Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 7

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 1

←

Archive 5

A modest proposal

Given that:

The discussion above has reached saturation levels
All the points of the discussion participants have been reiterated multiple times
The discussion is unlikely to go much further because the participants are unlikely to move farther from their currently stated positions

I propose the following modest compromise as discussed above: That the term genocide be unbolded and lowercased and new sections added to explain contentious points as per discussions above. If this compromise is not accepted I retire from this debate as I am not likely to agree to further downgrade or remove the term genocide from the name of the article. Dr.K. (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 1 and I think it is a clear case of what WP:NCON warns against. This is becoming a huge waste of my time. I am happy to take the time to look up academic references but if they will just be discarded and no one will take them into consideration what is the point?
Agreed. From some point on this becomes a case of gaming the system WP:GAME, trying to overturn the status quo and scholar consensus on. misrepresentation of, WP technicalities.
I am willing to listen to arguments and compromise on my position and I have done so allready. I have agreed to include dissenting opinions in the lead, Turkey's opinion in the lead, debold and decapitalize etc. It would sure be nice to see some willingness for compromise from the other side as well.
I second Dr.K's compromise proposal.

Xenovatis (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an actual compromise and the best proposal so far, yet no-one else bothered to commend on it. Ignoring the others compromises is not how consensus is reached.Xenovatis (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As the name to become a descriptive one whatever is agree upon, it does not have to appear in the lead in bold. So for the moment we can sides step the article naming issue and concentrate on writing a better header for the article see below #Lead --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Philipp this whole discussion is about the name. This and the other 6 preceding talk pages and this is the reason the POV tag was placed there. I am happy to rewritte the article and would hope for your collaboration if you are still interested after the naming issue is resolved, but this must take precedence as it will dog this article untill it is resolved and has been the main issue since the start. Additionaly what you are suggesting sounds like OR since we are ment to describe the events and then decide ourselves whether they constitute genocide or not.Xenovatis (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xenovatis. Like you said Philip, we have to take baby steps here, or salami slice it (even though salami is not good for you). Going from "Genocide" to "pacification" or "persecution" is a drastic and dubious step. Going from Genocide to "genocide" is a samll but meaningful step. This should be addressed. Dr.K. (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree with the proposal. The name of the article has to be bold in all leads. See WP:LEAD#Bold title. I also disagree that there is a reason for any sort of compromise. The debate here is whether we can lose the utterly ridiculous pov-tag, after IAGS recognition, not whether we should change the name of the article. That name has been stable for years without the IAGS recognition (tag or no tag), due to the various references by numerous scholars as such. The name of the article does not pass judgment on how it should be called. It merely states how it is called (even by the Turkish government, as an event that "never happened", of course). Niko Silver 18:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We are not going to resolve the naming issue quickly because there is a difference of opinion. But once it is agree -- which unless someone contradicts me we can take as agreed -- we can put the naming issue to one side and concentrate on thinks like the #Lead. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So you took advantage of my showing good faith to reinstate the tag when you had no intention on resolving this issue? This is very dissappointing.Xenovatis (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone contradicts you? Isn't that what everyone bar Garnet has done so far? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that "Pontic Greek genocide" would not be a descriptive name. If so why should the letter G be in lowercase and what are your sources that show that the name is in common use? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but aren't you advocating genocide over Genocide? Are you asking me to justify your proposal? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you lost me too. Niko Silver 16:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this focus on the lead, which is a minor problem. The title is the main and only problem. These semantics Genocide, genocide etc. are going nowhere, even with the concomitant goodwill to compromise because the opposing editors show no deviation from their adamant position that no genocide term should be used on the title. Arguments using terms like prescriptive, descriptive, etc. all really amount to only one thing: No genocide in the title. Let's not waste our time any longer. This has zero likelihood for consensus as long as everyone has to agree and the majority view is disregarded. And let's not waste any more time on the lead. That's a red herring if I ever saw one. Dr.K. (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I think we can still resolve this as long as the other side turns their good faith, which I am sure is there, into concrete actions. But yes, I am getting a bti tired myself.Xenovatis (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If the title is "Pontic Greek Genocide" then it has to appear in the first paragraph in bold and as it is controversial needs a definition of what it means. If the name is "Pontic Greek genocide" -- or any other descriptive name -- then the expression does not have to be in bold or even appear in the lead. See WP:MOS#First sentences "If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface" and WP:PROVEIT for controversial issues. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically you agree with Dr.K's proposal. On that I have already expressed my consent on the grounds that it is not a proper noun like the Holocaust, i.e. it is described as a genocide of Greeks but not reffered to explicitly as the "Pontic Greek Genocide" as in the Armenian case. As for WP:PROVEIT please look at the lead and Archives 6.Xenovatis (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that genocide in the page name is a good idea. BUT as the name is to become a descriptive one, whatever is eventually agreed upon, it does not have to appear in the lead in bold. So for the moment we can sides step the article naming issue and concentrate on writing a better header for the article see below #Lead. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't sidestep the issue before solving the much more fundamental problem of the name. There are very good reasons to get rid of the name problem first before improving the main body of the article, see my previous posts on the matter. Xenovatis (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Clear list of reasons

See Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 6#Clear list of reasons for an earlier discussion

That still remains to be supplied after the previous thread was derailed and it is necessary for the discussion to move forward.Xenovatis (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry As I added the last comment and no-one has replied I thought it was closed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No probs. I would still like to ask if you can prepare that list though since it woule immensely help the discussion to clarify the points of contention.Xenovatis (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To use the term genocide in a title one would need to know under what was meant by genocide. It is not at all clear that there is agreement as to what the word means in the sources provided. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replied already on Lemkin and Charney who have given their own definitions. You haven't answered what is to be done with those that don't supply a separate definition for genocide or indeed any other word they use. I also can't help noticing that you aren't quite as inclined to use this legalistic pettifogging and wikilawyering when it comes to other cases such as this massacre of English settlers which you have no problem naming as such even though there is much less evidence and sources quoted not to mention no "legal definitions". Care to explain your rationale please? Xenovatis (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Massacre is a descriptive word, it is not a legal word. But you need to read the very loooooong discussions in the archives Talk:List of events named massacres and the two AfDs to find out what I think about that subject. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Whereas genocide is a legal term that laymen would be stumped trying to understand the meaning of? The term is in common use. You also haven't addressed my points viz Lemkin, Charney and the others. When next you reply please try to answer more than one of the points raised so others don't feel they are talking to a brick wall. Xenovatis (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionaly is it to be assumed that this is your list of conditions that need to be addressed for the term to be acceptable? I ask since you only listed the one. If not could you list the others as well, i.e. how exactly should an event be described to qualify as far as you are concerned?

Most people would have thought that the events being described as genocide in the Journal of Genocide Studies or in the Encyclopedia of Genocide a pretty good clue as to whether they constitue a genocide but I am willing to listen to counterclaims. In fact I find it strange that you would call the validity of academic references into question as to whether they really meant what they said or were just shooting the breeze since this is not a scientific forum and you are not qualified to know better what they meant then they did themselves. If they wrote genocide then that is what we must assume they meant. Trying to apply textual analysis to published material is outside the scope of WP unless you can source your claims as per WP:RS i.e.

Do you have any sources that support your claim that when one of the so far 25 academic sources that label the events genocide was using that word meant something else? If not then you should perhaps reconsider your stance.

Xenovatis (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead

There seems to be a general consensus that the name of this article should be descriptive. Whether it takes the form of Pontic Greek genocide or persecution of Pontians or some other name can be put to one side for the moment.

If it is a descriptive name it allows for a more balanced introduction to the article. As I suggested in Archive 6: Proposal: Comments it could take the form of

Pontic Greek population of the Ottoman Empire were persecuted during and in the aftermath of World War I.^[1] The number of deaths that occurred during the persecutions, massacres, expulsions, and death marches according to various sources ranges from 300,000 to 360,000 Anatolian Greeks. The survivors and the expelled took refuge mostly in the nearby Russian Empire (later, Soviet Union). The few Pontic Greeks who had remained in Pontus until the end of the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) were exchanged in the frame of the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations in 1922–1923.

The Turkish Government maintains that there was a legal large scale pacification campaign carried out in the region because the Greek population was seen as sympathetic to the enemies of the Turkish state and a potential fifth column. The Allies at the time took a different view condemning the Ottoman governments actions against their minorities as crimes against humanity. More recently the International Association of Genocide Scholars have passed resolution that Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire, including the Pontian Greeks, was a genocide. Some other organisations have also passed resolutions recognising the campaign as a genocide including both the parliament of Greece and that of Cyprus.
Footnote 1 Persecutions as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is ""A particular course or period of systematic violent oppression, esp. one directed against the members of a particular religious or political group, race, etc."

or something similar: I have cut and pasted some of the text from the article and it needs polishing and the ordering of the Turkish government explanation could be placed after the genocide accusations or the numbers and what happened to the survivors could be placed in a paragraph after the genocide accusations. Another possibility is something along these lines:

During and in the aftermath of World War I the Turkish government launched a brutal pacification campaign against the Pontic Greek population which included persecutions, massacres, expulsions, and death marches during which the number of deaths that occurred according to various sources ranges from 300,000 to 360,000 Anatolian Greeks. The survivors and the expelled took refuge mostly in the nearby Russian Empire (later, Soviet Union). The few Pontic Greeks who had remained in Pontus until the end of the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) were exchanged in the frame of the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations in 1922–1923.
The Turkish Government maintains that there was a legal large scale pacification campaign carried out in the region because the Greek population was seen as sympathetic to the enemies of the Turkish state and a potential fifth column. The Allies at the time took a different view condemning the Ottoman governments actions against their minorities as crimes against humanity. More recently the International Association of Genocide Scholars have passed resolution that Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire, including the Pontian Greeks, was a genocide. Some other organisations have also passed resolutions recognising the campaign as a genocide including both the parliament of Greece and that of Cyprus.

The advantage of this type of arrangement is that the facts of the events can be put first and foremost (let the facts speak for themselves) and the POV issue of what is the best description for the events can be placed second. Comments? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a POV issue. That the Turkish government objects is no reason to label this a debate or controversy. Additionaly your lead doesn't mention the facts, half of it is devoted to perceptions and attitudes towards the genocide thus giving the impression that this is some sort of debate. Additionaly the campaign was directed at Greeks in the Aegean and other regions as well not just the Black Sea, so Pontic limits the scope of the article.Xenovatis (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The phrase: The Turkish Government maintains that there was a legal large scale pacification campaign carried out in the region because the Greek population was seen as sympathetic to the enemies of the Turkish state and a potential fifth column. is problematic. First it is uncited. Who said this? Who wrote this? Second it sounds too Orwellian and it sounds like a bad attempt at euphemism and whitewashing. Dr.K. (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Scope is dictated by the title if it is to remain "Pontic Greek genocide" then that is what it is. As to Xenovatis's first point is this an article about what happened or the "perceptions and attitudes towards the genocide" if the latter then should this not be called "Pontic Greek genocide debate" or "Pontic Greek genocide scholarship". Would it not be better to detail what happened and then put the scholarly debate about why it was a genocide? From looking at the Turkish government web site that seems to be what they are saying -- or do you (Dr.K.) think that they deny that anything at all happened? If you think it sounds too Orwellian then how do you think that the Turkish government describes what happened see Writing for the "enemy" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am happy and welcome the inclusion of the opinions of respected scholars like Akcam but you have to draw the line somewhere and that is treating Turkish state propaganda as a reliable source. The Turkish state's propaganda operates similarly to the way it does in the Armenian case. This coupled with its past ridiculous assertions and general WP policy on WP:Propaganda makes their position irrelevant in encyclopedic terms. This is not a court of law but an encyclopedia. We don't accuse Turkey of any crimes nor are we tasked to determine whether the events constitute genocide or not. We are reporting academic opinion on a series of events in the past and what that opinion is has been made abudandly clear through a large number of citations in both academic books and journals.Xenovatis (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis please respond to my question of whether this is an article on the events of the early C20th or an article about the scholarship about the events of the early C20th. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See my answer in the section below. It is an article about a historic event based on the scholarship on said event.Xenovatis (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis WP:Propaganda links to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Presenting the views of the Turkish government is not a violation of any guideline particularly Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. How do you propose to write a balanced article if you are not willing to include all significant points of view? Please read WP:NPOV and particularly the paragraph that starts "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic...". Take an example like the 2003 invasion of Iraq are you suggesting that the first sentence of the second paragraph should be removed because it expresses the postion of the leaders of the US and UK governments because the cited source is the American government? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said the Turkish government's opinion should not be mentioned or included. I point out however that it doesn't have the same weight as academic opinions on the matter so as to influence the title. That is all. You haven't answered my question. In the past the Turkish government supported that all civilizations were Turkic, would that position have entailed that all articles be tagged as NPOV unless they were titled "debates" or some such that would have included the Turkish government's opinion?Xenovatis (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence that shows the title needs to be changed. As for NPOV, the Turkish government is, by no means, an unbiased source. Unless unbiased evidence can be provided, the title should remain unchanged. Kansas Bear (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are biased! But the whole point of a Wikipedia article is that it should be written from a WP:NPOV and all significant POVs should be included. There is no reason to exclude their opinions or the opinions of the WWI Allies or the Greek Parliament etc. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

In contrast with the Holocaust, have you added David Irving's 'opinion'? I've just checked. I don't see Irving's opinion mentioned anywhere. What about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's opinion?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust Here's the list of Holocaust deniers, shouldn't their 'views' be added to the Holocaust page?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Holocaust_deniers If you're going to allow a clearly hostile government's opinion of this genocide, then, using your logic, there should be no reason why the current president of Iran's views shouldn't be listed on the Holocaust page. Kansas Bear (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except the V stands for academic views as this is an encyclopedia. See WP:COI where it says that WP cannot be the vehicle for the forwarding of third party positions or interests. Academicaly the Turkish and Greek government's positions have a value of null, or thereabouts.Xenovatis (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest does not cover this see my reply to you above. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it does. WP is here to present a compendium and distilation of academic research on an issue (i.e. it's an encyclopedia) not promote the interests of the Greek or Turkish states or argue their case for them. As I replied above insofar as such governmental positions are relevant to the issue they may be mentioned but what is salient is that such and such government is opposed or in favour, not their argumentation for their case.Xenovatis (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. The devil is in the details. If we present the details of each government's position we are going to make this article look and sound like the legal dossier of a court case. Since most of these claims are presented by the government parties as axiomatic and are not corroborated by independent research we also add insult to injury and make the article a repository of state propaganda cloaked in a fog of legalistic arguments. Conclusion: Government positions should only be highlighted as to their acceptance or denial of the events and the reader should be spared from the artificial Orwellian constructs. Dr.K. (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A court case is exactly what this article is not supposed to be. We are not trying to determine whether the events were or weren't a genocide but whether the academic community thinks of them as such. The only argument against is that they are not as widely reported as the Rwandan Genocide, the AG or the Holocaust. Well the RG is not as widely reported as the AG which in turh is not as widely reported as the Holocaust. This has to do with the scale of the events and their percolation into public awareness. It is however widely enough reported that it deserves a WP article and crucially to the extent that the fate of the Greeks during the disolution of the OE IS reported it is reported by the majority of scholars who make reference to it as a genocide contemporaneous with and similar to the Armenian and Assyrian ones.Xenovatis (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mis-perceived my comment. I wrote: First it is uncited. Who said this? Who wrote this? Therefore you could have answered that the Turkish government website says this and it would have been ok. My opinion is that this indeed sounds Orwellian and euphemistic because legal large scale pacification campaign carried out in the region because the Greek population was seen as sympathetic to the enemies of the Turkish state and a potential fifth column. is a hell of a way to describe the death marches, killings etc. which were inflicted on the unarmed civilian population at the time. But regardless, if that website quotes this, callous as it sounds, we have to be more demanding as to the source of their assertions, otherwise accomodating such dubious and unsupported statements in the article destroys its credibility which is based on citing academic sources for verification not unnamed contributors from official websites, which are not exactly scholarly sources. Admonitions about writing for the enemy etc. are rather presumptuous in that they assume that I am hostile toward Turkish positions, which I am not, and unnecessarily inflame the debate. Disagreeing with someone does not make them your enemy. Dr.K. (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is my interpretation of what the Turkish government seems to be saying on their web site. I'm sure that suitable passages can be found to support the gist of it. But the point I'm making if those words are not correct what is it that you think that Turkish Government is saying occurred as they deny it was a genocide? The point is you have to come up with some sort of wording that presents a neutral point of view. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue as to what they think, neither am I obliged to understand their mentality. In general I agree with Xenovatis in that we should tone down the opinions of state agents be it the Turkish or Greek governments. Quoting their positions in general is ok. But expounding on their propaganda, especially if unsourced and unsupported by academic sources, and including it in detail is counterproductive for the article and Wikipedia in general. We wouldn't want an article to become a repository of verbatim state propaganda. Dr.K. (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dr.K. you are not "obliged to understand their mentality" but you are obliged to help create an article that has a Neutral Point of View. As I asked Xenovatis do you consider this is an article on the events of the early C20th or an article about the scholarship about the events of the early C20th? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is, of course, both as in every article. The events are reflected in the scholarship and scholarship explains and analyses the events. The events without scholarship are mere propaganda. Dr.K. (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an article on the events based on scholarship about the events as opposed to the opinions of laymen (us) or the involved states. These opinions have their place since it is relevant to a description of the events what some of the involved states think of them now but that is as far as it should go. An encyclopedia is not a soudning board for either state's propaganda but a repository of distilled knowledge gleaned from reliable sources as per WP:RS. I hope that makes sense now and would like to hear your view as to why a particular government's opinion, should matter so much particularly since they aren't even the same agency that carried out the genocide, which took place before the foundation of the modern Turkish state.Xenovatis (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

So back to the lead Dr.K. and Xenovatis please can you provide a skeleton of what you think the lead should look like given that the page title will be a descriptive one. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see my previous comment on this above. There is no point working on the article itself before we have a consensus on something as fundamental as the title.Xenovatis (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If the title is descriptive then the lead can be the same no matter what the title is. So there is no need to agree the title before developing the lead. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So back to the lead Dr.K. and Xenovatis please can you provide a skeleton of what you think the lead should look like given that the page title will be a descriptive one. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For starters, it would have to begin with the title in bold per Wikipedia convention, wouldn't it? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No See WP:MOS#First sentences "If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I provided several pretty detailed promosals which included compromises on my part and left room for more compromise but the first were rejected offhand and the last was simply ignored! And now we are asked to supply lead proposals... See section Compromise proposal below.

The Greek Genocide (unbolded) refers to the Ottoman (not Turkish) campaign of deliberate (intent) and systematic (we can discuss this) destruction of the Greek population (we can discuss communities) of Pontus and Anatolia in the period 1914-1923.The question of whether these incidents constitute a genocide is a matter of dispute between the governments (avoids implicating the populations) of Greece and Turkey. Turkey, the succesor state of the Ottoman Empire under whose rule these events took place, (clarifies that modern Turkey was not the actor of these events) similarly contests (avoided denies which connotes genocide denial) the historicity of the contemporaneous Armenian and Assyrian genocides, both of which have also been recognized by the International Association of Genocide Scholars.

unsigned comment added by Xenovatis (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This was not ignored, I already told you it would be "a POV fork of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), Population exchange between Greece and Turkey and Great Fire of Smyrna and as such a candidate for deletion. Your not describing events, your ascribing a specific point of view." --A.Garnet (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To which I had replied

I am using the definition of the genocide given in the IAGS resolution and nothing more. Xenovatis (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

which AGarnet ignored. The IAGS resolution clearly defines the period over which the geoncide took place (1914-1923) as well as the methods (death marches, mass killings, deportations). The whole IAGS press release has been provided.Xenovatis (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree on the use of the word campaign? If so then the first sentence could be: "Between 1914–1923 the Ottoman government conducted a campaign against the Greek population/communities of Pontus (and Anatolia)." or something similar. We can then go on to list the 3 views of what this campaign was: a legitimate legal campaign, a campaign that included crimes against humanity, and a systematic campaign of mass extermination/genocide.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Pacification? As in "the Turkish Government maintains that there was a legal large scale pacification campaign carried out in the region because the Greek population was seen as sympathetic to the enemies of the Turkish state and a potential fifth column"? Jesus. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that we had an edit clash as I had already removed the word "pacification" from the above sentence. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As I replied above to another comment PBS had made even the Turkish govt referst to the events using the term genocide so when the article begins with "The PGG referst to the.." it is simply stating a fact. Whether the use of the term is justified is not something the lead confirms or denies. This is the format used in the BG, RG, AG. And the term PGG is the most common term by which these events are referred to, when they are reffered to at all. The fact that they are not often referred to to begin with does not invalidate the statement that when they are referred to they are in the majority of cases referred to as genocide. And the mass murder of close to four hundred thousand civilians would probably not be considered legal even under the law of war extant in those timesXenovatis (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not avoid the use of genocide in the first sentence? As the title is descriptive there is no need to mention it. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why avoid it? Who are we afraid of? In fact, if genocide appears in the title, it must appear as close to the beginning of the first sentence as possible, in bold. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Most people involved in this conversation agree that it is a descriptive name so as I pointed out above the name does not have to appear in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

As I already mentioned to PBS avoiding the use of a term that is objectively true just because it doesn't sound sympathetic enough to some people is in reality contrary to the spirit but also the letter of WP:NPOV. Note that I have never suggested that the Turkish government's genocide denial be excluded from the article, just treated according to its specific weight.

WP:NPOV_tutorial#Things_to_avoid

Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality. Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to. On the other hand, these terms should be presented, explained and examples given, perhaps with views of other groups of why the term is used as well as the group itself.

Of course convincing people that the PGG is objectively true when they will not even accept the Armenian Genocide as such is obviously a different matter and the reason why this discussion might be stalling.

Xenovatis (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis to repeat what I said last time you quoted that section of things to avoid "I do not consider this that this is a valid objection as not using genocide in the passive narrative voice of the article, as by using the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y" for controversial subjects will neither suppresses the use of the term genocide or use an euphemism for the term but quite the contrary genocide will "presented, explained and examples given, perhaps with views of other groups of why the term is used as well as the group itself"."

Apart from insisting on putting over a point of view that "Between 1914–1923 the Ottoman government conducted a campaign against the Greek population/communities of Pontus (and Anatolia) [that was a genocide]." You still have no explained what you object to in my suggested wording of a first sentence. Why is it necessary to put the word genocide in the first sentence of the article? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

AGarnet's Complaint

Because they have an interest in pushing this particular pov Phillip. I know WP:Civility says we should not accuse people of pov pushing, but come on, this is getting ridicolous now. Xenovatis's idea of compromise is to widen the scope of this article to encompass all Greeks and elevate their plight to that of the Armenians based on a single resolution. --A.Garnet (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The question has still not been answered by either AGarnet or PBS of what criteria exactly the events should meet to fulfil their definition of genocide if the statement of the organization of scholars on genocide fails to meet them. It might be useful to address this issue since neither PBS nor AGarnet consider the Armenian Genocide to fulfil these criteria even while it is recognized by the majority of scholars. AGarnet has been very active in the Armenian Genocide talk pages promoting a "sympathetic tone for the Turkish government's genocide denial Talk:Armenian_genocide/Archive_5#Turkish_government_position_-_lack_of_sympathetic_tone.3F (and he has been active with many comments on many of the other 18 archived talk pages) while PBS [1] has referred to the AG as the aledged genocide. Clearly there is a difference in the criteria employed by the discussants and from the above it would seem more likely that one side is using very strict criteria rather than other using very loose. This should probably be resolved and some common ground established in order for consensus to be achieved.Xenovatis (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Something never happened

The Turkish government says that something never happened, how does the Turkish government call that something? Niko Silver 18:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, oh, oh!! I know, Sir, *waves hand in the air* I know Sir!! An excellent point NikoXenovatis (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a handy governmental site for those interested: [2] Niko Silver 18:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

AFAICT the Turkish government does not say that all the events did not happen just what happened may not have been genocide. "Turkey reacted sharply to the so-called Pontic Hellenism genocide monument which was opened last Friday. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Namik Tan yesterday said that so-called Pontic genocide lacks historical and scientific evidence. 'We suggest that Greek authorities and scholars evaluate the historical events objectively instead of using such expressions that can damage relations between our two countries,' said Tan. 'We want to again reiterate that this step, which became a fodder for feeble arguments, isn’t in line with the spirit of the cooperation and dialogue we’re trying to develop.' "11.05.2006 www.byegm.gov.tr --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that even the Turkish government uses the term genocide to refer to these events. And that is all the lead I suggested (and which was, for some reason, summarily discarded) is doing: it doesn't say it was a genocide but that the term genocide refers to these events.Xenovatis (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Events section

If as Xenovatis wrote above "It is an article on the events based on scholarship..." where is the events section? At the moment the article has the following content sections:

1 Background
2 Casualties
3 Aftermath

There is no section on the events and the most detailed description of what happened is in the lead: It is used to refer to the determined persecutions, massacres, expulsions, and death marches of Pontian Greek populations in the historical region of Pontus, the southeastern Black Sea provinces of the Ottoman Empire, during the early 20th century by the Young Turk administration. G.W. Rendel of the British Foreign Office noted the massacres of Greeks in Pontus and elsewhere during the Turkish national movement,[10][11][6] which was organized against Greece's invasion of western Anatolia.[12] So what are the dates and details for the persecutions, massacres, expulsions, and death marches that should be in a description of what happened? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's solve these problems one at a time. This is not the time to discuss the structure of the article which can indeed be improved while the title itself is in question by you.Xenovatis (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree there is no reason why a timeline for the most important events can not be developed while the page is locked. At the moment the article is called the Pontic Greek Genocide, but there are next to no details of what happened. Do you know what the timeline for the events was? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to finalize the timeline while the page is locked, however this must be after something alot more basic, like the title issue has been the subject of consensus agreement by all parties.Xenovatis (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversial names

The following is from WP:TITLE

The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed. However, debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help

What is pertinent here is that

1 the name genocide is the one by which these events are known and will be looked up by any interested parties, whether those subscribing to the Turkish government's opinion or anyone else.

The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more.

2 The page does not as PBS said contradict WP:NPOV (even if one assumes there is an equally valid counterargument) since it does not imply endorsement of the position that the events constitute genocide.

In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles.

3 This speaks for itself:

Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another.

4 As does this:

However, debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help

All four of these points will need to be addressed by the resident lawyers before discussion can continue. Xenovatis (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points and found right here in our own backyard (Wikipedia). The last quotation: However, debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help sounds so much like what I've been saying all along. Let's not suspend logic any further. Keep the title, move on to improving the article. Dr.K. (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As the name "Pontic Greek Genocide" is not a common name in English, so it does no aid navigation. Besides providing different names are included in an article search engines and redirects will take care of that. I think the current name does not help in writing a balanced article -- The amount of effort expended on this talk page in proving that the events were a genocide instead of what the events were is an indication of that. What is the second controversial name? I would agree with the last point so lets change the name to a non controversial descriptive one and remove the controversy. Any suggestions what that name could be? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying that it is not common implies there is another name for these events that in fact is. What would that be? My contention is not that it is common per se but that it is the most common name by which these events are known. Am I to understand that you are saying the events did not constitute geoncide? The suggestion would be for a compromise but this implies that you would be willing to compromise as well, evidence of which has not been forthcoming, though I am sure you are in good faith. You just need to concretely show it.Xenovatis (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No have not said it was not a genocide I am not qualified to make that statement particularly as I know little about the events. What I know something about is how to structure Wikipedia articles, and the current name is not inducive to creating a WP:Good Article. What is needed is a neutral (or even bland) descriptive name that allows for the development of a good quality article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we clear this one up:

My contention is not that it is common per se but that it is the most common name by which these events are known.

Xenovatis (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal aspect

See Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 6#Genocide in the title for an earlier discussion

There was a question of whether these events can be legally described as "genocide", with various legal arguments. The main reason for questioning this fact was that there should be intent for these actions. My view is that this whole discussion is WP:SYN, since we are obviously not eligible to determine if there was intent or not; this is the job of scholars and other WP:RS. When scholars call it a "genocide", we stick to how they call it and we do not examine if they did their job well. I mean, who the hell are we to judge them?

However, even if we follow this logic, then intent is cited in the numerous sources. A mere browse in the article will convince anyone interested. Furthermore, I recall the early-early stages of this debate, when things were actually the other way round: At that time, we had descriptions of the many massacres by scholars, we had description of intent by scholars, and what we were missing was... a reliable scholar that would call this indeed a "genocide" (Actually we had only R. J. Rummel, but everybody rushed to discredit him, without providing citation that he is, in fact, discredited from the academic community...)

At that point, quite surprisingly, it was the creators of the article that were accused for ...WP:SYN, because it was them who had allegedly combined evidence (extensive massacres+intent), to prove a point (genocide), without any reliable scholar to call it as such (apart from Rummel).

Now what we have at hand is many scholars calling it a genocide (7-8 citations within the article including the ultimate relevant source of the IAGS, and another 10-20 more waiting in the talkpage), and we are trying to apply a logic of WP:DESYN ([sic] i.e. decomposition) to prove the ...indisputable fact that they did their job wrong! All of them!

It is a real real desperate situation for those denying the title, and what this situation does is that it imposes protection on the article, it places bogus tags for everybody to see, and prohibits contributors from expanding the article with sources and data.

How sorrier this can become? Niko Silver 20:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is not if it can legally described as a genocide -- That is not relevant -- it is what is meant when the word genocide because there are many meanings (Genocide definitions). At the moment there are six citations given and AFAICT not one of the explain what the word genocide means when used in the context of "Pontic Greek Genocide". For example does genocide mean the destruction of the group as a social entity or the biological destruction of the group? Does genocide include the premeditated intent to destroy the group? I don't know and from reading this article and following the citations I am be none the wiser.--08:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So by your reasoning this implies that they didn't mean genocide when they were writting that word? You are not better qualified then they are or indeed me to know whay they meant they did themselves. If they wrote genocide then that is what they menat. This is not a semantics project. Additionaly you haven't commented on the fact that the page you linked to cites Lemkin, Charney, Jones all of whom have recognized the PGG as such.Xenovatis (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I see. I notice there are some dozens of definitions there, mostly similar. I'll study the article, but to me in plain English, they all mean something like: "To deliberately kill many people of one ethnic group". To your specific questions, the answer is yes in both. Biological it is (check death-toll ~350,000) and premeditation exists (check those three that I just dug up below). Niko Silver 10:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Hannibal Travis, "Native Christians Massacred," Genocide Studies and Prevention, December 2006:

Absent a governmental intention to exterminate the Christians of the empire, it would be nearly impossible to explain how the massacres, rapes, deportations, and dispossessions of the Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek Christians living in the Ottoman Empire at the time of World War I could have taken place on such a vast scale.

2. From the reports of diplomatic and consular officials and Les Persιcution Antihellιniques en Turquie Depuis le Dιbut de la Guerre Europιenne. D'aprθs les rapports officiels des agents diplomatiques et consulaires (Paris, Librairie Bernard Grasset, 1918), Introduction.

Les persιcutions antihellιniques poursuivies en Turquie depuis le dιbut de la guerre europιenne ne sont que la continuation du plan d'extermination de l'Hellιnisme 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.

3. Stanley Hopkins, American employee of the Near East Relief, 16/11/1921

... 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.

BTW, those and many others, are included in the IAGS resolution supporting documentation, which is the first source from the 7 that I would check. Possibly you missed it because only the resolution itself is cited in the lead, while this one is included below in the "Recognition" section. Niko Silver 10:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Googling define:genocide you get the following fairly consistent results

The deliberate and systematic destruction of an entire people who belong to one racial, political, cultural or religious group

A systematic attempt to annihilate a racial group or nation. The word was first used in 1944.

The attempted annihilation of a victim group Famous genocides in history include: The Jewish Holocaust, Armenian genocide, Rwandan genocide

the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national or racial group

the practice of killing all the members of a particular race or national group by another race or national group

destruction of a culture and its people through physical extermination

The systematic, planned annihilation of an ethnic, racial or political group

systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group

So systematic, killing and group seem to emerge as common denominators.There isn't quite as much variance s Philip would like to present. By contrast when googling another word like massacre which Philip doesn't mind using when it comes to the English

slaughter: the savage and excessive killing of many people kill a large number of people indiscriminately; "The Hutus massacred the Tutsis in Rwanda"

The word massacre has a number of meanings, but most commonly refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing, especially of noncombatant civilians or without any reasonable means of defense, that would often qualify as war crimes or atrocities. ...

The killing of large numbers of people

This is the deliberate killing of many helpless people

To kill brutally, often in large numbers.

This word seems to have alot more variance in its definitions than the word genocide. But lets see a final example with a word like balloon

small thin inflatable rubber bag with narrow neck

A balloon is a flexible bag normally filled with a gas, such as helium, hydrogen, nitrous oxide or air. Some balloons are purely decorative, others are used for specific purposes. Early balloons were made of dried animal bladders.

A balloon is a type of aircraft that remains aloft due to its buoyancy. A balloon travels by moving with the wind. It is distinct from an airship which is a buoyant aircraft that can be propelled through the air in a controlled manner

bal·loon) (bə-lōōn´) 1. a sac that can be inserted into a body cavity or tube and distended with air or gas. 2. to distend with air, gas, or fluid.

1) The final payment of a balloon note. (2) A landlocked parcel of land.

circle or bubble used in cartoons that encloses copy in an illustration.

A drawing, usually in a comic strip, which makes the words of a person in the picture appear to be coming directly from his mouth.

The amount that is still to be paid on maturity of a mortgage.

There are many more here:http://www.google.gr/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aballoon

And there are many more here. So the word genocide is much better defined than most other words in the English language, including some that Philip doesn't mind using liberaly like massacre or one would assume balloon.Xenovatis (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis, I would hope that they knew what they meant when the wrote genocide, but that does not help us know what they meant when they wrote genocide. As genocide has so many meaning for that there needs to be a citation to the definition that is being used. This is not so critical if the article is does not have genocide in the name because then each scholar can be quoted separately, but at the moment we have a definition by default "[The Pontic Greek Genocide] is used to refer to the determined persecutions, massacres, expulsions, and death marches of Pontian Greek populations in the historical region of Pontus, the southeastern Black Sea provinces of the Ottoman Empire, during the early 20th century by the Young Turk administration." Who's definition of genocide is that?

The advantage of using a descriptive name for the events and then a section on who thinks it is genocide is that the events can be described in detail, which at the moment because of the way it is structured only those events specifically described as a genocide can be included. For example if there was a mass killing of Pontic Greeks in 1918 which is not in one of the genocide sources but is mentioned in a history that does not describe the events as genocide then it ought not to appear in this article as it is not defined in a secondary source as part of the genocide (WP:SYN). If we use a descriptive name that does not use the word genocide then we side step this issue and can include all such reports to build up a detailed article on the "massacres, expulsions, and death marches".

For example Niko you have quoted from a primary source: "Stanley Hopkins, American employee of the Near East Relief, 16/11/1921". But unless that source is cited in a reliable third party secondary source that describes the events as genocide, it is not admissible in this article as it is named at the moment because it falls foul of WP:PSTS and WP:SYN, because you are using it to try to prove that the events were a genocide not that the events took place.

Ummm, they have been cited by the most reliable and relevant source. You started the WP:OR, by requesting "intent" so as to justify that the scholars are right in calling it a genocide, and I played along. Stick with IAGS that calls it a genocide plain and simple, or proceed with your OR all the way, down to establishing intent by primary sources. Niko Silver 14:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

PBS can we please have an agreement on the above? I would be grateful if you acknowledged that your remark above is inapplicable. The links are here (and in the article, refs #26 & #27): IAGS Press release (linking to:) IAGS resolution supporting documentation. Thanks. Niko Silver 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you responded somewhere else for something else. Kindly address my comment please. Niko Silver 21:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

From the fact that I am not receiving an answer for this, I assume that the issue of "intent" has slipped you, and is clearly cited in third party reliable academic scholarship. So I take it that the {{pov-title}} tag is indeed redundant. Kindly remove it. Niko Silver 14:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, please drop the smug attitude. When the leading scholars of an organisation publicly question and oppose its resolution, even claiming so far as bringing the IAGS into disrepute, then I think we have good grounds to question the degree to which it represents academic consensus. The title IS in dispute, and until some compromise is made no tags will be removed. --A.Garnet (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The degree is 84% vs 16%^[3] and it is described as an "overwhelming backing" by Adam Jones, and IAGS itself in its press release says that it "has voted overwhelmingly to recognize the genocides inflicted on Assyrian and Greek populations of the Ottoman Empire".^[4] The president of IAGS, Gregory Stanton, says that "the history of these genocides is clear".^[5] What was your hypothesis again? Niko Silver 14:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am busy with other things including writing articles. I do not understand what you you mean by "I would be grateful if you acknowledged that your remark above is inapplicable." Which remark? (you do not have to quote the whole remark just the first few words) And what has that to to with the {{pov-title}} tag? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What keeps you busy is obviously what all of us should be doing instead of bickering in talk-pages, and some of us thankfully do. Anyway, I was referring to your comment that refers to me exactly above. The one that starts "For example Niko you have quoted from a primary source:..." The connection with the tag is that the primary reason of concern for the name of the article (if I have understood correctly) is that we don't know what type of genocide we're talking about. Well, we do. It's the deliberate type. The intentional and massive type of biological extinction. At least according to the ultimate third party reliable source on the issue, the IAGS, which quotes such intent and such massive numbers by primary sources. So, I request that the tag is removed, and I really can't understand how it was inserted while the article was protected. After all, protection does not endorse a particular version. Should I assume this applies selectively? Niko Silver 14:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole point is that the current title (Pontic Greek Genocide (G in caps)) is under dispute so why should the template not be on the article? If that is all you wish to discuss then I suggest that we do it in the section #pov-title. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis have you read the Genocide, Genocide definitions, and ECHR quoting the ICJ judgement as described in the Bosnian Genocide Case? You can not say "So intentional, killing and group seem to emerge as common denominators." therefore that is the definition that we are using in the article (and is what all the scholars who called it a genocide mean when they use the term genocde) that is just WP:SYN. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis I consider this to be a personal attack "So the word genocide is much better defined than most other words in the English language, including some that Philip doesn't mind using liberaly like massacre or one would assume balloon" and would appreciate it if you would look at the history of the article Genocide definitions and the two AfDs for "List of Massacres" AfD 1,Afd 2 and WP:CIVIL and consider if you think what you have said is still appropriate, if not I would appreciate an apology --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet without a single source to your name you claim that this is not what they meant. I asked before where are your sources that say that when so and so wrote genocide they in fact meant something else? You have so far provided none. Btw the lead is not discussed here but the title.

What you are saying is wrong. See the point from WP:Title above that expressly refutes what you are saying. The title doesn't mean that the subject cannot be described with another name within the article. Please respond to all points, otherwise we repaat ourselves. If you had replied to that point we wouldn't be discussing it again here.

Wrt to sources claiming it was a genocide there are twentyfive claiming it as such expl;icitly, most in the lead and in Archive 6.

No what I am saying is that there is a definition of genocide that is much more consistent than the definition of either massacre or balloon. This should be enought to settle the matter. The absolute word for word tautology that you are looking for is simply not available for dictionary definitions of any word in English.

It wasn't an insult but an exposition of the weakness of your argument viz the purported lack of a tight definition of genocide. I am however sorry you mistoook it as such since that was not my intention.

Fine since it matters so much to you, you can remove the heading.

Xenovatis (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Having read AfD 1,Afd 2 and looked at the edit history of "Genocide definitions" do you stand by the truth of your your statement "So the word genocide is much better defined than most other words in the English language, including some that Philip doesn't mind using liberaly like massacre or one would assume balloon" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a previous discussion on the same issue to which you have not yet answered. If you have any points to make please make them here not by pointing to other threads.

Massacre is a descriptive word, it is not a legal word. But you need to read the very loooooong discussions in the archives Talk:List of events named massacres and the two AfDs to find out what I think about that subject. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Whereas genocide is a legal term that laymen would be stumped trying to understand the meaning of? The term is in common use. You also haven't addressed my points viz Lemkin, Charney and the others. When next you reply please try to answer more than one of the points raised so others don't feel they are talking to a brick wall. Xenovatis (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionaly is it to be assumed that this is your list of conditions that need to be addressed for the term to be acceptable? I ask since you only listed the one. If not could you list the others as well, i.e. how exactly should an event be described to qualify as far as you are concerned?

Most people would have thought that the events being described as genocide in the Journal of Genocide Studies or in the Encyclopedia of Genocide a pretty good clue as to whether they constitue a genocide but I am willing to listen to counterclaims. In fact I find it strange that you would call the validity of academic references into question as to whether they really meant what they said or were just shooting the breeze since this is not a scientific forum and you are not qualified to know better what they meant then they did themselves. If they wrote genocide then that is what we must assume they meant. Trying to apply textual analysis to published material is outside the scope of WP unless you can source your claims as per WP:RS i.e.

Do you have any sources that support your claim that when one of the so far 25 academic sources that label the events genocide was using that word meant something else? If not then you should perhaps reconsider your stance.

Xenovatis (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Xenovatis it is not clear to me from that reply if you have read AfD 1,Afd 2 and looked at the edit history of "Genocide definitions" and still think your statement "So the word genocide is much better defined than most other words in the English language, including some that Philip doesn't mind using liberaly like massacre or one would assume balloon" is true.

But I will put that aside and assume that we can remain on civil terms. Genocide has a number of definition and the legal definition has been developing since case law has started to build up. As is made clear in the ECHR judgement, the international courts and the majority of legal scholars are of the opinion that destruction of a group as a social entity is not enough to constitute genocide, there must be a biological destruction as well. There is no such legal term as a partial genocide. A genocide happens or it does not in the case of the Srebrenica massacre for example it was a genocide because it resulted in the death of a substantial part of the Bosnian Muslim population.

Xenovatis you wrote "In fact I find it strange that you would call the validity of academic references into question as to whether they really meant what they said or were just shooting the breeze since this is not a scientific forum and you are not qualified to know better what they meant then they did themselves. If they wrote genocide then that is what we must assume they meant." I am not calling into question "the validity of academic references ... as to whether they really meant what they said". But what we can not know without definitions is if they are all singing from the same choir sheet. So we should not lump their statements about genocide together into an amorphous "many scholars claim a genocide" type statement, as the word genocide does not have one meaning and unless all the scholars were using the same meaning, it is misleading.

One can write in the article "In 1984 John Smith described the events ABC as a genocide and ten years later Mary Jones published an influential paper in which she published a previously archived telegrams sent by Minister xyz which she says conclusively proves that he a major instigator of the genocide." There we are not claiming in the passive narrative voice that it was a genocide. At the moment the article claims in the introduction that the it was a genocide and give a roll your own definition. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make further accusations of incivility you will have to substantiate them please. In any event I, again, apologize for any offence inadvertently given. As for the ECHR and majority of legal scholars, can you source your statements? Where does it say that about the ECHR and where does it say about the majority of genocide scholars supporting what you say they do? Because I assume that is what you mean when you say legal, this is after all not a legal textbook but an encyclopaedia. I find it odd that you would call the death of some 10,000 people genocide but the death of 350,000 would not classify as such.

Neither does balloon (I will not mention massacre since I can’t read all these threads you linked and hence am forced to yield that point), could you please respond to that. It would seem this discussion is in danger of being turned into a debate on semantics for which this is not the right forum nor would everyone see it as a worthwhile way to spend their time. Differences in definitions exist for all words in the English language.

I have explained the difference in style which part of that paragraphs the first of which contains "singing from the same choir sheet" did I not nake this clear.Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As has been shown in WP:Title the article title does not claim anything nor does it limit any other description within it. Please, this is the third time this point is brought up to you and you haven’t yet replied.

It depends on whether the page name is a title or a description. If a description it does not have to be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead. If it is a title then the MOS dictates it must. Why don't you put some wording into the #Lead section to see if we can work towards different lead that incorporates the difference? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally you haven’t answered these points:

Do you have any sources that support your claim that when one of the so far 25 academic sources that label the events genocide was using that word meant something else? If not then you should perhaps reconsider your stance.

No, but it is WP:SYN to assume they mean the same thing. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally is it to be assumed that this is your list of conditions that need to be addressed for the term to be acceptable? I ask since you only listed the one. If not could you list the others as well, i.e. how exactly should an event be described to qualify as far as you are concerned?

It would help if the events were described. Currently the are not. There is not even a start and finish date for the genocide let alone any details of what happened. But note I am using the word genocide. In which case the only events that can be described are those listed by genocide scholars. However if we go for a broader description we can list all those events which today would be described as crimes against humanity. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lemkin, Charney and Jones who are all cited in the genocide definition article all have termed the events as a genocide. Would you accept that these use their own definitions since they seem to have supplied them allredy?

See my comment above about "singing from the same choir sheet"--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please answer all points raised so that we can move this discussion forward and I am not forced to repeat myself. I realize you are debating more than one person so I don’t expect you to reply immediately but please post as full as possible a reply when you do. Thanks. Xenovatis (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentaly the assertion you make that there is no such thing as a partial genocide seems to be contradicted by the statemetns of Matthias Bjorlund published in the JGS who also quotes Mark Levene on the matter.

I wrote "There is no such legal term as a partial genocide." I did not write "there is no such thing as a partial genocide" I know that others have used the term. and I also said that to be a (legal) genocide not have to all of a group just a substantial part of it have to be killed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Bjørnlund, Matthias (2008) 'The 1914 cleansing of Aegean Greeks as a case of violent Turkification', Journal of Genocide Research, 10:1, 41 -58

p.51

To the CUP, one of the major advantages of Turkification was that the European Powers would be presented with a fait accompli. The Christians would be gone who had served as an excuse for interference with what the CUP regarded as the internal matters of the empire. The 1914 cleansing policy therefore points toward the WWI policies of extermination, if not in the sense that these policies were planned to be parts of a “grand scheme” of what have been called partial and total genocides, then in the sense that they were connected in profound

p.53

98 On “partial” and “total” genocide: Mark Levene, “Creating a modern ‘zone of genocide’: the impact of nation and state-formation on Eastern Anatolia, 1878–1923,” Holocaust & Genocide Studies, Vol 12, No 3, 1998, pp 395–401, makes the argument that although the Armenian genocide like the Holocaust was a rare instance of total genocide (basically meaning that the scope, scale, and intensity of the killing is, if not unlimited, then with few limitations and exceptions), other aspects of the CUP homogenization campaign can be characterized as partial genocide. See also Robert F. Melson, Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian

Xenovatis (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides the problem of definition Phillip, there is the problem that few of the sources refer directly to Pontians. Most refer either generally to "Greeks" of the Ottoman Empire, with others referring to Aegean, Asia Minor or Izmir Greeks. The problem is, as you say, that we dont know if all these statements are coming from same choir sheet. That is why I have asked for books, published materials and articles on this event, not just statements, that prove genocide is an established term among scholars in describing a specific event. Xenovatis and others have already indirectly accepted failure in this by their desire to create an article called "Greek genocide" (which would encompass all Greeks of the Ottoman Empire) to which they feel their sources are better suited. --A.Garnet (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In this context Pontic is primarily a geographic identifier while Greek is an ethnic one. Of course the extermination and cleansing policies of the Young Turks were not limited to the Greeks of only one are and this in fact strengthens the argument for genocide. As has been shown there were extensive cleansing operations in the Aegean coast of Asia Minor prior to events in the Pontus.Personally I think that the best term would be Christian Genocide which would encompass the Armenian and Assyrian ones as well as well the massacres of Christians of other denominations that took place at the time, but this is not how modern scholarship treats this issue.Xenovatis (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This makes no sense. Rather than demonstrating that the term "genocide" is often used in this context, you have to work out whether the subject of the article is usually described as genocide. In other words, you don't want a google search on "pontic genocide". You want an article on whether it is the scholarly consensus that it was a genocide. (Not an article about how it is genocide. An article about the articles.) I hasten to add that the consensus has to be much stronger here than elsewhere because of the fact that propaganda is involved and because "genocide" is a loaded term with an exact meaning of the sort we should not normally have in article titles. Relata refero (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What precisely makes no sense?

The fact that it is described as genocide in most cases and only in few instances refered to as ethnic cleansing is irrelevant? It ia an absurd burden of proof to request that an article about the scholarly consensus on the events being a genocide is supplied when the other side is not tasked with the same, i.e. an article claiming that the majority do not in fact regard it as genocide.
Are you suggesting that (1) such an article would settle the matter (2) in its absence there can be no decision?
I have already agreed that while notable enough for inclusion in WP these events are not nearly as notable as the RG, AG etc. So such an article is unlikely to exist in the first place. What needs to be done is to bring forth enough citations of academics who do not consider the events genocide to show that only a minority of those that discuss them label them as genocide. So far there have been 25 academic quotes presented that describe the events as genocide and a handfull that describe them as ethnic cleansing (which did occur) or massacres, holocaust etc.

Xenovatis (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead aspect pt. 1

1 The point is that the same argument can be made for pretty much every word in English. Do you have any actual sources that claim that when an academic writes the word genocide they mean something else to what is commonly understood by the term? Do you believe there is, to begin with, a common meaning of the word genocide or should each instance of it be preceded by a definition of the exact meaning of the word? It would seem that if Webster has the word in its dictionary then there is to begin with use of the term in common parlance, outside of the legal profession. You are saying, if I understand correctly, that in WP the term should only be used in the legal sense. Where exactly is that mentioned in the rules and guidelines? I checked the BG article btw and all the citations you use (41) are from court decisions with almost none from academics. Is this what you envisage here? Because as has been mentioned there will never be a court hearing for the PGG almost a century after the events. So if that is your rationale then I don't see a way forward. Since when though are court decisions more relevant to an encyclopedia than academic opinion? The BBC is used as a ref to justify the use of the word genocide, does the same rationale justify the use of the NYT in this case for the same reason?
I think it is better to side step the issue and try not to use the word genocide in a passive voice but rather where necessary attribute the word to a specific source. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

2 About your MOS para. Could you explain that in more detail? Could you provide a link or the relevant MOS passage please? Isn’t the page name by definition the title? Do you mean a proper noun instead?
I did that at the top of this talk page but here it is again: See WP:MOS#First sentences "If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface"

Could you also answer the following:

3Are at least the three that have given definitions on genocide acceptable? I am referring to Lemkin, Chareny and Jones all of whose definitions include the physical destruction term. You reply doesn’t clear that up. If I understand correctly that is the bone of contention for you, is it not?
As I have said before see the two paragraphs above the first of which includes "singing from the same choir sheet".

4 As for the ECHR and majority of legal scholars, can you source your statements? Where does it say that about the ECHR and where does it say about the majority of genocide scholars supporting what you say they do?
See Jorgic v. Germany Judgment Paragraphs 36 but also §§ 18,47,99,103,108 or if you prefer you can read a distilled version of it in Bosnian Genocide#European Court of Human Rights

5 I find it odd that you would call the death of some 10,000 people genocide but the death of 350,000 would not classify as such.
I have no problem making a distinction. One is a genocide under international law with a clear legal definition which is world famous as a genocide and as such Wikipedia reflects the overwhelming view that it was a genocide. In the same way the Bosnian Genocide Case represents the view that the 80,000+ who died in all of Bosnia is not a genocide because the ICJ said so in a court judgement, this is the view that the vast majority of newspaper and media outlets reported at the time and is the generally accepted view. Both articles are within Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

HOWEVER one important difference between an academic view of genocide and a legal view of genocide is the subject of the word. With an academic view one is applying the word to the victims. I.E. the victims were subject to a genocide. In a legal view one is finding a perpetrator guilty of genocide. For example Radislav Krstic was guilty of genocide because of the proportion killed of all potential victims that he had access too was was enough to meet the "in part" criteria. It is conceivable (although unlikely) that Slobodan Milosevic would not have been guilty of genocide for the Srebrenica massacre because the proportion of all the potential victims he had access to was considerably greater than Krstic, so the in part criteria might not have been met in Milosevic's case. I hope that does not make your head hurt as much as it did when I first researched for the In part section in the Genocide article! To the best of my knowledge this is not explained in any scholarly article which is a pity because it would be a useful addition to both articles and make people realise that legal judgements are not quite as clear cut as they first appear. HOWEVER that does not matter as far as the articles go because and Wikipedia policy, as one simply quotes the judgement and "let the facts speak for themselves."

this article makes an interesting read. Serbia could only be taken to the ICJ on genocide charges, the ICJ does not hear crimes against humanity cases, and the International Criminal Court only hears cases for alleged crimes that happened after its statute entered into force in 2002. So "[Dr Andre de Hoogh, a senior lecturer in international law at the University of Groningen, ... dismisses the claim made by some academics that genocide is too difficult to prove - but rather is a narrowly defined legal definition, which is sometimes charged in circumstances where it doesn't apply. In this particular case, she says, a gap in international law meant the Genocide Convention had to be used. "The only way for Bosnia to go to the ICJ was to allege genocide. There is no Crimes against Humanity Convention providing for jurisdiction for the ICJ," she said. She is concerned that too much focus is placed on the crime of genocide, which is often erroneously held up by victims, the media - and even ad hoc tribunal judges - as the crime of crimes. "Genocide and crimes against humanity are of equal gravity, yet everyone feels that genocide is worse and carries an extra stigma," she said. This preoccupation with genocide is particularly prevalent in the former Yugoslavia, she said. "There, if you are a victim of genocide, does that mean you a higher status of victim?" she asked."

The last point is important because as I have said before, if this article restricts itself to genocide then only those events mentioned in in sources that call this a genocide can be mentioned in this article if WP:SYN is not to rear its ugly head. If on the other hand one goes for a broader definition that includes crimes against humanity then many more sources are open for use. There is no reason why genocide can not be mentioned in a large section of the article if it is constructed that way, but it shifts the focus of the article to the events rather than what the events represent and that comes back to "let the facts speak for themselves". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis when you write "you" at the start of this sectin do you mean PBS or do you mean one? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant you on the assumption that you agree with the BG article as you have mentioned it as an example of actual genocide. If I misunderstood one of your points please elucitade. Obvioustly though this is not a private discussion so anyone else who would like to contribute, like relato, is welcome to respoond to this points as well. My concern is that each point is exhausted first time so it doesn't crop up again later. As I said you are welcome to take your time responding since you have to debate more than one person. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Philip's comments. Could we keep it in blocks?

I think it is better to side step the issue and try not to use the word genocide in a passive voice but rather where necessary attribute the word to a specific source. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

1 This whole discussion is about the name to which there is strong support and opposition on nationalist motives. Once that is settled most participants will remove themselves and the article will progress unhindered. Until then every minor point will be the subject of at least one full talk page. Not the best way forward.

Please also answer the following points.

2 Are there any actual sources that claim that when an academic writes the word genocide they mean something else to what is commonly understood by the term?

Yes Rummel Jones and the ECHR judgement. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

3 Do you believe there is, to begin with, a common meaning of the word genocide or should each instance of it be preceded by a definition of the exact meaning of the word? It would seem that if Webster has the word in its dictionary then there is to begin with use of the term in common parlance, outside of the legal profession.

As I have said if the word genocide is used in the passive narrative voice then a definition should be given. But this causes a problem because different people use it to mean different things. But as in the examples I gave the word genocide can be used if the wording is more precise. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

4 You are saying, if I understand correctly, that in WP the term should only be used in the legal sense. Where exactly is that mentioned in the

rules and guidelines?

No I am not saying it should not be used in the legal sense I am saying that in this case as there is no clear unified definition about what constitutes a genocide in this case, it is better to avoid the word in the passive narrative voice of the article.

5 I checked the Bosnian Genocide article btw and all the citations you use (41) are from court decisions with almost none from academics. Is this what you envisage here?. Because as has been mentioned there will never be a court hearing for the PGG almost a century after the events

No. A better example article in my opinion is 1971 Bangladesh atrocities --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

7 definitions include the physical destruction term. You reply doesn’t clear that up. If I understand correctly that is the bone of contention for you, is it not? ie that they should be about physical destruction of the persons not just the destruction of the group as a social unit. The reason I ask has to do with Jones' ascertion cited below that there is a consensus among academics that the term should only be used in cases of physical destruction, even though a substantial number think otherwise. So an academic consensus exists.

No it is not and I hope my answers on this page have explained it. Different people use different definitions of Genocide and one can not lump them together. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

See Jorgic v. Germany Judgment Paragraphs 36 but also §§ 18,47,99,103,108 or if you prefer you can read a distilled version of it in Bosnian Genocide#European Court of Human Rights

At the time when the applicant committed his acts in 1992, a majority of scholars took the view that genocidal “intent to destroy a group” under Article 220a of the Criminal Code had to be aimed at the physical-biological destruction of the protected group (see, for example, A. Eser, in Schönke / Schröder, Strafgesetzbuch – Kommentar, 24th edition, Munich 1991, Article 220a, §§ 4-5 with further references). However, a considerable number of scholars were of the opinion that the notion of destruction of a group as such, in its literal meaning, was wider than a physical-biological extermination and also encompassed the destruction of a group as a social unit

8 According to this the majority of scholars agree that the word should only be used when physical destruction is involved. This corroborates the reference from Jones I supplied below. This would seem to indicate that there is not such a wide disparity between definitions that when the word is used the physical destruction concept cannot be assumed. Of those that are cited to support the point that “a considerable number” of scholars who expand the meaning of destruction none have been used as evidence in this debate in any case.

Majority does not mean all, For example, Xenovatis you mentioned that Lemkin has called this a genocide, but we know that he used the term differently from the way that Jones says the majority use it now. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

9 “nullum crimen sine lege” This brings up another issue. If a legal perspective is to be brought to bear here then the events can never be labeled as genocide since the first law against this was formulated several decades later. So we must first decide if a legal perspective is applicable to begin with. If it is then the matter is settled by this alone, without recourse to any other definitions.

This is not directly relevant, the trials of Nazis after WWII are often mentioned in relation to the Holocaust, but of course they were found guilty of crimes other than genocide. Most of the factors that go into the crime of genocide already existed in most civilised countries by 1900. It is just that they were not lumped together into a specific crime called genocide. Again if the descriptive title is inclusive (as it is in some other similar articles) then it is possible to include theses types of things in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

10 The judgment makes a distinction between national German and international law in § 103 but it has not yet been made clear that either of these are to be criteria for use of the term in WP, particularly since no national or international legal case has or will ever be tried on the subject of the PGG.

I think this is a misunderstanding by you of my position. One advocates a broad interpretation of the Genocide Convention the other a narrow interpretation. I introduced it to show those who did not realise that the Genocide Convention is open to more than one interpretation. Something that some editors here did not seem to realise. I still stand by my position that it would be much better to describe the atrocities/events that happened. Of which there is pitiful little in the article and then introduce the opinions that think these atrocities amount to a genocide and why they think that this is true (Proven intent and a substantial part of the group). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

HOWEVER one important difference between an academic view of genocide and a legal view of genocide is the subject of the word. With an academic view one is applying the word to the victims. I.E. the victims were subject to a genocide. In a legal view one is finding a perpetrator guilty of genocide.

11 As has been mentioned earlier it is my position that WP should reflect the academic view as an encyclopedia and also in light of the trial arguments made above. I suggest we reach a consensus first on that.

Again as I said above put the facts of the events first and then what reliable sources call it. Wikipedia includes much more than just scholars. It also includes other reliable sources like governments that are members of the UN. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For example Radislav Krstic was guilty of genocide because of the proportion killed of all potential victims that he had access too was was enough to meet the "in part" criteria. It is conceivable (although unlikely) that Slobodan Milosevic would not have been guilty of genocide for the Srebrenica massacre because the proportion of all the potential victims he had access to was considerably greater than Krstic, so the in part criteria might not have been met in Milosevic's case. I hope that does not make your head hurt as much as it did when I first researched for the In part section in the Genocide article!

12 What percentage of the potentially available population needs to be physically destroyed for the event to qualify as genocide? In the PGG case the victims were 350K out of a pool of 700K, that is 50%, wouldn’t that qualify? The figure for the Holocaust is 67%, much higher but of the same order of magnitude. What was the percentage for the BG?

We don't have to decide that and as the Genocide article makes clear it depends on a number of factors. We only have to state that these scholars consider the in-part requirement has been met.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

this article makes an interesting read. Serbia could only be taken to the ICJ on genocide charges, the ICJ does not hear crimes against humanity cases, and the International Criminal Court only hears cases for alleged crimes that happened after its statute entered into force in 2002.

13 This again excludes the possibility of PGG ever being tried, even as CAH.

Again you have misunderstood what I was trying to emphasise, and I certainly do not understand what you are saying here. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The last point is important because as I have said before, if this article restricts itself to genocide then only those events mentioned in in sources that call this a genocide can be mentioned in this article if WP:SYN is not to rear its ugly head.

14 This is debatable and I have no strong view on this matter as in the issue of bolding and capitalizing. Both the articles on Holocaust and AG include references to the prior status and events of a non-genocidal nature like pogroms, ghettos, labor camps and battalions, massacres and ethnic cleansings. However, whether these should be included in the main article or in separate articles should be discussed when the title is settled and taking the result of the consensus into account.

The article should be about the events, with an analysis of what they represent (genocide or not, crimes against humanity or not). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead aspect pt. 2

Reply to PBS. Please answer in one block below mine. I have numbered my points for that reason.
I think it is better to develop a thread for each point rather than putting huge chunks of text below each other. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1 Clarification request: You raised the point that there are two main sorts of defs: with destruction and without. Which is required to use the g-word in the title? Where does it say that (WP rules etc)? If both are acceptable to WP then it doesn’t matter that no def is given. If only one is then it does. My point is that if there is as of yet no academic consensus and further no WP policy then the word can be used even though no def is given in most of the citations. Relate to no.8 below
If you use the term genocide then you need to define it. At the moment it is defined with a "roll you own" in the lead. That is almost inevitable if the genocide is used in the passive narrative voice. This is not a rule it is a matter of editing style. I still do not see why you keep on asking the--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not precisely true, just look at Holocaust, AG, RG for instance. They don't give a precise definition as in the defs article, they just mention deliberate, systematic and destruction and they don't all use the same either. Since all scholars agree on the intent part (see Jones quote below) there is no question about the use of deliberate and since there are many references about the number of victims there is no question about the destruction either. If you insist we could maybe discuss about substituting population with communities which would include all defs and clarify later in the article. We could also discuss about the systematic part, although there are references that support it.

The Armenian Genocide refers to the deliberate and systematic destruction (genocide) of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during and just after the First World War.

The Rwandan Genocide was the systematic murder of members of Rwanda's Tutsi minority and the moderates of its Hutu majority, in 1994.

The Holocaust is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist (Nazi) regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler.

or we could do something like the BG which mentions non genocidal acts as well since this would allow us to include the 1914 ethnic cleansings discussed in the Journal of Genocide studies article and used in the IAGS definition.Xenovatis (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995,[1] or to ethnic cleansing that took place during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War

What do you mean it's not a rule but a matter of editing style? Where is that mentioned in the MOS?Xenovatis (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

2 Jones mentions that there is growing agreement on the physical destruction criterion and additionally makes it clear that BOTH soft and hard definitions agree on the destruction criterion. See my new topic at the bottom. The ECHR judgment as we discussed refers to legal scholars. Can you give the Rummel citation you are referring to?
But many of the citations are from the past so unless the author makes it clear which definition of genocide they are using it is not possible to tell. Despite what Jones says as the list of genocide definitions show there are many different ones.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you haven't answered I assume you agree on the ECHR point I made. "Despite ..." I just provided a citation that claims there is consensus on the issue of intent. While you are indeed very knowledgable I don't think we should discard the opinion of an actual academic. At any rate they all agree on intent to destroy and the destruction of, at the very least, communities. So we could discuss this. Still it would be good if you could back up what you say now with some citations or WP rules for the other points. If it's a rule then we have to follow it and you don't have to compromise on your positions, as you haven't so far. Otherwise you too will have to compromise as well. I have already suggested several avenues for compromise and consensus.Xenovatis (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I was going to comment further but I think you and I are not that far apart on this issue. I had already given the Rummel URL (now in Archive 6) but here it is again for ease of reference "Any scholar who calls an event a genocide without describing what they mean by genocide is not a very good scholar. For example Rummel (who I do not think is a particularly notable scholar) does the courtesy of defining three meanings for genocide in his works.[6]" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
OK I understand. Actually Rummel pretty much explains with his "common meaning" what I as a layman always understood as the meaning of the term (and which he includes in his term "democide") and draws a clear distinction in his Venn diagrammas between destruction of communities and physical destruction of people. I think we could discuss this in deciding whether to use populations or communities in the lead. For example the IAGS seem to hold the 1948 UN definition of the term which does not include the physical destruction criterion. The JGS article about the genocide seems to follow that too. Additionaly at the beginning of their statement they give a brief description of the events which could perhaps be used as well (the Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire between 1914 and 1923 constituted a genocide against Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontian and Anatolian Greeks). As for the various citations which you think might be misleading I would like to discuss them and remove any you think misleading or taken out of context. The rest can be used in another section, in the format you suggested, and not in the lead. How does that sound to you?Xenovatis (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
3 Since we only presented academic citations we will only discuss the various academic not legal definitions. Can you specify precisely (with quotes) what you mean by different things? This is in reference to the above point 2 and Jones’ assertions.
If scholarly genocide definitions are discussed in context then there is not a problem. I have already given examples. Where there is a problem is that if the article starts in the introduction stating that this article is about "the genocide" then it is not unreasonable for a reader to expect a definition of what genocide in this case means. All other definition then need to be junked as does all the information not cited in that specific version of genocide. It is much better to construct the article along the lines of the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities article, as it sidesteps all these issues of definition and allows far more information to be presented from more sources.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK so if you agree on the point below (4) would you consent to using the definition provided by IAGS and then using the other references in another paragraph and not the lead? That is the ones currently there would be removed from the lead. Because that is definately something we can discuss. Currently the lead has 6 refs for use of the term genocide, would you agree to keep just the one from the IAGS and then use the rest in another section, not the lead? It could be in the manner you have suggested e.g. "In 1984 John Smithopoles etc"Xenovatis (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

4 There are several explicit ones. The IAGS resolution, the JGS article, the citations of Charney, Lemkin, Rummel, Jones and Toten all of whom have provided genocide definitions.
Exactly. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

7 Different people use different definitions but there is consensus on the main point which is intent to destroy and physical destruction. The fact that there are differing views on specifics could be mentioned but that is all. I don’t see how if many genocide scholars felt it was sufficient to use the term as such we come along and say that this is wrong and it
I have explained why several times. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

8 By this reasoning nothing can be termed a genocide even if there are many citations and they include definitions because there is still no full consensus on the term. This applies to the BG, Holocaust, AG everything. You can’t call anything a genocide in WP because there are more than one definitions currently in use by some scholars!!
Again I have explained several times how they can be included but to repeat:
One can write in the article "In 1984 John Smith described the events ABC as a genocide and ten years later Mary Jones published an influential paper in which she published a previously archived telegrams sent by Minister xyz which she says conclusively proves that he a major instigator of the genocide." There we are not claiming in the passive narrative voice that it was a genocide. At the moment the article claims in the introduction that the it was a genocide and give a roll your own definition.

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

I suppos4e we could just use the IAGS ref and def leaving the other refs for another section. See my compromise proposal above. User:Xenovatis|Xenovatis]] (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

9 No I mean the H, AG etc articles also include info on other things that happened at the same time (ghettos, massacres, labor camps etc)
For the Holocaust (I will not comment on the Armenian Genocide article) ghettos, massacres, labor camps are commonly considered to be part of the Holocaust and references to that fact are easily available. If this article is going to restrict itself to a specific definition of Genocide then only those events can be described as part of the genocide (otherwise it is WP:SYN. If on the other hand a name that does not force that approach then all of the persecutions massacres can be described via any source and the specific definitions and labels that have been assigned to the events can then be discussed. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's cool if we use the IAGS def. Why not comment on the AG? It is much more relevant and similar than the Holocaust which is in a class of its own.Xenovatis (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

10 The GC is not the arbiter for WP titles. We agree that there are more than one defs of genocide but I have shown there is agreement on intent to destroy and growing agreement on physical destruction. What you need to show is that the term can’t be used to describe an event in WP there is full agreement by all academic scholars on the def. Some sort of rule or policy.
You have agreed the name is descriptive, so we do not have to agree the name to discuss the contents of the article. Please provide what you think is a suitable lead. If you can provide a timeline so much the better. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

See above my reply to 1. We could discuss the finer details like whether to use populations or communities and whether to use systematic, killings, murders etc.Xenovatis (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

11 What does determine the title? PGG is the most common name of these events. That is how anyone looking for it will look it up. Not a very common name but the most common name.

The Google searches do not indicate that "Pontic Greek Genocide" it is a common name, so we can use a descriptive name, A point I thought you had agreed to. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is not a common name per se. But it is the most common name by which these events are known. Others are even less prominent.Xenovatis (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

12 Sure but what is the BG %?
? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to ask if you knew what is the % of Bosniaks killed during the Bosnian Genocide.Xenovatis (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

13 If you want a pronouncement by legal scholars it isn’t happening. So legal concerns are unproductive in this article.
? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, you answered to this point right above.Xenovatis (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

14. Almost all the 30 sources presented consider them genocide. There is no real debate. Unless more sources can be produced that reject that label I don’t see how you can say this is a subject of debate. Xenovatis (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
minor editsXenovatis (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Given our conversations over the last few days, I think look at the quotes on the the page Academic quotes on the Pontic Greek Genocide really do support the claim you have just made. I think you will find that in many cases you have read into the quotes what you wanted to read. To give just one example. The very first quote "look at similar phenomena, ... and so one attempts an unravelling of ... Pontian Greek, ... experiences" It does not specifically say that the Pontian Greek similar experiences were a genocide. Perhaps if the quote was expanded it would? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In context Totten's phrase becomes clear, unless the AG and RG are not genocides, which they are, in the context of WP as well. But if you think some are misleading we can discuss this in the talk page and remove them.

Samuel Totten and Steven L. Jacobs state in their work "Pioneers of Genocide Studies": One begins with (attempted) comprehension of the motives, intent, scale, implementation, and operation of the Holocaust. To understand it is necessary to look at similar phenomena, and so one attempts an unravelling of the Armenian, Pontian Greek, Rwandan, Burundian, and Aboriginal experiences.[5]

--Xenovatis (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that you think it becomes clear, but to be clear the word "experiences" would need to be replaced with "genocides". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

I still suggest that you put together a lead paragraph or two (in the section #Lead). So that I can see what you mean, because in the two example leads I have given, I have included "More recently the International Association of Genocide Scholars have passed resolution that Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire, including the Pontian Greeks, was a genocide. Some other organisations have also passed resolutions recognising the campaign as a genocide including both the parliament of Greece and that of Cyprus." As I said above this sidesteps the issue of having to define what is meant by genocide in the lead and allows it to be discussed at length in the appropriate section or sections. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I will do that now. What I am suggesting is keeping everything else as is and using the IAGS defintion and description which includes the various phases, (deportations etc) since IAGS give the definition of genocide they are using. This solves the WP:SYN problem since they are explicitly mentioned by the IAGS. Then those we are not sure about could be mentioned in a separate section as per your suggestion.

The Greek Genocide refers to the Ottoman campaign of deliberate (intent) and systematic (we can discuss this) destruction of the Greek population (we can discuss communities) of Pontus and Anatolia in the period 1914-1923.

or

The Greek Genocide refers to that portion of the Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire between 1914 and 1923 which constitutes a genocide against the Pontian and Anatolian Greeks. It was carried out employing mass executions, death marches, and starvation among other methods.

This is from the IAGS recognition document

the Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire between 1914 and 1923 constituted a genocide against Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontian and Anatolian Greeks

Assyrians, along with Pontian and Anatolian Greeks, were killed on a scale equivalent in per capita terms to the catastrophe inflicted on the Armenian population of the empire--and by much the same methods, including mass executions, death marches, and starvation.

That way only one citation with a specific defintion is used and this also includes all the methods we will be reffering to in the text so obviating the issue of WP:SYN.

Xenovatis (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But there is no need to mention genocide in the passive narrative voice if the page name is descriptive. So one can write:

There was an Ottoman pacification campaign against the Pontian Greek minority between 1914 and 1923 that included employing mass executions, death marches, and starvation. The International Association of Genocide Scholars considers the campaign to be a genocide.

and if we do this, we are reporting on the situation and not claiming it was a genocide but it includes all the information that your version has. "they make a desert, they call it peace."(Tacitus) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow the first sentence: "There Ottoman pacification...". Also you didn't mention the title.

The proposal I presented (we could reword the leads as I said) solves all the issues you have raised:

The uncertainty about definitions.
The description of the events so as to avoid WP:SYN
There is no need to use this format on the IAGS since they provide a definition of exactly what they mean by genocide and exactly how it was conducted. Also see the article in the Journal of Genocide Studies which provides a sufficient definition, though of course they are not as clear as the IAGS. The Journal could be cited as well in the lead.
As for not claiming it was a genocide we have several WP:RS (IAGS, JGS, Charney) that claim it was and give definitions of exactly what they mean by the word so unless WP:RS can be brought forward that say the opposite there is no question about it being one.

The Tacitus quote, what did it allude to?

Xenovatis (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"There..." was a cut an past error, should have been "There was an ..." Why do you wish to include the word genocide in the passive voice when it can be avoided? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess cause the only academic sources that have been presented here which are reliable and meet your criteria of including a definition of genocide when they use the term label the events a genocide. Untill others have been brought that counter them WP must reflect current academic opinion and the article should be written according to the sources we have so far. Could you also indicate whether you feel the points you have raised have been sufficiently addressed? Thanks Phil.Xenovatis (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That does not explain why do you wish to include the word genocide in the passive voice when it can be avoided? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a better question would be why do you, in light of all the evidence presented so far and the precedent of several articles, insist that it must be avoided and why in light of all my attempts at compromising and even after I proposed a solution that answers your two main objections (definitions and SYN) and shown willingness to discuss all your concerns and make appropriate changes you refuse to walk your part of the distance as per WP:PRACTICAL. Xenovatis (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is flawed logic Xenovatis. To quote Taner Akcam again, "There is almost no single scholarly work done on the treatment of Greeks during the First World War"...there simply is no "genocide debate" in academic circles on these events to demand counter sources and without one published book to its name, you cannot claim that authors using the word genocide are therefore in the majority. To give an example that has been used before, it would be akin to me creating an article called Turkish Cypriot Genocide based on third party sources (which can be found), including a book) and state that since you cannot bring sources forward to counter it then my view must be the majority. That is why I favour descriptive terms such as persecution.--A.Garnet (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"there simply is no "genocide debate" in academic circles". Well you got that right.There isn't and your attempt to change the title to reflect a debate that even you accept doesn't take place isn't helpfull. In fact there are numerous academic sources (as opposed to journalistic sources like you cited) on the events in Cyprus and they are all clear on which the most historically serious event in the conflict was, the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the Turkish army on 200,000 Greeks, a full third of the Greek Cypriot population. I find your insistence on unpublished sources and the comment of one member of the IAGS (who doesn't even claim explicitly that it wasn't a genocide nor anywhere defines what they mean by the word) while ignoring the rest as well as publications in leading journals on genocide not conducive to moving this debate forward. You need to re-examine your stance on both the IAGS adn JGS which are the most relevant sources on this discussion.Xenovatis (talk) 10:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis, A.Garnet makes a valid point further you can not insist that Government's which are members of the UN, can not have a point of view on an issue that Wikipedia should not report because some editors think it to be propaganda and not a scholarly source. WP:V makes it clear that Reliable Sources are more than just scholarly publications and WP:NPOV makes it clear that such notable points of view should be part of a balanced Wikipeida article. There is in Britain a Holocaust Memorial Day, There was a fuss before the first commemoration in 2001 because there was to be not Armenian presence to Armenian Genocide. Now this may have been because as critics pointed out because Britian wished to preserve its relationship with the successor state of the Ottoman Empire and NATO ally Turkey, but whatever the reasons Wikipedia can not dismiss the views of the Turkish state (and a member of the UN) that the events that some scholars call a genocide of the Pontic Greeks was not a genocide because some editors think that view is just propaganda. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about dismissing the Turkish government's views and genocide denial? No one objects to their inclusion in the article and they are included in the current version as well. I wholeheartedly agree on the inclusion of the Turkish govt's POV and have several academic sources that discuss Turkish genocide denial in detail. The Turkish govt denies the AG as well. Should that title be also changed to reflect the fact? And Philip could you please answer the points I raised above? Thanks. Xenovatis (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "genocide denial" implies that a genocide defiantly took place it is not a neutral term and to phrase a debate that way is not neutral. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

All the academic sources agree that one did take place. We can discuss whether the term genocide denial should be used in the article itself however. Now can we get back to the point please? Xenovatis (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree that the phrase "genocide denial" implies that a genocide defiantly took place it is not a neutral term and to phrase a debate that way is not neutral? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Also could you comment on the Sun Language Theory and the Turkish government's official distinction between Ionians and Greeks which it considers unrelated so as to avoid mentioning the G-word when describing three thousand years of Anatolian history? Should WP reflect that as well?Xenovatis (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The article says no such thing, and if it were still the Turkish government's official position then I would expect the article to mention that view. In the same way as I would expect Wikipedia to have presented the South African President (Thabo Mbeki) and government's views on aids prior to their reversal of policy in 2006 when discussing aids in South Africa. And just as Sun Language Theory mentions without explicitly insisting that the Turkish Government was wrong in the passive voice, it should still be mentioned allowing the "facts to speak for themselves". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look in the main article under Recognition > Turkey you will find that it does. Unless you are reffering to the distinction between Greeks and Ionians which is of course unrelated to the SLT and I never implied would be in that particular article. You probably misread my sentence. That's all right. In any event let me repeat, yet again, that I have never called for the article to omit the Turkish POV. Quite the contrary as I said, since I have several academic sources exploring the issue of Turkish genocide denial and would like to see Turkey's stance discussed thoroughly and from all angles. Now can we please get back to the point? Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Further A.Garnet's sophistry is flawed from the start. The only people who label the intercomunal violence in Cyprus a genocide are the partisan hacks and propagandists of Turkey. No academic on the issue, and there are hundreds, has labelled the events as such and to elevate state propaganda to the level is academic opinion is simply misleading. In contrast the events under discussion here have been labelled as such by several academics and recognized as such by the IAGS, several universities, the journal of genocide and some of the leading scholars on genocide. By contrast the author of the book agarnet shamelessly presented is a journalist, [working for the Turkish SAM propandist organization]. Not a WP:RS to say the least. In short A.Garnet's comment is borderline racist and fully absurd.Xenovatis (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont appreciate the constant attacks you make on my character Xenovatis. The point I was making was I that could employ the same tecniques used in justifying this article to claim a genocide of Turkish Cypriots and demand that the only way to prove it is a minority view is to find me sources which directly oppose such a view. Since there is no academic debate on such a claim, you would not be able to do this and I would be able to claim my pov as the "majority position". This is argumentation yourself and other editors have used and the intention is without a doubt to push a pov. --A.Garnet (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I explained why this is not the case since the majority of scholar consider that the grossest violation of human rights in that conflict was what again most term the ethnic cleansing of over a third of the island's Greek population. In addition most label the events you claim can be presented as genocide rather as "intercommunal conflict" and only the journalist you mentioned and a member of the British parliament use the term genocide (i.e. non-academics and certainly not genocide academics). See the following for example:

Britain and the Revolt in Cyprus, 1954-1959 By Robert Holland p.263 The respite from violence did not last for more than a few hours after Sir Foot’s return to Cyprus on 29 June. A Greek man was knifed to death by Turkish assailants in Paphos. The next day a Turkish mob moved into the largely Greek suburb of Omorphita. What followed represented a significant intensification of inter-communal struggle. In recent weeks the Turkish-Cypriot leadership sought to ‘purify’ and enlarge Muslim urban areas by intimidating Greeks into In Omorphita this ‘purification’—what has also recently come to be known the term ‘ethnic cleansing’—was achieved by more direct methods.

Emergencies and Disorder in the European Empires After 1945, Robert F. Holland p.192 Taking all forces into consideration, the policing services consisted of 5,878 men by 1956 of whom more than 70 per cent were Turkish and fewer than 15 per cent were Greek. It has been argued that the recruitment of Turkish Cypriots represented a deliberate policy by the British to place them in the front line of the EOKA attack, but it is difficult to see what alternatives were open to Harding. However, the British were well aware of the vulnerability of Greek Cypriot police to the intimidation of EOKA, and following the capture of Grivas’ diaries and other EOKA documents in 1956 they knew of the explicit instructions issued by Grivas to avoid inflicting casualties upon Turkish members of the security forces:

Divided Cyprus: Modernity, History, and an Island in Conflict By Yiannis Papadakis, Nicos Peristianis, Gisela Welz p.2 Three years after independence, interethnic violence broke out, initially in Nicosia, then spread throughout the island. The violence that began during Christmas 1963 lasted until 1967. During this period. Turkish Cypriot, the weaker parry, bore most of the costs in terms of casualties around one fifth of their people gradually were displaced in refugee camps (Patrick 1976; Purcell 1969; Volkan 1978). Fearful of Greek Cypriots and urged by their partitionist leadership, they set up enclaves scattered throughout the island. p.3 The Turkish offensive divided the island: Greek Cypriots fled en masse to the south and Turkish Cypriots subsequently moved to the north. This time, Greek Cypriots bore the heavier human cost of these events in terms of people killed, missing, and displaced; the number of displaced people amounted to almost one-third of all Greek Cypriots (Loizos 1981).

Paper by Alfred de Zayas, JD, PhD (Secretary-General, PEN International, Centre Suisse romande We should also remember the one hundred and eighty thousand Cypriots expelled by Turkey from Northern Cyprus in 1974, following the illegal occupation of Northern Cyprus, an occupation that continues to this day, notwithstanding the relevant Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and of the General Assembly, and notwithstanding judgments of the European Court of Human Rights condemning the occupation and the violation of the human rights of the Greek Cypriots, brutally expelled in 1974 and to this day denied compensation and the right to return to their homeland

Europe's Nightmare: The Struggle for Kosovo, Miron Rezun p.6 Examples in the twentieth century include the Turkish ethnic cleansing of Greeks (in Cyprus) and Armenians (leading to the Armenian genocide of 1915). Perhaps in this sense the Holocaust is the most extreme form of ethnic cleansing.

Suits and Uniforms: Turkish Foreign Policy Since the Cold War, Philip Robins p.117 The more trenchant advocates of the Turkish Cypriot position see these bouts of violence as nothing le than ‘a systematic attempt at genocide’. See Michael Stephen, ‘I-low the International Community Made a Cyprus Settlement Impossible’, Perceptions vol. VI, no. 1, March—May 2001, p. 62

I hope you can see the situation is not at all as you wish to present it. Scholars speak of inter-ethnic violence, where the Turkish Cypriots did bear the brunt of the violence as Papadakist and Weltz attest, and where they mention ethnic cleansing it is against the Greek community, starting from the Omorphita incidents that Holland describes. Robins who is very pro-Turkish makes light of Stephens' (the British parliamentarian) assertions of genocide in the last quote.Xenovatis (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont wish to present anything, none of these sources directly counter the assertion that Turkish Cypriots were exposed to genocidal attacks in the intercommunal violence of the 1960's, as some authors claim. Do you see where this is going? --A.Garnet (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes but not that two is not some much less majority like we have here and authors is not scholars much less genocide scholars. The two are not comparable.Xenovatis (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, SAM is think tank which advises the MFA in Turkey, Perceptions is a journal it publishes on a broad range of issues. Like all journals, it invites writers to contribute, this does not make Gibbons a member of a "Turkish propogandist organisation" and such terms should not be used. Simply because the government supported a position at one time (Sun Language Theory) does not mean it, and everything associated with it, is permanently discredited. --A.Garnet (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis you write "I have never called for the article to omit the Turkish POV" please could you include a sentence in the section #Lead to show how you think that the Turkish POV should be included in the lead. If you include that with the sentence you think should be included to represent the genocide POV, the between my suggested version and your suggested version we can see if we can agree. But as you write the suggested introduction do it with "Writing for the enemy" in mind so that it has a neutral POV and does not simply say "It was a genocide and the Turkish government are genocide deniers". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Philip before we begin could you please respond to those of my comments in your talk page you consider warrant a response? Thanks. Pursuant to my suggestions above we could use the following:

The Greek Genocide (unbolded) refers to the Ottoman (not Turkish) campaign of deliberate (intent) and systematic (we can discuss this) destruction of the Greek population (we can discuss communities) of Pontus and Anatolia in the period 1914-1923.The question of whether these incidents constitute a genocide is a matter of dispute between the governments (avoids implicating the populations) of Greece and Turkey. Turkey, the succesor state of the Ottoman Empire under whose rule these events took place, (clarifies that modern Turkey was not the actor of these events) similarly contests (avoided denies which connotes genocide denial) the historicity of the contemporaneous Armenian and Assyrian genocides, both of which have also been recognized by the International Association of Genocide Scholars.

Please share your thoughts. As you see I have left considerable leeway in the lead for discussion into which particular terms should be used so as to ensure all concerns are met.Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be a POV fork of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), Population exchange between Greece and Turkey and Great Fire of Smyrna and as such a candidate for deletion. Your not describing events, your ascribing a specific point of view. --A.Garnet (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am using the definition of the genocide given in the IAGS resolution and nothing more. Xenovatis (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

IAGS resolution

I'm creating a section on this because I think the constant reference to the IAGS resolution is distorting things. "Exceptional claims require exception sources" (as WP:V states), I consider an attempt to elevate what Pontians suffered on par with the Armenians as an exceptional claim and at the very least I would like to see signs of a large body of scholarly work which supports as much. The IAGS resolution is not the result of a large body of scholarly work, it is result of a vote. If you look at criticisms made by its members on the resolution you will see they oppose the resolution based on the lack of scholarly work. I will quote these views in detail so you can understand why your attempt to frame this article on one resolution is completely flawed.

Peter Balakian: Stephen Feinstein, Eric Weitz, Taner Akçam, Richard Hovanissian, Robert Melson and others, have voiced serious reservations concerning the resolution. Some have concerns about labeling the events as “genocide,” others feel that the resolution is not based on a scholarly assessment of the facts. Some have noted that to claim that the moral nature of a historical event can be supported by quoting scattered passages from books reveals a lack of understanding of the scholarly process. These opinions have been posted on the blog. I think they are sound assessments by serious scholars in our organization...The current resolution strikes me is an oversimplified statement that does not have the support of major scholars in our organization. It would seem to follow that IAGS would not want to put its name to such a statement and compromise its reputation and integrity.

Taner Akcam: I personally think that it is not a smart move to have a resolution on this question because of only one single reason. I think nobody knows what really happened during the First World War and what the IAGS needs is not new resolutions, but rather serious research collaboratives on the period 1912 and after on the Eastern Mediterranean. Let me give you some examples to show the level of lack of knowledge. There is almost no single scholarly work done on the treatment of Greeks during the First World War. I worked extensively on this topic and collected an amount of Ottoman, German and American archival materials on this topic and haven’t published yet. My knowledge at this stage, based on the material that I have read from these three archival sources, what happened to the Greeks during the First World War cannot be correctly termed genocide. If we call this a genocide and make a resolution, we not only preempt any scholarly study in this area, but in doing so, also discredit the organization.

Eric Weitz: There is no question that Greeks suffered atrocities at the hands of the Young Turks. Whether the events constituted a genocide is another matter. How one determines that question is not through an accumulation of quotes from various people. It is by rigorous analysis. By my reading, Pontic Greeks were subject to a forced deportation, which was, inevitably, accompanied by a large number of deaths and other atrocities. But it was not a genocide because the Young Turk regime was not intent on killing “in whole or in part” Pontic Greeks...I believe the resolution before us undermines the major purpose of IAGS and offers a reading of history that is in part incomplete and in part just wrong. If the proposers still insist that the organization pass their resolution, I would ask them then to propose a similar resolution in regard to the Muslim populations of the Ottoman and ex-Ottoman territories.

Stephen Feinstein: It [the resolution] should be of the highest scholarship and worthy of an issue of the journal. My only concern is good scholarship on the subject in written form not using web sites, lest the organization become the laughing stock of the profession.

These views are available here. Based on these assesments how on earth am I meant to accept as a compromise that this article be based entirely on such a resolution? The resolution is notable but imo, we have to reflect as these scholars have stated that there exists no scholarly work on these events and the only way to do that is to use a descriptive term to title the article. --A.Garnet (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read the resolution itself it writes:

The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) has voted overwhelmingly to recognize the genocides inflicted on Assyrian and Greek populations of the Ottoman Empire between 1914 and 1923.

"The overwhelming backing given to this resolution by the world's leading genocide scholars organization will help to raise consciousness about the Assyrian and Greek genocides,"

No one disputes that the resolution is not unanimous. However it wasn't passed by a slim majority but by an overwhelming majority. If you want what you say to be taken seriously you need to provide sources that support your claim that if a small number of an organization's members vote against one of its resolutions than said resolution is invalidated. You haven't done that and untill you do the IAGS resolution stands. And you still haven't discussed the articles on the Journal of Genocide Studies.Xenovatis (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to add for those with a ...mathematical orientation: The word "overwhelming" is translated as 84% support vs 16% scepticism.^[7] Niko Silver 13:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And also that if you click on Garnet's link for the IAGS blog, the first clickable reference on the right reads: "DISCLAIMER: The messages of IAGS members on the IAGS Blog are their individual opinions and are not official statements or opinions of the IAGS."^[8] (emphasis not mine) Niko Silver 13:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not how many voted against the resolution thats important, its that prominent scholars (those who have written and published on the Ottoman Empire) are saying the events are void of any scholarly research, that is why they criticise the process of the resolution holding it as an unacademic means of determing what is genocide. But the point is when scholars say this event has no research to its name, and when one cannot find a single book to read about it (let alone one which alludes to genocide), how can anyone from deduce that there is a scholarly consensus for use of such a term? --A.Garnet (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S, what is the relavance of that disclaimer? Obviously I dont claim the IAGS opposes its own resolution do I? --A.Garnet (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Iags recognises "Pontian and Anatolian

Greeks" genocide and that means all Greeks , an article pertaining to all of them should be made and another including all the groups Armenians, Assyrians...Its one event and it should not be broken into pieces "BE IT RESOLVED that it is the conviction of the International Association of Genocide Scholars that the Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire between 1914 and 1923 constituted a genocide against Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontian and Anatolian Greeks. " .One article for Greeks(Pontian and Anatolian Greeks),one for Armenians,one for Assyrians and one for all the aboveMegistias (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolving the dispute

Since we're all tired of repeating the same arguments, and since it appears the will to compromise is non-existant, I request that editors once again consider the idea of an informal arbitration that we tried to get going last time.

If you remember, the idea was basically for the disputants to withdraw from the debate and a group of third party experienced editors, preferably admins, to come in and make their own decision. We will all be entitled to make our statements and they can then make a decision based on our arguments and their own assesment.

For those newcomers unfamiliar with this, see past discussions here. As in the past I am willing to accept a third party decision, if others are confident in their argument, will they also do the same? --A.Garnet (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually AGarnet I am a bit surprised at this since not only didn't you support my proposition when I submitted it on this same issue but also you see seem to be finding me wherever I go which leaves the matter of your non-reply somewhat nebulous. Surely there must be some WP rule that says following another editor around is not exactly enocouraged. I refer of course to you landing in the vote for the Menemen massacre issue which I ran into when I was tidying the Pontic Greek Genocide reference in the Greco-Turkish War article. There you didn't seem to find the title POV and were quite happy to accept the use of a loaded word like massacre on the strength of, at the time, one reference in a turkish government propagandist website. Since another reference by Turkey's court historian and Armenian Genocide denialist Justin MacCarthy has been added by banned user:laertes d as well as a reliable quote bu another user of course.Following the presentation of reliable sources I voted to keep the article since the event described is after all a real one and sufficiently notable for WP purposes. I am sure you are here in good faith too and that this will also be in evidence in other discussions we may have in the future. Particularly since you seem to be able to find me in all the articles I edit.Xenovatis (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis, I'd prefer if every comment on this discussion page was kept strictly on topic. For your information, both Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Turkey and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey are on my wathclist, Lambiam notified the afd on both which is normal procedure. The only other article we have both edited is the academic quotes and list of press headlines article, which again are both on my wathclist (natural considering I have been involved in this dispute far longer than you). With regard to your claim of double standards, massacre is a descriptive term and does not like genocide carry an implicit pov. I opposed your afd because your rationale for deletion was not sound, and this was also noted by others. Please tell me what propositions of yours, or anything else I have not replied to and I will reply as soon as possible. Do you have any comment to make on my arbitration proposal? If not will you agree to move this off topic discussion to our talk pages instead? Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact there are several definitions of the word massacre, and Lieberman (the only WP:RS source brought on the subject) does not specify which one exactly he is using. Additionaly your insistence in using 1 reference as sufficient reason for inclusion and use of the term massacre goes at odds with your insistence in disregarding over 25 references in this case. Simply put your stance is not internally consistent and indicative, though not conclusively so, of double standards. As for your being involved in this dispute for a far longer than me, that is an understatement of the first order.Xenovatis (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A.Garnet asked me on my talk page to comment in this section. To date I am not directly involved in this dispute and have suggested some techniques to structure the article from a neutral point of view:

Use a descriptive name. (slight movement from "Pontic Greek Genocide" to "Pontic Greek genocide" but no consensus for a larger move)
Do not use genocide in the passive narrative voice of the article, instead use the It will allow the article to be structured in standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y" for controversial subjects . This is what editors of the article are already doing for the Turkish government's POV but for some reason do not seem to want to do it in the introduction for the genocide POV.
Try writing from the point of view of the enemy.
At the moment there is one sentence in the lead on what happened, but there is no section on what happened or even a timeline of events! Without such a section it is not surprising that this article has got bogged down as it has because it does not allow the facts speak for themselves.

As the only edit I have made to the page so far is, after a discussion on this talk page, to add the {{pov-title}} back on to the article page as it was an edit war over this issue that caused the page to be locked, I would consider myself to be an experienced editor who is providing some suggestions as to how this page can be written in such a way to be within the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia so that it can be unprotected. But most editors who have been been active in editing this page do not seem willing to take these suggestions on board it seems I am wasting my time. The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution would suggest that the first step is a RfC, but I have been told that this has already been done so the next step is Informal mediation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Philip, I think the following from WP:NPOV is highly relevant. I had already left it in a comment to your talk page.

WP:NPOV_tutorial#Things_to_avoid

Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality. Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to. On the other hand, these terms should be presented, explained and examples given, perhaps with views of other groups of why the term is used as well as the group itself.

Further as I wrote in your talk page both you (alleged genocide etc) and (I am assuming from his own earlier comments in the AG talk pages) A.Garnet in considering the Armenian Genocide as not being a genocide are using a much stricter definition of the term than the majority of scholars in the field hence there is difficulty in reaching a consensus on the less widely known PGG.Xenovatis (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not consider this that this is a valid objection as not using genocide in the passive narrative voice of the article, as by using the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y" for controversial subjects will neither suppresses the use of the term genocide or use an euphemism for the term but quite the contrary genocide will "presented, explained and examples given, perhaps with views of other groups of why the term is used as well as the group itself". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW Xenovatis I do not think that a selective quote from a talk page without any context is worthy of you and I am disappointed that you would do such a thing. This was in the context of a very biased report on the genocide portal (See Portal:Genocide/Genocide news and the next posting on the same section by me. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole discussion can be easily reached from the given quote.[9]
The main point (viz PBS and AGarnet's unusually strict standards for recognizing an event as a genocide) has not been answered.Xenovatis (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of genocide

The definitions of genocide article seems to be drawing heavily on Adam Jones' text Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Reading through the first chapter of that book I noticed that the people Jones himself is citing are

Raphael Lemkin, Vahakn Dadrian, Leo Kuper, Helen Fein, R.J. Rummel,Frank Chalk, Kurt Jonassohn, Robert Melson, Israel Charny, Samuel Toten. Of these ten (eleven if we include Jones himself) there have been provided references that Lemkin, Rummel, Charny, Toten and Jones explicitly labelled the events as genocide.

Jones frames the debate in terms of hard and soft definitions of genocide, which might be what Philip was alluding to, but nowhere is one presented as inherently more valid than the other. I am not aware of any WP policy that pronounces explicitly on the matter of which definition should be accepted

Further down Jones makes two crucial points that may help this discussion progress from the quagmire it currently is in.

Regardless of the strategy chosen, a consensus exists that genocide is “committed with intent to destroy” (UN Convention), is “structural and systematic” (Horowitz), “deliberate [and] organized” (Wallimann and Dobkowski), “sustained” (Harff ), and
“a series of purposeful actions” (Fein; see also Thompson and Quets). Porter and
Horowitz stress the additional role of the state bureaucracy.Crucially, there is growing agreement that group “destruction” must involve masskilling and physical liquidation (see, e.g., Fein [1994], Charny, Horowitz,Katz/Jones).

So even the so-called soft definitions (excluding Lemkin's first) are claimed by Jones to include the physical destruction aspect ("a consensus exists"). So we can see that the term is not quite as loose after all.

Xenovatis (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)