Talk:Greek genocide: Difference between revisions
→Lead: I agree |
|||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
[[Pacification]] is the correct term for such a campaign, and since antiquity there is more than one interpretation of the term "''Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.''" [[Tacitus#Agricola (De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae)|Tacitus]], but in the interests of moving this article forward we can strike it out, if on reflection you still think it is not appropriate. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 11:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
[[Pacification]] is the correct term for such a campaign, and since antiquity there is more than one interpretation of the term "''Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.''" [[Tacitus#Agricola (De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae)|Tacitus]], but in the interests of moving this article forward we can strike it out, if on reflection you still think it is not appropriate. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 11:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Thank you Philip for your answer as well as the delightful Latin excerpt. In the lead I think we can include the positions of the various governments on the recognition of the event as a genocide or not, without going into the details. However if the position of the Turkish government is that it was "pacification" this can be included in the section where the various governmental positions are expounded. This will allow for all the positions to be featured, analysed and compared in one section without the need to prematurely clutter the lead with the details of the viewpoints of the individual state parties. This was the last point of disagreement with your position but after this modification I am in full agreement with you. Thank you for your excellent effort Philip. [[User:Tasoskessaris|Dr.K.]] ([[User talk:Tasoskessaris|talk]]) 16:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
::Thank you Philip for your answer as well as the delightful Latin excerpt. In the lead I think we can include the positions of the various governments on the recognition of the event as a genocide or not, without going into the details. However if the position of the Turkish government is that it was "pacification" this can be included in the section where the various governmental positions are expounded. This will allow for all the positions to be featured, analysed and compared in one section without the need to prematurely clutter the lead with the details of the viewpoints of the individual state parties. This was the last point of disagreement with your position but after this modification I am in full agreement with you. Thank you for your excellent effort Philip. [[User:Tasoskessaris|Dr.K.]] ([[User talk:Tasoskessaris|talk]]) 16:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
From a grammatical point of view, the second sentence should be split up into two. For example, "The campaign included persecutions, massacres, expulsions, and [deportations involving] death marches [STOP]" and then a separate sentence can deal with estimates for death toll. Note that using the term "campaign" in solitude is not particularly concise. What type of campaign was it? -- genocidal campaign? |
|||
Using the term "persecutions" is also ambiguous as many of the following terms (massacres, expulsions, etc) can be categorized as persecutions. |
|||
Pontian Greeks were indeed "Anatolian Greeks" but the phrase "300,000 to 360,000 Anatolian Greeks" is misleading since one might assume that only 300,000 to 360,000 Anatolian Greeks died as a whole, when really you are referring in particular to the Anatolian population of Pontus. I assume the reason you chose the term "Anatolian Greeks" is because death toll estimates (Rendel etc) in the article are not restricted to Pontus. If you want to be exclusive and speak only of the plight of the Pontians perhaps material in the article should be restricted only to Pontus too -- otherwise, one might accuse the compilers of the article of historical distortion. |
|||
"The survivors and the expelled took refuge mostly in the nearby Russian Empire (later, Soviet Union)". This is misleading. Only a small portion of Greeks ever sought refuge in Russian. What is your source for statistics pertaining to the Russian influx? |
|||
"Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations in 1922–1923". Remember an "exchange" of populations was only formalized and legalized in 1923. Be concise – consider using terms like expulsion, migration, etc instead. |
|||
"Some other organisations ... including both the parliament of Greece and that of Cyprus." Perhaps use another word to describe governments and states; they are not "organizations" per se. |
|||
Finally, remember that the IAGS didn't recognize or endorse the term "Pontic Greek Genocide". I am not saying you claimed it is so but I want to make a point. The term actually endorsed and used by the President of the IAGS in the resolution press release was "Greek Genocide". The organization affirmed that all Anatolian Greeks (incl. Pontians) were subject to genocide. This article as it stands is awfully exclusive and replete with sophistries. Please see "Regional Isolation in the Greek Genocide Thesis" on http://www.greek-genocide.org/pontus.html for more info. I also see the article attaches much significance to Fotiadis’ works. Consult http://www.greek-genocide.org/review_photiades.html |
|||
[[User:Bebek101|Bebek101]] ([[User talk:Bebek101|talk]]) 05:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 04:29, 30 June 2008
 | Greece B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Turkey B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 |
This article can be in the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks. |
 | Military history: Ottoman B‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||||||||
Lead
- See previous discussion: Talk:Pontic_Greek_Genocide/Archive_8#Lead Talk:Pontic_Greek_Genocide/Archive_8#Article title
I propose that the article is moved to Pontic Greek genocide so that it is a descriptive name (see WP:MOS#First sentences) so that the lead can be rewritten to say:
During and in the aftermath of World War I the Ottoman government conducted a campaign against the Greek population of Pontus. The campaign included persecutions, massacres, expulsions, and death marches during which the number of deaths that occurred according to various sources ranges from 300,000 to 360,000 Anatolian Greeks. The survivors and the expelled took refuge mostly in the nearby Russian Empire (later, Soviet Union). The few Pontic Greeks who had remained in Pontus until the end of the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) were exchanged in the frame of the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations in 1922–1923. The Turkish government (Turkey is the successor state to the Ottoman Empire) maintains that there was a large scale
pacificationcampaign carried out in the region because the Greek population was seen as sympathetic to the enemies of the Ottoman state and a potential fifth column. The Allies of World War I took a different view condemning the Ottoman government sponsored massacres as crimes against humanity. More recently the International Association of Genocide Scholars have passed resolution that Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire, including the Pontian Greeks, was a genocide. Some other organisations have also passed resolutions recognising the campaign as a genocide including both the parliament of Greece and that of Cyprus.
It explains what happened (at least as far as is currently mentioned in the article) and it mentions the three major POVs and it would allow the article to be unprotected. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the proposed move and most of the text save for the pacification part. Maybe we can clarify Turkey's position without resorting to euphemistic terms or state propaganda, especially in the lead section. The same goes of course for any other state involved be it Cyprus or Greece. Overall this is the first time in this discussion that I can see real hope in ending this stalemate and for this, Philip, I give you credit. Dr.K. (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Pacification is the correct term for such a campaign, and since antiquity there is more than one interpretation of the term "Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant." Tacitus, but in the interests of moving this article forward we can strike it out, if on reflection you still think it is not appropriate. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Philip for your answer as well as the delightful Latin excerpt. In the lead I think we can include the positions of the various governments on the recognition of the event as a genocide or not, without going into the details. However if the position of the Turkish government is that it was "pacification" this can be included in the section where the various governmental positions are expounded. This will allow for all the positions to be featured, analysed and compared in one section without the need to prematurely clutter the lead with the details of the viewpoints of the individual state parties. This was the last point of disagreement with your position but after this modification I am in full agreement with you. Thank you for your excellent effort Philip. Dr.K. (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
From a grammatical point of view, the second sentence should be split up into two. For example, "The campaign included persecutions, massacres, expulsions, and [deportations involving] death marches [STOP]" and then a separate sentence can deal with estimates for death toll. Note that using the term "campaign" in solitude is not particularly concise. What type of campaign was it? -- genocidal campaign? Using the term "persecutions" is also ambiguous as many of the following terms (massacres, expulsions, etc) can be categorized as persecutions. Pontian Greeks were indeed "Anatolian Greeks" but the phrase "300,000 to 360,000 Anatolian Greeks" is misleading since one might assume that only 300,000 to 360,000 Anatolian Greeks died as a whole, when really you are referring in particular to the Anatolian population of Pontus. I assume the reason you chose the term "Anatolian Greeks" is because death toll estimates (Rendel etc) in the article are not restricted to Pontus. If you want to be exclusive and speak only of the plight of the Pontians perhaps material in the article should be restricted only to Pontus too -- otherwise, one might accuse the compilers of the article of historical distortion. "The survivors and the expelled took refuge mostly in the nearby Russian Empire (later, Soviet Union)". This is misleading. Only a small portion of Greeks ever sought refuge in Russian. What is your source for statistics pertaining to the Russian influx? "Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations in 1922–1923". Remember an "exchange" of populations was only formalized and legalized in 1923. Be concise – consider using terms like expulsion, migration, etc instead. "Some other organisations ... including both the parliament of Greece and that of Cyprus." Perhaps use another word to describe governments and states; they are not "organizations" per se. Finally, remember that the IAGS didn't recognize or endorse the term "Pontic Greek Genocide". I am not saying you claimed it is so but I want to make a point. The term actually endorsed and used by the President of the IAGS in the resolution press release was "Greek Genocide". The organization affirmed that all Anatolian Greeks (incl. Pontians) were subject to genocide. This article as it stands is awfully exclusive and replete with sophistries. Please see "Regional Isolation in the Greek Genocide Thesis" on http://www.greek-genocide.org/pontus.html for more info. I also see the article attaches much significance to Fotiadis’ works. Consult http://www.greek-genocide.org/review_photiades.html Bebek101 (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)