Talk:Fire of Manisa

One sided article is an unreliable one

The objectivity of the sources putting the responsibility of the fire to retreating Greek soldiers is highly contested. No one of these people was an eye witness. Moreover, according to then American consul George Horton, it was the well known Turkish position of 50-50 regarding alleged massacres committed either by Armenians or Greeks to justify not only the Turkish "justified" retaliation and atrocities but also the Armenian and the Greek genocides. Unfortunately this position remains the main pillar of Genocide deniers' arguments to this day. Beickus (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I remember this was created by a highly disruptive sock evading editor (see BlackTiger & socks [[1]]). He was blocked a couple of weeks after he created a small number of articles (like this one). I believe this can be speeded per [[2]].Alexikoua (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Do you suggest this article can be deleted on these grounds? It is so frustrating that qualified people (mainly in the university) that are able to refute such articles and sources, and whose responsibility is to do that after all, are totally aloof and indifferent. Obviously they do not think it is their duty to do so. This is more shameful than those who create these articles who are doing their business after all... "Fire of Manisa" as opposed to Fire of Smyrna... this is an utter disgrace. Beickus (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The editor in question created a number of POV forks as response to the Fire of Smyrna: 1. This one 2. İzmit massacres (which he presented as a massacre against Turks [[3]] though in fact it was mainly perpetrated by Turkish troops&irregulars (current version [[4]]), 3. Greek scorched earth policy (speedy deleted). I believe that this one should be speedy deleted too.Alexikoua (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Checked the old version of İzmit massacres that is indeed hideous. The current version is ok. Especially appreciated what Churchill commented about the relatively "minor scale" - this puts things into perspective. Those killed from the Turkish side according to description should be irregulars fighting with the Greek army at the time, and this of course is not a "massacre of Turkish population" as some wish to present it. Also checked the talk page and is as you suggested. If we cannot revise this article in the example of İzmit massacres then it should be deleted. How can it be done? (If it does not work we can still edit it).Beickus (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I've checked the article again: there is nothing more than a compilation of dubious POV & wp:PRIMARY: a Turkish painter serving in the Turkish Army painted Manisa (cited by the painting itself), an unknown Turkish journalist claimed something similar (cited by the journalist itself) etc. etc. The event is entirely non-existent in literature: only a couple of primary accounts, statements of dubious unknown eyewitnesses that modern bibliography simply ignores.Alexikoua (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I have thought of something that may be better than deleting the whole article. We could use all the data and the details including the 4355 "deaths" etc.(Even the number itself looks fake - it is so accurate. It reminds me of people who lie so profoundly and excessively that betray themselves by trying to be accurate and provide details, too many, so many that you realize they are lying... this excess is the difference, honest people do not need to exceed they are plain and brief... that is their dignity in my opinion...) But we can turn the meaning of the article. We can therefore present it as an example of the 50-50 well known Turkish position regarding alleged massacres committed either by Armenians or Greeks to justify not only the Turkish "justified" retaliation and atrocities but also the Armenian and the Greek genocides. This is a perfect example in my opinion and they provide it themselves. We just have to present it as it is and not as they want it to be. What do you think?Beickus (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Are you seriously? The article contains a mass of authoritative and neutral sources confirming the burning of the city by the Greeks, Turkish sources do not even make up a third of all and are given in the article to describe the details without contradicting the neutral ones. You claim that the number 4355 is fake, in fact, for no reason, it is supposedly too accurate. It is clear that the exact number of victims is unknown, but 4355 is very close to the real number, since about 3000 and 1000 people died in Alaşehir and Turgutlu, respectively, and the fire in Manisa attracted the most attention. I do not understand why you are inserting a quote from the progrek liar (this has long been proven) Horton. In fact, your disliked 50-50 theory is quite appropriate for the Greco-Turkish conflict. And I will not even comment the nonsense about the so-called "Greek genocide"... Demo66top (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sentence removed as OR

I've work at trying to fix no target errors. This article had one in the form of Mango 1999 , which had been undefined since 2014. I found the work it was meant to refer to, it's Andrew Mango's Atatürk, archive.org has the 2002 version. However page [34] of that work only states the figures for Alaşehir, it doesn't do so in a comparison to the likely figures at Manisa. So I've not corrected the error and have instead remove the entire sentence. To restore it we need a source that makes this comparison, to do so without one is original research and against policy (see WP:NOR)). Note if a source is found for the comparison I'd be happy to see the text restored. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)