Talk:Occupation of Smyrna

message: In 1920 a Treaty was signed between the allies and Turkey. Turkey with its signature accepted the detachment of territories. One of these territories was Smyrna. Turkey violated this signature in 1922. The article however states that the occupation ended in 1922 -meaning- when the treaty was violated. There is something wrong here. 23x2 φ 18:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, someone's concept of history... --E4024 (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Am i insulting Turkishness ? 23x2 φ 19:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That I do not know, but to my intelligence and to that of my audiences in many conferences in my CV, yes. --E4024 (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Sevres did not "detach" Izmir and environs. It was a "zone of influence". Let us say a prelude to actual detachment. By invading Izmir, Greeks had actually violated the treaty. Murat (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Occupation

message: Since the article concerns the Greek administration in a former Ottoman region, the related peace treaty that finally approved this action should be part of the lead. On the other hand unexplained reverts and conclusion in edit summaries such as this [], can be easily understood as a product of extremist activity and should better be avoided.Alexikoua (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it possible not to mention the "Treaty of Sevres" in an article about the "Occupation of Smyrna" ? []. HelenOfOz (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the discussion page of that article; you do not need to create a link... --E4024 (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same question, how is it possible not to mention the "Treaty of Sevres" in this article? The argument that it wasn't ratified by Republic of Turkey, 3 years later is irrelevant in this case.
Indeed this treaty was signed by both parties (Entene and Ottoman Empire) and is a historic event.Alexikoua (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

text: It "did not enter into force". You may ask what it means to a law student (maybe one of mine). --E4024 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (I know very well about the law, as well as relevant diplomatic terminology on such issies). The internationally accepted Treaty of Sevres was signed by both parts. Even if, as you claim this wasn't valid, it was a historic event and needs to be addressed in the article. So please avoid wp:IDONTLIKEIT.
You also need to support your view with a reliable source ( Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose. per wp:rs)Alexikoua (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

text: User without a signature: I am only showing you where to learn what you ignore, this is a talk page; sources are not needed. --E4024 (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Sources are needed for the article, which it seems that you ignored.Alexikoua (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

text: What we need for articles, basicly, is "objective" editors. They may not be "impartial", as long as they are "objective" that is not a problem. (In some cases the word "objective" may be equally seconded or replaced by "honest"...) Sources are so abundant, only depends on what you write in the search engine: Write "my POV" and you find sources for your POV, write "objective" you find the objective...This is all from me. --E4024 (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a proposal: we add that this specific Treaty was not accepted by the new Turkish government. Excactly what you claim.Alexikoua (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

text: 1.What you call "Treaty" did not enter into force. This means it has not/does not exist(ed) as a valid international legal instrument. 2. It was not even signed (and the signature does not mean anything) in May 1919. I already said I do not want to discuss such a nonsense any more. 
On the other hand, I recommend you to try to review your knowledge of history instead... --E4024 (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peace treaty

message: The "Treaty of Sevres", as referred to in a removed (now, by this user) sentence has never entered into force, as it was not ratified by Turkey. Learn more here. Thus I removed the reference to this text, as it never had the legal power of an international treaty binding the parties. --E4024 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it possible not to mention the "Treaty of Sevres" in an article about the "Occupation of Smyrna" ? []. HelenOfOz (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the discussion page of that article; you do not need to create a link... --E4024 (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same question, how is it possible not to mention the "Treaty of Sevres" in this article? The argument that it wasn't ratified by Republic of Turkey, 3 years later is irrelevant in this case.
Indeed this treaty was signed by both parties (Entene and Ottoman Empire) and is a historic event.Alexikoua (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

text: It "did not enter into force". You may ask what it means to a law student (maybe one of mine). --E4024 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: (I know very well about the law, as well as relevant diplomatic terminology on such issies). The internationally accepted Treaty of Sevres was signed by both parts. Even if, as you claim this wasn't valid, it was a historic event and needs to be addressed in the article. So please avoid wp:IDONTLIKEIT.
You also need to support your view with a reliable source ( Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose. per wp:rs)Alexikoua (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

text: User without a signature: I am only showing you where to learn what you ignore, this is a talk page; sources are not needed. --E4024 (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Sources are needed for the article, which it seems that you ignored.Alexikoua (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

text: What we need for articles, basicly, is "objective" editors. They may not be "impartial", as long as they are "objective" that is not a problem. (In some cases the word "objective" may be equally seconded or replaced by "honest"...) Sources are so abundant, only depends on what you write in the search engine: Write "my POV" and you find sources for your POV, write "objective" you find the objective...This is all from me. --E4024 (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a proposal: we add that this specific Treaty was not accepted by the new Turkish government. Excactly what you claim.Alexikoua (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

text: 1.What you call "Treaty" did not enter into force. This means it has not/does not exist(ed) as a valid international legal instrument. 2. It was not even signed (and the signature does not mean anything) in May 1919. I already said I do not want to discuss such a nonsense any more. 
On the other hand, I recommend you to try to review your knowledge of history instead... --E4024 (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to non existent international treaty 

message: I wonder why the establishment of Smyrna's first university in 1920 isn't related with this article, since it concerns the specific period (1919-1922) [] and it clearly states that this was 'during this period'. The edit summary appears also to be wrong (claims about a 'usual chronological anomaly', which I believe don't reflect the historical reality of the article).
It would be kind to avoid such kind of activity and discuss the issue in a civilized manner.Alexikoua (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The university info was mistakenly deleted, sorry. Taking the opportunity, please stop placing 1920 before 1919, as you see nobody is convinced that 1920 comes before 1919. In other words, do not try to present the so called "Sevres" Treaty as a pretext or justification of the occupation of Izmir, please. --E4024 (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Unexplained revert

message: As I see there are users who wish to learn: The Sevres "Treaty" was signed in August 1920. One of the two sides was the Ottoman Empire, while the other side was the countries that imposed this piece of paper to a vanquished, prisoner (Istanbul under occupation), war-thorn Government, who was challenged by an emerging Government in Ankara. (Maybe the basic reason of signature, from the part of Istanbul, was this last one indeed; to presume some power.) The occupation authority (established formally in March 1920 in Istanbul) "closed" (indeed the "Sultan" himself dissolved -or whatever legal term- but the cause is Allied pressure) the Turkish (Ottoman) parliament in April 1920. Just as the Greek occupation of Izmir in May 1919 sparked the beginning of the Turkish national struggle within the same month, this closure ended in the re-convening of the Turkish Parliament in Ankara, in April 1920. From this moment on, if not even before, the legitimate representatives of the Turkish people are in Ankara. They said no to the Sevres partition agreement (declared it null and void) and reconfirmed the "National Charter" (National borders of New Turkey, adopted by the Ottoman parliament in Istanbul in Feb. 1920, in one of its last sessions).
The Sevres document, like any other international treaty had to be "ratified". (The allies must have ignored or forgotten the fact that in Turkey, even though it was not a Republic yet, it was the parliament that "approved" the ratification of treaties according to the 1876 Constitution (x); when they obliged the Sultan to dissolve the parliament before the signing of that agreement.
:(x) Maybe the allies confused the Empire with a banana republic... :-) 
Treaties do not come into being without proper ratification, and enter into force only in a determined date (or time span) following the delivery (depositing) of all Ratification Documents. For Turkey (not the Republic the country), this never happened in the case of the said paper. This is why we made the Lausanne Peace Treaty (signed in a neutral country, not one of the occupiers). This is more or less a simple summary, trying to avoid intricate legal terminology like "initialling", "ad referendum" etc... --E4024 (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but what you are trying to say is completely irrelevant with your obsession to remove every mention about the T. of Sevres, which was signed in 1920 by all parts, no matter what happened inside Turkey. If you believe all this go on and add them provided you can support them with desent bibliography.Alexikoua (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Alexikoua . There was a treaty which was signed. A historical fact that needs to be included in the article. The political situation in Turkey following the signing of the Treaty may be also added.  23x2 φ 11:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are also welcome to my lectures on international relations... --E4024 (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but this isn't the right place for lectures. You need support to support your views with a decent argument. Until now you proved the opposite: that the Treaty of Sevres needs to be included since it created a sequence of political and military events in the defeated Ottoman/Turkish state in 1920.Alexikoua (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

text: This is not "that" article. We already have a WP article on that. You will not be allowed to put 1920 before 1919 nowhere in a serious encyclopedia. It is too obvious that you look for justification of an expansionist occupation, although the tragedy occurred a century ago. Neutral POV does not tolerate creating baseless excuses for a country's wrong deeds in the past. --E4024 (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid this is not the right place for such kind of arguments (defending national history etc about Treaties that should be removed from everywhere). If the Treaty was signed in 1920, it "is" part of this article's history. Yet again you pointed that this should be part of it. Plz avoid WP:IDONTLIKETHAT.Alexikoua (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short History Lesson 

message: Considered one of the symbols of the Turkish national resistance. He shot dead the flag bearer of the Greek occupation forces that landed in Izmir on 15 May 1919. He was shot dead by the Greek soldiers in situ. Hasan Tahsin and family had been displaced from the city of Selanik like many Turks that had to leave the city that passed to Greek hands in 1912. I added his name to the article because he is considered a symbol of resistance to the said occupation. --E4024 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The person had been expelled from his hometown "only seven years before". This shows clearly where he found the courage to shoot, with a revolver, at a military troop, risking an inevitable death. "Only seven years" (1912-1919) is the key to understand why he risked his life that day and the need to write his hometown (not only birthplace, the place where he passed most of his life, except the last seven years). This is the why it is not irrelevant.
(Again, with a very symbolic act of self sacrifice the person was saying: I will not lose my town again in 7 years. Why do you think he shot at the soldier carrying the Greek flag and not another?) What he did really is patriotism and to recall his name is not nationalism. Any objective person may understand this, it is a question of empathy. --E4024 (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your approach doesn't seem to be objective, describing one's background. Indeed this was an action of resistance, but everyone had a similar background in this story (per above examples).Alexikoua (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

text: The name of Hasan Tahsin is eternalised with a monument at the very place where he was killed in Izmir; I believe we should add a sentence on that monument. So we will call the monument without his name, like "Monument to a Turk"? If we do not write down that he was expelled from Salonica only 7 years before, how will the WP reader understand the symbolism of his act of courage? No need for that, because he is "a Turk"? Should we delete the article Hasan Tahsin, as I understand he is not notable for Mr Alexikoua... --E4024 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about a 3 years history. I bet that numerous monuments in Greece& Turkey have been erected about all the related events. I believe adding this in the article Greek landing at Smyrna, which deals with the landing exclusively, would be ok.Alexikoua (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Let's keep it with the claims that sources say (which do not ascribe any culpability or even knowledge for Hasan for the genocide).  Unfortunately, they also don't ascribe any motivation for him shooting the fist shot, as far as I can find.  If anyone gets a source on his motivation at the time, whether because he had lost his home, following orders as part of the shadowy group, confused the Greeks with aliens, or whatever, then that should be added to the article for sure.  Until then, his motivations (like his knowledge of the Armenian genocide) is speculative, at best, and evidence leading to explaining it is not appropriate for the article.  However, his name certainly belongs in the story of the shooting on this page and is already on the page up above.  But, if the article circles the same ground again (like it does here), it should at least be equally complete both times.  Hasan should be mentioned, no motivation should be suggested.  AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think any Greek editor will object to the inclusion of Hasan. I wasn't thinking if he was following any orders or not. I objected to an "empathy" angle for this man because he was a member of that organization. HelenOfOz (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hasan Tahsin 

message: Two issues:
1. From the "History" section of the current edition:
"A military administration was formed by the Greek premier Eleftherios Venizelos shortly after the initial landings. Venizelos had plans to annex Smyrna that he succeeded in realizing his objective in Treaty of Sèvres August 10, 1920.[6] He had immediately agreed to send Greek troops to Smyrna after Italian troops had landed in Antalya."
Izmir was occupied in 1919. The Treaty of Sevres was signed in 1920. So the said Treaty had no effect whatsoever on the decision by Greece to occupy Izmir. Simply because 1920 does not come before 1919. This edit is intended to "justify" the Greek invasion of Izmir.
On the other hand, the Treaty was signed by the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) on the one hand and the Allies on the other side. Neither the Ottoman Empire nor the Republican Turkey ratified the said Treaty and it never entered into force. (See section "Fate of the Treaty" in Treaty of Sèvres. In International Law this means that the said "Treaty" did never come into life. Another interesting issue, although of minor importance, is that Greece did not ratify the so-called Treaty either...)
2. From the section: "Turkish reaction to landings" of the current edition:
"The Greek landings had served to trigger the Turkish War of Independence, marked by the landing of Mustafa Kemal (later Atatürk) in Samsun on May 19, 1919, four days after the occupation. Kemal formed a nationalist movement with a separate government in Ankara, and no longer recognised the administration in Istanbul, which on August 10, 1920, had signed the Treaty of Sèvres, thus formally ceding the territories to Greece which she presently occupied."
The first sentence is true. We can see that in any book on the Turkish War of Liberation and any academic study related to that war. (I guess also in the relevant WP articles.) But the second sentence is problematic: Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) reconvened the Turkish parliament (or "established" The Grand National Assembly of Turkey, as later accepted in official history), on 23 Nisan 1920, after a series of National Congresses destined to organise the resistance against the Greek invasion of Western Anatolia that began with the occupation of Izmir. He formed the Government of Ankara several days later within that parliament. The sentence in our article claims, with the grammatical use "had been" tense that Atatürk formed a Government after the signing of the Treaty of Sevres, which is, of course not true. All the reference to this "born dead", not finalised, so to say "Treaty" is only for the reason of trying to find a justification to the Occupation of Izmir (or Smyrna) but history says that the said Treaty is "posterior" (1920) to the occupation, which is prior (1919).
I may understand some users wish to introduce this illogical "relationship" for reasons of their own POV. However, I cannot understand (and accept) why in Wikipedia, after almost a century, we would distort history blatantly, changing chronological order of events only to whitewash the occupation of a now non existent state (the Kingdom of Greece) over a defunct state (Ottoman Empire). 
I request each and every WP user to help me to correct the text in an objective manner. Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this article needs to be rewritten in a chronological fashion. It's not a good read whatsoever. Also, there shouldn't be a "culture" section in this article, only a passing reference in the text. There are a few other issues. I suggest editors compile a chronological list of events and then try to write the article by strictly following that list. After that we can think about sections or perhaps new detailed WP articles. HelenOfOz (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Helen, while I agree with you on a good first step. I think the page is in too large of disrepair to be saved.  It needs to be gutted entirely.  A quick look shows the following problems at least.  Let's start.  1. Greek name comes first in Infobox.  Really? My red siren is going off for Nationalist POV right from the start. 2. "Flag of Smyrna" flag is a wiki-vention that links to the Flag of Greek Kingdom, which it is.  It is fine if you want to put the Greek flag on the page, but to mislabel it intentionally is bull.  3. Map is not correct.  It is a mix of war gains by Greece and official borders based on a one-sided map. Google Map of Ottoman Empire 1919 and you see they don't line up.  Basing a map on a clearly one-sided source (that has been noted for problems) is ridiculous. That's just the infobox, now onto content: 4. Small writing errors. Graph 2: The "Greek occupation became very controversial" to whom?. "He had immediately agreed"  With whom?  "this turn of events povoked" alright simple typo.  5.  Background section had no real citations until the last paragraph. And some sections awful close to original. Wiki-Article: "Lloyd George had thus concocted a report according to which Turkish guerrillas had threatened the Greek community of Smyrna"  Original text: "He concocted a report that an armed uprising of Turkish guerrillas in the Smyrna area was seriously endangering the Greek and other Christian minorities" (Jensen 1979, pg. 554). 6. History section is written pulp fiction style with broken chronology, which I love. Look at the start.  It starts in 1919 (post landing), then moves to 1920 with Sevres, then farther back to the Italian takeover of Antalya. 7. The history section uses sources creatively.  Let's look at "Stergiadis was against any form of discrimination against the Turks", ummmmmm.  Ionian Vision (the source) doesn't say that.  It says he punished discrimination by censoring the news for pragmatic motives (not to look bad to the British), not that he was "against any form of discrimination". This is kinda endemic of the history section.  8. Then we get the landing with the discussion of Hasan (by the way, if we didn't mention that John Wilkes Booth was a Southern radical, that seems like it would be incomplete, his motivation seems like a worthy contribution) and Turkish and Greek responses.  Which then repeats later, so yeah... 9. Treatment of local populations, while "even handed" (for including both arguments) is not based on all reputable sources.  We have some random website that provides n-1 sources for its claims with glowing defense of how well the Greek administration took care of the Muslims.  And we get more close to text writing: original source "loans were granted, new machine-cultivation methods were promoted, public works, such as road constructions, were inaugurated." The wiki-article "loans were granted, new machine-cultivation methods were promoted, public works, such as road constructions, were inaugurated".  10.  Culture section, you and I are agreed upon. Take it out. 11. Then we have the Demography section, which distorts the record by saying "British records say...and American records show the same thing."  If you go to the sources, they are the same records.  The British used the American records and that is quite clear.  But also, "According to some sources, the suggestion that the Greek element constituted a certain majority in the lands claimed by Greece has been contested"  But it links unclearly to a book about British foreign policy ending in 1914.  Hmmmmmm... 12. Then we get to the effects section, and once again are back to 1917 and before the landing.  I love it when effects precede causes.  Whew.  This was a quick read through with minimal fact-checking.  Any scratching at the surface is sure to find creative retelling, use of weird sources over reputable sources, and other nonsense.  3 of the 4 lines I've checked for copyright violations have been direct copies or close. Two are probably copyright violations, all 3 are way too close for comfort. The fact is that this page needs to be torn down, replaced with a stub, until these problems, at least, can be fixed.  I wish a quick rewrite were possible, but doubt it will do any good when we can't even get the chronology right, that doesn't bode well for fixing the larger issues.  I'd be willing to help out on the page, but not if it is going to be short-circuited for nationalist propaganda, which every indication shows it will. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Stubbing seems way overblown to deal with a couple of contents problems. Also, the article is already roughly chronological, we do not need to make a chronicle out of it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "a couple contents problems". (subtle chuckle to myself) I'm not sure there is one truthful statement in the article.  It even gets the end date wrong (sure by only a day), but since I know you like Brill's, here ya go.  Regardless, I'm not spending my time digging through iron.  If you all want to make it a good page, I think starting over is best.  If you all disagree with that, awesome. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  1920 coming before 1919 

message: I never had any objection to the "mentioning" of the dead-born, invalid "treaty" (within quotation marks) that one specific user loves to remind. I only objected its being used in a wrong chronological order, in a ridiculous attempt to invent some justification for an occupation that occurred before the said text was signed. (You got it, right? Had 24 hours to rethink.) Feel free to refer to that text as long as you do not revert the order of historical events and always clarifying that the so-called "treaty" never entered into force; which means it has not achieved legal value, ever... --E4024 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead-born Treaty

message: Ref (2) refers to a speech in 1919 but the article text where the ref is added is about the Turkish parliament that reconvened in Ankara on 23 April 1920. ???  --E4024 (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another chronological disorder 

message: So, time has passed with little movement on getting chronology right, answering E's problems or answering my problems with the page.  So, a significant rewrite was appropriate.  This is based on sources by academic historians written after the British archives of the time were open for analysis.  Analysis before that is incomplete, non-historian work is problematic because it isn't looking at all the evidence.  I did not use Mango's autobiography of Smyrna because most of his insights are from secondary sources, unlike a lot of his other evidence and because the aim of this rewrite was to get a basic chronology with details down (if someone wants to add in Mango, I'm cool).  So that's that.  Some changes for possible discussion:
*Removed Culture and Demography.  Neither of these play a key role in the canon of historical work on the Occupation of Smyrna (except for some Toynbee quotations about demography). We could add one in, but it needs to be far more advanced than the preceding demography discussion.   
*Controversial language is quoted.  But no long block quotes.  I could see us developing a section about "Different Views of Violence on May 15 and May 16" like is there in the Great Fire of Smyrna article.  With Harbord and the Interallied report, Toynbee, stuff like that.  But, otherwise, the block quotations are not necessary.
*Got rid of the map.  It shows areas shaded as Greek that they took over in 1920 (i.e. the Western Marmara).  I'm also not sure if the Smyrna territory is the Smyrna Sanjak or the Smyrna of the Milne line (note: different borders).
Regardless, hope everyone thinks that this is a better tapestry to improve the content of the article.  If not, say so below. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your objective contributions to this article. --E4024 (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but to me it seems like some major albeit subtle Turkish POV pushing. You have removed significant sections of the article and even the introduction makes it look like as if Greece invaded some alien country where no Greek ever lived and forcefully tried to make it Greek. You removed the demographics - why? How is it not important to show that there were more Greeks than Muslims in the Zone at the time? You keep on referring to it as an "occupation", a Turkish POV term, and you conveniently removed the sections which pointed out that Turks where in fact not a majority in the Zone. Suspecious. Also, why did you remove the map? Its obviously in 1920, why does it have to be in 1919? The Zone was not abolished in 1920, I fail to see why it has to be removed. --Philly boy92 (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments Philly.  I used no Turkish sources (most are Brits, I think).  I collected what the best (English-Language) historians have to say on the topic.  All decisions were made based upon the best sources available on the topic.  So, let's go through this: 1. Fix the lead.  I'm pretty sure it doesn't make it sound like they invaded some alien country but go ahead and fix it.  2. Removed demographics because none of the top histories talk about it at all.  As I said above, I'm not opposed to it, but we gotta get some A+ sources for a really good section.  (Also, not sure it's relevance to the article, but anyway).  3. Why use the term "occupation"?  Well, because the major English language historians do.  See Smith.  4. My problems with the map: A. It says it is 1919, but that isn't Greeks borders in 1919 (maybe 1920).  B. It was based on a treaty that never came into force.  C. It is from a Greek map with a number of problems, D. It doesn't identify what Smyrna we are talking about, the Sanjak or the Smyrna zone.  It looks like the Smyrna zone, but in that case includes too much territory to the North.  You want demographics added, I'll even do the work, just send me top notch sources and I'll add them into the article (they weren't in the old ones), particularly useful would be some article showing that demographics mattered to the actors involved, Toynbee suggests they didn't (by the way).  Hope you'll drop the Turkish POV stuff, it won't help us have a good conversation about improving the page. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: There seems to be a discrepancy in sources about the root of Stergiadis' motivations for taking a hard line against discrimination of the Turkish populations: whether he wanted to avoid the appearance of discrimination to the outside world for pragmatic reasons or whether he genuinely was against the discrimination.  Here's relevance sources:
# Richard Clogg A Concise History of Greece: "Despite the ruthless punishment of the Greek culprits and the arrival a few days later of the Greek High Commissioner, Aristeides Stergiadis, an austere disciplinarian with a genuine commitment to the even-handed treatment of Greeks and Turks, the damage had been done." Pg. 93. (emphasis mine)
# Giles Milton Paradise Lost: "His treatment of the church leaders, coupled with his absolute impartiality, earned Stergiadis the undying hatred of many local Greeks...Such sentiments must have brought a rare smile to Stergiadis's face; they sent a signal to the outside world that he was ruling his fiefdom with absolute justice.  This, after all, was what Venizelos had ordered him to do, aware that the Megali idea itself was on trial." pg. 162 
# Smith Ionian Visions: "Stergiadis struck hard at any discrimination against the Turks which might disturb order or complicate his delicate relationship with the allied representatives." pg. 92
To reflect this disagreement, I edited the article in this way: 1. Lead does not mention his motivation at all, not the place to go into that detail, 2. In content includes both possible motivations.  Don't like this edit? Discuss here.  AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stergiadis' Motivations 

message: I'm reverting the recent additions because the sources are problematic and because the focus crosses the WP:UNDUE threshold.  The Jensen article should provide the baseline on a few things: 1. When talking about the Occupation of Smyrna, the fire should get brief mention because it came after the occupation.  That is how much weight Jensen gives it.  Similar in terms of weight percentage, although more lengthy, for Smith. 2. The Armenian and Greek quarters were not completely destroyed (that is just dramatic phrasing), they were mostly destroyed (as was said in article before recent edits). 3. Blame will (probably) never be known. Get over it. Jensen establishes a clear way to deal with this uncertainty, just say that everyone has been blamed and we don't know. A less optimal way to deal with the problem is to infer blame from some book review (why not use the original source?).  Recent edits are problematic in terms of WP:UNDUE and a Hemingway scholar and a book review that contradict the claims in historians is a problem solved by WP:HISTRS. Jensen and Smith win. How to convince me: Find historians for the claims and who provide the weight desired in writing about the Occupation. Otherwise the claims can stay over on the appropriate article on the Great Fire of Smyrna and don't need to add too much weight to a page about the Occupation. Mention in prior form is sufficient, NPOV, and based on reliable sources for a history page. Added mentions are UNDUE, possibly POV, and not based on reliable sources for a history page. Peace. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I'm reverting edits about culpability 

message: So, the Aybars source has been added and reverted twice.  The most recent time "post a URL" is against WP:Verifiability policy. The source clearly exists here and appears to be an RS. That doesn't mean it should be in the article and that it is quality. But the content can be verified, the source is not self-published and is from a professor. Please post thoughts here rather than reverting again. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed Smith appears to briefly mention this event, although without details and without the name of the Turkish officer. I also noticed that this event (the way Smith describes it) is mentioned in the article about the 'Greek landing at Smyrna', an article focused in the events of the specific landing. However, this article here concerns the 3 year long Greek presence in the region and we have still no congrete argument to justify such an inclusion.Alexikoua (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Another good point and one I used above to keep lengthy discussion of the Fire from coming onto this page. I agree with Alexikoua that the if the event warrants content, it may be most appropriate on the Landing article. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aybars content and reverts 

message: The specific section needs to be expanded since it is the core of the article. It includes the entire period from 1919 to 1922, which was not a theatre of war, concerning the Smyrna occupation zone. Thus, I'll do my best expanding it.Alexikoua (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek administration