Talk:Greco-Turkish relations/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← [[../Archive Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"|Archive Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"]] |
Archive {{{1}}}
| [[../Archive Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"|Archive Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"]] →


Contents

Pro-Axis?

What on earth is there to prove that Turkey was pro-axis during WWII? Getting more and more tired of this bull****.68.105.255.76 07:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Didn't Turkey declare war on Germany on the 23rd Feb 1945? I believe Turkey kept to Attaturk's policy of supporting both sides till the winner became clear.

About one and a half million Greeks left Turkey for Greece and about half a million Turks left Greece for Turkey (note that the population exchange was on religious grounds, thus the exchange was officially that of Christians and Muslims).

I do not think these numbers are correct, I have heard at least a million Greeks or "Christians" were sent from Anatolia to Greece, and not half a million. I believe this should be corrected.

Is this an article on the current Turkish-greek relations?

The title doesn't reflect the content. What is presented--probably ill-presented--here and is the history of conflicts and disputes between the two countries. In this sense it adopts a very strong POV that peaceful coexistence is at least difficult between the parties and that tension and clashes is the norm. I reverted the initial clause: Relations between Greece and Turkey have been marked by mutual hostility ever since Greece won its independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1832 to the more factually accurate Relations between Greece and Turkey have been marked by alternating periods of mutual hostility and reconciliation ever since Greece won its independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1832. Post-war Greek-Turkish are multifaceted and they don't solely revolve around negotiations on disputes but also include such things as economic relations (trade, investment flows), cultural exchanges, tourism, security cooperation. If we need an article on the history of Greek-turkish conflicts so far, then somebody will have to write a new one. In my opinion this article should be reserved for the current state of relations covering the various aspects of it and should avoid lengthy historical narratives. Official data and statistics would be very useful. Donnerstag 02:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio Problems

A user brought this article to my attention. It appears that there are individual chunks of text in this article that copy from [1]. That site appears to be the most legitimate, probably owner of copyright of the text. However, there is ongoing debate about that point. In the meantime, are there any editors of this article who can volunteer to scrub the text against the website linked above? Feco 22:39, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the bulk of this article and certainly did not copy any of it from that website, which I jave never seen before. Which passages are you alleging are taken from that site? Adam 01:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

If you're really curious, the user pulled a few quotes from this article and put them on the copyvio page as part of a dispute involving a different page. However, I've located the original source document, and it looks like it's now public domain. So you don't have to worry about copyvio problems. Feco 02:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Large parts of WW1 section questionable

I find the following sections questionable:

In the second Greco-Turkish War (known to the Turks as the War of Turkish Independence, to the Greeks as the Catastrophe of Minor Asia and to the rest of the world as the War of Minor Asia, see Greco-Turkish War), the Greeks were unable to defend the front in Anatolia when the Turks reorganised under Kemal Atatürk, who founded a Turkish national army based at Ankara and had secured considerable foreign assistance (other than arms from the Soviet Union i'm not aware of any more foreign assistance, perhaps if someone could elaborate?)

The Turks reoccupied Asia Minor and entered Smyrna on September 8, 1922. In Smyrna, in the meantime, there was an influx of refugees from various parts of Asia Minor. The conquering Turks set the city on fire and unleashed the one of the most memorable phases of the genocide against non-Turks (in this case Greeks and Armenians). These were moments of unbelievable horror. The pier turned red by the blood of their victims. Chrysostomos, the spiritual leader of the Orthodox Christians in Smyrna who refused to abandon the city, was seized from religious services he was conducting in the cathedral by Turkish police forces and given over to be publicly ridiculed and dismembered by a mob in the streets. The American Consul in Smyrna, George Horton, gives a detailed and objective picture of the chilling Turkish atrocities in his book “The Blight of Asia” ( Indianapolis: Bobb and Merryl, 1925). (Very POV, there are also sources who state that the burning of Smyrna was part of the Greek scorched earth policy of burning everything in the path of their retreat, there are also sources which say that while there were acts of violence carried out by both Turks and Greeks on each other, violence by Turks was sporadic and not in anyway systematic, as this section stands it is in need of rewording)

In the wake of this conflict there was a violent reaction against the Greek communities throughout Turkey, who were seen as disloyal since they identified more with their Greek heritage and Greece than Turkey. Again, the ethinc minorities in Turkey suffered the rage of the mob with arbitrary lootings and massacres. To end this situation, the Treaty of Lausanne of July 1923 provided for an exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey. About a million Greeks left Turkey for Greece and about half a million Turks left Greece for Turkey. The exceptions to the population exchange were Constantinople, where the Greek minority (including the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church) was allowed to stay, and the eastern part of Greek Thrace, whose Turkish minority was also allowed to stay. Vast fortunes, mainly of Greeks from Asia Minor since most Turks in Greece belonged to the working class and thus were relatively poor, were lost in this transition and the entire incident only created the basis for future conflicts.

The massacres before, during and after this exchange are collectively referred to as the Hellenic Holocaust or Hellenic Genocide but are also known as the Pontian Genocide (Do any countries actually recognise these genocides? and if not should we not say so?) (see the sub-section on massacres committed by Turkey during 1914-1923 in Genocides_in_history ). Fortunately, the exchange helped to somewhat reduce the tensions and the pressure over the minorities living amongst hostile populations.

Hopefully people can agree to change these, thanks.

Propaganda

Once again I have returned to this article to remove nationalist propaganda, this time Greek. I am finding it hard to decided whether childish Greek nationalist rhetoric is more tiresome than childish Turkish nationalist rhetoric, or vice versa. Hey guys, it's the 21st century. All this happened a looooong time ago. Why don't you all get over it? If you don't, I will continue to remove this stuff. Adam 03:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ehm, this article is CLEARLY written from the turkish perspective... As a result, I added the NPOV disclaimer. My main "beef" is with the WWI portion. HawkeyE 08:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not the greatest, but far better. HawkeyE 07:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added 2 or 3 sentences concerning the persecution of minorities in the last years of the Ottoman Empire. I want to clearly distance myself from propaganda, I just felt that recent research on the matter has not been adequately represented in this article. For instance, the Young Turks' carefully planned destruction of ethnic and religious minorities is generally accepted among historians (cf. Halil Berktay, he's the one who organized the Istanbul conference on the Armenian issue in fall 2005). Important in this context is also the claim of historians like Tessa Hofmann, that what happened to Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks should not be examined separately, but as one single matter - as all of them were victims of the Young Turks' nationalist ideology of pan-Turkism. And this has influenced Greek-Turkish relations to the same extent as the Population Exchange did. Simela 21 January 2006

FAO Adam Carr

Adam Carr, does this sound netural to you?

"The conquering Turks set the city on fire and massacred those Greeks and Armenians who were unable to escape by sea. Chrysostomos, the spiritual leader of the Orthodox Christians in Smyrna who refused to abandon the city, was dismembered by a mob in the streets. The American Consul in Smyrna, George Horton, gives a detailed and objective picture of the massacre in his book The Blight of Asia ( Indianapolis: Bobb and Merryl, 1925)."

Why do i seem the only one to find this very POV?

So far as I know that is what happened. I have removed allegations of a Turkish "holocaust" or "genocide" against the Greeks, but there is no doubt that there was a massacre of Greeks at Smyrna. I have tried to prevent both Greek and Turkish POV from contaminating this article. Adam 22:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


There were indeed killings, but it is not as black and white as Greek POV makes out. In the book i have read it quotes sources who say the killings were mostly sporadic and not systematic of any kind. As it stands the article does not mention the scorched earth policy by Greece during their retreat which left most of the countryside devastaded. Infact in a documentary i saw on Ataturk it says the fire was a direct result of the scorched earth policy. The article also does not mention the brutality towards Turks under Greek occupation. In my edit which was reverted i tried to be as objective as possible, i used a section from Patrick Kinross's Ataturk rebirth of a nation which covers a chapter on the burning of Smyrna. The edit i placed was far more analytical than the current "The conquering Turks set the city on fire and massacred those Greeks and Armenians who were unable to escape by sea" --E.A 13:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Adam, I think as well that this wording is POV oriented, because it say it in a "this is what happened" tone. While I believe Smyrna was burned by the Turkish side, because it was witnessed, as well as because only the Greek and Armenian quarters were burned. As well as because the Turkish side changed it's version when chalenged accusing later the Armenians to have burned their own quarter. The most telling is how one of Ataturks close confident as well as another Turkish writer close to the Kemalist circle recognised it etc. But this is one thing, it is another to say something in an "this is what happened" tone. You should have presented this as something like: "It is said that the conquering Turks set the city on fire and massacred those Greeks and Armenians who were unable to escape by sea. Chrysostomos, the spiritual leader of the Orthodox Christians in Smyrna who refused to abandon the city, was allegdly dismembered by a mob in the streets. The American Consul in Smyrna, George Horton, gives a detailed picture of the events in his book The Blight of Asia ( Indianapolis: Bobb and Merryl, 1925)." I think such wordings would be closer to NPOV. Regards Fadix 18:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When things are properly attested historical facts, they should be presented as such. We don't say "it is alleged that Germany invaded Poland in 1939," because this is a fact not an allegation. Independent historians (ie, not Greek or Turkish) agree that there was a deliberate massacre of Greeks in Smyrna, accompanied by many atrocities including mass rape. It is not alleged that this was done on the orders of Kemal or the Kemalist government. Adam 01:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Attested facts according to whom? I have my source, you have yours. The fire of Smyrna is not as black and white as who invaded Poland. All we can do is write both accounts and say it is disputed, which is what i have done. --E.A 16:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't take me wrong,... I am convinced that the massacres and the fire did happen, I won't permit myself to be dragged in this fight E.A might push by relativizing the event and make of it a two directional massacre and burning. SMYRNA 1922: The Destruction of a City, Kent State U Press, 1988 (Dobkin, Marjorie Housepian), is a very convincing work providing countless of witnesses that have directly witnessed how and who put the fire, and there is no doubt for me for this,... as the accusations against the Armenians and the story of the petrolium was known to come to light just after the nationalist forces were unable to explain their first theses(Greeks having burned it). There is also the fact that one of Ataturks close confident actually wrote blamming the Turkish army for the fire. What I was asking you is to just present it as a position. BTW, the claim that Mango is not a Turk is not entirly true. He's born in Turkey etc. And is generally very much pro-Turkish and considered as an Armenian genocide revisionist. So the fact that he do accuse the fire on the Turkish side just means that this position is more supported, but this doesn't justify it as presenting as fact. Fadix 21:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I am trying to show that attrocities were committed by an invading army, this is important to understand the chaos in Izmir once the Turkish army arrived. --E.A 22:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sources on Smyrna massacre

My sources on this are Michael Llewellyn Smith, Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor 1919-1922 (Allen Lane 1973), and Andrew Mango, Ataturk (John Murray 1999). Both these books are by professional historians, neither Greek nor Turkish, and Mango's biography is generally very friendly to Ataturk and Turkey generally.

Both authors agree that the initial entry of Turkish troops into Smyrna (9 September 1922) was orderly and fairly peaceful. But on 13 September the Armenians, who hated and feared the Turks, resisted the occupation of the Armenian quarter. The Turks then began to loot and burn Armenian shops, starting a fire which destroyed the whole of the Armenian, Greek and "Frankish" (European) quarters. Both agree that there was large-scale murder of Armenian, and to a lesser extent Greek, civilians by Turkish troops. Both give a detailed description of the lynching of Archbishop Chrysostom, which was done on the orders of the Turkish commander Nureddin Pasha.

This is Llewellyn Smith's description of the murder of Chrysostom:

Adam 01:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My Sources on Smyrna massacre

I'm a bit confused as to why you've completely eliminated the attrocities carried out by the Greek army, this is after all a article on Greco-Turkish relations, and to eliminate such an important part which explains the chaos once the army entered Smyrna is beyond me.

My source was Patrick Kinross's "Ataturk: Rebirth of a Nation" (1964) he is British and a very well respected historian on Ataturk, Turkey and the Ottoman empire. Sorry i dont have a scanner but i'll have to quote him

Greek acts during retreat:

"The retreat lasted a week. The Turkish forces hurried on towards the city, striving to overtake the Greeks before they could decimate all western Anatolia 'by fire and sword'. The cavalry followed close on the enemy's heels; the infantry, geared over the two hundred mules of winding roads between the plateau and the sea to pace of its ox-carts and mule trains, moved more slowly. In three days its main body contrive to march a hundred miles/ But it still failed to catch up with the enemy. Already most of the twons in its path were in ruins. One thrid 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 ashe-heap. Out of the eighteen thousand buildings in the historic holy city of Manisa, only five hundred remained

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 of 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. 'They went to pieces altogether' as Rumbold recounted to Curzon on the basis of reports from his consul in Smyrna. It was 'a sickenong act of bestiality and barbarity'. There was little, he added, to choose between the two races, Greek and Turk. Permeating the atmosphere, as Turks advanced down the valleys, was the stench of unburied bodies, of charred human and animal flesh" p.318

On the Cause of the Fire:

"The internecine violcence led, more or less by accident, to the outbreak of a catastrophic fire. Its origins were never satsifactorily explained. Kemal maintained to Admiral Dumesnil that it had been deliberately planned by an Armenian incediary organization, and that before the arriva of the Turks speeches had been made in the churches, calling for the burning of the city as a sacred duty. Fuel for the purpose had been found in the houses of Armenian women, and several incendiaries had been arrested. Others accused the Turks themselves of deliberately starting the fire under the orders or at least witht the connivance of Nur-ed-Din Pasha, who had a reputation for fanaticism and cruelty.

More probably it started when the Turks, rounding up Armenians to confiscate their arms, besieged a band of them in a building in which they had taken refuge. Deciding to burn them out, they set it alight with pertrol, placing a cordon of sentries around to arrest or shoot them as they escaped. Meanwhile the Armenians stareted other fires nearby to divert the Turks from their main objective. The quarter was on the outskirts of the city. But a strong wind, for which they had not allowed, quickly carried the flames towards it. By the early evening several other quarters were on fire, and a thousand houses, built filimsily of lath and plaster, had been reduced to ashes. The flames were being spread by looters, and doubtless also by Turkish soldiers paying off scores. The fire brigade was powerless to cope with such conflagration, and at Ismet's headquartes the Turks alleged that its hose piepes had been severed. He himself chose to declare that the Greeks had planned to burn the city." p.324/325

On the Armenian and Greek populations:

The admiral then referred to the arrest and interment by Turks of all the able-bodied male Christian population, and their threatened deportation by the interior as indicated by Nur-ed-din. This had caused panich throughout the Greek and Armenian communities, and would create a bad impression abroad, as recent deportations from Samsun area had done. Kemal replied in a conciliator spirit. Nur-ed-din had spoken in military terms, at the moment of victory, concerned to prevent the passage of potential Greekr ecurits to continie the war in Thrace. In fact the Turkish intentions were not drastic, and he undertook to reassure the population accordingly. None the less the deportations continued" p.324.


From these passages there are important things to add to the article

  • en-route to the reoccupation of Smyrna, the Turkish army had to witness their lands and property decimated by fire. Greeks did rape, kill and commit attrocities for no reason other than to inflict as much damage as possible during their retreat.
  • The fire, though it may have been started by Turks, cannot be described as an organised attempt by the Turkish army and its high command to reduce the city to ashes - what good is rubble and ashes to Kemal? The fire was most probably escalated out of control by a series of random events, involving Turks, Armenians and Greeks.
  • Yes, many Greeks and Armenians were killed, but it must be shown against the background of the attrocities commited during the Greek retreat. The city was in total chaos, Turks killed Armenians, Armenians killed Turks, there was mass looting by everyone; Greek, Turk and Armenian.
--E.A 13:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FAO Scimitar

I am at odds with some of the edits, i dont understand why we can say that Turkey pillaged, raped and massacred - but cannot say that Greeks did the same during retreat, despite providing sources above. --E.A 10:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I think the present text gives a fairly balanced account. Some of the detail should be removed -this article is not meant to be a detailed account of the war in Anatolia or the fall of Smyrna. Adam 11:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Adam. E.A., I thought that the way the text was written was unneccesarilly inflammatory. You'll notice I did preserve the "acts of barbarism" quote, but I didn't feel that all the somewhat contentious details of the Greek retreat needed to be included in the article. If the majority disagree with me . . .--Scimitar 13:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for your reply. Firstly, i would like to say there is nothing debatable about the Greek actions during retreat - they did use a scorched earth policy, they did pillage and they did rape. I took the time to copy out my source by a respected British historian - yet it is still dismissed as contentious? Yourself and Adam say you dont want to go into details, yet there is a statement about the lynching of an archbishop, rape and murders and looting by Turks and a reference to genocide (even though the article says there was no such attempt). I find it odd that to mention the attrocities committed by Greeks (the invader dont forget) is considered out of place.
I also find the recommendation of a book (George Horton) mid article to be pushing one POV - further reading for both sides should be recommended at the end. Hopefully we can come to some agreement about how to proceed. --E.A 15:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree about the book recommendation mid-article being out of place. I've also tried to rephrase the hellenic genocide statement to be a little more indicative of reality. As for the archbishop detail, I personally think it is relevant because a)it's well-documentd, but much, much more importantly, b) it shows a certain level of tacit approval for such actions by the Turkish commander. If there is a similar incident involving senior Greek officials, (particularly with regard to the "scorched earth" policy), I'd like to look at including that as well. --Scimitar 16:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Have a look at my edit see what you think. I removed the archbishop sentence because it is too individual, i instead mentioned accusations of Nurredins complicity in the violence in a more general tone. I mentioned the scorched earth, the burning of crops, leaving inhabitants of Smyrna close to starvation. Removed genocide claims as seen as we agree there is no factual accuracy behind, added death toll, moved Horton to further reading, if someone could find the ISBN number appreciate it. Let me know what you think. --E.A 16:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For the most part I approve of the edits. The one thing I don't neccessarily agree with is the removal of the holocaust claims. Although I don't believe them to be remotely valid after doing some research, I think the existence of some claims affected the mindset of the Greek community, and further, Greco-Turkish relations. Thus, although the holocaust didn't occur, the claims of it's occuring still had an impact and thus were notable, and should be included. What's your opinion? --Scimitar 19:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ignoring the sensationalist websites out there, the only real way to go is if the government of Greece recognises a Hellenic Genocide, then we can say Greeks refer to what happened in WW1 and after as Hellenic Genocide. I've tried a search and cant seem to find a reference linking the Greek government with a recognition of genocide, maybe someone can clarify this. If we cant find this then perhaps the best way to go is to say Greece refers to the events as the Asia Minor Catastrophe/Disaster (which they do). --E.A 20:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree, I can't find any evidence that the Greek govt. recognizes (or ever has recognized) a Hellenic genocide or hollocaust. If there's solid evidence that they do I will argue we have an obligation to include it,but barring that, I tend to agree with you. --Scimitar 20:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there is, if we're talking about the Pontian Genocide. On February 24 1994 the Greek Parliament recognized it and voted for the 19th of May as commemoration day, see this link [[2]] for the source. Simela 22 February 2006
Included reference to disaster, also added few more details on beginning of nationalist movement. --E.A 20:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I just changed it from War of Turkish Liberation to War of Asia Minor. I felt that the common international title is more appropriate than the Turkish one, as Wikipedia is an international entity. --Scimitar 21:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christmas of 1963

I added two paragraphs about the events that took place during the Christmas of 1963. The paragraphs are basically from http://www.greece.org/cyprus/Takism2.htm which is apparently not pro-Turkish. I also add few things which I guess is not disputable. --anon 21:11, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Phanariotes

Greek Exodus

In 1936 Turkey banned non-Muslim foundations from accepting donations. In 1942, 44 new laws imposed a “wealth tax” Refah Vergisi on non-Muslims, i.e., Christians and Jews. The incidents on Sept. 6 and 7, 1955, left 5,538 shops and homes, belonging to mostly the “Greeks of the East,” damaged and/or looted. When Cyprus went astray in 1963, 110,000 Greeks were living in Istanbul, with about 12,000 of them carrying Greek passports. On Sept. 16, 1964, the Ankara government ordered them to leave Istanbul “in 24 hours” -- 30,000 left Istanbul at that time and most others followed after 1974. Now there are only about 1,200 Greeks in Istanbul.


Timeline: Casus belli 2004?

The casus belli wasn't declared in 2004. In fact it was not something that Turkey has come up with recently. It was reaffirmed in 2004 by the turkish national assembly. Literally it is a declaration that any unilateral expansion of the width of the territorial waters by Greece is unacceptable for the turkish state. In this way it links to the official Turkish position on the Aegean dispute. Therefore I reverted from "*2004 Turkey declared" to "Turkey reconfirmed". Donnerstag 03:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Paragraphs about airspace issues removed

I strongly support the deletion of the paragraph removed by 69.174.69.11 that ran "Both countries execute military flights by violating Athens FIR and in some occasions the Greek airspace as well. ...". This paragraph is factually inaccurate, and its contents are now covered much better in the "Aegean Sea" section. Please read the main article Aegean dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

why doesn't this article have a "current" relations part?

I was hoping to find a glimpse of the recovery of our relations in this article, but it makes things seem hostile between turkey and greece. well, it is not. I'm turkish and I have greek friends. My parents have greek friends. We can visit greece without any nationalists giving us bad looks; the same applies to greeks. A turkish tv show about a turkish girl getting married to a greek guy was widely watched in turkey, and a greek tv showed it in greece as well (and our newspapers say that it was also a success there, though that may not be true). I currently live in the USA, and I find that the greek people there are very close to our way of thinking; we have very similar cultures. Whenever I see a greek person I know I could be friends with him/her because of this similarity. Our cuisines are very similar (dolmaki/dolma, turkish/greek coffee, baklava, wide use of yoghurt and olive oils, feta cheese etc). You can hear greek songs in our nightclubs...

I realize that things -were- bad in the past, but this article is nowhere close to truth right now. We have very similar cultures because we lived together for a long time, and most of us people who live in the aegean coasts of Turkey probably has a few greeks in their family trees and the same goes for the greeks I suppose as it was the ottoman empire's policy (yes I know both the greek and the turkish nationalists will blabber some nationalistic nonsense but its the truth, deal with it). An article like this should show the current relationships as well. I'm sick of nationalists clinging to what happened decades ago, and creating prejudices for each other. --Jadelith 08:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, the section about the improvement of relations during the last years could be expanded. Something more about the EU process, the effect of the earthquakes, etc. There is already some material of that kind scattered across other articles, see Aegean dispute, Greece#Greco-Turkish relations, Foreign relations of Greece#Bilateral relations with Turkey. Actually, all these articles could be more tightly integrated anyway, with some more material re-factored out of the overview articles and merged into the more specific ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Confidence Building Measures and Current Relations

Does somebody have info on and sources to the recent confidence building measures that were agreed by Turkey and Greece after the collision of the two F-16s?? If you got them pls incorporate them in the text. Thanks!!!

Also if someone can add some stuff other than politics and tensions, I think it would be great.. Does someone have info and sources on recent cultural relations (festivals, conferences, concerts, exchange programs etc.). If you do pls add them... Peace people!! Baristarim 19:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsigned off-topic comment removed: [3] -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is this missing?

This is really sad.. We have nothing about what's happenning at the moment, at least the positive stuff... Pfff.. FOR EXAMPLE, I AM WRITING IN CAPS SO THAT PEOPLE WHO LOVE TO ENGAGE IN ONLY COFFEE HOUSE TALK CAN SEE:
RECENTLY GREECE AND TURKEY MADE A JOINT ATTEMPT TO HOST THE EUROPEAN FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP IN 2008, AND THEY WERE PRETTY CLOSE TO GETTING IT... Can someone, of whatever nationality, explain to me WHY IT IS NOT EVEN MENTIONED ANYWHERE IN THE ARTICLE???? DO WE HAVE TO FILL THESE ARTICLES WITH ONLY NEGATIVE STUFF???? Hasn't anyone thought of mentioning it in the years since this article has been created??
SHAME ON ALL OF US, I GOT NOTHING ELSE TO SAY... It is utterly despicable, no wonder everyone else in the world says 'oh, the Greeks and Turks at it again, eh?' every single time there is a problem.. The whole article is about military, wars, massacres, disputes, pilots getting killed, revolts, unresolved issues... Every entry that starts good by mentioning some sort of warm relations quickly turns into a 'but, these issues remain', 'but, so many people died', 'but, they gave an ultimatum'.. I categorically refuse to believe that in the last 700 years there weren't any common happy memories or achievements, or resolved issues... Let's face it, we r all the products of f...-up brainwashing education systems on BOTH sides, I can only hope that my children will see better days... I cannot even describe my anger at this mediocricity...
Yes, every single contributor (or revert-controller, whatever) to this article should be ASHAMED for not thinking of adding this, Turk, Greek or what the hell ever.. Let's cut the crap, the devil is in the details.. No-one that has failed to mention this has the right to carry democracy or peace at home blah blah tags... THAT IS THE TRUTH, am I wrong?Baristarim 23:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I will add that info after having done a bit of research, but I got to go to sleep right now.. Baristarim 23:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice info. I didn't know about that. The "earthquake diplomacy" is in, for a change... •NikoSilver• 00:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, the most striking example of Gr-Tr friendship is the story of SS Kurtulus, simply amazing. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Article name change: Greek - Turkish relations

Should the article read, Greek-Turkish relations (not Greco-Turkish or Turko-Greek)? Both countries need to appear under their names. Politis 12:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral. Can't say 'Greco' wouldn't qualify as part of a composite word (Greco-Turkish). Like Slavo-Macedonian, Indo-Greek kingdom, Turko-phile, Macedo-Romanians, Afro-Americans etc etc. In any case, a redirect would be sensible. Would change my opinion if more rationale is added...•NikoSilver• 14:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Both seem possible in English, "Greek-Turkish" has more Google hits; "Greco-Turkish" on the other hand seems pretty well established at least in some contexts (like Greco-Turkish War). And somehow that Adjective-Adjective compound "Greek-Turkish" seems to grate a bit in my (non-native-speaker) ears. I'd leave it to the native English speakers around. By the way, how do you pronounce "Greco-"? [grɛkəʊ-], [greɪkəʊ-], [griːkəʊ-]? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. There many other examples that use 'Greco', with most notable been Greco-Roman. But i am not sure what the english-speaking users think, cause this shall be the term to be used in the English Wikipedia. Future Perfect, 'Greco' is pronounced 'Γκρέκο' [grɛkəʊ-]. Hectorian 15:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Approve. I was wondering the same thing some time ago, I am glad that someone brought it up. Even though from a symantics point of view, use of Greco is not wrong, those forms are generally used in informal language, or because the first would be too long, or to avoid repetitive endings african-american; Macedonian-Romanian, or in coined expressions that refer to something that is static Afro-Americans.. On the other hand, a continuing relation is dynamic, and wouldn't be considered as warranting such familiarity.. Furthermore, Greco is the same length as Greek. In English the general tendency is to use the formal name in academic and formal writing, so as not to confuse people who might not be familiar with the subject... I think that people who are making search on the Net would use Greek-Turkish instead of Greco-Turkish.. Exceptions shall always be made for static and historic events that have come to a conclusion... As for Greco-Turkish War, I honestly don't know, we would have to look how it is referred by anglophone academic community.. Baristarim 16:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, everyone seems happy with 'grɛkəʊ--Turkish', and therefore, so am I. Politis 15:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well.. The only reason I approved it was for linguistic reasons, I have come across such issues before.. Hectorian was wondering what english-users would think, so as an anglophone I added my two cents in.. For me both are ok.. Greek would have more hits than Greco, that's all.. Seriously people, it would have more coverage :)) On the other hand, I am not going to persist at all with this, since as u said, we shouldn't try to make this a complicated thing... Baristarim 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)