Talk:Great Fire of Smyrna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Great Fire of Smyrna article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
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.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.


I know that according to a book the troops that invaded Smyrna and were to blame for the distruction of the city were Kurdish. Kemal Ataturk had promised them (for once more in their history) an indipendant state if only they would back him up with military to win the Greco-Turkish war. Obviously Ataturk couldn't control them and the unleashed Kurdish fioury resulted in the total distruction of Smyrna, which marked the end of a 2000 year continious Greek presence in Asia minor. Mroulias 13:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Name of the book, author, edition, page? DenizTC 14:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


According to Michael Llewellyn-Smith in his book "Ionian Vision", 1973,1998 which, though largely derived from Greek sources is generally regarded as very scholarly the Turks started the fire and carried out the massacre and rapes. Edward Riou

A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin, which is one of the latest scholarly accounts of the event also claims that the Turks started the fire. AlexiusComnenus 00:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC) AlexiusComnenus 00:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Bias

"Furthermore, in his book's introduction, Consul Horton states that "he was [in Smyrna] up until the evening of September 11, 1922, on which date the city was set on fire", which would disqualify him as an eyewitness, since the fire had started on 13 September."

There doesn't seem to be any credible source confirming the exact date when the fire started, so why should that disqualify Horton as an eyewitness? And the source that is cited is another person's assesment of Horton's character, which has nothing to do with the veracity of Horton's claim. I'm deleting this sentence, since it seems to exhibit bias.Zambetis 07:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Sources indicate that the fire may have started before September 13, so Horton cannot be disqualified as an eyewitness.--Yannismarou 08:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

~~ Horton is a qualified eyewitness. I doubt the Greek army started the fire. Why would Greeks burn what they considered a Greek city? Third party accounts stated that the fire began after the Turkish army entered the city. Also, why was the Greek quarter that was torched and not the Turkish quarter if the Greek army started it? The article seems to give an emphasis on the Greek army retreat as though it was the most viable perpetrator. Also, equally interesting there is no evidence that proves Kemal Ataturk's innocence in it's planning. By ApplesnPeaches ~~

Quote: " Why would Greeks burn what they considered a Greek city?" Question: Why would the Turks burn what they considered a Turkish City? Was the Turkish Army loosing battle? Was there any need for a scorched earth policy? Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Applesnpeaches (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC) (To the author of the above quote) Fair enough. But you haven't discussed my mentioning about third party statements saying they witnessed Turks lighting the fires.
Also, how would the Greeks start a fire that began 4 days after the Turkish army took over the city and why would it begin in the Armenian quarters which were closed off by the Turkish military soldiers? Do you have an interesting possible reason that shows Greeks could still have burnt the city after their army had retreated and they were fleeing to the port for rescue by the aggressive response of the Turks? Applesnpeaches (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When did the fire start?

I don't have the book at the moment, but as far as I remember he himself states that, doesn't he? DenizTC 02:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
He may state so Deniz, and there is no other evidence or account in the article to support the claim that the fire began on 13 September to disqualify Horton's claim. The way this sentence is written smacks of NPOV. If it makes you feel better keep it as it is, I have no intention of starting an edit war over an already poorly written article.Zambetis 07:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I have a book (by the Greek department of National Geographic) stating that the fire started from the Armenian suburbs in the evening of August 31. Melville Chater in an article of his in "National Geographic" in 1925 says that "some days after the Turks entered Izmir, flames appeared from the Armenian district". Therefore, it seems that he places the beginning of the fire some days after September 8. But how many days after? Therefore, do we have any credible sources verifying that the fire started on September 13? If yes, OK. If no, then we have a huge problem here concerning the article's credibility and claims, since the article starts like that: "The Great Fire of Smyrna is the name commonly given to the fire that ravaged İzmir/Smyrna starting 13 September 1922 and lasted for four days until the 17 September".--Yannismarou 09:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we can safely assume that there are conflicting reports on who, where and when the fire started. Therefore it is quite evident that the introductory paragraph is biased, especially since there is no citation for the start date. Further passages in the article suggest the same:

“While some sources believed the fire to be the continuation of the scorched earth policy of the Greeks, some believed Armenians had received instructions to burn İzmir as a sacred duty and to bring about an international intervention.”

Source?

"Turkish sources point out to other documents; for example the official report drawn by the Chief of Smyrna Fire Fighting Department, Paul Grescowich, an Austrian national of Serbian origin, as well as an alleged[citation needed] telegram from Turkish commander in chief Mustafa Kemal."

Source for the official report? And what is an "alleged telegram"?

This article is in need of a major rewrite and there's no real point in nitpicking this point or that.Zambetis 12:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Horton: a few facts

Was George Horton biased towards Greeks? The following excerpt from his book provides an answer:

...I am neither “pro-Greek,” “pro-Turk,” nor anything except pro-American and pro-Christ. Having passed the most of my life in regions where race feeling runs high, it has been my one aim to help the oppressed, irrespective of race, as will be shown by documents submitted later, and I have won the expressed gratitude of numerous Turks for the aid and relief I have afforded them on various occasions.

I am aware of the many noble qualities of the Turkish peasant, but I do not agree with many precepts of his religion, and I do not admire him when he is cutting throats or violating Christian women...

Was George Horton an eyewitness of the burning of Smyrna? The following excerpts from his book provide an answer:

...On the morning of the ninth of September, 1922, about eleven o’clock, frightened screams were heard. Stepping to the door of my office, I found that a crowd of refugees, mostly women, were rushing in terror upon the Consulate and trying to seek refuge within, and that they were very properly being kept out by the two or three bluejackets assigned for the defense of the consular property...

...The Archbishop Chrysostom came to the Consulate but a short time before his death, together with the Armenian Archbishop. Chrysostom was dressed in black. His face was pale. This is the last time that I saw this venerable and eloquent man alive...

...Great clouds of smoke were by this time beginning to pour down upon the Consulate. The crowd in the street before this building, as well as that upon the quay, was now so dense that the commanding naval officer told me that in ten minutes more I should not be able to get through. The hour had struck for me to evacuate my colony, to find some refuge for it in a Christian country, and to find means for its temporary sustenance...

Whoever still disputes that George Horton was an eyewitness to the destruction of Smyrna is a pathological liar.

How did he come to feel so strongly against the Turks? The following excerpts from his book provide an answer:

...A series of sporadic murders began at Smyrna as at Saloniki, the list in each morning’s paper numbering from twelve to twenty. Peasants going into their vineyards to work were shot down from behind trees and rocks by the Turks. One peculiarly atrocious case comes to mind: Two young men, who had recently finished their studies in a high-grade school, went out to a vineyard to pass the night in the coula (house in the country). During the night they were called to the door and chopped down with axes...

...Most of the Christian houses in Asia Minor are built of a wooden framework, which serves as an earthquake proof skeleton for the walls of stone and mortar. The Turks pulled the houses down by laying a timber across the inside of the window—or doorframe—to which a team of buffaloes or oxen was hitched. A Turk would reside in one of the houses with his wife, or with his goats and cattle, and thus tear down a circle of houses about him. When the radius became too great for convenience, he moved into the center of another cluster of houses. The object of destroying the houses was to get the wooden timbers for firewood...

...The complete and documentary account of the ferocious persecutions of the Christian population of the Smyrna region, which occurred in 1914, is not difficult to obtain; but it will suffice, by way of illustration, to give only some extracts from a report by the French eye-witness, Manciet, concerning the massacre and pillage of Phocea, a town of eight thousand Greek inhabitants and about four hundred Turks, situated on the sea a short distance from Smyrna. The destruction of Phocea excited great interest in Marseilles, as colonists of the very ancient Greek town founded the French city. Phocea is the mother of Marseilles. Monsieur Manciet was present at the massacre and pillage of Phocea, and, together with three other Frenchman, Messieurs Sartiaux, Carlier and Dandria, saved hundreds of lives by courage and presence of mind... --Tedblack 10:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source

I bumped onto this the other day. Since I'm not familiar with the debate here, I thought I should drop it for your attention. NikoSilver 14:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And this. NikoSilver 15:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source pre-dating event

Two news articles, both pre-dating the event that is the subject of this article, were recently added to the article. It is logically impossible for them to document or otherwise reliably refer to the subject of the article. Either a secondary source references these articles, in which case it should be cited instead, or this represents original synthesis. Jakew 23:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What are the important sources?

At the time of writing, a disproportionate amount of the article content is devoted to the (tellingly titled) "Pro-X Sources as to Who Is Responsible" sections. This, I strongly suspect, is an artifact of the editing process, rather than being a carefully thought-out narrative. Certainly, I find it a poor way to tell the story, and it is confusing and uninformative to read. As a reader, rather than one with much knowledge about the subject, I am more interested in the events themselves (together with the consequences and historical commentary) than in who was to blame.

In my view, the article would benefit from (as a minimum), harshly selecting the most important of these sources (preferably with reference to a secondary source) and combining them into a single section ("Debate over culpability"? Or perhaps someone can think of something better?). Ideally, they should be integrated into the overall narrative of the events, aftermath, and historiography, but that may take longer.

I would therefore request that editors identify the most important sources on either 'side', so that they can be discussed here. Also, please stop the edit war. Jakew 12:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Western Historians Claim Turks Burned Smyrna

For example, Niall Ferguson from Harvard in War of the World and David Fromkin of Boston University in A Peace to End all Peace claim that the Turks burned Smyrna. We should stop focusing on secondary sources and list primary sources. All major historians publish that the Turks burned Smyrna. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.238.58 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia should use secondary sources wherever possible. Please see WP:PSTS. Jakew 09:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Pro-Greek" sources

In what way sources that document the destruction of Smyrna by the Turks are "pro-Greek"? If a historical event is documented and the facts prove that one side committed a crime, are the historians responsible biased? By this ridiculous argument historians that have documented the Holocaust are "anti-German"!! Can we attempt to implement the NPOV guidelines in a way that does not give rise to nonsense?--Tedblack 14:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said above in #What are the important sources?, I'm not keen on the 'Pro-X' labelling either. Perhaps you'd care to comment on my suggestion in the above section? Jakew 09:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Niall Ferguson has provided a well researched history of the events in his book "The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Decline of the West"; however this book is not entirely devoted to this event. I have already given a list of academic sources both in the article and the discussion. There have been attacks on some of these sources claiming that they do not offer a balanced judgement. But all they are doing is documenting events from either personal experience (George Horton) or thorough research (Marjorie Housepian Dobkin).--Tedblack 15:09, 23 August 2007 (UTCWell, at the time I had organized the sources under two main groups so that they would look balanced. This is necessary if the article will have any chance of getting the POV tag removed.


I had initially named them something like Sources Claiming Greek Responsibility and Sources Claiming Turkish responsibility. But this met objections as to claiming ones innocence is not the same as claiming guilt of the other etc. So I changed it into the current form. The Pro was meant to be understood in this context only as to who is responsible, and not in the sense that the source was already biased to begin with. But if you do not like it something like

Sources Claiming Greek Responsibility and/or Turkish Innocence
Sources Claiming Turkish Responsibility and/or Greek Innocence

would also work for me. If you any have other suggestions they are of course welcome. But it has to be balanced, i.e. one cannot name one section as Pro-Turkish Sources while naming the other one as say, Neutral Sources Claiming Greek Innocence and Total Turkish Responsibility. You need to come up with a title of the form Something Something X Something Something, where X=Turkish in one case, and X=Greek for the other.

On a different note, The Pro-Greek section is too long and will need to be shortened to match the length of the Pro-Turkish section. Current length can be misleading in making the reader think that there is more Pro-Greek sources and more acceptance of the Pro-Greek point of view (needless to say, I am once again using the Pro's only for this context). Best regards, --Kudret abi 07:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)--

The POV and absurd contexts should be removed, and if your going to claim it is Pro-Greek or Turkish you need sources. --Vonones 07:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The claim that in any article there should be an equal presentation of pro- and anti- sources is absurd. What we should be concerned about is collecting authoritative sources about the event. If these sources prove that the Turks were cold blooded murderers then tough luck. --Tedblack 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This needs a citation:

"Many accounts proposed by some Western scholars that the Turks burned the Armenian and Greek quarters and Nurettin Pasha, the Turkish commander of troops in Ionia, is accused of starting the fire deliberately in an act of retribution. There exist conflicting eyewitness accounts and evidence over who started the fire."

Saying Pro-Greek Sources as to Who Is Responsible or pro-Turkish is nonsense it should be included only in external links if necessary.

This needs sources:

"They then decided to burn them out by setting the building alight. According to this account, other Armenians in Smyrna, meanwhile, started another fire elsewhere to divert Turkish attention"

Someone just wrote this? --Vonones 07:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Vonones you deleted the official report of Paul Grescowich, ı know it was unsourced, but still that section do exits with the name of "official report"..How come? What now exists in the article is not their official report but what housepian Dobkin claimed as their "initial" observations..--laertes d 10:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed other context including POV against Turks, we need to neutralize this article remove unsourced material that will only confuse the viewer. Anyway it was unsourced so there is no way to verify it. --Vonones 22:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess i cant make myself clear to you Vonones, there is such thing as an "official report of Paul Grescowich", however it was unsourced and you deleted it..İt is fine until here but there still exist a section called "official report" althought there isnt any official report in it since you deleted it but there only exist something what Dobkin claimed as their initial statements..--laertes d 00:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Right when sources are found I will add it back up pretty simple. --Vonones 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Alleged'

Alleged should not be used per WP:WTA --Vonones 22:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

These statements are coming from someone called Akis Harabapulos, a guy from "Hellenic Council", i guess there is no need to say that he is not impartial in this issue..And the reference to him is poorly made, no page number is given for the reference..there isnt any Turkish commander called Mehmet Azıt, how could he be able to give these commands that akis claimed? it is quite reasonable to name that section as "alleged orders issued as scene"..--laertes d 00:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Vonones, if there is no such commander, then the source is not reliable. What Laertes says about Hellenic council, adds to this. We can't have it. 'Alleged' can be used, but it should be noted who 'alleges'. Also, the current title gives the impression that these orders were real, and we don't have a reliable source supporting it, at least at the moment. DenizTC 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a few sources plus the quote is also found here: [1], just because there are no sources found yet doesn't mean you get to put alleged'. --Vonones 03:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That also is a pro-greek source as the name of the site makes it obvious.. I can repeat the same thing then for the section you deleted, just because there isn't any source found yet doesnt mean you get to delete the official report of Gresowich..Plus there isnt any WP:WTA statement that "alleged" can't be used..When you find some reliable source come back again and change it to the way you want..Until then the wording "alleged" is a fine compromise..Such websites with propaganda purposes are not to be used in wikipedia actually..--laertes d 12:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter they are sourcing someone else. --Vonones 21:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does matter, you have to use verifiable and reliable sources..A propaganda site is not a reliable source..Neither someone from "Hellenic council"..Plus there is no way to check this source for its verifiability: "Haralabopoulos, Akis, Hellenic Council of New South Wales 1996"--laertes d 09:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggestion

Can somebody explain to me why we 'taint' the article with all the blockquotes and all the not-so-reliable or irrelevant sources? Wouldn't it be better to have a more wiki-like, encyclopedic, NPOV article with nothing but reliable sources? Also events unrelated to the fire should not have its place here, this is not the article for that. A general background is fine. I don't really understand the abusive use of blockquotes, are they used to make some points? Wikipedia does not take stance. This article should possibly be rewritten. Tedblack you can help, but not like this. DenizTC 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The situation here is very simple: there is overwhelming evidence, from unbiased academic sources that the Turks slaughtered and burned the Christian population of Smyrna. Because these are Turkish crimes most Turkish academics will be reluctant to research them. Therefore most of the academic research will come from Christian/Western sources. These sources are then accused of 'bias' and 'pro-Greek' views. This circular argument is repeated as a 'NPOV' argument.

Wikipedia has to take a stance when the facts support it. Wikipedia has taken a stance on the Armenian Genocide (the article is even locked to protect it from the malicious Turkish attacks that plague this article). The article quite rightly presents the Turks in a very bad light. Wikipedia must take a stance on the Destruction of Smyrna. Who cares what the miscelaneous Turks think.--Tedblack 16:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Then show us the overwhelming evidence from unbiased academic sources, not these. You are yourself an editor that was blocked for attacks; I would suggest you be careful when talking like above (eg. are you plaguing this article?). And Armenian Genocide is not fully protected. Anyway, I am sure we don't have an User:Ararat arev (see this) attacking it. Wikipedia never takes a stance, it is only intermediary, it just reflects what is out there. I hope your definition of unbiased academic source is a correct one. DenizTC 15:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Deniz your concerns are made up. There is no objective definition of an "unbiased" source. For all we know all those people writing about the Holocaust may be doing that because they hate the Germans. What really hurts you is the overwhelming evidence coming from academic researchers which shows the crimes the Turks perpetrated at Smyrna (amongst other places). It is the result of academic research that you don't like rather whether it is "biased" or not. If exactly the same academics were concluding that all these murders were done by Greeks or Armenians you would rush to proclaim them "unbiased". --Tedblack 08:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Those damn silent lambs. Wow. Anyway, 'unbiased academic sources' was from your comment above. I suggest you change your attitude. DenizTC 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Deniz, it is a fact that current scholarly discourse everywhere outside of Turkey notes that the Turks burned Smyrna. Even many Turkish academics recognize the events. Please find me a single non-Turkish modern secondary source (wikipedia should rely on secondary sources whenever possible) that seriously claims that the Greek burned Smynra. There are none in the article, while there are numerous claiming Turkish responsibility. AlexiusComnenus 22:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is this article is in a big mess. I would like to see a better, a wiki like article. I would like to see those researches. DenizTC 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Deniz why do you keep flip-flopping? If you are offended by documented research that proves Turkish crimes come out and say it. No one will judge you for trying to protect your country's reputation. The article is still a big-mess because people like you sabotage it constantly. --Tedblack 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You are only making it worse. Also, it seems to me that your attacks will have no bounds, you should stop soon. The scholarly research here seems to be usually about other crimes that happened in the city, and they are dumped together along with abusive use of block quotes. For instance according to that NY Times article, Dr. Lovejoy refuses to comment about the fire. Also I don't see a reason to promote Blight of Asia more and more. When not busy, I am planning to summarize below the statements of the sources (only related to fire), and this might help us later. You can help. DenizTC 22:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deniz stop threatening contributors. The article will be changed to reflect the current consensus in academic research and you can do nothing about it.--Tedblack 09:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol, so lovely. DenizTC 15:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources used here

George Horton
Marjorie Housepian Dobkin
Kinross
Rudolph J. Rummel
Paul Grescowich
Mustafa Kemal
Mark Prentiss
Mark Lambert Bristol
Ernest Hemingway
Thea Halo
Dr. Esther Lovejoy
Falih Rıfkı Atay
Biray Kolluoğlu Kırlı
Reşat Kasaba
Niall Ferguson
George E. Pataki
Mrs Maloney
correspondent of the Petit Parisien
Mr. L. R. Whittall
A French journalist who had covered the war of independence arrived in Smyrna shortly after the flames had died dow
The Times
Alexander MacLachlan
Bilal Şimşir
Nicole and Hugh Pope
greece.org
Colonel Rachid Galib
Horowitz
Boston Globe
Mr. H. Lamb

-- Deniz

Summarizing primary sources is a waste of time-- Wikipedia should rely primarily on secondary sources. AlexiusComnenus 17:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

These are the sources that were used here. I did not add any of them. Are you suggesting that we should remove statements 'supported' by Horton, Grescowich, Bristol, Hemingway, Halo, Lovejoy ,... ? DenizTC 15:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are useful for some quotes, and should be discussed-- but we should not forget the Wikipedia is supposed to primarily rely on secondary sources. AlexiusComnenus 00:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And? Are the quotes useful? DenizTC 18:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ap' to kako sto xeirotero

Good heavens, this article has taken a plunge since I last saw it, some months ago. This is now the absolutely most disgusting POV piece of writing I've seen for a long while on wiki. A disgrace. I have a strong urge to just go through the article and erase 90% of it. Wait, maybe that's just what I'll do now... Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made a start but I must confess I haven't got the strength to go through it all. This article could do with a thorough rewrite, from scratch. Much of what is here is unsalvagable, including most of the structural plan. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Good start Fut.Perf. ☼. --Tedblack 10:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Horton

George Horton's testimony is only used because he was an eyewitness to the events. We do not need to mention his pro- or anti- Muslim views. I would agree it would be necessary if he was a novelist writing using second hand accounts of the events. But in this article we are only using his eyewitness account of the destruction of Smyrna and not his views about Turkey or Islam.--Tedblack 09:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Being an eyewitness account doesn't automatically stop an account from being biased, which Horton's most certainly is. The fact that he is a primary source, and one written from an unmistakably biased political perspective, makes contextualising his quotes all the more necessary. If he is to be mentioned at all, then not without also summarising the discussion of his role made by what should be our principal sources, namely reliable secondary sources by modern historians. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The points George Horton makes have been verified by other eyewitnesses. Turkish soldiers were guarding the Christian sectors of Smyrna. Turkish soldiers were seen carrying petrol tanks and incinerating houses in the Christian sectors. The fires started well after the Greek army was evacuated from Asia Minor. The Turkish quarter was not affected by the fire; that was because the whole operation was planned methodically. The Turkish soldiers were observed pouring petrol in front of the American consulate. By contrast, the points made in this article against such claims are pure conjecture: some British refugees opine that the Greeks and Armenians did it; Kemal did not want any violence against the Christians; a French journalist could not understand why the Turks would burn their own city; MacLachlan (who is cited in George Horton's book) started with one report saying the Turks set the fires and then changed it to "Armenian terrorists dressed in Turkish uniforms". Can we give the same weight to conjecture and cross-checked eyewitness reports?--Tedblack 14:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If you can find this argument brought forward by a modern historian in a reputable peer-reviewed publication, you are free to include it in the article. If not, not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Fut.Perf. you are generating an infinite regression into nothing; define reputable publication; define modern historian. Obviously Niall Ferguson and Marjorie Housepian Dobkin are not your cup of tea. --Tedblack 08:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Does Fergusson include an explicit discussion of if and how and why and to what degree he finds Horton credible, and what role the other witnesses' accounts play in this assessment? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Marjorie Housepian Dobkin does. Is she good enough for you? --Tedblack 11:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Her views are already covered in the article, aren't they? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. Her research shows that the events documented by George Horton actually happened. Therefore I cannot see the reason for painting George Horton as an unreliable source in relation to the events at Smyrna.--Tedblack 14:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that the Ferguson book does mention Horton's account-- unfortunately I left the book in Greece and will not be able to access it until Christmastime. It is also possible that I am mixing up Morgenthau and Horton, someone who has Ferguson's book "The War of the World" should check the section on the destruction of Smyrna to verify if he mentions Horton or not. If I recall correctly he does, but my memory obviously may be wrong. 212.201.82.41 10:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite simple, in all of his book he uses racist, hostile words to a particular group of people, while praising the invasion of a country by occupying forces of another country..That would be enough to potray him as unreliable, plus the info who accuses him is also propelry sourced material..Why to delete it? And certainly Housepian Dobkin is not enough for anything, no more than Justin McCarthy, who accused horton to be a religious fanatic..--laertes d 10:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

laertes d George Horton's account has value as an eyewitness account. His account agrees with other observers -- especially from the multinational fleet ancored in Smyrna bay. We are not using him as a historian.--Tedblack 16:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tedblack it seems you think Hortons account is relaible, but you only try to show that it is because it matches other sources which are established as reliable. this shows that you too also do not think Horton is a reliable source, becuase if you did, then you would show how we could actually rely in him, not on the authority of other sources. Any dumbass can say the same thing as a relible person, but that does not mean i should trust him/her. They might say the same thing for different (eg baised prejudice) reasons. so i still cannot trust the unreliable person. Do you know what im saying? So, it is right that the context of this source (Horton) should be made aware to the reader, so that to provide a warning, and the reader can judge for themselves. That is only fair.--Lettersound (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As I have said many times before, Horton's account is valuable only because he was first hand eyewitness of the events and not because his account agrees with other sources. Like all eyewitness accounts, they have to be cross-checked with other eyewitness accounts to eliminate distortions. But Horton's account has proven extremely robust even under this cross-examination. Even in court cases, members of the jury can be disqualified because their personal record shows bias; but eyewitness testimony can only be striken off the record because there are flaws and contradictions and not because the eyewitness is prejudiced.--Tedblack (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category Fires in Turkey

Can someone add Turkey to the Category by Country fires please, so that this fire appears in the subcategory Fires in Turkey (not in the main Category:Fires) Hugo999 (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, please check if this is what you wanted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Over reliance on Majorie Housepian Dobkin's book

There seem to be too many references to her book "Smyrna 1922: Destruction of a City". Is it possible to replace some of these with direct sources (or even better different sources)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedblack (talk • contribs) 09:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)