This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Burning of Smyrna article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In the text, it is mentioned that "most" sources support Greek side's claims while "a few" support Turks' side. However, the cited sources do not make such statement. Are the "most" and the "a few" used because there are 2 citations for the Greek side and 1 citation for the Turkish side on the sentence? Should not the usage of "most"/"a few" statements be based on a research analyzing the extent of all the available resources (if such research exists)? I removed these 2 specific problematic usages and another user has revoked the change suggesting me to write to talk. Here I am. Let us talk before forming it collaboratively. 136.159.213.222 (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Page 32 of reference [27] as cited in the sentence "According to the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the time, Henry Morgenthau, more than half of Smyrna's population was Greek." does not contain such information. Either the citation must be corrected or replaced by another resource. If not found, the sentence must be removed. 136.159.213.222 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The more I read the article the funnier it gets. Why is it called "landing of Greek army" after 493 years of Ottoman rule but "Turkish occupation" after 3 years of Greek rule? I will not request for a change as I realize maybe Wikipedia is not what I thought it is, but will definitely come back reading this article when I want to have some laugh. 136.159.213.222 (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Reply: These are military operations and it's common English; the language accurately reflects what happened.
Landing. What other word would you use? Troops are frequently referred to as "landing"; for example the phrase, "the Allied landing at Normandy", when we liberated Europe from the Nazis, is the same phrasing as the "Greeks landing at Smyrna".
Occupation. What other word do you want to use for an army taking control of a city? "Occupation" is the best word to describe what Turks did, when an army takes control of a city it is referred to as an occupation, for example "the Nazis occupied Paris" during World War II, and "The Turks occupied Smyrna" is the same phrasing.
Neutral sources reflect the use of these words.
You never explain how 493 years of Ottoman rule makes the Greek landing not a landing and the Turkish occupation of the city not an occupation. Whether it was 490 years or 1 year makes no difference in the appropriate language to describe these operations.
Dear Timothy, I will explain myself step by step, please evaluate my points with a technical point of view.
Now, please open the Wiki page titled "Greek landing at Smyrna" you specifically linked to this page after my complaint (btw, thank you for this, you just made my job easier).
In that very page, it says "The Greek landing at Smyrna" ... "became important for creating the three-year-long Greek Occupation of Smyrna".
Since it is a page you linked, I do not think you will oppose that so-called Greek landing is a part of the Greek occupation.
Now, my question is, why do you (not only specifically you but also all the Wiki editors who resent to such fair changes) use the intermediate term "Landing" for Greek side's actions which also led to occupation, but the end result "Occupation" directly for Turks' side's actions? Either both sides' actions should be named as "landing" which leads to "Occupation", or "occupation" directly.
Such biases are easily visible to outsiders but Wikipedia has become such a political instrument with a single and narrow perspective that it is not even possible to try to improve it.
Anyway, as I told before, I do not expect any changes here (both the article and the entire Wikipedia), and it does not matter either. I just wanted to express that it is just sad to see such a big chance like Wikipedia did go to waste in the hands of a bunch of people with a fixed view. I do not think this platform deserves anyone's time. So long. 136.159.213.81 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your bias is even apparent in your analogy, parallelling Turks with Nazis and Greeks with the Allied forces. It’s pretty funny how bald it is, really. Funny and sad. 71.247.20.96 (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
.svg)
