Talk:İzmir/Archive 1

message: Given that there have been no more reverts can I safely assume that the history bit in this article is now sufficiently NPOV to remove the notice? Typed when the most recent edit was , the one edit after it was the removal of the neutrality disputed note. Jor 22:15, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Dispute over? 

message: I removed the following:
: This book gives an historical account of the events of Sept. 1922 when Mustapha Kemal (Ataturk) led his troops into Smyrna (now Izmir)- a predominantly Christian City as 27 Allied warships including 3 American destroyers stood by. Turkish troops proceeded to victimize the residents of this city and subsequently set fire to this historic city and totally destroyed it. A massive coverup by agreement of Western Allies followed, because of oil and trade interests in Turkey.
If there is any truth to these claims (especially predominantly Christian City and oil and trade interests in Turkey), provide sources and include them in appropiate places in the article, not in description of a book. I'd like to point out that the killings at this time is mentioned in the article, as  well as the dispute about the source of the fire. AFAIK, that dispute is not resolved conculusively. at0 00:03, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Book by Marjorie Housepian Dobkin

message: Should this actually be located at İzmir?  Gerry Lynch 23:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper location for article

message: Shouldn't the name of the city in its history change according to whatever name was used at the time?  Compare Vyborg, which was also called variously Viborg and Viipuri before it acquired its modern Russian name.
I have a proposal.  We call the city Smýrna during the ancient period, then Smýrnē during the Hellenistic period, then Smýrni during the Byzantine period, then İzmirni from the start of Ottoman rule up to the point where the contraction İzmir became official by the Turkish government, with explanations about the gradual name changes.  For example, Smýrna is an Aeolic name, but Smýrnē is Ionic/Attic/Koine.  From the Byzantine period, ē became i in all contexts (except for Pontus and Cappadocia, but those don't pertain to Smýrni), and İzmirni was the closest available Turkish approximation of the Greek name. - Gilgamesh 20:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Contextual name

message: This article has a rambly quality and needs to be edited for clarity and flow.
Also, some sections come near broaching the neutrality question, in my opinion.  The "Homer" section, for instance.  The article uses purple prose to describe Homer and states without equivocation that he was born in Izmir, but a quick jump to the Homer article would make it clear that many places are claimed to be his birthplace and his entire existence is tstill hotly debated.  Perhaps this could be worked into a "Cases for Izmir being Homer's birthplace" section? (after adding a link to the Homer page)
It's great to have such a wealth of information about such a beautiful city (I learned much from the article), but the article deserves a higher standard of composition.
----
You are welcome to try, but anyone who tries to edit any article to do with Greece and/or Turkey is asking for trouble. The Wikipedia Greek and Turkish Nationalist Parties are always ready to restart the war. Adam 13:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing needed 

message: I added a boilerplate to merge Smyrna into this article. Both articles contain information about the ancient period of the city, and I think that either the information about the ancient city from this article should go to Smyrna, or the two should be merged. 
On the other hand, maybe this is not the right time to attempt this, because there seems to be a Greek - Turkish edit war going on in that article, concerning the events of September 1922 (that part really belongs to this article, as it is not about ancient Smyrna). Gakrivas 11:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There! a perfect reason to keep Smyrna of antiquity separate from modern Izmir, a city in its own right. We have a New Amsterdam article, don't we? --Wetman 00:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Smyrna into this article? 

message: "... gave recitals and performances at various venues in the city and surrounding areas, including the ancient theatres at Ephesus and Metropolis.
I've been working on disambiguating Metropolis references. What's this referring to? Is there a place named Metropolis in Turkey? Whitejay251 14:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.I'm going to remove the link to Metropolis unless anyone objects. Incidentally, another Wikipedian pointed me to more info on this Metropolis: http://www.byegm.gov.tr/yayinlarimiz/NEWSPOT/24/N30.htm. Whitejay251 11:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Festival at Metropolis 

message: Not sure how true this is, but a Turkish friend of mine says that the Turkish form "Izmir" isn't actually a contraction of "I Smyrni", but that the initial vowel is inserted to fit into the Turkish phonological system - the "sm" or "zm" combination is not possible at the beginning of a word in Turkish, according to him, so an initial vowel is inserted to make it possible to pronounce.  I think that it would also be an idea to mention that the "z" in "Izmir" reflects Greek pronunciation, if not spelling.
Though not a turkish speaker myself I can verify that this is a plausible theory. Turkish cypriots when speaking greek would add an i in front of certain words starting with z or s. Mavros 00:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the name "Izmir" 

message: Smyrna and Izmir are essentially two very different cities that have absolutely nothing to do with eachother, other than the geographic location. Smyrna should always have a separate article. --Eupator 13:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Smyrna was renamed Izmir when the Turks took it in 1922. It was very different in 1923 than it had been in 1921, but it had the same buildings, the same farms, etc. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know what the official Ottoman name of İzmir was, but the official Ottoman name of İstanbul was actually Qusţanţaniyyeh (قسطنطنيه).  I believe it was only changed under Atatürk. --Macrakis 15:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On Istanbul / Konstantinopoli (and its variants inluding Kostantiniye) as well as, İslambol (music to some ears, because of the Islam conection, not to mine, I am secular) / Dersaadet (the port of felicity) / Payitaht (the place of the throne) and quite a few others, I think this page provides well-presented (and neutral) explanations:
http://www.sephardicstudies.org/istanbul.html
It is clear that the contemporary sensitivity on the origins of place names is directly attributable to the rise of nationalism as an ideology. 'The official name' of a city did not mean what it means today, say, back in the 15th century. The Ottomans certainly did use 'Kostantiniye' (among other names) in official context (edicts, other documents, coins). But not in an exclusive, or even in a predominant manner. It is understandably picked up more readily by a Western (or Greek) ear. Among the population and in the literature, Istanbul primed. And its officialization marked a point not only toward Constantinople, but toward Islambol as well. --Cretanforever. (I do not expect a Greek person to say anything other than Konstantinopoli or Smyrna or whatever when speaking or writing in Greek. Historically, they are his cities as well. That goes for any Greek source. If we are into personal connections, I did go to Ierapetra in Crete, and I see the fountain built by my great-grandfather, and I cried, so I know more or less what it feels like. When I speak in Turkish I say Selanik or Kandiye or Kaylari -do you know where that is?, it is today's Πτολεμαΐδα-, but I take care in using the actual names in a conversation with a Greek (or other non-Turkish) person. And I think that, in an encycopedia article in English, the local/current/official/standardized name should be used.)
I humbly think that Greek energies would be better spent on developing the Greek wikipedia (some 7000 articles, against 13500 in Turkish), rather than in interminable discussions on the basics and methods of the English wikipedia. We have more articles on Greek cities of antiquity than the Greeks: :) :) :) 
 
--Cretanforever
İzmir's Greek population increased due to migrations from the islands and the Peloponnese (which, at that time, were Ottoman too, sorry!, I meant Turkish:) when it became an international trade center as of the beginning of the 18th century. In 1717, there were only two Orthodox chuches in the city (compared to 19 mosques and 18 synagogues) (source: Ανάγνωστοπούλου Σ. 1997). In 1912, 58.5 % of the city's population was Greek, 33 % Turkish.
On that, pelopennese was never turkish it was Ottoman most citizens of the Ottoman Empire were not turks the Turkish nation is an invention of Kemal and turkish nationalism, even the turks of Smirna were mostly greeks who have been forced to become muslims --Reefus2 16:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is justified to then have different articles about those cities, if what is to be said is long enough. We usually do cut articles if they are long enough, for the same subject, it doesn't make sense to then merge two different articles that each are long enough to justify their existance. Fad (ix) 17:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have a proposal. We call the city Smýrna during the ancient period, then Smýrnē during the Hellenistic period, then Smýrni during the Byzantine period, then İzmirni from the start of Ottoman rule up to the point where the contraction İzmir became official by the Turkish government, with explanations about the gradual name changes. For example, Smýrna is an Aeolic name, but Smýrnē is Ionic/Attic/Koine. From the Byzantine period, ē became i in all contexts (except for Pontus and Cappadocia, but those don't pertain to Smýrni), and İzmirni was the closest available Turkish approximation of the Greek name. - Gilgamesh 20:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Changed my mind. Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conflict, section "Dealing with historical contexts". Although I still believe all that I said above Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia policy. --Michalis Famelis 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are mistakes in Wikipedia there, to dump different cities with different people by claiming they are the same. This can not be used to justify another mistake. Different name, different people(nation), I'd qualify this as a different city on the same location. Fad (ix) 17:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Fad, you say Kalingrad, Rijeka, etc are Wikipedia mistakes. But in my view they are not mistakes at all. Thinking about what you and others have written, I think we have a fundamental difference of definition - "what is a city?". For you, a city is its people (culture/civilisation) , so if the people change, it becomes automatically a different city.
*I, and some others, dont accept that at all. For us, a city is a "geographical thing" (like a river) in a specific location. Who lives there is irrelevant. If the Turks had built a new city 20 km away, it would be a different city. But they rebuilt it in the same place, so it must be the same. 
*I am not disputing that the culture of pre-1922 Smyrna and modern-day Izmir are totally different. It's a historical fact. I just think that is irrelevant to this debate. Same location = same city (nothing else matters). If the Germans had taken London in WW2 and settled 5 million Germans there it would still be a continuation of the same city. Jameswilson 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clearly unencyclopedic, this is not limited to the people living there, it is about a city which existed by this name, there are many cities which name was changed after the Babylonian period, we do not call those cities from their Babylonian names. When I search the city of Ur, I do not find it merged with the current borderings. It is accepted and used generally in historic publications that we name a place by the name it was called in the period we cover. I say, leave it at that, emigrate what is to be emigrated from one article to the other and link both to eachothers. That is the best solution and this is how it is done in other encyclopedias. Fad (ix) 17:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether to merge or not 

message: I belive that to stop this greek and turkish history should be seperated as much as possible, Smyrni and Izmir can overlap but mainly devoted to greek or turkish history.
Enlil Ninlil 00:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isn't Istanbul merged with Constantinople? Chaldean 02:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Uyumayın. İsimsiz birisi, Türkler İzmir'i yaktı yıktı, Yunan halkını kılıçtan geçirdi, gözlerini kan bürümüştü vs. tarzı, Yunan ilkokul kitaplarından çıkma şeyler yazıyorlar sayfaya ve birinizde üzerine gitmiyorsunuz bunun haftalardır.--Kagan the Barbarian 13:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arkadaşlar 

message: I think that it is your tricks that belong to the elementary school man. Sorry about that, friend. --Avmatso 00:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Smyrniot, frankly, I don't understand what you are trying to say here. First, if you want to use Greek names in the future, try Constantinoupolis, this is the correct spelling of the word. Second, I don't know whether you are a Smyrniot, but a part of me certainly is. So I have some pretty reliable sources of information about what happened those days. In fact, my grandmother and grandfather never had any hatred against your people, inspite of all that they had been through. So why should I hate you? Anyway, I'm getting sick of all that "hate" thing. Oh, by the way, why don't you publish your "epic" popular poem "The Hate"? Now this would be very amusing. Don't you know where to find it? Here is a link to a webpage, made by the Grey Wolves . The only problem is that it is in Greek, but don't worry. Your Greek friends will help you translate it. And here is another "biased" page in Wpedia, about the Istanbul pogrom. I would not say that you have some fear of the Greeks, only that you have... quite a temper, that's all. --Avmatso 08:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure you understand that your buddies refer to the Greco-Turkish war as the anti-turkish campaign.--Avmatso 23:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: u did not make mistake.it is Kordelio (Κορδελιό).it is also of a suburb of Thessaloniki, whose inhabitants are descendants of the refugees from asia minor, but i did not know from which place exactly.now i know:)--Hectorian 15:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: U are talking about Tripolitsa i guess, but u are getting it far with the numbers.Tripolitsa had at that time a population of roughly 30,000.most of them were Greeks(since the Turks were never in majority in the Peloponnese) and also some Jews.i do not know what turkish history books say,but simply there were not that many turks there.lastly,when Kolokotronis says 'for 3 days...bla bla bla' he does not mean that literary.unless u believe that Saggarius was not full of water, but of blood(as greek accounts say),when the turks attacked the greek front-line in asia minor.such poetic formulas are created to attract the reader's attention,not to be taken seriously. --Hectorian 17:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not debating the validity of the quot about Kolokotronis that u said(although i have not read it myself), nor that it was written in an article of 'Vima'. but were did u hear that this journalist was sued?it's totally false.such a crime does not exist in greece(but only when the country is in state of war).and in 1999 we were not. --Hectorian 18:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of everything that is written here, the claim that a Greek journalist was charged with treason, is by far the most absurd.  Greece is no human rights heaven but there have not been any political prisoners there, since 1974.--Avmatso 23:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arkadaşlar 

message: I have undone the merge made by  until we can get a clearer consensus on this. I for one think that the two articles should remain separate, per "Smyrna" and "Izmir": same place, different subjects|this. Besides, Istanbul and Constantinople are still separate. --Khoikhoi 06:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge undone 

message: "Within a few days, more than 3000 years of Greek presence in Asia Minor and in the area of İzmir in particular, came to a violent end. Justified by the Greek military presence in Asia Minor or not, a great number of attrocites were reported, on behalf of the Turkish army, mainly against people belonging to the Greek and Armenian communities of the city. On September 13th, İzmir experienced one of the greatest disasters of its history. A fire that some, mainly American, eyewitnesses claim that was set by the Turkish army in Basmane Quarter, destroyed more than 20,000 buildings in an area of 2,600,000 m². However, the city was gradually rebuilt after the proclamation of the Turkish Republic in 1923.-->"
First sentence looks like it was taken from a novel. In fact I know it is. What was the American author's name, you tell me? He is also the American you are claiming to be the American witnesses, isn't he? I read some parts from his book, the man is clearly biased towards Muslims, his sentences are usually aimed to create drama for the Christian population of the city and curse the Muslims, ignoring the fact that it was Turks who were at the defensive, it was Turkish towns that were occupied at first. And he cites no sources for anything, only hear-say information filtrated through his racist biased mind and we are expected to take his words as the truth.
Anyway tell me his name and I am sure we'll find some parts from his book online.--Kagan the Barbarian 15:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avmatso 

message: --Avmatso 15:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point? We already acknowledged they were forced to the sea, so does every Turkish history book. No Greek occupation, none of this would happened. By the way where are all the Greeks being massacred? Where are the Turkish soldiers?--Kagan the Barbarian 09:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With Americans watching and taking photographs at the shore, Turks are massacring 100,000 Greeks while the whole city is burning, which of course Turks started to keep themselves warm. By the way, these are the same Turks who after this war, started a large renovation and rebuilding of the Republic of Turkey, this is exactly what this poor country needed, burning down a properous city so they can rebuild it later... with what? Mud? Welcome to Lord of the Rings 4.--Kagan the Barbarian 09:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you see how many people are trying to get into these boats? Can you see that in two of the photographs the boats sunk from the excessive weight? I remind you that these are civilians, including women and children, not soldiers. Are these pictures of a peaceful, even hasty if you will, evacuation, or pictures of panic? Anyway, I am not getting into this conversation any more. You are still being arrogant and ironic. Whoever has eyes can draw his own conclusions. --Avmatso 03:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greeks, with nothing to fear (?), evacuating Izmir 

message: "The Turkish side is accused of many atrocities against the Greek and Armenian communities in İzmir, including the lynching of the Orthodox Metropolitan Chrysostomos."
If I find a neutral source for this edit, is everybody in agreement to restore its place in the article? Miskin 22:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Cretanforever, are u lecturing me about the way i edit? why u remove his name? cause there is still not a wikipedia article about him? well here are some sources were he is mentioned: a cultural greek page , New Work Times , and something from St Antony’s College (maybe it has something to do with Oxford University-i am not sure) 
I may be able to find more...So, before u revert again, provide a sorce that this man never existed and nothing happened in his life. I am reverting again... --Hectorian 09:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chrysostomos 

message: :One of the reasons that I won't accept this is because I've seen your editing behaviour in other articles. If it weren't for me and Hectorian to clean-up your edits in the Mazinkert, the article would have said things like "so, dude, you know poor Greek Emperor was ******-up by the Greeks, lucky for him the Turks took him in etc...". I've also tried to contact you in the past and propose you to email me in order to settle out content disputes. I assume you remember your reply. It's in your Talk page. I wanted to leave a record, wasn't that your exact working? You have failed to co-operate when it was gently asked from you, hence I feel no obligation to show understanding to your POV.  It's funny how you present the situation as it was "just another war". Maybe we should do that in the WW2 article. I'm sorry, but the "brutal lynching" and the mention in the massacres will stay (it's not as if I asked you to devote the article on the Greco-Turkish war). Hundreds of thousands of Greeks and Armenian civilians were slain during, and a compromise between two editors has no authority in hiding the truth. Miskin 15:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my talk page: (...) Not a serious user. Frequently applies self-made ruse. See Contributions. --Cretanforever 14:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ***