriptive title, it makes sense to leave it as it stands.Bebek101 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Food for thought: a commentary piece by Caroline Tosh in London (TU No 491, 2-Mar-07) on the Bosnian Genocide Case:


 * --PBS (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not just genocide that removes a population. Also consider population exchange, ethnic cleansing and refugees fleeing before an advancing army. (eg the clearance of former eastern Germany involved both flight and expulsion, while the Gaza refugees were predominantly flight). --PBS (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If the title is changed to "persecution", would it be fair and appropriate to the memory of my maternal grandfather, a business owner in the town of Fatsa, who was arrested and executed in Amasia on Sept. 21, 1921 on unfounded allegations? Would it be also appropriate to the memory of all the residents of my father's entire village, called Ada, near Samsun, of over 300 people, and those from surrounfding villages, who found refuge there, and were all killed or burned alive, on May 15, 1919? Rizos01 (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, I don't see why it wouldn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS asked what I think would be a good title. I have suggested Ottoman Greek casualties (1914-1923) as per Ottoman Armenian casualties before, I believe that is a neutral title which frees editors to write a descriptive narrative of Greek casualties without restricting oneself to a genocide pov. --A.Garnet (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's so "neutral" that one might think that a few Ottoman era Greeks had a bunch of accidents and had a few casualties. This new suggestion does not pass any objective test including the smell test. Dr.K. logos 00:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Like in the case of the Armenians, a page titled "Ottoman Greek casualties" could provide a quantitative perspective to the events (i.e. various stats on death toll), but not a complete narrative of the genocide.Bebek101 (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On this one, I find myself agreeing with Bebek: "Casualties" is typically used for mere quantitative accounts, such as statistics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not fully aware of this matter, but wouldn`t it be NPOV to have a title "Expulsion of Greeks by the Ottoman Empire", which includes deportations, ethnic cleansing and even massacres, but is NPOV?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am afraid you are very mistaken if you think the verb 'expel' is an umbrella term for deportation, ethnic cleansing and massacre. Bebek101 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am just a bit confused on this one. At least with the Pontic Greek article it was about a specific groups suffering in the war. It was a distinct and quantifiable article, the reason it was never expanded was because they tried to expand within the borders of genocide accusations, which they simply could not find in academia and therefore could not expand.


 * The result is now this article to suggest every Greek in every part of the Ottoman Empire in every stage of World War I and after were subject to a genocide. The subject is so broad, so tainted by original research, that it is almost impossible to find a "term" for it.


 * We may have to simply accept that grouping all these events into one article is not the best way to present them. For example an article can be created to highlight the suffering of Pontic Greeks, which from sources I have come across seems to be a distinct event. Other material can be expanded in Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, Greco-Turkish War, Great Fire of Smyrna, Turkish War of Independence etc. This is something else for editors to think about. --A.Garnet (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is about a specific group, namely the Ottoman Greek minority population. It is a distinct and quantifiable subject with much scholarship and literature affirming it as such. The genocide was carried out by the Ottoman Empire against its minority populations. It did not favor Greeks in one province over Greeks in another. There is ample literature to support this and I am happy to provide numerous references in spite of the fact you continue to ignore my replies to your posts.
 * It seems to me you are making every attempt to marginalize this subject. First it was your attempt to have the application of 'genocide' erased and now it's about breaking this history down piecemeal. What next? Bebek101 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me add that the 'Population exchange between Greece and Turkey', the 'Greco-Turkish War', the 'Great Fire of Smyrna', and 'Turkish War of Independence' are all events post-1919, some even post-genocide. The extermination against Ottoman Greeks that commenced in 1914 cannot be merged with such distinct and anachronistic subjects at the attempts of certain editors to minimize and marginalize this subject to the point of non-existence.Bebek101 (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Bebek, I will make a simple request of you. Produce a statement by a third party scholar which states something along the lines that MOST scholars do recognise this as a genocide? Surely if it is a "distinct and quantifiable subject with much scholarship and literature affirming it as such" this should not be a difficult task. I dont want to hear this from you, or hear you tell me how prestigious and authoratative the IAGS is, that is the rhetoric of a Wikipedia editor, I want to hear it from a third party, neutral and authoratataive source. Can you do this? --A.Garnet (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of such a statement but that is not what I claimed so please don't construct deceptive implications about statements I've made. This request is indicative of your contributions to this discussion: you avoid the arguments at hand and divert the debate when it suits you.  In the past you have made a number of similar requests or claims, many of which I have met and all of which you have ignored.  For example, you claimed there wasn't a single scholarly work which synthesizes the material as this article does and although examples were provided you chose to ignore them and repeated the claim over and over again.
 * Nevertheless and regardless of the criterion you impose, I'm afraid that the IAGS and the overwhelmingly majority of its scholars affirming the application of the word "genocide" to these events (not a subsection of them) does go some way in providing an answer to whether "most scholars do recognize this as a genocide". Likewise, the fact that leading western genocide scholars such as Gregory Stanton, Israel Charny, Rudolph Rummel, Herbert Hirsch, Adam Jones, Tessa Hofmann, Dominik J. Schaller, Jurgen Zimmerer, Samuel Totten, Paul R. Bartrop, Henry R. Huttenbach, Colin Tatz, etc etc have all made explicit and sourced statements affirming the Greek Genocide further supports this argument.  Can I ask you to prove that most scholars explicitly dispute the Greek Genocide?  I have challenged you before to compile a sourced list of scholars who explicitly reject the genocide thesis against those who accept it.  Why don't you take me up on this offer?  How many can you cite saying "it was not genocide"?  Even a number out of those few names that you repeat time and time again in support of your position have used the term. Time for a new tactic perhaps? Bebek101 (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * IAGS is THE most authoritative source, and that is beyond question when it comprises of all gurus of genocide scholarship (dat's why it's called International Association of Genocide Scholars -duh). Levene would have never said that historians seldomly use the term "genocide" if the IAGS resolution predated him. The numerous other authors Bebek lists above are additional sources which are supporting the "genocide" view over and above any other. And actually, there is no other: Every other term that has been introduced is simply a joke ("persecution", ..."casualties", how about "traffic accidents"?), and appears in zero to next-to-zero academic sources. I am simply appalled. Oh, and I'm removing the idiotic tag. NikoSilver 19:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Judging from the background information we got from the internal discussions on the IAGS website itself, I doubt whether this organisation, qua organisation, is such a surpassing source. It's a professional organisation, sure, but like with other similar academic organisations its membership is self-selecting – basically, anybody can become a member if they pay the membership fees, and once you have made yourself a member, you have equal voting rights with the real experts. And the fact that its members can become the target of systematic political lobbying from people who are themselves most certainly not experts of any particular academic standing (the initiator, Mrs Halo, is apparently a member of the society but herself only an amateur historian), leads me to doubt. Do we know how many members there are? Do we know how many of them voted? Do we know how many of those who voted were among the actual experts? Judging from the comments on the website, the academic standing of the dissenting voices was a good deal higher than that of the defenders of the resolution. Are those voices representative of the voting body? – The fact remains that political resolutions of this type are not what actually counts in scholarship. Only actual academic publications produce real academic consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are numerous errors in the above. To begin with Ms. (not Mrs) Halo was not the initiator of the resolution nor is she a historian, amateur or otherwise. Most members are active reputable scholars. But so you know, genocide scholar Prof. Adam Jones proposed the resolution.
 * The comments on the IAGS blog are by a small handful of members and cannot be used to construct such encompassing implications as you have; the overwhelmingly support the resolution received at the vote says all there needs to be said on that front. In any case, most criticisms did not pertain to whether the events constituted genocide but addressed other issues; like the appropriateness of the IAGS passing resolutions on past genocides and on the amount of contemporary English language scholarship available. Further, people like Balakian who raised concerns on the blog used and continue to use the term 'genocide' for the Greeks. Your arguments are very misleading.
 * As for the credentials and academic standing of scholars supporting the Greek Genocide thesis, I provided a fairly comprehensive list of scholars above. Many of those listed are world renowned pioneer genocide scholars. With names like Gregory Stanton, Israel Charny, Herbert Hirsch, Samuel Totten, et al, I can't think of a finer set of specialists.Bebek101 (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My point stands: we know of "overwhelming" support only in terms of sheer number of voters in the ballot, not in terms of the academic standing of those who voted, and those who chose not to vote. We also know that the resolution was the result of an aggressive political campaign, conducted in a style that led to serious objections within the society, and by people who were not themselves academic experts. I still maintain that this resolution, and the role of the association that produced it, seems overrated to me. Academic consensus is constituted by academic publications; if such consensus exists where it really counts, you should base the article on that. – As for the idea that people who objected to the resolution nevertheless support the claim themselves, I've seen you saying this several times, but I could never find the "above" you vaguely alluded to where you said it was documented; could you point me to something more concrete please? – By the way, I would also say that for a documentation of academic consensus, we should not concentrate exclusively on the narrow set of scholars who explicitly define their field as "genocide studies"; focussing exceedingly on such work may well tend towards a kind of selection bias, as such work must obviously be interested in labelling things genocide in order to bring them under its own purview in the first place. What counts ultimately is the consensus of general mainstream historical scholarship dealing with the period in question. So, how are the events treated by historians who do not happen to publish in journals like Journal of Genocide Research? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean some of your points still stand. Of course the vote was kept private and to expect otherwise is absurd. You are right that we don't know who voted for or against the resolution but given that the IAGS on the most part is an organization of hundreds of reputable western historians, genocide scholars and other academics coupled with the fact that the majority voted in favor, a small handful abstained from voting and a smaller handful voted against, does demonstrate that in some shape or form a consensus has been reached.
 * To answer your 2nd paragraph, you will find Balakian and Levene, for instance, have both used the term genocide for the Greeks (in spite of A.Garnet's repeated citing of their names to support his position). I had actually inserted sources into the text before A.Garnet removed them. Here is one again on Balakian: Quoted by Halo in Not Even My Name, Picador USA, 2000, p.321. If you check the edit history you will find a source for Balakian post-IAGS resolution using the genocide term at a conference in Australia. In his book Burning Tigris, Balakian also uses the word "extermination" for the Greeks (a step up from 'casualties' or 'persecution'). So far as Levene, see p.397 of Creating a Modern "Zone of Genocide": The Impact of Nation- and State-Formation on Eastern Anatolia, 1878-1923.
 * I've never been focused solely on the IAGS resolution despite its significance. And that is why I pointed to a list of scholars, not necessarily members of the IAGS and the vast majority of which have not published in Journal of Genocide Research, who explicitly endorse the Greek Genocide in their published work. I know it is convenient to ignore.Bebek101 (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (a) Your reference "See, for e.g., Thea Halo, Not Even My Name, 2001 & Melbourne Pen, State Library of Victoria,30 April 2008." is extremely vague - has that text even been published in writing? Where can it be found? How do you know what he said? Levene has, I think, been discussed extensively here. (b) The IAGS membership consists of "over 380 members [... including] anthropologists, artists, clergy, diplomats, economists, educators, forensic pathologists, film-makers, government officials, historians, human rights activists, international court officials, lawyers, military officers, museologists, nurses, philosophers, playwrights, poets, political scientists, public health physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, religious scholars, sociologists, theologians, U.N. officials and experts in many other fields." Among them, there can hardly be more than a few dozen actual expert academic historians. Among the poets, nurses, human rights activists and government officials, there are evidently some who find discussion contributions like Ms Halo's rant on the IAGS website intellectually convincing. If that contribution is representative of the level of intellectual debate leading up to the resolution, that says a lot. And we still do not know whether those who chose not to vote on the ballot were really just "a handful", as you claim, and we don't know know how many of the (few) real experts were among them either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Calling it "Ms Halo's rant" is somewhat misleading. The various rebuttals also included statements by Prof. Adam Jones and Prof. Israel Charny but never mind about accuracy.
 * What I find interesting is that you want to put the focus squarely on the IAGS and their affirmation of this genocide and ignore the numerous independent affirmations by reputable genocide scholars that I have pointed too.
 * I will respond to your questions and arguments as soon as you do me the courtesy to respond to mine above. I'm afraid this dialogue can't just be pushed in the direction which best suits you.Bebek101 (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My argument about IAGS and focussing on this topic was solely in refutation of Niko's contention that "IAGS is THE most authoritative source", above. Nothing else, really. (And I do not think characterising Ms Halo's posting on the IAGS site as a "rant" is in any way misleading, no.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but both our positions were extreme: I said "THE most authoritative source", which may be excessive, but you said "qua organisation", "self-selecting membership", "pay membership fees", "systematic political lobbying", "representative voices", and "political resolutions". The fact remains that all these are assumptions. You are questioning the validity/authority/historicity/academicity[sic] of an organization on the grounds of suppositions. To suppose all these as a possible alternative is one thing; but to bring them forward as facts and to conclude that the organization/resolution "is therefore bollocks" [emphasis mine for brevity] is far far from a good will gesture. My view is that in this case it is the disputer who has to prove the correctness of his suppositions in order to lower the credibility of the organization. Otherwise we can all go ahead on a smearing campaign for all sources whose authority we choose to question, by bringing up questions of the sort: "and what if XYZ-author was a Turk-lover" or "why are we sure that ABC-historian is not a MAH agent?" And before you say these questions are remote, they are perfectly equivalent to whatever starts from "Judging from the background information we got from the internal discussions on the IAGS website itself..." Aren't they? Unless there is proof that Adam Jones is a Greek-lover/uneducated/biased/KYP-agent/political-lobbyist! Or unless the same applies for the rest of the sources we got, like Samuel Totten or Colin Tatz or Dominik J. Schaller or Jürgen Zimmerer or Niall Ferguson. Or all of them! For which you still have not commented, my friend Fut.Perf., neither when asked by Bebek, nor when asked by me. Instead you chose to speak about "tones". Why? NikoSilver 12:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That the resolution was the product of political lobbying (of a kind that had senior members of the association appalled, and that was publicly denounced by them as unacademic) is not my supposition, it's a fact as well sourced as the resolution itself. The facts about the membership of the association are not my supposition, they are sourced to the association's own newsletter (I think I forgot to put in the link, but you can easily find it, it's the latest issue.) The fact remains that (a) this is not a standard academic publication. For normal academic publications, we have reasonably robust ways of measuring their suitability as sources; for this kind of thing we don't, so we have to use our own judgment. (b) we are dealing not with a decision on if and how to represent a certain academic point of view (nobody claims that we shouldn't); rather, we are dealing with the contention that we should give this view such a strong preferential treatment that we must let it monopolize the perspective expressed in our editorial decisions, of article naming. That demands a very high level of confidence in the representativity of the view in question, and I am still not convinced that this has been substantiated. – As for the other sources, the real ones, I'm only slowly picking up on them. I have neither much time nor easy technical access to most of this material; given the tendency of tendentious and distorting quotation I've witnessed here (see Levene, for the umpteenth time), I'm not willing to give any premature comment or endorsement to any contention based on mere lists of names. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is a little unrealistic to claim that academics caved in to bullying during an anonymous voting process. There was 'lobbying' both in favor and against the resolution and this consisted of nothing more than presenting arguments for and against the resolution. I won't waffle further but I will point out that the IAGS resolution occupies two very brief references in the article and that is all. The IAGS resolution is merely one instance of affirmation and is not the center stage of this article.  As I have already pointed out, a vast number of historians and genocide scholars have used the term genocide for the Greeks in their published works and that is perhaps of far more significance.Bebek101 (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about its coverage in the article. We are having this discussion solely because the resolution is still being touted as an allegedly compelling argument for the naming issue. If you can agree that it isn't that, then we can put the issue to rest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, personally I canno agree. It is an argument for the naming issue (compelling or not in combination with other arguments is another issue), and I cannot ignore it. IAGS is an academic inistution; its members are scholars, and they took a resolution related to what we discuss here. It is an important source, in any case. Was there lobbying? So what? I don't care about the backstage! I care about facts, and the resolution is a fact we should evaluate along with everything else. Was there politics "behind the curtains"? Oh, come on! This is not a serious argument! We can find political motivations behind a series of scholaly sources. Should we erase them? This effort to annihilate the importance of the decision is vain. Take it as it is, place it in the place it deserves (nor higher neither lower than its real value), combine it with the rest of the scholarly sources, and go on.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We need not agree on this in order to examine the rest of the sources. Those can be checked independently, and please proceed regardless. NikoSilver 10:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are ill-perceived questions to create doubts for the authority/credibility/academic standing of the most prominent international organization in the field. Membership "fees"? "Political"? "Representative" voices? Jesus! It passed with 85+ percent! Leading scholars such as Adam Jones were the ones who most enthusiastically endorsed it! We've got a dozen scholars more who call it such! What the hell is the alternative? What other name is there for the events? And who is "counting" votes or academic standing when it comes to the apparently most frequent name in English scholarship for the events? When even the disputers call it "genocide"? Who can impose an idiotic name tag for a named event by a dozen scholars and international organizations without providing a sourced alternative? NikoSilver 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if you want to be taken seriously you will need to change your tone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't take you seriously either. And it's not only your tone. Try answering the questions above, for instance. NikoSilver 22:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have gone so far now that you are claiming not only that "genocide" is a commonly accepted term for the events, but that in fact it is the only possible term these events could ever be described by. As if no historian on earth had ever talked about them using any other term. Seriously, in all those decades before your famous resolution, were historians mute? I see no reason to argue with you as long as you are operating on this level of cheap fanatic polemics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did you see cheap polemics man? I made half a dozen questions up there, and you reply only either selectively or with ad hominem remarks. Ok. How were they called by the non-mute ones? Do you have any sourced term which is used more frequently? And, please, do answer the other questions as well... NikoSilver 22:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

To those who would like to rename the current title, and use the word "casualties" instead of genocide, I am providing below Webster's definiton of "casualty"

1. an accident, especially a fatal one 2. a) a member of the armed forces who is lost in active service through been killed, wounded, captured, interened, sick or missing b) losses of personnel resulting from death, injury, etc 3. anyone hurt or killed in an accident 4. anything lost, destroyed, or made useless by some unfortunate or unforseen happening

It is obvious that the term does not even remotely reflect or do justice to the events. The thousands of Ottoman Greek deaths, from 1914-1923, were not an accident or accidents, or the result of some unforseen or unfortunate event, but the result of premeditated and deliberate actions by the Ottomans. To name a few of the actions/methods: labor battalions, deportations, death marches, hangings, outright killings, etc. And, by the way, they were not members of the armed forces, but unarmed men, women, and children.

Gentlemen, it is clear form your arguments that you are willing to say anything, and go to any length to deny that the events in question constituted a genocide. Rizos01 (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Before I reply to Bebeks comments I want to make a point to Niko. Niko you have not participated in this debate in any substantial way, your argumentation and remarks are often superficial and never really serious. You turn up, make some cocky remark on the talk page and then go and remove the tag. Unless your going to participate in this discussion in way that is meaningful, then please do as you said you would and not participate at all.


 * Bebek, the reason I asked for such a statement is that if the debate on these accusations is as large as you portray, then one should be able to source a third party statement as to which side is more popular. If it is as mainstream as Wikipedia requires, if it is treated in a large number of serious academic works, then surely some third party scholar will have made an assesment of which is the more popular claim without us having to do so. My argument however is that beyond a very narrow field of interest, these claims are not treated in mainstram academia at all.


 * The only source you provided which truly syntehsises material as this article does is by Nikolaos Hlamides, which does not surpise me since he is the author of www.greek-genocide.org also, which I believe is where a lot of the material for this article has come from (and was also a majour source for the IAGS resolution, the reason why it was disparaged by scholars of the Ottoman era). The German text I cannot comment on since I cant read German and I cannot access the Schaller and Zimmerer text. WP:V states "Exceptional claims need exceptional sources", these are not exceptional sources.


 * I mean really, its been over two years now I have been disputing this article, a subject which cannot produce a reputable monograph to its name, yet no progress has been made, indeed it has got worse. Surely someone has to intervene and end this debacle, I am frankly sick of it. --A.Garnet (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you had done me the courtesy of actually replying to the points I raised and answered the questions I posed, I would have gladly shown you the same courtesy now. But I will say this: you proved me right.  As I predicted, you did employ a new tactic: dismissing examples of western scholarship based on how easy it is for you to access them and based on whether you have the capabilities to read the language. Nice move. :) Bebek101 (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but if I cant read or access a source what exactly is it you want me to say? I've enough experience from this discussion page to know that without reading something for myself I will not make a comment on it. --A.Garnet (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, in that case, you will refrain from making false statements: e.g. claiming that I only provided one source which truly syntehsises material as this article does. Thank you for continuing to ignore my numerous replies to your posts.Bebek101 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bebek101 arguments and approach to the issue [and I empathise to a degree with our Turkish(?) friends who wish to make drastic changes here]. But I will just repeat that between those years, the 3,000 year old presence of the Greeks in Anatolia was reduced to near extinction. Then came the 1950s progroms against the Greek sons and daughters of Istanbul. If that does not classify as genocide, then... what does? I seem to detect here a move to dilute the term 'genocide' and simply pass the buck to 'the Ottomans'; but remember, the perpetrators were always labelled 'Turks' while the Greeks of the empire were, inevitably, also Ottomans. For instance, there was a 17th coffee house in London called 'the Turk's Head' simply because its Greek owner was from the Ottoman empire.Politis (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See my comments above about former eastern Germany. A change in population does automatically mean genocide. It is not up to us to decide if it was or was not genocide, what matters for the naming of the page is that it meets the naming conventions specifically the sections "Common names" "Controversial names", the section in WP:NPOV called "Article naming" and the guideline Content forking. To do this we need to decide if the name is notable, IE that there are sufficient secondary sources and tertiary sources to warrant an article by this name. --PBS (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are going in circles PBS. Bebek101 has substantiate but you either ignored or did not read his posts. Or any other persons posts here. It has been proved that there are sufficient secondary sources and tertiary sources to warrant an article by this name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.162.51 (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * IP 213.207.162.51, did you forget to log in and do you use any user IDs? I am not going in circles. I was pointing out to Politis that an assertion that "But I will just repeat that between those years, the 3,000 year old presence of the Greeks in Anatolia was reduced to near extinction." does not mean that a genocide took place, so as it is not self evident, we should use the criteria in the policies and guidelines to decide on the name. I was neither arguing for or against Bebek101's selection of sources and if they are sufficient to determine the article name, that is something that others are doing. --PBS (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about if it were "But I will just repeat that a population that was flourishing in Anatolia in 1914 was reduced in less than a decade to near extinction."? Meowy 00:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

there is no known genocide as greek genocide. article is wholly inaccurate. also there is actually no NPOV here. sorry but whole artcile seems just like a piece of ultranationalist propaganda by some greek politician. 94.123.102.239 (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

this may go on forever. armenian genocide, greek genocide, kurdish genocide. the word "genocide" is not "that" simple. it can't be used anywhere like that. there may have been casulties in wartime conditions but you can't label everything as "genocide" 94.123.102.239 (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)silvanus


 * All the facts stated on the page are sourced. I'm afraid this page and its contents hasn't just appeared out of thin air. You haven't provided any argument which undermines the factual content on the page or demonstrates that any material is POV. For this reason I am reverting your last edit.Bebek101 (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)