Talk:Burning of Smyrna/Archive 1

message: She is an assistant professor of Sociology at Bogazici University, and has published a slight paper of about 20 pages on the fire which worth mentioning as it contains recent interviews of those having witnessed the fire and some records. (Biray Kolluoglu Kirli, Forgetting the Smyrna Fire, History Workshop Journal 2005 60(1):25-44) The paper supports the thesis that it was the Turks who burned it. I will retrieve the relevent materials when I have more time. Fad (ix) 00:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biray Kolluoglu Kirli paper

message: We must put some external and internal links. What do you think? (87.203.188.125 13:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Why is there a footnote? Why not just put it into the article? --Awiseman 07:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote? 

message: To me, with no knowledge of this event,  Mukadderat's version  seems to be the most NPOV. I reverted it to that and added the Turkish telegram saying the Armenians and Greeks caused it. That should be fair, showing all viewpoints. --Awiseman 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: What is that, a telegram? --Awiseman 08:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What else could it be, SMS? :) Of course it is a telegram. Maybe it could be renamed as Telegram instead of Transaction for the sake of clarity. KertenkelebekⓉ 08:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll do that. The word "transaction" makes no sense to me in that context, maybe it's a British English thing. --Awiseman 16:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Transaction"? 

message: Unless I am suffering of hallucination, it seems that references I personally added were removed. Can I have some explanation as to why this was done? Thanks. Fad (ix) 17:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has become a dumping place for original research interpretation. As for being specific, I will leave the person who deleted them to add them back. The totallydisputed tag will remain as original research and POV are introduced in this article. I didn't knew that the ethnicity of scholares are now raised in scholarly published reviews as elements to dismiss ones academic contribution. Fad (ix) 21:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which statements, so they can be fixed? --Awiseman 15:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes by two Turkish intellectuals of that time close to the nationalist power who claims it was the Turks who burned the city, or the deleting Prentiss testimony where he says having seen Turks burning it and the information about him changing his version after being instructed by his superiors (Bristol, who reportdly also forced many others to change their versions more particularly on the massacres of Armenians). There are few other things which have been deleted.--Fad (ix) 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What has happened to this article

message: This is debatable. Since the Greeks held the city, it was Smyrna, but the fire happened after the Turks took it over, right?. I mean, to me it doesn't really matter, but people seem to get up in arms about this. --Awiseman 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was still widelly called Smyrna during that period, it is English Wikipedia and it was not called Izmir in English publications during the period covered. There is nothing political there, it should be a simple matter.--Fad (ix) 21:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: See straw man. Khoikhoi 06:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it Smyrna or Izmir 

message: Is it just me, or is the article now incredibly POV? I love it how now there's no mention of Chrysostomos of Smyrna in the article... —Khoikhoi 21:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, it is generally accepted that the nationalist Turkish forces who burned the Armenian and Greek quarters, this editor is switching the majority view as a minority view by supressing its sources and making them as few while transforming the article into a quote dumping place.--Fad (ix) 21:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Saying that "it is generally accepted that the nationalist Turkish forces who burned the Armenian and Greek quarters" is a POV itself. There's too less of a wievpoint here, what you see and read are solid evidence, first hand history from official eyewitness accounts. KertenkelebekⓉ 08:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to remove some of the clearly NPOV stuff from the recent edits, but there's definitely more now in favor of the Turkish viewpoint. --Awiseman 21:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree and think that the article is better now with your edits. However you can't blame the facts just because most of them point out the Turkish aspect. Turks burning their own city is completely illogical from the beginning. Now the aim should be removing the "disputed" tag from the article with a consensus and I'll be glad to show the best effort I can for this purpose. KertenkelebekⓉ 08:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. However, I removed some things you put back, such as the part saying Hovsepian "cannot be thought of as an impartial source." Wikipedia is not here to make that judgement. Just saying she's Armenian and so on will leave it up to the reader whether to believe her account or not. --Awiseman 14:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I think your most recent edits after my reversion are good. What does everybody else think? --Awiseman 15:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me explain that there are slight differences of meaning between words as you may agree. For instance a source may be partial (belonging to any of the parties: Turks of Armenians & Greeks) however suprisingly neutral. The judgement of calling a source "neutral" is an absolute POV. However any source which is not a member of the conflicting groups can objectively be stated as impartial (i.e. not a part of any). Yet it may not be considered as neutral even though it's impartial, that again is a POV. A similar shift of meaning is also present when you replace the word "ignore" with "disagree". Neither Houspevian nor Horton does comment on the official report by Grescovich. They tend to act as if such a report doesn't exist, which is ignoration. If they've had statements or comments on Grescovich's report then it could be decided as agreement or disagreement. KertenkelebekⓉ 15:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it should be "may be impartial", as who knows if he is more favorable towards one group or the other. As for the ignore/disagree thing, I think disagree is better. Ignore to me means something active - you have to choose to ignore something, where as "disagree" doesn't necessarily mean it's on purpose or that you are actively saying "No, you are wrong." Maybe Hovsepian and Horton just never read Grescovich's report, or didn't choose to address it for whatever reason. They're not "ignoring" it unless we hear otherwise. --Awiseman 15:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed "ignore" to "do not agree." To me, that's the most neutral. --Awiseman 16:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think just the opposite: ignorance is more like passive when compared to disagreement. To "disagree" you have to have an opinion, to have an opinion you have to have some information about the subject (the report). However as you have stated they may be unaware of such a report which can be called as ignorance in that case, again it's a passive situation. The other situation "not addressing it for whatever reason" is exactly what one calls as "ignoring". I still kindly insist on "ignore" rather than "disagree" (or "do not agree" they're exactly the same). About the impartial/neutral thing, though they may be closely related to a high percentage one does not necessarily means the other, you're a native you should know the nuissance even better. Calling a source as impartial does not include an atom of POV as long as the source does not belong to any of the conflicting parties; it is completely objective. KertenkelebekⓉ 16:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignorance can be passive, but ignore is active - you have to know something is there to ignore it. Ignore does not mean "does not know." Disagree isn't an active thing necessarily, it just means the two things aren't in agreeance. I actually made a mistake in my previous comment, I changed "disagree" to "does not match" which I think is a better way of putting it.  In any case, we're both trying to say the same thing, I think it's just a difference in English usage. --Awiseman 16:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits... 

message: Because the article was ful of bias. Please submit your edits in article as it is now and don't revert. Mitsos 11:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you reverted back to Kertenkelebek's version... —Khoikhoi 17:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Because changes by other editors have been made since then. I doubt the visitors would read it with the tag this page has... —Khoikhoi 00:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, since the dispute tag has now been removed, there are clearly no more problems with this article (even though there really are). Cheers. —Khoikhoi 17:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have rv further back 

message: Can we use non-English sources? I think not so I think that the Ataturk Telegram shoud be deleted. There is no way to check the veracity of this telegram in English as no translation has been published.
-Alexios Comenenos
:There is no Wikipedia policy against non-English sources, you might try asking someone who knows Turkish for a translation. —Khoikhoi 05:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-English Sources 

message: You know, with no offense to anyone, I think that this article has gotten itself in a mess. I think that it's because of POV-pushing in the sense that, for every POV that was pushed, the other side brought in more sources and the other side did the same and vice versa.. The titles of the sections clearly show this, they seem to be answering one another, there are full letters that are posted etc.. I don't think that I will have the time to personally conribute to this article, but I was just writing this to its regular contributors.. :)) Baristarim 03:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The mess

message: Why are those disputed? They have sources and are just other opinions on what happened, right? --AW 19:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the article I intend to work on if I have time, before the rest. Fad (ix) 05:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek scorched earth and Other sources? 

message: I removed the following part:
Mr. H. Lamb, the British Consul General at İzmir reported that he "had reason to believe that Greeks in concert with Armenians had burned Smyrna" 
The source provided was a Turkish colonel, and one must agree that a colonel in the Turkish army is hardly a legitimate unbiased source.
:I had to revert many of your edits in certain articles for a)inclusion of irrelevant information b)removal of other references c)not enough consultation of the consensus reached in talk pages. Please do not play with certain articles without using the talk pages, unilateral edits can only cause more tension. Cheers! Baristarim 06:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Look, there shouldn't be an inclusion of irrelevant content - half the things in there were not relevant. I strongly suggest you to raise the changes in the talk page. Most of this article was written after long debates. + try to interpret the sources correctly. A said B doesn't mean we can say "It was B". Correct format should be "A has said/claimed/stated/alleged that it was B". See the difference? + you removed other sourced content + as a result of these, section titles were also POV. This article has been particularly controversial in the past, so try to seek concensus before you make significant changes. That's all.Baristarim 04:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am sorry, but some of your additions also reflect your own interpretations as well. We are not here to prove that X is Y: Y should already be out there. So some of your edits also had WP:OR issues. As I said, raise the issues here, and if need be I can contact other regular contributors to this article to hear them out.Baristarim 04:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are new to Wikipedia, we appreciate your efforts to expand articles. However, just try to familiarize with wiki policies and the concensus and backgrounds of articles before making substantial changes. Cheers! Baristarim 04:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Pff, whatever.. Read my post carefully... You are including many data that are simply irrelevant to the article's title + cut down on the paranoia.Baristarim 04:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all you should explain the reasons behind such edits and inclusion of content.Baristarim 04:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Part Sourced by Turkish Colonel

message: The Lovejoy account was mentioned in the earlier version of the article, simply in passing in a vague sentece. I expanded the Lovejoy account into a paragraph, including a quotation from her New York Times interview. Perhaps this does not warrant a seperate section, but the expanded version is more informative than the original vague sentence:
"Another source which was the subject of a New York Times article on 9 October 1922, Dr. Esther Lovejoy, Chairman of the Executive Board of the American Women's Hospitals and President of the Medical Women's International Association, refused to discuss the causes behind the Smyrna trouble, confining herself to depicting the horrors she had actually witnessed."
The Lovejoy account clearly illustrates that she saw unformed Turkish troops and officers massacring Greek and Armenian civilians, which should be mentioned in anything on her account. This is in line with the view that the Turkish army set the fire as part of a systematic policy of exterminating Christians in Turkey.
-John Kritivic
:That is your interpretation and breaks WP:OR. Simple. In any case, your interpretation is false as well. Do not add irrelevant information. Baristarim 04:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. Lovejoy Account

message: This section has absolutely no relevance to the event. The purpose of this article is to present the latest academic research on the perpetrators of this crime. If the Greek army committed such attrocities then they can be presented as part of a separate article. Here we are trying to present the perpetrators of this crime: the Turks. Tedblack 10:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that it belongs to a separate article, possibly to Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). The latter comment, I'd prefer to see highlighted within the article at hand, and backed by solid sources (for which I repeat I have little knowledge). NikoSilver 14:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reading the article and I also concur that this part is totally out of place. It somehow "states" that alleged fires set out in other places are somehow connected with these events. One must note also that the reference given is a "primary" source (ref> U.S. Vice-Consul James Loder Park to Secretary of State, Smyrna, 11 April 1923. US archives US767.68116/34). It is not treated here by any secondary sources, thus hinting to original research, not only with connection to these events (destruction of Smyrna) but also in connection with its very title. Simply put this source does not prove or implies any "Greek scorched earth policy" in Smyrna. --No31328 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all the above comments. This section is in the wrong article. It has nothing to do with the destruction of Smyrna, but with the overall events of the Greco-Turkish War. If there is no objection, I intend to remove it from here and place it in Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922).--Yannismarou 08:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Unless any suitable sources explicitly link this 'policy' to the subject of the article, I can't see any reason why this section belongs here either. Jakew 09:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Greek scorched earth policy" 

message: I have noticed that attempts by other contributors to cover this historical event under more relevant titles (e.g. Destruction of Smyrna) have been terminated and reverts to this questionable article have been introduced. It is the right of contributors to post articles on this subject. Furthermore, the title "Great Fire of Smyrna" sounds a like "Great Fire of London"; it gives the impression of an accidental burning of the city by some mad arsonist or an accident. The correct title is "The Destruction of Smyrna" which expresses the true nature of the event. Tedblack 10:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I'd like to see that highlighted in the article first, and in the title second. There is a guideline in WP regarding names of articles, so we have to prepare a case (possibly a WP:RFC). That guideline is WP:NCON. I feel that it is too early to move into that direction, as the facts have not been presented in an NPOV way within the article yet (it will work against your proposal). For the record, in terms of "frequencey", we have zero hits for the present title in Google scholar (here) and 17 hits for "Destruction of Smyrna" (here); pending other variations being checked, that is.NikoSilver 15:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Tedback, when you add new material in the article, please always cite your edits with footnotes per WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTES. And try to use third party sources. If you follow these simple rules, I don't think that anybody will have an excuse to revert you. In the weekend, I hope I will have the time to check my own sources.--Yannismarou 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts to "Great Fire of Smyrna" 

message: I've just changed part of the 'British refugees' section to improve neutrality. It seems to me that the first paragraph is really about blame, and the nationality of the refugees is coincidental. Could it be better organised?
Also, there seem to be two separate sections about refugees. Is there a reason for this, or can they be combined? Jakew 10:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refugees

message: Copy-pasted what immediately follows (down to Hectorian's remarks) from my talk page. Cretanforever 04:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I received your message. May I go ahead and put this picture in a Second World War related article with a caption like, "US troops shortly before the landing in Normandy?". At one time, Turkish army uniforms had double row of buttons, but not during the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). If someone comes up and says, "Hey! Those uniforms are not that war!", it's a valid argument. Cretanforever 13:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't understand.  That's not a Speedy delete criteria.  The proper thing to do is to fix the caption.  If you're still unclear about this, then do this: Read WP:CSD.  You nominated the image for Speedy deletion, and I've told you that "I think the caption of the image is wrong" is not a valid speedy delete criteria.  Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the user who uploaded it should be made to understand that editing in an encyclopedia is a rather conservative exercise, and in the specific case of wikipedia, there are rules to respect as you cite yourself. It's amazing that the image is around since months. I am not the fixer or the headmaster of Kalamata primary school. I will proceed differently. Cheers. Cretanforever 16:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Speedy deletion is not a tool for "teaching someone a lesson".  Please use care in the future, and use the correct methods for fixing problems - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You read my thought and you caught my words:) I am precisely shunning away from "teaching someone a lesson". Cretanforever 16:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is the relevant page of Military Museum in İstanbul http://www.tsk.mil.tr/genel_konular/askerimuze.htm (they should know something about Turkish uniforms). Article 19 corresponds to the uniforms used during the Turkish War of Independence. You also have a glimpse of the earlier ones, as well as the painting by Fausto Zonaro for a clearer look, for which I am putting the commons link in the page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:D%C3%B6meke_Harbi_Zonaro.jpg. If you prefer yet another citation, other than the commons, I can deliver it too. Zonaro's painting would look nice in the Greco-Turkish War (1897) article by the way. 
I wouldn't trust Greek sources on Turkish matters if I were you. If you want another example where it is written in the bottom in Greek such and such, but the image is clearly the exploit of someone's backroom mongering, just ask me to show you :)
Cretanforever 04:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I still have not seen a source stating that these uniforms were not in use during the Greco-Turkish war... The link provided from the Military Museum in Istanbul, does not clear up things: the two soldiers on the left have one row of buttons in their uniforms, just like the two soldiers on the left in the picture of this article. Nor can I see other differences between the historic black and white photo and the wax (I guess) figures in the Istanbul Military Museum; and to be honest, why should we believe what 4 wax images created (I suppose) in the '80s-'90s depict, and not a photo of the '20s? I am not in need of any example... Even if there exists (I suppose it does) an image which is clearly the exploit of someone's backroom mongering, it does not mean that this image is also that. We cannot remove and delete pictures just because another picture is a forge or just because we do not like them... I trust what is written in this picture, cause it is written in polytonic, and cause, practically, I cannot see anything that would allow me to call it "fabricated": black and white image, bad quality (well, none expects better quality for such an old picture-we have examples of pictures from the '20s in other articles), historic image, turkish uniforms (with no convincing evidence that these uniforms were not in use in early 1920s), Greek script in polytonic, and, though I am not an expert, I cannot see any Adobe Photoshop or other programme's traces. Hectorian 17:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You trust, I don't. You say genuine, I say photomontage. You say black, I say khaki. You ask for a "convincing evidence that these uniforms were not in use in early 1920s". I say, fortunately, le ridicule ne tue point:) We should put it into this talk page until it's clarified. Cretanforever 19:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniforms 

message: Recent additions/modifications by a committed group of turkish editors have transformed this article into a tourist brochure proudly displaying new buildings that make Izmir such a great tourist attraction. This would be perfect if the article was about Izmir but here we are trying to let people know about a very tragic event that resulted in more than a million refugees. Is it possible to moderate this organised attempt by a pack of turks to camouflage their black bits of history? --Tedblack 10:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ted, please let's not speculate about whether editors are Turkish or not. Could you focus on the changes instead? Jakew 11:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ted, I agree with Jakew for one more reason: You need to devote your energy into writing and referencing the article itself. You seem very knowledgeable on the matter, and your edits are more than welcome if sourced. Please continue in that direction, and remember: Your goal should be to fix the article; not the other editors here. NikoSilver 14:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The relevance issue was cleared out above. NikoSilver 21:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Learn to read and write before you start using a computer. --Tedblack 12:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A consensus is an agreement. I see no agreement here. Khoikhoi 04:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, the photo above is revealing for the means used by the turkish f... government, to shut the mouths of those who dare talk about freedom. Apropos, this photo has CIA connections... Funny is the external policy of the United States...: the Kurds of Iraq should be autonomous or independent, but the Kurds of Turkey should never be or even exist! (LOL... read Gibbon...). Secondly, I cannot even understand why there is so much dispute about the fire of Smyrni... The Greek army had already left... the fire began shortly after the kemalist army entered the city, and, moreover, in the Armenian Quarter... (see Armenian Genocide). Let the users draw their own conclusions, instead of presenting them panturkist and kemalist ideas... The fire was set up by kemalists! it is so tiring to present facts... as if an encyclopedia should give to a povish, nationalist minority opinion the same weight.... I even could support the tuskish POV, if someone was in the position to tell me what happened to the 250,000 Greeks of Smyrni... Where they abducted by aliens? Area 51 would look a kiddengarden in front of this... But φωνήν βοώντος εν τη ερήμω... (read the Bible for the translation... what? it's original script is in Greek? LOL... Then, I "suppose" the Greeks have nothing to say about this and Asia Minor... LOL). If some users want to claim Ataturk's lover's writings, let them do so... But these writings will be considered as valid as the respective writings of ultra nationalists of whatever side... I know that the tuskish users have been fulled by kemalist-panturkist ideas, but these ideas are not gonna prevail in wikipedia... They may believe that the Hittites and the Sumerians were turkish (LOL)... They may believe that Prophet Mohamand was turkish (kara-LOL... they will get the meaning of this (kara) one... since, even the turkish minister of culture said that... hahahahahahaha! Mohamand a Turk! hitting my head agaist the wall, but can't stop laughing... Haha! are the Turks wonder why the Arabs still don't like them? LOL), but better keeping these crap for internal consumption... The world is not that stupid as the tuskish government...Hectorian 06:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  The main lesson from wikipedia: they who organise reverts shall inherit the article; he who reverts on his own shall be blocked. You have to hand it to the turks: they are a tireless group of reverters.  --Tedblack 11:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has been transformed into a tourist brochure 

message: Khoikhoi, why do you keep putting up a picture of Thea Halo? She is of Greek Pontian origins and has nothing to do with Smyrna...
:I've removed her, thanks. Khoikhoi 06:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thea Halo

message: Please name even one contemporary non-Turkish scholar that honestly believes that the Greeks burned Smyrna. Ferguson, Fromkin, Karsh, Lewis and numerous other non-Greek and non-Turkish scholars (as well as some Turkish scholars) have affirmed that the Turkish military burned Smyrna. This article needs to be totally revamped to reflect the majority positon of scholars, but the POV of some Turkish nationalists who like to edit Wikipedia.
-Alexius Comnenus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.225.190.250 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please post here the exact citations and quotes, Alexi? NikoSilver 23:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See . Khoikhoi 06:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkish POV Nonsense