Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 13

Comparison of Ottoman census between 1893-1914
1893, 1906/7 and 1914 are official Ottoman numbers. 1910 is not an official Ottoman statistic, it is based upon Polybius, a Greek author. Polybius is a pseudonym for (P. Kalopothakes) or (D. Kalopothakes). However it is included in the table to show the difference and contradiction with the actual Ottoman numbers.

During the Balkan wars (1912-1913) 414,000 Muslim immigrated to the Ottoman Empire from the Balkans.[1 ]Many of them settled in Anatolia however they had a high death rate.

Source= Ottoman Population, 1830-1914: Demographic and Social Characteristics, University of Wisconsin Press, Kemal Karpat, 1985


 * The picture will be complete if we include the British statistics of 1919, as well as the Ecumenical Patriarchate census of 1912. The reader can so make his own conclusion on the issue.Alexikoua (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Alexikoua, I am wondering whether there is any informative value in citing the so-called "1910 census". This is not an official census, it belongs to a series of documents that had propaganda value, in the sense that it was createed in 1919 to help the Greek delegation persuade other participants in the peace conference to yield to its demands and maximize Greek territorial gains in Asia Minor.

I would also be thankful if you could please provide your source for the numbers you cite in the 1914 Ottoman census table. The reason I am asking is that I have Karpat's book right in front of me and some of the numbers differ somewhat. For example, Greeks of Adana vilayet amount to 8,537 in Karpat (1985), pp. 172, 188, not 12,000.

Finally, I would like to add a word of caution, if I may: as I found out reading a note in Kostopoulos, Tasos (2007) Polemos kai ethnokatharse, p. 171 [I can confirm this in a couple of days by comparing Karpat's book, pp. 170-189 and Alexandris, Alexis (1999) "The Greek census of Anatolia and Thrace (1910-1912): a contribution to Ottoman Historical Demography" in D. Gondicas - Ch Issawi (eds.), Ottoman Greeks in the age of nationalism, Princeton, pp. 58-65] despite having the same name, the boundaries of vilayets vary between Ottoman censuses and that of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the 1914 census not including certain sanjaks, like Kutahya, Afion Karahisan, Canik (=Samsun), Eskisehir etc, in vilayets. For these minor, but existing nonetheless discrepancies between the two to be eradicated, it is advisable to adjust one of the two administrative divisions to the other's --a model being provided by Kostopoulos, (2009), pp. 170-1. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 1914 Ottoman census data were not provided by me, as you can see from the discussion, but feel free to correct it. Nevertheless, Ottoman censuses where extremely biased, not to mention that in 1914 genocide policies had been already initiated. For more detailed info about the problematic issues of the Young Turk census you can check: Zamir, Meir (1981). "Population Statistics of the Ottoman Empire in 1914 and 1919". Middle Eastern Studies 7 (1): 102. JSTOR 4282818.Alexikoua (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Alexikoua, many thanks for your reply and for providing the reference to Zamir's article. I have now checked the chapter by Alexandris --who concurs with Zamir on the tendency of Ottoman Greeks not to register in Ottoman censuses fearing increased taxation and conscription (after 1908)-- and I copy a part of a table from page 54. The original table also included figures for the Edirne (Adrianople) and the Istanbul (Constantinople) Vilayet, but I have ommitted them, being located in the European part of the Ottoman empire, and deducted them from the total. Alexandris also cites figures from a 1918 document composed of Greek archaeologist Georgios Soteriades entitled "An Ethnological Map Illustrating Hellenism in the Balkan Peninsula and Asia Minor" (London; E. Stanford), noting that it is part of what constituted "common practice" in the Peace conference, i.e. "enhancing" the numbers of ethnic groups that were living in disputed territories (p. 71), which I think menas that it does not have a place in this article. Alexandris also notes that the Greek 1910-2 census, despite providing an accurate estimation of Ottoman Greeks, is of no value when it comes to the strengh of other ethnic/religious groups (p. 52). Ashmedai 119 (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move
Greek genocide → Greek Genocide – Capitialization would be more appropriate considering that the category page is capitalized, as more most other genocide articles (Armenian Genocide, Bosnian Genocide, Burundian Genocide, Rwandan Genocide, ect.). Charles Essie (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree.Alexikoua (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose – and this should be cancelled and re-done as a multi-move so I don't have to try to explain MOS:CAPS at every one. Dicklyon (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, not a proper name. Most of the other articles probably ought to be at lowercase titles too, but at least some of them are established conventional terms in historiography, very much unlike this one. (Still not convinced anything involving "genocide", no matter in which case, ought to be in the title here in the first place, but that's another issue, and the POV ownership on this article has been so strong historically that it's been quite difficult to get anything moving here at all for many years.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is the proper name per COMMONNAME, search it at google, and you will see that everyone captializes it except Wikipedia! Charles Essie (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cambodian genocide which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"minority [scholarly] opinion" / On the IAGS resolution
Approximately three months ago I added two sentences to the Academic section of the article:

a. "Several scholars researching the Armenian genocide, however, such as Peter Balakian, Taner Akçam, Richard Hovannisian and Robert Melson, stated that the issue had to be further researched before a resolution was passed." (Erik Sjöberg, Battlefields of Memory: The Macedonian Conflict and Greek Historical Culture, Umeå Studies in History and Education 6 (Umeå University|series, 2011), p. 170), and

b. "Manus Midlarsky notes a disjunction between statements of genocidal intent against the Greeks by Ottoman officials and their actions, pointing to the containment of massacres in selected "sensitive" areas and the large numbers of Greek survivors at the end of the war. Because of cultural and political ties of the Ottoman Greeks with European powers, Midlarsky argues, genocide was "not a viable option" for the Ottomans in their case." (Manus I. Midlarsky, The Killing Trap: Genocide in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) pp. 342-3).

Shortly after my edit was made, Dr.K. reverted it, citing WP:UNDUE. The description of his revert reads: "The minority opinion is too small compared to the great majority of scholrs [sic] to be in the same section".

I do not claim to be an expert on the issue of atrocities committed against Greeks of Asia Minor in the 1910s and 1920s, but the impression I get from reading the article, the discussion pages and relevant literature is that there is no consensus of reliable sources treating this period of history for the view that these events constituted a genocide.

Focusing in the sources cited in the Academic section, only one of these (the Schaller & Zimmerer article) clearly supports this view (and it is perhaps of a certain significance that this is only an assertion, not an argument explaining why the massacres were of a genocidal nature). I also know of a couple of Greek scholars considering these events a genocide --namely: Fotiadis and Agtzidis-- who are not mentioned in this section of the article. Going back to WP:UNDUE, were it truly a majority opinion among scholars "it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts". I can find no such reference in this section of the article.

On the contrary, it is more than easy "to name prominent adherents" to the view that the massacres of Greeks in Asia Minor and in the Pontus from 1914 to 1923 did not constitute a genocide (which per WP:UNDUE would suffice to make it a view supported by a "significant minority" of scholars): Midlarsky, Mazower, Ferguson, Levene, the Armenian genocide scholars cited above in (a), or Kostopoulos, who is not cited at all in the article --some of them explaining the reasons they adhere to it.

The image, then, that emerges is not one of a scholarly concensus for one view and an insignificant minority opposing it.

But, what then of the "overwhelming majority" of the IAGS resolution? As Sjöberg (2011), p. 122. states, a vote for the resolution "does not mean that the history it alludes to is well known and/or generally accepted as an undisputed case of genocide among the international and Greek scholarly community." Sjöberg deems the resolution "motivated chiefly by identity-political concerns of the [...] descendants" [of Christian minorities of the Ottoman Empire] (p. 170), which explains the reaction of those members of IAGS that have produced scholarly material on relevant areas. (Note that to be a "genocide scholar" [= an IAGS member] you do not have to be a scholar doing research and publishing on Ottoman or Turkish history in the early 20th history.)

It follows that there is not just a "too small" minority of scholars on the one side and a "great majority" on the other. The scholarly landscape seems to be more like that of the case of the Great Famine and the Holomodor, rather than the Armenian Genocide.

If we agree that this is so, not only should my previous edit be allowed, but there are broader implications for the whole article. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I, too, have some issues with the label of "genocide." I know this is a sensitive topic for many, and far be it from me to belittle or demean the suffering of others when I say that it is perhaps not an appropriate article title. The article strings together events from a ten year period and presents it as pre-planned program of genocide, a word that today is abused all too often. Yes, Greeks were targeted during the war years and in places such as Diyarbekir they were almost massacred to the man. But this part of history is a little more nuanced than some of us are willing to concede. Diyarbekir's provincial governor, Mehmed Reshid, for example, seemed to have an inextinguishable hatred for Christians that he extended his targets to not only the Armenians, but all the Christians under his jurisdiction. The killings became so widespread that even Talat Pasha sent him a telegram and told him to concentrate his resources on destroying only the Armenians (!). Likewise, I believe there are also instances of the Pontic Greeks even cooperating with the Ottoman authorities in 1916 in order to resist the advance of the Russian army. The burning of Smyrna in 1922 was also an act carried out by Mustafa Kemal and the Nationalists, many of whom weren't necessarily in control of the levers of power during the war years.


 * And even now, more references abound which state that the Turks' main goal was to exterminate only the Armenians. I was just reading this review of Taner Akçam's recent book, where one of the reviewers states that "Yes, Ottoman Greeks were spared genocide; but we learn why," referring to Akçam's reasons on why the tragedies that befell the Greeks do not fall under the definition of genocide. I hope my words are not misconstrued here but with scholarly opinion (whose opinion we should ascribe paramount importance to) coming out so deadset against the word, it may perhaps be advisable that we change this article's title to a more appropriate heading, such as Ethnic Cleansing of Greeks, 1915-23, for example.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is endemic to any genocide. Doubt and even outright denial of any Genocide events is part and parcel of the landscape and it is to be expected that a number of scholars will oppose this and any other genocide for various reasons. The problem is the majority of scholars still believe these events constituted a genocide. Akcam is not the majority of scholars and his use of euphemisms such as "demographic restructuring" to describe the violent and systematic ethnic cleansing of the Ottoman Greeks is not accepted by the majority of genocide scholars. So there is no need to accept more euphemisms such as Ethnic Cleansing of Greeks, 1915-23 to describe these events. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  04:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, normally I would be inclined to agree with you but this isn't really a fringe opinion, as I have just discovered. These opinions are held by some of the prime movers and shakers of the study of inter-ethnic relations in the Ottoman Empire and the study of the genocide: Akçam, Richard G. Hovannisian, Robert Melson, etc. (a view that others share, including one of the reviewers in the above link, Margaret Lavinia Anderson). If editors might not be so inclined to rename the article just yet, would they in that case oppose a section added to this article where the reservations of these scholars to apply the word genocide is noted?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A typical issue that concerns most 20th century genocides is that they are questioned by a number of scholars. In this case it appears that a minority of them is against the use of the term genocide. However, still an overwhelming majority in western literature is in favor of the current title, some distinguished authors include: Mark Levene, Adam Jones, Rudolph Rummel, Samuel Totten etc..Alexikoua (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That still does not negate their viewpoint or counter what they're saying. And I would venture to say that Akçam, Hovannisian, and others have had more experience in studying and reading the sources from this period. Moreover, though I haven't had the chance to read Mark Levene's work, according to Ashmedai 119, whose comments are seen above, the sources do not even correspond to the statements quoted in the article. As rational editors, we have to ask: was there a pre-planned program plan to annihilate the Greeks by the CUP government? And that answer, based on the sources cited here and primary sources I have read, which state that the government did not extend its policies to Greeks, seems to be no. Did Mustafa Kemal plan on annihilating all the Greeks of post-war Turkey? Even with Smyrna, it seems like the answer is no.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that the above answer is yes with certainty, since Greeks were also the target of genocidal plans by both the Youngturk [] and Kemalist policies [].Alexikoua (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This comes ridiculously late, but hopefully all concerned editors will notice.
 * I find myself in agreement, in general lines, with what Marshal Bagramyan has written above.
 * Dr.K states that "This is endemic to any genocide. Doubt and even outright denial of any Genocide events is part and parcel of the landscape and it is to be expected that a number of scholars will oppose this and any other genocide for various reasons" and Alexikoua concurs that "A typical issue that concerns most 20th century genocides is that they are questioned by a number of scholars. "
 * I am afraid that these statements are wrong. The division of opinion among members of the scholarly community regarding atrocities committed against Ottoman Greeks is not comparable to other events labeled as genocides, e.g. the destruction of European Jews in the 1940s. Could you even imagine a book written by a historian explaining why the Holocaust was not a genocide being published by so respected a press as Princeton University Press? No, because there is a solid scholarly consensus that the Holocaust was a genocide; apparently, this is not the case with the sufferings of the Ottoman Greeks. Taner Akçam is no Ernst Zündel, and his book is not comparable in any meaningful respect to Did Six Million Really Die?.
 * Marshal Bagramyan is also corrent, I think, in noting that it is wrong to belittle the importance of RS produced by scholars conducting research in this very period of Ottoman and Turkish history, i.e. those whose work relates to the matter of the article. The group of "genocide scholars" includes non-experts, such as researchers of other historical periods, political scientists etc. It would be an error of judgement, it seems to me, to ignore those historical works written precisely about the article's topic, while ascribing greater importance to en passant references in books with little direct relevance to the subject --such as the second of the two references provided above by Alexikoua; the first one hardly counts as a reliable source, I'm afraid, as it a book written by someone with a doctorate in education and published by Xlibris, a "self-publishing and on-demand printing company".
 * May I also add that 'genocide' is not used as a title in relevant chapters of one of the most important opera of Greek historiography in the last decades, the Ιστορία του Ελληνικού Έθνους (History of the Greek Nation) --titles of relevant chapters read "Ο Ελληνισμός της Μικράς Ασίας σε διωγμό" (Greeks of Asia Minor under persecution, vol. ΙΕ΄, pp. 98), "Οι διωγμοί των Ελλήνων της βορειοδυτικής Μικράς Ασίας" (The persecution of Greeks of NW Asia Minor, p. 241), "Οι διωγμοί των Ελλήνων του Πόντου" (The persecution of Greeks of Pontus, p. 244) etc. "Genocide" is similarly absent, as far as I can tell, from the relevant chapter of the most recent reliable synthetic presentation of modern Greek history, Ιστορία του Νέου Ελληνισμού, vol. 6, Η εθνική ολοκλήρωση, 1909-1922, pp. 51-62.
 * Given then, that both "ethnic cleansing" (proposed by Marshal Bagramyan and supported by Akçam, Kostopoulos and implied by Midlarsky et al) and "genocide" (the current title) are contemporary technical terms none of which seems to be endorsed by the majority of scholars and RS relating to the article's subject, i.e. there is not a scholarly consensus for either of them, I think that the most apt title for the article is Persecution of Ottoman Greeks, 1913-1923.
 * Moreover, the article should be enriched by references to RS -not excluding Akçam, whose book also provides an account of the persecution of Ottoman Greeks through the study of Ottoman administration documents. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to echo Ashmedai's call for a knowledgeable editor to add referenced details to the article, particularly, I would hope, someone in a position to make use of the 14 volumes of Fotiadis's 2002-2004 work, which I have the impression has begun to shift the dialog in mainstream historiography in Greece (though this is a slow enough process at the best of times, and this isn't the best of times). The present article suffers, I think, in part from (understandable) reliance on scholarship not concerned primarily with the topic of this article (i.e., concerned with the larger issues of genocide, etc., but not focused on the Greek experience per se). While general histories (such as Ιστορία του Νέου Ελληνισμού and others) are useful, they certainly don't (nor aim to) bring the kind of detailed historiography that we would like to see as sources for the narrative here. That said, since Fotiadis does use the term genocide, and since he seems to have done the most work with original materials, I'd be inclined to defer to his historiographical judgment. Mundart (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Mundart, thank you for participating in the discussion. I am puzzled by your statement that Fotiadis's work "has begun to shift the dialog in mainstream historiography in Greece" and I have certain doubts about its accuracy. I refer to two works that are usually taken to be representative of "mainstream historiography". Richard Clogg in his Concise History of Greece (Cambridge University Press, 2013) refrains from speaking of a "genocide" and when he comes to the 1994 decree of the Greek Parliament he writes as following: "Matters [=Greco-Turkish relations] took a turn for the worse when the Greek parliament proclaimed 19 May as a day of remembrance for what was termed the genocide of tens of thousands of Pontic Greeks during the First World War and its aftermath." (p. 215). Koliopoulos & Veremis, the historiographical duo whose work is also considered as "mainstream" Greek historiography (albeit sometimes characterized as having a right-of-centre/liberal bias), in their last instalment (Modern Greece: A History since 1821, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010) speak consistently of persecution (p. 74 "a systematic persecution of Greeks was launched in the area of Adrianople that soon spread out to western Asia Minor. The uprooting of thousands from their places of residence and their villages was not only an act of reprisal by the Ottoman government in retaliation for the thousands of Turkish refugees who had reached Asia Minor from Macedonia and Thrace; it also served the practical purpose of rehabilitating these refugees in the homes of the Greeks who were expelled. When the First World War broke out, such persecutions were also serving strategic purposes – as conceived by the German military advisers to the Turks") not mentioning a "Greek genocide" at all.
 * It seems to me that, notwithstanding the volume of Fotiadis's work, "mainstream" historians do not endorse his interpretation of the events as a genocide. On the contrary, while Fotiadis is not the only historian to use the term "genocide", specialist works have been published challenging its suitability [=Kostopoulos's Polemos kai Ethnokatharse and the aforementioned book by Akcam]; if memory doesn't fail me, the former also criticises Fotiadis for errors with the number of the victims. (It is perhaps not without any significance that Fotiadis produced his multi-volume work after being commissioned by the Greek Parliament, following its issuance of the decree recognizing a genocide.) I beg to differ, therefore, and insist that the article's title should be changed; "Greek genocide" is a POV term that does not reflect scholarly consensus.
 * Other than changing the title, a more detailed explanation of *both* sides of the scholarly debate is needed in the "Academic" section of the article along with re-writing its introduction (which currently only presents the POV of those historians who consider the events a genocide) and a more thorough analysis of the political circumstances and the debate surrounding the recognition as well, if the article is to be fully compliant with NPOV. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that more detail would be most welcome, as well as more sourced claims. But I still tend to think we should weight specialist works' claims over general treatments. Veremis and Koliopoulos are deservedly respected historians. But their excellent synoptic book, at 215 pages of text (though my 2010 Greek version has more) shouldn't be asked to bear a weight of judgment its authors may not have intended, especially in the relatively few sentences devoted to the topic at hand. For example, on p. 76 they write: "Started in 1910, this [violent Turkification] policy was systematically pursued until the First World War when it peaked. Its victims were not only Greeks but also Arabs, Jews, and especially Armenians (1915). The massacre of the Armenians on orders from the leadership of the Young Turks was a political decision with long-term consequences for the the Turkish state that succeeded them." But by no means would we want to conclude that Veremis and Koliopoulos are deniers of the Armenian genocide, merely because their lexical choice here didn't use the word genocide. So I'm equally leery of reading too much into the particular word choice in the few places they make mention of the events affecting the Greek populations. What they don't do is make a positive argument that the word genocide should only be applied in certain cases and that the Greek experience doesn't qualify. It's more a choice by omission, which, again, I think we shouldn't read too much into, and I don't think we should take as standing as a counterargument to Fotiadis's work (which, I note, they don't cite: the footnote to the passage you mention cites only Smith's 1973 book). I do still absolutely agree that the article needs more work, regardless of its title. Mundart (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with 's analysis. I also don't see any kind of consensus on this page for any unilateral moves to a new title. Accordingly, I have reverted the recent move. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that more detail would be most welcome, as well as more sourced claims. But I still tend to think we should weight specialist works' claims over general treatments. Veremis and Koliopoulos are deservedly respected historians. But their excellent synoptic book, at 215 pages of text (though my 2010 Greek version has more) shouldn't be asked to bear a weight of judgment its authors may not have intended, especially in the relatively few sentences devoted to the topic at hand. For example, on p. 76 they write: "Started in 1910, this [violent Turkification] policy was systematically pursued until the First World War when it peaked. Its victims were not only Greeks but also Arabs, Jews, and especially Armenians (1915). The massacre of the Armenians on orders from the leadership of the Young Turks was a political decision with long-term consequences for the the Turkish state that succeeded them." But by no means would we want to conclude that Veremis and Koliopoulos are deniers of the Armenian genocide, merely because their lexical choice here didn't use the word genocide. So I'm equally leery of reading too much into the particular word choice in the few places they make mention of the events affecting the Greek populations. What they don't do is make a positive argument that the word genocide should only be applied in certain cases and that the Greek experience doesn't qualify. It's more a choice by omission, which, again, I think we shouldn't read too much into, and I don't think we should take as standing as a counterargument to Fotiadis's work (which, I note, they don't cite: the footnote to the passage you mention cites only Smith's 1973 book). I do still absolutely agree that the article needs more work, regardless of its title. Mundart (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with 's analysis. I also don't see any kind of consensus on this page for any unilateral moves to a new title. Accordingly, I have reverted the recent move. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've now added some more details to the article on state policy towards Ottoman Greeks during WWI from the book by Akcam, a specialist in this period of Ottoman history and the Turkification policy of the Young Turks.
 * My references to Veremis&Koliopoulos and Clogg in my reply to Mundart were made to explain my doubts about his/her claim that Fotiadis's interpretaion is being accepted by "mainstream Greek historiography"; no such evidence is to be found in either of these two works of "mainstream historiography". On the contrary, Clogg's phrasing suggests quite the opposite: "mainstream Greek historiography" does not seem to have endorsed Fotiadis's terminological preferences. One of the most authoritative works of historiography in Greece (Ιστορία του Ελληνικού Έθνους) does not mention a "Greek genocide". Neither does a newer restatement of cutting edge research in modern Greek history (Ιστορία του Νέου Ελληνισμού). Scholars publishing in world-renowned university presses (Midlarsky, Akcam, Mazower) and researchers of the particular subject (Κωστόπουλος / Akcam) make the case for the events described in the article not being a genocide.
 * Since, then, the academic community is divided in opinion regarding the question of whether atrocities commited against Ottoman Greeks constituted a "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing", it follows that the title has to be changed to the neutral term "Persecution of Ottoman Greeks, 1913-1923" and the article's lede should be rewritten to reflect this. Honestly, I find it difficult to see why one would disagree with this. I think it would be very helpful if Dr.K. would like to take the time to explain the reasons he opposes the move and the changes in the lead section, lest we find ourselves in the situation described in this essay. Thanks in advance. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * By checking the correspondent bibliography it appears that more recent one (1990+) clearly prefers to term the events as "genocide", while older bibliography prefers terms like 'ethnic cleansing' or diogmos "the persecution" in Greek or "large scale (and pre-planned) policy of extermination" such as in the Ιστορία του Ελληνικού Έθνους & Ιστορία του Νέου Ελληνισμού (both works mentioned above, although they don't include the word 'genocide' they use the definition of this term multiple times in their description of the events) On the other hand recent 1990+ bibliography and especially authors who are specialists in the topic, such as Photiadis, don't hesitate to use the term genocide.Alexikoua (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Alexikoua, first of all, η Ιστορία του Νέου Ελληνισμού cannot be listed among the 'older bibliography' you mention, as it was published in 2003. I would fain know what you have exactly in mind when you say that "they [=IEE & INE] use the definition of this term [=genocide] multiple times in their description of the events", especially with reference to ΙΝΕ. Could you provide a paged reference from the 6th volume?
 * You state that "recent 1990+ bibliography and especially authors who are specialists in the topic, such as Photiadis, don't hesitate to use the term genocide". However, Fotiadis is far from being the only specialist in the field. You fail to take into consideration that there are historians whose speciality is the same area as Fotiadis [viz. Akcam 2012, Kostopoulos 2007] who argue against labelling the article's topic as a "genocide"; also, that it is with the latter that eminent historians, like Mazower, side, while till now we have no evidence for scholars of such prominence siding with Fotiadis. Even if we find out that there is one, the fact of the matter remains that there is no evidence of a consensus in the community of historians for Fotiadis's interpretation, i.e. his option to call the events a "genocide" represents a particular POV. Keeping the title and the lead in their present form gives undue weight to one of the two sides of the academic debate -those scholars, like Fotiadis, who consider the events a genocide- and presents their POV as neutral, while giving less weight than is due to the scholarship of historians who reject the propriety of calling these events a "Greek genocide". Ashmedai 119 (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * To sum up I didn't claim that Photiadis was the only mainstream scholar who is in clear favor of the genocide, as a series of historical events. To name only some mainstream academics in Greece (or Greeks working outside Greece such as Enepedikes)


 * Vakalopoulos, ∆ιωγμοί και Γενοκτονία του Θρακικού Eλληνισμού. O πρώτος ξεριζωμός 1908-1917 (Persecution and Genocide of Thracian Hellenism...), Θεσσαλονίκη 1998.
 * Enepekides P.., Γενοκτονία στον Εύξεινο Πόντο – ∆ιπλωματικά Έγγραφα από τη Βιέννη 1909-1918, Θεσσαλονίκη 1996.
 * Παγτζιλόγλου M., H Γενοκτονία των Eλλήνων και των Aρμενίων της Mικράς Aσίας, Aθήνα 1988.
 * Malkides F., Η γενοκτονία των Ελλήνων του Πόντου. Ιστορία, Πολιτική και αναγνώριση, Αθήνα 2008.
 * Hasiotis I., «Οι διωγμοί των Ελλήνων και η γενοκτονία» Ιστορικά τ. 28 (2000) p. 42- 45
 * Kitromolides Paschalis, «Συμβολή στη μελέτη της Μικρασιατικής τραγωδίας», Μικρασιατικά Χρονικά, τ. 15, Αθήνα 1972, (defining the events as “genocide” in p. 383).
 * Neoklis Sarris, 1919-1922: H Σμύρνη υπ ελληνική κηδεμονία. in p. 7 (... εξόντωση που προσέλαβε μορφή γενοκτονίας extermination that turned into a form of genocide)

Several scholars tend to use the term “persecution” as a synonymous for “genocide”:
 * Ethno-Regional Identity: The Case of Pontian Greeks, for example in p. 55 “οι φοβεροί διωγμοί και η γενοκτονία του ποντιακού ελληνισμού την περίοδο του 1914-1923....”. The use of both terms continues in the following pages too, assuming that the one term doesn't reject the other, but in the end it defines the events as genocide under the Genocide Convention.
 * Boubougiatzi The title bears the term “persecution”, but inside the text it claims that under terms of the Genocide Convention this is defined as genocide (p. 488)
 * Koutsoupias p. 397 (makes use of both terms -genocide & persecution- as synonymous)

It's hard to believe that all the above academic papers reflect only a minority view in Greek academic thought, especially Vakalopoulos, Enepekides, Kitromilides and Sarris (apart from Fotiadis who is already mentioned above) are among the top grated scholars in the field of modern Greek (Sarris also in Ottoman) history.Alexikoua (talk)


 * Point of fact "persecution" is not a synonym for "genocide". Genocide has specific legal requirements including "Intent to destroy". Persecution is a specific crime against humanity, and is defined in the Rome Statute among other places:
 * Article 7: Crimes against humanity (h) [For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:] ... (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court"
 * With persecution one only has to show that a group have been persecuted the motives for the perpetrators is not relevant to the crime, this is unlike genocide where there is a need to prove that perpetrators of genocide had the intent to physically destroy the targeted group. -- PBS (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Population table
I wonder why the population table does not include the figures of the European part of the Ottoman Empire (Eastern Thrace&Constantinople). It appears obvious that this is relevant to the article since the genocide policies were not limited in the Asiatic part.Alexikoua (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Operation Nemesis
Did they make operation like this?--Kaiyr (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you become more precise please.Alexikoua (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did Greeks kills turks who make/organised Greek genocide?--Kaiyr (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No I don't think they did. Jackninja5 (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Less attention than the Armenian Genocide
According to this source:

Unfortunately, the online version on Google Books is snipped and the author's name is not available. -- Ե րևանցի talk  07:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Their names are Dominik J. Schaller and ‎Jürgen Zimmerer. --Steverci (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * They are the editors. -- Ե րևանցի talk  19:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Daniel Marc Segesser per Amazon.com. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If anyone finds this information relevant, please feel free to add it to the article. -- Ե րևանցի talk  02:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Henry Morgenthau, U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire (1913-16)

Home > Genocide Research > Statements on Record Relating to the Armenian Genocide

"When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact."

"Practically all of them were atheists, with no more respect for Mohammedanism than for Christianity, and with them the one motive was cold-blooded, calculating state policy."

One day I was discussing these proceedings with a responsible Turkish official, who was describing the tortures inflicted. He made no secret of the fact that the Government had instigated them, and, like all Turks of the official classes, he enthusiastically approved this treatment of the detested race. This official told me that all these details were matters of nightly discussion at the headquarters of the Union and Progress Committee. Each new method of inflicting pain was hailed as a splendid discovery, and the regular attendants were constantly ransacking their brains in the effort to devise some new torment. He told me that they even delved into the records of the Spanish Inquisition and other historic institutions of torture and adopted all the suggestions found there. He did not tell me who carried off the prize in this gruesome competition, but common reputation through Armenia gave a preeminent infamy to Djevdet Bey, the Vali of Van, whose activities in that section I have already described. All through this country Djevdet was generally known as the "horseshoer of Bashkale" for this connoisseur in torture had invented what was perhaps the masterpiece of all — that of nailing horseshoes to the feet of his Armenian victims.

Yet these happenings did not constitute what the newspapers of the time commonly referred to as the Armenian atrocities; they were merely the preparatory steps in the destruction of the race. The Young Turks displayed greater ingenuity than their predecessor, Abdul Hamid. The injunction of the deposed Sultan was merely "to kill, kill", whereas the Turkish democracy hit upon an entirely new plan. Instead of massacring outright the Armenian race, they now decided to deport it. In the south and southeastern section of the Ottoman Empire lie the Syrian desert and the Mesopotamian valley. Though part of this area was once the scene of a flourishing civilization, for the last five centuries it has suffered the blight that becomes the lot of any country that is subjected to Turkish rule; and it is now a dreary, desolate waste, without cities and towns or life of any kind, populated only by a few wild and fanatical Bedouin tribes. Only the most industrious labour, expended through many years, could transform this desert into the abiding place of any considerable population. The Central Government now announced its intention of gathering the two million or more Armenians living in the several sections of the empire and transporting them to this desolate and inhospitable region. Had they undertaken such a deportation in good faith it would have represented the height of cruelty and injustice. As a matter of fact, the Turks never had the slightest idea of reestablishing the Armenians in this new country. They knew that the great majority would never reach their destination and that those who did would either die of thirst and starvation, or be murdered by the wild Mohammedan desert tribes. The real purpose of the deportation was robbery and destruction; it really represented a new methods of massacre. When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.

[paragraphs omitted]

I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared with the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915. The slaughter of the Albigenses in the early part of the thirteenth century has always been regarded as one of the most pitiful events in history. In these outbursts of fanaticism about 60,000 people were killed. In the massacre of St. Bartholomew about 30,000 human beings lost their lives. The Sicilian Vespers, which has always figured as one of the most fiendish outbursts of this kind, caused the destruction of 8,000. Volumes have been written about the Spanish Inquisition under Torquemada, yet in the eighteen years of his administration only a little more that 8,000 heretics were done to death. Perhaps the one event in history that most resembles the Armenian deportations was the expulsion of the Jews from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella. According to Prescott 160,000 were uprooted from their homes and scattered broadcast over Africa and Europe. Yet all these previous persecutions seem almost trivial when we compare them with the sufferings of the Armenians, in which at least 600,000 people were destroyed and perhaps as many as 1,000,000. And these earlier massacres when we compare them with the spirit that directed the Armenian atrocities, have one feature that we can almost describe as an excuse: they were the product of religious fanaticism and most of the men and women who instigated them sincerely believed that they were devoutly serving their Maker. Undoubtedly religious fanaticism was an impelling motive with the Turkish and Kurdish rabble who slew Armenians as a service to Allah, but the men who really conceived the crime had no such motive. Practically all of them were atheists, with no more respect for Mohammedanism than for Christianity, and with them the one motive was cold-blooded, calculating state policy.

Henry Morgenthau, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story (New York: Doubleday, Page & Co.: 1919), pp. 307-309, 321-323.58.165.242.100 (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring to add the view of a non-expert
There has been edit-warring by a specific editor to add the view of a non-expert in the article without consensus. The view of a non-expert is WP:UNDUE and does not belong in this article in any section, let alone in the political reaction section. This non-expert has also been heavily criticised by many others for his views. But in the rush to add this UNDUE material to the article no mention of the widespread critical reaction to his views is made. This is an unhelpful edit and the edit-warring to support it must stop. Dr.  K.  16:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you specify why you have deleted on several occasions the statement by Greece’s Education Minister Nikos Filis rejecting genocide of Pontian Greeks, but rather defining the event as ethnic cleansing? At the same time the article includes non-expert views such as statements by foreign parliaments and political parties? Hittit (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First, a correction of the record: I only reverted twice, not on "several occasions". Please check the article history for verification. As far as your question I think you answered it yourself by saying: At the same time the article includes non-expert views such as statements by foreign parliaments and political parties?. How can the opinion of a single, non-expert, and widely criticised politician be equal to that of governments, parliaments, political parties and other executive and legislative bodies of other countries who voted on the subject after long pre-planning, consultations, deliberations and in-chamber discussions? This is the very definition of WP:UNDUE.  Dr.   K.  19:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I still do not see any justification for you deleting sourced information. Minister of Education, Research and Religious Affairs Nikos Filis in his position of authority has merit in his statements, it is clear the notion of Greek genocide is a disputed affair even within Greece thus deleting views opposing it should not be labeled as non-expert just because it is not liked. Opposing views should have their place in this article in order to maintain some level of neutrality which is currently lacking. It should also be noted that Filis and his party members have been isolated and even assaulted by nationalist mob. Hittit (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, not seeing any justification is really a symptom of not understanding or accepting what I wrote above. This is hardly my fault. Like I said. Filis is a single politician and his views have no relevance to this debate because they have no weight compared to those of established parties, governments, experts, and official organisations. As far as being assaulted by nationalists, perhaps the detail can be added to his bio but has no place here. Dr.   K.  18:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE applies here. Mr. Filis was speaking in a personal capacity, as such these are only his personal views, which are of little weight. Athenean (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you take a more objective stand, even within Greece there are attempts to debate neutrality of Greek view point e.g., Maria Repousi and her group just to face hostility on major scale. Hittit (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And I suggest you familiarize with the concept of the useful idiot. Athenean (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully the Asia Minor Catastrophe a national trauma from apocalyptic proportions does not hinder neutral view point https://www.anthro.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/images/staff/Associates/We_got_on_well_with_the_Turks.pdf Hittit (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Hittit. And do not complain for having removed a single source, at Saints Cyril and Methodius article there has been an edit warring for the removal of seventeen expert sources without any explanation. Some users consider anything that they dislike UNDUE or POV. I strongly advise Hittit to restore his addition here because it is kept out because of such nonsense.Judist (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Now you have graduated from POV-pushing to stalking my edits. This disruption is not going to be allowed to last. Dr.   K.  18:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You are both graduated from personal attacks, when I ask why you remove the 20 sources and the whole research you comment me, not on the content, what I graduated and so on IS NOT YOUR BUSINESS. You do not even bother to answer and I can't even get answers to my questions by asking. What kind of antisocial communication? Everybody else excluding you is simply extreme POV-pusher. This is scandaleous along with your false allegations and arrogant unexplained removals.Judist (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

To avoid POV there needs to be a neutral opinion as clearly only Greek nationalist view is projected in article, sourced information is systematically deleted. Hittit (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's really cute. When you run out of arguments, blame the nationality of your opponents for your lack of arguments and your incessant edit-warring. Please cease your silly personal attacks. Thank you in advance. Dr.   K.  21:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion Request: The request for a Third Opinion (3O) made in regard to this dispute has been removed (i.e. rejected) because 3O is only for cases in which exactly two editors are involved in the dispute. Consider Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or Request for Comments instead. Having said that, I will offer this observation as a neutral party: I tend to agree that the statement by Filis is, taken alone, probably UNDUE, but the source which supports it suggests that there may be considerable controversy around the fact that he said it. If that controversy is widely reported in reliable sources (and I don't know whether it is or is not), discussing the controversy may not be UNDUE even if the statement alone is UNDUE. (It is equally possible that it was just a tempest in a teapot that blew over in hours and was, itself, not important enough to be mentioned.) I will also note that there has been discussion here of only relying on expert opinion. While expert opinion, if sufficiently sourced, may be more important than non-expert, there certainly can be non-expert opinion which for various reasons — such as, but not limited to, having ignited a great deal controversy — becomes important enough not to be UNDUE, so whether or not something is or is not expert opinion is not a sole criteria for its inclusion or exclusion. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer) (Not watching this page)

POV
The article lead is POV. In particular: 1. Since the 2007 IASG resolution was passed "despite not inconsiderable opposition" (as seen in current note 6, Jones 2010); many scholars expressed perplexity on the issue (see current section 4.2); and the wording "Greek genocide" has so far only limited recognition (see current section 4.4), I believe that the first sentence of the lead should make clear that "Greek genocide" is a term used by several scholars and sources, and that the historiographical debate is ongoing. I understand this might be not satisfying to the Greek nationalist perspective, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a balanced encyclopedia, not an outlet to vent resentment against the Ottoman and Turkish nationalist elites. 2. The sentence "It was instigated by the government of the Ottoman Empire against the Greek population of the Empire and it included massacres, forced deportations involving death marches, summary expulsions, arbitrary execution, and the destruction of Christian Orthodox cultural, historical, and religious monuments" should be put as a quotation verbatim of Law 2014, not as a fact. Law doesn't even write about the whole population of the Ottoman Empire, but only about "Christian Greeks in Asia Minor". 3. The sentence "Thus by the end of the 1919–22 Greco-Turkish War, most of the Greeks of Asia Minor had either fled or had been killed" is not a logical consequence of the preceding ones ("Some, especially those in Eastern provinces, took refuge in the neighbouring Russian Empire"). Also, there is no reference to the Greek policies that led to the 1919–22 Greco-Turkish War, falsely giving the impression that the population exchange between Greece and Turkey is somewhat related to the events occurred during the First World War. 4. It is incorrect to omit that the IASG resolution was passed with controversy. 5. It is incorrect to conflate the persecution of Pontic Greeks with other Ottoman Greek communities living in different parts of the Ottoman Empire. 6. The map currently used in the Background section has a spelling mistake ("Mediteranean"), displays debatable names (it should at least be "Constantinople", and perhaps it should have "Konya" and "Kayseri"). The Demotic Greek-speaking area is somewhat exaggerated. The caption should state more clearly that the shaded areas include areas where Greek speakers were a minority. 7. The background section needs to be expanded. Notes about Homer, Strabo, the Hellenistic koiné, or the Komnenos dynasty are almost totally irrelevant to the article, while there is insufficient mention to the demise of the Ottoman Empire after the Tanzimat and in the age of nationalisms. There is not even a mention of the Balkan Wars as a possible prodrome to policies and campaigns of ethnic homogenization.

On a more personal level, I believe it is extremely incorrect to attack all other Wikipedia contributors who do not share a pro-Greek nationalist POV. I respect the sorrow of those who were persecuted and their descendants, but, as stated above, Wikipedia is supposed to be a balanced encyclopedia, not an outlet to vent resentment against the Ottoman and Turkish nationalist elites. It should be correct to maintain a balanced wording, including the recognition that the scholarly debate within the epistemic community is ongoing. Please do not transform Wikipedia into a platform for propaganda. It doesn't bring anything good. 87.9.140.146 (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, first of all, if you want to get taken seriously around here, tone down the aggro by several notches. Rants about "Greek nationalist POV" are unnecessary and a non-starter. Regarding the points you raise:
 * 1. It's true the resolution was not passed unanimously, but it did pass with 83% support, which is overwhelming. Moreover this is stated in the article, and dissenting positions are mentioned as well, so I really don't see that anything is missing or needs to be changed.
 * 2. That sentence is very very easy to source, and we could easily back it with a dozen sources. In fact the sentence in the lede doesn't even need citations at all, because everything in it is sourced in the article to a multitude of sources.  As such I don't see the slightest need for it to "be put as a quotation verbatim of Law 2014" as you put it.  All the information in it is 100% factual and sourced. Your point about the distinction between the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire and the Greeks of Asia Minor is also meaningless, since by 1914 pretty much all Greeks left in the Ottoman Empire were in Asia Minor, the sole exception being those of Constantinople.
 * 3. Those that sought refuge in the Russian Empire of course "fled", so I'm not sure what you're on about. The rest of your point comes dangerously close to justifying the genocidal acts, even though the war began in 1919 and the atrocities against the Greeks began long before then.  It is also original research, and therefore moot.
 * 4. As mentioned earlier, the article states the resolution did not pass unanimously, and dissenting views are included.
 * 5. Why? Same policy, same people, same methods, same result.  The genocide of the Pontic Greeks part of the genocide of the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire.
 * 6. The map is sourced, so your claim that it exaggerates areas where Greek speakers lived is original research. The caption also states that "Shaded regions do not indicate that Greek-speakers were a majority." I don't see how that could be any clearer. If you feel some spelling needs to be changed, you are welcome to contact the creator of the map and inform him of your request.
 * 7. A brief discussion of the Greek presence in Asia Minor is not irrelevant, and it's only one paragraph anyway. I don't see anything wrong with that.  It's true that we could expand the background section and include stuff about the Ottoman empire in the 19th century.  You are welcome to propose properly sourced additions on the talkpage and we can take it from there.  Your current request it very vague and sounds more like complaining, which is a non-starter.  Please be specific. Athenean (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Quality of sources
In reading over the discussion of Kostopoulos above, I see that everyone here agrees that sources should be of good quality, ideally peer reviewed. So this is a good opportunity to do some cleaning of the page.

The letter from the "International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples" to the UN Economic and Social Council seems particularly weak. The quality of the writing and rhetoric in the letter pretty much speaks for itself. It is not well referenced. And its central point is mostly about the situation of Pontian refugees in the CIS. It gives no source for the 350,000 number, let alone an independent source.

So I am removing this passage. --Macrakis (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your well-reasoned edit. I would also like to point out to the use of Avedian's unpublished master's thesis, as we don't usually consider unpublished materials to be reliable and the level expected at such an article should frankly be at least a PhD thesis. --GGT (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
Dr.K. removed a large chunk of sourced content based on Tasos Kostopoulos's 2007 book Polemos kai ethnokatharse (Greek: Πόλεμος και εθνοκάθαρση) I added yesterday to the article noting that "Such sweeping changes to the article based on a single source need discussion on talk". I restored this part of the article asking Dr.K. to raise any specific objections he might have to the talk page before removing sourced content. I also added an estimation of the number of Pontic Greek casualties between 1916-1923 based on an article published in the scholarly journal Journal of Modern Greek Studies concurring with that of Kostopoulos. A short while later Athenean removed both the content sourced with references to Kostopoulos's book and the one referring to the Journal of Modern Greek Studies. His edit summary reads: "WP:FRINGE Greek leftist sources that contradict mainstream scholarship".

To call the Journal of Modern Greek Studies a "leftist source" is merely ludicrous and I will not deal with that. Regarding Kostopoulos: Athenean's claim betrays a confusion of two different levels of being on the "fringe". A scholar's political affiliation might not be very popular, but this does not place his or her scholarly views on the scholarly fringe. On the contrary, what might be a fringe opinion among politicians or within a certain society is not necessarily a fringe opinion in either the international or local scholarly community. A Turkish scholar regarding the Armenian Genocide a genocide is in the fringe with reference to the predominant view among Turks but not so with regards to the international consensus of historians. Similarly, Kostopoulos's views on the matter are shared by, among others, Columbia university Professor of History Mark Mazower and the leading living authority on the Armenican genocide, Taner Akcam. These are simply not fringe figures of the global historical community.

A Google search would suffice to demonstrate that Kostopoulos's Polemos kai ethnokatharse, along with his other writings, is recognized as belonging in the "mainstream" as it is regularly being used as a reference work for the issues it discusses by contemporary mainstream scholarship -- see, for example,, , , ,.

What's more, Kostopoulos's book has been reviewed by academics and in scientific journals garnering high praise. Sia Anagnostopoulou in her review of the book (in Ho Polites, issue 160, November 2007, pp. 56-7) states that Kostopoulos "clears the landscape" (Greek: "ξεκαθαρίζει το τοπίο"), as he bases his study "on rich archival material, testimonies of soldiers and officers, of locals inhabitants of conflict zones and constantly cross-checking the numerous sources he has gathered" (Greek: "σε πλούσιο αρχειακό υλικό, σε μαρτυρίες στρατιωτών και αξιωματικών, σε μαρτυρίες των ντόπιων πληθυσμών των εμπόλεμων περιοχών και διασταυρώνοντας συνεχώς τις πολυάριθμες πηγές που συγκέντρωσε"). Alexis Heraclides, teaching in the Political Science and History department of Panteion University, commends it as "timely and well-documented" (Greek: "επίκαιρο και τεκμηριωμένο"). Hercules MIllas, reviewing it for historein, praises the impartiality of Kostopoulos's account and writes that, specifically with reference to the "Pontic Greek Genocide", Kostopoulos "successfully shows how tragic stories have been exaggerated and clichés invented in the intervening decades," as "[t]here was no intention of imposing a ‘final solution’ in the case of the Greeks, who underwent ethnic cleansing," contrary to what happenned to the Armenians [historein, vol. 9 (2009), pp. 207-10].

This seems to be as close to the mainstream as it gets. One is free not to like it, but this is no reason to remove it from the article. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The Kostopulos book is clearly controversial. According to this source for example, the book thesis is that it "presents the Greeks overall as criminals and all the other people in the area  as victims of the Greeks" while this source on the left is praising it as debunking the mythology of the state ideological mechanisms. The controversies presented in this book have not been accepted by mainstream academic critics. That it was published in the Journal of Modern Greek Studies doesn't mean that the entire thesis of the author has been accepted as fact. Also, according to Research Gate the impact factor of the journal is currently zero meaning that this publication has no current academic impact let alone any standing in specialist historiography dealing with genocides. Much more critical acceptance by mainstream genocide scholar historians is needed before the controversial facts presented by the author are fit to be showcased in this article. Until such time as it is accepted by mainstream academics, presenting these views in the article is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Your edit-warring to add this POV to the article should cease because it has become disruptive.  Dr.   K.  16:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * First, it would be wrong to treat the impact factor appearing on ResearchGate.net as the sole or even a valid criterion for a journal's impact and deduce that the Journal of Modern Greek Studies has "no current academic impact". The site's impact factor calculator is obviously problematic when it comes to a number of historical journals. See, for example, the resutls it provides for journals such as Modern Intellectual History (pubished by Cambridge UP), Journal of the History of Ideas (published by University of Pennsylvania Press), Holocaust and Genocide Studies (published by Oxford UP) or Journal of Genocide Reseach, all (!) of which falsely appear to have zero impact -- incidentally, the last two are currently being used in the article. If one were to form a sound opinion on the impact of the Journal of Modern Greek Studies, it would be advisable to consult other, more credible indexes -- such as Scimago, in which JMGS appears to be faring not bad at all for an over-specialized scientific journal restricting itself to only one period of one small nation's history.


 * Second, the "sources" you link to [one of the two titled "Blasphemy against the fatherland" (sic)] are both pieces of *political* criticism, written by persons stating absolutely no scholarly or historical qualifications and published in either a "political" journal and a blog. They do not matter at all in the process of determining the scholarly value of Kostopoulos's book. What should be taken into account, per WP:RS, is not if the book is "controversial" from a political point of view, but whether the book "has been vetted by the scholarly community [and] is regarded as reliable". As demonstrated above, Kostopoulos's study is not only regarded a reliable historical study, but it has received laudatory comments from academics and in scientific journals, where it is presented as a fine piece of scholarship and deemed "successful" particularly in showing that the "genocide" is more accurately described as "ethnic cleansing". Kostopoulos is, thus, regarded by his peers himself as a specialist when it comes (among other historical matters) to the case of the persecution of Ottoman Greeks in the 1910s and '20s, as evidenced by their approval in reviews and their references to his work. I think you fail to take into consideration (and I repeat) that his interpretation of the persecution of Ottoman Greeks as a case of "ethnic cleansing" and not of a "genocide" is in accordance with that of publications in world-respected academic publishing houses and, perhaps more importantly, also with the outcomes of the research of the leading living authority on the Armenian Genocide and generally Ottoman and Turkish policies towards Christians in the period, Taner Akçam. On top of that, this is a position endorsed in the Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, in the relevant chapter of which no discussion is to be found of a "Greek genocide", but of "ethnic cleansing of Greeks". Hence, material drawing on Kostopoulos's book (and Voutira's JMGS article) can and should be included in the article. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)
 * Firstly, calling out other users as disruptive hardly helps build a constructive discussion. However, while I concur that the removal of sourced information without due justification is unacceptable, I do call upon Ashmedai 119 to refrain from any further reverts at this point and do agree that the previous ones were rather unconstructive.
 * I am rather ignorant on the topic of Greek historiography. However, a careful look as an outsider reveals that this book has been praised by at least two highly reputable scholars and has been cited numerous times in books published by highly reputable publishing houses such as Edinburgh University Press and Routledge. On the other hand, the author of the Nea Politiki article has not been cited and I cannot find any English-language resources on which I can assess the journal. As such, we have a critical review whose impact I cannot establish as an outsider (this is not to say it should be disregarded). That a left wing page praises Kostopoulos is irrelevant, pretty much the same as a right wing page that may praise any author here; it has no scholarly weight. This, if I can daresay, gives me the view that this book is indeed accepted as mainstream historiography with some isolated criticism. Dr.K. has not made any real case to counter Ashmedai's evidence or that Kostopoulos' views are actually rejected by mainstream academics, and unless a level of rejection encountered by denalists such as Lowry and McCarthy is established, a removal is not appropriate. At worst, his views should be presented in the way we currently present Horton's work, which remains in the article despite scathing criticism from very eminent scholars.
 * The argument from the impact factor and "acceptance of views" is rather puzzling. This article makes extensive use of primary sources, an unpublished master's thesis and other journals whose impact factors are zero according to ResearchGate (Journal of Genocide Research, used to convey a crucial view by Schaller and Zimmerer that there is obvious genocidal quality here, Genocide Studies and Prevention) to make significant claims. The impact and the reception of the work of other scholars in the same section, e.g. Hatzidimitriou, who arrives at a very high figure, has never been examined, and Hatzidimitriou's assertion has not even been peer reviewed. This of course does not invalidate Dr.K.'s point, there is obviously a lot of merit in this argument, but this implies that a major re-examination of the article is necessary and that quite a lot of removal is due, and it is puzzling to see that this evaluation has not been extended to other zero-impact journals in the past.
 * "That it was published in the Journal of Modern Greek Studies doesn't mean that the entire thesis of the author has been accepted as fact" is also a curious argument. Strictly speaking true, but the same can be said about Jones' (who is not even an expert on the period's history in the region) astronomical estimate of 750,000, which is not supported by any other scholar in this field or by any substantial calculation/evidence. Let alone the fact that a substantial portion of the article is based on primary sources, let alone peer reviewed journals of Johns Hopkins University. And again, no argument has been made to show that there is a substantial, non-isolated non-acceptance of this view, contrary to evidence for acceptance. Voutira's estimate, being at least peer-reviewed, is actually much more acceptable than others in the section. Personal skepticism alone is not grounds for removal.
 * Apologies for the bulkiness of this comment, and apologies in advance if I have erred in any of my statements/inferences. --GGT (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is obviously a highly charged and political topic, where it is difficult to get a dispassionate, scholarly approach.
 * What's more, none of the contemporary (primary) sources can be read at face value: the Ottoman ones (Talat Pasha) are full of evasions and euphemisms; the European ones are often reflexively sympathetic to the Christians and hostile to the Ottomans both for cultural and for geopolitical reasons; and of course the Greek politicians and bureaucrats of the time have their own mentality coloring their writing. So it is important to have a critical eye; and Kostopoulos seems to have that. Beyond that, all the countries in the region have, over time, created a narrative for themselves extolling their own history, a narrative that is widely distributed in schoolbooks and popular literature. Contradicting that narrative is bound to cause controversy.
 * Now, I haven't read Kostopoulos, and have only skimmed some of the criticisms mentioned here, but it is clear that many of the attacks on him are because the reviewers don't like his conclusions. I also saw the edit comment which wants to remove him because he is a "leftist source", as though WP excludes some parts of the political spectrum in its coverage.
 * Getting back to Wikipedia policy, I'll recall that our fundamental policy of WP:NPOV says that we "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views" on a topic. Yes, of course, they have to be "significant" views and published in "reliable sources", but calling something WP:FRINGE because some editors don't like it or because it is "leftist" or because there have been vehement denunciations of it by its political opponents doesn't make it "fringe".
 * Some form of the Kostopoulos material (maybe not exactly the text that was added) does belong in the article. --Macrakis (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that Kostopoulos claims contradict mainstream scholarship on the issue. For example, this  is clearly bunk. The mainstream view is that a) what happened to the Greeks of Pontus was genocide, and b) the casualties were of the order of 350,000-360,000.  This is backed by sources such as Adam Jones, Rudolf Rummel, Merrill Peterson, the IAGS, and others.  Are we to believe that all these sources made the same mistake as Valavanis?  Kostopoulos is a far-left Greek academic with a minimal publication record  (I only see 5 publications, each cited only a handful of times). As far as I can tell, the only "praise" for Kostopoulos comes from -surprise- fellow far-left Greek academics.  I have yet to see actual evidence of "praise" from the more prominent names mentioned here.  His book is not peer-reviewed but published by Βιβλιόραμα, a Marxist Greek publisher .  Some have said that his political affiliation is irrelevant.  I beg to differ, it is very relevant.  The Greek far-left has something of an obsession with the events of 1914-1922, most notoriously exemplified by the much-ridiculed "συνοστιμός" quip by Maria Repousi and the latest outburst that "it was ethnic cleansing but not genocide" by Nikos Filis (neither of them historians, but didn't stop them from dabbling to inflame this highly charged issue).  The fact that Kostopoulos a) contradicts mainstream scholarship and b) has clear ideological baggage places him in WP:FRINGE territory indeed.  Macrakis is right in one thing:  This is a highly charged and political topic.  Which is all the more reason to avoid highly partisan sources with a clear political agenda, and stick to reliable and non-partisan sources. Athenean (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. I add that there is an element of ideological motivation/bias in Kostopoulos's writings which should be further evaluated and analysed, with the help of other reliable sources, before any of it goes into the article. In any case, I will be brief by necessity, as I will be on the road for some time, with sporadic Internet access. I may come back to this discussion as wifi access/time allows. Thank you all. Dr.   K.  15:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * My response is rather long, and I hope you will bear with me. I first respond regarding the disagreement regarding the number of 350,000 casualties in the Pontus region: Athenean only contributes his/her profession of disbelief that a number of reliable sources could possibly make the same error in reproducing Valavanis's number to justify the removal of Kostopoulos's and Voutira's point on the discrepancy of the number with population statistics. However, a WP editor's disbelief in the veracity of a point made in a RS is of no significance in determining whether this point should be included in an article and should not be a matter of concern in this discussion. I point, however, that this situation that troubles Athenean is easily explained by the reliance of scholars and lobbyists for the "genocide" POV who are not themselves engaged in historical research on Fotiadis's work, which has been the work of reference for the matter in these circles. As Kostopoulos notes, Valavanis's numbers are uncritically reproduced in Fotiadis's work. As even Speros Vryonis (who shares Fotiadis's point of view on the suitability of using the term "genocide" for the persecution of Ottoman Greeks) admits, Fotiadis has a cavalier attitude with the numbers he cites, remarking that in Fotiadis's work "it is not always clear whether the total numbers refer to conscriptions in Pontus or to more general figures of Greeks conspricted everywhere." ("Greek Labor Battalions in Asia Minor," in Richard Hovannisian (ed.), The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies, (Transaction Publishers, 2007), p. 287). One might not accept this as a valid exaplanation of why Valavanis's numbers are being reproduced, one might even discard Vryonis's criticism of Fotiadis, or doubt that Kostopoulos's book and Voutira's peer-reviewed article are correct in their criticism of Valavanis's confused calculations, but this is no reason to exclude one side of this scholarly discussion from being presented in the article.


 * I now come to the matter of the alleged political character of Kostopoulos's scholarship and, then, to its position in relation to the "mainstream" of historical scholarship. There is a grain of truth (actually, two grains) in what Athenean writes. First, Kostopoulos's political views -to the extent that I can judge from his public appearances and talks- seem to be firmly on the left and sympathetic to Marxism. Second, the persecution of Ottoman Greeks is an issue of Greek history that has become highly politicised in Greek politics and more broadly in Greek society, especially after the issuance of two Parliament decreees in 1994 and 1998 recognizing two genocides and the 2014 enactment of a law forbidding the "intentional ... approval, debasemnt or malevolent denial" (Law 4285/2014, article 2) of Parliament-recognized genocides.


 * But, merely for a scholar to have an express political position does not mean that his scholarly work is determined by it. And, to acknowledge and be aware of the politicization of a historical issue does not warrant relegating scholars and academics that support one of the two sides of the discussion to that of politicians, and of reliable (per WP:RS) scholarly sources into political pamphlets, as done by Athenean with Millas's review in historein -"an international, peer-reviewed, open-access electronic journal", not a far-left publication- which praises Kostopoulos for succesfully demonstrating the inapplicability of the category "genocide" to the persecution of Ottoman Greeks. At the same time Athenean omits any consideration of political motivation of the scholarly work related to the genocide POV. I remind that, for example, the most extensive work published in Greek advocating the appropriateness of the term "genocide", written by Kostas Fotiadis, an academic and activist, was far from being unrelated to politics, having been commissioned by the Greek Parliament in the discussion of the 1994 bill recognizing the persecution of Pontic Greeks as a genocide. Moreover, the "far left" theory put forward by Athenean and endorsed by Dr.K. is not borne out by the facts.


 * It is just not true that "the only "praise" (sic) for Kostopoulos comes from -surprise- fellow far-left Greek academics". Alexis Heraclides, to whom I referred to above, cannot possibly be called a member of the far-left, having served as an advisor for the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs (according to his CV) from 1983 to 1997, that is under centre-left and centre-right administrations. Renée Hirschon of Oxford University, who refers her readers "especially" to Kostopoulos's book "for a detailed investigation into Balkan and Asia Minor population losses and displacements between 1912 and 1922" (in "History's Long Shadow: The Lausanne Treaty and Contemporary Greco-Turkish Relations", in In the long shadow of Europe: Greeks and Turks in the era of Postnationalism, p. 81), is not a "far left Greek academic". (NB: Hirschon's commendation of Kostopoulos is in marked contrast with her treatment of (truly controversial) Justin McCarthy -mentioned above by GGT-, who is presented in the same page as being "of disputed reliability"). Nor are Oxford reseacher Othon Anastasakis and Oxford Professor Kalypso Nicolaidis, co-editors of the volume in which Hirschon's essay appears, "far left". Nor is Thomas Gallant, also referred above and disregarded by Athenean, who refers to Kostopoulos in his seminal volume in the Edinburgh University History of the Greeks or the many others who refer to his work. (I note parenthetically that -just as the impact index mentioned above by Dr.K. with regards to JMGS- Google Scholar is not an entirely reliable tool for assessing the references to Kostopoulos's work: most works published in Greek are not being digitized at the moment and are thus found beyond the scope of Google's search engines. It is likewise not reliable for providing an exhaustive list of Kostopoulos's scholarly publications, omitting, e.g., his articles in Ta Historika, one of Greece's most well-established scientific journals in the field of historical research, or his contributions to collections of essays and edited volumes). Similarly, EHESS-affiliated researcher Nikos Sigalas of the Institut français d'études anatoliennes and Alexandre Toumakrine of the Orient-Institut Istanbul are not writing as "far-left Greek academics" (Sigalas is not far left, as far as I know, and Toumakrine is not even Greek), when in their bibliographical review on the treatment of minorities in the Balkans and in Turkey in the peer-reviewed European Journal of Turkish Studies, after discussing the "great merit" (fr: "grand mérite") of Kostopoulos's book in question and the author's use of "rich archival materials" (fr: "riches matériaux d’archives"), compliment it for highlighting "the dialectic between practices of violence of the different states engaged in the Balkan Wars, the First World War and the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922, allowing an exit from the comparmentalization of national historiographical perspectives" (fr: "met ainsi l’accent sur la dialectique entre les pratiques de violence des différents États impliqués dans les guerres balkaniques, la Première Guerre mondiale et la guerre gréco-turque de 1919-1922, en permettant de sortir du cloisonnement des perspectives historiographiques nationales").


 * Furthermore, Athenean's other unsupported assertion, that Βιβλιόραμα ("Vivliorama") is "a Marxist Greek publisher" is also false. "Vivliorama"'s publishing activity is focused on historical studies, but also includes books on, for example, Mount Athos or (its most recent publication) on freedom of speech, a collection of essays whose authors include such fringe Marxist figures as eminent jurist Nikos Alivizatos (who is also -far from a Marxist- a recent candidate for the Presidency of the Hellenic Republic with the support of centrist-liberal / centre-left parties) and Stavros Zoumboulakis, an intellectual, philosopher and theologian and currently president of the board of the National Library of Greece. As far as historical publications are concerned, "Vivliorama"'s catalogue includes works by many Greek academic historians -- I stopped counting after finding twelve Greek public university history academics in their list of publications and Sotiris Rizas, a historian based at the research center of the Academy of Athens. Another of Vivliorama's historical publications is the multi-volume History of Greece in the 20th century, contributors to which include Evanthis Chatzivasileiou, a member of scientific council of "Institute of Democracy Konstantinos Karamanlis, i.e. the think tank not of a Marxist far left grouping, but of conservative right-wing New Democracy.


 * I am sorry to say that Athenean is playing fast and loose with facts in the overall articulation of his theory. Maria Repousi is taken to examplify the "Greek far-left", even though she served for more than two years (5/2012-1/2015) as an MP for a centre-left social democratic party, Democratic Left, which spent a year supporting in parliament a predominantly conservative governemnt. We are even informed by Athenean that Repousi is not a historian, despite the fact that (as stated in her University webpage) she has a Ptyhio (=BA) in History from the University of Athens, a Maîtrise en histoire from Paris IV (Paris-Sorbonne), and a DEA and a Doctorat in History from Paris I (Panthéon-Sorbonne)). All this testifies to a tendency to make disparaging assertions that fly in the face of reality for scholars and academics not agreeing with the genocide point of view.


 * An equally arbitrary and flawed reasoning prevails in Athenean's personal assessment of what constitutes the mainstream of historical scholarship with regards to the question whether it is correct to consider the persecution of Ottoman Greeks a case of genocide. For each of the sources he refers to, another can be found of equal and greater prominence. In addition to Taner Akcam, the leading authority on genocidal policies of the Yount Turks (whom I mentioned above, and whose work was reviewed in the Journal of Genocide Research, vol. 15, issue 4, p. 467 and stated to have the effect of demonstrating "why" Ottoman Greeks "were spared genocide") and Mark Mazower, there are publications from first-class academic presses advocating a position that is at odds with what Athenean presents as mainstream. To Manus Midlarsky's work, published in Cambridge University Press and already cited in the article, one could add, for example, genocide scholar Donald Bloxham's The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians (Oxford University Press, 2007) which speaks of the "ethnic cleansing" of Greeks and explains that Kemalist atrocities were "not of the same scale or systematization as the CUP’s 1915–16 crime" (p. 106) and that the Armenian persecution was "more intense, and the state intent more explicitly murderous" compared to "the post-war purge of 'ethnic Greeks' from Anatolia and the reciprocal purge of Muslims from Greek territory" given that "in the Greek case, inter migration was the ultimate end" (p. 10). Moreover, there are reference works from equally reputed academic presses which do not agree with the supposed "mainstream". In the discussion of "genocide at the twilight of the Ottoman Empire" in the Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, for example, there is no mention of a genocide, but of "ethnic cleansing" of Greeks (p. 369). Similarly, I can detect no mention of a "Greek genocide" in the the relevant chapter by genocide scholar Uğur Ümit Üngör on "Genocide and the end of the Ottoman empire" in the recent Routledge History of Genocide, where there is, though, a section on the "Genocide against Ottoman Muslims". Sources like these are arbitrarily and unjustifiably excluded from consideration by Athenean in the determination of what constitutes the "mainstream" scholarship in the matter.


 * Furthermore, Wikipedia policy cautions against relying on the opinion of WP editors to determine the stance of the scholarly community on a given issue, advocating that relative statements are sourced. Such a sourced statement that the "mainstream view" on the two points mentioned by Athenean is what Athenean and Dr.K. consider "mainstream" has not been produced and -I venture to claim- will not be, as it does not exist. The evidence cited above, which Dr.K. and Athenean continue to diregard or brand as "Greek far left", is overwhelming. Contrary to Athenean's and Dr.K,'s claims, descriptions of the state of affairs in the scholarly community found in secondary, reliable sources point to the opposite direction. As observed by historian Erik Sjöberg, the IAGS 2007 resolution recognizing a "Greek genocide", even though it "provided the claim [that the persecution of Ottoman Greeks should be described as a "genocide"] with some academic clout", "does not mean that the history it alludes to is well known and/or generally accepted as an undisputed case of genocide among the international and Greek scholarly community". (Battlefields of memory: The Macedonian conflict and Greek historical culture (2011), p. 122). Given that, per Sjöberg, what you consider a "mainstream view" is not generally accepted, that is, given that the persecution of Ottoman Greeks is not "generally accepted [in scholarly circles] as an undisputed case of genocide", this WP article should conform to this reality. As far as the original point of this discussion is concerned, this means that the material from Kostopoulos's book should be reinstated. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Very impressive, but not good enough. Regarding the figure of 360,000, yes, that is the mainstream view.  I don't know what you're trying to prove in that second paragraph of yours, but it's not just Fotiadis and Valavanis that quote that figure.  A wide array of scholars, from Adam Jones, to Paul Pierpaoli , to Alan Witehorn  to Rudolf Rummel (the "foremost expert on genocide statistics" in the words of Hannibal Travis . Rummel's figures vary a bit but they are in that range), to Merrill Peterson, and others.  The view that it was genocide is even more widely accepted (the IAGS resolution passed with a whopping 85% - if that's not overwhelming I don't know what is).  I could drop even more names, such as Mark Levene , but you get the idea.  It's true that the view that it was genocide is not universal and that it was not as terrible as what happened to the Armenians, but it is the mainstream view that it was genocide.  Presenting 2-3 cherry picked dissenting views as you have done does not disprove that.  What makes me distrustful is that you are probably familiar with all these sources that say it was genocide, but choose to ignore them, instead carefully cherry-picking 2-3 sources that back your point. Regarding Kostopoulos himself, his book is not peer-reviewed, and in fact one can only wonder why he hasn't published this in an international peer-reviewed journal (because it keeps getting rejected?).  As for the "praise" for his work, I see a lot of impressive names being dropped, but again the only actual evidence of "praise" I see is from Greek far left types or individuals associated with the Panteion, a hotbed of far left radical revisionism (and a second rate institution even by Greek standards) .  As for playing "fast and loose with the facts", I think you are guilty of that yourself. Your definition of far left is a bit self-servingly narrow - for example Maria Repousi is definitely far left (to characterize her as "center-left" is laughable), and not a historian (hasn't published any historical works as far as I can tell, leftist agitprop notwithstanding).  Having a degree in history does not make you a historian. And I am 100% right when I say that this radical revisionism comes from the Greek far left, and you know it. The Greek far left has this peculiar obsession with the events of 1914-1922 (why I don't know, but it's not really relevant), and the epicenter of this revisionism is the Panteion University.  Bottom line is, the view that happened to the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire in 1914-1922 was genocide is mainstream (though not unanimous), as is the figure of ~360,000 dead in the Pontus (not unanimous either, but still mainstream).  I am flexible regarding other matters, but these two points are red lines. As a general observation, it is my impression that over the years the definition of what constitutes genocide in academic circles is becoming broader, not narrower.  For example the Yazidis and Bosnians in recent years suffered far fewer casualties than anyone in did in 1914-1922, but more and more people are calling what they suffered genocide.  Kostopoulos and the Greek far-left are fighting a losing battle here, as the years go on I expect more and more scholars to come around to the view that what the Pontians suffered was genocide.  The passage of the IAGS resolution for example was unthinkable decades ago.  Athenean (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We do not write articles based on expectations, we do not base our use of sources based on our personal observations of "losing battles". Nobody, I believe, is denying that the view that what happened to Pontic Greeks was genocide is mainstream accepted by a significant part of mainstream academia. It is indeed supported by several mainstream historians (Jones, Schaller/Zimmerer, Bartrop). However, I believe that Ashmedai 119 has clearly established that the view that what happened to Pontic Greeks was not genocide is also mainstream accepted by a significant part of mainstream academia. 85% support for the IAGS resolution hardly concludes this academic debate, indeed, we need sources that assess the implications of the IAGS resolution on this academic debate to be able to say that; that this resolution was passed has no binding implication that this was indeed what happened and the work of Sjöberg points out exactly to the antithesis of this. We need to base our work on the extent to which views are found in literature, not only IAGS resolutions; if the view that this was genocide had such a universal acceptance in scholarly works, I highly doubt that anyone would be disputing that. And on top of that, to accuse Ashmedai 119 of cherry picking is rather absurd. One does not have to cherry pick to find very reputable scholars calling this an "ethnic cleansing" or outright disputing the view it was a genocide: a significant part of the section detailing what happened to Pontic Greeks in this article is actually based on the work of Akçam. Akçam, Midlarsky, Mazower, Bloxham, Üngör are mainstream scholars who have all had a significant impact on the field of genocide studies. And I would like to add to this Benjamin Lieberman in Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe (p. 97 presents a substantiated argument that "Greeks experienced persecution just short of full-scale ethnic cleansing), Norman Naimark in Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-century Europe (Harvard University Press, he calls the fate of Greeks "ethnic cleansing" as opposed to the fate of Armenians, which he establishes as genocide). Even Mark Levene, cited by Athenean, calls the events of 1914 "ethnic cleansing" and later states for 1922 "for those who could not or would not flee, the situation was suggestive not simply of ethnic cleansing but wholesale genocide", but never refers to an actual Pontic Greek genocide in his work Devastation: Volume I: The European Rimlands 1912-1938. These authors are not cherry picked, they are leading international authorities in this field, they are numerous (not 2-3), they have written extensively on this topic, being cited in this very article, and to claim that a view shared by Akçam, Midlarsky, Mazower, Bloxham, Üngör, Naimark and Lieberman is a fringe view is simply absurd. No IAGS resolution can change this.
 * I do believe Ashmedai 119's latest comment has established that Kostopoulos' work is held in high regard not by just fringe figures, Hirschon's views and their contrast with her criticism of McCarthy sum this up for me. For a source to be excluded from coverage by Wikipedia, their work needs to have been criticised by an overwhelming number of scholars to the extent that it is cast out from mainstream academia, as is the case with McCarthy. There is no evidence that this has happened to Kostopoulos (whilst there is good evidence of praise by respectable scholars, Hirschon and Heraclides, who cannot simply be dismissed as "leftist types" in an argumentum ad lapidem), and absolutely no evidence that this happened with Voutira's peer-reviewed article. As pointed out previously, it is not our job as Wikipedians to be the judges of academic discussions and exercise discretionary power based on our conclusions. Unless there are strong criticisms that put the reliability of these sources in question, especially with Voutira, not to include them simply goes against the principles of NPOV and slants towards WP:IDONTLIKEIT, especially when the highly criticised rhetoric of Horton remains in this article. And finally, to call a university, especially one of "the three oldest universities of political sciences in Europe" according to the article, a "hotbed of far left radical revisionism" needs some serious verification. (For the lack of time, I cannot detail my argumentation in this comment any more at the moment, nor can I go into the issue of death toll.) --GGT (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you finally accept that it is the mainstream view that it was genocide, however you should be aware that two mutually exclusive views cannot both be mainstream. If the view that "it was genocide" is mainstream, that means the view that "it wasn't genocide" cannot also be mainstream.  Second, ethnic cleansing and genocide are not mutually exclusive.  Some authors may use both as the need arises.  The fact that you list some authors who use the term "ethnic cleansing" does not prove that these authors are in the "it wasn't genocide" camp.  Only authors that explicitly state that it wasn't genocide count.  While you do list some impressive names, they are dwarfed by the list of authors that firmly state that this was genocide.  Of the majority of scholars that have studied this obscure subject in depth, it would seem the vast majority do term it as genocide, see here .  For every genocide, there is always a denialist camp.  The situation here is similar to that of the Armenian Genocide in that one could just as easily reel off a list of impressive names that deny the fact that it was genocide (McCarthy, Shaw, Lewis, Lowry, and many others).  But that does not mean those views are anywhere near mainstream or need to be included in the Armenian Genocide article (and they are not included, for good reason). As for the IAGS resolution, you do realize the IAGS is the premier association of genocide scholars, and as such carries tremendous weight.  There is simply no better way to assess what the consensus is among the community of genocide scholars whole, and I think it's pretty clear where that consensus lies.  The resolution was passed overwhelmingly in favor, and accurately reflects the distribution of how scholars stand in this debate (the list of scholars that maintain it was genocide dwarfs the list of those that don't).  The fact that you (or rather, Ashmedai) found a single dissenting voice (Sjoberg) does not negate it, nor will endless argumentation. Going through the talkpage archives, I also note that you and Ashmedai have been trying to remove the "genocide" from this article for years now (since 2011 and 2013, respectively).  What makes you think you will succeed this time?  The publication of a non-peer reviewed book by a minor left wing Greek academic (which hasn't even been translated into English, so you can't read it - pity)? Athenean (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's central WP:NPOV policy says that we report "all of the significant views", not just the "mainstream" or "consensus" view.
 * And in fact, McCarthy's figures are mentioned (as are his critics) in the Armenian genocide article. --Macrakis (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * And Wikipedia's WP:DUE policy states that If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.. Denial of the Greek genocide, anyone? Athenean (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * McCarthy's figures are indeed mentioned in Armenian Genocide - a single sentence on his numbers in an otherwise enormous article (as compared to the 5k+ of text that were added from Kostopoulos here)  - and there is a whole paragraph devoted to his critics.  But none of his denialist views are mentioned.  Nor are any of the views of the other prominent denialists.  I don't see how the situation here is any different. Athenean (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Btw, do you at least agree that the mainstream view is that it was genocide? I can't quite tell from your previous post, it's not definitive enough, so to speak. Athenean (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I detect three main points of disagreement with Athenean: the total number of casualties in the Pontus area, the scholarly status of Kostopoulos’s book, and the “mainstream view” on the question of whether the persecution of Ottoman Greeks constitutes a case of genocide. I address Athenean’s claims on these three matters in turn.

1. Regarding the Pontus death toll: there is indeed a number of reliable sources reproducing the number of 350,000 deaths. I agree that these sources should be included in the article (as they already are), the basis of their estimations explained and the extent of their acceptance made clear. But this is not a reason to exclude Kostopoulos’s and Voutiras’s criticism of the 350,000 number or to doubt for its cogency. As far as I can see -and, please, do correct me if I am wrong on this- not one of these scholars mentioned by Athenean propagating the 350,000 number has conducted research in Greek history, not one of them cites a single source in Greek. I hence doubt any of them has a working knowledge of Greek, let alone of the classicizing katharevousa necessary to delve into the 300-page 1925 Σύγχρονος Γενικὴ Ἱστορία τοῦ Πόντου of Valavanis in order to check how he first came up with the number of 350,000 deaths. They merely reproduce numbers they find in other secondary sources. Having said that, I do not see anyone having a problem with including the 350,000 estimation (which, though I cannot check it right now, I doubt is also the majority view in works by scholars working in disciplines which require primary research on the matter studied, such as Greek and Turkish history) in the article, but, again, as Macrakis notes, this is not a reason for excluding Voutira and Kostopoulos, especially given that the latter's take on the matter is singled out and approved in Millas’s review of Kostopoulos’s book in peer-reviewed historein (p. 209), where it is stated that the "seventeen tables of population statistics […] from different and conflicting sources" are "duly interpreted and explained." Along with Voutira, and given that they both agree with statistics used by other scholars, such as Alexandris, this is a significant viewpoint that should be included in the article. But, Athenean still maintains objections regarding the overall scholarly merit of Kostopoulos's book, to which I now turn.

2. First, Athenean says that Kostopoulos’s 2007 War and Ethnic Cleansing is not peer-reviewed. I am not certain of the existence or not of a peer-review process in Vivliorama, but I have to repeat that (a) this is a publishing house that has published a large number of works of numerous mainstream, Greek historians and academics. Are all these works unscholarly? Moreover, (b) Athenean again fails to address the fact that Kostopoulos's peers in the scholarly community have reviewed the book after its publication and have bestowed their adulatory comments on t in peer-reviewed reviews and publications (Sigalas, Toumarkine, Heraclides, Anagnostopoulou, Millas, Hirschon). Athnenan, asserts -without relying on any evidence whatsoever- that s/he "only see[s] actual evidence of praise from Greek far left types or individuals associated with the Panteion." However, only two of these (Heraclides and Anagnostopoulou) are Panteion-affiliated, Heraclides is definitely not far-left, Oxonian Hirschon and Toumarkine are not even Greek! Unfoundedly denigrating peer-reviewed publications and mainstream academics into "individuals" participating in a far-left conspiracy is just not a sound basis to remove material from Wikipedia.

Athenean next asks why Kostopoulos "hasn't published this in an international peer-reviewed journal" and (again without any reason) surmises that it "keeps getting rejected" from such publications. Now, surely, a 319-pages book submitted for publication in a journal -any journal!- would be certain to be rejected. The insinuation, however, of the lack of any scholarly merit of Kostopoulos's work is wrong, given that (a) his work on other historical issues has appeared in international peer-reviewed journals (see, among others, an article in French in the Cahiers Balkaniques, re-evaluating the 1908 Ottoman election), (b) as stated previously, the book has been referred to unreservedly by a number of peer-reviewed publications and reviewed in highly positive terms, and (c) Kostopoulos's denial of the plausibility of the number of 350,000 casualties in Pontus has been published in a peer-reviewed international journal specializing in Modern Greek Studies by another scholar, Voutira.

The equation of Kostopoulos’s book with the work of McCarthty on the Armenian genocide is, again, an unwarranted one. The contrary is evidenced by Hirschon's take on them (mentioned above) and the unreserved reference to Kostopoulos's book by plenty of scholars publishing in mainstream English-language publishing houses, none of which casts doubts on Kostopoulos’s scholarly methods. Yet, to fully address the equation of those who question the applicability of the term "genocide" to the sufferings of Ottoman Greeks with the denialists of the Armenian genocide one has to answer also the larger question of what is the "mainstream view" in the scholarly community concerning the nature of the persecution of Ottoman Greeks.

3. As I see it, the view that Ottoman Greeks were objects of a genocidal policy is promoted mainly by two groups of scholars: Greek historians of Pontic or Anatolian descent (mainly Enepekidis and Fotiadis, and lesser figures such as Agtzidis and Malkidis), who employ IMHO dubious historical methods in making their case, and, then, by genocide scholars, i.e. political scientists for the most part (and this is the one point in which I will have to disagree with GGT: Adam Jones is one of them, he is not a historian), who do not conduct themselves historical research, but rely on other secondary sources for their claims and conclusions. I have produced some references to mainstream scholars disagreeing with this second group, GGT added some more, and Athenean responded that he could counter these. I do not consider this a particularly fruitful way of establishing what is "mainstream" scholarly view (especially under the light of the way Athenean has been making arbitrary claims on the scholarly value of Kostopoulos's work)· each side will keep referring to other sources and endlessly debating the importance of each scholar supporting this or the opposite view, till discussing the minutest detail.

I see another such example of why this is not a very promising way of addressing the matter in Athenean’s ex silentio argument, saying that even though scholars writing in mainstream, peer-reviewed, reliable sources do not apply the term genocide, this does not necessarily mean that they do not accept it. I am very sceptical of this argument; if a campagin of persecution is widely and undisputedly considered a genocide, scholars will usually call it a genocide, it seems to me. In the context of genocide studies, in particular, to avoid using the word is loaded with meaning. Moreover, in a past discussion in this talk page Alexikoua had made the same argument for, among others, Sia Anagnostopoulou’s contribution in the 6th of the 10 vols of the History of Modern Hellenism (gr: Ιστορία του Νέου Ελληνισμού). As it has been shown now by her review of Kostopoulos's book this inference was wrong. But, I repeat, I do not expect editors to reach a consensus this way. There are good reasons, I take, to follow what is suggested in Wikipedia policy and pay heed to the description of the debate as presented in impartial secondary sources.

Athenean’s contention is that "[f]or every genocide there is always a denialist camp. The situation here is similar to that of the Armenian Genocide." The piece of evidence on which Athenean’s claim is fundamentally based is the 2007 IAGS resolution, which recognized a "Greek genocide" with a majority of over 80%. First, according to the IAGS press release back from 2007, the resolution had the support not of 80% of IAGS members, but of 80% of "IAGS members who voted". But, still, Athenean states that IAGS is "the premier association of genocide scholars, and as such carries tremendous weight," as if IAGS is an organization whose composition is a credible representation of the scholarly community and the overwhelming majority in support of the 2007 resolution reflects an analogous stance in the scholarly community. Based on this, Athenean concludes that the IAGS vote is the best "way to assess what the consensus is among the community of genocide scholars whole". Unfortunately, this is one more assertion by Athenean whose truthfulness is doubtful. As stated in Samuel Totten, The Prevention and Intervention of Genocide: An Annotated Bibliography (Routledge, 2007), p. 1097, IAGS is an organization whose "[m]embership is open to scholars, graduate students, and other interested persons worldwide". In other words, despite what is implied by its name, to become a member of IAGS you don’t have really to be a scholar, but merely a person with an interest in the field of genocide scholarship. This is verified by a visit in IAGS own website, where it is stated that "membership is open to all interested persons worldwide" and, indeed, absolutely no requirements are made for gaining membership, except for the payment of an annual or biannual fee proportional to one's income). Such an "interested member" is, for example, painter and writer Thea Halo, who is not an academic or a scholar, but her only publication in the field is a literary work, her mother's memoir of persecution. Halo, according to IAGS’s press release announcing the outcome of the vote on the 2007 resolution, is a "fellow member" of IAGS who "lobbied" (sic) for the resolution along with political scientist Adam Jones. That being the composition of IAGS membership, it is not strange that, as Sjöberg noted, despite the "academic clout" it provided the claim that the persecution of Ottoman Greeks constituted a genocide, it has failed to make it generally acceptable by scholars. Rather than relying on one vote of members of an open-door organization, such as IAGS, it would be more prudent and in accordance with the spirit of wikipedia’s policy to take into account the assessment of the field found in secondary, reliable sources, i.e., in our case, Sjöberg.

Now, Athenean is correct in noting that Sjöberg is only one such source. But, it is plain wrong to label him a "dissenting voice" disagreeing with the IAGS resolution. Sjöberg’s research does not address the question of whether the persecution of Ottoman Greeks was a genocide or not, but, as stated in the online blurb of his forthcoming monograph The Making of the Greek genocide, the product of his postdoctoral research at Stanford, he is "[n]either taking the genocide narrative for granted nor dismissing it outright." He is thus an impartial observer of the debate he sums up (a reviewer says that he demonstrates "sober balance between respect for the reality of historical trauma and critical interrogation of historians’ and activists’ methods") when saying that the genocide point-of-view is "not generally accepted" or (as he said in a recent talk of his, which seems to be reproducing material of his forthcoming book) that "mainstream historians and debaters dismiss it [the recognition of a Greek genocide] as a politically distorted memory". Athenean fails to present us with another reliable, secondary source that provides a different assessment of the scholarly landscape that agrees with his personal estimations. This is obviously because Sjöberg’s evaluation of where matters stand in the scholarly community is basically correct.

Not generally accepted internationally and dismissed by mainstream historians, the genocide POV cannot be taken to be the "mainstream view" on the matter. Other than restoring material from reliable secondary sources, like Kostopoulos and Voutira, what has minimally to be done now is to change relevant passages of the article presenting the genocide POV as undisputed reality, especially the lead, which should be rewritten to provide a balanced overview of the scholarly landscape. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To clarify, my argument here is that the arguments for and against the classification of these events as genocide are well-established and accepted as significant opinions in the mainstream academic community. Hence my use of the word "mainstream", which in no way implied that the genocide view is the dominant one. I should say "significant" instead perhaps.
 * I am particularly short on time these days, but the concerns raised by Ashmedai 119 on the IAGS are very much valid. The bottom line is: one does not require an IAGS resolution on the Armenian Genocide to establish which view is dominant regarding it. Scholars claiming that it is not genocide have been widely discredited by a large number of peers and have been sent to what we can call the fringes of the academic community. The situation is different with Seyfo as well, as one who has extensively worked on that article I can tell that the chief researchers of what happened to the Assyrians (Gaunt, Travis, Khosroeva, Kaiser) unite behind the view that it is genocide with fewer "dissenting voices". Not so here. Despite assertive dismissals of Kostopoulos, talk of the IAGS resolution and Athenean's persistent personal rhetoric, no user has to date established a level of criticism associated with the "ethnic cleansing" view that is associated with genocides of other deniers. Simple mathematics based on one resolution advocated by a political scientist and an artist cannot change that. This is not only about Kostopoulos: Akçam is simply not Lowry, Naimark is simply not Shaw (and so forth), and Athenean has failed to produce the plethora of sources he has been talking about and has failed to substantiate his argument that the sources promoting the non-genocide view are cherry picked. The idea that such prominent scholars are denialists is simply original research and such language or criticisms of Akçam etc. cannot be found in any respectable treatise on these events. No ad hominem attacks and patronising tone can change that. The reliability of Voutira has not been refuted, and the arguments for Kostopoulos' dismissal all boil down to assertions mingled with assertive personal attacks ("What makes you think you will succeed this time? The publication of a non-peer reviewed book by a minor left wing Greek academic") with no line of argument except for his and his praisers' presumed leftism (as if, as Macrakis said, that is a valid reason for exclusion) and the lack of peer review (which is an acceptable one but has not really been the major topic of the discussion above), with no comments on Hirschon's review or his being cited in very respectable publications. I do believe that we are nearing the point where evaluations by users not previously involved in this article may be useful. --GGT (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Further on my point above on this, these authors use do not use the word "genocide": Balakian (says "extermination" but I am yet to find a single mention of a Greek genocide in his works), Bloxham (see his work for more), Bjornlund (it is called a genocide in a joint work with other scholars below but he calls it "cleansing" in his peer-reviewed article), Ferguson ("massacres", contrast to "Armenian Genocide"), King, Levinson ("massacre"), Lieberman ("persecution just short of full-scale ethnic cleansing"), Midlarsky ("genocide of the Ottoman Greeks simply was not a viable option"), Psomiades, Schabas, Üngör.
 * The following scholars use the word genocide: Coleman/White, Charny, Diakonov (not a genocide scholar, known for his contributions about Ancient Near Eastern languages), Bjornlund/Meichanetsidis/Hoffman (published in Caratzas), Charny, Totten/Jacobs, Jones, Jonsson (could not find anything on his academic past in my brief search, apologies if I am erring), Mcdonnell/Moses, Pierpaoli, Rummel, Schaller/Zimmerer, Tatz/Higgins, Bartrop, Travis, Kaiser, Vallianatos, Xanthopoulou-Kyriakou, de Zayas.
 * Koromila calls it "carefully planned atrocities aimed at the Greeks' complete destruction".
 * Levene refers to "genocide or near-genocidal incidents" and names a number of events, not really enough. More on his work has been said above.
 * Panayi is rather obscure in his statement: "including genocide and deportation, to eliminate the Armenians, Greeks and Kurds remaining within Anatolia"
 * Lee's work does not look academic.
 * This reveals 11 works not referring to the events as genocide, 19 works that do. This does not include some works and scholars cited above, such as Naimark and Sjöberg. I see no vast majority here, even with "scholars that have studied this obscure subject in depth", and not all these scholars have studied this subject it depth, some are just passing mentions. This further serves to indicate that the article needs some serious re-evaluation. --GGT (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Other easily accessible works not referring to the events as genocide: Balkan Legacies of the Great War: The Past is Never Dead by Othon Anastasakis, David Madden, Elizabeth Roberts (Palgrave Macmillan, p.62, "ethnic cleansing" and "deportations"), Steven Béla Várdy's Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-century Europe, Doumanis' Before the Nation: Muslim-Christian Coexistence and Its Destruction in Late-Ottoman Anatolia (Oxford University Press, p. 8, "expulsions and forced marches"). I do believe that there are many more out there that can be found. This, I believe, puts the claim of an academic consensus into a serious question and the dispels claims of denialism. --GGT (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) @Ashmedai: If you really think Valavanis is so problematic, the simple thing to do is simply remove Valavanis, rather than clutter the article with several kilobytes of criticism of Valavanis. But I have to say I find your dismissal of everyone who considers the events of 1914-1923 as genocide on the grounds that they are either a) Pontians or b) "political scientists" to be a complete non-starter. No, you cannot not going to dismiss the likes of Rudolf Rummel, Hannibal Travis, and many others, with a simple wave of the hand on the grounds that they are "political scientists". We're talking about some of the world's leading genocide scholars here. The contention that "They merely reproduce numbers they find in other secondary sources." is simply absurd. Just to give you an example, Rudolph Rummel, one of those "political scientists" that " merely reproduces numbers they find in other secondary sources" has actually been dubbed "the foremost expert on genocide statistics" by Hannibal Travis, another leading genocide scholar. Your dismissal of the IAGS is similarly cavalier. Everyone on the executive board, advisory board, and membership committee are academics. While it's not the final arbiter, the IAGS resolution does carry weight. And while not all members may be academics, the resolution was passed overwhelmingly. But in any case, I presented a mountain of evidence to support my point that "genocide" is the mainstream view, but you totally ignored it and simply asserted Not generally accepted internationally and dismissed by mainstream historians, the genocide POV cannot be taken to be the "mainstream view" on the matter. This is deep in WP:IDHT territory. If you're going to just summarily dismiss an entire body of literature that does not conform to your view, let me know so I can stop wasting my time. Regarding Kostopoulos' book, at the danger of repeating myself, a) we cannot be certain it passed peer-review, b) Kostopoulos hasn't published these views in any peer-reviewed journal to date (no, not the whole book, of course a journal wouldn't publish a whole book, that's not what I meant),and c) the book has only been cited twice since it was published in 2007, hardly the most ringing endorsement.  Voutira is on better footing, but again, if all you're going to do is use Voutira to dismiss Valavanis, the better approach is to just remove Valavanis.

@GGT: I had a feeling the evidence I presented would become the subject of the by-now familiar semantic games and sophistry. While some of the sources presented perhaps do not use the oh-so-toxic "g-word" explicitly, can you explain to us how "extermination", and "complete destruction" are different from genocide? Can you explain how Panayi is "obscure" and Levene's explicit use the g-word is "not enough"? Second, sources that use the term "ethnic cleansing", "massacres" but do not use the g-word explicitly are not "anti g-word", so to speak. Only sources that explicitly reject' the characterization that it was genocide (such as Akcam and Naimark) count towards that end. And I see far fewer of those than those that do use the g-word explicitly, even more than the 5:1 ratio of the IAGS resolution.

To sum up: 1) the figure of 350,000-360,000 is rock solid, if the problem is Valavanis, remove Valavanis. But please don't tell me that everyone who uses the 350,000 figure based it off Valavanis, 2) we do not know whether Kostopoulos' book has passed peer review and it has only been cited twice, and 3) if this is going to turn into the familiar "g-word or no g-word" circus, the evidence is clearly in favor of the "g-word". Of course, the article can be improved in numerous ways, but a complete re-write is a non-starter. Athenean (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with the valid and well-reasoned points made by Dr. K and Athenean. Theban Halberd (talk) 06:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * @Athenean:


 * Re Kostopoulos's book: You say that it has "only been cited twice", referring to Google Scholar statistics. This is not true, and you know it -- or at least you should. In the third paragraph of my first message in this discussion I cited (and linked to Google Books for convenience of confirmation) five books citing Kostopoulos's books (and more followed, like Hirschon), all by academics publishing in highly reputable publishing houses and none of them expressing any qualms at all about Kostopoulos's book. Google Scholar, once more, is proven not a reliable source for estimations for Greek-language books (in addition to the fact that only a minority of books published in Greek are being digitized and surveyed by the service). Any doubts regarding the book's scholarly quality deriving from the suspicion that it may not have passed from a peer-review process before being published are countered by the positive verdict flowing from the combination of its endorsements in its post-publication reviews by academics. Their resounding unanimity concludes the matter; to disregard all of them and not take them into account (as you do) is just absurd.


 * On the number of the alleged 350,000 killings of Pontic Greeks: The problem is not merely Valavanis, an outdated source, a product of the atmosphere of the years immediately following the Greco-Turkish War. Valavanis's number, as was explained in the piece of prose of the article that has been unjustifiably removed, has been adopted as correct by a number of Pontic activists and contemporary Greek scholars writing (and has been the official Greek state position on the matter since 1994). Despite being patently false, it is part of the historiographical debate, and a significant viewpoint (as is the genocide POV) which has to be expounded in the discussion of the historiography on the persecution of Pontic Greeks.


 * You claim that the number of 350,000 killings of Pontic Greeks is "rock solid". The only paged reference to a RS that I see in the article is Adam Jones who (in his work cited in the article, Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (2010), 2nd. ed, p. 151, and fn. 7 in p. 174) cites as his source for the number Thea Halo's literary book (!). Enough said on Jones, methinks. You also choose to give another example, and invoke the authority of Rummel, by way of referring not to Rummel's own books, but to an essay that you link written by a professor in law, Hannibal Travis. I see that Rummel's calculations are already cited in the article, and, but instead of checking Rummel himself, you preferred to use what somebody else claims that Rummel says. The problem is not merely that a lawyer is not a historian (and that you would be much better served by using the calculations of the journal article by Klapsis that was recently added to the article). More importantly, the numbers Travis cites in pp. 180-1 (384,000 killed by the Ottomans/Young Turks + 264,000 by the Turkish nationalists) as those that allegedly "Rummel has estimated" are not the ones found in the pages of Rummel's works that he refers to (in fn. 35 in p. 190). It is truly astonishing (and an indication both of the low quality of the scholarship and either sloppiness or disregard for facts of at least some of those advocating the genocide POV), but, as anybody who actually bothers to check Rummel's works cited by Travis (in p. 190, fn. 35) will find out, upon checking, that Rummel does not give a number of *384*, but *84* thousand killings of Greeks by the Ottomans for the period of WW I (see Rummel, Death by Government, pp. 224, summarized in p. 225), a total sum of 347,000 "from 1900 to 1923". The number, as Rummel says is the average, taken from his calculations in his Statistics of Genocide, p. 97, lines 470-3, where he uses McCarthy as his source in combination with his own calculation of a "population deficit" of Greeks in Ottoman/Turkish territory that he estimates in 313,000 for the whole period).). Please take into consideration that I have taken the time necessary to check print editions of both said works of Rummel's as well, in order to certify that Travis has misleadingly added 300,000 killings to the numbers given by Rummel. Thus the "foremost expert on genocide statistics".


 * You say that my explanation of the reason why IAGS's resolution, voted by a multitude of unknown provenance and qualifications, after the "lobbying" (the press release's words) of Thea Halo is "similarly cavalier". I beg to think otherwise. The existence of an executive and an advisory board, and a membership committee composed of academics that you mention are all later additions to the structure of IAGS's government. As one can see visiting the organization's archived website from 2007, the year the said resolution passed, no such bodies existed back then. Your repeated claim that the resolution supposedly carries "weight" is contradicted by a reliable source, i.e. Sjöberg, who  states that it only provided the genocide POV with "some academic clout". It is Sjöberg's exact words that I was reproducing (without placing quotation marks), which you label as my assertions.


 * Another secondary source answering to your initial query of which view constitutes the "mainstream" is given by Alexander Kitroeff who notes, in a review of a book advocating the genocide POV, that there is an "institutional divide" between supporters and opponents of the term "genocide", "with those disputing the usefulness of the term genocide belonging to the mainstream of the historical profession in Greece" (in The Historical Revue / La Revue Historique, 11, pp. 201-5, at pp. 201-2).


 * Other secondary sources stating that the position that the persecution of Ottoman Greeks from 1913 onwards was not a case of genocide is rather banal in the scholarly community are found in reviews of Akçam's book which makes the case that instead of a genocide of Greeks we have to do with a case of ethnic cleansing by comparing the treatment of Greeks and Armenians during WW I. Uğur Üngör, for example, point out in his review (in The American Historical Review, 117/5, pp. 1703-4, at 1704) that this "is hardly an innovative claim," as it has been "painstakingly demonstrated" in the works of "Fuat Dündar, Hervé Georgelin, and [Ryan] Gingeras" and criticizes Akçam for not having acknowledged their work. (Please note, in addition to Üngör's value as another secondary source describing the state of affairs in the scholarly community, that he is also one of those scholars cited above who do not speak of a "Greek genocide", but whom you claimed, addressing GGT, we should not be taking to disagree with the genocide POV.)


 * And yet, you continue to disregard this description of the scholarly status quo as it is provided in secondary, peer-reviewed sources, preferring instead your personal arbitrary selection of only one part of the scholarly community, those genocide scholars that consider the persecution of Ottoman Greeks a genocide. However, according to what the secondary sources attest, they do not have the greatest weight in the adjudication of the matter. Pace the approval of Theban Halberd, it is neither reasonable nor in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia's policy to allow your personal estimations to determine WP's view on what the scholarly mainstream is, when these estimations are contradicted by secondary sources. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Independently of the direction this discussion is taking about Voutira or Kostopoulos or Valavanis, Rummel is already one of the chief sources used in this article for the casualties and any mistakes or important omissions regarding his work (such as the figure of 84,000) need to be remedied accordingly. In terms of the IAGS resolution, I agree with Ashmedai's well-founded views, supported by fact that IAGS was at the time simply not a "purely academic" institution and Sjöberg's evaluation of the resolution, against which no evidence has been produced. Obviously, as Athenean said, the IAGS resolution does carry significant weight, but is not anywhere near conclusive.
 * Athenean, no one is arguing for a complete rewrite. Regardless of appellation, this is overall an informative, well-sourced and well-written article regarding the tragic fate Ottoman Greeks suffered and its contributors deserve the due gratitude, I believe we would agree on that. If my words were construed as an appeal for re-writing, I apologise. The re-evaluation is necessary in terms of the due presentation of some academic views mentioned before. The question here is not of a dichotomy between "g-word" and "anti g-word" sources. The dichotomy is between "g-word" and "non g-word" sources. The claim of a genocide carries immense weight and needs explicit endorsement, not an explicit rejection, to be established as undisputed fact. The burden of proof, so to say, lies on the side arguing for the existence of a genocide, not on the one arguing for its lack thereof, just like pretty much anything one tries to establish as fact. That well-established, high-impact sources choose not to call this event a genocide by using designations such as "ethnic cleansing" amounts to a failure to endorse the pro-genocide view. And on another note, many works that "explicitly endorse" the pro-genocide view actually fail to substantiate their use of the g-word. This would, I believe, reflect a fair comparison with sources that explicitly reject the designation of genocide, which is what Athenean demanded, i.e. explain their use of terminology with due reasoning, such as Midlarsky and Akçam. Many sources claiming a genocide do not explicitly reject the view that it is simply ethnic cleansing, not more so than sources claiming simple ethnic cleansing explicitly reject the view for a genocide. Asking for sources that elaborately argue for the absence of a genocide to counter sources that simply assert a genocide (proof by assertion) is fallacious. Unless there is absolute The abstract of the article cited for Levene calls a number of events "genocide or near-genocidal incidents", it thus is not clear unless quotes are produced from the body of the text that Levene is calling this a genocide, and in his book The Crisis of Genocide: Devastation: Volume I: The European Rimlands 1912-1938, where he talks in depth about the persecution of Ottoman Greeks, he never mentions a Greek genocide. Panayi says "including genocide and deportation, to eliminate the Armenians, Greeks and Kurds remaining within Anatolia", which does not amount to saying "Greeks were subjected to genocide". It could equally imply "Armenians were subjected to genocide and Greeks and Kurds were deported". Saying "extermination" (Balakian) is obviously different from saying genocide ("extermination" and especially "complete destruction" does not necessarily imply an organized campaign systematically aimed at the wholesale massacre of an ethnic group). If it is a universally accepted view that this is a genocide, a source like Balakian should be expected not to refrain from using the g-word, whereas the reality is that Balakian uses the word "extermination" once in volumes of his work (he is pretty much silent on the question of genocide - using Balakian as a pro-genocide source seems much more like a semantic game to me). If inquisition in order to show unfair inferences is a semantic game, semantic games are indeed a valid argumentative technique. Accusations of sophistry do not amount to an argument, and the question of designation as a particular word is a question of semantics. --GGT (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * @Ashmedai: Regarding the genocide denial, all you are doing is repeating yourself mentioning sources that are already included in the article!. I gave you an enormous list of sources that contend that it was genocide, but you just completely ignored it. There is very little point in engaging with someone who so blithely ignores evidence that doesn't suit him.  Regarding the figure of 360,000, first of all Adam Jones is not the only source for this figure, as I have repeatedly explained to you.  And yes, Rudolf Rummel is the world's foremost expert on genocide statistics, and does give a mid-range figure of 347,000 and a high figure of 459,000 killed (and yes, I did check his tables myself).  I am absolutely not interested in your convoluted explications as to why you think Rummel is "wrong".  A reliable source is a reliable source is a reliable source, and Rummel is about as reliable a source as we can hope to find.  Regarding kostopoulos, the only real evidence of praise I have seen is from Hirschon, the rest is either unsubstantiated or from fellow far left Greek academics.  Throwing up citations from stuff like "Camera Graeca: Photographs, Narratives, Materialities" means nothing.  And even if we take Kostopoulos as reliable, still not nearly enough to overturn all the other sources I have presented.  If you want to remove Valavanis that's fine, but we are not going to re-write the article because of Kostopoulos. Athenean (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * @GGT: I'm really not sure what you're asking for here.  There is an entire paragraph in the "Academic recognition" section devoted to the views of Akcam, Midlarsky, Mazower and pertty much all the others who explicitly reject the word genocide.  Meanwhile few of the scholars that explicitly use the g-word are actually mentioned.  In fact more space is devoted to the anti-g-word scholars than the pro-g-word scholars.  Regarding Rummel, the figure of 84,000 is for the Greeks killed in the period 1915-1918 by the Young Turks alone.  To that figure he adds 264,000 killed in the period 1918-1923 .  In another publication he gives a low figure of 289,000 total killed and a high of 459,000 killed. There is no mistake. Regarding which sources use the g-word and which don't, Panayi clearly states that genocide was applied to all the groups he mentions, simply from the way he phrases it (otherwise he would have said something like "genocide for the Armenians and ethnic cleansing for the Greeks"), and I really don't see how "aimed at their complete destruction" is any different from "intentional extermination of a group in whole or in part" from the definition of genocide. Anyway, this is a minor point.  There is a long list of sources that qualifies the events as genocide and they are not even mentioned in the article. Athenean (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The sourced text from Tasos Kostopoulos's 2007 book should be reinstated. This article is greatly suffering from Greek POV, selective editing and aggressive deletion of text and sources opposing the Greek claims of genocide and at the same time deniyig the killings of Turks and Muslims in the hands of the Greeks. Hittit (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)