Talk:Occupation of Smyrna/Archive 1

message: Firstly, why does this article exist under the name Smyrna? It is now Izmir, the history of Izmir should be given there. The whole article is concerned with portraying Greeks as the rightful owners of Izmir until Turks came and "massacred" them. The last section on the burning of Izmir is so POV im surprised its still here.
:I am the one who put the NPOV tag up. Of course, I agree there is a POV problem with the last section. However, the article is neither "terrible" nor is there I believe a question whether it makes sense to have an article on an ancient town called Smyrna. Rl 17:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because nobody wrote one? Rl 11:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible article 

message: Let's see some translated quotes from current Turkish history textbooks treating the Smyrna affair, in addition to the endless contentions over personal interpretations. Right or wrong,whatever is being taught in Turkish secondary schools is genuinely informative for the neutral Wikipedia reader. --Wetman 21:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkish textbooks

message: I have removed inflammatroy language, tried to rewrite in a neutral way as possible. Please feel free to expand but remember history is never black and white.  --E.A 19:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burning of Smyrna 

message: There is only one book that really study the cases of the fire in Smyrna, and it is her book. Neither Horton or Kinross covering of the fire are authoritative books, this being the cases, it requires that her book have its own place in the article, separated from others. The same way I have given McCarthy, his own section in the Armenian population entry. Besides, it is also known that Kinross after reading her work has changed his own version of the event. The book itself also contains Turkish accounts, including two groundbraking, one of which, from a close confident of Ataturk. It also contains statments of authorities from the fire department and elsewhere. Bristol himself forced some witnesses to change their version of the story, as a part in the Chestler and son consession that never materialized.
Besides, E.A., there are various reports of massacres of Armenians in Smyrna, many included in Dobkins book. Reports of rapes and various other crimes. Those crimes were to happen before, had German general Sander didn't pressurized the Turkish authorities with threat of German military intervention, if the plan of the evacuation of the Armenians of Smyrna was to be put in applications, because it was seriously interupting German war efforts. 
The crimes later were extended against the Greeks, Ali §ukrü the deputy from Trabzon, even managed to extend those measure on the other side of the empire, pointing on how regretful was that the measures against the Armenians were not extended to the Greeks when they had the occasion. Repeated by the disgusting allusions of the minister of finance, Hasan Fehmi, who compared on how successful resolution of the Armenian "question" with the failure of the Greek one.
While this entry is about Smyrna, I don't see how both side massacres, could be presented as equaly extensive, when the entire Greek and Armenian quarters were destroyed, looted, vanished, while the Turkish quarter was left intact to later form Izmir. Be precise here please. Fadix 23:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dobkin's book

message: The reference to Prentiss without mentioning that he changed his version after after being instructed by his superiors to do just that, because new blames on the Turkish side would have placed seriously in danger the various new contracts signed.
Prentiss actually say having witnessed, with many of his colleagues, that it was the Turkish soldiers that burned the city. In September 18, 1922, his report of the situation was published in the New-York Times. Here is what he had to say:
"Many of us personally saw-and are ready to affirm the statement-Turkish soldiers often directed by officers throwing petroleum in the streets and houses. Vice-Consul Barnes watched a Turkish officer leisurely fire the Custom House and the Passport Bureau while at least fifty Turkish soldiers stood by. Major Davis saw Turkish soldiers throwing oil in many houses. The Navy patrol reported seeing a complete horsehoe of fires started by the Turks around the American school." 
After being criticized by his superior, 2 days later, he answer with a new statment accuzing the Greeks for having exasperated the Turks, which has caused the fire.
"The burning of Smyrna will rank as the world's greatest tragedy, and it is likely historians will divide the responsibility. The
Greek action in arming civilians, together with prolonged and extensive sniping, exasperated the Turks beyond their officers'
control. The officers exerted an effort to maintain order and establish a record for peaceful occupation."
This did not satisfy still his superior, and a week after this second article, he praised the Turks, for the way they were dealing with the refugees.
But I guess Adm. Bristol(US High Commissioner at the American Embassy in Istanbul), was not satisfied, the same that has barred access to many cites of Armenian massacres and forced American witnesses to change their versions in various occasions, the protector of American contracts, the Chestler consession(See: Simpson, Christopher. "The Splendid Blond Beast: Money, Law, and Genocide in the Twentieth Century", for more information about this, as well as "Starving Armenians: America and the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1930 and After" by Merrill D. Peterson . So Prentess was consulted to write about a story changing the entire American version of the events, the story was sent to Bristol, in a form of a manuscript to be published in Jan. 11, 1923, which has gone as far as to propose a version in which Armenians were in Turkish military uniforms, burning their own quarter. And what we have here? In this entry we have the last version of his. Fadix 01:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If its wrong, change it Fadix, just keep it neutral. --E.A 19:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prentiss was forced to change his account 

message: There are absolute no reason under any Wikipedia rules to delete such a sentence. There are abount number of articles containing such terms and even worst. It is a quotation and should have remained there. Please clarify under which Wikipedia principle it was deleted. Fadix 16:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already informs the reader "Her assessment is that the city was ravaged and destroyed by Turkish troops under the noses of Allied ships", anything beyond that is worthless graphic description, the kind you would not see in any respectable encyclopedia. --E.A 16:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know that quoting someone was not done in a serious encyclopedia. Be it a graphic description or not, it is her words and I really can see why they should be deleted. Fadix 16:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we quote the attrocities done by Turks, and not those done by Greeks? (which i could quote plentifully). --E.A 16:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an entry about Smyrna, nearly the entire Greek and Armenian community left the place. The Turks were attempting to remove the Armenians from there, back in 1915, when General Sanders put an end to it. Later, the cities Greek and Armenian population was just forced to leave, there are countless report of massacres and rapes in Dobkins book, and she only write what was there. What happened elsewhere by the Turkish or Greek forces, outside of Smyrna, is irrelevent in this entry, what happened in Smyrna thouth, there was a clear disproportion between what the Greeks have done, and what the Turks have done. You can not misrepresent it as if a tequaly sided massacre is supported there. I really don't see how you can do that. Fadix 16:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the trail of destruction the Greek army left behind them, which the Turkish army witnessed during its chase that played a massive role in what happened when the Turks entered Smyrna, it has everything to do with what happened. Thats what Kinross was referring to when he said the population of Smyrna feared reprisals for what the Greek army had done. --E.A 17:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Entire villages in the entire Anatolia were burned to the ground, as a way to prevent Armenians that survived to return in their homes. I don't see how, in the section of the burning, there should be a justification by alluding to what the Greeks have done elsewhere, when mass burnings such as the Armenian quarter of Marash, and entire Armenian villages in the East weren't the result of anything. Smyrnas fire is considered to only be equaled with the burning of Rome, I don't see how one can take an equal spaces to developpe other instances of massacres and burnings, with those that have actually happened in Smyrna(the subject of this entry). And such policies are actualy Wikipedia principles, while the deletion of a quote is not. The Turkish quarter was left untouched, while the Greek and Armenian quarters were burned to the ground, and you are here wanting equal coverages. Am I missing something? Fadix 17:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think that you are realizing it. Smyrna fire led to the evacuation of the hundreds of thousands of people, the fire was seen hundreds of kilometers around; There is no precedent for Smyrna, other than the legendary fire of Rome. The number of victims alone in few days in Smyrna exceed the Greeks retreating crimes. You want to delete a quote about Smyrna, because Greeks commited crimes elsewhere. I don't understand still your logic. Fadix 18:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and, what do you say that I quote the burning of Armenian villages too? Don't you see how your point doesn't make sense? Fadix 18:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fadix, as i have said, no respectable source will give graphic details of attrocities, especially when the Greeks played such a big part in provoking the acts of Turkish soldiers. --E.A 18:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You said the same about the Turkish government denial, while it was covered in Universalis encyclopedia, as well as the Encyclopdia of Genocides and various others. Quotation is permitted and is part of Wikipedias sourcing notes. Fadix 19:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Deleting of killed and raped sentence 

message: Wetman, why did you remove the Kinross reference? I have explained above why i dont find rape and killed sentences necessary to include. --A.Garnet 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit summary: restoring suppressed quote cited from published historian --Wetman 20:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but if your accusing me of suppresing a reference from a published historian, why would you do the same with my reference? --A.Garnet 20:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: FAO Wetman

message: Please see the Talk:İzmir page to discuss the proposed page merger. Tedernst 04:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger 

message: This page's historical side should be removed to Izmir and baseless propaganda side should be deleted.There is only one Izmir and all of them must be included it.If you write "Londinium" at "search",you will see "see the History of London".So,justice to terms please...
-Inanna-
Inanna, you will see on the Talk:İzmir page that I agree with you that the Smyrna and İzmir pages should be merged. I also agree that propaganda doesn't belong here, from any side: Turkish, Greek, or Armenian.
As for the specific figures you are inserting, two points:
* You mention that they are from an "Ottoman census", but don't give its date or any sources to verify them.
* You remove figures from other sources.  Wikipedia believes in NPOV, that is, if there are multiple good-quality sources which are contradictory, Wikipedia reports all of them.  
It is perfectly possible in this case that both the Ottoman census figures and western figures (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911 says "Pop. more than 250,000, of which fully a half is Greek") are distorted for various reasons -- different definitions, political preferences, etc.  Unless we find some good evidence that one figure is more reliable than the other, we need to include the whole range, and cite the specific sources. --Macrakis 03:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should be removed 

message: Smyrna and Izmir are one and the same place, but two different subjects, and I would be against merging. Without going into who-first-massacred-whom debates: Smyrna  once was a largely Greek city on the coast of Asia Minor, Izmir now is a modern Turkish city. The story of Smyrna ended in 1922; but until then it had its own story, and that story is worth telling in its own right. To take a different, less emotional case: because the modern city of New York eventually absorbed and in effect replaced the old Dutch city of New Amsterdam, should New Amsterdam as a subject in its own right be wiped out? Wikipedia has entries for both NY and New Amsterdam, and nobody appears to be complaining...
Charadras 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Constantinople and Istanbul Chaldean 06:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Smyrna" and "Izmir": same place,  different subjects 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Smyrna had a Greek majority before the 1919 war? If so, then how can you occupy your own people?  Chaldean 02:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest a name like "Smyrna during Greco-Turkish war". The name of the city was called Smyrna in 1922 right? Man, the POV on Greek-Turkish pages have become unreal. Chaldean 03:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Occupation of İzmir (Smyrna) by Greek army on May 15th 1919 officially belong to Ottoman Empire and its position proposed to be deletermined after a referandum on which never been on effect Treaty of Sèvres. Between May 15th [[1919] to Sevres there were 15 months, which gives more support to the concept as being an occupation. This is a military terminology. It works like this, you occupay a place, and then you leave a place. Seige of Smyrna would be appropriate if greek armies had managed to hold their position, or capture at the end of the conflict. Please do not take this as a POV; I belive there are real POV's that needs your help. :-) --OttomanReference 21:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So was it offically called Izmir in 1922? Chaldean 03:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Occupation?

message: The first paragraph of this article is really hard to read and understand, can someone with knowledge of this issue fix it? I would try but half the time I don't understand what it's trying to say. --Awiseman 05:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph 

message: The present title is erronous and misleading since it gives the impression that only İzmir was occupied by the Greek army between 1919 and 1922, which is very far from being the case. I suggest a change of name towards "The Greek occupation of Western Anatolia (1919-1922)" covering aspects of the time and the circumstances that fall outside the scope of the battles and the political developments. Cretanforever
:Hmmm. when i saw your edit summary, i thought u had requested another rename of the article. of course, the name to be used should apply to the whole central western Anatolia, but i do not think that the term should include the word 'Occupation'. Greece administered the area in the name of the sultan (that's why the ottoman flags remained in the city), under an international treaty (Treaty of Sèvres), with an expiring time of some years (when a referendum would take place about the future status of the region), and, additionally, a region with a Greek majority. Thus, a title including the word 'occupation' simply expresses the modern turkish pov. (note that Ottoman Greece was not renamed into 'Ottoman Occupation' although it has all the potential to have this title and despite attempts made by some users). Hectorian 14:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added POV-title tag, as per my comment above. Hectorian 17:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We must find a non-POV name. To illustrate to our eastern friends how pov this title sounds, the other extreme would be Temporary liberation of Smyrna (although not very arguable, since the majority of the population was Greek). •NikoSilver• 19:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but Greece occupied Izmir before the Treaty of Sevres was signed, over a year before in fact, it is commonly reffered to as an occupation, not only by Greece, but by Britain, France and Italy also. --A.Garnet 20:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't excuse you. You can't occupy your own. You can only liberate your own. What this article needs is a non-POV title. We'll come up with one shortly, but the present one won't do. •NikoSilver• 20:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your own!? what made Izmir - a territory of the Ottoman Empire for over 700 years - your own? You cannot invade a city of another nation, and claim it is your own on historical or ethnic roots. There are international treaties which govern who owns what, and Izmir was the Ottoman Empires, and Greece occupied it while it was still the Ottoman Empires. --A.Garnet 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your own people, that is. Land is worthless without anyone on it you know... •NikoSilver• 22:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to which treaty exactly, did the Ottoman Empire get Izmir? The majority of the population was Greek, so u cannot say that 'the Greeks occupied Greeks'... makes no sense. btw, if we are about to talk according to how the other nations name the events, we can also say who the other nations blame for the Fire... And also, Turkey occupied Izmir before the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, so it was also an occupation. Hectorian 20:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been rewritten and its sourced. I'm waiting for a sane reason why the article should not be named occupation of Izmir, and i really mean a sane reason. Saying we 'owned' it, or 'According to which treaty exactly, did the Ottoman Empire get Izmir' does not cut it. --A.Garnet 21:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh please Hectorian, you can't be serious. Of course what Greece did in 1919 was an occupation. Which is an absolutely neutral term denoting the military act, by the way. And there's absolutely no sense disputing the legitimacy of the Ottoman sovereignty over its territory before 1919. (The Ottoman Empire had acquired that sovereignty by right of conquest, which was traditionally regarded as a legitimate title in pre-modern times, but ceased to be so in the 20th century). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about turkish presence in Izmir in 1922-1923? the ottoman empire was disolved and the treaty of lauzanne had not been signed yet... Hectorian 22:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how do you call the lifting of this right of conquest? Surely the (Greek) inhabitants of Smyrni regarded it as liberation from this right of conquest didn't they? Look, I'm not pushing for Temporary liberation of Smyrna, but occupation (no matter how military) and of Ismir are two pov terms for the period and for the composition of the population back then. Will you at least allow me to elaborate on a term that presents Greeks as something less than conquerors? •NikoSilver• 22:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the issue of the name was also addressed here: I can see no reason to doubt that "Izmir" was always the Turkish name, for as long as Turks have known the city. Why would they invent a new name later, just like that? I don't know if the Ottoman state had any concept of "official placenames" at all, but why would they use anything other than Izmir? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for name change 

message: There are 2 or 3 tags appropriate for this article, but one will suffice for now.
*This article is a WP:POVFORK which was ed out of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) without any real reason:
**Virtually all of the article serves to show the background and result (illustrated analytically in the mother article)
**The summary section of this article in the mother article is almost identical to the actual content of this one. The only additional content is ONE paragraph, namely Occupation of Smyrna#Occupation! (not to mention about its selective content)
**There is no  template in the mother article (for obvious reasons), despite the fact that the original edit stated "moved from Greco-Turkish War to have its own page" 
**There is hardly any academic reference to this period (Google scholar: only 12 hits- some irrelevant)
***The article should be merged to Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), or the title should be expanded to include Ionia; not only Smyrna
*The title of the article, although a military term, is largely POV, because:
**it is anachronistic since the city was officially named "Izmir" later; should be "Smyrna"
**it is a paradox; an army does not "occupy" a city if the majority of population is of same ethnicity; it "liberates" it.
***So compare the existing title to Temporary liberation of Smyrna to see the contrast of the two POV's. A more NPOV term should be used, to bridge those two extremes.
Kindly discuss/revise before I move for merger/deletion. Thanks. •NikoSilver• 00:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I already did that. Let's see what the other users think. •NikoSilver• 00:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding "Greek Administration of Smyrna", the name is vastly less used than "Occupation of Smyrna". - Francis Tyers · 08:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And yes there are plenty more sources where those came from, and yes I think you would have a case for adding dates after, e.g. (19?? - 19??) - Francis Tyers · 11:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the title (which is not the only issue here), what about we merge it into Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). What does this article really have in terms of unique content? I only see a segment of 4-5 lines in Occupation of Izmir#Occupation of highly selective (therefore) POV material. Can't we have these few lines merged into the main article? Do we have any academic source dealing explicitly with this period, or are we improvising again? I have withdrawn the AfD, see my comments there. •NikoSilver• 12:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The material in this article, while unbalanced is actually better than in the other article. (Talking specifically about the 'Occupation' section, not the rest). - Francis Tyers · 13:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Cretanforever had an interesting suggestion to extend the articles scope to Greek Occupation of Asia Minor to vouch for the fact that the Greek army was not just in Izmir but also the surrounding towns and villages. What do you all think? Also as i said on the afd i do not mind renaming to Occupation of Smynra. --A.Garnet 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged 

message: The full reference for the Jensen paper is:
*Peter Kincaid Jensen "The Greco-Turkish War, 1920-1922" in International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Nov., 1979), pp. 553-565
Can someone update it ? - Francis Tyers · 13:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: Would this photograph be in the public domain? - Francis Tyers · 13:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this one? "Manifestation contre l'occupation d'Izmir par les forces grecques" (Demonstration against the occupation of Izmir by Greek forces). - Francis Tyers · 13:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be good to have these two no? One from each POV, celebration and demonstration :) - Francis Tyers · 13:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photograph

message: See Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)#Proposed merge. •NikoSilver• 13:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: This section definitely needs expansion and analysis. Personally, I belive it is POV, but, besides that, it is too stubby and does not give the adequate information for this historical event.--Yannismarou 13:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great fire of Smyrna

message: why is there a POV title tag? --AW 16:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexi, why not create an account? It has many advantages and absolutely no disadvantage. Click here to see WP:WHY!! •NikoSilver• 10:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, in that case I think Occupation is more neutral. It's certainly more neutral than Invasion of... --AW 22:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Title? 

message: The article had been biased in favor of the Turks, but now it seems to have swung the other way. For example "Smyrna, the largest city in Asia Minor, a cosmopolitan hub populated by a highly educated Greek community and flourishing commercial and middle classes, was sacked and burned and its inhabitants massacred by the Turkish forces of Kemal Attaturk". Can't we all just agree to make it an even-handed article which gives the various points of view? We're all adults here. --AW 22:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned up the Turkish recapture section, I think it's pretty even-handed now. --AW 22:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: U are right about that particular part. However, i have to point out some other facts, biased against the Greeks: The occupation proved a humiliation for many of the Turkish and Muslim inhabitants, The Christian crowd rages and yells… Many fall under the bayonet thrusts, ...the worst outrage for a Mohammedan – all who refuse are cut down with the sword, The mob begins to plunder the house of the Mohammedan, It has been alleged that Turkish soldiers killed and raped Greeks who remained in Smyrna after the Greek soldiers left Smyrna, the Turks will be plundered and burnt out of house and home, However, the Greek retreat did leave wide tracts of the surrounding land in ruins, leaving the population of Smyrna close to starvation, It is estimated some 3,000 lives had been lost in the burning of Alaşehir alone... Note that most of these come from biographers of Kemal Ataturk, with Kinross alone being quoted three times. as a counter balance, i would suggest a more extensive usage of Horton as source. apropos, he can't be considered less neutral than Kinross, moreover, he had lived in the city of Smyrni for long, unlike Kinross (plus, he had no kind of relations with Greek leaders, unlike Kinross). Lastly, if we are about to talk about mistreatment of the Turkish or Muslim population of the city by the Greeks, i am ready to provide numerous eye-witness accounts, who, having nothing to do with political motivations, could be considered quite valuable, rather than someone who was quest of Kemal in order to write his biography... Just a small part of what these accounts of Greek refugees say: a harbor that looked like land, full of Greek bodies (this is verified by the French ambassandor, i will search for the reference), priests crucified inside churches, boys and girls raped in the άβατον (the holiest part of a church), thousands of Greeks gathered in cemeteries (because they was the only places that the Turks were "afraid" to get in), men and women and children locked in schools, houses and churches, which were later set on fire), and many more, that i'd rather not to talk about right now cause its late... These accounts are relevant, important, undisputed (unless someone believes that thousands of refugees lied, and that the greek newspapers and radio stations were till the '50s full of thousands of notes and appeals for info about missing people every day, just because we are "nationalists") and certainly is room for them in the article, having in mind the sentences refering to the "Greek murderers". Regards Hectorian 23:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Now biased against Turks