Jump to content

Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Did Lemkin "detail" the fate of Greeks?

At one point, the entry reads: "In his writings on genocide, Lemkin is known to have detailed the fate of Greeks in Turkey". The backing for that is endnote 91, which refers to Mcdonnell, MA; Moses, AD (December 2005). "Raphael Lemkin as historian of genocide in the Americas". Journal of Genocide Research. 7 (4): 501–529 But there, the claim is not really backed. The only (remotely) linked mention of the article is one sentence, according to which

"The Holocaust, a term Lemkin never used, was not included, although the Armenians and Greeks in Turkey were, as well as the Early Christians, and the Jews of the Middle Ages and Tsarist Russia".

Where was it "included"? It was included in a "manuscript that lists the 41 cases Lemkin examined and took extensive notes" about (himself or his research assistant) for "a projected global history of genocide from antiquity to the present". This project was never published. "Greeks in Turkey" is just one of 41 other cases, including Hottentots, Belgian Congo, Maoris of New Zealand, Tasmanians and other peoples.

Given that, I think that the formulation "Lemkin is known to have detailed the fate of Greeks in Turkey" is not founded on the basis of the article invoked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.28.98.9 (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greek genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent additions to the lead

A new account has been edit-warring, adding questionable sources and material at the lead. This material does not appear to be in agreement with established academic consensus on the subject and the sources look weak. At a minimum, the edit-warring must stop and the questionable material must be discussed before being re-added to the article. Adding the new, controversial, material directly to the lead violates WP:RS and WP:LEAD. Dr. K. 19:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to add two points in the article:

  • the Greek genocide was expanded in Thrace[1][2] and in Anatolia. Until now only Anatolia is being referred.
  • the first incident οf the Greek genocide:

The very first incident of the Greek genocide took place in 25th January 1913 in the village Oikonomeion (nowadays: Kumburgaz) and is known as the Oikonomeion slaughter. The turkish warship Idzlal after failing to anchor in the harbor of Epivates (nowadays: Bigados) in Eastern Thrace, anchored in neighboring village Oikonomeio, in which landed 500 Turkish soldiers and massacred 96 Greek villagers.[3][4][5]

The sources are far from being characterized as questionable. Georgios86 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A PhD thesis is a questionable source. It does not mean that its author is an automatically-recognised scholar in the field of Genocides. But before such examination of sources, can you please quote where in your sources it is mentioned that:

The very first incident of the Greek genocide took place in 25th January 1913 in the village Oikonomeion...

Please provide an exact quote. Dr. K. 20:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

(At p.211 in PhD thesis can be found the reference on the Oikonomeion slaughter. So if there is a problem on the first we can correct it rather than deleting the whole paragraph.)

  • There is also a question about the word Thrace that was deleted (The Greek genocide was also expanded in Thrace). Can we add some information on that theme?

Thanks a lot for the discussion. Georgios86 (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

As I suspected, the thesis does not mention anything about Oikonomeion being the first incident of the genocide. Using the source this way is misleading and it is called original research. The genocide in Thrace is not supported by WP:RELIABLESOURCES. The website declaring it a genocide is not reliable. You need genocide scholars for such a declaration. If you don't have that type of specialist source, this discussion is over. Dr. K. 22:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Dr.K., thanks for your time and your explanations Georgios86 (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Georgios86 for your understanding. Best regards. Dr. K. 01:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.scribd.com/doc/134402117/The-Greek-Genocide-Thracian-Greek-Genocide-as-case-study
  2. ^ http://www.greek-genocide.net/index.php/overview/documentation/130-eastern-thrace
  3. ^ Tsianaklidis D. The Metropolis and the Greeks of Silivria ,doctoral thesis, Thessaloniki 2000 (in Greek) - Τσιανικλίδης, Δημήτριος. Η Μητρόπολις και ο Ελληνισμός Σηλυβρίας (διδ. διατριβή). Θεσσαλονίκη 2000, σελ. 211.
  4. ^ Black Bible od persecutions and martyrdoms of Greeks in Turkey (1914-1918) p. 60 (in Greek) - Μαύρη βίβλος διωγμών και μαρτυρίων του εν Τουρκία Ελληνισμού (1914-1918) σελ. 60
  5. ^ Municipalité de Büyükçekmece

Anacronysm

"The resultant Greek culture in Asia Minor flourished during the following millennium under the Greek-speaking Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, whose citizens were known as Byzantine Greeks. "

'Byzantine Greeks' is a German-coined XIX century term. They were known as Romans or Roman Greeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.188.235 (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Flagging for POV section

"Reasons for limited recognition section" may not be WP:IMPARTIAL and gives WP:UNDUE weight to potentially biased sources. Some structural and organization problems that does not WP:BALANCE viewpoints. Could be fixed by organizing to maintain WP:IMPARTIAL tone without major deletions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphimsystem (talk • contribs) 08:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

For example the section mentions no UN, European Parliament or Council of Europe recognition and then gives reasons for Turkish denial. This section should discuss the Greek genocide, and not give WP:UNDUE weight to quotes that deal primarily with the Armenian genocide. Discussion of scholars of Armenian genocide who have noted significance differences between the Greek and Armenian genocide is in a different section. Clearer organization of viewpoints would benefit WP:NPOV and help maintain an WP:IMPARTIAL tone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim System (talk • contribs) 09:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The above argument is not very clear. The section is trying to negotiate the important question "why the genocide of Greeks (combined or not to that of Armenians etc) is not widely recognized by states?". The one of the references, Fotiadis, is a well known Greek historian, and therefore reliable, although the reference needs some improvement. I don't know the other sources, but in good faith I assume are also reliable. If you mean that each of those sources has their own POV, this is true and this is the normality. Nobody writes a book if he doesn't have an opinion to transmit. WP does not require that sources do not have Point of View (see WP:BIASED). WP asks for the whole article or section to be NPOV, not every single source. This is achieved by applying the rule "all reliable sources should be reflected in articles". If you think that a topic is more extented than it had to, you may edit it. If you know any other source that has a different opinion, please include it. I removed the tag of POV untill we get some more opinions on what to do.--Skylax30 (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Beyond what Skylax30 says, its not that our article can't have a POV, its merely that the article's POVs (multiple) must accurately reflect the POV of reliable sources. If the preponderance of the source hold a certain POV, then so should our article. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. ResultingConstant (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Greek genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict

Can someone please add this article (Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict) the the "See also" section? 174.0.20.188 (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Recognition of Greek genocide

User:SilentResident, I recognise that "other Christian minorites" probably includes ethnic Greeks, but one cannot use that to imply specific recognition of a specific Greek genocide. The sources do not say that and it is SYNTH to extrapolate their meaning. Either the text should be kept to those who have recognised Gk Gen by name, or the text needs to be altered to precisely what was recognised (ie the broader Armenian + Assyrian genocide). Pincrete (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow it seems we run into a Greek Genocide denialist now? To say "I know there were few other Christian groups in the area, but that is synth, they do not recognise the Greek genocide by name" is to look intentionally at the tree and ignore the forest. The international genocide scholars acknowledged 3 genocides in the 1910s that happened in Turkey, and everyone knows which these 3 genocides are. When the bill refers to the 1910s period genocidal killings collectively and not by name, does not make it less it a case here. The genocidal policies of the Ottoman authorities targeted 3 groups during that time period: the Armenian, the Greek and the Assyrian. The bill clearly refers to them even if not by name. To interprete the bills titled "Armenian and Other Christians" as not meaning the second largest genocide by population, the Greek, is a blatant case of denialist WP:POV -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 20:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
User:SilentResident, Oh please! Don't talk crap! I've no idea what a Greek genocide denialist is, but we aren't here anyway to 'confirm' or 'deny' historical events, simply to record the best available info about them. As it happens I know how potent these events are to collective Greek memory, also how widespread their feeling is that the Greek deaths are forgotten by the world, but the important thing is the history, not whether some govt elsewhere has decided to 'recognise' the event as a distinct genocide, which does little except 'rubber-stamp' historical records - which as you say relate that other groups, including ethnic Greeks, were also targeted by the Ottoman regime.
However, if the source does not state EXPLICITLY that the this particular genocide was recognised, by name by govt X you cannot say it does, simple as that. You can rephrase such that the killing of several christian minorities were listed as part of a broader genocide recognised by these govts. It is pure WP:SYNTH otherwise and it detracts from, rather than endorses the record to say that the govts said something, which they simply did not say - even if both you and I believe that they may have intended to imply it by the use of 'other christian minorities'. Govts are grown-ups, if they intended to specifically recognise the Gk gen as a distinct event, they would have done so - for whatever reasons, these particular govts didn't. That denies nothing about history, it simply accurately records what these govts decided. Pincrete (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
First of all, the sentence you have attempted to edit is about parliamentary recognitions, not governmental recognitions. Second, the bills are about the genocides carried out at a specific time period, by a specific government of a specific country, against the groups of a specific religion residing in that particular country. This leaves absolutely no room for WP:SYNTH about what the bill refers to, as there weren't any groups other than these 3 that had witnessed genocidal policies, or that they meet the criteria for a genocide. You may refer to Christian groups other than Greek and Assyrian, but these did not had witnessed any genocides, only ethnic cleansings. To sit down and argue over on whether the criteria include or not a particular one of the three groups but possibly other groups against which there were no genocides, is just as a poor WP:SYNTH argument as it can get. Sure, the Parliaments could have named explicitly the other christian groups, but this is uneccessary as it is WP:BLUESKY obvious which ones it refers to. There were no other Ottoman Christian groups that have been subject of genocides on Ottoman soil during that particular time period, only these three. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 23:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
There is no denialist POV, only some mild pedantry. It is plainly obvious that "other Christian groups" can only imply Greeks and Assyrians. There are no other possibilities here. Khirurg (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
You may call it pedantry if you wish, all I am asking is that the text be reworded such that those countries which have recognised the killing of Greeks by name (which I left in place in my edit, whenever the source specifically mentioned 'Greeks') be separated from those who recognised the broader campaign by the Ottomans, of which the Greeks and other christian groups, were the targets - or that those countries recognition be removed. If the UN recognises the UK, and all geographers agree that Wales is part of the UK, one cannot extrapolate from that that the UN has recognised Wales as a distinct entity. Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
That's fair. The clarification is welcome. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 22:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The edit in dispute here [1] seems to be adding a lot of weak/biased sources to the article. Not every recent development needs to be added to the encyclopedia, and the quality of the sources at issue is not comparable to the sourcing used in this article - on top of all that it does appear to be WP:SYNTH. It is also not ok to accuse other editors of denialist WP:POV or to refuse to provide WP:RS for challenged material because you feel it is is uneccessary as it is WP:BLUESKY - if another editor is challenging the content it must be verifiable.Seraphim System (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
If others are happy with this edit, I am since it makes clear that the broader Ottoman campaign has been recognised - including the christian minorities, rather than the Gr gen specifically. Some of these countries do actually mention Gks by name, but I thought it unnec to make that distinction, though others may wish to do so. Pincrete (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your edit, as the clarification you have added, was in fact something that should have been present already in the sentence from the start, Pincrete. Well done. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 22:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The edit by Pincrete is a welcome clarification, although I doubt whether it is sufficient. I am of the opinion that if there are no sources explicitly establish the link between recognition by a specific country and the campaign against Greeks, the connection should not be established on the Wikipedia article on Greek genocide, especially not in the lead section, no matter how much we think WP:BLUESKY applies to it. Wikipedia should follow sources, not second guess them. Yes, a good amount of scholarship (though by no means all scholarship, see the insufficient and out-of-date "Academic discussion" section of this article) accepts the concept of "late Ottoman genocides" as a campaign against these three communities, but we have no evidence that the decision of these parliaments correspond to that scholarship. If no sources interpret Germany's recognition as encompassing genocide against Greeks and Assyrians, then we as Wikipedia are not the one to make that interpretation. If WP:BLUESKY indeed applies, then allowing for some time, scholarship/commentary should catch up, there is no rush. Genocide recognition is specific business and if a parliament leaves it ambiguous on purpose, then we should not be second guessing it. Finally, agressively spewing accusations of genocide denialism to try to suppress disagreeing users is totally not acceptable and not to be tolerated. --GGT (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia IS following the sources. The sources can either refer to all the groups collectively by religion, or individually by ethnicity, or both. It is none of our business to sit down and debate whether the label "Christian" refers to Greeks or not, as it still is about the same group. The bill recognizes the Genocide against Christians and the Greeks constituted the largest (or second largest, by a small margin) of the Christian minorities in Ottoman Turkey in terms of population size.
For the editors who may not be aware of the population data for that time period, and want more info, they can check the Ottoman Turkish Census of 1914, here (In the French language): [2].
It is terrible to see editors coming here debating about whether the Christian Genocide bill refers clearly, ambiguously, or not at all to the... Christian Greeks. TERRIBLE. I have no other words to say in this discussion here against such illogical arguments, and I really hope the editors come to their senses, because I am not going to continue this talk. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 17:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The term you are looking for is sophistry. Not to mention WP:LAWYER. This is a classic case of pedantry and overtly legalistic interpretations of sources. Common sense prevails though. Khirurg (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I dont know this term well. But it seems so. And sorry if you were trying to comment due to my constant edits of my comment above, as text editing via touch screen is much more complicated than with keyboard and mouse -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 17:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I made my point, if no one else in the community agrees with it, I do not intend to keep pressing on with it. I just accept the consensus and move on, as I have done in previous occasions. You may disagree with my point, you may find it sophistry, you may find it illogical, but you have no right to call me making my point terrible. Sorry, that's just disrespectful and not part of common courtesy in discussion. And it is very concerning as a behavioural pattern, I must add, coming straight after accusing someone of genocide denial. What you may take for granted others may not, and if you wish to further understand where my point is coming from and the literature behind my thinking, you may wish to peruse the archives of this page. So spare me the lecturing please, I know the terrible fate that befell many Greeks of Asia Minor in the period, my point is about the business of recognition, which is a completely different political ballgame where wording and what some may call pedantry do matter, at least in my view. What some may call liberty from a legalistic interpretation of sources, I call second guessing. All sources do establish the connection between the Christian genocide recognition bills and the Armenian genocide, for instance, and some do that for the Assyrian genocide as well, but if I see no connection made anywhere to the Greek case, I find it better to be reasonably prudent and wait for the literature to catch up. But nobody needs to agree with that and if nobody does, that is fine. Anyway, I've said what I ought to say, that's it from me. --GGT (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Your viewpoint is welcome as long as it does not distort facts about the interchargeable naming of the Ottoman minorities. No matter how you call it, or how this or that scholar or parliament calls it, be it "Christian Genocide", or "Greek Genocide", or "Pontic Genocide", or "Christian Greek Genocide", or "Ottoman Greek Genocide" (yes, ALL of these terms DO exist, just google it for yourself), it still refers to the genocide of the one and same minority, and these terms used for that minority are interchargeable. To argue over the bill's naming is to ignore the whole point which is that the bill has recognized the 2-million massacres by the Ottomans of the Christian minorities, of which the Greek was historically the most prominent Christian minority. I am disappointed but I am trying to WP:GOODFAITH believe that your motives were honest. Like I said above, there is nothing else for me to say on this discussion as I am finding it lacking any valid arguments especially now that Pincrete has re-worded the sentence to be more carefully written. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 13:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

For the purposes of inclusion in this article, WP:BLUE. However, for purposes of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV I agree with the objections, that saying they recognized the Greek genocide specifically is WP:SYNTH. This can be addressed by directly quoting what they recognized (Armenians and other christian groups), and delegating any analysis of that information to the reader. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The article no longer says that countries have recognised the Gk gen by name, rather that the broader Ottoman campaign has been recognised as genocide. Previous wording was ambiguous as to precisely what had been recognised. Pincrete (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
First of all, if the editor's concerns are just about the name chosen to describe the Greek genocide, aka "Greek Genocide", or "Pontic Genocide", or "Christian Genocide", or "Anatolian Greek Genocide" or "Greek Christian Genocide" or whatever, then I will not comment as this is not an issue for me. Second, whatever names the bills preferred to describe the genocidal campaigns against the Christian minorities with, is not something that bothers me, and I don't mind how the sentence is rephrased, as long as the recognition of these genocides is noted because it is a very important and politically sensitive issue related to the denial of the country that had committed them. I am happy with anything as long as the editors here steer clear from any arguments seeking the removal or reduction of the note on the recognitions of the mass killings and organized deportations on faulty WP:SYNTH grounds, as this is something that has been attempted for the Armenian Genocide, if my memory does not fail me, and we do not want to go through the same here. I think, with Pincrete's much-needed edits, there is little to no room for any misinterpretation or whatsoever on this issue and I hope this has everyone satisfied. Have a good day. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 22:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a tool

Why does not Wikipedia has a page devoted to Iraq genocide, Afgan genocide and so on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donukgama (talk • contribs) 06:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists or WP:WAX. Either someone has just not written such an article yet, or sufficient sources do not exist to write such an article. If its the latter, then go complain to historians. If its the former, then go write the article. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

map

The map in this article has got the location of Trebizond wrong. Deipnosophista (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You appear to be right. Pincrete (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

article form

Compared to the article for the Armenian Genocide this is very brief and restricted. I sincerely hope this has not to do with the ambiguity and lack of consensus on any matter that is typical of Greek politics. In any case one cannot see the same unanimity as seen in the Armenian Genocide. Beickus (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your point - or what specifically you feel is not covered adequately. It probably is the case that the Greek genocide is less well known (outside Greece) than the Armenian one - possibly because of the scale, or possibly because of the impact of the Armenian diaspora. I think a complete and accurate article is more important than how it compares with similar articles, so what's missing? Pincrete (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2018

fatalities to change from 450,000-700,000 to 450,000-1,200,000 [1] [2] [3] SpiroTsol (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Please include quotations from each of the cited sources. I was unable to find specific statements in these three linked sources to support this proposed change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP5.HTM
  2. ^ http://www.academia.edu/14529923/Newspaper_Articles_List_on_the_Greek_Genocide_1914-1924_
  3. ^ https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.ca/&httpsredir=1&article=1165&context=gsp

Turkish national movement

The article currently states that "killings, massacres and deportations continued under the pretext of the national movement of Ataturk". However, the reference for this does not offer any evidence in this regard. The paper referenced claims that there were killings of Circassians and ethnic Turks, but does not mention anything about Greeks there:

More than 30,000 of the Muslim population in this region were Circassian muhacılar, who had settled predominantly in the east of the Yalova Peninsula. The fact that Circassians, too, became victims of Kemalist revenge killings during 1920 and 1921 indicates that the Yalova crimes were not only caused by traditional religious divides between Muslims and Non-Muslims, but also by ethnic divide between Turks and Non-Turks, and probably more so by political affiliations and military alliances.

This included even ethnic Turkish victims of Kemalist nationalists: A report from Bursa of 11 August 1920 mentions as an example the Turkish village of Söyles that "was burnt by the Nationalists, and five of the inhabitants perished. The survivors fled to the Armenian village of same name and begged for shelter.

[1]

On another note, there is no explanation given for the reasoning behind the questionable actions claimed. This information should be removed if there is no reliable source for it.

Junk2711 (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hofmann, Tessa. "Hofmann, Tessa (Berlin): Yalova/Nicomedia 1920/1921. Massacres and Inter- Ethnic Conflict in a Failing State".
Junk2711: You just might try to read a bit further than page 1 of the article. Here is a quote from page 4: "Killings, massacres and even deportations were committed under the pretext of the Kemalist ‘liberation war’, with the clear aim of preventing in the first place the repatriation and resettlement of Armenian and other Christian survivors of previous deportations and to achieve the extermination of Greek residents." Let's see: "killings" checkY, "massacres" checkY, "deportations" checkY, "Greeks" checkY. Yup, seems to be sourced! --T*U (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
T*U: My bad, I hadn't seen the page numbers listed in the reference. However, there is no source provided in the essay for this claim either. The Robeck citation following it only mentions "robbery under arms", nothing about killings, massacres, deportations. Junk2711 (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Junk2711 and T*U. Why is there no mention of what that was in response to? (the Greek invasion and occupation of Turkey? the sacking, pillaging, looting, raping, mass expulsion and killing etc of the Turks of Smirna?) Nargothronde (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
For your information, your WP:PING here did not work. Pinging does only work if it is saved in the same edit as your signature. If you want to add a ping as an afterthought, you will need to add your signature one more time (with or without removing the old signature).
Regarding your question, I am not quite sure if I shall take it at face value or if it is just meant rhetorical. The short answer is: Because the sources say that the persecution of Armenians and Greeks continued under the National Movement (and well before the landing in Smyrna). This source says As early as May 1919 reports of renewed persecutions of Armenians and Greeks all over Anatolia and Pontus began to come in. How could that be "in response to the Greek invasion and occupation of Turkey"? --T*U (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks T*U, and I hope re-signing it has fixed the issue. I was actually referring to Junk2711's opening comment, that The article currently states that "killings, massacres and deportations continued under the pretext of the national movement of Ataturk". I don't see how that can be included without reference to what it was in response to, which again, was to the Greek invasion of Turkey, and mainly the way they executed it. Nargothronde (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to attribute my comments from the "Aftermath Section" discussion below, because I think they're strongly related. Nargothronde (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath Section

The aftermath section says: "In 1923, a population exchange between Greece and Turkey resulted in a near-complete elimination of the Greek ethnic presence in Turkey and a similar elimination of the Turkish ethnic presence in much of Greece"

It's called a "population exchange". That shouldn't be distorted.

This type of language is evident throughout the entire article. I smell some possible WP:OR going on here. Nargothronde (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was an exchange, but it was a bit more: The result of the exchange was that the presence for millennia of Greeks in Anatolia ended, as did the presence for centuries of Turks in most of the Balkans. That is certainly worth mentioning. We could discuss the wording. I would perhaps prefer to use "termination" instead of "elimination", but I see nothing wrong with any of them. What you mean with "this type of language" and how it can have anything to do with WP:OR you need to explain. --T*U (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It's the ethnic presence being eliminated, not either population - so I don't see any distortion or other problem. Perhaps even clearer/simpler would be bringing to an end the ethnic presence etc. 'Termination' seems to have the same potential ambiguity as elimination - and doesn't seem to me to be a very standard collocation, even if the literal meaning is similar.Pincrete (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, first of all, it was not an elimination, it was an exchange - Turks for Greeks / Greeks for Turks, respectively. "Elimination" sounds like they're being killed off (permanently), doesn't it? "In 1923, a population exchange between Greece and Turkey resulted in a near-complete end to the ethnic Greek presence in Turkey and visa versa." sounds a lot more in-line with the practicality and reality of the population exchange. Remember that there is still an ethnic Greek presence in parts of Western Turkey, and there is still an ethnic Turkish presence in parts of Eastern Greece. Both have a relatively strong presence in their respective areas. They have not been eliminated or killed off. Nargothronde (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
In light of the article being about the Greek & Pontic Genocide etc, maybe this doesn't seem to be completely related? I think this is much more relevant to an article on the Turkish War of Independence, or the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) / Greek landing at Smyrna / Occupation of Smyrna, as that's when the population exchange occurred / what it was in response to? Nargothronde (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Note: though it was nowhere near as big in proportion (there was no Great Fire when the Greeks arrived), but on the page List of massacres during the Greco-Turkish War (1919–22), the Greek landing at Smyrna is cited as the very first massacre to have occurred, where The orderly landing of the Greek army soon turned into a riot against the local Turkish population by local Greeks and Greek soldiers. Stores and houses were looted, many cases of beatings, rape, killing. Estimates for killed and wounded Greeks are 100, for Turks between 300-400., and this was cited among many justifications for driving the invading Greeks out of Izmir and hence out of Turkey for good, with a fight of extermination attitude... I think that's worth mentioning... also note the tendency of the Greek army to burn (esp. burn), raze, rape and pillage along the way etc... that was a strong contributing factor in any choice or action of the Turks... but it's still really ambiguous... it's called a war... there were massacres going back and forth, first from the Greeks wanting to drive the Turks out and claim as much of Turkey as possible, and from the Turks who wanted to resist this and drive the Greeks out of Turkey, and again from the Greeks as they retreated... I think this is also worth taking note of? Nargothronde (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I think you are focusing too much on one use of 'eliminate', to me it doesn't even imply that anyone was killed - however, since there are other ways to phrase the sentence, I don't object to a simpler term. Pincrete (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
eliminate: definition: "completely remove or get rid of; exclude; murder"... I don't think I was "focusing too much on... 'eliminate'". I just don't think its compatible with the term "population exchange". I think the replacement we found works much better. Nargothronde (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The ethnic presence was eliminated (or terminated or ended) by the exchange, not the population. There is nothing incompatible in that. However, I am fine with the current "resulted in a near-complete ending", as long as it is clearly stated that the ending (or elimination or termination) of the ethnic presence was a result of the exchange. --T*U (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
"as did the presence for centuries of Turks in most of the Balkans." Greece never controlled most of the Balkans anyway, and the population exchange did not affect the other countries in the region. The Muslim minority of Greece is bilingual, but most of them still use the Turkish language. Dimadick (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Origin of the Greek minority - section

Firstly, this section seems over-detailed. There had long been a Greek-speaking population in Asia Minor, but it had long ceased to be the ruling power of the region by the early 20th century. Why do we need so much history of Gk cultural presence there?

Secondly, the final para of the section has: 

Over the next four centuries the Greek natives of Asia Minor gradually became a minority in these lands, as members of their community underwent Turkification, converting to Islam to escape onerous tax obligations and legal limitations imposed on religious minorities, or simply in order to assimilate to the now dominant Turkish culture.[1]

References

  1. ^ Hanioğlu, M. Şükrü (2010). A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire. Princeton University Press. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-691-14617-1. The Ottoman state never sought to impose Turkish on subject peoples…Some ethno-religious groups, when outnumbered by Turks, did accept Turkish vernacular through a gradual process of acculturation. While the Greeks of the Peloponnese, Thessaly, Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, and west Anatolian littoral continued to speak and write in Greek, The Greeks of Cappadocia (Karaman) spoke Turkish and wrote Turkish in Greek script. Similarly, a large majority of Armenians in the empire adopted Turkish as their vernacular and wrote Turkish in Armenian characters, all efforts to the contrary by the Mkhitarist order notwithstanding. The first novels published in the Ottoman Empire in the mid-nineteenth century were by Armenians and Cappadocian Greeks; they wrote them in Turkish, using the Armenian and Greek alphabets.

The text is mainly saying that the adopting of the Turkish language and Muslim religion by ethnic Gks was largely due to financial and other pressure - while the ref says almost the opposite. I've no idea which is true or to what extent, nor how relevant this is. Pincrete (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

About a paragraph

A serious claim based on a single source for the section named as "The Genocide as a model for future crimes". More sources need to be shown for these claims. It seems necessary to get the opinions of the users on the subject. Firstly, as the user who added the paragraph, @Antondimak:, what is your comment? -Esc2003 (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

What is presented in the paragraph seems to be generally accepted, but it all boils down to the same original research. I could provide more sources, but they all boil down to the same research, and I don't know if it's therefore necessary. --Antondimak (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I was troubled by this paragraph for similar reasons to Esc2003. I know more about this from the 'German' end and know that Hitler is on record as having made passing, and disdainful, reference to the killings of Armenians, however both the section heading and the text within it appears to be treating the Arm/Gk killings as the conscious model for the Holocaust. That theory AFAIK, would not be be given much weight by scholars of Nazism. Pincrete (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC) ... ps, the para is at times unclear and/or ungrammatical - however since I do not have access to the source (which is only partialy named), I am reluctant to fix.Pincrete (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2019

In section titled "Origin of the Greek minority", I would propose to change the following phrase: "whose citizens were known as Byzantine Greeks". My proposal is to re-phrase instead as follows: "whose citizens are currently referred to as Byzantine Greeks, although at the time they identified themselves as Romans (Romaioi)". The reason for the proposed change is that the term 'Byzantine' with reference to the Easters Roman Empire is a historical convention used by modern historians, which appeared in this context not earlier than in the 16th century. At the time the people living in the Eastern Roman Empire identified themselves simply as Romans (Romaioi). Indeed, the term survives to this day as 'Romios' in modern Greek, which is roughly a synonym for Greek-Orthodox-Christian. 195.64.172.16 (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I've made two edits, which hopefully address this error and ce'd slightly]. My logic was that this article need only summarise how Greeks came to be living outside of what many readers would think of as 'Greek lands'. Other articles cover those histories more fully. I haven't marked the request as answered, as others may not agree with my edits. A slight contradiction that remains in that section is whether Byzantine lands were wholly, or largely 'Greek' linguistically and culturally - the text suggests both but related articles suggest largely. Pincrete (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Pincrete's edit appears to have solved the issue. Please feel free to re-open the request by changing "|answered=yes" to "|answered=no" and provide further information if the issues are not satisfactorily resolved. NiciVampireHeart 21:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2019

In the beginning of the World War I section change "However, after November" to "After November" The however is not needed 64.60.138.60 (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Not only unneeded, but inapt as it suggests continuity with prev. section. Thanks. Pincrete (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

WWI and Akçam

Akçam´s book on the Armenian genocide is almost the exclusive source on the WWI section. Greece666 (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This is incorrect. There are many sources in that section. Dr. K. 08:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a total of 21 footnotes in the section. 15 of them are to Akcam s book.--Greece666 (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

That sounds bad until you count the volume of text supported by Acsam's reference and the rest of the references. Using that measure, the ratios are quite balanced for that section. In any case, the slight predominance of Akcam is that section is not something that is remarkable or that needs tagging. Dr. K. 09:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2019

On the top of the Genocide Recognition section with the pictures of the Christian bishops, there are five people mentioned, but only four pictures. This is slightly ambiguous as I am not certain exactly how it should be changed. It should be mentioned somewhere that Prokopios of Iconium is not pictured for sake of clarity. ElderGnomeChild (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it appears to be Prokopios Lazaridis (Prokopios of Iconium) who has no picture, but I only concluded that from following he links. If we are right, the name should probably be removed. Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be good to leave him in as there is a link to his page. The Prokopios Lazaridis page gives his title as "Saint Prokopios the new-hieromartyr of Iconium" so I am confident it is him. What about moving him to the end and changing "Prokopios of Iconium (imprisoned and poisoned)" to "Prokopios of Iconium (not pictured)" or "Prokopios of Iconium (not pictured, imprisoned and poisoned)" ? ElderGnomeChild (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
Not sure if this is the right section, but there is no ref for their deaths (poisoned, posthumously hanged, burried alive). Regarding the text, it should refer only to the bishops pictured.--Greece666 (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
It looks like some of the bishops have references for their deaths on their own pages, just not on this one. Should we add those same references to this page, then remove the deaths without reference?
Also it appears that Prokopios now has a picture on his page that we could use. Here ElderGnomeChild (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Many of the refs on their pages are partisan (see Tsirkinidis for instance)Greece666 (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
How about for the sake of this edit we add Prokopios' picture in the order he is listed? ElderGnomeChild (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sakura CarteletTalk 21:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Why exactly is this called a genocide? Cause of deaths were essentially same as Gulags. Few were actually killed.

Genocide or massacre should be reserved for violent deaths. I just read entire article, and vast majority of victims are said to have died due to long marches and forced labor. In general, they were not killed, even according to text on this page. "Genocide" term should only be applied to actual massacres and violent deaths that, based on this page, seem to number at most some tens of thousands. To put the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of deaths reported by some sources, all due to long marches and forced labor, under same category is incredibly misleading. Should we make a page about Stalin's "Gulag genocide"? This is not the the accurate and widely understood definition of genocide and bias should be put aside here. Mozad655 (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I also saw your edits on Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which were reverted in their entirety as POV and unsourced. It seems Genocides are not your strong points. Dr. K. 18:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
You could easily explain your perspective without dismissive abbreviations or totally irrelevant side-tracks. "On Armenian genocide I simply made minor changes to lessen biased and absurd wording, themselves unsourced or referenced to inaccessible sources that cannot be checked). You shouldn't edit pages labelled "genocides" if you can't even tolerate a simple discussion. If you can't overrule your own bias, you really have no business on sensitive issues like genocides. You seem very immature instantly dismissing and deflecting at first contact. Mozad655 (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually Wikipedia is written using reliable sources. Please refrain from personal attacks. Continued comments like "You seem very immature" can result in a block. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually not. Alot of Wikipedia is written with few or no sources, yet alone reliable or even accessible. User initiated personal attack against me "It Seems Genocides are not your strong points". Rules should not be selectively applied. Acquaintances aside, corruption should not be allowed on Wikipedia. Mozad655 (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually not. Alot of Wikipedia is written with few or no sources, yet alone reliable or even accessible. You won't go far on this wiki with this attitude. Dr. K. 20:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I gave an NPA warning to the account. Obviously, the tirade s/he engaged in just above demonstrates s/he has no understanding of WP:RS, WP:V, etc.. To these, we can add WP:NPA. It is one thing to be WP:CLUEless and quite another to insist on being clueless by doubling down and using PAs when receiving advice on how to improve. Dr. K. 19:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
After looking past your first personal attack, I had no choice but to go back and alert you on your own page. Hopefully you'll reconsider and stop the bullying tactics. It's one thing to be passive aggressive, but another to accuse someone else of your own doings. The website would be a better place if contributors in all layers of the hierarchy, were more open to criticism and self-improvement. Mozad655 (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
As WP:CLUE is not one of your strong points let me put it clearly for you: Don't ever come to my talkpage to WP:HARASS me again with your clueless warnings. The rest of your WP:CLUEless accusations are just bollocks. Dr. K. 20:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm so sorry. For a moment, I didn't understand what was going on. You have serious problems with your temperament and ego. I understand that now. I will step more gently around you and respect your special needs. I will also look past your previous harassment and personal attacks. No hard feelings on my part. Mozad655 (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Responses like yours need no reply. Dr. K. 21:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Short answer - the event is called Greek genocide - because that's what (most) historians call it. WP:COMMONNAME applies. We don't rename the article on World War One because somebody points out that only a proportion of the world was involved. It's what the event is called, rightly or wrongly and we aren't going to change what we call it until the rest of the world does. Some of Stalin's killings, such as Holodomor, are generally regarded as genocide, but others are not. I imagine that the "intent to destroy a race of people" is missing from many of the gulag killings - but you'll have to ask the historians.Pincrete (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Pincrete is right on this. The majority of the world's scholars deemed the long marches and forced labor and starvation to be genocidal practices. The same practices, among others, were later used by Nazi Germany against Jews in World War II. Nowadays, only a few diminish these practices as non-genocidal. You may personally disagree with the term, but Wikipedia doesn't work on by taking account the editors and their personal beliefs (aka editoral POV) but on sources. The information has to be attributed to WP:RS and takes in account the views held by the majority of the international scholars on this. Simple as that. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
*Plops you in the middle of the desert* hey look sorry about this and all, there's a well or something like 500 miles in that direction...I'm sure you'll make it (chuckles under his breath: they're gonna DIE). On a more serious note, if you let this revisionist nonsense in then you'd have reconsider whether or not Holocaust victims such as Anne Frank - who died from disease bought on by intentional neglect - were victims of genocide. That is basically the entire argument of a lot of antisemite holocaust deniers - same tactic being used here by the lovely Turk brigade.--2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:3076:E686:38A:CE2A (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

English

In the last paragraph before 'World War One', 'forced' or 'violent' is meant, not 'forceful' which merely means 'strong'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.59.159 (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsupported statement

The statement that many Greeks converted "to escape onerous tax obligations and legal limitations imposed on religious minorities" is unsupported by any reference given. It also makes little sense: they would rather be drafted than pay a tax? Mcdruid (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, even the use of the term "Turkification" is inapt in the period 1460 to 1860. The source given supports gradual voluntary linguistic partial assimilation, not abandoning of religious or cultural identity for any reason, least of all to escape taxation.Pincrete (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Disagree here, it's widely supported that onerous taxation on the non-Muslim population drove conversions in the Ottoman Empire (and elsewhere). In the case of Anatolia this led to a subsequent adoption of the Turkish language and later identity in most but not all cases (notable exceptions: the Greek speaking Muslims of Pontos, and those that hail from Crete, etc). Discussions on how voluntary or involuntary the said process was as a whole will never escape the jeopardy of incorrect generalizations as one can really only correctly talk about those things at a local level, best to be avoided overall. But of course Turkification and (biological) genocide are separate phenomena -- if you have the latter, there is no one left to Turkify, so the relevance here is just for the societal-historical context. --Calthinus (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that both how voluntary and how economically motivated 'integration' was (whether religious, cultural or linguistic) is controversial, contested and sometimes subject to oversimplification and myth making. I know that in some Ottoman regions elsewhere in the Empire, taxation was actually higher for Muslims, but employment opportunities were also greater, thus there was a powerful incentive to adopt the dominant culture (superficially at least) in order to join the elite. But from our point of view, the present source simply does not support the claim it is attached to and as you say generalisations about this subject can be problematic. Pincrete (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
If the source doesn't support what it's cited for, of course you can remove, but we should still touch on the matter, source-willing. Whatever we think of the nature of Islamization (yes you can find academic talk about individuals who converted for "career opportunities" but lets be real 90%+ of Ottoman society in all places was illiterate peasants with no such 'job prospects' regardless of faith for most of its history, so this is not a big contributor...), imo it's relevant for the social history that ultimately ended up having systematic crimes against humanity as part of its trajectory. This is important for study of the matter, and of analogous cases.
I think overall the background section would do itself well to replicate the fairly good model we see on Armenian Genocide's respective section. There is RS work on the matter too. An overall skeleton could be something like ... (1) Christians lived in a historically socially inferior position to Muslims, (2) in the late empire they began to gain education and wealth and were divided between those who demanded either rights within the Empire or sought to escape it, (3) the Tanzimat reforms equalized the status of Christians in theory but in practice produced a considerable backlash among the Sunni population (cf "white rage" in the context of race in the West -- the dominant group reacting to equality as a loss of their own "status", but this parenthesis is my personal POV, don't include), (4) continued contraction of the Ottoman Empire including ethnic/sectarian atrocities going both ways led Ottoman authorities to consider Christian minorities a security threat as well as extremely severe sectarian tensions on the ground, along with (5) the economic troubles everyone experienced and (6) getting away with past atrocities... all came together and facilitated (7) a campaign of demographic transformation, i.e. the page's topic. This is my blueprint for how a good background section could work. Do I personally want to work on this at the moment, not right now, but here are some good sources: [| Erik Sjöberg -- The Making of the Greek Genocide] [Basso -- Towards a Theory of Displacement Atrocities: The Cherokee Trail of Tears, The Herero Genocide, and The Pontic Greek Genocide]. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The particular context I was referring to was in 'military' and similar roles, especially within Crete, Bosnia Albania and other Balkan regions, where adopting a partial Islam offered a 'way out' for many who continued to be substantially, culturally, non-Turkish. This may of course have been very different for those on the 'mainland' and was different for peasant-farmers even in the 'outposts' of Empire. The whole matter is not as simple as Muslim=privileged, other religions=disadvantaged. Greek elites in the big cities had almost hereditary priveleges in commerce and admin roles and Jews had protected 'niche' roles sometimes. But yes, the ethnic nationalism of the late Ottoman period threatened all minorities, and yes, I'm sure some peasant groups always had a hard time, possibly including those who were the main targets of the genocide. There is so much popular myth around this subject that we should be cautious IMO. Pincrete (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Crete maybe, I don't know, maybe you're right in that case. Bosnia I would actually call "voluntary" primarily. Albania and Kosovo, well... in some places (Anamali for example) it really was voluntary, in a lot places, quite not so, i.e. in the 17th century the head honcho in Peja literally did force convert Alb Catholics, and then there's the matter that in the 17th century when Ottoman authorities decided that large Christian communities in mountainous/rebellious Albania were a problem (1594 Albanian revolt, various 17th century pro-Austrian uprisings etc...), the local tax on Christians *mysteriously* got multiplied by 17 to something really rather astronomical and unbearable, so its hard to say that's not to some degree economic coercion. Likewise for the case of the Vlachs of Notia. Getting back to Anatolia, I've read stuff I can't find at the moment for not-exactly-voluntary conversion in the zone of Bursa, but that's not to say I'd positively say this was the norm. As I said though, this page should really be more in line with Armenian Genocide and focus more on the immediate leadup, not stuff that happened like 400 centuries prior.--Calthinus (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that all we need is to cover the 'lead-up' and to avoid over-generalisating 'back-story'.Pincrete (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't see this claim as being "well-supported." To the contrary, in fact. Neither Kinross in the Ottoman Centuries mentions conversions, nor the Oxford History of Islam. Armstrong only says conversions are "discouraged." The only other reference I am aware of is that when Jews at the end of the Empire started being treated the same as Muslims, they objected and petitioned to return to Jizya. Common sense also says that people would rather pay 5% Jizya, than be drafted and pay 2.5% Zakat.
On the other hand, I don't see documentation of this claim being possible: we don't have any real data on it at all. Mcdruid (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Should ethnic cleansing of Greeks and others be mentioned in Turkish war of independence article?

See discussion at Talk:Turkish War of Independence#What's your problem with this edit?. (t · c) buidhe 21:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

to be more specific in the perpetrators part add “(kemalists)” in brackets right after the nationalist movement part as they were the ones behind the Greek genocide 174.88.28.164 (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The term "genocide"

The article is full of biased information and allegations, a neutral article should not blame any nation without concrete reference, if the case isn't clearly proven and widely accepted as "genocide" by people such as tragedies of Holocaust, Armenian Genocide or Cambodian Genocide. For example reasons here are completely nonsense, unsupported and biased, since none of them gives concrete reasons, references or proofs but only excuses for the case not to be proven. Evuntia (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

It's ironical that you should refer to the Armenian Genocide, since approx the same official bodies recognise the Gk and Armenian killings and the circumstances, perpetrators, background and time period of the two (and of other Christian minorities), are much the same. The mass of the article is well supported by reliable historical sources, which unequivocally endorse that genocidal mass killing took place, perpetrated by nationalist elements of the Turkish state. So I don't see why you question the word 'genocide', BUT I partly agree that the section you highlight is a bit flaccid and imparts little concrete info.Pincrete (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
"Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting." You might want to look at older discussions on the word genocide's controversy. I agree that the section you mentioned needs work, however. -Kravk (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for focusing on the significant point since I couldn't express myself properly. I wasn't trying to commit any denial as it might be understood, but the article should offer significant reasons and sources instead of just giving up like the reasons section I gave above. I wish I had a reliable source to improve it, however it would be really great if someone would detail reasons and give reliable references. Evuntia (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you—I'll try to find some more reliable sources for the "reasons" section. -Kravk (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

"Forced conversion"

The opening includes the sentence "... included massacres, forced conversion to Islam,[4] The source is little more than a propaganda pamphlet. More than that, it does not accuse the Turks of forcing conversion, except, possibly, in the most general terms.Mcdruid (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Mcdruid, apart from the poor source, the issue of conversion is not developed in the body (which the lead should be a summary of) - therefore I have removed it until/unless better sourced, more developed text is in the body itself. Pincrete (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Not genocide, "Allegation"

Anyone remember the principle of impartiality Epitken (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

If the majority of WP:RS call it 'genocide', so do we. Pincrete (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Rummel death estimates

Rummel is simply not a reliable source for death estimates. Christian Gerlach refers to his "greatly inflated numbers",[3] Benjamin Valentino states, "Rummel's estimates tend to be considerably higher than those of most other scholars",[4] and Barbara Harff states, "he chooses numbers of death that almost always are skewed in the direction of the highest guesses".[5] Therefore it lacks a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by WP:RS. The book is not peer reviewed, nor has Rummel done much of any work specialized on Ottoman/Turkish history in particular. Therefore, the WP:ONUS for including material sourced to Rummel is not met. (t · c) buidhe 21:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

None of the above are disqualifying. Statements sich as "Rummel's estimates tend to be higher" and "skewed in the direction of the highest guesses" show disagreement, but do not disqualify the source. What counts as a death during a mass upheaval is after all a grey area. There are usually disagreements among scholars regarding death tolls from events such as genocide, and this case here is no different. Besides, Barbara Harff also states that Death by Government is a good introduction to the general phenomena of state-sponsored mass murder or democide (Rummel's concept). The numerous case studies are a mixture of carefully wrought description of the horrendous suffering of peoples under mainly authoritarian political systems, with just the right dose of personal horror stories to make the book a memorable study of human deprivation and misery. For this effort, Rummel ought to be applauded.. Rummel's estimates for the Pontic Greek genocide are actually entirely reasonable. Rummel is a professor of genocide studies and his book was published by Transaction Publishers, a reputable publisher. To suggest that this publisher does not meet WP:RS is ludicrous and not based on anything. Khirurg (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I definitely agree and I add that the mere fact that this POV was pushed into the article by rapid-fire edit-warring tells me that we are in WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory. Dr. K. 01:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
What's Rummel's expertise on Ottoman/Turkish/Greek studies? None, right? And his statistics don't have a reputation for accuracy, as I point out, just the opposite. Perhaps Davide King or Paul Siebert would like to comment as they have commented elsewhere on the reliability of Rummel's statistics. (t · c) buidhe 04:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
According to Barbara Harff, Rummel's estimate procedure was criticized by Dulic (he criticised him in a context of Yugoslavia, but the criticism is general: the estimates have a lower boundarey, zero, but no higher boundary, so even a single high estimates immediately skews the overall values upwards. Since Rummel never performed any data selection, he was using all published data, that inevitably lead to inflated figures for the data sets with high dispersion). Rummel responded, but Dulic was not impressed by his response. The source: [6]. See Harff's chapter and the refs cired therein.
Everybody who is familiar with Rummel's approach knows that Rummel is not an expert in any country's history. He takes ALL available numbers of deaths and performs no selection of them. Then he calculates the lowest and highest probable values, and and the most probable value. He was interested in global trends, so minor or even major inaccuracies for some concrete country didn't bother him at all. Therefore, his figures are not a result of some independent study, but his own summary of already existing data. His estimates may be accurate if the data set is reliable (cambodia is an example). In other cases, such as USSR or Yugoslavia, it is just a garbage.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Good to know. Regarding the topic the article, the estimates for the death toll range from 289,000 to 750,000. Rummel's estimate of 684,000 is indeed reasonable and certainly not inflated or wildly unrealistic. Khirurg (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Higher estimate are taken from Jones, right. Alas, that is a tertiary source, who is heavily using Rummel's data.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Not only Jones. Hadzidimitriou puts the death toll at 735,000. And Sjoberg states that the "cautious estimates" for the death toll range from 300,000 to 700,000. The rough consensus estimate for the death toll in the Pontus region alone is estimated at 360,000. An estimate of 684,000 for the entire Anatolia region for the period 1913-1923 is not outrageous. Khirurg (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate Rummel figures

Now I will not go into a dispute about whether Rummel is an authoritative source, because I believe that despite the frequent overestimation of numbers, he can be used in an article. However, I cannot remain silent about the fact that his numbers given in the article are grossly falsified. The scientist estimates 84,000 deaths in 1914-1918, not 384,000 and 347,000 for 1914-1923, not 648,000. My words are based on two tables (Table 5.1A, Table 5.1B) in the section "Genocidal purges in Turkey", in which opposite "Greek Genocide" in bold blue are these numbers. It is necessary to correct these numbers. About another source, which is given as a "confirmation" of falsified numbers,then he must be removed, since he misinterprets the source to which he refers, for in the book of Rudolph himself, obviously, precisely the assessment that he cites is given. Demo66top (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

A secondary source is usually preferred, especially when the data is as unclear as is the case with the Rummel charts.Pincrete (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"especially when the data is as unclear as is the case with the Rummel charts" - no, there are no ambiguities about Rummel's numbers. I cite data from the tables of his book: Table 5.1A (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB5.1A.GIF): Turkey genocide of Greeks Deported Marmara Greeks deported 1915 5  ? 40 deported 1914 100 deported 1915 6 200 deported 1915 200 1,000 deported 1914 1918 240 300 Deported dead 1914 1918 60 68 75 Greeks killed Smyrna district killed 1915 6 1 killed 1916 1918 5 soldiers killed 1915 10 Sum 1915 4 1918 10 16 Greek Genocide 1915 4 1918 10 76 84 91 As we can see, 84,000 for 1914-1918, not 384,000. Table 5.1B (https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB5.1B.GIF): Genocide of Greeks by Turks (Domestic): Calculated Domestic 1914 1923 289 347 459 Greek dead 1914 1922 286 Pop. Deficit 1912 1922 313 Final Genocide 289 347 459 Table 10.2 (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB10.2.GIF): Greeks killed 347 By Young Turks 84 By Nationalists 264 As we can see 347,000 for 1914-1923, not 648,000. Now about secondary source: if the secondary source interprets the primary one incorrectly (and I have already demonstrated this), then there is no point in believing it. This is falsification. For example, I could insert any other number into the article, give a link to Rummel and say that he claims this, although he himself gives completely different numbers. Demo66top (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see where the discrepancy lies, BUT the default position is that the secondary source takes precedence. I didn't say ambiguous, I said unclear and I continue to say that is true, just by virtue of being a chart rather than text, everything is unclear. I'm not remotely an expert on the genocide, even less so on Rummel's figures, but we need stronger proof before deciding that Demo66top can read, but the secondary source (and the proof-readers and publishers and reviewers) can't. You could be right, I don't know but we need stronger proofs or more knowledgeable editors to weigh in. I've known too many instances on WP where a seemingly obvious editor conclusion turns out to be wholly wrong for some simple, unforeseeable reason. Pincrete (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, if you don't trust Rummel's tables, let's see what he writes in his book. Statistics of Turkey's Democide (https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP5.HTM): "Not only did the Turks murder Armenians, but Greeks as well. Estimates of this are far fewer (lines 201 to 203), but we do have assessments of those deported (lines 193 to 197) from which to calculate the possible toll (line 198). The actual percentages from which I make this calculation reflect the relevant historical bits and pieces in the sources. Combining this calculation and the sum of the estimates (line 204) suggest a likely genocide of 84,000 Greeks." - he writes this immediately after the calculation of the killed Armenians by the Young Turks, and since the nationalist democide (1919-1922) is described much later, it is clear that we are talking about the Young Turks (1914-1918), the same period is indicated in the table opposite the number 84,000. Demo66top (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you think about this? Rummel in his book in the section "Genocidal purges in Turkey" wrote about 84,000, not 384,000 in 1914-1918 and 347,000 in 1914-1922, not 648,000, plus this can be seen from his three tables describing this section. I think that all this (text+tables) is full enough to appropriately change the numbers in the article and remove from the article a source that says something that Rummel did not claim. Demo66top (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

As I previously said, I know almost nothing about Rummel, but I'm extremely reluctant to say your reading is more accurate than the secondary sources', and in this instance the figues are MASSIVELY different. I've known too many instances on WP where that kind of way of working was ultimately wrong. I'm still unclear because the text you are giving is itself unclear. I was hoping that someone with actual knowledge of the sources would chime in here - or it could be taken to a different noticeboard in the hope that someone could settle this matter. Pincrete (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then let's turn to the help of some experienced participant who knows the topic and understands Rummel's works, so that he can analyze what I have written and summarize. Demo66top (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the number 384,000 in 1914-1918 is virtually impossible, since even Eleftherios Venizelos himself at the Paris conference after the First World War said that in total 300,000 Greeks were killed, which is obviously very overstated, and 384,000 even more. Demo66top (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Demo66top apologies for delay. I was hoping that someone who knew the sources better than I would join the discussion. They haven't, so, on balance, I think you must be right and even if not, someone can 'fix' at a later date. Pincrete (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It's okay, it's not your fault. Thanks for the permission to correct the numbers according to the source. If someone wants to enter the discussion, he can always write here. Demo66top (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2021

The article refers Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's name several times and the Turkish Grand National Assembly as a party to the greek genocide which is factually incorrect. Mustafa Kemal did not come into a position of power nor was the Grand National Assembly established until 1920; 6 years after the start of the greek genocide. The Greek Genocide was perpetuated by the Ottoman Empire and its government. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is mentioned in several parts of the article incorrectly accused as a "Responsible Party", and mentioned in several parts supposedly to provide context to dates mentioned but in reality an attempt to use his name more and more to perpetuate the political propaganda of whoever edited the article. This is a perfect example of historical negationism. Please either remove any mention of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, a Turkish national hero and revered historical leader, and the Turkish Grand National Assembly from tyhe article or provide sufficient sources and evidence to support the lies in the article 176.234.9.5 (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"national hero" to one group of people can be a monster to another group - Hitler, Caesar, Hulagu Khan, and Mao all had their supporters - but I hardly think a modern, rational academic would consider any of them to be 'heroes' - so that in itself is not a reason for removal/editing of a Wiki article 50.111.58.135 (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree on the fact that Kemal didn't instigate the genocide. "committed" or "perpetrated" is a more accurate word. Also, everything else is sourced. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I fully support it. Not only did the events begin 6 years before Mustafa Kemal came to power, there is no clear evidence of his guilt. Yes, you can give several sources accusing him of this. But if we accuse a person of such a serious crime as ethnic cleansing or genocide, we need HUGE AND UNDEFINABLE PROOF. For example, internal correspondence, witnesses, ... How, for example, the guilt of the three pashas in the Armenian genocide was proved. But there is nothing like that about Mustafa Kemal. Hence, he must be removed from the article. Demo66top (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021

The article specifically names Atatürk as a perpetrator. However, historically and factually, the Turks were fighting a war of independence against the Greeks and other European opportunists from 1919-1923. I suggest removing his name considering he is the one who ended the genocide with the population exchange. The Greek Genocide was an Ottoman nationalist regime, not Turkish Republic. 2600:100F:B02A:21CE:8DD3:7FD1:A387:D8A7 (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Table figures

The current table figures are fine and representative about Anatolia, however the figures from Eastern Thrace & Istanbul should be added in order to provide a full picture.Alexikoua (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greek_genocide/Archive_14&oldid=1237195729"