User talk:Pontians

Kala Xristougena
Merry Christmas and Wellcome to Wikipedia! I wanted to ask if you had any pictures of the monument we could add to the article. Eucharisto.--Xenovatis (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi how exactly do we submit photos? Harry


 * On the left hand side, under the heading toolbox there is a link Upload file. Please don't hesitate to ask anything else. I hope you have an enjoyable time in WP. Oh and Kala Christougena!--Xenovatis (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Monuments/Memorials
I have significantly cut down parts of this section because they do not contribute anything to this article. Firstly, there are several dozen monuments on the Greek genocide around the world. What is the particular significance of the monument in Canada and a small commemorative plaque in Australia above all other memorials? If there is a reason why these memorials should be mentioned as opposed to all others then this should be clearly stated. Secondly, phrases like "well attended, emotional ceremony" are not fitting to wikipedia. Moreover, the wording of the Australian plaque is erroneous and so including it undermines the objective of accuracy. I can explain more on this point if necessary. Please don't engage in an edit war but use this discussion page to resolve the issue. For the time being, I am reverting back to the original page. Bebek101 (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Supplement: Why the memorial plaque is erroneous and shouldn't be included
I mentioned that the wording on the commemorative plaque is erroneous and therefore another reason why it shouldn't be hosted on the Greek genocide article. I think it is fair I explain why. So it is for these reasons, along with the others mentioned above, that I strongly suggest not including additional details regarding this commemorative plaque. Thank you. Bebek101 (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The word "more" implies that those deported on death marches were not genocide victims which is incorrect
 * Greeks who went on death marches were not "expelled" but "deported"
 * "death marches" were the primary instrument used for physical destruction; the wording implies they were a secondary instrument, if that.
 * English language error: "Genocidal victims" should read "Genocide victims"
 * Finally, not an error but a point worth noting, this article is on the Greek genocide, i.e. the genocide of the Ottoman Greeks in general, and the commemorative plaque is focused solely on the plight of Pontic Greeks. If particular details of a memorial are to be included, it should be a more inclusive one to reflect the contents and title of the article.

Dearest Bebek101. Your assessments are quite interesting as you cunningly, yet desperately, try to plant seeds of doubt, where your real aim is to act as a protector of the fundamentalist neo-turks. Unfortunately for you, those who you idolise (the neo-turks) did leave, sloppily, a paper trail of their inhumane actions. I thus refer you, dearest Bebek101, to the minutes of the Turkish Parliament of 1917-1923, where there are many references made by psychopaths such as Talaat Pasha. Further, your "linguistic" appraisal of "genocidal" "genocide" is not accepted, unless you are able to grammatically justify it, and include your academic (?) credentials as well... We could go on with a plethora of neo-turkish and current millitary-turkish references, if provoked further. Finally, before you attempt to edit, justify your any (bizare) claims with specific academic citations; independant ones, not partisan, fundamentalist turkish diatribe. We do not apologise for stating the facts. Perhaps you should open your eyes to reality, and not float along in la-la-land. Just to clarify identities, my roots are from the village of Aremenou, region of Galiaina, Matsouka of Trapezounta. Who are you?


 * This personal attack is completely uncalled for and you should apologize. Immediately. Please read up on WP rules, I will supply you with a list of the relevant links. In addition you might want to read the article's edit history and Bebek's many and usefull contribution to it and WP in general.--Xenovatis (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Usefull Links
--Xenovatis (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Use English
 * Featured articles
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text
 * IRC channel
 * Mailing lists
 * Current surveys
 * Articles for Deletion
 * WP:NOT

Xenovatis, the response was not at all personal. Bebek101's verbalisms are blatant attacks on one of the basic principles of democarcy: freedom of experession. This concept is in antithesis to Turkish military totalatarianism. I am not concerened with Bebek101's other contributions; my concern is his/her cheap attempt to devalue the whole issue. Of course, he/she is following another agenda, contrary to academic deontology. Perhaps, thus, you and Bebek101 should visit (or re-visit) this concept of fact vs fiction. History cannot be changed nor distorted. As for you, Xenovatis, taking the (questionable) high ground of an apologist for Bebek101, I refer you, too, to the concept of academic deontology. You too may learn a thing or several. What we have reported on, was a significant event towards the recognition of the slaugheter of our ancestors by heartless, veinless, inhuman facsists, who embarked on a GENOCIDE under the guise of ethnic cleansing/patriotism. In Greek we say "eleos". It is inconceivable in the year 2008 that any Bebek101 could reduce 4 full sentences and a photo into 3 or 4 words. One wonders who has given him/her this power to facsistically make this change. Is s/he afraid of looking at a photo of the plaque. Nonetheless, this would now be reason for something else... watch the Wiki space.

If a new page was required just for pontian memorials, all you had to do is suggest it and not rudely delete something I/we have worked very hard for.

In your words our efforts equaled to "remove unecessary prattle and blather"

blather  Definition blather (blat̸h′ər) noun foolish talk; loquacious nonsense

prattle 

Definition prat·tle (prat′'l)

intransitive verb, transitive verb prattled -·tled, prattling -·tling

1. prate 2. to speak in a childish way; babble

So our announcement to the world of our plaque in your words is foolish talk and babble?

Bebek's reply to the above
I described the entire section "monuments", which include some text added by yourself, as prattle and blather. I did not remove just your text. Please note that at that stage you had not added a link to the Australian memorial so clearly I was not referring to its wording. I was referring to phrases such as "well attended, emotional ceremony", in particular. My choice of words (i.e. prattle and blather) weren't meant to cause you offence but to denote that a lot of the content was not fitting for an encyclopedia, which I'm sorry to say is not a medium for everyone to write whatever they please based on the principle of freedom of expression.

As for "genocidal victims", let me point out that someone is a "suicide victim" as opposed to "suicidal victim" and you'll see the connection. (for more, someone is a "rape victim", "murder victim", etc -- i.e. not a "rapist victim" or a "murderous victim", etc) You don't need to be an academic to spot that error.

I think you should reflect on what Xenovatis pointed out, i.e that your comments infringe wikipedia guidelines. Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they are working to destroy democracy, is a fascist, or achieve some conspiracy. Let's be a little realistic and mature.

Genocide happened. I'm not disputing that and none of my comments pertained to such a question so it's peculiar that you felt you had to justify it. In any case, the commemorative plaque had the right intentions but, sadly, it is, in part, erroneous. While I appreciate the work you and others must have put into it, that does not necessarily mean it is suitable for wikipedia content. At present, the text treats the existence of all memorials equally.

I think the monument in Nea Moudania or Mitylene would be a better selection because we don't have such problems arising and they are also inclusive. However, at this point in time, I can't see any logical reason to include details on one monument above all others. But if we do, it should be a monument which is an accurate representation of the several dozen that exist around the world and I can't see a plaque in Australia being the answer, I'm afraid.

Beyond a lot of ranting, I couldn't find any other arguments in the above text so I will end here with my reply. Please don't make assumptions about motives. Restrict your argument to actual content. Thank you. Bebek101 (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have followed up your reply to my comments here on my own talk page. Thanks. Bebek101 (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

February 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Petra Voge, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Petra Voge was changed by Pontians (u) (t) replacing entire content with something else on 2009-02-01T11:01:26+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

May 2009 Disruptive Edits on Greek genocide
The reasons why I have changed your edit:

I have changed the text to "a motion recognizing 'the genocide by the Ottoman state between 1915-1923' of Armenians, Greeks, Syrians and other minorities in Asia Minor" because this is based on the opening/leading and introductory paragraph of the motion and thus appropriately summarizes the complete text. In contrast, your version of "a motion recognizing 'Genocide of the Armenians, Pontian Greeks, Syrian Orthodox, Assyrian Orthodox and Other Christian Minorities' " derives from merely a subsection of the motion. If you persist on this point, I think it is best if I remove the quote altogether. In any case, it is not adding much to the article.

The PontosWorld link is a circulated press release directly pertaining to the passed motion. Wikipedia is not about favoring one view over another. It is not a medium for you to publish material you think is relevant and exclude material which you think is not relevant based on your own views. The Wikipedia reader is expected to judge for themselves and reach their own conclusions.

Please refrain from further disruptive edits. Thank you. Bebek101 (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Bebek101- you are wrong! stop linking to the wrong date, the motion was passed on the 30 Apr 2009 link hansard 30 apr 2009

My version is an exact copy of the title of the motion from Hansard 30 Apr 2009 not some SUBTEXT as you claim. why do your persist in doing that? why do you link to the wrong hansard? what is you motivation? why is the opinon of one person (unqualified) relevent to the facts? why don't you link to other more relevant sites?

You are guilty of sabotaging my entry,stop it.

I will add some links from qualified journalists as well.

Why would you threaten me with removing the whole quote if its factual? Pontians (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The quote you persist on including is from subsection (b) of the motion. I adjusted the text to be based on the opening sentence of the motion as that acts as a summary for all the following subsections, i.e. (a) through to (f). Please see your own link
 * I have used the last link you pasted, which you had previously not used, but adjusted the http code so that it now works.
 * It seems many people are unhappy about this resolution. Through google cache I found the following webpage . In any case, it is not for us/me/you to judge what is right or wrong.
 * I hope you will find the current edit mutually acceptable for the time being. Please know that any significant changes like bogging down the page with numerous links will be promptly reverted.Bebek101 (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Bebek101 No I'm not happpy with that. "the genocide by the Ottoman state between 1915-1923" of Armenians, Greeks, Syrian and other minorities in Asia Minor" does not equal "Genocide of the Armenians, Pontian Greeks, Syrian Orthodox, Assyrian Orthodox and Other Christian Minorities".

Its not a subtext, its the TITLE of the resolution!

whether you like it or not the title of the resolution is what I want, not the summary which changes the meaning of it

You still haven't answered my questions?

Pontians (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that we don't want to bog down the article with numerous hyperlinks on an issue which is not particularly central to the narrative. However, I'm not against you including one other press report on the event especially if it gives another view but don't you have anything published after the motion was passed?
 * Both reports you added were written before the motion was brought to the house. Perhaps you could provide just one such article to replace those two last added?
 * I'm not going to answer those questions simply because they are just overdramatic. The first link you inserted was not a direct link to the motion, I found one that was and replaced it, you subsequently found another more appropriate link and I'm happy with that. There is no big deal.
 * The opening paragraph and the leading sentence of the motion acts as a summary to the entire motion and as such makes an appropriate text to reference. What information are you losing or gaining by replacing that with the Hansard Session title which clearly derives from subsection (b)?
 * I also think the motion is worded wrongly. I'm sure they meant "Syriac" and not "Syrian". Most of these resolutions are so poorly compiled.Bebek101 (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you insist of changing Pontian Greeks to Greeks. Even IAGS's resolution referred to them as Pontian and Anatolian Greeks. I understand what you are trying to do and change public opinion, but how about allowing me to report the facts.

Also a few opinions run by a non journalist of pontosworld doesn't constitute wide spread Greek Australian opinion either. Don't forget you come from Melbourne and you should know there about 1,000,000 Greek/Greek descendants in Australia. As a percentage pontoworld's one man show's opinion and his forums are not relevant. Pontians (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am insisting on no such thing and am not distorting any facts. I have merely based the text on the opening paragraph of the resolution, that is the very first sentence following Atkinson's "I move:", in other words the first sentence of the motion which summaries all subsections from (a) to (e). I am afraid I did not draft the resolution so it is not my fault that the word "Pontian" doesn't feature in the motion's introduction and lead. You should take this up with its drafters if you are so concerned about putting the limelight on the Pontians.
 * In any case, please know I am not against removing the term "Pontian" otherwise I would have removed the two last media reports you added which focus on solely a "Pontian" perspective.
 * Again, I am not against showing another point of view. However, I did ask you to provide an article written after the motion was passed which would show the side of the argument which you believe is valid. So, can you provide an article published after the resolution which gives a different representation of Greek Australian public opinion to replace the two written before the motion was passed? If so, great! Let's include it.Bebek101 (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing Pontians from the title of the motion? Its not a subtext, its in the TITLE of the resolution! How many times do I have to explain to you. WHY DO YOU REMOVE IT!!! Pontians (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding an article written after the resolution's passing. I will now delete the two that were written before its passing.
 * It is not the motion's title. The motion begins following Atkinson's "I move". It is the title that has been given to the session which is clearly borrowed from subsection (b) of the resolution. Bebek101 (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you insist, open Hansard goto the page and read the title it says GENOCIDE OF THE ARMENIANS, PONTIAN GREEKS, SYRIAN ORTHODOX, ASSYRIAN ORTHODOX AND OTHER CHRISTIAN MINORITIES correct the title or I will revert Pontians (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am repeating myself but let me say it again. That is the title of the entire session (not the resolution) borrowed from subsection (b) of the motion. The resolution begins following Atkinson's "I move". The motion's lead and introduction is the most appropriate text to summarize all subsections from (a) to (f).
 * You are of course free to revert but I will then revert back and request a block on your account.Bebek101 (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So according to you summarising the motion from (a) to (f) to Hellenes is valid even though:

The Title states "PONTIAN GREEKS" section (a) states "Pontian Greek-Australian" (b) states "Pontian Greeks" (e) states "Pontian Genocide"

why does "Hellenes" take precedence over "Pontian" which is mentioned 3 times? where is the logic in that? Pontians (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hellenes/Greeks is an umbrella term which includes Pontians so they are certainly not being excluded. We will stick with the terminology employed in the introduction and lead of the motion.  I understand that you feel it very important that your own people take precedence above all others, but I'm afraid I did not write the motion.  Just because the term Armenians appears more times than Pontians or Greeks, etc, would not cause me to describe it as an Armenian resolution.  The introduction/lead/summary of the motion/resolution is the most appropriate way to refer to the resolution. Bebek101 (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you fight me when our enemies are at the gate. Why don't you create a subsist of all the christian minorities who fall under the Greek Genocide umbrella. That way all achievements by any group can reported and maybe inspire some of those groups to do something themselves. Other than to rely on others like the pontians. How many Thracians, Greeks of Smyrna, Constantinople etc. died, facts, statics, links can be provided. At the moment this page is missing all that. Pontians (talk)


 * I don't see anyone as my enemy and I'm certainly not fighting you. I have seen no evidence to suggest any group is relying on any another group. Moreover, I don't think it is particularly constructive to cast judgment on who is doing something and who is not. That attitude is not going to get any of us anywhere.
 * Yes, you are certainly right that the page would be greatly improved by more details and a more complete historical narrative. Wikipedia editors are building the page gradually. Hopefully with time it will improve.Bebek101 (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)