Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject History of Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ..
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is part of WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 Proposals for Article 2 Unprotection? 3 references 4 requested edit in Outcome of Greek Offensive section 5 Numbers 6 Smyrna majority Greek? 7 This paragraph is misleading 8 Proposed merge 8.1 Merge 8.2 Don't merge 8.3 Comments on merger 9 Armistice of Mudanya 10 Major expansion of the background section 11 Expanded and reorganized article 12 OttomanReference's recent edits 13 Meaning of the {{fact}} template 14 Controversial text removed from the article pending further discussion 15 Background + Greco-Turkish War as an extension of the Balkan Wars 16 Viewing this war as an extension of the Balkan Wars

[edit] Proposals for Article

Firstly, I propose that the above section which contains a lot of personal attacks and nonsense, should be deleted, as noone will have any use for it.MegasAllexandros 04:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I totaly agree with you--Hattusili 04:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the section. I trust noone would disagree with the decision. In the future, we should try to be careful not to offend anyone and start a fire. MegasAllexandros 04:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the deletion and archived the piece. It is in Archive 2 now, along with an older section and a section commenting the trolling. From here on, let's try and keep focused on discussing this particular article here. Irrelevant discussions should take place elsewhere. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I regret to see an article that is obviously written by an unobjective author and has many unfair and unsubstantiated (most references are unacademic and politically motivated) attacks. The article is well below wikipedia's standards Please keep politics out of WikiPedia and let the history be done by historians. EDITORS: Please correct and clean the article as much as possible before you "editprotect" it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.169.177.77 (talk • contribs).

How come all the information is based on Greek resources although the events took placed on Turkish territory? My grandparents lived in the western part of Turkey which was occupied by Greek army and they witnessed a massacre executed by the Greek army. Why is this not mentioned?Azak

This article is strongly sided and mostly wrong. The references and the comments show this approach clearly. My family also originated from west part of Turkey. I personally know many people who witnessed massacre and rapes and fires contucted by greek army. They killed animals, burned grains so that Turks cannot use later. Now should I believe this article or people who witnessed ? I think this article should be marked as "NOT OBJECTIVE".User:aergenc

This article is not OBJECTIVE. Turkey won this war, Greece didn't lose it. After the WW1 Turkish Army was tired and exhausted. Although Greek Army was stronger and got full support from England they are simply beaten because of mental and physical strength of the Turkish people and the military geniusty of the Turkish leaders. Greek Army did all inhuman things possible, on the other hand Turkish Army was so sensitive that they haven't even run over the Greek flag. I advice you to change this article. By the way i dont know a place like "Smyrna". It is called İZMİR now!

"Although Greek Army was stronger and got full support from England they are simply beaten because of mental and physical strength of the Turkish people and the military geniusty of the Turkish leaders." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! What about the massive Soviet support that the turks recieved??? Greece got no military support at all from England. "Turkish Army was so sensitive" Oh yeah, the turkish army was very sensitive. I suggest you to read Great Fire of Smyrna. Pay attention to image with the dead bodies of raped and massacred Greeks. "By the way i dont know a place like "Smyrna"." It's a city in the west coast of Asia Minor. It was built by Greeks, dominated by Greeks for at least 2500 years, and it had a majority of Greek populaton which was massacred by the turkish invaders. Mitsos 13:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I wont argue with a person who is idiot enough to dont know that Wikipedia is not a forum. And Great Fire of Smyrna is a rubbish like your knowlage about Turkish-Greek War. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.104.174.165 (talk • contribs).

Don't make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. Consider that you might be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mitsos 10:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Mitsos.."HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA"...is your attack on him, so dont talk about personal attacks when you make one yourself. You are clearly biased and Greek...no prizes for guessing that. You cant even credit Turks for winning the war and liberating their own land and Izmir from Greek occupation. You can belive what you want, and write the nonsense propoganda you want...the facts remain and will vindicate the Turks from your pan-Hellistic propaganda. Whatever you think of Turks does not make them so. Ataturk is the only non-allied commander to be honoured during WWI commemoration days, due to the grace and courtesy he offered to the vanquished side, in the Gallipoli campaign and elsewhere, including Izmir, where he showed respect for the Greek flag where your commanders had walked over the Turkish flag. The article talks of displaced Turkish christians...whatabout the forced migration and killing of Turks fron the Balkans. If you dont know that the English and western forces helped Greek army then you clearly dont know anything about this period. If you want to talk about history like a soccer hooligan supporting his team, maybe you should find a nice Hellenic forum where you can spew your invective. Smyrna was not built by Greeks and not dominated by Greeks for 2500 years. There have been many civilisations in Asia Minor before and after the ancient Greeks. I guess it is not enough for you that Turks have been there for over 700 years. If you sill want to pine after the dark ages, go ahead. By the way, its not Constantinople, its Istanbul...it has been since 1453. All the best.

"HAHAHA" is not a personal attack. It's the same as lol. It's rude, but not an attack. So Smyrna wasn't built by Greeks, right? Then, who built it???????? The mongolians? I don't think so. Smyrna was not liberated by the Turks. It was razed to the ground, and the Greeks of Smyrna were massacred. And this is a fact. Mitsos 09:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you know what you mean by HAHAHAHA, so lets not play any games. Far greater men than you, great military commanders and generals, presidents and kings alike, have acknowledged Ataturk as a great military strategist, soldier and statesman in history. Guns alone do not win wars, it is the soldiers who fight with them and the commanders who lead them that bring victory. The city of Smyrna was not in Greek territory for all of its history. Among others, the Hittites also conquered Izmir and developed the city in ancient Antiquity. To say present day Izmir is a Greek city because ancient Greek civilizations like Lydians and Trojans founded the initial settlement in 3000BC is like saying Ankara is a Hittite city because it was their capital and they gave it the name Ancyra 3000 years ago. Maybe Italy should ask for London back as well, because the Romans built London. And I guess with your proposed logic, New York should be returned back to the Dutch, who built the first settlement and had called it New Amsterdam before the English captured it. Kutalmisoglu Suleyman Shah of the Selcuk Turks conquered Izmir in 1076. This was the first Turkish possesion of the city, which passed back into Byzantine possesion for a period, before being finally conquered for the last time in 1320 for the Ottomans. It remained in Ottoman Turk possesion until the Greek occupation after WWI. The Greek army were the aggresors and occupiers and Izmir was an official Turkish city for 600 years when these events took place. If you cannot accept that after living for 600 years in a city within Ottoman borders, that native Turks who lived there have a geographical and sociological claim to that city, then you are living in your own dream world. Greece tried to expand its territory and even got close to Ankara, but the Turkish forces led by Ataturk were able to repel this invasion. There is no dishonour in defeat, but these allegations are just a dishonest propoganda made by sore losers. Please dont, for a second, confuse your biased anti-Turkish propoganda, with actual fact.

[edit] Unprotection?

Should the article be unprotected? It can't stay protected forever.MegasAllexandros 02:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, list it on WP:RPP. —Khoikhoi 03:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] references

reference 3 http://www.antalya-ws.com [1] is totaly unrelated with the article, it even doesn't have a "history" section. Can we delete it?--Hattusili 04:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I found it, it's in the "Museum" section. —Khoikhoi 04:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any information about Italian military aid to Kemalist Turkish troops on Museumsection either.It is only about the foundation of the museum.--Hattusili 05:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, in that case it can be either replaced with a fact tag or deleted. —Khoikhoi 06:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we use {{Editprotected}} for this? (I think unprotecting the page will cause chaos)--Hattusili 07:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hattusili about causing chaos. However, i think that semi-protection would be the best solution at the moment, and if things will prove to be optimistic, it can be totally unprotected again. --Hectorian 14:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you guys want a reference you should check out "Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor" by Michael Llewellyn Smith. Aristotellis 04:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] requested edit in Outcome of Greek Offensive section

Reference 3 is tottaly unrelated with the "The Italians used their base in Antalya to arm and train Turkish troops to assist the Kemalists against the Greeks" statement.It should be replaced with a fact tag or the statement must be deleted.--Hattusili 05:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a history section on the website but now I can't find it. The site must have been updated. SERGEI

Done --  Netsnipe  ►  15:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I request the editors of this page to replace the citation needed tag in the "The Italians used their base in Antalya to arm and train Turkish troops to assist the Kemalists against the Greeks" statement with a source:"Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor" by Michael Llewellyn Smith. Mitsos 16:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Done --  Netsnipe  ►  16:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.antalya-ws.com/english/location/antalya/whistory.asp

The old source actually has it.

Alexius Comnenus

[edit] Numbers

Numbers are fully wrong.Greek army was over 200.0000 men, i am not sure about this, but i am sure Turkish army couldn't have 450.000 men.This is just a nonsense.When Turkish army began to fight, it had 60.0000 men, and after the defeat at Kutahya-Eskisehir the army lost its half.

There is a dialogue between Mustafa Kemal and Ismet Inonu after the war; talkin about casualties;

Inonu says he had lost 30.000 men and they both proceeds that it was the half of the army.

Middle Anatolia couldn't have recruited 450.000 soldiers after Balkan wars and First World War already.Really impossible guys.

That's true, and I 'm going to fix it Mitsos 08:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to remind you about numbers, they are still the same, thanks for your concern. - M. R.

[edit] Smyrna majority Greek?

There is a citation for the statement that Smyrna was majority Greek at the time of the invasion, but the citation is "Hellenic Army General Staff, 1957, Ο Ελληνικός Στρατός εις την Σμύρνην, p.56"--in Greek!, a Greek military document! Come on, can't we do better than this? --Anthon.Eff 01:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I insist on an edit about the numbers.

THIS ARTICLE IS BIASED!!!!!

[edit] This paragraph is misleading

According to the British historian Patrick Kinross, the Greek retreat involved a scorched earth policy leaving large tracts of land and property ruined or destroyed and the inhabitants of Smyrna close to starvation. Kinross writes "Already most of the towns in its path were in ruins. One third of Ushak no longer existed. Alashehir was no more than a dark scorched cavity, defacing the hillside. Village after village had been reduced to an ash-heap. Out of the eighteen thousand buildings in the historic holy city of Manisa, only five hundred remained"[4]. Talking of the attrocities committed, Kinross goes on to add "Everywhere the Greek troops, especially those from Anatolia, revenging themselves in desperation and in obedience to orders for generations of Ottoman oppresion and persecution, carried off Christian families that their quarters too might be burned and not a roof left for the advancing Turks. They tore up the railway between Smyrna and Aydin. They pillaged and destroyed and raped and butchered"

This paragraph can be offensive. Especially when it says that the Greek troops pillaged and destroyed and raped and butchered. I realize that this is the opinion of a historian, but there is no opinion to present something else. The reader should decide for his/her self what the truth is. The way this is worded, it is as if we are spoon-feeding the reader what to believe. I insist on presenting an altering viewpoint to balance out the equation. Periklis* 06:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This section overrate the few attrocities of the Greek troops, but under-analyse the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Greeks. It is POV and I've tagged it.--Yannismarou 10:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it is definitely an overly biased PoV. It's very narrow and one sided in its depth and Patrick Kinross, who hardly ever cites his work, is one of the most biased sources that could possibly be referenced regarding the Greek retreat. --Xenophonos 02:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

Following the debate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupation of İzmir, it has been suggested that the article should be merged into this one. Parts of this debate are also in the Occupation article's talk.

Please indicate your preference by voting in the respective column. Kindly use only your signature and the timestamp (sign by #~~~~) and if you want to comment, do so only below in the comments section. •NikoSilver• 13:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on merger

• The unique content of the daughter article is limited to 4-5 lines of highly selected text (in Occupation of Izmir#Occupation). Academic sources tend to include this period in a broader timeframe (war) and in a broader geographic extent (Ionia). The rest of the article for Occupation of Izmir only reproduces material from the main and other articles, such as Great Fire of Smyrna. •NikoSilver• 13:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to "vote" just yet, but I think you may be jumping the gun a bit. As always though, I'm not particularly counting on our Turkish contributors to make anything like a decent article out of it, so my opinion hangs in the balance. There are enough sources, but can they do it?. :) - Francis Tyers · 13:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Jumping the gun was not my intention, sincerely. The article has been there for 8 months(!) and the talk about merging it started a good 10 days ago and not by me (diff). I think we have dragged ourselves over a title dispute, due to the apparent WP:POVFORK de{{main}}ing [sic] of this section. We don't really need to argue, and we don't need to wait. Merge now, expand, de{{main}} later, and bitch about the article name then (we'll have more data on how to call it too)! •NikoSilver• 14:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the occupation is notable enough to be separate from the war. Also, Francis, i dont know what you mean by "As always though, I'm not particularly counting on our Turkish contributors to make anything like a decent article out of it". I'm sure your not suggesting that Turkish contributors are less capable of creating a decent article than other contributors, but that is how it reads. --A.Garnet 15:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the tone of Francis' comment either. It's not just a slam on the capabilities of "our Turkish contributors" but also raises the question of why "they" should do it and not "we". Are the sources written in Turkish so that only "they" can do it? Or does this comment originate from a Greek/Turkish POV problem? I got here via AFD and so know very little about this topic. Francis' comment just sounds snide. Forgive me if it wasn't meant in the way that I interpreted it. --Richard 16:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there's an explanation to this. Fran is always courteous to everybody. A misunderstood motivation perhaps? •NikoSilver• 23:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my Talk Page so that we can all discuss A.Garnet's point

Hi Richard, in the afd you state "It appears that the occupation of Smyrna/Izmir was not just a single event in the war but rather the major focal event of the war. If this is not true, I would reconsider my position."

The Occupation of Izmir was only one part of the war. It can be broken down in the occupation of Izmir, First Battle of İnönü, Second Battle of İnönü, Battle of Sakarya, and the Battle of Dumlupınar, and finally the Great Fire of Smyrna. These are all significant stages of the Greco-Turkish war. The current level of content should not detract from the fact that it is a notable part of the war which deserves its own article. Thanks, --A.Garnet 18:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Aaargh! I'm stung again by not having read enough articles on this subject.

I think A.Garnet makes a valid point. However, if you look at the articles for the various battles that he mentions, each article is very short. I would say that we need to be consistent. Either all the battles should be merged into this article or each significant battle should be dealt with separately (and hopefully expanded to have a bit more content). This second option argues for keeping the Occupation of Izmir as a separate article. It is no less significant than the other battles.

However, I think that there is also an inconsistency between the Occupation of Izmir which spans a 3 year period of tiem and the battles which are much shorter in duration. It seems that there was very little about the Occupation of Izmir that is notable between its capture by the Greeks and its recapture by the Turks. (Yeah, there was the creation of the university but that's not enough to tip the scale.)

It would seem to me that, if we were to keep the battles as separate articles, then we should break apart the Occupation of Izmir into Greek capture of Smyrna and Turkish re-capture of Smyrna (of course, I'm open to suggestions for better titles).

--Richard 19:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That exactly reminds me of Hectorian's comment in the AfD. •NikoSilver• 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Greek capture of Smyrna and Turkish re-capture of Smyrna" you said, huh? Not so bad... •NikoSilver• 00:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my Talk Page so that we can involve everybody in the discussion...

From A.Garnet to Richardshusr

In light of what i have said, do you still believe merge and redirect is the most suitable and consistent option? --A.Garnet 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I think it could go either way. I am comfortable with the merge it all into one big article approach (i.e. all the articles not just the Occupation of Izmir but also all the articles on the other battles. This is a close call.

I don't agree with the original argument that this was POV fork although the AFD debate certainly brought out some arguments that suggested that it might have been. Assuming good faith, I would see this as just a question of how to structure multiple articles about the war. Eventually, this could require multiple articles. Right now, it's not clear that multiple articles are necessary. One big article could do the job nicely. Seems like a waste to throw away all the work done on the subsidiary articles, though.

I think the subsidiary articles on the battles are just barely at the level where they could warrant an article unto themselves. What's needed is an expansion of all the articles. I just don't know enough to be able to tell whether there is more that can be written about these articles.

Can you provide an outline of what could be added to the Greek capture of Smyrna or Turkish re-capture of Smyrna articles such that they would warrant being articles of their own separate from the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) article?

--Richard 22:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be researched Richard, what little i added was done in a hour or so. I know we have Turkish contributors here who have access to Turkish sources, and probably our Greek users can source interesting material also, either way I'm certain information can be sourced for its expansion. The point is the article is notable and should remain there to be expanded. Also, i must disagree that the article is a pov fork, user:Ottomanreference clearly created these series of articles (all the ones i mentioned above) with the intetion of allowing more detailed coverage of the Greco-Turkish war, how this makes it a pov fork i dont know. In my rewrite of it i took care to cite the material our Greek users would find controversial and also include casualty figures for both communities, as well as incidents such as the lynching of the Archbishop, but these are not considered when accusing it of a POV fork.

But in all honesty Richard, what has rallied so many of the Greek users to suggst Delete or Merge is not any concern for the content of the article, but rather having an article which uses the term occupation for the Greek presence in Izmir, despite it being both verifiable and the most notable term to use. This is the crux of the matter with our Greek editors, and if you read the discussion on the talk page, you will realise it has been their main concern since before the afd process. But renaming is not a case for afd (nor is merging), it is a matter of consensus based discussion. --A.Garnet 23:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Alf, I'm gonna be frank: I really don't find the word 'occupation' npov. I also don't like splitting articles into bits and pieces without having elaborated on them first. Even if that wouldn't constitute a fork (despite the fact OR confessed so in the AfD page), it is really bad practice. How would you feel if I violated WP:POINT and created the Turkish lynching of the Archbishop of Smyrna with 5 lines of text to see what I mean? •NikoSilver• 00:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have, on a number of occasions, saved articles from deletion by doing the research and expanding the article in the matter of half an hour to an hour. Admittedly, some of these articles were more current than this one is (e.g. Crime in Mexico, Poverty in India, Adaptation to global warming, etc.). Nonetheless, instead of spending all this time debating, somebody should go do some research and render this whole discussion moot by expanding the articles in question. --Richard 05:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

After checking the voters, it can be realized that Greeks support, Turks oppose merging. Emotional POV push from both sides. E104421 05:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

But the important question is: Which side are Wikipedians supposed to be on? I'm neither Greek nor Turk so I don't know which side to vote for. --Richard 07:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[unindenting] - At this point, what I would suggest as a preliminary exercise is to streamline both articles in their present configuration and then see where that leads us. Shorten the "occupation" article taking out all the duplicate "background" stuff, and making sure both articles link seamlessly into each other. Then we'll see with how much really unique material in the subarticle we're left and whether it's really enough for a good branch-out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the article should (for the time being) be merged in this one, until more info would justify its existence as seperate. And in that time, a possible article about 'occupation' in Smyrni should be divided in two: Greek and Turkish occupation. E104421 is right about the emotional part (which i would not call pov-pushing, though); for the Greek 'emotional reasons', i have explained, i guess most of them, refering to international treaties and censuses. For the Turkish reasons, i bet our fellow Turkish users have also plenty of... By falling in the trap of WP:POINT, i can say that i am in the position to create an article titled Turkish lynching of the Metropolitan of Smyrna, which won't be just "5 lines", as NikoSilver said above, and which would probably cause the anger of some readers or users. However, it would be sourced and it would be as much neutral as it can be. Regards to all. Hectorian 12:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, cool down. By doing so, you would also push others to create counter articles. Edit conflicts would turn out to be article creation wars, then all to be voted for speedy deletion. I do not think that it's a good solution. In my opinion, maybe it would be better to generalize the major topics first (by building consensus for all sides, of course, at the same time), then remove the controversial parts. After doing this, minor ones could be merged. Merging should not cause loss of information. The references themselves should also be neutral and based on scientific sources. Everbody should consider the ways to compromise for reaching a consensus in all conflicts, rather than increase the tension. Regards E104421 16:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If the article will have much content and if it would be sourced and ballanced (always according to the sources provided: e.g. that he cooperated with the Greek army, id est turkish pov, and that he was brutaly murdered and dismembered, id est greek pov backed up by sources), 'speedy deleting' would seem like a supreme act of hypocrysy... Cause in that case we will not have to deal with the article's title (there are no doubts about that fact) nor with its content (nowhere in wikipedia the reasons, the background and the details of his lynching are presented). If i create such an article, i really wouldn't mind rephrasing and rewording it, as long as the sources would not be deleted. But in the article we are talking here (Occupation of Izmir), i see no reason for it not be merged: dublicated info, pov title, one-eyed content, sources used in the same exact way in other articles, etc... The only way that i would agree in keeping it seperate would be to rename it into Greek administration of Smyrna or '...of Ionia' (as NikoSilver has proposed before)-npov title, possibilities of article expansion and coverage of more fields, or to rename it into 'Greek occupation of Smyrni' (note: the name in use that time), but (pay attention all on this) to create another one named 'Turkish occupation of Smyrni' (again the name used that time and also according to international treaties, historic facts, majority vs minority population, legal government-have in mind that the legal government was still the one under the Sultan). also, and maybe this is more important than all the rest, such an article would also include 'Great Fire of Smyrni', since it occured when the turks were in charge of the city. Regards Hectorian 17:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, maybe it's better to put everything to its place and time according to neutral scientific sources. Greek & Turkish pov, claims, names,...,etc may be different, but there should be a way to represent the information neutrally, together. We can try to focus on first the major issues, after neutralizing them, maybe we could then find better ways to deal with the minor ones (including renaming, merging, even removing repeated or disputed parts). As i stated above, we should built consensus on the major issues. If the "fire" is to be included we include, if the name is to be changed we change, but what we are doing now is defocusing from the main issues, creating new controversies, article creation/merging/deletion/renaming. Can you safely say that all the articles related with Turkish/Greek conflicts other than the current one are neutral? or Is there any neutral one about these conflicts? Rather than discussing each issue separately or creating new controversies, we can try to determine the pov ones, and start neutralizing them together. If we could provide comprehensive information based on scientific sources, the minor ones would be treated more easily in the future. Regards E104421 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've been giving this some more thought and here's what I would propose...

First off, the current Occupation of Izmir article simply has to go because the scope of that article overlaps too much with the scope of this article. However, we should salvage as much as we can from that article and create new subsidiary articles. Here's what I would propose Transfer of Smyrna to Greece (1919), Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922), Turkish capture of Smyrna (1922). Note that this last article will have great overlap with the Great Fire of Smyrna. We should probably merge the two and make Great Fire of Smyrna redirect to Turkish capture of Smyrna (1922).

Thoughts and comments?

--Richard 09:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your proposals, in my opinion, will create new problems. If we try to improve the quality and the neutrality of the major topics, the minor ones will automatically be solved. I appreciate your proposals but all are minor ones. Administration, occupation, capture and emancipation all are different issues. The fire is not related with the Turkish emancipation. It was started either by Greek forces or an accident. It is riduculous to speculate that the turkish forces would burn their own city. The fire is well known to happen before the arrival of Turkish forces to Izmir. All these speculaions are the result of anti-turkish propaganda which favors the occupation of western anatolia by the greek. On the contrary, if someone starts countering these arguments, the debate starts, even speedy deletion is offered rather than merging or renaming. That's why i'm proposing to start firstly with the major issues but altogether, if we are to compromise. Otherwise, the debate will not end. Regards E104421 10:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Richard, but i disagree with this approach. Why have 3/4 articles covering the same subject (Greek occupation of Smyrna) when you can easily have one? It is needlessly complicated imo. As for the suggested titles, they seem more concerned with appeasing the Greek pov that there was no occupation than with using the most notable and verifiable term. There was no 'transfer' of Smyrna to Greece, Greece invaded by force of arms a whole year before any treaty was signed. The only article which i believe can stand separate is the Great Fire of Smyrna since it is notable and substantial enough to stand on its own. The rest should simply be expanded within a Occupation of Smyrna article. --A.Garnet 12:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[Unindenting] Richard your proposal is NPOV, and that makes it being rejected by the other side. I am tired of eternal compromises that end to POV articles (and this is general). I propose we just do what we have to and merge everything back to the mother article (this one -War) and then we see which one is substantial to drag its own course out of it and be {{main}}ed out. We can bitch about their titles then, when we will have more sources to know how to call them. For the moment, the only article that matches this criteria is the Great Fire of Smyrna. I also find Garnet's position in refuting the most appealing version regarding the fire, an unfair gesture. I suggest to my fellow Turkish editors in engaging themselves to more editing and less argueing. I'd be willing to help, but you can't expect someone to work on articles of disagreeable title and content (plus I am too busy these days). •NikoSilver• 16:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not reject his proposal because i want to push a pov, but because Occupation of Izmir is simply the most notable and verifiable term used for the event, as Francis has shown on the discussion page. It is no different from Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, depsite the fact that Turkish Cypriots consider it a intervention or a peace operation. Even if Turkey did have a right to intervene under the treaty of guarantee, it does not detract from the fact that she launched a military invasion in antoher country. Likewise, if Izmir did have a significant Greek population, she was still occupying the terriroty for another sovereign entity. You have still failed to come up with a valid argument why this title is not npov. --A.Garnet 17:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss all the Greco-Turkish subjects with you in this page Alf. Therefore I do not respond to your obvious one-sided story of all relative and unrelative articles. Also, I am not contesting the title yet. I am contesting the existence of a separate article, and quite efficiently I may add. :-) •NikoSilver• 19:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Without withdrawing my entire proposal, I do want to retract the proposed title Transfer of Smyrna to Greek control. Somehow I got confused and thought that the Greeks had been granted control of Smyrna through the Treaty of Sevres BEFORE they took control. I realized afterwards (late at night and bleary eyed) that the conquest of Smyrna occurred in 1919 and the Treaty of Sevres was signed in 1920. My first proposal Greek occupation of Smyrna is probably a better title. Forgive my muddle-headed confusion. I'm still learning about this topic. --Richard 02:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If such a name is to be given to any article, then the article must cover the uears 1919-1920 (till the signing of the Treaty of Serves) and also, another article has to be created named Turkish occupation of Smyrna covering the years 1922-1923 (till the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne), which, apparently will also include the Fire, which occured when the Turks were in charge of the city. Hectorian 03:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not forget that the Treaty of Sevres was never ratified by the Ottoman Empire and it never came into force.--Hattusili 06:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of that. And that leads to my other proposed title which would be Greek conquest of Smyrna (1919). You know, what threw me off is the claim that Turkish troops were initially ordered not to fire on Greek troops when they landed. Is that true? If so, why was that order given?

Anyway, as I stated above, the parallel to the Greek conquest of Smyrna (1919) article would be Turkish re-capture of Smyrna (1922). The idea is that these two articles would be primarily about military operations and their impact on the civilian population. The Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922) article would discuss the civilian administration under Aristide Stergiadis. Am I getting closer?

--Richard 06:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To Hattusili: the Treaty of Sevres was accepted by the sultan. I do not know if the Ottoman empire ratified the treaty, but it came in for for everyone else. To Richard: as far as i know, the Turkish troops were initially ordered not to fire on Greek troops when they landed because the treaty was something that the sultan had accepted, and also the Greek army did not land to "conquer", but to administer. This is why the Turkish troops did not open fire, this is why the Ottoman flags were not removed, this is why the inhabitants of the regions were not granted greek citizenship and this is why there was the obligarion for a referendum about the regions future to be held 5 years later. Hectorian 08:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian please read the 433rd article of the treaty saying "The present Treaty, in French, in English, and in Italian, shall be ratified. In case of divergence the French text shall prevail, except in Parts I (Covenant of the League of Nations) and XII (Labour), where the French and English texts shall be of equal force. The deposit of ratifications shall be made at Paris as soon as possible." and "From the date of this first procès-verbal the Treaty will come into force between the High Contracting Parties who have ratified it.For the determination of all periods of time provided for in the present Treaty this date will be the date of the coming into force of the Treaty. In all other respects the Treaty will enter into force for each Power at the date of the deposit of its ratification.". So you can decide whether it came into forcr or not.(Also if you want I can provide you neutral sources about this issue)--Hattusili 10:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the article should be merged. I'm definitely not confortable with the way this article is now. I'm still indecisive, however, because the "occupation" was a notable event, but, at the same time, it was a part of the broader Greco-Turkish War. For me, most important is historical accuracy and not so much the merger. What I mean:

• It is a hugely POV article. Sentences like this one: "The Greek soldiers burned all the city before they left. The Turkish Soldiers didn't kill any Greek who lives in Smyrna after the Greek soldiers left Smyrna." are totally inacceptable. Ok, if the Turkish soldiers did not kill anybody, then who killed them? Who killed the bishop Chrysostomos of Smyrna? You'll tell me the mob. Ok, but why aren't these events mentioned?
• The sections are stubby.
• The last section needs expansion (I've tagged it) and analysis.

And more and more and more ... As a matter of fact, it is a terrible article. Even the title is POV: "Occupation". But the Greek army was there implementing an international mandate. Is this an "occupation"?

I don't know if this article will be merged or not, but, if it is not, it needs renaming, un-POV work, layout and referencing improvements, prose improvements etc.--Yannismarou 14:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And an answer to Hattusili who touched legal issues: I'm sorry but as a jurist and former lawyer, I must point out, Hattusli, that your comments concerning the Treaty of Sevres are irrelevant. Of course, the Treaty was not ratified, but the Greek army was not in Izmir implementing a non-ratified Treaty, but implementing the mandate given to Greece by the Supreme Council of the Allies, who was in session in Paris. The mandate was given the April of 1919 after a request of the Greek Prime Minister, Eleftherios Venizelos. Afterwards, the Greek Army disembarked in Izmir, implementing a legal mandate of the Supreme Council and not the Treaty of Sevres, which was not yet even signed. The Treaty was signed in August 1919, after the legal "occupation" of the city by the Greek Army; an "occupation" which was in accordance with the international law, e.g. in accordance with the mandate which was given to Greece the April of 1919. That is why, we do not have to do with an illegal presence of the Greek troops in Izmir and that is why the word "Occupation" used in the title of the article is POV. If the article survives, it definitely needs renaming and it definitely has to respect historical reality - something that it definitely fails to do right now.--Yannismarou 14:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets first decide about the merge and later I can list my reasons for calling the event as occupation and you can list yours for not calling and we can let the people decide about it.--Hattusili 08:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly we have to think about the meaning differences between occupation and war;

Occupation is act of forcefully taking possession of an area, seizure; conquest; possession or settlement of land.(this action is unilateral activity). However, war is state or period of combat between two sides (especially two countries); state of conflict or contention between two sides; theory of combat; effort against something, (there is reciprocity in wars, there are fight and battle between two sides).

Secondly, Occupation of Izmir is an important issue and it could be evaluated in a seperate title.--Karcha 01:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Occupation of İzmir can not be evaluated in Greco_Turkish war article.

This is a İzmir/Symrna related article and it is a unic event that has a major importance in the history of İzmir/Symrna which was created many sunsequential events/conclusions .

If we consider that it is a part of Greco-Turkish war, then many other articles can be accepted as a part of this article also(like as Sevres Treaty, Lausanne Treaty etc.)

Mustafa Akalp^TC 07:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armistice of Mudanya

The current text reads:

The Armistice of Mudanya was concluded on October 11, 1922, with the Allies retaining control of eastern Thrace and the Bosporus, but the Greeks evacuating these areas.

I'm confused as to what this means. Specifically, what is meant by "the Allies retaining control of eastern Thrace and the Bosporus but the Greeks evacuating these areas".

What is meant by "the Allies"? Is this France, Britain and Italy?

According to the Armistice of Mudanya article, it is stated "eastern Thrace as far as the Maritsa River and Adrianople were handed by Greece to Turkey and Turkish sovereignty over Istanbul and the Dardanelles was recognized".

This seems to be a contradiction with the text in this article wherein the Allies retained "control of eastern Thrace and the Bosporus".

Can anyone explain this apparent contradiction?

--Richard 17:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major expansion of the background section

I have just made a major expansion of the background section. Some may think that the background section is now too long. Let me explain my reasoning...

I got here via the AFD debate on the Occupation of Izmir article. I will readily confess that I knew nothing about this war before a few days ago. So, in some ways, I am a good guinea pig for determining whether the article is sufficiently explanatory and helpful to a reader who does not know anything about the topic.

I am sad to say that the answer to the question is No. While looking for additional content to insert into the Occupation of Izmir article, I found information about the "Megale Idea", Constantine I, Venizelos, Alexander and the Treaty of Sevres that were just not well presented in the article. Without this context, it is difficult to understand why this war was fought and what the implications of the Greek loss were.

I think the new content that I have inserted fills this deficiency. I am open to the idea that the text might be tightened up a bit and thus made shorter. However, I think the key ideas need to be presented to help the reader understand better the context in which this war was fought.

--Richard 07:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could reduce the part on "Greece's difficult position in World War I". I had started this Chronology of the Turkish War of Independence; please bear in mind that for the moment it has only been started. Maybe it could help in limiting the time frame for this article and for having a title for the other article (instead of Occupation of İzmir) more in line with the evolution and the space of the occupation. Cretanforever 01:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Occupation of Izmir should be merged, but it definitely needs renaming and un-POV work. Another problem for me is the this article co-exists with the Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922), which is an article with the same topic, but written by other editors. This is another important problem there. Maybe we should merge these two articles under a non-POV title, which will not include the word "occupation". See also my comments in the above section.--Yannismarou 14:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I created the Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922) article as part of a proposal to split the Occupation of Izmir article into three articles: Greek occupation of Smyrna (1919), Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922) and Turkish re-capture of Smyrna (1922). I fully agree that the Occupation of Izmir and Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922) articles should not co-exist in their current form as the scopes of the two articles overlap greatly. If the Occupation of Izmir article is not deleted, then the Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922) should be merged into it. However, the argument for deleting the current content of the Occupation of Izmir article, is that it duplicates much of the material that is already in this article.

--Richard 17:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded and reorganized article

I started expanding the article and somewhere along the way, small reorganizations became bigger reorganizations. I now feel that it is a mistake to try to separate political, diplomatic and military chronologies. For one thing, the separation led to my earlier confusion about which came first: the Treaty of Sevres or the occupation of Smyrna. But more importantly, the story of this war is about how international diplomacy and domestic politics (both Greek and Turkish) influenced the course of the war. This story should be told as a single integrated narrative rather than as two separate threads that the reader has to absorb separately and then integrate himself.

I have made steps towards creating this integrated narrative but more work needs to be done so I have left a {{cleanup}} tag behind to document that the article, as it stands, is still a bit of a mess.

--Richard 17:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OttomanReference's recent edits

While I might not agree with all of OttomanReference's recent edits, it is clear that he has done a lot of work, most of it good. The article was in a mess and is much improved as a result of his efforts.

I also appreciate his making the changes in small increments so as to make it easier to identify and focus on each change separately rather than having to review an entire set of changes in one edit. (Some people would disagree with me and would prefer a single "big edit". To each his own.)

I do have a question about this paragraph "The Greek nationalism was also not challenged. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of the Greek people being remained outside the borders of boundaries of the new Greece, who had no intention that a large Greek state should replace the Ottoman Empire."

I don't understand the meaning of "The Greek nationalism was also not challenged. "

I also think there is text that was deleted in the second sentence. To my memory, it is the Triple Entente (UK, France, Russia) who had no intention that a .... The second sentence as it stands in the current paragraph makes no sense to me. Even if I fix the deletion of the Triple Entente, the paragraph seems to be a series of non-sequiturs. This paragraph needs work. I'm going to delete it with the hope that it will be replaced with a more coherent exposition of the ideas that it is trying to get across.

--Richard 18:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OttomanReference has edited the text in question and it is much improved. However, I am still having trouble with this sentence "Between two-thirds and three-quarters of the Greek people being outside the borders of 1914 Greece, which their intention, or support, that a Greece should replace the Ottoman Empire (Megali Idea) is questionable."

The second part of the sentence seems to duplicate what was already said in the previous paragraph.

As for the first part of the sentence, I think it is important to mention that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the Greek people lived outside the borders of 1914 Greece. However, I do not think that you can draw a direct connection between this fact and "their support of the Megali Idea is questionable".

NB: I am not saying that Greeks outside the borders of 1914 Greece supported the Megali Idea. I have no information on this, one way or another. What I am saying is that the current text does not provide any support for the connection that seems to be made by this sentence. In any event, I think we need a citation to support any assertion on this question.

--Richard 20:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually this exact statement needs citation. The only logical explanation is that Greeks (66 or 75% of them) that lived in Anatolia would definitely want to be self-governed. I am curious to find out which source supposedly considers that they would prefer to be governed by a separate ethnicity of different language, religion and customs (or that they would prefer to leave their homes and migrate pennyless across Aegean). So, you can keep the first part, but delete the second until WP:INDY citation is provided. The rest of the text needs other citations too, but this one has gone too far IMO! NikoSilver 22:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of the {{fact}} template

User:Hectorian removed a {{fact}} template from the "Venezelism movement" section. The {{fact}} does not necessarily mean the inserting editor believes the assertion is false. It could just mean that the inserting editor thinks a citation would help the credibility of the article. Even if the inserting editor IS challenging the truth of the assertion, it is not sufficient to reaffirm the truth of the assertion as a reason for removing the {{fact}} template. If there is any doubt as to the truth of an assertion, then a citation should be provided.

--Richard 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

U are right Richard. just i cannot understand why the specific citation is asked for... The next sentence is In May 1917, after the exile of Constantine.... so, it is obvious that Though Constantine did remain decidedly neutral, the influence of Prime Minister of Greece Eleftherios Venizelos is evident. cause of Venizelos and the support he gained (among the Allies, the Greek population, army and parliament-note Venizelos had the absolute control of a democratically elected parliament that time), the king was forced to leave the country. i doubt if i can find a source saying clearly that his infuence was evident, cause i think that noone would ever bother to write down the obvious... Hectorian 17:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the assertion is kind of obvious and doesn't really warrant a {{fact}} tag. However, I disagree that it would be impossible to find a citation. A citation is the best defense against a POV challenge to an "obvious" fact.

Ironically, you are now insisting on inserting a {{fact}} tag on the assertion that "not all Greeks in the Ottoman Greek millet supported the Megali idea". OttomanReference inserted this text although I have been involved in cleaning it up.

I don't have a strong opinion on this assertion. I would like to understand what your objection is.

I think it is reasonable to assume that some Greeks in the millet preferred their status in the Ottoman Empire to being subject to the Greek king. The question is whether there were enough such Greeks to warrant making the point in this article. OttomanReference asserts the attempt to create a Republic of Pontus as an example of Greeks who did not want to be part of the Kingdom of Greece. Do you reject this as a valid "proof by existence" of the assertion? If so, why?

--Richard 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course there were Greeks who prefered their status in the Ottoman Empire, rather than become subjects to the Greek King. according to my knowledge, these were wealthy Greeks who prefered the "status quo" and did not wanna risk their property through tax reforms (note that many wealthy Asia Minor Greeks contributed to the Asia Minor Expedition though). I just insist (and will continue to) that these people were few, rather few to be mentioned here (there are many examples in world history of people who were in favour of another ethnic group than the one they belong, and even fought against their compatriots). The Republic of Pontus that u mentioned (and which i saw been used to justify that edit), was a different case, directly connected with the Megali Idea, and by no means can it be seen as if the Greek Pontians indeed wanted a separate state. they tried to form a republic, after Venizelos' encouragement, since, at that point, it was imposible for Greece to send troops and annex a so remote area. To verify what i am saying, and to pre-occupy any possible further attempt to isolate the area and the Greeks of Pontus from the Greeks (in general) and from this war (specifically), i could just mention Metropolitan Chrysanthus of Trapezounta (the most prominent Pontian of that time), who, after the war, became Archibishop of Athens... Hectorian 18:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I get your point. I am removing the text and inserting it below. We should discuss this further before re-inserting it into the text. --Richard 19:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced either way at this time. What I would like to see is a citation that indicates that a reliable source thinks that this point is significant in the history of the war. Otherwise, it seems like WP:OR from our friend OttomanReference. --Richard 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial text removed from the article pending further discussion

I have removed the text below from the article per the discussion with Hectorian above. While the truth of the assertion is not disputed, the significance of this group is questioned.

Not all of the Ottoman Greek millet supported^{[citation needed]} the form of Greek nationalism developed in Greece as the Megali Idea. Not all Greeks who lived outside the 1912 borders of Greece supported the idea that of a national Greece that would have jurisdiction over them. Nor did they all support the idea of being subject to the King of Greece.^[1]. For example, the Greeks of the Black Sea (Pontic Greek) gathered in Trabzon on February 23, 1918 and resolved to work towards the establishment of a Pontian Greek Republic.

--Richard 19:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In any case, sources will have to be cited to support the dubious claim that there were Greeks who preferred Turkish rule, as implied by User:OttomanReference. And of course, the desire of the Pontians to establish their own state can hardly be interpreted as a rejection of Greek nationalism. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background + Greco-Turkish War as an extension of the Balkan Wars

I have tried to clean up the mess made by a number of edits which, while making some worthwhile points, also included assertions that were only marginally relevant or that provided excessive detail. I removed some assertions and moved some to other articles leaving behind a summary.

One thing that we need to remember is that the focus of this article is the war itself and we need to ensure that the Background article section does not grow to the point where it dominates the article and overwhelms the discussion of the war. The reader should not have to slog through a long discussion of turn-of-the-century Greek and Balkan history before getting to the discussion of the war itself.

I know that I started this by introducing the discussion of the Megali Idea, Venizelos and Constantine I but I meant for the treatment to only cover a few paragraphs. That is why I have been shortening the Background section back to more manageable proportions.

One thing that I am still wrestling with is the idea that this war was an extension of the Balkan Wars. I can believe that this is true but I need a deeper understanding before I can figure out how to present the idea in a way that the reader can understand.

I have removed the image of people migrating as it seems not directly relevant to the argument.

--Richard 18:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this war was an extension of WWI, not the Balkan Wars. If we say it was their extension, then we will have to say that they had been the extension of the Greco-Turkish war of 1897, or of the Cretan uprisings, and they, in turn of the Greek Revolution, linking all these things back untill 1453 or maybe 1071... Hectorian 18:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viewing this war as an extension of the Balkan Wars

I removed the following text per the discussion above with Hectorian. It may be worthwhile to discuss the greater historical and geopolitical context but, as Hectorian points out above, this war is most directly an extension of World War I, not of the Balkan Wars.

The Greco-Turkish war can be viewed as an extension of the Balkan Wars played within the greater geopolitical context of the World War One.

--Richard 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)