Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Greek genocide

@ User:Dr.K.. You claimed To use such an ugly tag you must prove this so-called bias. Please explain on talk. An essay is not policy anyway... I don't understand why do you think that tag is ugly ? It's very clear that the article is not neutral. Maybe we can say ugly to "propagated source", "propagated-article", but it's impossible to say to Template:Systemic bias. If you believe that tag is ugly, you'd better use nomination of deletion. This article is the mimic of the article Armenian Genocide. Are you also a supporter of Greek propaganda ? I believe Wikipedia shouldn't be used for any propaganda. Regards. Takabeg (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to apologise for being frank and direct but seeing that you are insisting on asking rude rhetorical questions full of ugly insinuations against me I have to reply to you thus: As I explained on my talk and yours, either you tone down your rhetoric or talk to yourself. On another note, you don't even make sense. What does This article is the mimic of the article of Armenian Genocide supposed to mean? It is basically meaningless. As far as the ugly tag you placed I regret to inform you that "systemic bias" is an essay. Please familiarise yourself with essays and understand that they are the opinion of a few editors and as such they are not policy or binding on anything here. Even if following an essay the onus is upon you to prove systemic bias before you place this ugly tag again. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Before tagging the article

If you want to tag this article, you need to show a serious academical decision which opposes the finding of the international genocide scholars http://www.genocidetext.net/iags_resolution_supporting_documentation.htm Wikipedia is based on science not on your personal feelings. Ali55te (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you investigated neutral sources ? Do you believe http://www.genocidetext.net/iags_resolution_supporting_documentation.htm is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources ? It's also shew Wikipedia Sources :)) We shouldn't use Wikipedia for the purpose of propaganda . Takabeg (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

These are some of the official documents from IAGS

http://www.genocidescholars.org/images/brosura_IAGS_0207.pdf

http://www.genocidescholars.org/images/PRelease16Dec07IAGS_Officially_Recognizes_Assyrian_Greek_Genocides.pdf

http://www.genocidescholars.org/images/IAGS_OFFICIALLY_RECOGNIZES_OTTOMAN_GENOCIDES_AGAINST_CHRISTIANS.pdf

We call them "claim". Takabeg (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the process of IAGS to come up with conclusions

Resolutions committing the Association to a stand on a public issue require a two-thirds majority of those voting at the biennial business meeting or by e-mail ballot.

B. Resolutions directly related to genocide or other mass atrocities, including early warning signs thereof, may be proposed by any member in good standing.

C. Proposed resolutions shall first be submitted to the Resolutions Committee appointed by the President for review of their linguistic clarity and historical and factual accuracy. The standard of review shall be that of an article for the IAGS journal. The Resolutions Committee will recommend to the Executive Board and Advisory Council whether the Resolution should be forwarded to the IAGS membership for a vote.

D. After consulting with the Advisory Council, the Executive Board shall decide whether or not the proposed resolution will be submitted to the IAGS membership for a vote. Resolutions must be circulated by the Executive Board to the IAGS membership at least six weeks before the close of voting by IAGS members. E-mail voting shall begin as soon as the resolution is submitted to the membership by the Executive Board and close at the end of the sixth week of voting. Votes will be submitted and counted by the Secretary/Treasurer of the IAGS, and after verification by the Executive Board, results of the voting will be announced to the members of the IAGS. Ali55te (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

E. Letters, Op-Eds, and other statements by the President or the Executive Board communicating IAGS policies on public issues that have been expressed in IAGS Resolutions shall not require further approval of the membership, but should be in accord with such approved policies.

If you know another academic group consits of more then 300 international members and opposes the decision in the same way then you are welcomed to cite it otherwise do not tag the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Usage of controversial sources

Telegram to the Eskisehir governer added to the specific part of the text where many different sources pointing out the deportations of the greek population and it is just used as a supporting argument. The telegram is taken from the archives of Turkish government. As a result it can not be used by itself to claim something in this matter. If you want to add a point from there you must first find reliable sources which supports the document in that archive then use that archive to support your arguments. And of course the sources you find should not use the turkish government sources as reference Ali55te (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If it is reliable when supporting Greek deportations, it should be reliable for supporting other things, too. If it is neutral enough to talk about Greek deportations, then it is neutral enough to talk about other things (it = Ottoman government sources). No way around. Otherwise, that would be a POV-pushing, wouldn't it? Some time ago, I said something similar to what you said and I was accused of being racist, but I will not do that. --Seksen (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

Summarizing: A telegram by Ottoman authorities in Eskişehir was added as a citation to the article, but when I added information using other Ottoman documents, it was said to be unreliable and removed from the article, but that was done to only to sentence I added. Obviously it is either reliable or unreliable, it does not depend on the case. My question is, should it be considered reliable (I know the policy about primary and secondary sources)? Some third pary views might be helpful. --Seksen (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The user Ali55te has added information about a telegram by Ottoman authorities in Eskişehir, stating that Greeks were deported from Eskişehir. Seeing that Ottoman official documents are considered reliable, using other documents from the same PDF file, I added this sentence: "According to the official Ottoman documents, in January 1919, the Ottoman government allowed the return of some Greek who were deported, gave them financial aid and gave back their properties." However, Athenean removed it claiming that the source was not reliable. However, it was considered reliable when it talked about deportations of Greeks. Ali55te says that the Greek deportations are confirmed by other sources. However, no source talks about Eskişehir in particular. I remembered this discussion, where I had similar arguments, and the answer I recieved was this: "The "logic" (if we can call it that) of the source's detractors goes something like this: It is a "Greek" source, therefore it can be used for "Greek" "confessions" (i.e. that the Greek army was behind the coup), but not for anything else. Needless to say this is tendentious, WP:OR, and bordering on racism as well." So if we quote that, "The "logic" (if we can call it that) of the source's detractors goes something like this: It is a "Turkish" source, therefore it can be used for "Turkish" "confessions" (i.e. that the Turks deported Greeks), but not for anything else. Needless to say this is tendentious, WP:OR, and bordering on racism as well." So, a source is either reliable or unreliable, it cannot be both, depending on the case. I would like some neutral comments on this issue by third party editors. Thanks. --Seksen (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The user omits my statement about the issue. Greek deportations are supported by many other reliable sources inside the document that is why it is placed exactly in the context. Ali55te (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see anything about the region of Eskişehir though. --Seksen (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Eskisehir in Papua New Gunea ? Are you aware that the first statement you wrote directly tells Ali55te is racist ? I would be glad if administrators check this issue.Ali55te (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. I just quote Athenean, in response to his/her revert. I do not accuse anyone of being racist, the quote does not belong to me, and if anyone is accused of being racist, that is me. Eskişehir might have been excluded, since it is actually in Central Anatolia. West Guinea and Papua New Guinea. And anyway, if it is neutral and reliable enough to tell that Greeks were deported, then it is a neutral and reliable source, since it does not deny the deportations. That means that if it is reliable in one issue, it is reliable in another. That's all from me tonight. --Seksen (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the article the ammasador of USA in Turkey states that greek gathered everywhere and deported why eskisehir can not be in the definition of everywhere ? Ali55te (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Danopoulos is a scholarly, secondary source, the telegram is a primary source. Comparing a modern scholarly source to an Ottoman telegram from 1919 is nonsensical. Ali55te, would it be possible for you to source what you want to add using a secondary source, avoiding the use of the telegram? Use of prGreat Fire of Smyrnaimary sources is generally discouraged, particularly when there is a wealth ofOne off second second secondary sources (such as for this topic). Athenean (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I will try to do that. Ali55te (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Without reading the sources, I agree with the essence of what Athenean is saying. Original documents from persons that were participating in historical events can be used in an article, but far better are secondary sources, usually historians in this context, that have the benefit of time and analysis. See WP:Secondary sources for details. --Noleander (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Can RfC be simplified? - I'd like to supply some input, but it would help if the RfC were simplified. RfCs are intended to get input from uninvolved editors, so we will not be experts in Greece or Turkey. RfCs work best if they are phrased as a simple Yes/No question. Examples: "Can ABC be used as a source?" or "Should the sentence 'A telegram sent from ABC contained ...' be re-worded to make it clear that the telegram ..."? Or "The source used for statement ABC is XYZ, but the source is biased. Should the bias be mentioned in the article?". The RfC will get better feedback if it is worded in a simple yes/no manner. --Noleander (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I summarized the RfC. It would be all right if the same source is considered unreliable throughout the wiki, but to say that it depends on what it is saying is WP:I don't like it. I know the policy on primary and secondary souces, but the thing is the double standard here. --Seksen (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Dont use either source, unless historian references it - This RfC is asking about two sources: (1) a telegram about deportation; and (2) an "official document" from 1919 about financial aid & return. Both documents are primary sources, and since this is a sensitive topic, neither source should be used by itself in the article. The only way to include that material is to find a secondary source (scholar or historian) that discusses the telegram (or the 1919 return/aid document). The secondary source can cause the material to be included, and at that time the primary source can also be identified and quoted. In the absence of a secondary source that refers to the primary sources, the WP:Original research policy prevents editors from going through primary sources and picking-and-choosing which ones to include in the article. See WP:CHERRY. --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Noleander. I was also thinking in a similar way but now I know that it should be explicitly pinned by a scholar or an important person. Ali55te (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, everyone should be aware of the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy: that applies if there is any possibility that the sources (even secondary sources) are biased. That policy states that, if the source may be biased, then the article should identify the source (and hint at the possible bias) in the text of the article. So, for example, if a Greek historian makes statement "ABC", and if there is a possibility that the historian is biased, then the article should read "Greek historian XYZ claims ABC". That is safer than the article, in the encyclopedia's voice, stating "ABC" without specifying the source. --Noleander (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am totally aware of that. I never use Armenian historians as reference on Armenian Genocide, or Greek historians as reference on Greek genocide etc. Ali55te (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is best to use unbiased sources. But sometimes the only sources available may be partisan. There is no prohibition against using potentially biased sources, as long as they meet WP:Reliable sources and their bias is made clear per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and their statements are presented as their own interpretation, rather than the encyclopedia's viewpoint. --Noleander (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Noleander.

One off-topic note though. When a primary source is referenced by a secondary source, also the primary source should be used as a reference in the article – if it can be identified with citation templates. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with any notion of our use of any direct citation to primary resources, and under no circumstances in an obviously politicized issue involving ethnic conflict and nationalist bias. Primary should be described to the extent that they are a relevant topic of discussion in serious academic research and debate, but on no account should they be passed off as actual references, either as notes or in reference lists. If the text is available online, a link isn't damaging in itself, but it should never be sorted into the reference section. The very simple reason is that as a primary source it isn't an acceptable reference. It would only result in a pointless flaunting of WP:OR with no actual benefit.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree Peter. There is no need to mention a primary source in the general reference section if it is referenced via a secondary source via WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT but in cases like the resolution by the International Association of Genocide Scholars, then the primary source (the resolution) should be listed in the general references section. I do however in principle agree with what Noleander has said about the handling contemporary sources in a topic like this. For those of you who are fairly new and are not fully conversant with all of the policies and guidelines we have on this type of issue WP:PSTS is a useful read. As can be seen by the discussion at the start of this section, use of primary sources can easily lead to WP:SYN (which is a Wikipedia sin). -- PBS (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Naming/POV issue

There is a serious POV issue with this article. The term "Greek genocide" is a modern conception. The term hardly existed when Wikipedia was founded. Now it seem to be one of the ever expanding collection of wiki-genocides – international campaigns to get "genocide" recognition to past wrongs, fueled for a large part by partisan POV articles in Wikipedia. I am not saying that these events may not constitute genocide, I just want to remind that false claims of genocide constitute hate speech, and have thus no place in Wikipedia.

As far as I understand, the genocide recognition is not universally accepted by historians. In fact, this article is more about the international campaign to have the the Greek tragedy recognized as a genocide. This again brings a bias to the sources: using "genocide" sources only (or searching for them on Google) inevitably produces a "Greek" POV and omits Turkish sources.

We cannot write about events in Turkey and state POV as fact, if it is not supported by a single Turkish source. Only statements universally accepted should be stated as facts. Everything else should be described as a narrative, with proper attribution and context. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

All you say may be correct, but I've put your comment into a new section. The RfC above is dedicated to the isolated question of whether or not a particular primary source can be used in the article. If you think the article should be deleted, use the WP:AFD process. If you think the article should re-named (such as "Allegations of Greek genocide") use the WP:RM (request for move) process. If you simply want the article to be more neutral, go ahead and edit it and fix it up. --Noleander (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

IAGS which consits of more then 300 historians, most of them are world known experts in genocide field declared that the events happened against Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians and other Christians under ottoman empire constitues genocide. http://www.genocidescholars.org/images/IAGS_OFFICIALLY_RECOGNIZES_OTTOMAN_GENOCIDES_AGAINST_CHRISTIANS_FINAL.pdf so are these historians making hate speech ? Ali55te (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit by Sockpuppet (User:Ali55te)

We must remove edits of User:Ali55te. If we permit his/her edits, he/she may give up. Because he/she will know all of his/her efforts will become wasted. If we don't permit his/her edits he/she mill come back here. Especially dealing with Turkish sources, we have to pay attention to the fact that User:Ali55te twisted sources for his/her own original explanation. Above all, we must not make forhabitual offenders like him/her to get a taste of sockpuppecy.

Same discussion is continuing in Talk:Istanbul Pogrom#Edit by Sockpuppet (User:Ali55te). Takabeg (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead

I put back the former lead. There is no consensus that it was a genocide, and the newer lead implies only genocide scholars see it as such. That excludes other organisations such as the the Greek Government. I think it better to keep to the format we worked out a few years ago. Briefly describe the facts in the first paragraph, and then the differing opinions surrounding the motives of those who perpetrated the the crimes.

Putting the words "Greek Genocide" into the first sentence presents a specific POV which I think is better avoided if the article is to remain unbiased. -- PBS (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If an article has the title "Greek Genocide", the lead should obviously use that word, especially since it actually tries to explain that it's about a term used by certain academics. If there's a problem with the title, a request for renaming is appropriate. Removing the terminology from the lead will only confuse readers.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason it is in lower case greek genocide not upper case Greek Genocide is because it is descriptive title not a name (see WP:BEGINNING). -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems easy enough to fix[1] without muddling the lead so completely.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead as it has been for a couple of years follows the format of the content: Description of what happened followed by the analysis of those events and what various interested parties have had to say about the motivations behind the events. Hence it is balanced and presents a neural point of view in the lead as in the rest of the article. The changes to the lead that have recently been introduced confuse the issue in two ways and unbalance the lead by overemphasising the genocide aspect. It starts off by stating something that is not true: Not all genocide scholars agree it was a genocide. It also, by exclusion, implies that no one else considers the events to be a genocide. Further it is clumsy because the lead already includes in a more accurate and informative way that the "International Association of Genocide Scholars" consider it to be a genocide. -- PBS (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

But the IAGS, which represents scholarly consensus on the subject, does consider it genocide. Similarly, not all scholars consider the Armenian Genocide to be genocide, but most do, and that is why wikipedia does also. I moreover think that the subject of an article should be described in the first sentence. That is standard practice, I always found the previous lead a bit odd in that way. Athenean (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The old lede was unacceptable. If it were to stay, then the article would have to be named Something happened to Greeks in Anatolia or something. A lede in a Wikipedia article must justify the title, whatever that is.

Giving things names makes them reality. "Greek genocide" is a neologism and we are the most influential source pushing this POV. I am not saying genocide did not happened. But was the Genocide not part of the widely recognized Armenian Genocide? If not, shouldn't it rather be called "Pontiac genocide?" Was this the only time Greeks were "genocided" in their 4000 year history?

I believe the article should be renamed. Using a POV-pushing neologism as the article title attracts non-neutral editing, like these recent attempts [2] [3] to turn terminology to universally accepted reality. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Boston Tea Party was not a tea party. The mistake some people are making here is to assume that the label of the article is a factual description, it is not. Article titles are mealy a navigational aid to help people find the page.

Article titles come is several different shades, the major difference we make is between names and descriptive titles. In this case I suggest it is best handled as a descriptive title and we describe what it is that the article is about. Rather than presenting a specific POV in the lead.

It is a major problem, in our modern culture that newspaper headlines and other media tend to prefer short punchy headlines. I spend a lot of time looking at information on the C17th and one of the noticeable things about book titles pre C20th century is how long they are compared to modern book titles.

There is no agreement that the crimes as described in this article were a "genocide". There is agreement that "crimes against humanity" were committed, but just like the Bosnian Genocide few people will expect to find the article under what would be a more accurate NPOV name such as "Crimes again humanity perpetrated on Greek inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire in the first quarter of the the 20th century". I think the previous lead was far better because the current lead is factually incorrect. Not all genocide scholars consider the events to be a genocide and other beside genocide scholars do. -- PBS (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Naimark and Akcam references

Both Norman Naimark and Taner Akçam are respectable historians, in fact experts on the atrocities committed in the Ottoman Empire from 1914 to 1922 and they are definitively not pro-Turkish scholars. So please refrain from deleting data referenced from them under the pretext that this constitutes "undue weight". Adding information from them is legitimate, if not necessary, for this article.--Anapad (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Athenean, please do not try to "correct" supposed grammar mistakes of well known scholars like Norman Naimark whose native language happens to be English. --Anapad (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:PARAPHRASE. You are copying the wording of a copyrighted source word for word, which is problematic. Also, stop edit-warring, final warning. Athenean (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Copying the wording of a copyrighted source word by word is totally legitimate when you give proper reference to it. That has nothing to do with plagiarism and as a matter of fact this is widely practiced in academia as well as in wikipedia.

And how come one editor, who is obviously prone at edit-warring, can threaten another editor using expressions such as "final warning"?

I wont revert it but I am expecting from you some good reasons as to why your rewording of sourced content is more legitimate than the actual words of the author himself

Btw, I read your WP:PARAPHRASE which states that: "Quoting (with or without quotation marks) or closely paraphrasing public domain source material is appropriate if properly attributed to avoid plagiarism". Herein, as I only quoted a single sentence from the source with quotation remarks providing proper reference to it, there is absolutely no discussion of any wikipedia rule violation. --Anapad (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously prone to edit-warring? Are you referring to yourself? I note that a significant portion of your edits are reverts, mostly attempts at whitewashing Turkey's history, with an unusual interest in anything relating to Greeks. Don't lecture me about what is widely practiced either in wikipedia or in academia, when you have less than 100 edits, and you don't even know how to properly indent your comments. There is nothing wrong with my wording. If you think it is POV, you are welcome to ask a third opinion on the NPOV noticeboard, WP:NPOVN (though you should expect to be disappointed). Virtually none of those men who were deported to the interior of Turkey were ever seen again, and that's a well-known fact. Or do you suppose they died under "comfortable" conditions? Anyway, I will try to provide some more sources to that effect, and also expand the article, it is a little thin. Athenean (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Athenean I'll not argue with you on irrelevant topics, believe me I don't have time for it and I have done so far no edits to whitewash anything.

We are here dealing with a specific problem, you are changing the sourced content slightly while rewording it, you also don't like the way I reword it. In this case, the best thing to do is to provide direct quotation to author's own writing using quotation marks. This constitutes no violation of any known academical rule whatsoever. If you are dissatified with Naimark's expression then you are welcome to expand the section.

You constantly either threaten or accuse another editor, which is in fact violation of wikipedia rules of conduct. Please stop this, only focus on the topic we discuss here. I'm asking it again why are you so insistently reword the writings of a well known scholar, what are your reasons for it? As for the WP:NPOVN, sure I can go there if you insist in your behavior of forcing your edits without providing reasons for them--Anapad (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And funny thing is it is you who added this disputed part Athenan not me, are you accusing me of "whitewashing" for your own edits? Either properly add this part from Naimark's book or just delete it, but do not try to change the sourced content to make it in line with your own views.--Anapad (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My "views"? What "views"? Care to explain? Again, there is nothing wrong with my wording. I really don't understand what you object to. What part do you disagree with? That most of those men died, or that they did so under brutal conditions? Anyway, it shouldn't be too hard for me to find other sources. But I won't be responsible if you like the wording they use even less. Athenean (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Naimark is definitely not public domain. Rather the opposite, copyrighted material. So yes, there is a problem. Please familiarize yourself with such things before posting here. Athenean (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We could, for example, use the wording of Prof. Rudolf Rummel [4]. Would you prefer that? Didn't think so. Athenean (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain it to you one more time with the hope that you might at last understand such a simple topic of discussion; much of written wikipedia content is copyrighted material, so long you use them in limited amount, as we do here, and give proper reference to the source, again we do that here as well, there is no problem with that. How do you think academic papers are written, if one does not quote copyrighted materials?

And as usual you violate wikipedia rules of conduct, you threaten me with adding another source to the article if I do not give up with the proper addition of Naimark's citation.

What I say is simple, I am not here discussing whether what you write is correct or incorrect, I simply say that you can not change somebody else's writing even though you think your rewording is better or more explanatory. In this case, you slightly push Naimark's own writings to fit them with your views. --Anapad (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, what "views" are you talking about? Your "explanations" are nonsensical. If you write academic papers by copying sources word for word, that is your problem, and irrelevant here. I've already explained to you that copying a source word for word in wikipedia is problematic. If you cannot or don't want to understand that, that is not my problem. I would like to add Rummel to the article, he is also a reliable source. How is adding a source a "threat"? Unless you feel "threatened" by the source. My current wording is in fact something in between that of Naimark and Rummel, and in fact much closer to Naimark. Basically, there are two options here. If you insist on closely paraphrasing Naimark, then I will add Rummel and closely paraphrase him. Or, we go with the current wording, with which there is nothing wrong. If I were you, I would accept that, because the more noise you make here, the less to your liking the article will develop. Athenean (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Sigh, copying word by word a source in quotation marks especially in disputed topics is neither a problem in academia nor in wikipedia nor in any other place else in the whole universe. You use Rummel's writings here as a threat, in a "if you do this I do that" fashion. Nobody ever tried to stop you adding his writings in this article and it is useless, pointless in fact mindless that you brought up him when we are discussing a totally another subject. But I just reminded myself that there are better things to do in this life than to deal with Athenan in a dead end discussion. Being a typical small minded nationalist, you can keep repeating your senseless comments for an eternity. --Anapad (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Anapad I am sure on reflection you will see that your last comment is confrontational and is unlikely to help build a consensus. You should write your remarks in such a way that even if you can not convince the counter party a neutral third party can be persuaded that your arguments about content are better than that of the counter party. Indeed as I have taken this administrative step I am going to add this discussion to Wikipedia:Third opinion. -- PBS (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see what the big deal is here. All we have is User:Anapad repeating over and over and over that we should copy a particular source (Naimark) word for word in the article. Though the wording I have used is slightly different, it is perfectly neutral, follows the source closely without changing the meaning, and is moreover backed by another source [5]. Anapad can't point out what is wrong with my wording, he just seems to not like it (again, without saying why). Nor has he provided a compelling reason why we should copy Naimark (copyrighted material) word for word. All he's doing is repeating over and over his desire to copy Naimark verbatim. Frankly, this is a bit surreal. Suppose I were to add another source. Should we also copy that one word for word? Imagine we did that for every source in the article, it would be an unreadable, incoherent mess. I don't see any reason to honor such a ludicrous demand, especially now that he lapsed into personal attacks (not that I mind, I'm used to them). Athenean (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at the third-opinion request when I have time. For now, please see the Fair Use wiki policy related to the use of copyrighted materials.JoelWhy (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that the quote is a breach of copyright and it certainly is not plagiarism as we define it in ~~Wilikepia~~Wikipedia. I think that the disagreement is not in that but the words:

"about 30,000 able-bodied Greek and Armenian men were deported to the interior of Turkey, most of whom were executed on the way or died under brutal conditions"

"roughly 30,000 Greeks and Armenians had been transported to the interior, many of whom died or were executed on the way" [6]

The differences here are:

"able-bodied Greek and Armenian men" and "Greeks and Armenians". Was it just able-bodied men, or men (disabled or not) women and children?
"deported to the interior", "transported to the interior" Although deportation like exile can mean movement within a state more commonly it means passing over an international frontier, "transported to the interior" can mean moved but it implies moved by transport other than "shanks' pony" American soldiers on the Bataan Death March are not described as transported. The phrase used in that article is "the forcible transfer" perhaps "forcibly transferred" could be used here?

I suspect those are not the show stopper but it is the next phrase "many of whom died or were executed on the way" and "most of whom were executed on the way or died under brutal conditions".

Was it "many" or "most"? This dictionary entry says "most" is superlative of "much or many" so the usage of either is a matter of opinion, but in this case I would suggest that 75% death rate is used as a cut of between "many" (<75%) and "most" (>=75%). Do we have the figures?
Is it essential to mention "brutal conditions"?

-PBS (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What is "Wilikepia"? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A typo for Wikipedia. -- PBS (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It looked too good to be that. But thanks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any compelling reason why we should stick to a particular source word for word. "Just because I want to" and "I don't like Athenean's wording" are not compelling reasons. Moreover, we also have another source [7]. This one clearly says "deported to the interior" (although that's not a big deal to me). And yes, most of these men perished. The only figure I have so far is 18,000 from this [8] source, which is a fatality rate of ~60%, which for me definitely qualifies as "most" (almost twice as many died as survived). As for the "brutal conditions", yes, the conditions these men were under were exceptionally brutal, as the genocide scholar Rudolf Rummel makes clear [9] (in case the 60% fatality rate doesn't speak for itself). So I feel it is necessary to convey that to the reader. Athenean (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Christian Bias in Wikipedia

This article together with Assyrian was created with a few sources just because supposedly Muslims killed Christians. There are thousands of academic references to the Native American Genocide but that article is not allowed to be created. There is still no article about Native American Genocide. So you can create this article easily but not the other. This is really interesting. I have no trust on English language Wikipedia. --Beyhan (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Beyhan, I believe you are a bit misguided. There are plenty of Wiki articles documenting atrocities committed against Native Americans. For example, if you search for Native American Genocide, you are redirected to the Trail of Tears page, probably the most infamous case of genocide in U.S. history. Also, you'll note that the word "Muslim" is mentioned in this article a grand total of ZERO times. The word "Islam" is mentioned once (which, frankly, demonstrates much more of a pro-Muslim bias than a pro-Christian one.)JoelWhy (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

2 million?

This article is linked from the main page right now, so this is possible misinformation is quite urgent. It seems to me that the figure of 2 million deaths is unsourced and inaccurate. This (greek-genocide.org) is a highly biased source aiming propaganda (see the intro, and you can judge by the overall tone of language as well), and even though it is like that, it puts the maximum figure at 1,700,000. This source is a non-academic source as well (the fact that it is written by a historian does not necessarily make it an academic and reliable source). It does not cite any sources for its claim of 2 million. The figure of two million also contradicts the population figure of 1,788,582 in 1914, which is cited in the article (so the article contradicts itself). --Seksen (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, which one is the most commonly held commemoration date? 19 May or 14 September? There seems to be no single commemoration date. Greek-genocide.org does not even mention 19 May. --Seksen (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And why 19 May?--E4024 (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's not get into questioning stuff like this, and concentrate on sources - or the lack of sources, shall we? --Seksen (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Israel Charny is a highly reputable genocide scholar. As such he meets the criteria for WP:RS, even though he is writing in a website rather than a book. Athenean (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

He might be a highly reputable genocide scholar. But this does not mean what he says is unquestionably true. Use Google Translate to translate this: "Quelques spécialistes ont considéré, se basant sur des extraits des écrits de M. Charny de 1994, que M. Charny avait une définition large du génocide, au point d'inclure trop de massacres (y compris l’accident nucléaire de Tchernobyl)". See, what he says is questioned and it must not be assumed reliable as in any source. There seems to be nothing in his books related to the massacres of Greeks, let alone the figure of 2 million. And the article does not give any source at all to his claims. Why does he assume that the death toll is 2 million? On what does he base his claims on? On the other hand, we have a solely propaganda-aimed website which would try to make the figure as high as possible, giving the maximum figure as 1.7 million. And we have the Christian sources (not Ottoman), which give the Greek population as 1.8 million then. We have not nothing to prove it (other than the name of Israel Charny, which is not enough), but much to contradict.

Let's go into this in detail, using the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. What does it say? "The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)." Any of the three can affect reliability. The author may be reliable, but if the piece of work seems to be unsourced (unless he counted the dead himself - you cannot just claim any number you like, whoever you are), it is unreliable. "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." I think this makes it more clear. Anyone checking the facts? No. Does the writer make the source automatically reliable? Certainly no.

--Seksen (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on some third-party opinions here, which state that it is not reliable for that sentence, I am removing it. --Seksen (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Midlarsky

Regarding this [10], it is rather strange, as there is nothing regarding this on page 342-343. Athenean (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That is strange. Maybe you are looking at a different edition. I have checked it for myself and it seems to be there. --Seksen (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, can anyone explain why it is irrelevant? It is related with the massacres of Greeks, it is part of the academic debate on the subject, so I cannot see why it is irrelevant. --Seksen (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok, I see it now. Still, the fact that one historian thinks genocide was "not a viable option" for the Ottoman government, doesn't mean it didn't occur. Athenean (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This academic debate mention by Seksen, as shown on that page that Seksen provided, is out of context as after the "viable option" statement the author writes that massacres of the Greeks occurred in Smyrna and Pontos and that Rafat Bey told him that he was going to "kill every Greek on sight in the interior by sending extermination squads". These stetements simply contradict the statement that genocide was not a "viable option" because of the European connections of the Greeks. It sounds to me like open season on the Greeks and damn the Europeans. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that Rafat Bey is a local commander (could not find any sources for him in a quick Google search), one local commander's orders do not mean a systematic extermination campaign of an ethnic group by a government, i.e. genocide. I do not think it contradicts anything. There might have been massacres by Turkish troops, but these might have not been a systematic campaign of genocide initiated by the political/military leaders. Athenean, we are not at all meaning that it did not occur. We are just including what the author writes, nothing else. --Seksen (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Seksen, as you might know there is no Turkish name such as RAFAT. I doubt it is the same person but in our history we have Yarbay (Lieutenant Col.) RIFAT Bey, killed by artillery fire, without being able to see his new-born daughter, in the long hot summer of 1921, during our War of Liberation, defending Tarassut Tepe (Mount Tarassut) against the invading Greek Army, at the Western Front. You can read the sad story of Yarbay Rıfat Bey on-line in this book. For easy reference, it is on P. 133. Almost all his military carreer during the Balkan Wars, the Great War, Greek invasion of Turkey, all three of which were imposed on our country, Turkey confined to just one page, full stop.--E4024 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Pontian Greek bias

This article shows a clear Pontian Greek bias. For starters, “Greek genocide also known as the Pontic genocide” is very misleading. The “Pontic Genocide” or “Pontian Greek Genocide” is a phrase used by Pontian Greeks to describe the events of the Genocide that took place inside Pontos in an attempt to highlight only their suffering. As the Genocide affected all Ottoman Greeks in Thrace and Asia Minor (Pontos being a subregion of Asia Minor) it is incorrect to say Greek Genocide is also known as the Pontic Genocide as not all victims were Pontian Greeks. I suggest changing this opening sentence. From my research the Genocide on a whole is referred to as the Greek Genocide, Greek Holocaust, Hellenic Genocide or the Genocide of the Ottoman Greeks. If mention of this regionalist term, “Pontic Genocide” is used, the article should also reflected the other regional terms like “Asia Minor Catastrophe” and “Genocide of Thracian Hellenism”

Next the Causalities section seems to revolve around the number of Pontian Greek victims rather than the entire number of Greeks that perished. For example, Rutgers University’s Center for the Study of Genocide, Conflict Resolution, and Human Rights states “as many as 1.5 million Greeks may have died” http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/center-study-genocide-conflict-resolution-and-human-rights/genocide-ottoman-greeks-1914-1923 While in 2008, a memorial done in honor of the Victims of the Genocide in Athens mentions, “These phases produced 1.4 million victims and 1.5 million refugees” http://www.greekembassy.org/embassy/content/en/Article.aspx?office=1&folder=1&article=24226&hilite=Asia%20Minor%20Genocide Also, in Harry Tsirkinides’ book “At least we up rooted them” it is mentioned that the causalities were between 1.4 and 1.7 million. I suggest editing the article to mention that the total number of victims were somewhere between 1.4 and 1.7 million, of which 300,000 to 500,000 were Pontian Greeks.

Lastly, there are three days of Commemoration, although the article only mentions two of them. In 2008 the Thracian World Congress adopted April 6th as the day of commemoration of the Genocide of Thracian Hellenism. Although not adopted by the Greek Government, there are links to several commemorations organized by Thracian Greeks on this day. I suggest editing the article to mention this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidanakis (talk • contribs) 12:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have the Talk pages?

I asked a question 4 days ago (see Section No 5) and received no answers. When I edit a page related to Greece, Greeks, Cyprus (or about Turkey but also somehow interests the Greeks) I receive reverts as fast as 6 minutes (for example see the edit history of Great Fire of Izmir, 24 May, 2012).

I ask again: Why are the dates commemorated as "Greek Genocide" chosen as 19 May and 14 September? It is not clarified in the article.

So I have nothing left but to speculate: 1) 19 May, maybe because on that day Turks celebrate the Anniversary of the beginning of their War of National Liberation (1919-1992) against the Greek forces that invaded part of the country, starting with their landing on Izmir on 15 May 1919. 2) 14 September, maybe (x) because the fire of Izmir ´began on the night of 13-14 September 1919, several days after the Turkish victory against the invading Greek forces, at the end of the said Liberation War, when the Turkish forces recovered the city of Izmir (09.09.1922).

If these suggestions are true, I have two conclusions: 1) The Greeks see their loss of a war of expansion (invasion) over another country as the reason or basis of what they call the Greek Genocide, a concept not recognised by the great majority of the international community (see the article; Only Greece, Republic of Cyprus (sic) and another country have acknowledged, at the last case partially, the existence of such a Genocide). 2) If that is the case, then the said article on Greek Genocide should concentrate on the period 1919-1922 and not 1914-1923 as it does now.

It would also be very useful for editors on the Greek Genocide article to read and refer to this Document on Greek atrocities over the Turkish civilian population of Izmir and the surrounding areas prepared by the official representatives of the countries that were occupying Turkey (and were allies of Greece) at the wake of the Ist World War, i.e. during the Greek invasion of Anatolia.

I wish we could all try to make the WP articles on the tragic history of the Turks and Greeks more objective...

(x) 14 September is also celebrated as Feast of the Cross in Greece. --E4024 (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are calling for a discussion on a hot subject like this, you'd rather not over-stress the turkish view of the story. You might get the answer that the "expansion war" and "invasion in Anatolia" is seen by many Greeks as "an attempt for liberation of ancestral territories" or "a continuation of the Greek Revolution of 1821" (this is not necessarily my opinion and I will not discuss it farther).
I don't know about the 19 May, but 14 Sept. is really a religious feast. Possibly this is an additional reason why the communists dislike this day. The same political fraction is trying to diminute the 25th of March as a National Holiday (Greek Revolution, 1821) because it coincides with the Day of Annunciation! Infidels :) --Euzen (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

After three days it will be three months since I asked a simple question and I am still waiting for answers. Thanks for your interest.. --E4024 (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Biased lead

I am very disappointed how biased the introduction to this article has become. It presents a biased point of view because it start with a statement that there was a genocide and that it consisted of various actions.[11]

The previous introduction stated that there were a series of actions that some describe as a genocide by specific groups of people.[12]

It was also agreed to move this article to Greek genocide from Pontic genocide because the massacres and ethnic cleansing included more than atrocities against Pontic Greeks, so why does the introduction now equate the two? -- PBS (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this article faces a number of problems. The first – and I know I might catch some flak from my fellow Greek colleagues – is the appropriateness of the word "genocide." Genocide implies the intentional destruction of a population but reading the sources here there did not seem to be a concerted policy followed by the Young Turks to root out and destroy the Greeks during World War I. The Greek population, by and large, was not affected by the 1915 deportation orders against the Armenians. Large pockets of communities survived the war and these were expelled only following the collapse and retreat of the Greek armies in Anatolia, the burning of Smyrna, and the compulsory exchange of 1922. We have telegrams from Interior Minister Talaat Pasha telling the governor of Diyarbekir to expend all his energies on the Armenians and not the other Christians of the province. There were a number of Greeks in Trebizond who actively cooperated with the Young Turks during the war against the invading Russians.

I am not trying to mitigate here the suffering of the Greek population during and after the war and I hope that others will not misconstrue and abuse my remarks to that effect. But the evidence seems to suggest that there was no plan enacted to exterminate them in the same manner of the Armenian Genocide. A more appropriate title would probably be "Ethnic Cleansing of Greeks, 1914-23." More academic resources can be utilized but these are just suggestions I'm throwing out.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Refet pic

I removed a recently added pic of a personality who has supposedly ordered this tragedy. I removed the pic because it showed the said historical personality together with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the Republic of Turkey and national hero of the Turks. The other person in question has his own article in WP, as a WL in caption showed, and a portrait picture there. That is the picture to use if it is so necessary; not the one I removed. I may be wrong (I feel I am not, and have reasons for it) but I believe that is a bad-faith attempt to relate Atatürk to this page; something not rare in history articles considering Turkey. (I am referring to the concealed bad faith) and I reckon that user to complain about me if s/he is sure of his/her conscience.) Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Muslim Greeks

The lead says that the genocide was the "systematic extermination of the Greek population". How can this be since muslim Greek communities were not targeted? Are there any sources that claim that all Greeks were targeted based on ethnicity rather than religion? And if there are, how does it explain the factual survival of tens of thousands of muslim Greeks in the Pontus up untill the mass guestworker migrations of the second half of the 20th century? As far as I know most Muslim Greeks fought on the Ottoman side during the war, while still retaining their culture and language as Rum, even to this day. My addition of 'Christian' was removed because muslim Greeks werent seen as Greeks, but this does not unmake them Greeks. Eventhough I am atheist, I am still a Pontic Greek, and so are the muslim Greeks in the Pontus like my grandparents.NeoRetro (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Small Grammar Error

For some reason I cannot access the page to edit it, but in the "Political" section near the bottom, in paragraph two there is the phrase "...participates to memorial events..." when clearly the preposition should be "in". Charles L. Smith (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Charles L. Smith

Ferguson misquoted

When reading the Academic section of the article, the reader is informed that "(...) Niall Ferguson, for instance, has drawn a comparison with the fate of the Armenians and believes the term genocide is fitting". [Ferguson 2007, p. 182].

However, when reading Ferguson's book, I cannot detect any sign that Ferguson "believes the term genocide is fitting" for the massacres of Ottoman Greeks in Asia Minor. The relevant passage in page 182 of the 2006 edition reads: "He (i.e. Kemal Ataturk) now (1922) masterminded the explusion of the Greeks from Anatolia. After fierce fighting in the area of Eskisehir, 100 miles west of Ankara, the Greeks cracked. Those who did not surrender took to their heels. As the fled towards the Aegean, their ranks were swelled by tens of thousands of civilians, hoping that in Smyrna they would find protection from the reprisals already being taken against Greek communities along the Black Sea littoral, who were being deported and in some cases massacred much as the Armenians had been seven years before". So, far from applying the "genocide" lable generally to the sufferings of Ottoman Greeks from 1914 to 1923, Ferguson draws an analogy between the Armenian genocide and the occasional massacres of Pontic communities. Further evidence that Ferguson shies away from using the term "genocide" in the case of the Greeks can be found two pages later in the book, where he speaks of the "Armenian genocide", but of "the massacres of the Pontic Greeks" [p. 184].

I think that, if the relevant sentence is to remain in the article, it has to be drastically changed to correspond to what Ferguson actually writes in his book, although I am not sure exactly how it should be phrased. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"Ottoman official statistics of 1910" are erroneous

This table states that it uses the results of the "Ottoman statistics of 1910" but when I checked other Ottoman statistics in other sources, I found that they are very different. So these are probable not the results of the Ottoman statistics. For example, the population of the Aydin Vilayet is claimed to be 974,000 Muslim and 629,000 Greek according to the table. However this source [1] states that according to Ottoman census of 1906/7 there were 1,300,000 Muslims and 285,000 Greeks in the same Vilayet. The population of the Trabzon Vilayet is stated as 1,048,000 Muslims and 351,000 Greeks. However according to the other source [1] Muslims are 1,071,000 and Greeks 216,000.DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Provinces	Muslims	Greeks	Armenians	Jews	Others	Total
Distribution of nationalities in Anatolia^[1] Ottoman official statistics, 1910
Istanbul (Asiatic shore)	135,681	70,906	30,465	5,120	16,812	258,984
İzmit	184,960	78,564	50,935	2,180	1,435	318,074
Aidin (Izmir)	974,225	629,002	17,247	24,361	58,076	1,702,911
Bursa	1,346,387	274,530	87,932	2,788	6,125	1,717,762
Konya	1,143,335	85,320	9,426	720	15,356	1,254,157
Ankara	991,666	54,280	101,388	901	12,329	1,160,564
Trebizond	1,047,889	351,104	45,094	-	-	1,444,087
Sivas	933,572	98,270	165,741	-	-	1,197,583
Kastamon	1,086,420	18,160	3,061	-	1,980	1,109,621
Adana	212,454	88,010	81,250	–	107,240	488,954
Bigha	136,000	29,000	2,000	3,300	98	170,398
Total %	8,192,589 75.7%	1,777,146 16.42%	594,539 5.50%	39,370 0.36%	219,451 2.03%	10,823,095
Ecumenical Patriarchate statistics, 1912
Total %	7,048,662 72.7%	1,788,582 18.45%	608,707 6.28%	37,523 0.39%	218,102 2.25%	9,695,506

Why the numbers are different is obvious, this is the 1910 census, while the census you give is the 1907/08. Considering that the events of the article are focused in the 1912-1922 period the 1910 numbers are obviously more relevant. If the census is erroneous, that`s not our job to judge. But if the Ottoman censuses are not the best source to reflect the demographic conditions we can use the English estimations of 1914.Alexikoua (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It is obvious that the statistics used in this table are in disagreement with actual Ottoman numbers, probably they are mistaken or deliberately falsified. Furthermore the Ottoman numbers of 1914 are closer to 1906/7. In 3 years time the population can not double or increase with one third, there is a huge difference with Ottoman numbers. In the Aydin Vilayet Muslims are shown in the table as decreased with one third, while the Greeks are doubled. The Ottoman census shows Greeks in Aydin Vilayet as 285,000 in 1906/7 and 319,000 in 1914. The number of 600,000 in 1910 does not seem to be possible. Muslims are shown as 1,300,000 in 1906/7 and 1,250,000 in 1914.

This file shows the Ottoman official census of 1914.

There are more diifferences, for Bursa Vilayet table states 274,000 Greeks in 1910, according to the Ottoman census of 1914 Greeks are 185,000.DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The genocide policies had already begun in 1914, so there is no wonder that the census conducted this year shows reduced numbers among non-Turkish populations, contrary to 1910 which is a perfectly suited year (i.e. prior to the genocide events) for this article. By the way the British estimates of 1914 (stated above) are completely diferrent in comparison to the Ottoman census of 1914. Alternativelly we can also show the Patriarchate census of 1912 in detail.Alexikoua (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The Genocide policies had not began, this is before the war. The table in the article is unreliable because they contradict actual Ottoman sources of 1906 and 1914 and earlier census. Which British estimate?DragonTiger23 (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

However during the Balkan Wars 1912-1913 hundred thousands of Muslim refugees fled to the Ottoman Empire from the Balkans.

In retaliation Ottomans expelled 115,000 Greeks of Eastern Thrace to Greece in 1913, 85,000 of the same region were deported to Asia Minor and 150,000 Greeks from the coastal regions of Western Anatolia mgrated to Greece. Source[13]

So in total 265,000 Greeks went to Greece, if the 85,000 all died in 1914 (we need sources) than there were 350,000 less Greeks in the 1914 census than it should be. But we do not know if the census of 1914 was taken before the 150,000 went to Greece. And we also do not know from which region they were, probably not only from Aydin Vilayet.

So the conclusion is that there was no dramatic decrease of the Greek population in the 1914 census.DragonTiger23 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

About this: The Genocide policies had not began, this is before the war. I can not agree, for example the massacre of Phocea occurred prior to the outbreak of WWI [[14]] (it was June 1914).Alexikoua (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Still we do not know if the census was taken after this, probably not, the census of 1914 is probably before the population decreases and furthermore it does not matter because the 1914 census supports the 1906 Ottoman census. The numbers which are in the table of 1910 are completely different than the preceding Ottoman, they decrease Muslim population and increase Greek, they are probably wrong or on purpose falsified.DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The Greeks of the Trabzon Vilayet are 215,000 in 1906 and 261,000 in 1914, but according to the "1910 census" they were 351,000.DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This 1910 census has another mistake. It states that 1,777,146 Greeks were living in Anatolia. The number does not include the Greek population of Thrace and European Istanbul. The Greeks of those place were not less than 300,000, so the total Greek population of the Ottoman Empire is according to this source more than 2,1 million.

However this does not agree with Ottoman sources, according to the Ottoman census of 1914 the total Greek population in the Ottoman Empire was 1,792,000. This includes both Thrace, Istanbul and Anatolia.DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC) [15]

The British statistics are here [[16]] (unfortunately they are from 1919, thus giving higher number of Greeks in W. Anatolia and lower in N. Anatolia), by the way the same academic paper mentions that the Ottoman census of 1914 is full of inacuracies. While the 1912 census of the Ecumenical Patriarchat (also an official authotiry in the Ottoman Empire that time) is very close to the 1910 census number (353,533) of Trepzon. Thus apart from the year which is ideal (neither conducted to soon -1906, nor to late- 1914, where deportations/massacres are already reported) the 1910 together with the 1912 census seem be most suitable for an article that deals with events of the period 1914-1922 period.Alexikoua (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter what the British statistics state because the so called 1910 Ottoman census contradicts the other Ottoman census of 1906 and 1914, which confirm each other, furthermore I did not find any sources for the so called "Ottoman statistic for 1910" except this table, this source is the only one and it seems to be very wrong decreasing Muslim and increasing Greek, it seems to be a forgery. There is no evidence that the Ottoman census of 1914 is after deportation or massacres, it is likely before this, furthermore the population would have decreased only 0,15 million in Anatolia.DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Besides it is not demographically possible that in only 6 years the population of Trabzon Vilayet would increase from 216,000 in 1906 to 350,000 in 1912. (increase of 62% in 6 years) So instead of doing WP:OR to justify this erroneous table we should look at the reliable statistics.DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The Ottoman census of 1893 confirms the census of 1906 and 1914, they disagree with the so called census of 1910.DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

In 1893, in the Aydin Vilayet Muslims are 1,093,000, Greeks are 208,000. In 1893, in the trabzon Vilayet Muslims are 807,000, Greeks are 193,000.DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Another factor that explains the diferrences is that the Ottoman censuses are generally considered unreliable [[17]][[18]].

What do mean you can't find sources for the so-called Ottoman statistic of 1910? Check here. The 1910 statistics are perfectly suited since they reflect the demographics when the policies described in this article were initiated. [[19]]Alexikoua (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter if Ottoman census are unreliable because all Ottoman census figures confirm each other, however as a clearly explained above the so called census of 1910 does not agree with either 1906 or 1914 or 1893. It seems to be a forgery, especially because it dramatically decreases the Muslim population of the other Ottoman census and increases the Greek.DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Besides I could not find statistics for the 1910 census of the Ottoman Empire in Turkish sources, there is a chance that there is actually no Ottoman census of 1910, as the sources for 1910 all seem to link to the Patriarch's own estimate and not to official Ottoman documents.DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

In wikipedia we generally prefer english sources, per Wikipedia:NONENG and they are plenty. By the way the numbers from the 1906, 1914, 1893 seem to be completely irrelevant to eachother, for example Greeks in Trabzon, 1906: 215k, but suddenly 1914: 161k. It's more than obvious that the 1914 is completely unreliable per several links from mainstream bibliography I've provided above. Nevertheless the 1906 figures are also questionable, as almost every available census, as proved above.Alexikoua (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the table states that it is based upon the "Ottoman census of 1910" however this is not possible because it contradicts other Ottoman census. As I explained above in the case of the Aydin Vilayet where there is difference of 300,000 people. In the 1910 census the Muslim population is dramatically decreased, why would the Ottomans do this? While the Greeks are increased, so it is obvious that the 1910 census is a modified version of the Ottoman census in favor of a pro-Greek bias. The Vilayet which has the most difference is of Aydin, Western Anatolia, this is exactly the area the Kingdom of Greece claimed, so it is obvious they increased the Greek proportion and decreased the Muslim. So the point is that the 1910 census is not based upon Ottoman numbers and there is a chance there is no Ottoman census of 1910. In Wikipedia we prefer not doing original research, per WP:OR. The subject is a census of the Ottoman Empire, whose language was Turkish so there must be Turkish sources to the 1910 census. However I could not find any to 1910 but I found plenty to the other census, maybe someone can find for 1910? As for the other Ottoman census they all confirm each other, in the 1914 census the Sanjak of Djanik (Samsun Area), which has 99,000 Greeks is separately listed but it is part of the Trebizond Vilayet, so to find the total number of Greeks in this Vilayet you have to add 99,000 to 162,000 = 261,000 which is close to the census of 1906 which stated 215,000 Greeks.DragonTiger23 (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Year of Census	Aydin	Bursa&Bigha	Trabzon	Adana	Izmit	Ankara	Konya	Sivas	Kastamonu	Total
Greek population in Vilayets according to the Ottoman census of 1893-1914, in thousands
1893/7	197	148	155	7	23	35	57	38	15	675
1906/7	285	204	216	11	36	42	87	67	23	971
"1910"	629	303	351	88	79	54	85	98	18	1,705
1914	299	195	261	12	40	47	96	75	26	1,051

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

Year of Census	Aydin	Bursa&Bigha	Trabzon	Adana	Izmit	Ankara	Konya	Sivas	Kastamonu	Total
Muslim population in Vilayets according to the Ottoman census of 1893-1914, in thousands
1893/7	1,093	1,297	807	158 or 341	130	763	989	840	993	7,070
1906/7	1,331	1,571	1,072	436	200	1,012	1,146	973	1,089	8,658
"1910"	974	1,482	1,048	212	185	992	1,143	934	1,086	8,056
1914	1,439	1,708	1,187	445	227	1,061	1,220	940	1,096	9,323

Wp:OR doesn't apply to something that's cited, especially by mainstream secondary sources which are perfectly suited for wp and preferred from primary ones per policy. Nice of you to present each census, since we see that they are all consistent to each other. Its interesting to see, for example, how the Greek population decreased from 1910 to 1914 as result of the first wave of genocide policies, while, on the other hand at the same period Muslim figures increased, mainly due to population movements from the lost European territories. I'm not against the use of all available statistics, if you propose that.Alexikoua (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Only Aydin looks somewhat problematic but considering that part of the Greek population was not counted per [[20]] it's easy to understand why the British estimation give in Izmir sanjak a Greek majority of 375k, not to count the rest of the vilayet.Alexikoua (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

You still do not understand it, I found nowhere sources for the Ottoman census of 1910, furthermore it contradicts other census numbers and probably the 1910 census does not exist at all. According to the so called census of 1910 the Greek population almost doubled from 0,9 million to 1,7 million in 4 years, and than decreased with 0,6 million in 4 years. Ofcourse this is not possible. But the census of 1914 shows Greeks as 1,1 million, so it would be logical that Greek population would be 1 million in 1910 not 1,7.

Furthermore there is no source that the Greek population in these specific Vilayets dramatically decreased between 1910 and 1914. The Ottoman sources show that the Greeks increased between 1893 and 1914, there are only small decreases in some provinces. The 1914 census is probably before the war and the persecution of Greeks. At its most 150,000 Greeks left the specified Vilayets in the table between 1913-1914, there is no difference of 1 million.

So there is no Ottoman census which gives a figure of 600,000 Greeks for Aydin. The 1893 shows 208,000, the 1906 census shows 285,000 but according to the so called census of 1910 Greek population suddenly doubles in 4 years, while the Muslims are decreased by ⅓, of course this is not possible, there is also no source for such a change. On the other hand the census of 1914 shows Greeks as 299,000 which is close to 1906 census. The 1910 census of Aydin should logically show Greeks as something between 285,000 and 299,000. The logical conclusion is that the 1910 census is wrong and not that the Greek population doubled and than decreased with half. Furthermore the 1910 census illogically decreases Muslims in Aydin with 300,000. It seems that the 1910 census is copy of Ottoman official numbers but the Greeks are increased and Muslims decreased, the major difference is in Aydin, which is probably because the census claims that for Greece. I can not believe that your still doing WP:OR to justify this erroneous census. DragonTiger23 (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The Greek population in the parts of the Ottoman Empire that subsequently became the Republic of Turkey was 1,540,359 in 1906–7.[1] But this includes Thrace and Istanbul whose Greek population was over 400,000 if we exclude this from 1,5 million than there are 1,1 million Greeks left for Anatolia and some 1 million for the specified Vilayets in the table. These numbers are confirmed by all Ottoman census except for the one of 1910, which proves that 1910 is a forgery.DragonTiger23 (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The Greek population in the parts of the Ottoman Empire that subsequently became the Republic of Turkey was 1,540,359 in 1906–7. This was the total number for Anatolia, Thrace and Istanbul. But 1910 states that the Greek population in Anatolia alone is over 1,7 million, which is 0,2 million more than the total number(!) this contradicts the other Ottoman census and proves that 1910 is wrong.DragonTiger23 (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't prove anything. This isn't the venue to question the reliability of the source. Also, take note that it nor the article call the 1910 figures a census. Regardless, NPOV calls for including both tables with relevant commentary from literature. Alexikoua's source above is excellent; this is what the author has to say about the number of Greeks in the 1914 census (p. 87):

When comparing the official Ottoman statistics from 1914 with the British figures from 1919, it is possible to discern in the former a continuous understatement of the non-Moslem population throughout the Empire. This is particularly obvious when one compares the figures for the Greek Orthodox community in the Smyrna district and the Armenians in the eastern provinces. For the Smyrna district, the British statistics for the Greek Orthodox are 70 per cent higher than those of the Ottomans (375,000 compared with 219,647) and in the Aidin district more than double (44,000 compared with 20,697). However, it seems that the Ottoman statistics for the Greek Orthodox omit the Hellenic Greeks who were not considered to be Ottoman citizens.

I would suggest that we include the British 1919 statistics as well. — Lfdder (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This proves that 1910 is wrong, 1906 Ottoman census gives 1 million Greeks for Anatolia, the so called 1910 numbers give 1,7 million, an impossible increase of 700k in 4 years. 1914 gives 1,1 so 1910 contradicts other Ottoman numbers.

It is obvious that the Ottoman census or figures from 1910 are a Greek fabrication, they decrease Muslims and increase Greeks. There is no reason why Ottomans would do this. Furthermore it contradict other Ottoman numbers from 1906 and 1914. I explained the number as above in the case of the Aydin Vilayet where Muslims are decreased with one third and Greeks doubled in 4 years. British figures are not related to 1910. The source claims that 1910 is "official Ottoman numbers" but it is neither official or Ottoman.DragonTiger23 (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The so called Ottoman numbers of 1910 are based upon the book,Greece Before the Conference. Polybius, written in 1919 and it seems by a British, this was exactly the time Greece demanded Smyrna, so the illogical changes in Aydin Vilayet are obvious to claim it for Greece. Furthermore this source states:"The proof that Polybius' figures were not actually Ottoman official statistics can be had by comparing the "Turkish Official Statistics of 1910" with actual Ottoman population registration data for any province."[1]DragonTiger23 (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Alexikoua idea is completely WP:OR he has no sources but still thinks the Greek population doubled in an impossible short time and than decreased in a few years. Instead of accepting the logical explanation that 1910 is fake and the numbers from 1906 to 1914 are increasing and confirming each other, he still is busy trying to justify the erroneous 1910.DragonTiger23 (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop rambling and go to WP:RSN. — Lfdder (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The point is this, we can name the numbers for 1910, "Greek estimates" or "Polybius' estimates" but we can not call them "Official Ottoman statistics".DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

1910 census seems to be ok per western bibliography

By checking additional bibliography it appears that the 1,7 Million figure of the local Greek population was a conservative one. For example:[[21]]

:Regardless of the validity of this point, the fact remains that the Turkish government estimated that the Greek population of Anatolia exceeded 1,7000,000 people. Impartial observers also agree that this figure was quite accurate Macartney places the number of Greeks in Ionia in 1914 close to 2,000,000, Puaux gives 1,715,000, Sir Edwin Pears, even beofre the publications of the results of the 1910 and 1912 censuses, holds that the Greek elements was about 1,600,000 strong and this calculation is accepted as official by Lord Curzon at the Lausanne Conference.'

In general there is no exagerration at all with the numbers presented in the article. On the contrary the Turkish numbers are rejected by mainstream western bibliography, but the 1910 census, also due to the year conducted may stay. The numbers are also consistent with the gifures of the latter population exchanceAlexikoua (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The 1910 census is called "Official Ottoman statistics" however they are not. They are based upon a British author writing in 1919, at the height of Greek claims for expansion. It is not the question if 1910 is in agreement with British estimates, the question is, if it is in agreement with the other Ottoman census.However it is not, it contradicts Ottoman numbers. So the reader should not be fooled into believing that 1910 numbers are an actual Ottoman statistic. They are an estimate of a British author who distorted information of real Ottoman numbers. The name of the table should be changed from Ottoman statistics to Polybius' estimates. The article should have the real Ottoman census of 1914 and estimates by western sources to compare.

The Turkish government never estimated that the Greek population of Anatolia was 1,7 million instead it gives some 1 million for 1914.

I will add the real Ottoman census together with the (fake 1910 census) to show how much they differ.DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Levene 1998

In the Academic section of the article, I read that “Mark Levene has speculated that some historians avoid using the term genocide in order to prevent their magnification by comparison with the Armenian Genocide.” and, further down, that “The Greek Genocide was overshadowed by the Armenian Genocide" is listed as "a view also shared by the historian Mark Levene” and one of the “Reasons for limited recognition” of the Greek genocide. For both claims, the reference provided is "Levene (1998)".

The 1998 article by Levene is “Creating a Modern "Zone of Genocide": The Impact of Nation- and State-Formation on Eastern Anatolia, 1878-1923”, Holocaust and Genocide Studies 12 (3): 393–433, and the relevant passage is found in pages 396-7: “Historians, perhaps concerned not to magnify these events by comparison with those of 1915-16, tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them.”

For the reference provided to support these two claims, these events, that Levene says historians were "probably concerned not to magnify", should include massacres committed against Greeks between 1914 and 1923. However, this does not follow when reading the passage immediately preceding the aforementioned sentence to which the demonstrative points, as it contains no reference to atrocities committed against Greeks, but reads as follows:

“During the period 1894—96, Armenian communities across Eastern Anatolia were devastated in a series of massacres orchestrated by the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II. Quasi-irregular regiments, the Hamidiye (named after the Sultan and composed mostly of tribal Kurds) were the chief agents of these massacres, though they were often aided by gendarmerie, the regular army, and other elements of the local Moslem population. Though the entire Armenian community was not wiped out, estimates of the death toll range from 30,000 to 200,000, with some concentration around 80,000.”

That Levene does not speak of the sufferings of the Greeks, but of earlier Ottoman crimes against Armenians is additionaly proved by the note he places right after the sentence in question: “For instance, Robert F. Melson, Revolution and Genocide. On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), pp. 43-49, carefully refrains from using the term here even though he offers a case for Ottoman state organization and responsibility for the massacres”. What does Melson discuss in these pages? The title ("Armenians in the Ottoman Empire: The Massacres of 1894-1896") is very telling; no mention of Greeks is to be found in these pages at all.

In fact, if one bothers to read the whole of Levene's article, she will see that Levene's view on the question of whether massacres against Greeks during this period constitute a genocide is not the one implied by the two claims for which the article is cited as a source. Levene states that “during the Balkan wars the CUP not only responded with an economic boycott of Greek businesses, but with a series of anti-Greek massacres and atrocities around Smyrna which seem to have been specifically designed not to kill all Greeks in these areas, but to "encourage" them to flee. The fact that their villages and towns were then resettled with Muslim refugees from Macedonia, who themselves had been ethnically cleansed by the Greeks and other Balkan adversaries, suggests the beginnings of a conscious policy of demographic restructuring and ethnic homogenization. § Fear of Greek retaliation against remaining Turkish populations on its own soil, or even direct military intervention on the side of the Allies, may in part explain why the CUP did not attempt to exterminate its Ottoman Greeks. But there is no evidence that they had ever considered it.” [p. 407] In the following sentences of the article, Levene draws a contrast with the fate of the Armenians after 1915.

As with Ferguson (vide supra), the sources provided do not support the relevant claims. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

^ Pentzopoulos, Dimitri (2002). The Balkan exchange of minorities and its impact on Greece. C Hurst & Co. pp. 29–30. ISBN 978-1-85065-702-6.

[1] Pentzopoulos, Dimitri (2002). The Balkan exchange of minorities and its impact on Greece. C Hurst & Co. pp. 29–30. ISBN 978-1-85065-702-6.

[1]