Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Greek genocide. 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 9

The Cultural and Intellectual Property Interests of the Indigenous Peoples of Turkey and Iraq

Below is a recent article to be published in the TEXAS WESLEYAN LAW REVIEW by Hannibal Travis * Associate Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law

The text, there is much more than helow quoted, should be helpfull in establishing the series of events of the genocide. It lays forth the main events chronologically and very clearly.

Extended content

[The Cultural and Intellectual Property Interests of the Indigenous Peoples of Turkey and Iraq]

2. Efforts to Achieve the Extinction of the Greek Culture and Religion

In World War I and its aftermath, the extermination of the Greek population furthered the Ottomans’ plan for “Turkifying” their empire by removing “alien” races of Christians. Before the Ottoman Empire even joined the war, its Interior Minister Talaat Pasha told the American Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Henry Morgenthau, of a plan to “get rid of these alien peoples” like the Greeks by large-scale murders and deportations.225 The Ottoman government organized economic boycotts and large-scale dismissals of Christian employees in cities such as Constantinople and Smyrna.226 In this way, Talaat intended to “Turkify Smyrna” and other Greek population centers, and establish Turkey as “the land exclusively of the Turks.”227 The government’s “passion for Turkifying the nation seemed to demand logically the extermination of all Christians,” Morgenthau later wrote.228

The German general Limon von Sanders encouraged the Ottoman army to “throw[ ] these infidels [i.e. the Greeks of the Aegean region] into the sea.”229 The declaration of religious warfare incited widespread killings of Greeks and others.230 In May 1914, Ottoman Interior Minister Talaat dispatched orders to the Prefect of Smyrna that the “Greeks occupying the coastline of Asia Minor be compelled to evacuate their villages and install themselves in the vilayets of Erzerum and Chaldea.”231 Talaat’s communiqu ´ e included orders to obtain certificates from the expelled Greeks falsely representing that they had left “their homes on their own initiative,” so that the Ottomans would not face property-related “political complications ensuing from their displacement.”232 The expulsions were far from voluntary, however. Talaat added that: “If [the Greeks] should refuse to be transported to the appointed places, kindly . . . induce the Greeks, through excesses of all sorts, to leave their native places of their own accord.”233

The month after Talaat’s orders were issued, Prime Minister Venizelos of Greece condemned the Ottoman campaign aiming at “the elimination of populations which had been living in those places for several thousand years.”234 Thousands of refugees had already arrived in Greece from Anatolia, and thousands more were following them, totaling over 100,000 refugees in Greece or on the way by June 1914.235 Armed bands of Turks accompanied by police officers massacred 100 civilians in Phocea, a town northwest of Smyrna, prompting nearly 4,000 Greeks from the area to flee for Greece.236 By October, the Ottomans had deported 1,500 more Greeks from the city of Ere ˘ gli, west of Constantinople.237

The Ottoman leaders in Constantinople began reprisals in August 1914 against local Christians, drawing on public outrage about a British decision not to deliver two battleships under construction for the Ottoman navy. The Ottoman police and secret service began to pressgang all non-Muslims for forced labor as servants to Turkish soldiers.238 Ambassador Morgenthau wrote in his memoirs that both the Greeks and the Armenians were transferred into labor battalions in which untold thousands died of “cold, hunger and other deprivations.” 239 During the first ten days of this policy, thousands of Greeks fled Constantinople, many for the United States.240 Turkish officers ordered between 300,000 and 500,000 Greeks to be deported from eastern Thrace during the first few months of World War I.241 In the process, about half of the deportees were murdered or died from hunger or exposure to the elements.242

Talcott Williams, director of the Pulitzer School of Journalism at Columbia University, wrote to the New York Times that in 1915: “At least one-half of the Greek population has been deported from the cities and hamlets on the coast of Asia Minor from the Black Sea to the eastern end of Cilicia, or around three-fourths of the coast of this peninsula.”243 He continued: “The deportation of 700,000 Greeks . . . means slavery and death to the deported.”244 In 1918, a Turkish parliamentarian estimated that more than 500,000 Greeks deported from the Black Sea, Aegean, Marmara, and other regions had been “killed and annihilated.”245 In June 1915 the “Young Turk” leaders at the helm of the Ottoman Empire adopted a resolution directed to “[t]aking the commerce of the East out of Greek hands.”246 The resolution also envisioned “[t]he Turkification of the Greek element by force . . . .”247 Large-scale massacres of Greeks followed in 1916 and 1917, carried out by Turkish forces in Constantinople, Adrianople, and Smyrna.248 The Austro-Hungarian consul stationed in the city of Samsun on the Black Sea wrote to the German Foreign Minister that the Greeks in the area were being exterminated (ausgerottet werden) by Turkish troops under the pretext of lawful military operations.249 During World War I, “over 500,000 Greeks were deported, of whom comparatively few survived.”250

While France made renewed efforts after the war to protect the indigenous Christians of the former Ottoman Empire, the British and the Italians decided to favor Turkish ultranationalists. On October 30, 1918, Turkey reached an armistice agreement with the Allies.251 Imperial and commercial rivalries between Britain and France unraveled the post-war settlement in Turkey and opened the way for ultranationalists under Mustafa Kemal to cleanse most remaining Christians from the country.252 Specifically, Britain blocked French efforts to disarm the former Ottoman armies.253

In July 1919, the Kemalist Nationalists redoubled their efforts to wage war on the Allies notwithstanding the armistice agreement.254 The Nationalists pardoned violent criminals and recruited them for the gendarmerie, which proceeded to “round[ ] up” those Christians “still at large.”255 A British admiral reported in late 1919 that: Every district has its bands of brigands posing as patriots, and even in the vicinity of Constantinople robbery under arms is a daily oc- currence, the principal victims being naturally the unprotected Christian villagers. Behind all these elements of disorder stands Mustapha Kemal. . . .256

A Nationalist counterattack in 1921 on the Greek administration of Smyrna routed the Greek army, and Greek civilians fled with them in fear of reprisals by Turkish forces.257 Widespread massacres against the Greek population of Anatolia followed. Arnold Toynbee, an officer in the Political Intelligence Department of the British Foreign Office and part of the British delegation to the Paris peace conference in 1919, wrote that the Angora government of Mustafa Kemal Pasha extended its “war of extermination” against the Greeks from the Smyrna area to the Pontus region.258

In May 1922, the Greek Foreign Minister detailed the massacre of more than 300,000 Anatolian Greeks in the districts of Trabzon, Amasia, Kolenia, New Cesarea, and Rodopolis.259 The head of the Near East Relief Hospital of Harput, Anatolia, declared in June that: “the Turks are planning the extermination of this Christian minority [in Asia Minor].”260

Near the end of 1922, the League of Nations official tasked with formulating policy on Turkey reported that “all Greeks under Turkish sovereignty [must] be got away quickly to save them from starvation or death . . . .”261 The New York Times opined in an editorial later that week:

The great cultured nations of Western Europe which watch calmly the annihilation of some of the oldest stocks of European culture may be calm because they think they will get a bigger share of the business with resident business men out of the way. . . . [T]he killing off of the races that have done the business hitherto will merely widen the field for [them].262

Eventually over a million Greeks were deported from Turkey to Greece, along with almost 400,000 Turks and other Muslims who fled Greece for Turkey.263 The Greek refugees found themselves languishing in tents, caves, huts, schools, and the like.264 The demography ofTurkey had changed forever, its Greek, Armenian, and Assyrian communities exterminated or deported en masse.265

--Anothroskon (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Also note the following endorsement of the Kemalist policy of extermination as constituting genocide.

p.59 The Ottoman and Kemalist Nationalist massacres of the Anatolian Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Yezidis, as well as of the Mesopotamian Assyrians and Yezidis, constituted genocide under the initial definition and international criminal application of the term.384

--Anothroskon (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Selecting particular sources only is a good way to make an article biased. But the main thing here, isn't this copyrighted? I think we should remove this. --Seksen (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Greek Genocide from Dictionary of Genocide

Dictionary of Genocide: M-Z, Samuel Totten.PauI Robert Bartrop.Steven L Jacobs, 0313346445 978-0313346446 Greenwood (November 30, 2007) p.337

Extended content

Pontic Greeks, Genocide of. The Pontic (sometimes Poncian) Greek genocide is the applied to the massacres and deportations perpetrated against ethnic Greeks living Ottoman Empire at the hands ot the Young Turk gLwemmern between 1914 and The name of rbi people derives from the Greek word prnms, inelning “sea coast,” refers to the Greek population that had lived on the south—eastern coast of the Black that is, in northern Turkey, fir three millennia. In a campaign reminiscent of the Armenian genocide that was being perpetrated at roughly the same time, the Pontic Greeks innumerable cruelties at the hands of the Turks. An estimated three hundred fifty-three thousand Pontic Grccks died,, many o forccd marches through Anarolia and the Dcscrt just Like the Armenians. Those who survived were exiLed from Turkey. The surviving Greek community. centered in the city of Sinyrna (l:mir). was literally into the sea in 1922, with the city razed an] thousands Lilled by the advancing Nationalist army. The destruction of the Pontic Greeks, and the forcible deportation followed, had but a single planned outcome: the removal of all Greeks from Turkey. a successful campaign in that it destroyed this ancient Greek community forever, creating a diaspora that is never likely to be reestablished in its ancestral homeland. In parallel with the Armenian situation, successive Turkish governments have denied the Pontic genocide ever occurred; the most frequent official explanations given are the Greeks died as casualties of war, by famine brought about by the Russian invasion nortlwrn Turkey, or a a result ol civil disiurinces,

--Anothroskon (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I know about books that deny the Holocaust. Also there is a book that says UFO's regularly visit earth. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

11th century ottoman conquests (İrrelevant Topic. Please Avoid this.)

Sorry but i find it laughable when I saw the first section of the article where it is mentioned about the 11th century Turkish conquests. I think this article truly and definitely went out of hand and became a piece of propoganda material.--88.241.16.92 (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with `denialism` of any sort, the article is supposed to cover the time span of 1914-1922, the Ottoman conquests of the 11th century has nothing to do with the topic of this article..--85.108.187.152 (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The origins and background section are meant to provide a brief context on the genocide. More material from Travis' article will be added that deals with the 19th and early 20th century persecution of Greeks by the Turks leading up to and including the events described as genocide. Again as per the published academic article.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats the whole problem with this text, 11th century has nothing to do with the context of the atrocities, in order to do that you should be looking to the period starting with the late 19th century..--85.108.187.152 (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The main component in the background section will in fact relate to the 19th century. I will be adding that in future.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Still, the data about the 11th century is irrelevant. If you really want to write about the context of the atrocities you need to specify to the 19th and early 20th century. Oh, by the way, why you keep deleting sourced content?--85.108.187.152 (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

WP is not a quote repository, this is the purpose of wikiquote. Plus the fact that you have been banned and should be reported doesn't much help.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Then i suppose one can shorten the quotations, but deleting them all together is a totally different thing, which you happen to be doing all along.--85.108.187.152 (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, if there is any POV pushing in this article, it is the totally irrelevant section that you added which is about the 11th century ottoman conquests. if you have any criticisms about the nature of quotes you should be discussing in here without deleting them first.--85.108.187.152 (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you must simply stop treating any article as the personal belongings of 3-4 people and let other people make their edits as well. So, in the face of unexplained reversions, i am going to continue to revert the article --85.107.38.237 (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes in the first half of 2010

I am not impressed with the changes that have occurred to this page since I last looked at it last year.

The section (First created in pril 2010) and called:

Greek genocide#Earlier Ottoman Efforts to Achieve the Extinction of the Greek Culture and Religion

has a title that is leading and biased. The very frist sentence advances one point of view. "The process of Turkification in Asia Minor began with the first incursions by nomadic Turkic peoples in the tenth century and was intensified in the following centuries culminating in the Greek genocide." The whole point of the article is that yes there were crimes against humanity, but whether there was a genocide is still being debated. Yet here we have a definitive statement in the passive neutral voice of the article that it was a genocide.

The whole of the section "Pre 19th c." seems to me to be a synthesis of a number of sources which do not establish that there was government lead policy to achieve the extinction of Greek culture and religion. BTW the section "19th c." is referring to 20th century events.

The recognition of the is badly skewed, and trawling through the internet looking for local governments and statements in various countries does not help build a balanced encyclopaedia article, instead it makes the page look like a desperate advocacy website. For example mentioning Stephen Pound one MP out of 600 in the British House of Commons is hardly significant as you can probably find a British MP who holds opinions favourable to any pressure group that one can name. There are also serious problems with the sources used as some of them are not reliable ones or do not support what is being said. For example take this one http://www.angelfire.com/folk/pontian_net/News/proclomations.htm is given as justification for including Souoth Carolina in the list yet the images are barely legible and the Governor's proclamation says in large letters persecution -- which is a crime against humanity -- not genocide. -- PBS (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Presenting the medieval Turkish conquest in the context of a narrative of "efforts to achieve the extinction" of Greeks is just incredibly idiotic. It's not even worth dicussing as a serious POV. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

What is idiotic ir rushing into a debate without first checking the sources. Your opinion has no value in and of itself. The mention of the pre-19th c. events in the background section follows the pattern in the academic and published journal paper used as a reference. As such it has a place in the article. In future I will add more material from said paper to include events leading up to and part of the genocide.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that article did that. Maybe you should think a moment about the difference between a lawyer and a historian, and why an article in a student-run "Law Review" isn't a reliable source about medieval history. Exceptional claims require exceptionally good sourcing: if you want to seriously push the idea that the Selcuks established their rule in Anatolia as part of a concerted "effort to achieve the extinction" of Greeks, you will need first-rate references from peer-reviewed publications by specialised academic historians, and more than one of them; nothing less than that will do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fut.Perf. I have started to read the paper] The Cultural and Intellectual Property Interests of the Indigenous Peoples of Turkey and Iraq and Hannibal Travis does not seem to have a very good grasp of international law. For example, on page 609 he states "Under international law, a people’s indigenous status derives from living in a given region or country" yet the footnote give "18" is not to a treaty, now he may be right, I don't know, but citing a working paper as international law is iffy to say the least. He goes on to make a lot of other claims which as it is not an area that I know much about I am not going to comment on other than to say that he seems to be using similar techniques. He then mentions a source that I do know quite a lot about. On page 614 he has made a classic mistake that we see often made by Wikipedia editors. He has misunderstood that the only part of GCIV that applies to civil wars are the general articles specifically Article 3 yet he quotes "religious convictions and practices" which is in Art. 27. part of the convention that covers international not civil wars, (his footnote is 50 ). If he can not get a simple points of intentional law correct which is the area where he is supposedly an expert how can we trust his assessments of information extracted from areas in which he is not an expert?

To try to explain some of my specific problems with the section now called "Earlier Ottoman Efforts to Achieve the Extinction of the Greek Culture and Religion" The title implies that it was a systematic attempt by an Ottoman government or governemts, because if Ottoman is not being used that way why use Ottoman and not Turkish if one is going to use Greek and not Hellenic?

Let us look at the first few sentences:

Starting in the 11th century Seljuk Turks attacked the Eastern Roman Empire and began the process of replacing the indigenous Greek and Armenian populations with Turks. During the next three centuries for instance the Greek city of Smyrna was destroyed three times, first by the Seljuk Turks, then by the Persians and finally by the Turkic-speaking Mongols under Timur Leng

The first sentence contains "began the process of replacing" the next sentence contains "for instance ... then by the Persians and finally by the Turkic-speaking Mongols" So the Persians and the Mongols were part of a "process of replacing the indigenous Greek and Armenian populations with Turks"? Anothroskon can you see how bias this is? I could construct a similar German centric view of how the Slavic move east into areas inhabited by German tribes, was part of a "process of replacing" Germans in Poland with Slavs culminating in the expulsions after World War II. None of the facts presented would be wrong, but the accumulation of facts it would present a distorted one sided view of history to advance a specific point of view. History is never that simple and to present it in this way is not acceptable if we are constructing articles with a neutral point of view. Far better that this new section is removed as in my opinion. Instead we should add a couple of sentences to "Origins" explaining when the Turkish tribes arrived in the area and their rise to power, (which is similar to that of other tribal movements into lands all over the Roman Empire). -- PBS (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I consider PBS being mistaken in his comparison due to several reasons:

Different tribes cannot be organized or carry out AN organized policy
Those same tribes could not have communication methods to cooperate in any goals, even if They had
Unlike 1 Turkish Imperial state with different ruling systems but on the same territory.
The German tribes (including Goths, Anglo-Saxonic tribes, Germanic or Franks) were migrating into all regions of Europe themselves whereas Greeks and Armenians lived compact for thousands of years and had an established culture and history on those lands as well as ownership rights, moral, political, historical and legal.
The results of the the 2nd as well as 1st world wars for Germany were results of their own initiated wars, whereas the Greek or Assyrians and others are not the initiators.
The results of Slavic countries "benifiting" from the WW2 is because of WORLD wars, and not their own invasions or massacres on THEIR territories of 1 poor German nation. Whereas the Turkish ruled state destroyed the invaded cultures and nations which were by the way unarmed.
The last but not the least, Turkish rules state was 1 country. Slavic states were many. Dont want to go into what work it needs to organize and direct them.

As for the rephraze, I am for it. It surely doesn't help to have several not connected incidents though with the same goals be connected to the Turkish policies. That section of the article needs to be considered for changes and I think with proper help we can contribute to that section.

Do we have doubts that the policy of cultural "extermination" was not there?

--IsmailAhmedov (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"Different tribes cannot be organized or carry out AN organized policy" Quite so how do you justify "first by the Seljuk Turks, then by the Persians and finally by the Turkic-speaking Mongols under Timur Leng"? The point is that the whole section is a synthesis of facts put together to advance a point of view. To make such an argument it would be necessary to show that for hundreds of years the rules of the Ottoman empire had strived to homogenise the populations that they controlled and that this was a consistent policy that pre-dated the rise of the concepts behind the nation state, which is one of the usual reason given for the massacres during the first quarter of the C20th. -- PBS (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this section could be removed altogether from this article, reworked and perhaps placed on the Ottoman Greeks page? I fully understand why it was felt appropriate to include a background but perhaps this could be a solution to some of the comments expressed here recently? I also think PBS makes a good point about the recognition section. I think it might be an idea to cut out all the waffle and have just a few lines explaining the current position.Bebek101 (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Philip that there is a need for cleanup in the areas he indicates. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 11:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, PBS. And this is the part i said has to be worked on, but simply deleting the information would not suffice. I was showing how much your general comparison of the Turkish reign of the region and the Slavs are irrelevant and i hope u understood it. Also I didnt get if you argue, that after the conquest of those countries the Turish rule aimed on the distruction (and assimilation) of the local civilizations/cultures and peoples. Pls clarify this. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have put out my stall, I think I have made my point clearly. I think you need to addressed the points made by the other editors to this section. -- PBS (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see PSB making sense in either his comparison or comments and it is clearly seen he evades answering direct questions. Of course the Ottomans, Seljuks and even current Turkey continues the destruction of the cultural heritage of other civilisations and it is the continuation of the cultural genocide. Should be worked on to find proper reliable sources for these policies and reflected in all relevant articles. Emilio1974 (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Which direct question have I not answered? -- PBS (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

i think emillio meant the direct question if you doubted that turkish rule always had a goal to desolve or destroy the native cultures and peoples of the region. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Which region? The territories of modern Turkey or those of the Ottoman Empire at its zenith? But as a general answer to your question I have no idea. To present such an analysis of the motives behind the rule of the Ottoman Empire as an exception to the usual motives of imperialists you would need to present histories from the majority of top draw historians to show that "Turkification" (as used by nationalists that lead to genocidal acts in the C20th) is the established understanding for the motives behind the government of the Ottoman Empire over the centuries it existed. If it is the accepted norm then sources will be abundant. If on the other hand if is a minority view then see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. As an example of how such minority views (or majority views) can be presented see the section genocides in history#France. -- PBS (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

thank you for an "excurse" through the rules. i only wanted to know your opinion and knowledge. seems it is the "positive" u know of ottomans. good that wikipedia can give u more than that. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that Philip does know about that ongoing policies of the Empire and how they continue today. Somebody active on Greek, Armenian genocides and other issues like this in the POV of "against" surely has some relevance to Turkey or knowledge about Turkey and knows it was not a few years' activity to erase the native cultures. But let's assume good faith, if Philip presents it not to be so. Emilio1974 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Greek genocide or Greek Genocide?

Hiya to all. A question on the titling, as this article came up in a discussion about use of capitals in article naming on Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide#Requested move; specifically and NARROWLY PLEASE, about the capitalization of titles of events like these. Is Greek genocide a proper noun, and if so, shouldn't it be Greek Genocide? Here's my sense of it, copied from over there at the RfM, [where the proposal (not mine, I had questions that led to you) was to move the page from Denial of the Armenian Genocide to Armenian Genocide denial]: This was my first question, because I thought, "Well, this would conform better to the Manual of Style (which does not cover this specific point...YET):

"However, should it not be Armenian genocide denial, unless there is some legitimate reason why in this case genocide should be capitalized? Further, why should not (for examples) the articles Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Srebrenica Genocide, Rwandan Genocide follow the same naming conventions as do Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, and Burundi genocide? I have the same question concerning titles containing the word massacre: Why Parsley Massacre but Rohingya massacre? Perhaps if such topics are considered events and as such are considered proper nouns...but I'd like to see all such titles conform across the board, to a coherently stated convention, whichever convention is supported by either clear policy or robust consensus. I haven't looked hard for it at all, but maybe someone else has: Is there any established WP policy, guideline, or village pump decision on precisely this?"

The response was:

"I'll explain my vision. In the titles it is a name of an event ("Greek Genocide"), a term and not word-combination (adjective + noun) to mark the belonging of the event. The same way the terms for Cuban Missile Crisis or Caribbean Crisis and not Caribbean crisis with Caribbean as an adjective and crisis as a noun. Or the Berlin Blockade, for another example."

to which I queried further:

"Is your vision... supported by a WP policy, and if so, please point me to that policy. I studied WP:Article titles and WP:Naming conventions#Capitalization to no avail. Where is this 'an event, or series of events, is a proper noun whose terms shall be capitalized' policy, if there is one? Declaring that something is an Event (not to opine in any way that this E/event isn't one) and thus is a proper noun that should be capitalized, could be controversial to some, and might encompass different scopes for different folks, so please explain also, if you can, why (as examples--there are a vast number of 'E/events' that might have this issue) the E/events currently titled (and capitalized like this-->) Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, Burundi genocide, and Rohingya massacre should not be capitalized as you propose for the move to Armenian Genocide denial, if there is a good reason to handle each differently. Staying arbitrarily within the narrow category of death and dying-themed events only, why Moors murders and Soham murders, but Parker-Hulme Murder? (the current examples suggest, somewhat irregularly, that single death is an Event, but multiple death is an event, unless it's a whole lot of death, in which case it's an Event??) What is the WP policy, if there is one, that sets these sorts of boundaries (or not) for E/events of all flavors?"

and got this answer:

"I do think that massacres or genocides you noted above should be capitallised. Those are events. A murder is an event, a pogrom is an event, a mass murder (massacre) is an event, a genocide is an event, but an article "Mass murders" is not an event, an article "The genocides of Europe" is not AN event or Sexual disorder is a collective word-combination and a collective article but Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder is a name of one disorder. the same way Greek, Assyrian or Armenian Genocides are separate events and not some variety of genocides or something. I don't even thing this was ever discussed. Just all the WP:RSs write it with a capital letter so no doubts."

Please share your thoughts on the idea of changing the name of this page to Greek Genocide, a proper noun. I'm going to try to edit the Manual of Style to address this question, and before I do, I'd like to find out what community consensus is on the matter.

Sorry so long-winded. =) Duff (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 7 Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 8 Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 9. Having the name as a descriptive one makes it much easier to write a balanced NPOV lead. If the reliable sources overwhelmingly called it the "Greek Genocide" then this would be the name we would use, but as there is as yet no clear agreement in reliable sources to use that name, keeping it as a descriptive name can be justified under NPOV issues. -- PBS (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I fixed your 3 links, hope that's ok. Hmmm. I also read through just the first, for about an hour...how many hours must it have taken you all just to argue that archive, let alone all the others. Dear. I don't want to re-open that discussion specific to this page, especially if it's been clearly settled by consensus here. Has it? Can you point me directly at the consensus-making moment? In your opinion, how much easier has the decision to keep the word genocide in lower case made the article to edit from NPOV in practice? I agree with the bit about reliable sources and how they use it. Did you find a WP Policy aimed right at what I am asking about? I did not, yet. Duff (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The first section Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 9 seems to be when we finally agreed. The article was then moved and later moved again to Greek genocide, as it was agreed that the content covered more than just the Pontic Greek genocide. As it was a descriptive name it was much easier to agree to the move as we did not have to find reliable sources to justify the move. Personally I would have preferred a more neutral descriptive name but this one has the advantage of being concise. -- PBS (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have read about the Greek Genocide and I have seen it written as a proper noun just like the Bosnian or Assyrian Genocides. I can present those reliable sources if required. Emilio1974 (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What genocide?

On what basis and what proof the term genocide is being used on this article? Wikipedia is turning more and more into a propaganda site. I mean look at this; Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Greek genocide, and Dersim genocide. On Wikipedia there is no topic dedicated to genocide of native Americans, the obvious genocide on Australian natives is called "genocide debate", there is no genocide topic for the mass murder of Turks during WW1, the Khojaly genocide is called Khojaly massacre but whatever Turks did in wars are called genocide without any documentation or proof merely by the sentiments of the editors who belong in associated nations. I dispute this article's title and suggest a name change to Greek war casualties in the Aegean theatre during world war 1 --Tmhm (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You are not the first to voice these concerns. Please look at the article's talk pages, read them and the accompanying academic quotations clearly labelling the events as genocide and pay special attention to the sections where your POV is debated and a concensus to name the article using the word genocide is arrived at.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tmhm. Thanks for your comments but one reason your suggested title would not be applicable is because the events described in this article also refer to atrocities committed at times of peace and outside war zones. In other words, this article is not about war casualties. If you are interested in casualties as a result of some war, you can consult the relevant Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Bebek101 (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well its still does not change the fact that this genocide talk is nonsense. This page shouldnt even be open. And why Tmhm wanted title change is because what you call as genocise is exaggerated numbers of the civillian who died as war attrocities not genocide. Same with the so called Armenian genocide. And Tmhm you know what we say wont make them look for the truths. Turks have been at the crosshairs of other nations since they came to Anatolia. Its because they occupy Anatolia. It would have been same for any nation because most humans are ruled by greed and lets agree on that the land which Turkey Republic occupies has many riches (underground resources, natural resources, strategical position, etc.). Other nations want it and they need Turks out of the picture. Just like what happened in Iraq and Suriye. They try to use all in their arsenal. Greeks and Armenians are only two of their tool. Using genocide talks to create an image of evil Turks. And it has been succesfull so far. They are trying to bury the truths and write a history based upon their own lies. İ am telling you this Genocide talk is only beginning. Capitalism uses whole nations like Greeks and Armenians as its attack dog. Whole nations are turned into weapons. Fed with lies and false ideas from the childhood.

George Horton

A sentence from the biography of George Horton which is also cited in the article "He was also a professional diplomat who loved Greece." So, he isn't a reliable source because since he loved Greece, he would write from the Greek POV. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC) "James L. Marketos (2006). "George Horton: An American Witness in Smyrna". ahiworld.org. http://ahiworld.org/pdfs/George_Horton_remarks.pdf. Retrieved 11-03-2009" is the source that I have mentioned. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Valavanis

Valavanis, G.K. (1925). Contemporary General History of Pontus (Σύγχρονος Γενική Ιστορία του Πόντου), Athens. is not a reliable source. Using a Greek source is as wrong and biased as using a Turkish source which says "this is completely a lie". Additional sources are needed in order to prove the sentences which cite this book. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

But anyway, the book of Valavanis is not widely used, but there are many Greek sources, and in order to ensure neutrality, there should be more Turkish sources used. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, feel free to find and add Turkish sources on these matters as well, of course. No need to remove reliable sources just because they're Greek, though. Mundart (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have never removed sources, but I think there should be other sources in order to verify the information. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move as proposed. I was not able to determine if the move to Ethnic cleansing of Greeks 1914-1923 as suggested in the discussion could have consensus so it may be worth considering that. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Greek genocide → Persecution of Greeks (1914–1923) — Not widespread name, which is being spread by using Wikipedia, only 44 reliable results in Google Books, so against WP:NPOV and WP:NAME, while the other is a far widespread and neutral naming. Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I have done a research about how widespread the term "Greek Genocide" is. The results are obvious. It is not common at all and Wikipedia is being used as a tool in order to spread this name. Let me show you some Google results:

Greek Genocide in Google Books gives 58 results. There are only two books which have the term "Greek Genocide" in their title. But as we look carefully, we can easily see that all books from General Books LLC publishing house are copies of Wikipedia. So, although this term was not so widespread, Wiki spreads this term, which is an unwanted reality, and against NPOV, naming policies, maybe original research, and this can easily be called "propaganda".

Let's do the necessary subtractions in order to see how common this name is. I am subtracting irrelevant and results which say "no Greek genocide took place", as well as the books which are collections of Wikipedia articles. 58-14= 44. 44 results! Certainly not enough for a "genocide".

In addition, 31 results in Google Scholar.

The term "genocide" is very controversial and it could easily violate NPOV and other policies if not widespread. The "Greek Genocide" is not "Armenian Genocide". The fact that three countries and an organization recognize it as "genocide", does not make it a "genocide". And anyway, two of the countries are Greece and Republic of Cyprus - Greek states.

After analysing all this, I proposed this article to be renamed as "Persecution of Greeks", "Massacres of Greeks" or "Greek massacres", which are far more widespread terms, in order to avoid propaganda. And if necessary, the brackets (1914-1923) can be added to the name.

--Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In short, I think this name is against WP:NPOV and WP:NAME and Persecution of Greeks (1914-1923) is more convenient. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Move to Ethnic cleansing of Greeks 1914-1923 See Talk:Ethnic Cleansing of Circassians#Move.3F for comparison. "Persecution" is a bit of a euphemism to understate it while "genocide" is not really correct. ^walk victor falk^talk 14:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, although itis not so widespread, it actually fits the incidents best. Yes, I also support this alternative. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose as nonsense. The term is widely used in reliable sources (44 is plenty), and is moreover used by the International Association of Genocide Scholars, indicating academic consensus on the matter. The nomination seems to me like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("The term "genocide" is very controversial", "in order to avoid propaganda"), and the the proposed alternatives are euphemisms. I also note the arguments used are completely specious ("And anyway, two of the countries are Greece and Republic of Cyprus - Greek states."). Athenean (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Please concentrate on the subject (I can also see speciousness in your comment, as nonsense). Genocide is a controversial subject and 44 is not plenty for a genocide, since genocide is "the murder of a whole group of people, especially a whole nation, race or religious group". If it is a whole race murdered, there should be plenty of books just about the genocide, as in the case of the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide. This is not Armenian Genocide, and we can see that about 10-15 books which are spreading this naming because Wiki uses it. It is also worth considering that no academic group considers this as genocide except International Association of Genocide Scholars. Greece and Republic of Cyprus are Greek states, but we are not discussing it, are we? Ethnic cleansing of Greeks, I think, is the best name for these incidents. Richard Hovhannissian's book shows that how uncommon the term was in 2005. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's "controversial"? According to whom? "It's controversial" is just your opinion. "Except for the International Association of Genocide Scholars"? What do you mean by "except"? This is the association of genocide scholars, the people that study and research this sort of thing. You can't just dismiss their view with an "except". If it's genocide to them, it's genocide to wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the international academic consensus, and the IAGS is the international academic consensus. As for "Greece and Republic of Cyprus are Greek states, but we are not discussing it", I honestly have no idea what you're on about or what that's supposed to prove. Athenean (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)(e

To clarify: It is not widely considered as genocide by scholars, since only International Association of Genocide Scholars recognize it as a genocide, and there is not even a single independent, academic, neutral book written about this genocide. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

So according to this logic, because the IAGS recognizes it at Genocide, wikipedia shouldn't? Am I missing something? There is no "only" here. The IAGS is the premier scholarly association on the subject. As for "not even a single independent, academic, neutral book written about this genocide", maybe you should look at the results of your own Google Books search. What you mean by "independent, academic, neutral book"? Athenean (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, everyone here will notice that the article title is "Greek genocide", not "Greek Genocide". The lower case is used, i.e. the name is purely intended to be descriptive. We've been over this a hundred times, please Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 7 Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 8 Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 9. Athenean (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Focus on subject, not on the words used, and do not attack on the other people who do not think what you think. The thing here is not lowercase etc. The thing is the word "genocide" used, genocide always means genocide, since genocide is "the murder of a whole group of people, especially a whole nation, race or religious group". I nearly forgot that there is this book, written on this subject. But no other books. By saying, "independent, academic, neutral book", I mean a book which has no relationship with the Greek government and written in an academic way, i.e. not a novel, a book with footnotes, resources. Although IAGS recognizes it, I can clearly see that no university has made a research about this genocide. This means that it is not widely recognized as a genocide among scholars, if it was, there would be some article about this genocide by a university, probably by a respected university (there are genocide scholars in universities, but why do not they write a book about this?), as in the case of the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide. And there is "only" here, since genocide is "the murder of a whole group of people, especially a whole nation, race or religious group", if there is only one book published about the murder of a whole nation, it certainly is not enough. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Funny, the results of your own Google Books and Google Scholar searches turn up a whole bunch of publications that have no relationship with the Greek government. And neither does IAGS. Anyway, we've been over this whole "Greek Genocide" vs. "Greek genocide" vs. "It's not genocide" business 100 times in the talkpage archives. Do you honestly think you're the first user that comes along protesting the designation of genocide? It's been discussed to the death, over 10 pages of archives. The current name is the result of a meaningful consensus among wikipedians . You can try to obtain a new consensus, but I very much doubt this will happen. Athenean (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but only one of them is wholly about Greek genocide. I do not think so that the other alternatives were discussed seriously. Look: [1], [2]. I obviously do not think that I am the first discussing the name "genocide", but I am the first to give such alternatives such as "persecution" and (actually it is Victor Falk) "ethnic cleansing". There are some good alternatives there. The thing is not "is it genocide?" here, it is "there are some better alternatives here". So please do not try to prevent discussing these alternatives. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, per Athenean. A Macedonian (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Move to Ethnic cleansing of Greeks (1914-1923) or Persecution of Greeks (1914-1923) - does not matter which (by the way, I forgot to vote). I might support some other alternatives. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

To summarize the arguments in favour of moving: The name Greek genocide is not common. There are other alternatives which are more widespread. There are no articles/books about this genocide published by a university or other academic institution. There is only one book about this event, so other terms are more widespread. The name "Greek genocide" became more widespread because Wikipedia used it. So, the other alternatives are more neutral and they are more convenient when we view policies. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. One could make the same suggestion at Armenian Genocide. But also, briefly: Konstantinos Fotiadis (then professor at the Univ of Thessaloniki) has published 13 volumes of documentation and a summary history (600pp.) under the title "The Genocide of the Greeks of the Black Sea Region [Η Γενοκτονία των Ελλήνων του Ποντου], Kyriakidis, Thessaloniki (2004). I know that an English version is under consideration at a major US university press as well. Mundart (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, this is completely different from Armenian Genocide. This gives 44 results, while Armenian Genocide gives hundreds, thousands of results in Google Books. Please see Richard Hovhannissian's book for comparison. I cannot see any independent books still - there must be books about Greek genocişde in Greece, as well as books about Turkish genocide in Turkey, both published by universities, but this does not mean that a genocide took place. But if the publishing house in the US is a serious publishing house, like a university, we can consider it - so, it is considerable, but could you please inform us about which university it is? But still, it is only two books about a murder of a whole nation. Thank you for your comment. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

But I doubt whether the book has been published in English, since there are no results for the name of the book in English. If it has not been published in the US, then it is like a book about Turkish genocide in Turkey - biased. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Greek Genocide has already been recognized internetionally. For example last year Swedish Parliament recognized Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocide. It was not only Armenian genocide Assyrians and Greeks were also explicitly mentioned. Ali55te (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC) http://www.genocidepreventionnow.org/HomeIssue5Winter2011/GPNISSUES/Issue2Spring2010/tabid/71/ctl/DisplayArticle/mid/482/aid/117/Default.aspx

I have mentioned this above. The fact that Swedish parliament recognized it does not mean that Wikipedia should use the term "genocide". The term must be widely used by scholars, and 45 results in Google Books are not enough. Have you read the discussion above? --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You intentionally never mentioned Sweden. Sweden is a very neatural country in this aspect and their decision matter. Scandinavian countries has enough documents in their archives related to the events happened during world war I.Ali55te (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

They might, but I can claim that do not because your statement is not cited. Also, if Scandinavian countries have enough documents, why Norway, Denmark and Finland do not recognize this genocide? And as we can see, apart from the fact that Sweden recognize it as genocide, the name "genocide" is nou widely used. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OpposeThe same arguments have been rehashed in the talk pages a thousand times. The consensus reached was for the current title.Please look at the sources clearly labelling the events a genocide.--Anothroskon (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above. I doubt you did so. And I doubt you searched for "ethnic cleansing" or "persecution" in the archives. Now understood why I am still discussing it? Please look at the Google Books results and Hovhanissian's book clearly labelling that the term "genocide" is not widespread. And since the vast majority of the voters here are Greek (at least at the moment), there is a natural consensus, but never mind. Please have a look at the reasons for moving above, and do not just vote directly. Thanks. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been working on this article since early 2008 (as Xenovatis), just after the IAGS resolution labelling the events as genocide came into effect, and the consensus we reached with the other editors was to name it as such for reasons that are to lengthy to go through here and are available in the article's talk pages. I would invite interested readers to go through them as well as the large compilation of sources describing the events as genocide which I have also made available under this talk page's archives.--Anothroskon (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there is still no discussion about these names. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

They and several others like them have already been proposed and discarded in favour of the current stable version both with respect to the title and the lead. Please consult the talk page archives.1, 2,3.--Anothroskon (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Something not discussed cannot be discarded. All the discussions have turned to "genocide or not genocide" thing at some moment, and so does this one. Also, I cannot see a consensus of many people here. And if only Greeks and Turks attend to such discussions, there will be always a certain consensus. Anyway, please do not repeat saying the same thing over and over. You have not said anything constructive, e.g. about the fact that it is uncommon and Wikipedia is spreading and all. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, some thing I found above, which has somewhat not been replied, South Carolina's governor defines it as "persecution". Now we have a state which defines the events as persecution, too. So that means the term "persecution" is also used by governments. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment. With no opinion on what the article should be titled, if it is moved to a title with "1914-1923" in it, it should actually be "1914–1923" per MOS:DASH. Jenks24 (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for reminding it, adjusted the dash. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Morgenthau

Henry Morgenthau, the United States ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916 accused the "Turkish government" of a campaign of "outrageous terrorizing, cruel torturing, driving of women into harems, debauchery of innocent girls, the sale of many of them at 80 cents each, the murdering of hundreds of thousands and the deportation to and starvation in the desert of other hundreds of thousands, [and] the destruction of hundreds of villages and many cities", all part of "the willful execution" of a "scheme to annihilate the Armenian, Greek and Syrian Christians of Turkey."

This is in 1922. But the "genocide" seems to end at the end of the World War I. In 1922, it seems like both sides committed massacres, but this is not a part of the "genocide", at least it looks like it in the article. So, it seems like Morgenthau describes the events during Turkish War of Independence, which is irrelevant with this "genocide". --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

for the larger part these were bona-fide deportations; that is, the greek inhabitans were actually removed to new placed and were not subjected to wholesale massacre. It was probably the reason that the civilized world did not protest against these deportations

This one seems to be about the events called "genocide", but it contradicts the claim that massacres took place. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the lede you would have seen it clearly states that the time period is 1914-1923.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It clearly states, but without citations. Can you please give me a source which says "a Greek genocide happened between 1914-1923"? I cannot see any sources talking about the time period of a "genocide". And I cannot see information on any persecution of Greeks in the article either. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And by saying sources, I mean reliable sources, not a propaganda site like greekgenocide.org or a book published in Greece (if those were reliable for the definition of genocide or time period, it would mean it is possible to create an article called "Turkish genocide" based on publications by books published in Turkey). --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is plenty of reliable material supporting this [[3]], [[4]], [[5]][[6]]Alexikoua (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This says 1922 in the same time, while the article about the "genocide" seems to be written by a Greek author anyway. And the remaining three sources are not plenty, and as I told before, only 44 reliable books use the term "Greek genocide", even this is not plenty. And anyway, I still cannot see any persecutions in 1923, and the sources that you have given seem to lack it. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Historical Engineering

Turks didn't genocide Greeks. This article is nothing more than a westernist antiturkic propaganda. Greek genocide will be the first "socially constructed" genocide of human history.

--78.167.51.130 (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is really a popular naming with only 44 sources. Using to the article, it is one source for every 10,000 people. Seems like impossible, but the impossible happens on Wikipedia. --Seksen (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am smelling Greek lobby in here. There's clearly no genocide. Koc61 (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume we have just a trolling opportunity by an ip editor, since the previous move proposal was unsuccessfull due to lack of arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Not due to lack of arguments, but due to lack of contributors. --Seksen (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of original research

I have reverted the following addition, twice now, because it is original research:

...whose accounts are often accused to be one-sided and unreliable,<ref>[[Brian Coleman]], [http://www.maney.co.uk/search?fwaction=show&fwid=466 Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies]</ref><ref>Kirli, Biray Kolluoglu. Forgetting the Smyrna Fire, Oxford University Press, 2005.</ref><ref>Heath Lowry, “Turkish History: On Whose Sources Will it Be Based? A Case Study on the Burning of Izmir”, ''The Journal of Ottoman Studies'', IX, 1988.</ref>

It is original research to say: whose accounts are often accused to be one-sided and unreliable, if these are your words and not the words of a scholar who analysed the work of the American consul. Therefore please do not add this original research into the article. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to note that this removal [[7]] appears to be without the appropriate edit summary, since the caption doesn't mention who was rensponsible for the fire.Alexikoua (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It is with a justified reason, for if Greeks were responsible for the fire, it would not be a part of this "genocide", would it? These are not my words at all. See this for example please. --Seksen (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

New Research

Editors might be interested in this piece of research published in book form as “Ships of Mercy” [8]. The title of the article is, 'Christos Papoutsy Dispels Myths of 1922 Catastrophe'. It is about the experiences of Asa K. Jennings in 1922.Politis (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"During World War I and its aftermath (1914-1923), the government of the Ottoman Empire instigated a violent campaign against the Greek population of the Empire"

This statement is plainly false, the Ottoman government was not involved in those massacres. It was the party of Turkish nationalists, enemy to the Ottoman government, who were doing all the genocides and ethnic cleansing. At a lesser extent, the Neo-Turks were also involved. This is a fact of huge historical significance. Miskin (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Actually, the statement is factual. The Ottoman government initiated the genocide in 1914 and the Turkish Rebels under Kemal continued that policy in 1919 up to 1923. Fact. --Nikoz78 (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The period of 1919-1922

I have two criticisms about the narration of this period in this article:

There are two distinct articles and one sub-article that deal with the massacres Turks committed against the Greeks during this period: Great Fire of Smyrna, Greek Genocide and the Turkish massacres of Greeks in the article of Greco Turkish War 1919-1922. I think there also needs to be a separate article about the atrocities that the Greek state had committed during this same period against the Muslim population under the occupied territories. There are enough documentation from the third party sources about such atrocities and some of them are already included in the atrocities section of the Greco-Turkish War.

Secondly, even though that would not justify the violence agaisnt the Greek civilians, it has to be pointed out in this article that there was a war between Turkey and Greece between the years of 1919-1922, and according to numerous sources Greek occupation of Izmir provided the stimulus for the formation of Turkish national units.

If by justify, you mean equaling in numbers, it surely would.

It would do more then just equaling in numbers considering the truths, eighty percent of population was Turk in Anatolia (where massacares happened.) and Turk civillians who died because of Armenian or Greek terrorist groups which you call national parties would overshadow any number you might give based on false evidence.

Propaganda article

The Greek Genocide is a fictious term invented by Greek nationalists. The article should be more neutral and mention that no country on earth has ever accepted the so-called Greek Genocide (even Greece). Calling war attrocies as "genocide" shouldn't be this simple. In this case a regular Turk can come up with pictures and documents about attrocies commited by Greeks during the Turkish War of Independence and label them as "greek genocide." Come on, really... POV and neutrality are completely ignored here. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Diren Yardimli,

a genocide denier such as yourself, it is clear, that you would say such a thing. However, the evidence is crystal clear.

Turks committed genocide against the Anatolian and Pontian Greek, Assyrian and Armenian people.

These people were Christians that your Muslim forefathers annihilated, simply because of their religious belief.

The autochthonous people of Anatolia are the Greek, Armenian and Assyrian people, and certainly not the Turks. You are a recent inhabitants to this land Anatolia. It is unusual, that when you travel through present day Turkey, there are no Greek, Assyrian, or Armenian populations to be found. Where did these autochthonous people of Anatolia suddenly go, Diren? Did you ever ask yourself this question?

My suggestion is that you Turks should consider packing your bags and moving back to where you came from. That being the central Asian steppes and allow the Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians to resettle back into their original land.

I say, Anatolia for the Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians.

By the way, the Armenian, Assyrian and Greeks, have a sate of evidence demonstrating that your forefathers participated in genocidal acts. You on the other hand will not be able to do likewise.

Accept your history, and stop denying the undeniable. The rest of the world has already done so. Ικονοκλαστη (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so even more propaganda. I have nothing against you firmly believing that your were tried to be wiped out from the face of the earth by the evil Turks, absurd as it may sound. BUT, I'm not here to discuss your personal beliefs and superstitions. What I'm trying to say is that there are no encyclopedic or histocial facts about a Greek genocide. It's a term invented by Greeks and Greeks only. But what really bothers me is that you're consciously ignoring what I just said in my previous post; I openly stated that if the term "Greek genocide" is valid, then any Turk can come up with dozens of pictures of what the Greek army did when they were forced to leave Anatolia after they tried to invade Turkey during the War of Independence. They burned down villages, killed thousands of civilian Turks. Yet I'm not saying that this is genocide either. War attrocies, unfortunately follow every war. Lastly the reason that no one comes up with documents explaining WHY there weren't any Greek genocide is that no one really takes it seriously. No one tries to come up with facts that try do deny any Swedish genocides or any Bengalese genocide for that matter. It's simply absurd to waste ones time trying to deny something that's not mentioned anywhere (apart from the vast number of posts on the net by Greek ultra-nationalists). And lastly, the reason there are so few Greeks in Turkey today is not because they were killed, but because during the 50's they were unjustly deported to Greece. That was in fact a dark period for Turkey and a great embarrasment as well. But that's a whole other story, and one that many Turks inc. myself openly critisize. Yet you trying to show the lack of the Greek population as proof of a genocide shows just how much you really know about the history on both sides of the Aegean sea. Or maybe you do know, but you have no problem twisting the reality to be able to look at yourself as a "poor genocide victim" that we should feel sorry for. As a last advice from a friend, you actually don't need to be victims for the world to feel symphaty for you. All the best, --Diren Yardimli (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Diren, you come across as a decent fellow. Please take the time ot consult the following list of academic sources I have compiled and come back with your take on them. Best regards.sources--Anothroskon (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Anothorskon, thank you for finding me to be a decent person, but this is not the answer to my concernes. You can find an equal number of articles by Turkish and foreign scholars and historians telling stories about all the people the Greek army killed during the Turkish War of Independence. Please bear in mind that the Greek army was the invading force, they came to Turkish soil, not the other way around. But the simple fact is that historians and scholars from both sides aren't always objective. The problem is not the one-sided stories told by pro-Greek scholars. The problem is that whenever someone tries to add the "other side of the story" (without deleting the Greek version) it gets erased faster than the speed of light. That's what makes this article a well orchestred propaganda article. All the very best, --Diren Yardimli (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You have moved from saying that the genocide claim is one only shared by Greeks (as I have provided numerous western academic sources describing the events as genocide) to the tu-quoque logical fallacy (basically saying "you did it too"). There are allready pages dealing with the Greek army's actions (and indeed attrocities) in that campaign. This page however is about the kemalist plan of extermination against the Greek citizens of the Ottoman Empire. It could be argued that the Greek army's actions paint the genocide in a different light and put the kemalist plan in context but that does not alter the fact that it was a plan of extermination. Again though this relates to the content of the article and not the title which simply reflects how modern western scholarship views these events. Best regards.--Anothroskon (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not stating "you did it too" as for the genocide argument. I state there were attrocies and even terrible crimes committed by both sides during the war (and most probably any war). But none of these can be called acts of genocide, since Greeks rebelled against Turks, Greek armies invaded Anatolia, and Turkish soldiers and civilians attacked back. In none of the sides, was the aim to wipe out the other's race. Yet, as the invading side was the Greek side, Greece's morale in this context is on a much more slippery ground and should be critically dealth with, especially under such a hilarious Wikipedia article. Wikipedia seems more and more to be the show ground for Armenian and Greek anti-Turkish lobbies, something that should concern those responsible for running Wikipedia.

As for the "kemalist" plan, as you call it, the plan was not to exteminate any races or religions from Anatolia (which can be understood very easily if you look at Atatürk's friendly and even brotherly correspondences with the Greek leader right after the war), but simply to free a country that was being invaded from all sides. Even if it would have been the plan in the long run (which it wasn't), Turkey was at that time being occupied and split apart. The goal of the campaing against the Greek army as well as any other army, was to still be able to point out on the map, a country called Turkey. That's not exactly the best time to commit a genocide, is it? Long story short, if you decide to call what happened in Anatolia a genocide, then suddenly you'll have all sorts of genocides commited by all sorts of nations, popping out in every corner of the world, throughout history. And even worse, you are twisting the reality and making fun of history. Again, when you talk about a war you should critically deal with the ivading force, not those that are being invaded. Genocide is something very different from what you (and this article) tries to prove. So please, make the article at least "sound" more objective. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The counter-argument to my point about a kemalist (turkish if you will) extermination plan is weak as both Kemal and Venizelos were pragmatic politicians who wouldn't let personal feelings impinge on their politics. OTOH if you took the trouble to look at the sources I pointed you to you would have noted that there are several academic journals and books claiming that the genocidal quality of the CUP's aims was clear. This in no way dilutes or alters the meaning of genocide, which remains "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", except that it is shown how the CUP's policy wrt Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks, was aimed at exactly that. So your second argument is also addressed as the definition of genocide is not changed simply to be able to use the term for the Ottoman Greek experience of 1914-1923.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I have trouble finding any of my arguments addressed. In my previous post, I talked about Greece being the invading force and the Ottoman army, the force that was trying to defend itself. Under such a circumstance, even if the Greeks in Anatolia suffered and were murdered, what on God's green earth was the Greek army doing in Anatolia invading the Turkish mainland? (And please don't tell me that Anatolia actually belongs to Greece, all sorts of people lived in Anatolia 1000 years ago) The Wikipedia article is not only subjective, but it lacks any kind of information about what led to the attrocies, the aggression. (This too, is one of my constantly ignored arguments.) Civilians suffered yes, and sincerly, my heart goes to any person who suffers from the greed any agression of another being. Yet there were THINGS that led to civilians being murdered. Add to that, the fact that hundreds of thousands of Turks died too during the same period. I sadly need to inform you, that they were muredered not by the "genocide-hungry" Ottoman army, but mainly by the Greek army. Not only soldiers,but Turkish civilians,women and children were brutally murdered .

Anyway, previous to that I mentioned why there are so few Greeks in Turkey now. It is not, as stated somewhere above, because of a "genocide", but because of a tax policy imposed on minorities in Turkey during the fifties (which led to hundreds of thousands of Greeks leaving Turkey). This tax should be dealt with critically, but let us not mix apples and tomatos in thesame bowl. (Remember, knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.) This argument too has been constantly ignored.

This is turning out to be a monolog, about an article I honestly, find to be non-sense. Yet, as people can believe anything they want, and it seems some Greek people really feel they need to be "victims" of some sort, it's perfectly OK for such an article to take place in Wikipedia. After all, there is an article about God too, which some people find to be non-sense as well. YET, the article should deal with the controversies surrounding the argument. That's requiered if it shall be an objective article. But the controversies are deliberetly LEFT OUT from the article. (Another thing I pointed out in all of my previous posts, but has not been addressed so far.) Even if you, my dear Anothkroskon, think a genocide took place, don't you think, the article should mention that it is a controversial argument (since officially even Greece does not believe it took place.)

Otherwise its a finely crafted propaganda article, full of prejudices with a touch of Greek ultra-nationalism. Don't worry, we have the same kind of ultra-nationalists here. A country without them, would be colorless. I am sure many in Greece are proud to read this article and are filled with hatred and an urgent need for revenge. But that does NOT change the fact that this is a poorly written enyclopedia article. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You have been pointed to numerous, independent, academic, western, scholarly and modern sources describing these events as genocide. It is ludicrous to describe these people ss Greek ultra-nationalists. Yet you just did exactly that.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

My home town was burned by Greek Army on its way back yo the sea! İt is a coincidence that almost all the towns of Anatolia were burned just before they have been captured by Turkish Army! It is also a coincidence that any Greek (You can ask them) who lived in Anatolia or the Aegean Islands speaks good for Turks! What you are writing is meaningless and most importantly you are aware of that better than anyone else Mr. Anothroskon.

Well you made a small mistake which has a big impact on the subject. What a coincidence that almost all the towns of Anatolia were burned just AFTER they have been captured by Turkish Army. While the city of smyrna was burning Mustafa Kemal told this sentence '"çocuklar, bu manzaraya iyice bakın! bu alevler bir devrin sona erip yeni bir devrin başladığını gösteren bir yangındır. osmanlı imparatorluğu'nun son yüzyıllardaki bütün günahları şu ateşle temizlenirken, yeni türk devleti'nin kuruluşu ve türk milleti'nin yükselişi de cihana ilan ediliyor!"

' Which translates to " Look brothers, look at this view carefully. This fires indicate the end of an era and the beginning of a new era. All the sins of the ottoman empire is cleaned by this fire and this fire indicates the rise of the new Turkish state and the rise of the Turkish people "

The sins of the ottoman empire in this sentence means the "multiculturalism" There were lots of greek and armenian churches, houses, cemetaries in Smyrna. After the fire most of them destroyed because the fire started where armenian and greeks were mostly populated. Mustafa Kemal is proud of this fire, he is very happy that the Greek and Armenian heritage is destroyed. Ali55te (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well i read this ... how to say..... little discussion of yours and i can clearly say that you are going to nowhere. I even laughed at some parts. The claim of so called greek genocide you are talking about is contstructed on false evidences. The documents that are used to back up this claim are often crafted. These documents often bend the truth, exaggerate numbers or include crafted evidences which could be easly proved to be fakes if so called worldwide historicans spent more time on their research and at least tried to come Turkey and take a look at national archieves. (İ am sure there are even evidences in other nations archieves that are often overlooked or buried deep to bend the truth.) İ mean i really find it laughable that they write their books without even coming to place where this so called genocide happened. Even Russian national archieves alone would be enough to prove genocide talks as false. İ agree Anatolia is full of massacare sites and still in our day we found skeletons of the innocent civillians in mass graves but suprisingly they all belong to Turks not armenians. Most historians dont show a sincere effort the uncover truth. They just try to hide the real truth in the favor of politicans. Anothroskon, there are historicans in Turkey whom whould be happy to tell you the truth which is backed up by REAL evidence and with more details so come visit Turkey sometime my friend and after that you may claim that you are talking based on truths. --Special:Contributions/Berk (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference between the years of 1914-1918 and 1919-1922

Ottoman government is responsible for the atrocities that had taken place in the first period. Yet, between the years of 1919-1922, during the Greco-Turkish War, there was two different governments, one was in Ankara the other was in Istanbul. They were sometimes collobarating but had often been in conflict with each other. And the atrocities against the Greeks in this latter period was carried out by the forces belonging to this second group during the timeline of the Greco-Turkish War.

I think that has to be pointed out in the article, and to this end I have made some little changes in the introduction section but it is just reverted without any explanation. May I ask why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.241.21.242 (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The Ottoman Empire existed until 1923. A clarification can be made about the various regimes that were operating and/or came to power during the Genocide period of 1914-1923 (ie. Young Turks vs. Ottoman Sultanate vs. Kemalists) but that is not communicated in the changes you made. There were other problems with some of the changes you made also. For instance, you referred to the "Greek population of Anatolia" in the context of the population exchange. In actual fact those migrations pertained to almost the entire Ottoman Greek population and not those just restricted to Anatolia (e.g. consider eastern Thrace).Bebek101 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire existed until 1922, not 1923, and after 1918 it was a dependent state —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.230.67 (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

political propaganda- neutrality disputed

Wikipedia is gradually becoming a propaganda service and I condemn this. To prevent this, I will do anything I could. This is not the Wikipedia I dream of. Please change this article. Here is something which my Greek fellow-wikipedians might be interested. An article by Nasos Theodoridis on "Trabzon" and "Black sea region"

"ΑΙΜΟΣΤΑΓΗΣ ΠΑΠΑΣ" Ο ΓΕΡΜΑΝΟΣ ΚΑΡΑΒΑΓΓΕΛΗΣ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΝΑΣΟ ΘΕΟΔΩΡΙΔΗ ΤΗΣ "ΑΥΓΗΣ" ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΥΝΑΣΠΙΣΜΟΥ Οι επετειακές κραυγές που συνήθως ακούγονται και γράφονται κάθε άνοιξη για το ζήτημα της όντως απεχθούς και μαζικής εξόντωσης των Ποντίων επιτάσσουν μια ψύχραιμη προσέγγιση και αποτίμηση του ιστορικού αυτού ζητήματος. Δυστυχώς μέχρι σήμερα ουδείς ειδήμων ασχολήθηκε αντικειμενικά με την ιστορική ανάλυση της άλλης πλευράς της αλήθειας στο θέμα του ελληνισμού του Πόντου.... Η επιχειρηματολογία της εθνικιστικής μερίδας των Ποντίων, σε σχέση με αυτά που υπέφερε ο ποντιακός λαός από το 1915 έως το 1924, αναφέρεται πράγματι σε πολλές αλήθειες, ταυτόχρονα όμως δεν διστάζει να χρησιμοποιεί μισές αλήθειες, να αποκρύπτει άλλες αλήθειες και να διαδίδει πολλά ψεύδη.... Από κοινωνικής και πολιτικής σκοπιάς το πιο αναληθές κατασκεύασμα είναι η θεωρία του λεγόμενου επαναστατικού αγώνα προς «απελευθέρωση» του Πόντου από τον «τουρκικό ζυγό». Θεωρητικά ο όρος «απελευθέρωση» μπορεί να έχει αποδεκτό περιεχόμενο μόνο όταν αφορά σε μια σχετικά μεγάλη εδαφική περιοχή όπου η φίλια εθνική ομάδα αποτελεί την πληθυσμιακή πλειοψηφία.... Στην προκειμένη περίπτωση ο ελληνικός πληθυσμός των τριών νομών ή Βιλαετίων, του Πόντου αποτελούσε μια σημαντική, μια μικρή ή μια εντελώς ασήμαντη μειοψηφία. Τα επίσημα αυτά στατιστικά στοιχεία, που αφορούν στο έτος 1912, προέρχονται από τον καθηγητή του Πανεπιστημίου Αθηνών Σωτηριάδη. ...Συγκεκριμένα, στον νομό, δηλαδή στο Βιλαέτι της Τραπεζούντας οι Έλληνες ανέρχονταν μόνο στο 25,9% του συνολικού πληθυσμού, συγκεκριμένα οι Τούρκοι αριθμούσαν 957.866 άτομα ενώ οι Έλληνες ανέρχονταν μόνο σε 353.533. Το πραγματικό αντάρτικο στον Πόντο άρχισε μόλις το 1916, όταν οι Ρώσοι κατέλαβαν την πόλη της Τραπεζούντας μεταφέροντας το ρωσοτουρκικό πολεμικό μέτωπο στην περιοχή εκείνη. Οργανωτής του ελληνικού αντάρτικου ήταν ο φανατικός «στρατηγός» Καραβαγγέλης, ο οποίος ήρθε στη Σαμψούντα το 1908 ως μητροπολίτης...Μετά τη δημιουργία των ανταρτικών σωμάτων με χρήματα και πολεμοφόδια που πήρε ο μητροπολίτης από τους Ρώσους, τα εξαπέλυσε να προσβάλουν τον τουρκικό στρατό στα μετόπισθέν του, τη στιγμή κατά την οποίαν οι Τούρκοι πολεμούσαν τον ρωσικό στρατό στο μέτωπο της Τραπεζούντας....Οι αντάρτες του Πόντου συντάχθηκαν κατά τη διάρκεια του πολέμου με τα εχθρικά κατοχικά στρατεύματα της Ρωσίας, καταπολέμησαν τον στρατό του κράτους του οποίου ήταν υπήκοοι, καταπιέζοντας και σκοτώνοντας αλλόθρησκους συμπολίτες τους....Οι ταλαίπωροι αντάρτες, το πλείστον τουρκόφωνοι και αναλφάβητοι, έπεσαν στην παγίδα του αιμοσταγούς αυτού παπά χωρίς να αναλογιστούν τις συνέπειες του λεγόμενου απελευθερωτικού αγώνα, δηλαδή δεν συνειδητοποίησαν καν το τι θα απογίνονταν αυτοί μετά το τέλος του πολέμου, όταν ο μεν παπάς θα εξαφανιζόταν για να σωθεί, όπως και έγινε, αυτοί όμως θα παρέμεναν....Κάτω από την εγκληματική καθοδήγηση του Καραβαγγέλη οι χριστιανοί άρχισαν να πυκνώνουν τις τάξεις των ανταρτών χτυπώντας πισώπλατα τον τουρκικό στρατό και ληστεύοντας κυρίως τουρκικά χωριά, για να μπορέσουν να επιβιώσουν....Λόγω των πράξεων αυτών ο τουρκικός στρατός άρχισε στην περιοχή της Μπάφρας το κυνήγι εναντίον των ανταρτών, που μετεξελίχθηκε βεβαίως σε μαζική εθνοκάθαρση, απολύτως κατακριτέα αλλά και διακριτή από μια «γενοκτονία», που θα προϋπέθετε «άμεσο δόλο εξόντωσης μέχρις ενός», πράγμα αναπόδεικτο...Όμως στα ελληνικά ΜΜΕ γίνεται συνεχής αναφορά στα εγκλήματα που διέπραξαν οι Τούρκοι εναντίον των Ελλήνων στον Πόντο παρασιωπώντας συστηματικά τις εγκληματικές πράξεις των Ελλήνων ανταρτών, τις οποίες παρουσιάζει κομπάζοντας σε μια μελέτη του ο εθνικιστής Πόντιος συγγραφέας Ανθεμίδης («Επαναστατική τρομοκρατία – Αντίποινα των Ελλήνων κατά του τουρκικού πληθυσμού»)....Συνεπώς είναι ανεπίτρεπτο να ζητούμε με θορυβώδη τρόπο από την Τουρκία να καταδικάσει τα δικά της εγκλήματα, χωρίς όμως να ζητάμε συγγνώμη για παρόμοια εγκλήματα που έκανε η «δική μας» πλευρά."

Thanks for reading, have a nice day.- F.Mehmet (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Name

Genocide

"Greek genocide" -Llc 53 (minimum 34)

Greek Genocide: Internment, Convention on the Prevention..., Alphascript is one of the Wikipedia derived encyclopedias
Dictionary of Genocide: A-L, p. 26. Pontic Greek genocide
Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction - Pontian Greeks, p. 163. Pontian Greek genocide
Rudolph J. Rummel, Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900, p. 85. WWI Greek genocide & a final Greek genocide
Richard G. Hovannisian, The Armenian genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies, p. 251. - The number of "Greek Calamity" occurences was nagligilbe. It was not so, however, in the case of the expression "Greek Genocide".
Congressional Record (Bound Volumes), Part 7, p. 8757. - Pontian Greek Genocide.
Nikolaos Hlamides, The Greek Relief Committee: America's Response to the Greek genocide, ???
Travel Greece for Smartphones and Mobile Devices - Illustrated Guide, Phrasebook, and Maps, [9] - Pontic dialect came to Greece from Asia Minor after the Greek genocide... Anyway, is MobileReference a reliable source ?
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, Anatolian Studies, Volume 58, p. 154. - what is called the "Pontic Greek Genocide" (p. 154), Pontian Greek Genocide (p. 169).
Hannibal Travis, Genocide in the Middle East: The Ottoman Empire, Iraq, and Sudan, ???
Son of Refugees, K. I. Selinidis, Ioannis Konstantinos Selinidis, p. 17., Greek Genocide, but this is nothing but memory of a Greek. And sources of this section are wibsites.
R. Rummel, Death by government, p. ix. Greek Genocide
Ani Kalayjian, Dominique Eugene, Mass Trauma and Emotional Healing Around the World: Rituals and Practices for Resilience and Meaning-Making, Volume 2, p. 311. - Greek Genocide
MARKO GROBELNIK, WRAY BUNTINE, Machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases, Volume 1, p. 81. - Only sample words. This book is not specific work on topic.
The Middle East: Abstracts and index Volume 20. Part 3, same as Congressional Record, No preview
MobileReference, Calendar of Historical Events, Births, Holidays and Observances, "The anniversary of this event is the official date of commemoration of the Pontic Greek Genocide in Greece and Cyprus". Pontic Greek Genocide, Is this a reliable source ?
Chris U. Agbedo, Problems of Multilingual Nations: The Nigerian Perspective, p. 92. - Pontian Greek Genocide, The Armenian/Assyrian Genocide, under the Three Pashas of the late Ottoman empire and the later Pontian Greek Genocide, both perpetrated by the Young Turks during 1914-1922. Massacres of the Turkish population by the Greek army of occupation and Greek scorched earth policy by Greek troops after their defeat in the Greco Turkish war. Massacre of Greek population and sack of Smyrna by Turkish troops.
Hasan Minga, Hilmi Saqe, Greek genocide against Çameria continues, This is about the genocide against Albanians in Chameria by Greeks.
- cf. Indeed, under the DP government in June 1994 a new law was passed, which proclaimed 27 June as "The Day of Greek Chauvinist Genocide Against the Albanians of Chameria" and set up a memorial to the Chams... (Südost Europa, Volume 5, Die Abteilung, 2002, p. 237.)
Doris T. Myers, Understanding language, p. 34. about etymology.
Christos C. Evangeliou, Themata Politica: Hellenic and Euro-Atlantic, p. 43. - "This book tells the secret story of the Greek genocide at the hands of the Christians between the fourth to the sixth centuries".
Greek Society: Minorities in Greece - Source: Wikipedia.
South Pacific Association for Commonwealth Literature and Language Studies, SPAN: Issue 18, And Smyrna, as all students of Patrick White know, symbolises for White Greek genocide at the hands of the Turks. The 'loyeliness' imputed to Smyrna is nothing if not ironic, but the claim nevertheless is not too different from lvan Karamazov's, for Smyrna is also a graveyard.
Amos N. Guiora, Top Ten Global Justice Law Review Articles 2008, p. 42.

"genocide of the Greeks" -Llc minimum 13

Katerina Zacharia, Hellenisms: Culture, Identity, and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity, p. 300. genocide of the Greeks of Pontus
Halil Ibrahim Salih, Cyprus: Ethnic Political Counterpoints, p. 251. only refers to commemoration.
Rudolph J. Rummel, Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder since 1900, p. 86.
Niki Karavasilis, The Whispering Voices of Smyrna, p. 324.
The paths of history, p. 276. genocide of the Greeks in Smyrna
Ani Kalayjian, Dominique Eugene, Mass Trauma and Emotional Healing Around the World: Rituals and Practices for Resilience and Meaning-Making, Volume 2, p. 311. genocide of the Greeks of Pontus
Official journal of the European Communities: Debates of the European Parliament, p. 42. Only debate.
Rockford Institute, Chronicles, Volume 30, p. 42, ...the Young Turk regime that committed the Armenian genocide during World War I. After the war, the genocide of the Greeks of Pontus and the ethnic cleansing of the Greeks of Ionia and the rest of Asia
Christos C. Evangeliou, Themata Politica: Hellenic and Euro-Atlantic, p. 45.
Joseph Slabey Rouček, Bernard Eisenberg, America's Ethnic Politics, p. 41.
Athena magazine, p. 67
Wilhelm Baum, The Christian minorities in Turkey, p. 144., The Entente repeatedly stressed the necessity of Turkey's "punishment" for the genocide of the Greeks and the Armenians. (Entente's claim at the time)
James Pettifer, The Turkish Labyrinth: Atatürk and the New Islam, Viking, 1997, p. 174. Greek genocide

"genocide of Greeks" -Llc minimum 6

Charēs Tsirkinidēs, At last we uprooted them: the genocide of Greeks of Pontos, Thrace and Asia Minor through French archives, p. 65. genocide of Greeks of Pontos, Thrace and Asia Minor
Balkan studies, Volume 45, p. 241. genocide of Greeks of Pontus
Middle East Contemporary Survey, Volume 3, p. 863. about film & censorship
Aryeh Shmuelevitz, Republican Turkey: Aspects of Internal Affairs and International Relations, p. 143. about film & censorship
Index on Censorship, Volume 8,
Adam Jones, Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction, p. 642.
- genocide Armenians by, see Armenian genocide
- genocide Assyrians by, see Assyrian genocide
- genocide Greeks by, see Greeks, as a victim of the Ottoman genocide

Persecution

Ethnic cleansing

"Asia Minor" "Ethnic cleansing of Greeks" -Llc 3

Massacre/Massacres

"Greek massacres" -Llc 257, but this results includes massacres committed by Greeks, and other massacres.
"massacre of Greeks" -Llc 385, but this result includes other massacres.

In Pontus

Takabeg (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I remind that a genocide is the murder of an important part of a nation, hundreds of thousands of people, and for such a big event, 34 results are not enough. See the comparison of the usage of the term "Greek genocide" with other "genocide"s: Richard Hovannisian p.258-9. Massacres of Greeks (1919-23) or Persecution of Greeks (1919-23) are the most suitable names, I think. It should be noted that the state of South Carolina calls it persecution. --Seksen (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Its clear that the present title is the most popular in literature compared to 'persecutions', especialy if we take into account the Pontian Genocide which is part of this article.07:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The term "Genocide" is not used for all of these atrocities and massacres. Even some scholars use the term "Genocide" for all of only for all of them, it is not general trend. In short, Greek genocide is not common name of entire events. We'd better create the article Pontic Greek Genocide or Pontian Greek Genocide. I'm not sure but I felt Pontic Greek Genocide or Pontian Greek Genocide can be common name of events in Pontus. Otherwise, we cannot normalize and neutralize this article. UUnfortunately, at present, we must add {{NPOV}} to this article. Takabeg (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg, the fact that we should also have an article about the Pontic Genocide which is part of the Greek Genocide, is irrelevant with tagging this article as pov. Since this is the most used term in bibliography, as you proved (persecutions etc are less used), I wonder what's your argument on this.Alexikoua (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible. Maybe it's difficult for you to understand this problem with your {{systemic bias}}. But research on Google Books proved that this article cannot be kept under this title. As you know, the Greek ethnic cleansing in Chameria, massacre of Chams, Albanian massacres of the 1943-44 in Charmeria had taken place. If these persecutions, ethnic cleansing, massacres　was explained by combining with relatively smaller persecutions by Greece gov. and/or Greek people, under the title such as Albanian massacres by Greeks (instead of “massacres of Chams”), “Albanian genocide" (instead of Albanian genocide in Chameria; somebody call “genocide” to these events), are these article neutral or not ? As you know, Pontic Genocide is not same as other massacres in Asia Minor. Apart from contents, this title abuses WP:COMMONNAME & WP:POVTITLE. Takabeg (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually you claim that 'Genocide' isn't widely established in literature, but your search in gbooks makes it the most popular term copared to 'Persecution' etc.. If you suggest another name or a split, feel free to make or explain your proposal.Alexikoua (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

How come Pontus is a small place ? It is the whole BLACKSEA REGION. There were more then 350.000 Greeks were living there before the genocide. Apart from there most of the remaining ones were in Costantinopole and Smyrna. Your hypothesis about this small region is not valid here. Ali55te (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot understand how it can be understood that "genocide" is widely estanlished in reliable literature from those results and analysis. Is it just me seeing that there are about ten reliable sources calling this event "Greek genocide"? And is it just me who thinks that this is very few for the murder of a great number of people? Or is it me who does not know what a genocide is? I think an analysis of the "persecution" / "massacres" results would be helpful. And the NPOV tag should remain on the article until we settle this dispute with third party editors who has not yet commented on this issue, I think. --Seksen (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I think this is just a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT by Turkish editors, as with the Armenian Genocide. Because the only ones that complain about POV are Turkish editors. I have yet to see a "third party" editor come here and complain about the name, POV, etc... 17:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Turkish editor. But I understand that this article is not neutral. Takabeg (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Athenean is right, whole discussion is ludicrous. And Takabeg, you may not be a citizen of the Republic of Turkey, but it's clear from your username and edit history than you are a pan-Turkic nationalist of some kind - Azeri or what not. Not that such agenda-driven accounts - or even articles - are anything unusual in Wikipedia it seems... Manocihr (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, POVs of User:Athenean and Manochihr are not neutral. Their approach are very biased. I think it's difficult to solve this issue for Greek and Turkish peoples. Of course, we can find some educated persons without systematic bias among both Greek and Turkish, but the number of them is very small. Takabeg (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh? And how am I biased exactly? Anyone who disagrees with you is biased? I'm not Greek, Turkish, or from a country anywhere even close to Anatolia or Europe. I'm not even from the same continent! I'm not religious, or ethno-nationalist. So pray, tell me, how is it that I am biased? Manocihr (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That is right, and I believe Takabeg's approach to this issue is neutral, at least more neutral than Athenean, who is a Greek editor, at least his/her username is related to Athens. I should add that Takabeg is often accused of being anti-Turkish, pro-Greek and pro-Kurdish by some Turkish users, see Talk:Zilan massacre for instance. --Seksen (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

So Greek editors are biased and Turks aren't? Look, I have a degree in History, and I'm not ethnically or politically related to either side - and it's quite clear to me where the denial-of-history is coming from. Manocihr (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not said that, I just said that Takabeg is not pro-Turkish, and according to some Turks he is pro-Greek. And I accept that I am naturally biased, I believe that a Turk or a Greek cannot be completely neutral when it comes to such issues. By the way, calling someone who disagrees with you as "denialist" is very annoying. --Seksen (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way I feel that Tag. needs to explain why "Pontic Genocide is not same as other massacres in Asia Minor", since it was geographically (Pontus is part of Asia Minor) and chronologically in the same context.Alexikoua (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to share this with all of you. Ill paste a sample below for all those who could be bored to scroll through:

"It is believed that in Turkey between 1913 and 1922, under the successive regimes of the Young Turks and of Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk), more than 3.5 million Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christians were massacred in a state-organized and state-sponsored campaign of destruction and genocide, aiming at wiping out from the emerging Turkish Republic its native Christian populations. This Christian Holocaust is viewed as the precursor to the Jewish Holocaust in WWII. To this day, the Turkish government ostensibly denies having committed this genocide." Prof. Israel Charney, President of the IAGS
"Turks admit that the Armenian persecution is the first step in a plan to get rid of Christians, and that Greeks would come next. ... Turkey henceforth is to be for Turks alone." Peter Balakian, The Burning Tigris, quoting the New York Times, September 14, 1915.
"While the death toll in the trenches of Western Europe were close to 2 million by the summer of 1915, the extermination of innocent civilians in Turkey (the Armenians, but also Syrian and Assyrian Christians and large portions of the Greek population, especially the Greeks of Pontos, or Black Sea region) was reaching 1 million." Peter Balakian, The Burning Tigris, p. 285-286.
In an article for the August 1, 1926 edition of the Los Angeles Examiner, Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) also affirms the slaughters. Kemal writes:"those ... left-over from the former Young Turkish Party, ... should have been made to account for the lives of millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse, from their homes and massacred ..."
Mustafa Kemal — Emile Hildebrand, "Kemal Promises More Hangings of Political Antagonists in Turkey," Los Angeles Examiner, August 1, 1926 (Sunday edition, Section VI).
"If members of the United Nations pass appropriate legislation such incidents such as pogroms of Czarist Russian and the massacres of Armenians and Greeks by Turkey would be punishable as genocide." "Genocide Under the Law of Nations," New York Times, January 5, 1947.
"Les persécutions antihelléniques poursuivies en Turquie depuis le début de la guerre européenne ne sont que la continuation du plan d'extermination de l'Hellénisme mis, depuis 1913, en pratique par les Jeunes-Turcs." Translation: "The anti-Greek persecutions carried out in Turkey since the beginning of the European War are but the continuation of the plan of extermination of Hellenism practiced by the Young Turks, since 1913." From the reports of diplomatic and consular officials.
"... the Greeks of Anatolia are suffering the same or worse fate than did the Armenians in the massacres of the Great War. The deportation of the Greeks is not limited to the Black Sea Coast but is being carried out throughout the whole of the country governed by the Nationalists. Greek villages are deported entire, the few Turkish or Armenian inhabitants are forced to leave, and the villages are burned. The purpose is unquestionably to destroy all Greeks in that territory and to leave Turkey for the Turks. These deportations are, of course, accompanied by cruelties of every form just as was true in the case of the Armenian deportations five and six years ago." Stanley Hopkins, American employee of the Near East Relief, 16/11/1921. Regards 23x2 (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I cannot find that quote in the works of Israel Charny, and there is no use of the term "Greek genocide" in the works by him. --Seksen (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you can not find it in Google, it doesn't mean its not there. May i suggest looking into the actual Dr. Adam Jones book "Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction" as the reference was taken from there. 23x2 (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)