This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 14 |
So I have removed the list of quotes: -- PBS ( talk) 12:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason for including list of quotes in an encyclopaedia article. This is a long standing agreement and the reason that Wikiquotes was launched. It is acceptable to have the occasional quote to illustrate a point, but Wikipedia is not a quote farm. -- PBS ( talk) 12:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I wonder whether it would be more appropriate to have this page titled "Greek genocide". I raise this point for a number of reasons. Firstly, the majority of the content in this article refers to a more general campaign against the Ottoman Greeks. Secondly, this would ensure consistency with the international scholarly community, in particular the International Association of Genocide Scholars and academic journal articles. Bebek101 ( talk) 18:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
As there hasn't been any opposition to date (only support), I will move the page now. Bebek101 ( talk) 03:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I have significantly cut down parts of this section because they do not contribute anything to this article. Firstly, there are several dozen monuments on the Greek genocide around the world. What is the particular significance of the monument in Canada and a small commemorative plaque in Australia above all other memorials? If there is a reason why these memorials should be mentioned as opposed to all others then this should be clearly stated. Secondly, phrases like "well attended, emotional ceremony" are not fitting to wikipedia. Moreover, the wording of the Australian plaque is erroneous and so including it undermines the objective of accuracy. I can explain more on this point if necessary. Please don't engage in an edit war but use this discussion page to resolve the issue. For the time being, I am reverting back to the original page. Bebek101 ( talk) 07:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It describes a fact. There are scholars who have called it a genocide. This is the fact that is reported. It doesn't say it was a genocide bur reports on the fact that it has been labelled such.-- Xenovatis ( talk) 12:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Plus I checked the WP:Weasel_word page and nowhere does it say that writting so and so said this and that is weasel wording.-- Xenovatis ( talk) 13:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It doesnt just say it has been described as genocide but actually lists a number of reliable sources that do in fact describe it as such.-- Xenovatis ( talk) 13:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll be adding more here.-- Xenovatis ( talk) 14:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I am of the view that the sentence "This campaign has been described by genocide scholars as having a genocidal character" is redundant and unnecessary, especially where it has currently been placed. Firstly, the phrase "having a genocidal character" is vague. Secondly, the message you are trying to convey is firmly and fully contained in the mention of genocide affirmation by the IAGS, i.e. that a whole group of scholars acknowledge the events as genocide -- and that's explicit and straightforward as it contains none of this nebulous "genocidal character" stuff. I suggest deleting the sentence "The campaign ... genocidal character" and working on the rest of the article to let the events speak more for themselves. Just my opinion. Bebek101 ( talk) 16:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I am very pleased to see the merge of the various topics on genocide has finally happened. Bravo to everyone who made it possible! Monsieurdl mon talk- mon contribs 17:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Is these events actually recognised as a true genocide? If not then the Turks might as well make there own article 'Turkish genocide'. Justinz84 ( talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please revert back to version by Philip Baird Shearer on 22:44, 23 January 2009. The last three edits by Smith2006 are not helpful at all. I don't want to go in to great detail but here is some brief justification: For example, "the government of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turk forces instigated". First of all, the Young Turk regime was the ruling party in the Ottoman Empire -- they were not a distinct entity as this wording implies. Secondly, referring to the Ottoman Empire as just the perpetrator (at least in the introduction) is more reasonable as it covers the entire period 1914-1923 while the Young Turks were only in power until 1918 and so is an incomplete statement. Also the Trebizond press article should not only be hidden but removed altogether. It does not specifically pertain to the Greeks while there a whole host of articles that do. I don't think "Turkish wikipedians" objected to its inclusion but a consensus was reached that it was the appropriate thing to do for a number of reasons -- see archive for more. Can someone at least hide it? Essentially can someone revert back to the last PBS edit? Thanks Bebek101 ( talk) 15:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
When I was last involved in this article it was called Pontic Greek genocide, despite the intense debate such a title caused. Now the article seems to have escalated in its use of pov terminology by stating that genocide is a word most commonly used to describe what ALL Greeks of the Ottoman Empire had apparently suffered. This is I believe a clear regression in the development of this information into a viable, neutral and factual article. I have added a number of credible sources which a)question the worthiness of the IAGS resolution as a credible source, the main argument for the new title, b)state specifically that what happened to Greeks was not a genocide and/or cannot be compared to the Armenian genocide and c)highlight that scholarly work on the treatment of Greeks is almost non-existent and therefore no major scholarly position can be claimed. For these reasons, and the fact that genocide is still being "pushed" as a way of describing the events, I have added the pov-title tag. -- A.Garnet ( talk) 00:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I am dissapointed PBS, that during my absence, it seems no objections were raised towards renaming the article to Greek genocide, an even more pov proposition than the Pontic Greek genocide, which at least dealt with a specific group, in a specific location, in a specific timeframe. So forgive me for feeling the need to weigh in and highlight just ridicolously out of hand this has got. If you want to downsize the academic views, go ahead, I will help if you want, but so long as all the views are represented clearly I dont care. I am however going to re-add the pov-title tag, I think I have provided enough sources to warrant this. -- A.Garnet ( talk) 15:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The only way to npov'ise this article: Rename it Ottoman Greek Casualties, create a narrative about the massacres, expulsions etc either by geographic location e.g. Pontus, Izmir, Istanbul or by year e.g. 1915-1918, 1919-1923 etc. Then you create a section entitled "Controversy", under this you mention the resolutions made by Greece and the IAGS and the controversy it has caused. That is the ONLY way to make this article npov. The focus remanins on a narrative of the events instead of pushing a genocide pov which, as I have shown, has not entered mainstream academia in the way the Armenian genocide has. That is my proposal. If people agree to this, I will help write it since it will be a valid, factual and encylopedic. As it is, it is too messy and if people want to keep it this way I certainly disagree to removing my additions which at least provide some context to academic "recognition" of this event. -- A.Garnet ( talk) 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
You know that genocide is more than just a descriptive term, it has implicit connotations relating to crime and murder. You cannot brush aside a title with genocide in it and hope the rest of the article will turn out neutral. Wikipedia is not a democracy, just because some groups of editors with an interest in a point of view can shout louder than others does not mean their views carry more weight or even carry and legitimacy at all. -- A.Garnet ( talk) 23:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
My friend, to say "in general, there are some who reject the application of the word "genocide"" is a gross understatement. If there really was such a scholarly consensus, then for heavens sake find me one published book by one reputable scholar and then you may gain enough credibility to mention a few sentences on the genocide controversy. To create an entire article based on a few flimsy statements, political resolutions and one contested academic resolution is simply lunatic. You say your going to rewrite to include scholars to oppose, why? Didnt I already do that but it seems some were only to happy to remove it and now rewrite it as they wish. -- A.Garnet ( talk) 12:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The last edits by PBS have done a world of good. Thank you. I have a slight worry that the text as it stands might lead many to believe that the six scholars listed are some of the IAGS members who opposed the resolution, which is of course not true (Elefantis and Mazower). Might it be better to name them in a separate sentence? I'm also uneasy about listing Balakian as someone who raised concerns without also pointing to the fact that he himself has used the term frequently for the Ottoman Greeks. I wonder whether an alternative could be "a number of IAGS members and other academics have voiced concerns ..." or would this not be explicit enough? I think it is clear "majority" implies a non-unanimous vote but perhaps it's better to keep what PBS wrote in order to be explicit. It's not a big deal either way really. Bebek101 ( talk) 18:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Renaming title sections such "Views on the genocide" and "Turkish denialism" carry a POV. The words assert that the genocide took place. I am reverting the first to "Genocide dispute", deleting the "Turkish denialism" and renaming "Academic" to "Academic debate" and "Political dispute" On the assumption that academics debate a point and the politicians dispute the same point. -- PBS ( talk) 17:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the events were genocide or not, the section refers to specific cases of their recognition as genocide. As such, giving the section the title "Genocide recognition" is not misleading nor does it carry POV. It simply accurately reflects the material. I agree with Xenovatis, in so far as the Independent article contains a number of errors and it's flawed in logic because Robert Fisk seems to believe the Greek law pertains to the Smyrna massacre and nothing more. As we should all know by now, this article is not about the Smyrna massacre. Further, there is no evidence to suggest there is an ongoing debate or dispute apart from Turkey's longstanding denial of all atrocities, which is not news, right? I've now updated the section title to read "Genocide recognition". Bebek101 ( talk) 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The Greek parliament issued a law, not a resolution. Calling it "Greek parliament resolution" does not accurately reflect the contents of the section since it fails to encompass Cyprus' recognition and Turkey's political response. Recognition of the events as genocide by Greece and Cyprus are instances of political recognition whether you like it or not. The fact they are just two countries with Greek speaking peoples doesn't make the recognition any less political. A.Garnet, you are responsible for the removal of sourced statements. The title is merely descriptive and all facts are sourced so any POV-tag will be promptly removed. Bebek101 ( talk) 21:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of errors in the material you persist on posting. For one, and as I've already tried to communicate, the Greek Parliament did not issue a resolution but passed two laws. Similarly, for Cyprus. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that genocide affirmation by the Republic of Cyprus was in response to Greek recognition. It is also misleading to refer to two Greek parliamentary laws, recognition by Cyprus, and Turkey's dispute of the genocide as simply "Greek parliament resolution and reaction". It fails to accurately represent the contents of the subsection. Another problem pertains to the individuals you are quoting. Elefantis remarks indicate that his perception that the 1998 Greek law was claiming the Smyrna massacres were genocide -- the errors of Fisk's article have already been documented here. The word Smyrna is no where to be found in the law and the actual decree pertains to the period of 1914 to 1923 in "Asia Minor". To mention the likes of Elefantis is severely degrades the quality of the article. If you are going to make POV edits, which will be promptly reverted to uphold the integrity of wikipedia, then please try to keep edits factual and accurate without distortion. Thank you. Bebek101 ( talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
"Since there are few contemporary scholarly works on the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire during this period, there is no consistent term used to describe their fate." This sentence was inserted by A.Garnet. First, the statement on there being no consistent term is not sourced. Second, relatively few works do not imply an absence of inconsistency of a particular term. Bebek101 ( talk) 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)#
I thought we had a deal as per this agreement. Noone from the regulars objected then. Now some of the regulars are objecting. Is this consensus by backsliding? New improved version of WP:CONSENSUS perhaps? Maybe we can add this to the policy. Seems the perfect way to unglue and undo countless of agreements all over the project. Dr.K. logos 00:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess from now on, after each agreement leading to consensus, if the question is asked: Deal or No Deal? The answer should be: Yes. Now I get it. Dr.K. logos 00:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Since we are agreed that there is a dispute over the title, there has to be some discussion now of an alternative. Any title with genocide in it will never be neutral for the reasons outlined above. I did make a proposition earlier in the discussion which was for an article called "Ottoman Greek casualties" along the lines of Ottoman Armenian casualties. Within this there will be different subsections either by area or by year to explain the narrative. At the bottom will be a section called "Controversy" which will highlight the Greek parliaments and IAGS's view. What do people think of this proposal? -- A.Garnet ( talk) 18:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, there is also an Armenian Genocide article. My question is on the usage of the term 'Ottoman'. Either Turkey is the inheritor of the Ottoman Empire, or, as I have argued in wikipedia [ [7]], it is the last state to emerge out of the empire. The article Ottoman Empire states in its first paragraph that “was succeeded by the Republic of Turkey”. The article Turkey also makes that succession clear. Also, while it existed, the empire was often referred to as 'Turkey'. So it seems curious that we filing articles such as Ottoman Armenian casualties and wishing to classify certain historical events as Ottoman and not as Turkish. Politis ( talk) 19:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
@A.Garnet: Please don't use euphemisms as section titles. You should have named this section "The way backward" as in "Going back on a deal". Thanks. Dr.K. logos 19:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, I see old friends are back in this... Too bad they didn't follow my example and disappear permanently letting the third parties decide for this, as they alone originally did. Also, too bad the third parties tolerate the stance of one disputing user, after months of stability of the version they themselves wrote... Maybe I should be back? Naaah... I trust the WP community in sorting this out. I'll just go bold once and remove the silly and unjustified tag. I invite any third party to reinstate it with their own reasoning. Please, stuff like "we can agree it is disputed", or "pov-title tag is legitimate" without a justification in the talkpage are simply unsubstantiated. Give'em some academic substance, will you? (if you find any...) Niko Silver 17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
From the history of the page:
I think there is some misunderstanding going on here:
Personally I do not think that the tag is necessary, but I do recognise that if some editors wish to discuss the title further then there is a dispute for which it is legitimate to include such a template at the start of the article (it is the old summation of Voltaire's POV "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it": although in this case A.Garnet, that statement (the death bit) is for me OTT :-)
However if "Greek genocide" is to be used as a NPOV title, then the section headers must remain neutral so show that the title of the article is NPOV. To do that we should go back to "Genocide debate" or "Genocide dispute" rather than "Genocide recognition", which when tied to the page name "Greek genocide->recognition" implies that there is no debate over this issue. -- PBS ( talk) 10:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I see Mr. A.Garnet has added again the tag, for the reasons he alone supports. As evident from above, no other editor shares those reasons. Following that logic, we can all go ahead in whichever article and state whichever reason we think of, even totally unsupported by anybody else, slap a {{ POV-title}} tag on top, and force everybody else to accept it on the grounds of Voltaire's "defense for his right to disagree". Shall we start with today's featured articles maybe, to illustrate the WP:POINT better? Naaah, this is a privilege of Mr. A.Garnet alone. Niko Silver 12:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I appeared on this article on January 27. I have since, both through discussion and edits, tried to highlight the fact that this article, in its present state, is a violation of several wiki policies relating to neutrality, undue weight and original research. The result has been that a number of editors (who appear to be Greek, lest I be accused of some sort ethnic attack) engaging in what I believe is an attempt to silence any editor who tries to challenge the ridicolous nationalist piece that this article is. Four editors in the past few weeks have tried to place a pov-title tag at the top of the article, which simply alerts readers that the title is being questioned by other Wikipedia editors. These include myself, Fut., PBS (though I acknowledge he thinks there is no need for it) and Aramgar. In response, other editors have appeared to remove the tag, providing token "reasons" such as "back to consensus", "revert to stable", "need to establish consesus for major changes" (since when was a tag a major change?) or "if you have issues take them to talk before" (I think I have arguing these issues for ... 3 years?). The point is I believe that a group of editors here are making it very difficult to change this article in a way which would conform with Wiki policy. Any edit which goes right to the core of what is wrong here i.e. disseminating fringe nationalist views as mainstream academia, is reverted straight away. That is why I am going to now re-apply the tag in the hope it will generate a proper discussion and if it is reverted I will seek an administrtors intervention to make sure it stays. -- A.Garnet ( talk) 20:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know who wrote this: "If the members of the United Nations pass appropriate legislation such incidents as the pogroms of Czarish Russia and the massacres of Armenians and Greeks by Turkey would be punishable as genocid". But they were not very well versed in international law, I can't think of a case where such treaties are retrospective. To present such an opinion from a newspaper, when it is clearly a minority POV is unbalanced.
Also as far as I know Raphael Lemkin, who was not a professional historian, and he based his analysis on secondary sources written before or during World War II. -- I know this because I recently came across a chapter on the extinction of the Tasmanian Aborigines, in which Henry Reynolds cites "H. Fein,Genocide;A Sociological Perspective' (London 1990) p. 13" stating that "Many of them have named Tasmania in their list of legitimate case studies, although their usual slight grasp of island history might of counseled caution." (A. Dirk Moses, Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History, Berghahn Books, 2004 ISBN 1571814108, 9781571814104. Chapter by Henry Reynolds "Genocide in Tasmania?" p.128).
With a controversial subject such as this, it is not a good idea to base a section on sources 60 years old presenting one point of view (that it was a genocide and a criminal act). -- PBS ( talk) 23:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in replying, engaging in Wiki disputes is often time consuming and I cannot stay consistently involved.
User:Hectorian has asked for clear reasoning as to why the articles title is disputed. My reasoning is as follows:
The Title
Wikipedia policy on descriptive names states the following: "Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications." Some editors have tried to dismiss the pov title tag on the grounds that it is simply "descriptive" since it uses a little 'g'. This is semantics. Genocide carries implicit connotations of crime and murder and must only be used where it is beyond doubt that its usage is part of mainstream academia.
Again, Wiki policy on article naming states "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization...A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality...Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing."
I have stated before that unless that there is a neutral title, there can be no neutral article. This article does not encourage multiple viewpoints on a certain historical event nor promote responsible writing, its sole aim is to further a pov that the Ottoman Empire committed a genocide against Greeks, that is the articles intention and its not a neutral one. Could the same accusation not be covered say in Greco-Turkish War, Great Fire of Smyrna or Population exchange between Greece and Turkey? Is there sufficient academic material which allows this allegation to have an entire article of its own like it was a documented fact?
Undue Weight
This brings me on to what is the fundamental failure of this article: There exists no scholarly work dedicated to such claims. Those are not simply my words, those are the words of scholar Taner Akcam. If I can source such a statement then surely that is a good starting point over judging these allegations prevalence in mainstream academia. Again, another scholar, Mark Levene, states explicitly that most scholars do not use the term genocide. So we can source two statements by two scholars which give us an overall idea about how developed these claims are in academia: one states there is no academic work which covers Greeks in the Ottoman Empire, another states most scholars do not use the term genocide.
We can further confirm this by a Google Scholar search, "Greek Genocide" returns just 11 results. "Armenian Genocide" returns 3,240. "Rwandan Genocide" returns 5,410. "Holocaust" 229,000 results. Undue Weight states "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all...To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."
The IAGS resolution has become the focal point for this article, it IS notable and deserves a mention, but is it enough to justify an ENTIRE article on? Its criticisms by scholars (which can be found above) range from either that it is not based on a scholarly process or that it will make the IAGS look like a joke.
Summary
Does the articles title reflect the "highest degree of neutrality" as required by Wikipedia? Is the subject an accurate representation of academic support for such claims? I have argued for over two years now that it fails on both these measures. My argument has nothing do with ridicolous responses such as I am using "Turkish reasoning", it is based on the fact that there is an obvious violation of basic wikipedia policies here and I dont believe the article should be allowed to continue in this state indefinitely. -- A.Garnet ( talk) 20:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Please don't be fooled What continues to be neglected are the errors in A.Garnet's fallacious arguments. There exist a number of scholarly works dealing with the Greek Genocide, some appearing in reputable peer reviewed academic journals such as 'Genocide Studies and Prevention' and others published as books. Examples of these have been listed above and explicitly discount A.Garnet and Akcam's claim that "there exists no scholarly work dedicated to such claims". Do I need to give such examples again? I did above and A.Garnet ignored my reply. In any case, not only are there specific publications focused on these events but there are also a multitude of references in other academic works, such as Samuel Totten and Paul R. Bartrop's "Dictionary of Genocide" and Adam Jone's "Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction" to name but two prominent publications. There are also many important statements supporting the application of the term genocide by world renowned pioneer genocide scholars such as Israel Charny and Gregory Stanton. The reason why the IAGS resolution is important is because it indicates that the majority of the world's genocide scholars support the application of the term genocide to the fate of the Ottoman Greeks. Although A.Garnet has pointed to a few scholars who raised concerns about the resolution prior to the actual vote, some of those actually use the term genocide for the Greeks in their own writings which undermines his argument further. Again, I pointed to a case of this above but A.Garnet ignored my reply. A.Garnet would have you believe that only a few scholars support the Greek Genocide thesis but, in fact, the contrary is true. If you like, we can compile a sourced list of those who support and reject the application of 'genocide' on this particular piece of history. Believe me, the minority view is held by A.Garnet and this can be easily demonstrated. A.Garnet would have you believe that the Greek Genocide is some product of the Greco-Turkish War, Great Fire of Smyrna or Population exchange between Greece and Turkey despite the fact it is a completely distinct event which predates all of those. Please don't be fooled. Bebek101 ( talk) 17:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
User:A.Garnet what would you suggest as an alternative name for the article? -- PBS ( talk) 11:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
'Persecution' can imply that the Greek indigenous population survived the 'persecution'. In fact, as many observers noticed, a 3,000 year old presence came to an abrupt end. With all due respect to our 'Turkish' friends whose reservations I respect, I suggest we leave the current title and keep looking for an agreed phrasing. Or perhaps, Greek genocide (1914-1923)? Politis ( talk) 12:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- ...
- [Van den Herik] is concerned that too much focus is placed on the crime of genocide, which is often erroneously held up by victims, the media - and even ad hoc tribunal judges - as the crime of crimes.
- "Genocide and crimes against humanity are of equal gravity, yet everyone feels that genocide is worse and carries an extra stigma," she said.
- ...
I am not fully aware of this matter, but wouldn`t it be NPOV to have a title "Expulsion of Greeks by the Ottoman Empire", which includes deportations, ethnic cleansing and even massacres, but is NPOV? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 18:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Bebek, I will make a simple request of you. Produce a statement by a third party scholar which states something along the lines that MOST scholars do recognise this as a genocide? Surely if it is a "distinct and quantifiable subject with much scholarship and literature affirming it as such" this should not be a difficult task. I dont want to hear this from you, or hear you tell me how prestigious and authoratative the IAGS is, that is the rhetoric of a Wikipedia editor, I want to hear it from a third party, neutral and authoratataive source. Can you do this? -- A.Garnet ( talk) 20:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
To those who would like to rename the current title, and use the word "casualties" instead of genocide, I am providing below Webster's definiton of "casualty"
1. an accident, especially a fatal one 2. a) a member of the armed forces who is lost in active service through been killed, wounded, captured, interened, sick or missing b) losses of personnel resulting from death, injury, etc 3. anyone hurt or killed in an accident 4. anything lost, destroyed, or made useless by some unfortunate or unforseen happening
It is obvious that the term does not even remotely reflect or do justice to the events. The thousands of Ottoman Greek deaths, from 1914-1923, were not an accident or accidents, or the result of some unforseen or unfortunate event, but the result of premeditated and deliberate actions by the Ottomans. To name a few of the actions/methods: labor battalions, deportations, death marches, hangings, outright killings, etc. And, by the way, they were not members of the armed forces, but unarmed men, women, and children.
Gentlemen, it is clear form your arguments that you are willing to say anything, and go to any length to deny that the events in question constituted a genocide. Rizos01 ( talk) 02:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Bebek101 arguments and approach to the issue [and I empathise to a degree with our Turkish(?) friends who wish to make drastic changes here]. But I will just repeat that between those years, the 3,000 year old presence of the Greeks in Anatolia was reduced to near extinction. Then came the 1950s progroms against the Greek sons and daughters of Istanbul. If that does not classify as genocide, then... what does? I seem to detect here a move to dilute the term 'genocide' and simply pass the buck to 'the Ottomans'; but remember, the perpetrators were always labelled 'Turks' while the Greeks of the empire were, inevitably, also Ottomans. For instance, there was a 17th coffee house in London called 'the Turk's Head' simply because its Greek owner was from the Ottoman empire. Politis ( talk) 17:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
there is no known genocide as greek genocide. article is wholly inaccurate. also there is actually no NPOV here. sorry but whole artcile seems just like a piece of ultranationalist propaganda by some greek politician. 94.123.102.239 ( talk) 23:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
this may go on forever. armenian genocide, greek genocide, kurdish genocide. the word "genocide" is not "that" simple. it can't be used anywhere like that. there may have been casulties in wartime conditions but you can't label everything as "genocide" 94.123.102.239 ( talk) 23:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)silvanus
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 14 |
So I have removed the list of quotes: -- PBS ( talk) 12:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason for including list of quotes in an encyclopaedia article. This is a long standing agreement and the reason that Wikiquotes was launched. It is acceptable to have the occasional quote to illustrate a point, but Wikipedia is not a quote farm. -- PBS ( talk) 12:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I wonder whether it would be more appropriate to have this page titled "Greek genocide". I raise this point for a number of reasons. Firstly, the majority of the content in this article refers to a more general campaign against the Ottoman Greeks. Secondly, this would ensure consistency with the international scholarly community, in particular the International Association of Genocide Scholars and academic journal articles. Bebek101 ( talk) 18:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
As there hasn't been any opposition to date (only support), I will move the page now. Bebek101 ( talk) 03:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I have significantly cut down parts of this section because they do not contribute anything to this article. Firstly, there are several dozen monuments on the Greek genocide around the world. What is the particular significance of the monument in Canada and a small commemorative plaque in Australia above all other memorials? If there is a reason why these memorials should be mentioned as opposed to all others then this should be clearly stated. Secondly, phrases like "well attended, emotional ceremony" are not fitting to wikipedia. Moreover, the wording of the Australian plaque is erroneous and so including it undermines the objective of accuracy. I can explain more on this point if necessary. Please don't engage in an edit war but use this discussion page to resolve the issue. For the time being, I am reverting back to the original page. Bebek101 ( talk) 07:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It describes a fact. There are scholars who have called it a genocide. This is the fact that is reported. It doesn't say it was a genocide bur reports on the fact that it has been labelled such.-- Xenovatis ( talk) 12:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Plus I checked the WP:Weasel_word page and nowhere does it say that writting so and so said this and that is weasel wording.-- Xenovatis ( talk) 13:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It doesnt just say it has been described as genocide but actually lists a number of reliable sources that do in fact describe it as such.-- Xenovatis ( talk) 13:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll be adding more here.-- Xenovatis ( talk) 14:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I am of the view that the sentence "This campaign has been described by genocide scholars as having a genocidal character" is redundant and unnecessary, especially where it has currently been placed. Firstly, the phrase "having a genocidal character" is vague. Secondly, the message you are trying to convey is firmly and fully contained in the mention of genocide affirmation by the IAGS, i.e. that a whole group of scholars acknowledge the events as genocide -- and that's explicit and straightforward as it contains none of this nebulous "genocidal character" stuff. I suggest deleting the sentence "The campaign ... genocidal character" and working on the rest of the article to let the events speak more for themselves. Just my opinion. Bebek101 ( talk) 16:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I am very pleased to see the merge of the various topics on genocide has finally happened. Bravo to everyone who made it possible! Monsieurdl mon talk- mon contribs 17:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Is these events actually recognised as a true genocide? If not then the Turks might as well make there own article 'Turkish genocide'. Justinz84 ( talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please revert back to version by Philip Baird Shearer on 22:44, 23 January 2009. The last three edits by Smith2006 are not helpful at all. I don't want to go in to great detail but here is some brief justification: For example, "the government of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turk forces instigated". First of all, the Young Turk regime was the ruling party in the Ottoman Empire -- they were not a distinct entity as this wording implies. Secondly, referring to the Ottoman Empire as just the perpetrator (at least in the introduction) is more reasonable as it covers the entire period 1914-1923 while the Young Turks were only in power until 1918 and so is an incomplete statement. Also the Trebizond press article should not only be hidden but removed altogether. It does not specifically pertain to the Greeks while there a whole host of articles that do. I don't think "Turkish wikipedians" objected to its inclusion but a consensus was reached that it was the appropriate thing to do for a number of reasons -- see archive for more. Can someone at least hide it? Essentially can someone revert back to the last PBS edit? Thanks Bebek101 ( talk) 15:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
When I was last involved in this article it was called Pontic Greek genocide, despite the intense debate such a title caused. Now the article seems to have escalated in its use of pov terminology by stating that genocide is a word most commonly used to describe what ALL Greeks of the Ottoman Empire had apparently suffered. This is I believe a clear regression in the development of this information into a viable, neutral and factual article. I have added a number of credible sources which a)question the worthiness of the IAGS resolution as a credible source, the main argument for the new title, b)state specifically that what happened to Greeks was not a genocide and/or cannot be compared to the Armenian genocide and c)highlight that scholarly work on the treatment of Greeks is almost non-existent and therefore no major scholarly position can be claimed. For these reasons, and the fact that genocide is still being "pushed" as a way of describing the events, I have added the pov-title tag. -- A.Garnet ( talk) 00:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I am dissapointed PBS, that during my absence, it seems no objections were raised towards renaming the article to Greek genocide, an even more pov proposition than the Pontic Greek genocide, which at least dealt with a specific group, in a specific location, in a specific timeframe. So forgive me for feeling the need to weigh in and highlight just ridicolously out of hand this has got. If you want to downsize the academic views, go ahead, I will help if you want, but so long as all the views are represented clearly I dont care. I am however going to re-add the pov-title tag, I think I have provided enough sources to warrant this. -- A.Garnet ( talk) 15:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The only way to npov'ise this article: Rename it Ottoman Greek Casualties, create a narrative about the massacres, expulsions etc either by geographic location e.g. Pontus, Izmir, Istanbul or by year e.g. 1915-1918, 1919-1923 etc. Then you create a section entitled "Controversy", under this you mention the resolutions made by Greece and the IAGS and the controversy it has caused. That is the ONLY way to make this article npov. The focus remanins on a narrative of the events instead of pushing a genocide pov which, as I have shown, has not entered mainstream academia in the way the Armenian genocide has. That is my proposal. If people agree to this, I will help write it since it will be a valid, factual and encylopedic. As it is, it is too messy and if people want to keep it this way I certainly disagree to removing my additions which at least provide some context to academic "recognition" of this event. -- A.Garnet ( talk) 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
You know that genocide is more than just a descriptive term, it has implicit connotations relating to crime and murder. You cannot brush aside a title with genocide in it and hope the rest of the article will turn out neutral. Wikipedia is not a democracy, just because some groups of editors with an interest in a point of view can shout louder than others does not mean their views carry more weight or even carry and legitimacy at all. -- A.Garnet ( talk) 23:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
My friend, to say "in general, there are some who reject the application of the word "genocide"" is a gross understatement. If there really was such a scholarly consensus, then for heavens sake find me one published book by one reputable scholar and then you may gain enough credibility to mention a few sentences on the genocide controversy. To create an entire article based on a few flimsy statements, political resolutions and one contested academic resolution is simply lunatic. You say your going to rewrite to include scholars to oppose, why? Didnt I already do that but it seems some were only to happy to remove it and now rewrite it as they wish. -- A.Garnet ( talk) 12:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The last edits by PBS have done a world of good. Thank you. I have a slight worry that the text as it stands might lead many to believe that the six scholars listed are some of the IAGS members who opposed the resolution, which is of course not true (Elefantis and Mazower). Might it be better to name them in a separate sentence? I'm also uneasy about listing Balakian as someone who raised concerns without also pointing to the fact that he himself has used the term frequently for the Ottoman Greeks. I wonder whether an alternative could be "a number of IAGS members and other academics have voiced concerns ..." or would this not be explicit enough? I think it is clear "majority" implies a non-unanimous vote but perhaps it's better to keep what PBS wrote in order to be explicit. It's not a big deal either way really. Bebek101 ( talk) 18:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Renaming title sections such "Views on the genocide" and "Turkish denialism" carry a POV. The words assert that the genocide took place. I am reverting the first to "Genocide dispute", deleting the "Turkish denialism" and renaming "Academic" to "Academic debate" and "Political dispute" On the assumption that academics debate a point and the politicians dispute the same point. -- PBS ( talk) 17:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the events were genocide or not, the section refers to specific cases of their recognition as genocide. As such, giving the section the title "Genocide recognition" is not misleading nor does it carry POV. It simply accurately reflects the material. I agree with Xenovatis, in so far as the Independent article contains a number of errors and it's flawed in logic because Robert Fisk seems to believe the Greek law pertains to the Smyrna massacre and nothing more. As we should all know by now, this article is not about the Smyrna massacre. Further, there is no evidence to suggest there is an ongoing debate or dispute apart from Turkey's longstanding denial of all atrocities, which is not news, right? I've now updated the section title to read "Genocide recognition". Bebek101 ( talk) 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The Greek parliament issued a law, not a resolution. Calling it "Greek parliament resolution" does not accurately reflect the contents of the section since it fails to encompass Cyprus' recognition and Turkey's political response. Recognition of the events as genocide by Greece and Cyprus are instances of political recognition whether you like it or not. The fact they are just two countries with Greek speaking peoples doesn't make the recognition any less political. A.Garnet, you are responsible for the removal of sourced statements. The title is merely descriptive and all facts are sourced so any POV-tag will be promptly removed. Bebek101 ( talk) 21:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of errors in the material you persist on posting. For one, and as I've already tried to communicate, the Greek Parliament did not issue a resolution but passed two laws. Similarly, for Cyprus. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that genocide affirmation by the Republic of Cyprus was in response to Greek recognition. It is also misleading to refer to two Greek parliamentary laws, recognition by Cyprus, and Turkey's dispute of the genocide as simply "Greek parliament resolution and reaction". It fails to accurately represent the contents of the subsection. Another problem pertains to the individuals you are quoting. Elefantis remarks indicate that his perception that the 1998 Greek law was claiming the Smyrna massacres were genocide -- the errors of Fisk's article have already been documented here. The word Smyrna is no where to be found in the law and the actual decree pertains to the period of 1914 to 1923 in "Asia Minor". To mention the likes of Elefantis is severely degrades the quality of the article. If you are going to make POV edits, which will be promptly reverted to uphold the integrity of wikipedia, then please try to keep edits factual and accurate without distortion. Thank you. Bebek101 ( talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
"Since there are few contemporary scholarly works on the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire during this period, there is no consistent term used to describe their fate." This sentence was inserted by A.Garnet. First, the statement on there being no consistent term is not sourced. Second, relatively few works do not imply an absence of inconsistency of a particular term. Bebek101 ( talk) 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)#
I thought we had a deal as per this agreement. Noone from the regulars objected then. Now some of the regulars are objecting. Is this consensus by backsliding? New improved version of WP:CONSENSUS perhaps? Maybe we can add this to the policy. Seems the perfect way to unglue and undo countless of agreements all over the project. Dr.K. logos 00:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess from now on, after each agreement leading to consensus, if the question is asked: Deal or No Deal? The answer should be: Yes. Now I get it. Dr.K. logos 00:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Since we are agreed that there is a dispute over the title, there has to be some discussion now of an alternative. Any title with genocide in it will never be neutral for the reasons outlined above. I did make a proposition earlier in the discussion which was for an article called "Ottoman Greek casualties" along the lines of Ottoman Armenian casualties. Within this there will be different subsections either by area or by year to explain the narrative. At the bottom will be a section called "Controversy" which will highlight the Greek parliaments and IAGS's view. What do people think of this proposal? -- A.Garnet ( talk) 18:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, there is also an Armenian Genocide article. My question is on the usage of the term 'Ottoman'. Either Turkey is the inheritor of the Ottoman Empire, or, as I have argued in wikipedia [ [7]], it is the last state to emerge out of the empire. The article Ottoman Empire states in its first paragraph that “was succeeded by the Republic of Turkey”. The article Turkey also makes that succession clear. Also, while it existed, the empire was often referred to as 'Turkey'. So it seems curious that we filing articles such as Ottoman Armenian casualties and wishing to classify certain historical events as Ottoman and not as Turkish. Politis ( talk) 19:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
@A.Garnet: Please don't use euphemisms as section titles. You should have named this section "The way backward" as in "Going back on a deal". Thanks. Dr.K. logos 19:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, I see old friends are back in this... Too bad they didn't follow my example and disappear permanently letting the third parties decide for this, as they alone originally did. Also, too bad the third parties tolerate the stance of one disputing user, after months of stability of the version they themselves wrote... Maybe I should be back? Naaah... I trust the WP community in sorting this out. I'll just go bold once and remove the silly and unjustified tag. I invite any third party to reinstate it with their own reasoning. Please, stuff like "we can agree it is disputed", or "pov-title tag is legitimate" without a justification in the talkpage are simply unsubstantiated. Give'em some academic substance, will you? (if you find any...) Niko Silver 17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
From the history of the page:
I think there is some misunderstanding going on here:
Personally I do not think that the tag is necessary, but I do recognise that if some editors wish to discuss the title further then there is a dispute for which it is legitimate to include such a template at the start of the article (it is the old summation of Voltaire's POV "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it": although in this case A.Garnet, that statement (the death bit) is for me OTT :-)
However if "Greek genocide" is to be used as a NPOV title, then the section headers must remain neutral so show that the title of the article is NPOV. To do that we should go back to "Genocide debate" or "Genocide dispute" rather than "Genocide recognition", which when tied to the page name "Greek genocide->recognition" implies that there is no debate over this issue. -- PBS ( talk) 10:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I see Mr. A.Garnet has added again the tag, for the reasons he alone supports. As evident from above, no other editor shares those reasons. Following that logic, we can all go ahead in whichever article and state whichever reason we think of, even totally unsupported by anybody else, slap a {{ POV-title}} tag on top, and force everybody else to accept it on the grounds of Voltaire's "defense for his right to disagree". Shall we start with today's featured articles maybe, to illustrate the WP:POINT better? Naaah, this is a privilege of Mr. A.Garnet alone. Niko Silver 12:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I appeared on this article on January 27. I have since, both through discussion and edits, tried to highlight the fact that this article, in its present state, is a violation of several wiki policies relating to neutrality, undue weight and original research. The result has been that a number of editors (who appear to be Greek, lest I be accused of some sort ethnic attack) engaging in what I believe is an attempt to silence any editor who tries to challenge the ridicolous nationalist piece that this article is. Four editors in the past few weeks have tried to place a pov-title tag at the top of the article, which simply alerts readers that the title is being questioned by other Wikipedia editors. These include myself, Fut., PBS (though I acknowledge he thinks there is no need for it) and Aramgar. In response, other editors have appeared to remove the tag, providing token "reasons" such as "back to consensus", "revert to stable", "need to establish consesus for major changes" (since when was a tag a major change?) or "if you have issues take them to talk before" (I think I have arguing these issues for ... 3 years?). The point is I believe that a group of editors here are making it very difficult to change this article in a way which would conform with Wiki policy. Any edit which goes right to the core of what is wrong here i.e. disseminating fringe nationalist views as mainstream academia, is reverted straight away. That is why I am going to now re-apply the tag in the hope it will generate a proper discussion and if it is reverted I will seek an administrtors intervention to make sure it stays. -- A.Garnet ( talk) 20:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know who wrote this: "If the members of the United Nations pass appropriate legislation such incidents as the pogroms of Czarish Russia and the massacres of Armenians and Greeks by Turkey would be punishable as genocid". But they were not very well versed in international law, I can't think of a case where such treaties are retrospective. To present such an opinion from a newspaper, when it is clearly a minority POV is unbalanced.
Also as far as I know Raphael Lemkin, who was not a professional historian, and he based his analysis on secondary sources written before or during World War II. -- I know this because I recently came across a chapter on the extinction of the Tasmanian Aborigines, in which Henry Reynolds cites "H. Fein,Genocide;A Sociological Perspective' (London 1990) p. 13" stating that "Many of them have named Tasmania in their list of legitimate case studies, although their usual slight grasp of island history might of counseled caution." (A. Dirk Moses, Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History, Berghahn Books, 2004 ISBN 1571814108, 9781571814104. Chapter by Henry Reynolds "Genocide in Tasmania?" p.128).
With a controversial subject such as this, it is not a good idea to base a section on sources 60 years old presenting one point of view (that it was a genocide and a criminal act). -- PBS ( talk) 23:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay in replying, engaging in Wiki disputes is often time consuming and I cannot stay consistently involved.
User:Hectorian has asked for clear reasoning as to why the articles title is disputed. My reasoning is as follows:
The Title
Wikipedia policy on descriptive names states the following: "Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications." Some editors have tried to dismiss the pov title tag on the grounds that it is simply "descriptive" since it uses a little 'g'. This is semantics. Genocide carries implicit connotations of crime and murder and must only be used where it is beyond doubt that its usage is part of mainstream academia.
Again, Wiki policy on article naming states "Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization...A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality...Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing."
I have stated before that unless that there is a neutral title, there can be no neutral article. This article does not encourage multiple viewpoints on a certain historical event nor promote responsible writing, its sole aim is to further a pov that the Ottoman Empire committed a genocide against Greeks, that is the articles intention and its not a neutral one. Could the same accusation not be covered say in Greco-Turkish War, Great Fire of Smyrna or Population exchange between Greece and Turkey? Is there sufficient academic material which allows this allegation to have an entire article of its own like it was a documented fact?
Undue Weight
This brings me on to what is the fundamental failure of this article: There exists no scholarly work dedicated to such claims. Those are not simply my words, those are the words of scholar Taner Akcam. If I can source such a statement then surely that is a good starting point over judging these allegations prevalence in mainstream academia. Again, another scholar, Mark Levene, states explicitly that most scholars do not use the term genocide. So we can source two statements by two scholars which give us an overall idea about how developed these claims are in academia: one states there is no academic work which covers Greeks in the Ottoman Empire, another states most scholars do not use the term genocide.
We can further confirm this by a Google Scholar search, "Greek Genocide" returns just 11 results. "Armenian Genocide" returns 3,240. "Rwandan Genocide" returns 5,410. "Holocaust" 229,000 results. Undue Weight states "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all...To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."
The IAGS resolution has become the focal point for this article, it IS notable and deserves a mention, but is it enough to justify an ENTIRE article on? Its criticisms by scholars (which can be found above) range from either that it is not based on a scholarly process or that it will make the IAGS look like a joke.
Summary
Does the articles title reflect the "highest degree of neutrality" as required by Wikipedia? Is the subject an accurate representation of academic support for such claims? I have argued for over two years now that it fails on both these measures. My argument has nothing do with ridicolous responses such as I am using "Turkish reasoning", it is based on the fact that there is an obvious violation of basic wikipedia policies here and I dont believe the article should be allowed to continue in this state indefinitely. -- A.Garnet ( talk) 20:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Please don't be fooled What continues to be neglected are the errors in A.Garnet's fallacious arguments. There exist a number of scholarly works dealing with the Greek Genocide, some appearing in reputable peer reviewed academic journals such as 'Genocide Studies and Prevention' and others published as books. Examples of these have been listed above and explicitly discount A.Garnet and Akcam's claim that "there exists no scholarly work dedicated to such claims". Do I need to give such examples again? I did above and A.Garnet ignored my reply. In any case, not only are there specific publications focused on these events but there are also a multitude of references in other academic works, such as Samuel Totten and Paul R. Bartrop's "Dictionary of Genocide" and Adam Jone's "Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction" to name but two prominent publications. There are also many important statements supporting the application of the term genocide by world renowned pioneer genocide scholars such as Israel Charny and Gregory Stanton. The reason why the IAGS resolution is important is because it indicates that the majority of the world's genocide scholars support the application of the term genocide to the fate of the Ottoman Greeks. Although A.Garnet has pointed to a few scholars who raised concerns about the resolution prior to the actual vote, some of those actually use the term genocide for the Greeks in their own writings which undermines his argument further. Again, I pointed to a case of this above but A.Garnet ignored my reply. A.Garnet would have you believe that only a few scholars support the Greek Genocide thesis but, in fact, the contrary is true. If you like, we can compile a sourced list of those who support and reject the application of 'genocide' on this particular piece of history. Believe me, the minority view is held by A.Garnet and this can be easily demonstrated. A.Garnet would have you believe that the Greek Genocide is some product of the Greco-Turkish War, Great Fire of Smyrna or Population exchange between Greece and Turkey despite the fact it is a completely distinct event which predates all of those. Please don't be fooled. Bebek101 ( talk) 17:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
User:A.Garnet what would you suggest as an alternative name for the article? -- PBS ( talk) 11:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
'Persecution' can imply that the Greek indigenous population survived the 'persecution'. In fact, as many observers noticed, a 3,000 year old presence came to an abrupt end. With all due respect to our 'Turkish' friends whose reservations I respect, I suggest we leave the current title and keep looking for an agreed phrasing. Or perhaps, Greek genocide (1914-1923)? Politis ( talk) 12:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- ...
- [Van den Herik] is concerned that too much focus is placed on the crime of genocide, which is often erroneously held up by victims, the media - and even ad hoc tribunal judges - as the crime of crimes.
- "Genocide and crimes against humanity are of equal gravity, yet everyone feels that genocide is worse and carries an extra stigma," she said.
- ...
I am not fully aware of this matter, but wouldn`t it be NPOV to have a title "Expulsion of Greeks by the Ottoman Empire", which includes deportations, ethnic cleansing and even massacres, but is NPOV? Balkanian`s word ( talk) 18:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Bebek, I will make a simple request of you. Produce a statement by a third party scholar which states something along the lines that MOST scholars do recognise this as a genocide? Surely if it is a "distinct and quantifiable subject with much scholarship and literature affirming it as such" this should not be a difficult task. I dont want to hear this from you, or hear you tell me how prestigious and authoratative the IAGS is, that is the rhetoric of a Wikipedia editor, I want to hear it from a third party, neutral and authoratataive source. Can you do this? -- A.Garnet ( talk) 20:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
To those who would like to rename the current title, and use the word "casualties" instead of genocide, I am providing below Webster's definiton of "casualty"
1. an accident, especially a fatal one 2. a) a member of the armed forces who is lost in active service through been killed, wounded, captured, interened, sick or missing b) losses of personnel resulting from death, injury, etc 3. anyone hurt or killed in an accident 4. anything lost, destroyed, or made useless by some unfortunate or unforseen happening
It is obvious that the term does not even remotely reflect or do justice to the events. The thousands of Ottoman Greek deaths, from 1914-1923, were not an accident or accidents, or the result of some unforseen or unfortunate event, but the result of premeditated and deliberate actions by the Ottomans. To name a few of the actions/methods: labor battalions, deportations, death marches, hangings, outright killings, etc. And, by the way, they were not members of the armed forces, but unarmed men, women, and children.
Gentlemen, it is clear form your arguments that you are willing to say anything, and go to any length to deny that the events in question constituted a genocide. Rizos01 ( talk) 02:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Bebek101 arguments and approach to the issue [and I empathise to a degree with our Turkish(?) friends who wish to make drastic changes here]. But I will just repeat that between those years, the 3,000 year old presence of the Greeks in Anatolia was reduced to near extinction. Then came the 1950s progroms against the Greek sons and daughters of Istanbul. If that does not classify as genocide, then... what does? I seem to detect here a move to dilute the term 'genocide' and simply pass the buck to 'the Ottomans'; but remember, the perpetrators were always labelled 'Turks' while the Greeks of the empire were, inevitably, also Ottomans. For instance, there was a 17th coffee house in London called 'the Turk's Head' simply because its Greek owner was from the Ottoman empire. Politis ( talk) 17:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
there is no known genocide as greek genocide. article is wholly inaccurate. also there is actually no NPOV here. sorry but whole artcile seems just like a piece of ultranationalist propaganda by some greek politician. 94.123.102.239 ( talk) 23:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
this may go on forever. armenian genocide, greek genocide, kurdish genocide. the word "genocide" is not "that" simple. it can't be used anywhere like that. there may have been casulties in wartime conditions but you can't label everything as "genocide" 94.123.102.239 ( talk) 23:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)silvanus