User talk:Drieux/Sandbox

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

I GIVE UP

Is totally futile to improve this poor article. I will never bother to improve an article that is written by Greeks or Turks, they will never learn. Always an ass will go and mess it up. LIST OF PROBLEMS to work on:

• HAPHASARD STRUCTURE
• POOR ENGLISH
• MANY SPELLING MISTAKES
• REPEATITIONS
• IRRELEVANT PARAGRAPHS FOR POLITICAL POV
• LONG QUOTES FROM QUESTIONABLE SOURCES TO CREAT "IMPRESSIONS"
• NOT FOLLOWING THE QUALITY OF SIMILAR ARTICLES IN WIKIPEDIA

AUTOMATIC REVERT

The practice of universal revert to previous version should stop. The person that did that did not even bother to read the evident improvements or discuss his reasoning on this page. The article in the improved version is higher quality, better readable and better structured as a book chapter instead of random here and there paragraphs. It was not vandalism, it was improvement. Please use some intelligence and critical thought (if you have any) before you revert people's hard work wholesale.Deadjune1 11:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

GENERAL EDITING

I made the article more consistent and readable correcting much of its wrong English.

PLEASE DO NOT REVERT UNCRITICALLY because I worked hard to make it more presentable.

I also deleted a long quotation that looked out of space. The reference is still there for whoever wants to read the original text. There is no need for verbatim resources. If you put all the quotations it will become heavy and unreadable and just works as POV to "make a point".

Cheers, Deadjune1 12:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposals for Article

it is amazing how people are able to understand mistakes so easily and be able to consider the consequences of small mistakes! I am very pleased with this part of wikipeadia! User:dr4g0n0k 12:02 7 may 2007

Firstly, I propose that the above section which contains a lot of personal attacks and nonsense, should be deleted, as noone will have any use for it.MegasAllexandros 04:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I totaly agree with you--Hattusili 04:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the section. I trust noone would disagree with the decision. In the future, we should try to be careful not to offend anyone and start a fire. MegasAllexandros 04:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the deletion and archived the piece. It is in Archive 2 now, along with an older section and a section commenting the trolling. From here on, let's try and keep focused on discussing this particular article here. Irrelevant discussions should take place elsewhere. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I regret to see an article that is obviously written by an unobjective author and has many unfair and unsubstantiated (most references are unacademic and politically motivated) attacks. The article is well below wikipedia's standards Please keep politics out of WikiPedia and let the history be done by historians. EDITORS: Please correct and clean the article as much as possible before you "editprotect" it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.177.77 (talk • contribs)

How come all the information is based on Greek resources although the events took placed on Turkish territory? My grandparents lived in the western part of Turkey which was occupied by Greek army and they witnessed a massacre executed by the Greek army. Why is this not mentioned?Azak

This article is strongly sided and mostly wrong. The references and the comments show this approach clearly. My family also originated from west part of Turkey. I personally know many people who witnessed massacre and rapes and fires contucted by greek army. They killed animals, burned grains so that Turks cannot use later. Now should I believe this article or people who witnessed ? I think this article should be marked as "NOT OBJECTIVE".User:aergenc

This article is not OBJECTIVE. Turkey won this war, Greece didn't lose it. After the WW1 Turkish Army was tired and exhausted. Although Greek Army was stronger and got full support from England they are simply beaten because of mental and physical strength of the Turkish people and the military geniusty of the Turkish leaders. Greek Army did all inhuman things possible, on the other hand Turkish Army was so sensitive that they haven't even run over the Greek flag. I advice you to change this article. By the way i dont know a place like "Smyrna". It is called İZMİR now!

the person below is talking nonsense! He is making fun of other peoples non insulting factual comments!User:dr4g0n0k 12:02 7 may 2007

"Although Greek Army was stronger and got full support from England they are simply beaten because of mental and physical strength of the Turkish people and the military geniusty of the Turkish leaders." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! What about the massive Soviet support that the turks recieved??? Greece got no military support at all from England. "Turkish Army was so sensitive" Oh yeah, the turkish army was very sensitive. I suggest you to read Great Fire of Smyrna. Pay attention to image with the dead bodies of raped and massacred Greeks. "By the way i dont know a place like "Smyrna"." It's a city in the west coast of Asia Minor. It was built by Greeks, dominated by Greeks for at least 2500 years, and it had a majority of Greek populaton which was massacred by the turkish invaders. Mitsos 13:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I wont argue with a person who is idiot enough to dont know that Wikipedia is not a forum. And Great Fire of Smyrna is a rubbish like your knowlage about Turkish-Greek War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.174.165 (talk • contribs)

Don't make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. Consider that you might be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mitsos 10:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Mitsos.."HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA"...is your attack on him, so dont talk about personal attacks when you make one yourself. You are clearly biased and Greek...no prizes for guessing that. You cant even credit Turks for winning the war and liberating their own land and Izmir from Greek occupation. You can belive what you want, and write the nonsense propoganda you want...the facts remain and will vindicate the Turks from your pan-Hellistic propaganda. Whatever you think of Turks does not make them so. Ataturk is the only non-allied commander to be honoured during WWI commemoration days, due to the grace and courtesy he offered to the vanquished side, in the Gallipoli campaign and elsewhere, including Izmir, where he showed respect for the Greek flag where your commanders had walked over the Turkish flag. The article talks of displaced Turkish christians...whatabout the forced migration and killing of Turks fron the Balkans. If you dont know that the English and western forces helped Greek army then you clearly dont know anything about this period. If you want to talk about history like a soccer hooligan supporting his team, maybe you should find a nice Hellenic forum where you can spew your invective. Smyrna was not built by Greeks and not dominated by Greeks for 2500 years. There have been many civilisations in Asia Minor before and after the ancient Greeks. I guess it is not enough for you that Turks have been there for over 700 years. If you sill want to pine after the dark ages, go ahead. By the way, its not Constantinople, its Istanbul...it has been since 1453. All the best.

"HAHAHA" is not a personal attack. It's the same as lol. It's rude, but not an attack. So Smyrna wasn't built by Greeks, right? Then, who built it???????? The mongolians? I don't think so. Smyrna was not liberated by the Turks. It was razed to the ground, and the Greeks of Smyrna were massacred. And this is a fact. Mitsos 09:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you know what you mean by HAHAHAHA, so lets not play any games. Far greater men than you, great military commanders and generals, presidents and kings alike, have acknowledged Ataturk as a great military strategist, soldier and statesman in history. Guns alone do not win wars, it is the soldiers who fight with them and the commanders who lead them that bring victory. The city of Smyrna was not in Greek territory for all of its history. Among others, the Hittites also conquered Izmir and developed the city in ancient Antiquity. To say present day Izmir is a Greek city because ancient Greek civilizations like Lydians and Trojans founded the initial settlement in 3000BC is like saying Ankara is a Hittite city because it was their capital and they gave it the name Ancyra 3000 years ago. Maybe Italy should ask for London back as well, because the Romans built London. And I guess with your proposed logic, New York should be returned back to the Dutch, who built the first settlement and had called it New Amsterdam before the English captured it. Kutalmisoglu Suleyman Shah of the Selcuk Turks conquered Izmir in 1076. This was the first Turkish possesion of the city, which passed back into Byzantine possesion for a period, before being finally conquered for the last time in 1320 for the Ottomans. It remained in Ottoman Turk possesion until the Greek occupation after WWI. The Greek army were the aggresors and occupiers and Izmir was an official Turkish city for 600 years when these events took place. If you cannot accept that after living for 600 years in a city within Ottoman borders, that native Turks who lived there have a geographical and sociological claim to that city, then you are living in your own dream world. Greece tried to expand its territory and even got close to Ankara, but the Turkish forces led by Ataturk were able to repel this invasion. There is no dishonour in defeat, but these allegations are just a dishonest propoganda made by sore losers. Please dont, for a second, confuse your biased anti-Turkish propoganda, with actual fact.

"The city of Smyrna was not in Greek territory for all of its history." - Thats like saying it wasn't in Turkish territory until 1923 when turkey became a country. It was founded by Greeks, and Greeks had been living there for more than 3-5 thousand years until 1922, and had been under hellenic rule for thousands of years as well. Even in 1918 Greeks made up more than half of the population, which is why the turks called it "infidel Smyrna" at the time.--Stavros15 05:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

~~ The Greek army was no fully supported by any european government. I have read by foreign third party articles that Kemal was making deals with France who had promised to supply greeks with weapons, and so they dumped ammunition to the turks. I have heard accounts by a greek general who was shot in the stomach and lost much flesh that the greek army was fighting with hardly any weaponry. Also, I have read third party accounts that the Turks were behind the burning of Smyrna and the massacre on the people there. I have spoken to children of Minor Asian Refugees aswell. No doubt the presence of the Greek army infuriated the Turks, but lets realise that the Greeks still saw the invading Turks as oppressors of their homelands. Why would they destroy their homelands if they were there to free them from the Ottoman occupation? Isn't that what the whole of Megali Idea was really about? Freeing the hostage lands from the invaders? by ApplesnPeaches ~~

Kemal AtaTurk was gay. He used to enjoy the company of little boys. He was also a ruthless oppressor who started 2 genocides. One against the Armenians and another against Pontian Greeks. Under his command, the Turkish army set fire to the Greek parts of Smyrna killing and displacing hundreds of innocent people. He ordered all Christians to be either killed or removed from his country as "purification". How can you possibly honour someone that deranged? Patriotis 01:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. Did I mention that he was gay!

Unprotection?

Should the article be unprotected? It can't stay protected forever.MegasAllexandros 02:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, list it on WP:RPP. —Khoikhoi 03:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

References

reference 3 http://www.antalya-ws.com [1] is totaly unrelated with the article, it even doesn't have a "history" section. Can we delete it?--Hattusili 04:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I found it, it's in the "Museum" section. —Khoikhoi 04:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any information about Italian military aid to Kemalist Turkish troops on Museum section either.It is only about the foundation of the museum.--Hattusili 05:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, in that case it can be either replaced with a fact tag or deleted. —Khoikhoi 06:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we use {{Editprotected}} for this? (I think unprotecting the page will cause chaos)--Hattusili 07:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hattusili about causing chaos. However, i think that semi-protection would be the best solution at the moment, and if things will prove to be optimistic, it can be totally unprotected again. --Hectorian 14:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you guys want a reference you should check out "Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor" by Michael Llewellyn Smith. Aristotellis 04:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

requested edit in Outcome of Greek Offensive section

Reference 3 is tottaly unrelated with the "The Italians used their base in Antalya to arm and train Turkish troops to assist the Kemalists against the Greeks" statement.It should be replaced with a fact tag or the statement must be deleted.--Hattusili 05:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a history section on the website but now I can't find it. The site must have been updated. SERGEI

Done --  Netsnipe  ►  15:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I request the editors of this page to replace the citation needed tag in the "The Italians used their base in Antalya to arm and train Turkish troops to assist the Kemalists against the Greeks" statement with a source:"Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor" by Michael Llewellyn Smith. Mitsos 16:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Done --  Netsnipe  ►  16:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.antalya-ws.com/english/location/antalya/whistory.asp

The old source actually has it.

Alexius Comnenus

Trench Doctrine

I added a request for cite in re presumed doctrine of defence in WW I trench warfare. Drieux 04:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Numbers

Numbers are fully wrong.Greek army was over 200.0000 men, i am not sure about this, but i am sure Turkish army couldn't have 450.000 men.This is just a nonsense.When Turkish army began to fight, it had 60.0000 men, and after the defeat at Kutahya-Eskisehir the army lost its half.

There is a dialogue between Mustafa Kemal and Ismet Inonu after the war; talkin about casualties;

Inonu says he had lost 30.000 men and they both proceeds that it was the half of the army.

Middle Anatolia couldn't have recruited 450.000 soldiers after Balkan wars and First World War already.Really impossible guys.

That's true, and I 'm going to fix it Mitsos 08:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to remind you about numbers, they are still the same, thanks for your concern. - M. R.

Smyrna majority Greek?

There is a citation for the statement that Smyrna was majority Greek at the time of the invasion, but the citation is "Hellenic Army General Staff, 1957, Ο Ελληνικός Στρατός εις την Σμύρνην, p.56"--in Greek!, a Greek military document! Come on, can't we do better than this? --Anthon.Eff 01:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I insist on an edit about the numbers.

THIS ARTICLE IS BIASED!!!!!

This paragraph is misleading

According to the British historian Patrick Kinross, the Greek retreat involved a scorched earth policy leaving large tracts of land and property ruined or destroyed and the inhabitants of Smyrna close to starvation. Kinross writes "Already most of the towns in its path were in ruins. One third of Ushak no longer existed. Alashehir was no more than a dark scorched cavity, defacing the hillside. Village after village had been reduced to an ash-heap. Out of the eighteen thousand buildings in the historic holy city of Manisa, only five hundred remained"[4]. Talking of the attrocities committed, Kinross goes on to add "Everywhere the Greek troops, especially those from Anatolia, revenging themselves in desperation and in obedience to orders for generations of Ottoman oppresion and persecution, carried off Christian families that their quarters too might be burned and not a roof left for the advancing Turks. They tore up the railway between Smyrna and Aydin. They pillaged and destroyed and raped and butchered"

This paragraph can be offensive. Especially when it says that the Greek troops pillaged and destroyed and raped and butchered. I realize that this is the opinion of a historian, but there is no opinion to present something else. The reader should decide for his/her self what the truth is. The way this is worded, it is as if we are spoon-feeding the reader what to believe. I insist on presenting an altering viewpoint to balance out the equation. Periklis* 06:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This section overrate the few attrocities of the Greek troops, but under-analyse the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Greeks. It is POV and I've tagged it.--Yannismarou 10:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it is definitely an overly biased PoV. It's very narrow and one sided in its depth and Patrick Kinross, who hardly ever cites his work, is one of the most biased sources that could possibly be referenced regarding the Greek retreat. --Xenophonos 02:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Following the debate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupation of İzmir, it has been suggested that the article should be merged into this one. Parts of this debate are also in the Occupation article's talk.

Please indicate your preference by voting in the respective column. Kindly use only your signature and the timestamp (sign by #~~~~) and if you want to comment, do so only below in the comments section. •NikoSilver• 13:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Sign below:

1. •NikoSilver• 13:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Mitsos 10:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Tekleni 08:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Sshadow 09:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Hectorian 15:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Aristovoul0s 16:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Miskin 14:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge

Sign below:

1. --Hattusili 20:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2. --A.Garnet 15:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
3. --E104421 05:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
4. -- Cretanforever 17:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
5. --Karcha 01:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
6. --Armanalp 15:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
7. --Mustafa Akalp^TC 06:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
8. -- Gobbler 18:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments on merger

• The unique content of the daughter article is limited to 4-5 lines of highly selected text (in Occupation of Izmir#Occupation). Academic sources tend to include this period in a broader timeframe (war) and in a broader geographic extent (Ionia). The rest of the article for Occupation of Izmir only reproduces material from the main and other articles, such as Great Fire of Smyrna. •NikoSilver• 13:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to "vote" just yet, but I think you may be jumping the gun a bit. As always though, I'm not particularly counting on our Turkish contributors to make anything like a decent article out of it, so my opinion hangs in the balance. There are enough sources, but can they do it?. :) - Francis Tyers · 13:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Jumping the gun was not my intention, sincerely. The article has been there for 8 months(!) and the talk about merging it started a good 10 days ago and not by me (diff). I think we have dragged ourselves over a title dispute, due to the apparent WP:POVFORK de{{main}}ing [sic] of this section. We don't really need to argue, and we don't need to wait. Merge now, expand, de{{main}} later, and bitch about the article name then (we'll have more data on how to call it too)! •NikoSilver• 14:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the occupation is notable enough to be separate from the war. Also, Francis, i dont know what you mean by "As always though, I'm not particularly counting on our Turkish contributors to make anything like a decent article out of it". I'm sure your not suggesting that Turkish contributors are less capable of creating a decent article than other contributors, but that is how it reads. --A.Garnet 15:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the tone of Francis' comment either. It's not just a slam on the capabilities of "our Turkish contributors" but also raises the question of why "they" should do it and not "we". Are the sources written in Turkish so that only "they" can do it? Or does this comment originate from a Greek/Turkish POV problem? I got here via AFD and so know very little about this topic. Francis' comment just sounds snide. Forgive me if it wasn't meant in the way that I interpreted it. --Richard 16:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there's an explanation to this. Fran is always courteous to everybody. A misunderstood motivation perhaps? •NikoSilver• 23:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my Talk Page so that we can all discuss A.Garnet's point

Hi Richard, in the afd you state "It appears that the occupation of Smyrna/Izmir was not just a single event in the war but rather the major focal event of the war. If this is not true, I would reconsider my position."

The Occupation of Izmir was only one part of the war. It can be broken down in the occupation of Izmir, First Battle of İnönü, Second Battle of İnönü, Battle of Sakarya, and the Battle of Dumlupınar, and finally the Great Fire of Smyrna. These are all significant stages of the Greco-Turkish war. The current level of content should not detract from the fact that it is a notable part of the war which deserves its own article. Thanks, --A.Garnet 18:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Aaargh! I'm stung again by not having read enough articles on this subject.

I think A.Garnet makes a valid point. However, if you look at the articles for the various battles that he mentions, each article is very short. I would say that we need to be consistent. Either all the battles should be merged into this article or each significant battle should be dealt with separately (and hopefully expanded to have a bit more content). This second option argues for keeping the Occupation of Izmir as a separate article. It is no less significant than the other battles.

However, I think that there is also an inconsistency between the Occupation of Izmir which spans a 3 year period of tiem and the battles which are much shorter in duration. It seems that there was very little about the Occupation of Izmir that is notable between its capture by the Greeks and its recapture by the Turks. (Yeah, there was the creation of the university but that's not enough to tip the scale.)

It would seem to me that, if we were to keep the battles as separate articles, then we should break apart the Occupation of Izmir into Greek capture of Smyrna and Turkish re-capture of Smyrna (of course, I'm open to suggestions for better titles).

--Richard 19:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That exactly reminds me of Hectorian's comment in the AfD. •NikoSilver• 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Greek capture of Smyrna and Turkish re-capture of Smyrna" you said, huh? Not so bad... •NikoSilver• 00:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my Talk Page so that we can involve everybody in the discussion...

From A.Garnet to Richardshusr

In light of what i have said, do you still believe merge and redirect is the most suitable and consistent option? --A.Garnet 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I think it could go either way. I am comfortable with the merge it all into one big article approach (i.e. all the articles not just the Occupation of Izmir but also all the articles on the other battles. This is a close call.

I don't agree with the original argument that this was POV fork although the AFD debate certainly brought out some arguments that suggested that it might have been. Assuming good faith, I would see this as just a question of how to structure multiple articles about the war. Eventually, this could require multiple articles. Right now, it's not clear that multiple articles are necessary. One big article could do the job nicely. Seems like a waste to throw away all the work done on the subsidiary articles, though.

I think the subsidiary articles on the battles are just barely at the level where they could warrant an article unto themselves. What's needed is an expansion of all the articles. I just don't know enough to be able to tell whether there is more that can be written about these articles.

Can you provide an outline of what could be added to the Greek capture of Smyrna or Turkish re-capture of Smyrna articles such that they would warrant being articles of their own separate from the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) article?

--Richard 22:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be researched Richard, what little i added was done in a hour or so. I know we have Turkish contributors here who have access to Turkish sources, and probably our Greek users can source interesting material also, either way I'm certain information can be sourced for its expansion. The point is the article is notable and should remain there to be expanded. Also, i must disagree that the article is a pov fork, user:Ottomanreference clearly created these series of articles (all the ones i mentioned above) with the intetion of allowing more detailed coverage of the Greco-Turkish war, how this makes it a pov fork i dont know. In my rewrite of it i took care to cite the material our Greek users would find controversial and also include casualty figures for both communities, as well as incidents such as the lynching of the Archbishop, but these are not considered when accusing it of a POV fork.

But in all honesty Richard, what has rallied so many of the Greek users to suggst Delete or Merge is not any concern for the content of the article, but rather having an article which uses the term occupation for the Greek presence in Izmir, despite it being both verifiable and the most notable term to use. This is the crux of the matter with our Greek editors, and if you read the discussion on the talk page, you will realise it has been their main concern since before the afd process. But renaming is not a case for afd (nor is merging), it is a matter of consensus based discussion. --A.Garnet 23:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Alf, I'm gonna be frank: I really don't find the word 'occupation' npov. I also don't like splitting articles into bits and pieces without having elaborated on them first. Even if that wouldn't constitute a fork (despite the fact OR confessed so in the AfD page), it is really bad practice. How would you feel if I violated WP:POINT and created the Turkish lynching of the Archbishop of Smyrna with 5 lines of text to see what I mean? •NikoSilver• 00:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have, on a number of occasions, saved articles from deletion by doing the research and expanding the article in the matter of half an hour to an hour. Admittedly, some of these articles were more current than this one is (e.g. Crime in Mexico, Poverty in India, Adaptation to global warming, etc.). Nonetheless, instead of spending all this time debating, somebody should go do some research and render this whole discussion moot by expanding the articles in question. --Richard 05:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

After checking the voters, it can be realized that Greeks support, Turks oppose merging. Emotional POV push from both sides. E104421 05:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

But the important question is: Which side are Wikipedians supposed to be on? I'm neither Greek nor Turk so I don't know which side to vote for. --Richard 07:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[unindenting] - At this point, what I would suggest as a preliminary exercise is to streamline both articles in their present configuration and then see where that leads us. Shorten the "occupation" article taking out all the duplicate "background" stuff, and making sure both articles link seamlessly into each other. Then we'll see with how much really unique material in the subarticle we're left and whether it's really enough for a good branch-out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the article should (for the time being) be merged in this one, until more info would justify its existence as seperate. And in that time, a possible article about 'occupation' in Smyrni should be divided in two: Greek and Turkish occupation. E104421 is right about the emotional part (which i would not call pov-pushing, though); for the Greek 'emotional reasons', i have explained, i guess most of them, refering to international treaties and censuses. For the Turkish reasons, i bet our fellow Turkish users have also plenty of... By falling in the trap of WP:POINT, i can say that i am in the position to create an article titled Turkish lynching of the Metropolitan of Smyrna, which won't be just "5 lines", as NikoSilver said above, and which would probably cause the anger of some readers or users. However, it would be sourced and it would be as much neutral as it can be. Regards to all. Hectorian 12:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, cool down. By doing so, you would also push others to create counter articles. Edit conflicts would turn out to be article creation wars, then all to be voted for speedy deletion. I do not think that it's a good solution. In my opinion, maybe it would be better to generalize the major topics first (by building consensus for all sides, of course, at the same time), then remove the controversial parts. After doing this, minor ones could be merged. Merging should not cause loss of information. The references themselves should also be neutral and based on scientific sources. Everbody should consider the ways to compromise for reaching a consensus in all conflicts, rather than increase the tension. Regards E104421 16:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If the article will have much content and if it would be sourced and ballanced (always according to the sources provided: e.g. that he cooperated with the Greek army, id est turkish pov, and that he was brutaly murdered and dismembered, id est greek pov backed up by sources), 'speedy deleting' would seem like a supreme act of hypocrysy... Cause in that case we will not have to deal with the article's title (there are no doubts about that fact) nor with its content (nowhere in wikipedia the reasons, the background and the details of his lynching are presented). If i create such an article, i really wouldn't mind rephrasing and rewording it, as long as the sources would not be deleted. But in the article we are talking here (Occupation of Izmir), i see no reason for it not be merged: dublicated info, pov title, one-eyed content, sources used in the same exact way in other articles, etc... The only way that i would agree in keeping it seperate would be to rename it into Greek administration of Smyrna or '...of Ionia' (as NikoSilver has proposed before)-npov title, possibilities of article expansion and coverage of more fields, or to rename it into 'Greek occupation of Smyrni' (note: the name in use that time), but (pay attention all on this) to create another one named 'Turkish occupation of Smyrni' (again the name used that time and also according to international treaties, historic facts, majority vs minority population, legal government-have in mind that the legal government was still the one under the Sultan). also, and maybe this is more important than all the rest, such an article would also include 'Great Fire of Smyrni', since it occured when the turks were in charge of the city. Regards Hectorian 17:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, maybe it's better to put everything to its place and time according to neutral scientific sources. Greek & Turkish pov, claims, names,...,etc may be different, but there should be a way to represent the information neutrally, together. We can try to focus on first the major issues, after neutralizing them, maybe we could then find better ways to deal with the minor ones (including renaming, merging, even removing repeated or disputed parts). As i stated above, we should built consensus on the major issues. If the "fire" is to be included we include, if the name is to be changed we change, but what we are doing now is defocusing from the main issues, creating new controversies, article creation/merging/deletion/renaming. Can you safely say that all the articles related with Turkish/Greek conflicts other than the current one are neutral? or Is there any neutral one about these conflicts? Rather than discussing each issue separately or creating new controversies, we can try to determine the pov ones, and start neutralizing them together. If we could provide comprehensive information based on scientific sources, the minor ones would be treated more easily in the future. Regards E104421 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've been giving this some more thought and here's what I would propose...

First off, the current Occupation of Izmir article simply has to go because the scope of that article overlaps too much with the scope of this article. However, we should salvage as much as we can from that article and create new subsidiary articles. Here's what I would propose Transfer of Smyrna to Greece (1919), Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922), Turkish capture of Smyrna (1922). Note that this last article will have great overlap with the Great Fire of Smyrna. We should probably merge the two and make Great Fire of Smyrna redirect to Turkish capture of Smyrna (1922).

Thoughts and comments?

--Richard 09:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your proposals, in my opinion, will create new problems. If we try to improve the quality and the neutrality of the major topics, the minor ones will automatically be solved. I appreciate your proposals but all are minor ones. Administration, occupation, capture and emancipation all are different issues. The fire is not related with the Turkish emancipation. It was started either by Greek forces or an accident. It is riduculous to speculate that the turkish forces would burn their own city. The fire is well known to happen before the arrival of Turkish forces to Izmir. All these speculaions are the result of anti-turkish propaganda which favors the occupation of western anatolia by the greek. On the contrary, if someone starts countering these arguments, the debate starts, even speedy deletion is offered rather than merging or renaming. That's why i'm proposing to start firstly with the major issues but altogether, if we are to compromise. Otherwise, the debate will not end. Regards E104421 10:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Richard, but i disagree with this approach. Why have 3/4 articles covering the same subject (Greek occupation of Smyrna) when you can easily have one? It is needlessly complicated imo. As for the suggested titles, they seem more concerned with appeasing the Greek pov that there was no occupation than with using the most notable and verifiable term. There was no 'transfer' of Smyrna to Greece, Greece invaded by force of arms a whole year before any treaty was signed. The only article which i believe can stand separate is the Great Fire of Smyrna since it is notable and substantial enough to stand on its own. The rest should simply be expanded within a Occupation of Smyrna article. --A.Garnet 12:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[Unindenting] Richard your proposal is NPOV, and that makes it being rejected by the other side. I am tired of eternal compromises that end to POV articles (and this is general). I propose we just do what we have to and merge everything back to the mother article (this one -War) and then we see which one is substantial to drag its own course out of it and be {{main}}ed out. We can bitch about their titles then, when we will have more sources to know how to call them. For the moment, the only article that matches this criteria is the Great Fire of Smyrna. I also find Garnet's position in refuting the most appealing version regarding the fire, an unfair gesture. I suggest to my fellow Turkish editors in engaging themselves to more editing and less argueing. I'd be willing to help, but you can't expect someone to work on articles of disagreeable title and content (plus I am too busy these days). •NikoSilver• 16:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not reject his proposal because i want to push a pov, but because Occupation of Izmir is simply the most notable and verifiable term used for the event, as Francis has shown on the discussion page. It is no different from Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, depsite the fact that Turkish Cypriots consider it a intervention or a peace operation. Even if Turkey did have a right to intervene under the treaty of guarantee, it does not detract from the fact that she launched a military invasion in antoher country. Likewise, if Izmir did have a significant Greek population, she was still occupying the terriroty for another sovereign entity. You have still failed to come up with a valid argument why this title is not npov. --A.Garnet 17:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss all the Greco-Turkish subjects with you in this page Alf. Therefore I do not respond to your obvious one-sided story of all relative and unrelative articles. Also, I am not contesting the title yet. I am contesting the existence of a separate article, and quite efficiently I may add. :-) •NikoSilver• 19:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Without withdrawing my entire proposal, I do want to retract the proposed title Transfer of Smyrna to Greek control. Somehow I got confused and thought that the Greeks had been granted control of Smyrna through the Treaty of Sevres BEFORE they took control. I realized afterwards (late at night and bleary eyed) that the conquest of Smyrna occurred in 1919 and the Treaty of Sevres was signed in 1920. My first proposal Greek occupation of Smyrna is probably a better title. Forgive my muddle-headed confusion. I'm still learning about this topic. --Richard 02:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If such a name is to be given to any article, then the article must cover the uears 1919-1920 (till the signing of the Treaty of Serves) and also, another article has to be created named Turkish occupation of Smyrna covering the years 1922-1923 (till the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne), which, apparently will also include the Fire, which occured when the Turks were in charge of the city. Hectorian 03:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not forget that the Treaty of Sevres was never ratified by the Ottoman Empire and it never came into force.--Hattusili 06:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of that. And that leads to my other proposed title which would be Greek conquest of Smyrna (1919). You know, what threw me off is the claim that Turkish troops were initially ordered not to fire on Greek troops when they landed. Is that true? If so, why was that order given?

Anyway, as I stated above, the parallel to the Greek conquest of Smyrna (1919) article would be Turkish re-capture of Smyrna (1922). The idea is that these two articles would be primarily about military operations and their impact on the civilian population. The Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922) article would discuss the civilian administration under Aristide Stergiadis. Am I getting closer?

--Richard 06:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To Hattusili: the Treaty of Sevres was accepted by the sultan. I do not know if the Ottoman empire ratified the treaty, but it came in for for everyone else. To Richard: as far as i know, the Turkish troops were initially ordered not to fire on Greek troops when they landed because the treaty was something that the sultan had accepted, and also the Greek army did not land to "conquer", but to administer. This is why the Turkish troops did not open fire, this is why the Ottoman flags were not removed, this is why the inhabitants of the regions were not granted greek citizenship and this is why there was the obligarion for a referendum about the regions future to be held 5 years later. Hectorian 08:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian please read the 433rd article of the treaty saying "The present Treaty, in French, in English, and in Italian, shall be ratified. In case of divergence the French text shall prevail, except in Parts I (Covenant of the League of Nations) and XII (Labour), where the French and English texts shall be of equal force. The deposit of ratifications shall be made at Paris as soon as possible." and "From the date of this first procès-verbal the Treaty will come into force between the High Contracting Parties who have ratified it.For the determination of all periods of time provided for in the present Treaty this date will be the date of the coming into force of the Treaty. In all other respects the Treaty will enter into force for each Power at the date of the deposit of its ratification.". So you can decide whether it came into forcr or not.(Also if you want I can provide you neutral sources about this issue)--Hattusili 10:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the article should be merged. I'm definitely not confortable with the way this article is now. I'm still indecisive, however, because the "occupation" was a notable event, but, at the same time, it was a part of the broader Greco-Turkish War. For me, most important is historical accuracy and not so much the merger. What I mean:

• It is a hugely POV article. Sentences like this one: "The Greek soldiers burned all the city before they left. The Turkish Soldiers didn't kill any Greek who lives in Smyrna after the Greek soldiers left Smyrna." are totally inacceptable. Ok, if the Turkish soldiers did not kill anybody, then who killed them? Who killed the bishop Chrysostomos of Smyrna? You'll tell me the mob. Ok, but why aren't these events mentioned?
• The sections are stubby.
• The last section needs expansion (I've tagged it) and analysis.

And more and more and more ... As a matter of fact, it is a terrible article. Even the title is POV: "Occupation". But the Greek army was there implementing an international mandate. Is this an "occupation"?

I don't know if this article will be merged or not, but, if it is not, it needs renaming, un-POV work, layout and referencing improvements, prose improvements etc.--Yannismarou 14:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And an answer to Hattusili who touched legal issues: I'm sorry but as a jurist and former lawyer, I must point out, Hattusli, that your comments concerning the Treaty of Sevres are irrelevant. Of course, the Treaty was not ratified, but the Greek army was not in Izmir implementing a non-ratified Treaty, but implementing the mandate given to Greece by the Supreme Council of the Allies, who was in session in Paris. The mandate was given the April of 1919 after a request of the Greek Prime Minister, Eleftherios Venizelos. Afterwards, the Greek Army disembarked in Izmir, implementing a legal mandate of the Supreme Council and not the Treaty of Sevres, which was not yet even signed. The Treaty was signed in August 1919, after the legal "occupation" of the city by the Greek Army; an "occupation" which was in accordance with the international law, e.g. in accordance with the mandate which was given to Greece the April of 1919. That is why, we do not have to do with an illegal presence of the Greek troops in Izmir and that is why the word "Occupation" used in the title of the article is POV. If the article survives, it definitely needs renaming and it definitely has to respect historical reality - something that it definitely fails to do right now.--Yannismarou 14:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets first decide about the merge and later I can list my reasons for calling the event as occupation and you can list yours for not calling and we can let the people decide about it.--Hattusili 08:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly we have to think about the meaning differences between occupation and war;

Occupation is act of forcefully taking possession of an area, seizure; conquest; possession or settlement of land.(this action is unilateral activity). However, war is state or period of combat between two sides (especially two countries); state of conflict or contention between two sides; theory of combat; effort against something, (there is reciprocity in wars, there are fight and battle between two sides).

Secondly, Occupation of Izmir is an important issue and it could be evaluated in a seperate title.--Karcha 01:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Occupation of İzmir can not be evaluated in Greco_Turkish war article.

This is a İzmir/Symrna related article and it is a unic event that has a major importance in the history of İzmir/Symrna which was created many sunsequential events/conclusions .

If we consider that it is a part of Greco-Turkish war, then many other articles can be accepted as a part of this article also(like as Sevres Treaty, Lausanne Treaty etc.)

Mustafa Akalp^TC 07:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Armistice of Mudanya

The current text reads:

The Armistice of Mudanya was concluded on October 11 1922, with the Allies retaining control of eastern Thrace and the Bosporus, but the Greeks evacuating these areas.

I'm confused as to what this means. Specifically, what is meant by "the Allies retaining control of eastern Thrace and the Bosporus but the Greeks evacuating these areas".

What is meant by "the Allies"? Is this France, Britain and Italy?

According to the Armistice of Mudanya article, it is stated "eastern Thrace as far as the Maritsa River and Adrianople were handed by Greece to Turkey and Turkish sovereignty over Istanbul and the Dardanelles was recognized".

This seems to be a contradiction with the text in this article wherein the Allies retained "control of eastern Thrace and the Bosporus".

Can anyone explain this apparent contradiction?

--Richard 17:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Major expansion of the background section

I have just made a major expansion of the background section. Some may think that the background section is now too long. Let me explain my reasoning...

I got here via the AFD debate on the Occupation of Izmir article. I will readily confess that I knew nothing about this war before a few days ago. So, in some ways, I am a good guinea pig for determining whether the article is sufficiently explanatory and helpful to a reader who does not know anything about the topic.

I am sad to say that the answer to the question is No. While looking for additional content to insert into the Occupation of Izmir article, I found information about the "Megale Idea", Constantine I, Venizelos, Alexander and the Treaty of Sevres that were just not well presented in the article. Without this context, it is difficult to understand why this war was fought and what the implications of the Greek loss were.

I think the new content that I have inserted fills this deficiency. I am open to the idea that the text might be tightened up a bit and thus made shorter. However, I think the key ideas need to be presented to help the reader understand better the context in which this war was fought.

--Richard 07:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could reduce the part on "Greece's difficult position in World War I". I had started this Chronology of the Turkish War of Independence; please bear in mind that for the moment it has only been started. Maybe it could help in limiting the time frame for this article and for having a title for the other article (instead of Occupation of İzmir) more in line with the evolution and the space of the occupation. Cretanforever 01:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Occupation of Izmir should be merged, but it definitely needs renaming and un-POV work. Another problem for me is the this article co-exists with the Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922), which is an article with the same topic, but written by other editors. This is another important problem there. Maybe we should merge these two articles under a non-POV title, which will not include the word "occupation". See also my comments in the above section.--Yannismarou 14:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I created the Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922) article as part of a proposal to split the Occupation of Izmir article into three articles: Greek occupation of Smyrna (1919), Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922) and Turkish re-capture of Smyrna (1922). I fully agree that the Occupation of Izmir and Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922) articles should not co-exist in their current form as the scopes of the two articles overlap greatly. If the Occupation of Izmir article is not deleted, then the Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922) should be merged into it. However, the argument for deleting the current content of the Occupation of Izmir article, is that it duplicates much of the material that is already in this article.

--Richard 17:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Expanded and reorganized article

I started expanding the article and somewhere along the way, small reorganizations became bigger reorganizations. I now feel that it is a mistake to try to separate political, diplomatic and military chronologies. For one thing, the separation led to my earlier confusion about which came first: the Treaty of Sevres or the occupation of Smyrna. But more importantly, the story of this war is about how international diplomacy and domestic politics (both Greek and Turkish) influenced the course of the war. This story should be told as a single integrated narrative rather than as two separate threads that the reader has to absorb separately and then integrate himself.

I have made steps towards creating this integrated narrative but more work needs to be done so I have left a {{cleanup}} tag behind to document that the article, as it stands, is still a bit of a mess.

--Richard 17:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

OttomanReference's recent edits

While I might not agree with all of OttomanReference's recent edits, it is clear that he has done a lot of work, most of it good. The article was in a mess and is much improved as a result of his efforts.

I also appreciate his making the changes in small increments so as to make it easier to identify and focus on each change separately rather than having to review an entire set of changes in one edit. (Some people would disagree with me and would prefer a single "big edit". To each his own.)

I do have a question about this paragraph "The Greek nationalism was also not challenged. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of the Greek people being remained outside the borders of boundaries of the new Greece, who had no intention that a large Greek state should replace the Ottoman Empire."

I don't understand the meaning of "The Greek nationalism was also not challenged. "

I also think there is text that was deleted in the second sentence. To my memory, it is the Triple Entente (UK, France, Russia) who had no intention that a .... The second sentence as it stands in the current paragraph makes no sense to me. Even if I fix the deletion of the Triple Entente, the paragraph seems to be a series of non-sequiturs. This paragraph needs work. I'm going to delete it with the hope that it will be replaced with a more coherent exposition of the ideas that it is trying to get across.

--Richard 18:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OttomanReference has edited the text in question and it is much improved. However, I am still having trouble with this sentence "Between two-thirds and three-quarters of the Greek people being outside the borders of 1914 Greece, which their intention, or support, that a Greece should replace the Ottoman Empire (Megali Idea) is questionable."

The second part of the sentence seems to duplicate what was already said in the previous paragraph.

As for the first part of the sentence, I think it is important to mention that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the Greek people lived outside the borders of 1914 Greece. However, I do not think that you can draw a direct connection between this fact and "their support of the Megali Idea is questionable".

NB: I am not saying that Greeks outside the borders of 1914 Greece supported the Megali Idea. I have no information on this, one way or another. What I am saying is that the current text does not provide any support for the connection that seems to be made by this sentence. In any event, I think we need a citation to support any assertion on this question.

--Richard 20:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually this exact statement needs citation. The only logical explanation is that Greeks (66 or 75% of them) that lived in Anatolia would definitely want to be self-governed. I am curious to find out which source supposedly considers that they would prefer to be governed by a separate ethnicity of different language, religion and customs (or that they would prefer to leave their homes and migrate pennyless across Aegean). So, you can keep the first part, but delete the second until WP:INDY citation is provided. The rest of the text needs other citations too, but this one has gone too far IMO! NikoSilver 22:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of the {{fact}} template

User:Hectorian removed a {{fact}} template from the "Venezelism movement" section. The {{fact}} does not necessarily mean the inserting editor believes the assertion is false. It could just mean that the inserting editor thinks a citation would help the credibility of the article. Even if the inserting editor IS challenging the truth of the assertion, it is not sufficient to reaffirm the truth of the assertion as a reason for removing the {{fact}} template. If there is any doubt as to the truth of an assertion, then a citation should be provided.

--Richard 16:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

U are right Richard. just i cannot understand why the specific citation is asked for... The next sentence is In May 1917, after the exile of Constantine.... so, it is obvious that Though Constantine did remain decidedly neutral, the influence of Prime Minister of Greece Eleftherios Venizelos is evident. cause of Venizelos and the support he gained (among the Allies, the Greek population, army and parliament-note Venizelos had the absolute control of a democratically elected parliament that time), the king was forced to leave the country. i doubt if i can find a source saying clearly that his infuence was evident, cause i think that noone would ever bother to write down the obvious... Hectorian 17:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the assertion is kind of obvious and doesn't really warrant a {{fact}} tag. However, I disagree that it would be impossible to find a citation. A citation is the best defense against a POV challenge to an "obvious" fact.

Ironically, you are now insisting on inserting a {{fact}} tag on the assertion that "not all Greeks in the Ottoman Greek millet supported the Megali idea". OttomanReference inserted this text although I have been involved in cleaning it up.

I don't have a strong opinion on this assertion. I would like to understand what your objection is.

I think it is reasonable to assume that some Greeks in the millet preferred their status in the Ottoman Empire to being subject to the Greek king. The question is whether there were enough such Greeks to warrant making the point in this article. OttomanReference asserts the attempt to create a Republic of Pontus as an example of Greeks who did not want to be part of the Kingdom of Greece. Do you reject this as a valid "proof by existence" of the assertion? If so, why?

--Richard 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course there were Greeks who prefered their status in the Ottoman Empire, rather than become subjects to the Greek King. according to my knowledge, these were wealthy Greeks who prefered the "status quo" and did not wanna risk their property through tax reforms (note that many wealthy Asia Minor Greeks contributed to the Asia Minor Expedition though). I just insist (and will continue to) that these people were few, rather few to be mentioned here (there are many examples in world history of people who were in favour of another ethnic group than the one they belong, and even fought against their compatriots). The Republic of Pontus that u mentioned (and which i saw been used to justify that edit), was a different case, directly connected with the Megali Idea, and by no means can it be seen as if the Greek Pontians indeed wanted a separate state. they tried to form a republic, after Venizelos' encouragement, since, at that point, it was imposible for Greece to send troops and annex a so remote area. To verify what i am saying, and to pre-occupy any possible further attempt to isolate the area and the Greeks of Pontus from the Greeks (in general) and from this war (specifically), i could just mention Metropolitan Chrysanthus of Trapezounta (the most prominent Pontian of that time), who, after the war, became Archibishop of Athens... Hectorian 18:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I get your point. I am removing the text and inserting it below. We should discuss this further before re-inserting it into the text. --Richard 19:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced either way at this time. What I would like to see is a citation that indicates that a reliable source thinks that this point is significant in the history of the war. Otherwise, it seems like WP:OR from our friend OttomanReference. --Richard 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversial text removed from the article pending further discussion

I have removed the text below from the article per the discussion with Hectorian above. While the truth of the assertion is not disputed, the significance of this group is questioned.

Not all of the Ottoman Greek millet supported the form of Greek nationalism developed in Greece as the Megali Idea. Not all Greeks who lived outside the 1912 borders of Greece supported the idea that of a national Greece that would have jurisdiction over them. Nor did they all support the idea of being subject to the King of Greece. For example, the Greeks of the Black Sea (Pontic Greek) gathered in Trabzon on February 23 1918 and resolved to work towards the establishment of a Pontian Greek Republic.

--Richard 19:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In any case, sources will have to be cited to support the dubious claim that there were Greeks who preferred Turkish rule, as implied by User:OttomanReference. And of course, the desire of the Pontians to establish their own state can hardly be interpreted as a rejection of Greek nationalism. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, all those who have no connection to the Greco-Turkish war can talk all you want about "neutrality". But, I have a real life story to relate to you. It involves the MURDER of my great great-grandfather, Haralampos Papazaharious (Spelling?), known to the Turks as Papadapolous because they couldn't pronounce his real name (go figure!). See, he was a Greek artist and architect whose residence was in Samsun, Turkey. One day (I don't remember the actual date as I was very young when this story was told to me) during the war, my great great grandfather and his fellow Greek villagers were marched about 50 miles outside of Samsun where they were made to line up in front of a trench and shot execution-style where they stood. Haralampos's best friend was the only survivor of this CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY!!!! He did so by playing dead!!! When the Turkish thugs left, he called out Haralampos's name only to be greeted by a wide-eyed corpse!!! I wish I could remember the name of this man, but I was very young when I heard this story. Anyway, he made a book detailing this atrocity. I, myself, saw the book with my very own eyes before my senile Great grandmother gave it away! Whoever you are, thief, I declare you give that book back to the decendants of Haralampos Papazaharious where it rightfully belongs!! You should be ashamed of yourself for taking advantage of an old woman like that!! Maybe her name will jog your memory, Thief! It was Beulah Thomas (married name). Anyway, enough with the rant. Needless to say, those Turks are still too cowardly to admit to this shameful act of cowardice!!!!Nnnoetic 01:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Nnnoetic

Well, I have a similar personal story, involving Greek atrocities against my Turkish great grand parents (RIP), and I am pretty sure many Greeks and Turks alike have similar war-time stories. But what does this personal tragedy add to this article? That's the question. This is neither a Greek school textbook, nor a Turkish one. If you have a point that is relevant to and important for the topic, which you can cite, and which is not biased due to nationalist tendencies, please don't hesitate editting the article. (Gustabon 12:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Background + Greco-Turkish War as an extension of the Balkan Wars

I have tried to clean up the mess made by a number of edits which, while making some worthwhile points, also included assertions that were only marginally relevant or that provided excessive detail. I removed some assertions and moved some to other articles leaving behind a summary.

One thing that we need to remember is that the focus of this article is the war itself and we need to ensure that the Background article section does not grow to the point where it dominates the article and overwhelms the discussion of the war. The reader should not have to slog through a long discussion of turn-of-the-century Greek and Balkan history before getting to the discussion of the war itself.

I know that I started this by introducing the discussion of the Megali Idea, Venizelos and Constantine I but I meant for the treatment to only cover a few paragraphs. That is why I have been shortening the Background section back to more manageable proportions.

One thing that I am still wrestling with is the idea that this war was an extension of the Balkan Wars. I can believe that this is true but I need a deeper understanding before I can figure out how to present the idea in a way that the reader can understand.

I have removed the image of people migrating as it seems not directly relevant to the argument.

--Richard 18:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this war was an extension of WWI, not the Balkan Wars. If we say it was their extension, then we will have to say that they had been the extension of the Greco-Turkish war of 1897, or of the Cretan uprisings, and they, in turn of the Greek Revolution, linking all these things back untill 1453 or maybe 1071... Hectorian 18:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

header 1	header 2	header 3
row 1, cell 1	row 1, cell 2	row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1	row 2, cell 2	row 2, cell 3

Viewing this war as an extension of the Balkan Wars

I removed the following text per the discussion above with Hectorian. It may be worthwhile to discuss the greater historical and geopolitical context but, as Hectorian points out above, this war is most directly an extension of World War I, not of the Balkan Wars.

The Greco-Turkish war can be viewed as an extension of the Balkan Wars played within the greater geopolitical context of the World War One.

--Richard 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

{{POV-section}}

I see only one side cited academically in this dispute, while there are many others I have noticed in the following articles:

• Pontic Greek Genocide
• Great Fire of Smyrna

...and more. Someone, preferably third party, should deal with this section. I also think that the debate should not be fragmented in multiple articles, but concentrated in one place. NikoSilver 20:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I will try to get WP Military history involved. Baristarim 01:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pataki's origin

About user NikoSilver's (twice) deletion of the reference about Pataki's Greek origin: The reference is www.hri.org, Greek Resources Net, an organisation which, I thought, Greeks would trust. Pataki being a "of Greek descent" does not preclude the possibility that he may also have Hungarian ancestors. Therefore, providing resources about Pataki being of Hungarian descent is not a reason to delete the reference about his Greek origins. On the other hand, unlike a Greek descent, Pataki's Hungarian or Chinese ancestory is irrelevant to this article. Greek ancestors is relevant for the obvious reason of demonstrating his probable POV on the Greco-Turkish war. Therefore I propose 1)rewrite Pataki's Greek ancestory until there is evidence to the contrary and 2) delete information about Hungarian ancestory since it is not relevant. Filanca 17:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Filanca, I admit the name sounds Greek (although Greek surnames don't end in -i) but it isn't. I found some dozens of biography links, and none mentions Greek, apart from the one that you cite, which probably presumes he is Greek (because it helps the story in the article). Even his official biographies in the office's site, stated that he was plain Hungarian descent (before they were replaced with those of the new governor). Also, see the wikipedia article, (that has not been written by any Greek co-conspirators of course!) :-) Also, why would someone running for office in New York state which has a huge Greek community, would hide his Greekness in his official bios? As for the "deletion (twice)", I think you are confused; I reverted your change only once. But I will revert again if you re-insert an unreliable source with wrong claims. NikoSilver 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You have a fair point. There is only one source, so let us not mention it until there are others. I also proposed we delete his Hungarian origin, since it is not relevant with this article. Filanca 08:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed your addition regarding the Greek community. I think that we should add back about his Hungarian descent, given that his surname may mislead readers to think he is Greek. NikoSilver 11:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nikosilver, Greek names do end in i, and cretan names end in aki or akis, and in Greek, when a mans surname ends in s, the womans name does not, for example Anna Vissi, her father's surname would be Vissis, so George Pataki is a Greek sounding name.--Stavros15 05:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

He's a man, not a woman. That would be an extremely rare case of use of the genitive case Pataki (instead of the nominative case Patakis) for a male. I haven't come across that thing in Greek surnames (and I'm a native). It could be of Greek origin, but that doesn't rule out him self-identifying as of Hungarian descent only and as having both Hungarian parents, as was evidently seen in the official sources I provided. NikoSilver 11:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

scorched earth policy

For Kekrops, the fact that Greek soldiers carried out a scorched earth policy is well documented and attested by academic sources. Since Wikipedia's purpose is to refelct academic opinion, then that is what we do. --A.Garnet 13:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Great Fire of Smyrna article to which this section originally belonged, there is no section title "Turkish policy of extermination" or similar, despite the multitude of sources that could justify such wording. Sections are neutrally titled "Sources claiming Turkish responsibility" or similarly, and the same policy should be followed here. There are sources claiming that there was a Greek scorched earth policy, but it is not for Wikipedia to decide that that was actually the case, without question. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, "alleged" suggests an unproven allegation, which it obviously is not. To my mind, no sources have been provided which could raise doubt over the generally accepted view of the Greek army setting Anatolia ablaze. I've changed the intro to "according to a number of sources". Better? --A.Garnet 14:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No. I will return. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

On your return, you can also come up with an argument why a sourced section is neutrally and factually disputed, otherwise that tag can go too. --A.Garnet 14:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll ignore that gibe and return to the gist of the matter. I have changed the offending word "alleged" to "claims", as per the "Sources claiming Turkish responsibility" section title at Great Fire of Smyrna. I think this is a fair compromise. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there sources which claim anyone other than the Greek army set Anatolia on fire? Or that scorched earth policies were not used at all? I've asked Francis to take a look, dont have time go round in circles (also last statement was not a gibe, please tell me what is neutrally or factually disputed or i will remove them). Regards, --A.Garnet 14:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Toynbee for one. Keep reading. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Quotes? --A.Garnet 14:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Toynbee, Arnold, "The Western Question in Greece and Turkey." p.152. The reference is in the text, if you'd bothered to read it. Do I have to do everything for you? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

According to me, the section is POV because it portrays a minority opinion as a majority one. The word "policy" there is used to create the false impression that the Greeks systematically destroyed everything, while retreating... There are also sources blaming the kemalistic army for raising to the ground several Greek villages and towns in its way to Smyrna, with the Fire in this city being the "peak" of such actions. Such a section would perhaps balance the article, which now is highly favors of the Turkish POV. Some other sections illustrate this:

1.1 Greek nationalism - where is the section about Turkish nationalism?

2.1 Occupation of İzmir/Smyrna, May, 1919 - According to the Turks it was occupation; according to the Greeks liberation; a neutral word like "administration" would do here

2.11 Re-capture of Smyrna, September, 1922 - Why "Re-"? Kemalists did not hold the city before... And the article's authors have tried to do their best in order to differentiate "Ottoman" and "Turkish" concerning the Treaty of Sevres; they should had done the same here. In fact, there is no "re-capture": the Ottoman state is the one who gave it to Greece, and Kemal's forces captured it afterwards.

3.3 Claims of ethnic cleansing by both sides - for the Turkish claims, nothing new to be added than 2.12 Greek scorched earth policy claims. Repetition for the POV reason to counter balance the Greek claims. Hectorian 14:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There's more. One of the sources used to back-up the story that Greeks burnt, uses selective quoting. It's only 3 paragraphs, so have a read. (here). Also, I'd like quotes that adequately substantiate the fact that "Greek scorched earth policy" is the frequent title backed up by academic sources. NikoSilver 15:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I will not waste my time with such ridicolous arguments. --A.Garnet 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition:

About 2.11 that Hectorian mentioned. It was not the Kemalists that recaptured Izmir: it was the Turkish forces. Turkey is the predecessor state of the OE, and the Treaty of Lausanne concretized this internationally and ergo the actions of GNAT (Turkish parliament) is considered an integral part of Turkish republican history. On hindsight, you will never see a serious historical work where the 1920-23 acts of the Turkish parliament are considered seperately than that of the Republic.

As for 1.1.. I am not too sure, but I don't think that we are talking about the same type of nationalism. Defending your country is not mere "nationalism", right? I mean, you cannot simply label Turkish soldiers who were fighting when the Greek armies were right off Ankara as mere "nationalists". I suppose a background to encompass both the "nationalism" of Ataturk after WWI and "nationalism" of Greece could be included - but not simply to throw mud at each other. Just as an overview. Different types of nationalism certainly played a role. Baristarim 19:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As for occupation. The fact that it was given by the OE via a treaty doesn't mean much as far as the historical impact is concerned. See Liberation of Paris or German occupation of France in World War II for example. Paris was given to Germany via a treaty too. The question has always been the duration of the "occupation" compared to the preceding "occupation" of the other side. In this case we have couple of years compared to many centuries. That's all. However, it is more than legitimate to mention that the Greek population of Izmir/Smryna considered it a liberation. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact they most probably did actually. Baristarim 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How the Greek population considered it is out of the question (historical archives and photos show this clearly). "Occupation" vs "liberation" cannot be defined only by the duration as u say. If it is that, please gave me the exact chronological limits, or else, under the same pretext, I will have to move Ottoman Greece to "Ottoman occupation of Greece" and refer about 1881 in Thessaly as liberation. or, if u prefer, TRNC will be renamed to "Turkish occupied Northern Cyprus", so as to be in accordance to the international law, the "duration" and reality.

The type of nationalism is not my concern here. The existence of a nationalist policy is. Since the term "Turkish nationalists" is used a lot here and in other articles for these events, a section should be created here. Defending your country is a somehow disputed phrase. Even if in Ankara the Kemalist army was defending its country, this was not the case for Smyrna (where they did not form the majority), or, they had been doing the same ("defending their country") in Damascus (also part of the Ottoman Empire at a time when the borders of Turkey was of non existence).

you will never see a serious historical work where the 1920-23 acts of the Turkish parliament are considered seperately than that of the Republic. The Greeks landed in Smyrna in 1919, under the Sultan's permission. Correct me if I am wrong, but at this time the Sultan was the only one and legitimate head of the state. This, not only revokes your thesis about "occupation" (u do not occupy a place when its ruler allows u to control it), but also contradicts the "re-capture" claim, since it was not the Sultan forces who got the city back, and until that time, the Sultan was considered outlawed by the turkish nationalists. Hectorian 20:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In any case, what is important is how it is referred. Your last paragraph is wrong Hectorian. Please see Liberation of Paris or German occupation of France in World War II. They were "legal" as well. If you took "u do not occupy a place when its ruler allows u to control it" to those pages, I pretty much know what will happen :)) Some of the analysis is piecemeal - what is important is how it is considered globally and historically. Izmir is referred to as being recaptured by Turks. If you try to analyze every event seperately, then you can come up with any sort of analysis. What you said about Sultan was not correct either: he was not "outlawed" - that's way too simplistic. The sovereignty of the sultanate was transferred to the parliament. That's not the same thing. TGNA assumed the continuity of the OE and defuncted the Sultan because of failure to do his duties and this continuity was confirmed by Lausanne that confirmed the Republic as the successor state. There is no logical flaw into considering that Izmir was recaptured by the Republic, since it is the SS of OE Izmir belonged to the OE (and predecessor Beyliks) for nearly 9 centuries - I dare say a couple of years qualifies as occupation? :) Baristarim 21:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Scorched earth sources

Placing these here just incase any future editors feel inclinded to dispute it:

• "That they did burn and lay waste the land may be taken for granted. The Greeks have claimed military necessity for this, and it would appear that they could plead such necessity if ever it can be pleaded. They certainly had more reason for laying bare the country between themselves and the advancing Khemalists than had our own Sherman on his “March to the Sea.”" George Horton, Blight of Asia. http://www.hri.org/docs/Horton/hb-12.html
• "The British representative in Izmir, Sir Harry Lamb, had warned: "The Greeks have realised that they have got to go but they are decided to leave a desert behind them, no matter whose interests may suffer thereby...In Afyonkarahisa, the Turks were able to put out the fires started by the retreating Greeks. But hundrends of villages and a whole string of market towns - from Usak to Izmir - were burned down." Andrew Mango, Ataturk, p. 343.
• "The retreat lasted a week. The Turkish forces hurried on towards the city, striving to overtake the Greeks before they could decimate all western Anatolia 'by fire and sword'...They pillaged and destroyed and raped and buthchered. 'They went to pieces altogether' as Rumbold recounted to Curzon on the basis of reports from his consul in Smyrna" Patrick Kinross, Ataturk p. 319.
• "The Greeks, displaying a characteristic often a mark of defeated armies, pursued a 'scorched earth' policy toward Western Anatolia." Patrick Kincaid Jensen. Greco-Turkish war. International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol 10, No.4 p. 563
• "In the course of its retreat from Usah to Smyrna, the Greek army employed a scorched earth policy, destroying the population centers of western Turkey and committing attrocities on a wide scale"Martin Sicker, The Islamic World in Decline p. 227.
• "Turkey also faced a daunting humanitarian task. It had to rehouse hun- dreds of thousands of its own citizens who had been burned out of their homes by the retreating Greek army, or put to flight during the Greek atrocities of summer 1921." Bruce Clark, Twice a Stranger, p. 134. --A.Garnet 18:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite A.Garnet's inflammatory comment (about "ridiculous arguments" given the ridiculous interpretation in the article of the few sources that existed until now), I'll make a comment here, and I don't care what the rest of the Greeks might think:

• If the sources say my grandpas burnt, then I want to see that reflected in the article. I want it criticized, and I want my children to learn that whatever the other side has done to you, you're never entitled to resort to such atrocities.
• If they killed I want it mentioned. If they didn't, I want it mentioned too.
• If there are statistics, names of villages, etc, I want them mentioned.
• If there are any "excuses", (scare quotes intentional) I want them mentioned, and criticized too. e.g. I read Horton's link above, and he says that the Turkish homes were only consisting of a briki, of a kilim, of a bowl in which they both washed themselves and ate their pillaf, and of boards on which they slept, if not on the floor; and that the 'good houses' were those of the Greeks etc. Well... I don't give a damn if they lived in tents and they ate off the dirt! Your home is your home, and the tent and the briki to the poor are as expensive as the villas to tycoons!

Now I'm going to ask for more sources and quotes (pro-Greek or not) and wait for the rest of the week in (the remote) case that the claims for no-scortched-earth-policy counter the ones above. Then, if they don't, I'll remove 'alleged'/'claimed' myself, and I urge Turkish users to expand! NikoSilver 20:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. In case you think I'm nuts, I feel perfect inside. NikoSilver 20:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a short break from this page is in order, NikoSilver. El_C 21:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a pleasure letting that off my chest, and I'd love to stay around to see what I said actually being implemented. In case you'll still have me, that is. NikoSilver 21:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Since Horton has been quoted, I can't see why we should limit our attention to only his few quotes about the alleged Greek atrocities... Lets use all his book The Blight of Asia, no? Lets see what he says about the Turks of Kemal... Hectorian 21:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

For your information Hectorian, the use of Horton was deliberate. He is clearly as pro-Hellene as they come, which is why i included his mention of the scorched earth policy (despite his apologetic attitude towards it). I wanted to show it really is not some kind of controversial "did they" or "didnt they" issue, but a well documented event in the Greco-Turkish war. --A.Garnet 21:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So, selective usage of sources, u mean. I will quote him for other events, and use his previous mentioning about "scorch earth policy" as an "excuse". he has written many more than that, and u know it. and since, i suppose, most Turkish users do not accept the things he has said as true, I am surprised that they chose to accept only what agrees with their POV. regardless of Horton's pro-Hellenic stance, as a source, he can be used for all related to this war, and if the section remains as is, i keep my right to create another one, for the "Turkish scorched earth policy" (Izmir included); Horton says so... Hectorian 21:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actions of Chrysostomos of Smyrna

In the text it reads "This massacre include the lynching and brutal murder of the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Smyrna (done in revenge for his actions against Turkish officials and population) whose..."

What are his actions against Turkish officials and population?

If there is no reference, we may have to remove the revenge for his actions part.

As far as is written in the respecting article, he during May 1919 he "assisted the Greek, Turkish and Armenian population of Smyrna".

--ManosGR 14:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I restored it, and added a fact tag. Deniz^T_C 14:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To me this smacks of POV pushing and attempting to justify the murder of an innocent clergyman in cold blood by a mob of soldiers. AlexiusComnenus 00:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Kinross Quote

I removed the Kinross quote on the Smyrna fire about 2,000 people being killed in Smyrna. Anyone who disagrees with this should go read the page on the Great Fire of Smyrna-- everything about this is disputed. Kinross' opinion is not representative of the majority of historians, and I could easily find a quote talking about Turkish massacres and brutality, but I think we should refrain from ruining this article like the Great Fire of Smyrna article by using selective quotes to push POVs. AlexiusComnenus 00:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a new separate article about eyewitness accounts and/or press headlines of that time would be interested on the matter. Hectorian 00:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, or we could just move the stuff to Wikisource.

The article Great Fire of Smyrna is basically a repository for every single quote or document on the issue. It is pretty much a joke. I think most of the stuff should be moved to wikisource, and an article no more than a few paragraphs written after consulting relevant secondary sources and figuring out what is the consensus of non-Greek and non-Turkish historians.

But anyway, there should be no POV forks on the Smyrna issue in this article. We should just say "After the Kemalist army entered the city, it was burned to the ground. There are numerous theories as to who started the fire, including blah blah blah. Estimates of the dead range from 2,000-150,000." or something of the sort until the issues can be resolved in the other article. This is not the place for POV pushing on the Smyrna fire. AlexiusComnenus 02:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am reverting again for reasons if said above. Can people PLEASE use the talk page? AlexiusComnenus 02:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

lets just make it clear Alexius i dont have much to talk with you or with Hectorian, you two are masters of imposing your nationalist propaganda-like materials in every article and now youre deleting a sourced quotation..Recapture of smyrna section already says that Turkish army massacred a significant part of christian population and had the extermination of that populations as its objective. (coming from pro greek sources) Therefore Kinross quotation is important to present another point of view and Kinross is not really someone who try to hide massacres comitted by turks..Therefore revert is in order--laertes d 11:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Kinross was Ataturk's biographer, and a close personal friend of Ataturk, thus he is hardly an unbiased authority on the subject. Anyway, just go to the talk page for the Great Fire of Smyrna article, Kinross' opinion is hardly the majority opinion of historians as there is huge debate on the subject. Thus we would need another long-winded quote to balance the article, and it would be easy to find on from Horton or Morgenthau. I think having no quotes is better than two, for the sake of brevity. Just look at what happened with the Smyrna fire article, it is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia because of constant "quote warring." Please refrain from using this article as a POV fork. If you have different views on the Smyrna events, use the talk page there. AlexiusComnenus 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As ı saıd the artıcle begıns wıth the asserıon that turkısh army massacred sıgnıfıcant portıon of the chrıstians and had the extermınatıon of ıt as ıts objective and these are coming frompro-greek sources and therefore nothıng is wrong about Kinross quotatıon. Stop revertıng ıt..--laertes d 11:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Kinross is a minority view and is being used as a primary source. His view is nothing but a bit of background trivia and certainly does not merit such a significant mention, at least not there in the middle of the text. I don't know where that's done elsewhere, but it's frowned upon.--Ploutarchos 12:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

i value kinross' opinions on the subject more than yours, stop deleting. you two just cant impose your own point of views in every single article..--laertes d 19:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Plutarchos sometimes i forget to sign in and thats why IP instead of my user name shows up, it is not "sock" of any kind and not a reason to continue to your obsessive revertings..--laertes d 20:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

stop reverting it for heaven's sake, much of the article is written by pro greek sources and youre still whining..=--laertes d 23:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Laertes, will you please understand, once and for all, that the Kinross quote does not belong in the middle of the text, it is a primary source and using it in the way you are is unproportionate. Let's create a new article for a list of quotes relating to the issue if you must, where it shall be presented in context, but plastering an largely irrelevant trivia on the basis that you claim that the article is written exclusively on Greek sources is close to WP:POINT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sensationalist newsletter. NikoSilver 23:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thats why there has to be different opinions presented. What is sensational in the article to me are the citations from Housepian Dobkin and Horton, they are far from credible and generally nobody take seriously what they are talking about. Kinross instead was a serious historian and therefore what he says deserve a place in the article..Another point quote is there for months by now,you cant just delete it just because you want it so you have to first propose for its deletion..--laertes d 08:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Housepian's book is quite scholarly, drawing upon a number of primary sources, I recommend reading it to broaden your horizons.

A citation from Kinross might be a good idea, his estimate of 2,000 is one of the lower estimates of Greeks and Armenians killed in Smyrna. We should have a sentence which reads: "Estimates of Greeks and Armenians killed in Smyrna range from 2000 (Kinross) to 100000 (Horton-- and the number I picked was a random one, if we agree on this sentence I will look up the Horton and Housepian numbers.) To my knowledge, there is no lower estimate than Kinross' number.

The fact of the matter is that Kinross' opinion is not a majority one-- in fact his estimate is a lower estimate. You are currently presenting it as fact in the article. If you want to have this quote, for proportionality we will have to add another long quote from the Greek point of view, and I don't want to do this as it will make the article longer and poorer quality.

Please look at how crappy the Great Smyrna Fire article is, we don't want to turn this article into another one of those, do we? AlexiusComnenus 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The books by Housepian and Horton were like the most unscholarly works in history and generally they were not taken seriously by academia except our greek nationalist hanging here. They both minimized, as much as it is possible, Greek atrocities thoughout the occupation and also entered into a race to augment the number of killed greeks..And no i dont agree with your sentence, one is historian( Kinross) the other is a propagandist(Horton)..--laertes d 18:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is the "greek nationalist hanging here"? NikoSilver 21:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be hard pressed to give you the authority to declare the works of Housepian and Horton to be "the most unscholarly in history" (sic.) True, Horton's work is more a memoir and thus a primary rather than scholarly work, but Housepian's is quite well referenced, I would recommend reading it. Or you could try Morgenthau's work, the US Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during the time period preceding these events. AlexiusComnenus 16:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I may be completely mistaken, but did Houespian not refer to Kinros's 2,000 figure as historically verifiable? --A.Garnet 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Also regarding Nikosilver's edit summary, I think the quote was in a good place. It was after the sentence "The Turkish Army massacred a significant part of the Christian population" and its 'explanation'. It is a sourced text. Also next time, please move the text instead of deleting it, or start a survey-like thing on the talk page (if you want to) to find a better place and then move it if necessary. Please revert now. It is not big either. It is not blockquoted either, which happens a lot with Anti-Turkish quotes. Deniz^T_C 04:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Greek Scorched Earth Policy Again

I do not disagree that the Greek army may have burned villages during it's retreat, but is there a reason why this needs a special section and cannot be listed under "Claims of Ethnic Cleansing by both Sides"? Also why do there need to be three quotes on the subject? One of the quotes is little more than a laundry list and none of them provides any important information. I think this issue has been given undue weight. AlexiusComnenus 23:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Taken from above:

• "That they did burn and lay waste the land may be taken for granted. The Greeks have claimed military necessity for this, and it would appear that they could plead such necessity if ever it can be pleaded. They certainly had more reason for laying bare the country between themselves and the advancing Khemalists than had our own Sherman on his “March to the Sea.”" George Horton, Blight of Asia. http://www.hri.org/docs/Horton/hb-12.html
• "The British representative in Izmir, Sir Harry Lamb, had warned: "The Greeks have realised that they have got to go but they are decided to leave a desert behind them, no matter whose interests may suffer thereby...In Afyonkarahisa, the Turks were able to put out the fires started by the retreating Greeks. But hundrends of villages and a whole string of market towns - from Usak to Izmir - were burned down." Andrew Mango, Ataturk, p. 343.
• "The retreat lasted a week. The Turkish forces hurried on towards the city, striving to overtake the Greeks before they could decimate all western Anatolia 'by fire and sword'...They pillaged and destroyed and raped and buthchered. 'They went to pieces altogether' as Rumbold recounted to Curzon on the basis of reports from his consul in Smyrna" Patrick Kinross, Ataturk p. 319.
• "The Greeks, displaying a characteristic often a mark of defeated armies, pursued a 'scorched earth' policy toward Western Anatolia." Patrick Kincaid Jensen. Greco-Turkish war. International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol 10, No.4 p. 563
• "In the course of its retreat from Usah to Smyrna, the Greek army employed a scorched earth policy, destroying the population centers of western Turkey and committing attrocities on a wide scale"Martin Sicker, The Islamic World in Decline p. 227.
• "Turkey also faced a daunting humanitarian task. It had to rehouse hun- dreds of thousands of its own citizens who had been burned out of their homes by the retreating Greek army, or put to flight during the Greek atrocities of summer 1921." Bruce Clark, Twice a Stranger, p. 134.

It is well documented, and considering the brutality and devastation, I do not think one section is asking too much. --A.Garnet 15:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but then for the sake of parity we must have another section on Turkish atrocities which are all well documented among Tonybee and many others. I will begin working on this, but for the sake of brevity I really think we should just have one section and perhaps a second article where we can put laundry lists of quotes. -AlexiusComnenus

there is only one single quotation, the rest are citations about specific instances of massacres, nothing is wrong about that. Speaking of Toynbee, he documented well the masacres committed by greek greek troops in a great length..--laertes d 19:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tonybee was quite an unbiased observer, mutually condemning both sides for the massive atrocities that they committed. I added a section on the Turkish policy of massacring Christians, everything is sources. I hope people like it, but we may want to consider creating a new article. AlexiusComnenus 20:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

there already is a separete article about as "pontic greek genocide", write these things there..--laertes d 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

and please not newspaper articles, use historians for anything that youre going to write..You added these things recently and wrote in the edit summary page that i deleted them. Stop the childish games Alexius thats really boring..--laertes d 20:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thus stuff about the Soviet arms, which you deleted, has been there for months. There is absolutely no reason to delete this sourced content, what you did is nothing more than vandalism of this article.

Great, now the New York Times is not a valid source to you Laertes, please give it a rest. AlexiusComnenus 21:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a newspaper article written in a time of warfare and interestingly they do not talk about greek atrocities at all..Toynbee made a large list of greek massacres starting with the landings in Smyrna, you should use reliable sources, books, historians, do you know what that means right? This is blatantly POV imposing..--laertes d 21:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is why you deleted the stuff on Soviet arms, which was in a book by a historian?

You also had no problem with the Tonybee quote which was published in The Times, a newspaper not a historical journal or a book, I find this somewhat hypocritical. You accusations are hardly worth countering, especially considering the fact that you have been banner four (or is it five?) times for your blatant nationalist POV trash.

Newspapers are a legitimate primarily source-- especially well known publications like the NYTimes, or London Times or the Christian Science Monitor. Read up on Wikipedia policies-- "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. United Nations Security Council resolutions are primary sources. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; newspaper accounts which contain first-hand material, rather than analysis or commentary of other material; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims. A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports is a secondary source. An International Herald Tribune analysis and commentary on a United Nations Security Council resolution is a secondary source. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, constitute secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable published secondary sources. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians." WP OR

You have absolutely no justification for attacking the use of newspapers as sources under Wikipedia policy. AlexiusComnenus 21:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Again a classical of alexius,lots of words and words without any logical comment, toynbee quotes can be found in his books as well, thas not a newspaper article, what did i delete about Soviet arms?--laertes d 21:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You delete quite a bit on Soviet arms, all your deletions can be found here-- [2]

It is unfortunate if you find Wikipedia policy to be "without any logical comment". In such case, I suggest you find another wiki to edit. AlexiusComnenus 21:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a crazy editing from another user which was identified as vandalism and previously reverted by two other neutral users as well. that was even cheap for you alexius, i need some decent administrators not anything else thanks..

Here btw, see what it means a historical material..From Toynbee

that list goes on to the other page and none of them happened during the Greek scorched earth policy but during the occupation..do the news paper article youre refering to mention any of them? no. therefore they are not reliable, as simple as that, meanwhile Toynbee is like the last person on earth one can cconsider as to be pro-turkish--laertes d 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that you delete sourced material on Soviet support for the Turks that had been there for months.

Newspaper articles are typically about a specific event, and newspapers report events as they happen. I'm glad you don't consider the New York Times or the London Times reliable sources, but unfortunately for your POV pushing antics they are considering legitimate sources under Wikipedia policy. You have not presented any serious reasons for your deletion of this sourced content, and it is pretty clear that you are pushing a nationalist POV.

The picture above is a total red herring. I am not disputing anything Tonybee ahs written-- I agree, Tonybee is a great historian. I have his book "The Western Question" at home, maybe I will add some stuff sourced from it later it is an interesting book-- but it is a collection of his dispatches to newspapers not a historical work as he documented current events so I don't see how you justify using a Times article from "The Western Question" but not a Times article from University archives. Tonybee is a great source to be using, and I bet most of the massacres he recorded Greeks doing happened as he was a respected historian. AlexiusComnenus 22:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I didnt deete anything here for months i merely reverted current rcrazy editings..--laertes d 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I give you the benefit of the doubt so you are probably just confused and do not intent to by lying, but please review your own edits- [3] AlexiusComnenus 23:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexius do you have a problem of understanding things slowy? i merely reverted current crazy editings and didnt delete anything that is here for months and edit review you keep showing proves that..--laertes d 09:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is just a small example of the sourced text, that had been there for months, that you chose to delete:

"Mustafa Kemal Pasha has done wonders and you have no idea how people in India adore his name.. We are all waiting to know the terms on which Ankara offers peace to the Greeks...May the Great Allah grant victory to the Armies of Gazi Mustafa Kemal and save Turkey from her enemies..". Ironically, one of the main pillars of the Kemalic Turkey would be the secular state, and the Islam factor was not a major one. Kemal does not seem to have considered himself a Gazi.

There are numerous other paragraphs which you deleted, all of them sourced, many of them having been there for quite some time. You shouldn't try to lie, everything can be found here-- [4] AlexiusComnenus 23:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexius youre either lacking a brain or dont have any shame for straightforward lying, i repeat i didnt delete anything that has been here for months but only reverted current editings to previous form.the edit summary you keep showing proves me right..And your editings are nothing but POV impostition, you cant just cre3ate a section which is called "Turkish policy of massacring christians", then one can also create aother ection with a name "Greek genocide of Turks" using the materials in hand..--laertes d 07:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And most funny thing here ıs that all of the dates of the newspaper articles without exception are predating Turkish counter attack which started ın August 26. and Alexıus use them ın relation with the conteroffensive..Im contınuıng repeatıng my argument you have to use proper sources not newspaper artıcles, and you cant ımpose your POV one sıdedly or one would have a rıght to create another sectıion wıth the name "Greek genocıde ın anatolıa"..toynbee and others are quite clearly statıng that massacres throughout the occupatıon were "organısed" from the top..--laertes d 11:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of sourced text that had been there, unchallenged for months, which you deleted-- Meanwhile, the Turks enjoyed Soviet support. On August 4th, Turkey's representative in Moscow, Riza Nur, sent a telegram saying that soon 60 Krupp artillery pieces, 30,000 shells, 700,000 grenades, 10,000 mines, 60,000 Romanian swords, 1.5 million captured Ottoman rifles from WWI, 1 million Russian rifles, 1 million Mannlicher rifles, as well as some older British Martini-Henry rifles and 25,000 bayonets would be delivered to the Kemalist forces. Soviets also provided monetary aid to the Turkish national movement, not to the extent that they promised but almost in sufficient amount to make up the large deficiencies in the promised supply of arms. The Turks also received significant military assistance from Italy and France , who shifted their support to the Kemalists against Greece which was seen as a British client . The Italians used their base in Antalya to arm and train Turkish troops to assist the Kemalists against the Greeks.

According to Wikipedia policies, in the OR section which you can access yourself, newspapers are a valid source. If you don't like it, tough luck.

Anyway, any moderator can see from the link I provided what you have been up to. AlexiusComnenus 17:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to humor you Laertes, I added some sourced content cited from a book by a Turkish historian. I hope this resolves any questions you may have on the Turkish policies of massacring Christians. AlexiusComnenus 18:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexıus you have ındeed a problem of slow understandıng, ı dıdnt delete ıt sınce the paragraph you showed ıs still in ıts place..You still cant understand that you cant open a new section just ın the middle of the article when there already ıs a section called "claıms of ethnıc cleanesıng from both sides", and most funny thıng the dates of the news paper artıcles have nothıng to do wıth the Turkısh couonter attack whıch took place ın 26 August, does your slow workıng braın can get the dıfferences between dates? Im goiıng to create a new sectıon usıng Arnold Toynebee and Taner akcam wıth the name Greek polıcy of turkısh genocıde followıng your lead then..Sıgh get a braın please..--laertes d 19:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No ad hominem attacks-- your behavior is totally unacceptable. AlexiusComnenus 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would love for you to direct me to the place where Taner Akcan and Arnold Tonybee use the word "genocide" to describe any Greek actions in Asia Minor. Greek war crimes are already covered in the scorched earth policy section. If you have any new, relevant information, please add it. AlexiusComnenus 19:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of recent edits

I suggest for following reasons revertion of the article in its previous form before these recent edits.

1) The dates of the newspaper articles taken by user Alexiuscomnenus are: May 5, 1922, August 24, 1920, March 30, 1922, May 16, 1922, July 13, 1922, August 24, 1920, May 5, 1922 etc..All of these newspaper articles are without exception published before the Turkish counter offensive whıch took place ın August 26, 1922. But still they are used, manipulated by the user as if they are related with the counter attack..

2)Some of the quotes user Alexiuscommenus made are fabrications , ı have the book of Taner Akçam and there ıs no such a citation ın the indicated page as "there was significant continuity between the policies carried out between 1919-1923 of exterminating Christians and the policies of the 1915 Armenian Genocide"..

3) There already ıs a section with the name "claims of ethnıc cleanesing from both sides" therefore there is no need to open a new section with the name "Turkish policy of massacring Chrıstians", this is nothig but POV pushing..Any related materail can be included ın that section of the article. Thanks--193.140.194.117 09:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

1) You have a point about the dates. Maybe we should move the section on Turkish Massacres of Christians to right after the stalemate section and before the counterattack section.

2) This is simply not true, on pg. 326 of A Shameful Act: The reason for the large number of massacres in the region can be inferred from a coded telegram sent to Kazim Karabekir Pasa from the Turkish foreign minister in Ankara, which thats that "the most important thing is to eliminate Armenia, both politically and materially. There was also significant continuity between the organizers of the massacres between 1915-1917 and 1919-1921.

I take offense to the fact that you accuse me of fabrications. Nothing I have cited is a fabrication, to the best of my knowledge. Please apologize for your unfounded accusations.

3) Given the wealth of information, as well as the clear historical record, these events warrant a section. Also it is necessary for balance, as we have a section on the Greek scorched Earth policy.

The one point where you may have some validity is the chronology, we may want to move the section on Turkish massacres of Christians. Please apologize for accusing me of fabricating something, as this is not the case. AlexiusComnenus 21:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that you accusing me of fabricating a quote might have been an honest mistake on your part-- the page number I give in the citation is from the hard cover edition. Perhaps you are using the paperback version of Akcam's book? AlexiusComnenus 23:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to say it in advance, when im going to have some time im going to create a separet section with the name "Greek policy of ethnic Cleanesing in Anatolia", as Alexius bypassed the section of "claims of ethnic cleanesing from both sides"..Both Tener Akcam and Arnold Toynbee, both of which are not pro turkish sources, cliam there was such a policy.But for now im merely correcting Alexius' misquotations from Taner Akcam..--laertes d 21:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is just unbelivable, you create your own quotations or interprete them the way you want, dont change quotations Alexius.and where do you make up these citations?

"The Turks continued the practice of slavery, seizing women and children for their harems." in what part of the article they say such thing?--laertes d 21:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And i have the hard cover book from tener akcam and there is absolutely not such a quotation as this in the page 322 from Akcam: "The Turkish massacres of Christian civilians took place throughout the period of the Greco-Turkish war, and were most severe against Greeks in the Black Sea Region and Armenians in the East and the South" --laertes d 21:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry my mistake this time there is such thing but Alexius half quoted it..

"there were massacres throughout 1920-23, the period of Turkish War of Independence, especially of Armenians in the east and the south, and agianst the Greeks in the Black sea region. Massacres of Turks were also carried out by the Greek forces..

pg.322, A shameful Act --laertes d 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Find some legitimate sources claiming the Greeks attempted ethnic cleansing

toynbee in many pages of his book made statements about the organized nature of the atrocities..But this is from akcam

"After 1919, the Greek and Turkish national movements all either massacred or forcibly expelled the other groups under their control."

Taner Akcam, A Shameful Act ..., pg. 322--laertes d 22:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Izmir

Please do not change to this "landings" or anything else. The term occupation is academically verifiable, as was scorched earth, both of which editors here are trying to downplay or remove.

• Revolution and War - Page 301 by Stephen M. Walt - Political Science - 1997 "... but it was the Greek occupation of Smyrna that was most responsible for inspiring the Nationalist movement in Turkey.109 As the resistance grew, ..."
• International Law Reports - Page 495 by Elihu (EDT) Lauterpacht, C. J. Greenwood, H. Lauterpacht - 1995 - 776 pages "During the occupation of Smyrna by the Greek army from May, 1919, to September, 1922, the Greek authorities made extensive use of the docks for the loading ..."
• The Near East in Modern Times - Page 55 by George Georgiades Arnakis, Wayne S. Vucinich - 1969 "The national movement,"says Arnold J. Toynbee,* "was born at that time: and while Mustafa Kemal Pasha was its leader, the Greek occupation of Smyrna was its ..."
• A History of the Peace Conference of Paris - Page 72 by Royal Institute of International Affairs - 1920 "Thus the occupation of Smyrna by Greek troops in May 1919 was immediately felt over more than half Anatolia. The Turks, realizing that it portended the ..."
• Victimized Daughters: Incest and the Development of the Female Self - Page 52 by Janet Liebman Jacobs - Self-help - 1994 - 209 pages "... gave an impassioned speech on May 20, 1919 against the Greek occupation of Smyrna, she emphasized how “we women will be the leaders in this holy war for ..."
• British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939 - Page 70 by Paul W. Doerr - 1998 - 224 pages "The Greek occupation of Smyrna was to continue for five years, at the end of which a plebiscite would decide the fate of the area. ..."
• Istanbul Under Allied Occupation, 1918-1923 - Page 159 by Nur Bilge Criss, Bilge Criss - 1999 - 178 pages "stated “The situation in the interior, due practicaly entirely to the Greek occupation of Smyrna, is getting more hazy and unsettled. ..."
• Turkey And Greece: The Aegean Disputes - Page 17 by Ahmet Deniz Bölükbaşı, Deniz Bölükbasi - Law - 2004 - 1120 pages "... which led to the Greek occupation of Smyrna (now known as Izmir) in 1919 "and subsequently the entire ..."
• Versailles and After 1919-1933 - Page 27 by Ruth Beatrice Henig - 1995 - 96 pages "The Greeks were to continue their occupation of Smyrna and would receive some Turkish Aegean islands and eastern Thrace. Kurdistan was to become autonomous ..."
• A World History of Our Own Times - Page 58 by Quincy Howe - 1949 "He let Italy have the Austrian Tyrol. He permitted the Japanese to remain in Shantung Province. He sanctioned the Greek occupation of Smyrna. ..."
• The Lights That Failed: European International History 1919-1933 - Page 91 by Zara S. Steiner - 2005 - 938 pages "There was to be a temporary occupation of Smyrna by an inter-Allied though mainly

... The occupation of Smyrna on 15 May 1920 proved a disaster for Greece; ..."

• Mudros to Lausanne: Britain's Frontier in West Asia, 1918-1923 - Page 162 by Briton Cooper. Busch - Political Science - 1976 - 430 pages "... Iv Slack Tide: Turkey, 19 19-1920 The Greek occupation of Smyrna in May 1919 altered the coune of Middle Eastern history. From the very first, ..."
• Three Master Builders and Another: Studies in Modern Revolutionary and Liberal Statesmanship ... - Page 241 by Pelham Horton Box - 1925 - 395 pages "The work was realized in stages ; the occupation of Smyrna took place on I5th May 1919, and was due to the fear of France, England and the United States, ..."
• Warfare and Society in Europe: 1898 To the Present - Page 88 by Michael S. Neiberg - 2004 "... Kemal used those Soviet arms to lead a campaign against the Greek occupation of Smyrna and its hinterland. The Greek army's 150000 men in Anatolia soon ..."
• The Islamic World in Decline: From the Treaty of Karlowitz to the Disintergration of the Ottoman Empire - Page 223 by Martin Sicker - History - 2000 - 264 pages "As observed by the British naval commander in the Mediterranean, “the Greek occupation of Smyrna has stimulated a Turkish patriotism probably more real than ..." --A.Garnet 11:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course the Greeks occupied Smyrna, just as today they occupy Athens, Turks occupy Izmir, British occupy New York. They also landed in Smyrna, and they administered the city, and all of these verbs are used to connote different actions.

In this particular case, I think landing might be a better verb, since the paragraph describes the Greek army's disembarkation on Smyrna's quay. AlexiusComnenus 23:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I think occupation, referring to the seizure of another sovereigns territority by force, is perfectly apt in this instance, especially considering its common usage in the above sources. --A.Garnet 14:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, Smyrna was certainly not under Turkish nationalist sovereignty and the treaty of Sevres gave Greece legitimacy. Occupation is used in the sources, but so is the term landings and administration.

I am not arguing against the term occupation-- just that it should not be used exclusively. I will try to dig up some sources when I return from holiday. AlexiusComnenus 14:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Izmir was (and had been for 500 years) under Ottoman sovereignty. Greece occupied Izmir long before the Treaty of Sevres came into being.--A.Garnet 07:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

But of course, you'd never dream of acknowledging the Turkish occupation of the sovereign nation of Cyprus. The pot calling the kettle black, as ever. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

blatant, one-sided racism in population transfer discussion

"The Armistice of Mudanya was followed by the Treaty of Lausanne, a significant provision of which was an exchange of populations. Over one million Greek Orthodox Christians were displaced; most of them were resettled in Attica and the newly-incorporated Greek territories of Macedonia and Thrace."

Well, would you look at that! Over 1 million Greeks were displaced, and the contributor even details their resettlement destinations. But apparently, no Turks were displaced at all. Nope, the displaced Turks aren't worth a mention.

Owing to the policies of the Ottoman Empire, there were millions of Turks living in Bulgaria and Greece, and they were a significant fraction of the population at the time. I'm not trying to justify the Ottoman Empire, but if you're gonna talk about population transfers then talk about both sides.

Unless of course, you don't consider Turks to be humans. Then the millions who were displaced aren't worth a mention.

Which in your adorable, racist little hearts, is probably what you believe.

Mint tea 04:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bulgarian Turks are still there, and in government today, and this has nothign tod o with the topic at hand. There were about 400.000 Turks who got transferred from Greece in 1922, I beleive, but the population exchange was made at te request of the Turks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.239.58.124 (talk • contribs) 05:41, June 3, 2007 (UTC).

Let me reiterate: in this article the transferred Greeks are worth a mention, but the transferred Turks are not. This is one, specific example of the racist bias that permeates the entire article.

From the Jerusaleum Post:

Altogether 1.25 million Greeks from Asia Minor and Eastern Thrace were transferred to Greece, and nearly 500,000 Turks, primarily from Macedonia and Epirus, were transferred to Turkey. This project was organized and supervised by the celebrated Norwegian Arctic explorer Fridtjof Nansen, winner of the 1922 Nobel Prize for his humanitarian activities.

Reading the attitudes in this article has been a jolting wake-up call. It's frightening to think that in 1919, a majority of Turks came so close to becoming a despised and defeated minority in greater Greece. If the military genius of Mustafa Kemal had not been born, I have no idea where my family or I would be right now.

Mint tea 15:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

~~ The whole problem was born from the illegal invasion and desecration of Greek soil to begin with. After 400 years of illegal occupation it would make sense that the Greeks had little faith in European powers and also little faith in coming to some agreements with the Turks. So, in this light it would seem that through the grace of God, mainland Greece was freed. I still think the powers of Europe esp. Germany helped Khemal Mustafa more than Turks would like to admit. Although, I don't condone killing of any group - I am surprised people keep by passing the fact that the Turks were the oppressive forces throughout Greece for 400 years. What the Greek population of Asia minor saw as the potential liberation of their homelands from the Turks, Turks saw as invasion of mainland Greek forces in their territory. It's all subjective interpretation. Maybe the article should state facts from the view point of both sides to avoid this becoming a forum to vent out. by ApplesnPeaches ~~

Army numbers

Some is joking i think.Turkey had superiority in numbers and from 1920 gradually superiority in armor.

Outcome of Greek offensive- Reasons for greek defeat

these two sections are the same, im deleting one of them if you excuse me, i guess we dont need the same thing to be repeated two time..--laertes d 21:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

npov tag

I have added a pov tag to the section "Turkish policy of massacring Christians". With the exception of Akcam, the section relies almost entirely on primary sources from the 1920's, besides the fact the academic credentials of these sources can be called into question, deriving any sort of conclusion from these sources such as "According to the Christian Science Monitor, the Turks felt that they needed to murder their Christian minorities due to Christian superiority in terms of industriousness and the consequent Turkish feelings of jealously and inferiority" is original research. Also, one may ask whether this a case of WP:Point considering the recent disputes involved over Greek War of Independence, Massacres during the Greek Revolution, Turkish War of Independence and this article relating to attrocities during those events. --A.Garnet 14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, since the quotes are pretty explicit, and these are all reputable sources and te quotes are explicit. You are just trying to prove a grey wolf point of view. GIANNIS

These are among the most reputable of Western newspaper, it is a joke to call into question the credibility of the New York Times, the London Times and the Christian Science Monitor. Historical facts are not points of view. 70.225.166.166 15:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Greek massacres of Turks

As i have said a couple days ago im creating a new section with that name. It would cover up briefly the greek atrocities throughout the Greek occupation excluding the scorched earth policy, as Alexius recently stick a new section with the name "turkish policy of massacring Christians" in the middle of the article written by minimal usage of academic sources but written mostly through newspaper articles from the countries whose government were allies to the Greece at the time.

The citations and quotations that im using are coming from Arnold J. Toynbee and Taner Akcam, noboby can claim these two scholar to be pro Turkish, therefore please dont start whining..It is by far more academical than alexius's recent creation..--laertes d 05:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Two sources certainly aren't enough to make such claims, and both of these sources are biased, Taner Akcam is Turkish and Tonybee was well known to be pro-Turkish. Why don't we just see what George Horton has to say.

While of course many of these massacres happened, they were not part of an orchestrated policy that warrants special mention. Hence I think that these should be included under the section: Claims of Ethnic Cleansing by Both Sides. 74.134.238.58 13:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to move things into more approprate areas-- most of the stuff mention was part of Greek scorched Earth policy. 74.134.238.58 13:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

none of the stuff mentioned was about Greek scorched earth policy therefore ı reverted it..--laertes d 14:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)]

This is a blatant example of Laertes violating the Wikipedia:Point rules. There is no reason to create a separate section on Greek massacres as they can be put in the section on "claims of ethnic cleansing by both sides" as Greek massacres before the scorched earth policy were sporadic and certainly not a part of official policy. The scorched earth policy and the Turkish policy of massacring Christians were different, as these were organized campaigns and are recognized as such by historians and the contemporary press. 70.225.166.166 15:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the above quote is my own, as are the two recent reverts-- I forgot to sign in, sorry. AlexiusComnenus 15:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

for gods sake who is violating any rule, youre deleting a well sourced section on your own just because you want it so..Arnold J. toynbee and Taner akçam both of which are not pro turkısh sources, clearly state that massacres were organised in nature, we're valueing the opinions of historians not your personal opinions..If what youre doing would not be considered as vandalism i would be completely hopeless about wikipedia..--laertes d 16:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Laertes, nothing was deleted; content was simply moved. Please thoroughly review edit summaries in the future. I will revert as you misunderstood things. 70.225.166.166 22:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

İm not misunderstanding anything and im completely familiar with all your games, there already is a section in the middle of the article with "Turkish massacres of christians" created by you some days ago, and youushould not be suprised by another section which was completely written through notable neutral academic sourcces unlike your creation to be created..Stop vandaalizing the article please..--laertes d 22:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You have already been banned five or six times for this nonsense, please do not accuse me of playing games.

I have already explained why this section was necessary. Please explain why you think this section is necessary, and cannot be contained in the pre-existing section. Your prior explanation is a clearly nothing more than playing a "tit for tat" game.

Also, please don't delete the section I made on literature. AlexiusComnenus 22:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As i explained for many times to you, section was completely relevant to be created as the greek massacres were started with the day occupation began and there is nothing wrong with having such a section to be created when article contains a sseparete section with the name "turkish massacres of christians"..regards.. --laertes d 22:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you clearly created this section as "tit for tat", not out of any relevant needs. You have provided no explanation other than that of a tit for tat response, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia:POINT, this is also tendentious and disruptive editing. AlexiusComnenus 00:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing disruptive about my edits as they are well sourced and coming from neutral academical works meanwhile youre violating three revert rule...--laertes d 07:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Literature

Can someone add something on Turkish literature covering this war? I'm sure that there is quite a lot. 70.225.166.166 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop this nonsense please

What was once a good article has now degenerated into another pov trash. My suggestion, merge Greek Massacres of the Turkish Population, Turkish massacres of Christians and Claims of ethnic cleansing by both sides into one section called "Attrocities". The section should be based entirely on academic sources and not newspaper headlines from the 1920's. --A.Garnet 08:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you remember Garnet, that was what ı was suggesting from the beginning when genius Alexius showed up and created a section with the name "Turkish policy of massacring Christians" and although ı still agree with your request ı have to say if there would be a separete article written by mumbo jumbo "chrisitian science"" journals there is nothing wrong with creating another section prepared only through the use of neutral academical sources mentioning the massacres perpetrated by greeks.. --laertes d 08:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

btw, have anyone seen administrators? have they all gone to holiday? alexius is by now have made 5 edits within 24 hours and violated three revvert rule..--laertes d 08:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Not all of those edits were reverts-- I added some stuff on the war in literature and the arts, which you deleted twice.

Newspaper articles are legitimate sources according to Wikipedia policy, and I think your problem is not with sources, but rather with historical facts. The Christian Science Monitor is not "mumbo jumbo" but an old and respected journal, as anyone familiar with the international press can tell you. Also, I cant see how you have a problem with the NYTimes and the Times when the Tonybee book in question is nothing more than a collection of his newspaper articles! AlexiusComnenus 17:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont have any problem with historical facts as long as these historical facts are mentioned by serious academical works, and no, Toynebee wrote it as a book and published it, it is not a collection of newspaper articles, now ıt seems youre the one who cant handle the truths..Sigh, anyway ı dont know why ı contınue dıscussing with you..--laertes d 17:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Alexius, you created an entire section based on stupid chrisitian journals at least leave alone the section i created, Toynbee is a notable, respectable and far from being a turkish lover..What does it mean his observations was criticized? Was he criticized for observing? Stop these silly edits, that would not help anything..--laertes d 07:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Alexius, since I take it Laertes is fine with merging all these sections, can you too comment on my suggestion? --A.Garnet 10:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Laertes, the American Historical Review said that Tonybee's accounts were widely criticized. Is the American Historical Review not an acceptable sources? The Christian Science Monitor is not a "silly Christian journal" but a respected international publication, I suggest you read up on it. The New York Times and the London Times, as well as a host of other papers from numerous countries, are also in agreement on an official Turkish policy of massacring Christians.

Can we merge all three sections, rename the section on Greek scorched Earth to "Greek Retreat" and move the long-winded quotes to the section on ethnic cleansing? That would be real parity. AlexiusComnenus 20:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Alexius, you have to say why it is criticized, ıt ıs not criticized because he was mentioning Greek massacres, is there such thing on earth which was not criticized by some other people? Are we going to start saying for every quotation that we are going to use it is criticized by this or that? And Youre also using Toynbee for turkish massacres but insterestingly do not mention that hee is criticed,

And Garnet's point still remains, you have to use academic sources not headlines from journals of that time..Newspaper articles are not academic sources..--laertes d 08:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tonybee was specifically criticized for his coverage of Greek massacres, according to the American Historical Review. I do not add he was criticized on the section on Turkish massacres of Christians because I have found no source in print stating that.

The fact remains that newspaper articles are valid sources according to Wikipedia policy: Newspapers are a legitimate primarily source-- especially well known publications like the NYTimes, or London Times or the Christian Science Monitor. Read up on Wikipedia policies-- "Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. United Nations Security Council resolutions are primary sources. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; newspaper accounts which contain first-hand material, rather than analysis or commentary of other material; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.

Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims. A journalist's analysis or commentary of a traffic accident based on eye-witness reports is a secondary source. An International Herald Tribune analysis and commentary on a United Nations Security Council resolution is a secondary source. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, constitute secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable published secondary sources. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians."

If you dont like Wikipedia's policies, go to another wiki and edit there. Wikipedia remains Wikipedia, end of story. AlexiusComnenus 17:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That still doesnt change the fact that youre using news paper articles from the beginning of this century not contemporary articles and these same newspapers somehow dont even mention about the well documented, large scale atrocities perpetuated by the greek army, pllus they are written with utmost racist language and all these factors make them unreliable..I dont have any problem with your editings from akcam and Toynbee.. And leave alone the section that ı created unless you will make a constructive edit about the greek massacres..--laertes d 19:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I am using newspaper articles from the beginning of the century-- which is when these events occurred! Contemporary newspapers, obviously, report on contemporary events.

Your section is anachronous, repetetive and totally frivolous. I will move it for now until we can think of something better to do. AlexiusComnenus 19:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The section of the Greek massacres can at least claim to be academical..First think something better to do then propose changes in the article..--laertes d 20:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, academical is not an English word-- please edit Turkish wikipedia if you are not fluent in English. I am assuming that you mean "academic." This section is based on two sources. One of them is a Turkish historian who is hardly an expert of the issue-- rather his area of expertise is Turkish massacres of Armenians. The other is a British historian who was widely criticized by the American historical review. This is hardly infallible, and you have also clearly stated that your goal was "tit for tat" rather than academic.

You also have repeated content and have been blocked 5 times for this type nonsense already.

I have already made a proposal to move the content, but you have just blindly reverted without any discussion. AlexiusComnenus 21:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Academical

Academic \Ac`a*dem"ic\, Academical \Ac`a*dem"ic*al\, a. [L. academicus: cf. F. acad['e]migue. See Academy.] 1. Belonging to the school or philosophy of Plato; as, the Academic sect or philosophy.

2. Belonging to an academy or other higher institution of learning; scholarly; literary or classical, in distinction from scientific. ``Academic courses. --Warburton. ``Academical study. --Berkeley.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/academicall

And Alexius please check the sections youre creating before starting to give others courses of English language, they are often full of grammatical mistakes and poorly written, anyway thats beside the point of argument we're having...--laertes d 23:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Kekrops who are these Muslim populations inhabiting the region other than turks? Some of the quotations use the word Turkish others use muslim, i cant see how you changed it form turks to muslims "according to the citations"..--laertes d 18:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of your own sources use "Moslems"; "Muslims" is simply the modern term. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was why you changed it from turks to muslims, but thats okay as the section about turkish massacres is named "chrisitan massacres"..--laertes d 18:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I changed it for consistency with the section below. Also, I'm not entirely certain all the Muslims of western Anatolia were necessarily ethnic Turks, even if they were considered "Turks" by the Greeks and others. Turkey is a very ethnically diverse country, as you well know. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

i think a revert to pre-alexius days will be quite fair..First of all alexius, in nowhere akcam's book there is such a passage as you added into the article, do quote your sources do not put the words into the mouths of people..

Greek scorhed earth policy is not a claim even the most pro-greek sources like George Horton couldnt hepl but mentioned about it, greek army burned the villages and cities while retiring. Thus it deserves a separete place in the article not as a sub-section starting with the wording "claims"..

If you insist in changing the name of the section from "Turkish massacres of christians" to "Turkish policy of massacring christian", i would have to do the same and call the massacres Greece committed as a policy..

In terms of chronology, greco turkish war started with the greek occupation of smyrna, and at this very day according multitude of sources massacres were committed by greeks..Your chronology is wrong as were supposed to talk about the massacres committed only during this period, not before..And as we both know, your insistence in chronology is only about to pt the turkish massacre above greek massacre, thus making it more visible..--laertes d 16:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How come and Greek army reached Ankara

when according to the editors here was defeated in all battles;;.I mean this article is laughable Bursa,Eskisehir,Afyon Karahisar,Oussak some 700 km deep into Asia Minor fell to the Greek army.How did they reach Ankara;;with parachutes;;;Get real people.We don't write propaganda pages here for our self masturbation ,we write about history facts.Black Horseman 10:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotefarm-- Greek Massacres of Muslisms

There is no reason to have a bunch of quotes about Greek actions in Yalova, which was pretty minor and only deserves a sentence or two. This section is nothing more than a quote farm, and it needs to be fixed.

I just wonder what can be done against you dear Alexiuscommenus, you again showed up using a different IP..You shouldd havee been banned long ago IMHO..--laertes d 06:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

New edits

These new edits are clear POV pushings and im going to revert them in due time..--laertes d 09:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are just deleting sourced background information. You are clearly pushing a Turkish nationalist POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.75.172.58 (talk) 10:48, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

There isnt any source for this thing:"In order to prevent further bloodshed, the Greeks felt the need to intervene against the Turkish government", i started to think you might be another Alexius resurection case..what Greek prime minister said in order to justify his expansionist policies already has its place in the article, but youre using it as if it is the absolute truth..I hope you really dont expect anyone else except for a greek nationalist to believe that greeks occupied western anatolia for human right reasons? Especially while committing gross human right abuses themselves in the occupied territories..Sigh..--laertes d 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know both of you have violated the 3RR and I suggest you guys stop. --Vonones 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is unfair for Laertes to be deleting sourced material.

You are a nationalist as all of your edits show, and you are simply trying to distort history and whitewash the shameful Turkish crimes during this period.

It is important that readers know that Greeks were an indigenous minority in Western Anatolia, who had lived there for thousands of years while the Turks were still in Turkmenistan and the rest of Central Asia. People need to have a background as to the fact that Greeks haved lived in Smyrna for perpetuity, and that the Greek army went in to protect the minority. This is simply fact.

Obviously it was the case that the Greeks went into Western Anatolia to protect the Greek minority there, which was being butchered due to their Christian religion as the Turks did to Armenians, Assyrians, Lebanese Christians, Greeks, etc. In 1915 the Turks killed 300.000 Greeks in the Smyrna region. This is the reason for the Greek landings, and the statements of the Greek premier show this quite clearly. 85.75.172.58 20:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, you dont have any other source other than the statement of the Greek prime minister, according to a multitude of non-pro turkish historians there wasnt even an organised Turkish unit before the greek invasion, there isnt any source for any of these pov pushing material, like ":"In order to prevent further bloodshed, the Greeks felt the need to intervene against the Turkish government" and you still continue of accusing me of "distorting history".. For instance Arnold j. toynbee, someone without any particular sympathy with Turks, stated that massacres at both sides of turks and Greeks during 1920's, were the direct result of the Greek occupation..but you still try to show it as if Greeks were occupying western anatolia in order to prevent human rights abuses..--laertes d 17:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is important to any reader who is not well acquainted with Greek and Turkish history to understand that Greeks had lived in Asia Minor for millennia, and had been heavily persecuted by the Turks on numerous occassions. A neutral reader cannot understand the root of the conflict without understanding the complex ethnological situation in the region. I see no reason for you to obscure historical facts and delete sourced content. 85.74.124.113 16:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Laertes, the Treaty of Sevres makes it quit clear that the Greek mission was primarily a humanitarian one, with the aim of protecting the Christian inhabitants in the Smyrna region, who had in the past been brutalized by the Turks. The treaty document makes Greek aims quite clear:

ARTICLE 71.

The Greek Government shall be entitled to maintain in the city of Smyrna and the territory defined in Article 66 the military forces required for the maintenance of order and public security.

ARTICLE 72.

A local parliament shall be set up with an electoral system calculated to ensure proportional representation of all sections of the population, including racial, linguistic and religious minorities. Within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty the Greek Government shall submit to the Council of the League of Nations a scheme for an electoral system complying with the above requirements; this scheme shall not come into force until approved by a majority of the Council.

The Greek Government shall be entitled to postpone the elections for so long as may be required for the return of the inhabitants who have been banished or deported by the Turkish authorities, but such postponement shall not exceed a period of one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty.

ARTICLE 73.

The relations between the Greek administration and the local parliament shall be determined by the said administration in accordance with the principles of the Greek Constitution. 85.74.124.113 16:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am asking again tell me which source has any statement as this one: "Despite these claims, Greek Prime Minister Venizelos made it quite clear that Greek intervention was at least in name about protecting human rights, not about religion or nationalism." or this one:"In order to prevent further bloodshed, the Greeks felt the need to intervene against the Turkish government"..Youre imposing a non-sourced greek nationalist point of view into the article, thats the major problem with the new edits..The young Turk government wasnt in power at the time of the greek occupation, what relation does greek invasion has with the policies pursued by that overthwrown government?--laertes d 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To repeat myself for you vonones, young Turk government wasnt in power at the time of occupation, thus Young Turk policies are not an explanation for Greek invasion..And do not delete the properly sourced content on your own as you did to "Greek massacres of Turks" section..--laertes d 17:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are, many of the same people involved in Ataturks new regime were the same, just read Taner Akcam. Pretty much every Turkish government has brutalized Christian minorities. No doubt the Greeks killed some Turkish civilians in Yalova, but this does not warrant a whole section as this was not an organized policy, like the Turks butchering Christians, but rather the work of a few overzealous commanders. There do not exist any sources which claim that the orders for these events came from Athens.

Also, stop trying to obscure the fact the Greeks have lived in Anatolia for 3000 years. YOU are the one deleting relevant, sourced information. 87.203.160.163 07:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexius ı would prefer that you use your user name instead of these several IP's..The fact that Greeks lived in Anatolia for 3000 years do not give them the reason to invade a territory which wasnt theirs at the time, and to massacre and brutalize the non-greek inhabitants living there..My point remains, there wasnt a Turkish national movement previously of Greek occupation, and the Greek invasion created it as numerous historians put it that way, therefore you cant claim that Greeks occupied to protect local people against the Turkish national movement beacause there wasnt such a thing..--laertes d 07:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not Alexius, nor would it affect the validity of my arguments were I anyone other than myself. Perhaps you should deal with your issues of paranoia before arguing further.

"wasnt a Turkish national movement previously of Greek occupation" Of course there was, the Young Turks were a Turkish national movement and they butchered millions of Anatolian Christians. This is why the Greek government felt the need to intervene in Asia Minor in order to protect the majority inhabitants in the Smyrna region, who happened to be Christians.

Let us not forget was a tremendous impact the Armenian Genocide had on Western policymakers-- simply no one in the world trusted the Turks to govern minorities. In hindsight, they were proved correct as the Christians of Western Asia Minor would be expelled in 1922 by the Turks.

Of course the Greeks did not go into Smyrna to protect the local Greeks and Armenians from Ataturk, because as you correctly stated, Ataturk's movement had not began. Rather, the Greeks went in to protect the local inhabitants from vengeful Turks in general, as Anatolian Christian had suffered greatly in the years preceding 1919 and the Greek government was loath to allow more atrocities to occur, whoever was to pereptrate them. 87.203.160.163 09:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Administrators, can the following section which was deleted by Laertes be re-addded? It is essential for the background of the article.

The Greek Community in Anatolia

Greeks have lived in Asia Minor since antiquity. Before the outbreak of the First World War, over 2.5 million Greeks lived in Turkey, where they had resided in their homeland since antiquity. In 1915 the Young Turk government enacted genocidal policies against Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Christians. While the Armenian Genocide is the best known of these events, the butchery included many Greeks in Pontus and Western Asia Minor. In order to prevent further bloodshed, the Greeks felt the need to intervene against the Turkish government and its "corrupt, ignominious, and bloody administration" in the words of the Greek Prime Minister, Eleftherios Venizelos.

As i already stated sockpuppetry of user alexiuscomnenus, according to numerous non-pro turkish historians Turkish national movement was created by the greek occupation, Greek occupation wasnt the result of protecting the Greeks from Turkish national movement beacuse there wasnt such a thing as Turkish National Movement previously of Greek occupation..From Arnold J. Toynbee: " The occupation of Smyrna by the Greeks in May, 1919, not only created the Turkish National Movement, but was also the immediate cause of the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922" p. 92

Taner Akcam citing a British officer: "The National forces were established solely for the purpose of fighting the Greeks...The Turks are willing to remain under the control of any other state...There was not even an organized resistance at the time of the Greek occupation. Yet the Greeks are persisting in their oppression, and they have continued to burn villages, kill Turks and rape and kill women and young girls and throttle to death children".--laertes d 10:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The truth is Greeks occupied western anatolia not for any human right reason but for the sake of expanding their territory, that is the point of view of most of the notable and reliable historians..Only a Greek nationalist would have claimed that they invaded to protect local people...I dont have any problem with mentioning about the atrocities Turks committed against Greek civilians, as there is a section dealing with these atrocities, but i do have a serious problem when you try to represent the Greek invasion as if it is made for the sake of humanity..Especcially while Greeks were ruthlessly buthchering Turkish civilians themselves..--laertes d 10:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the information is right or not, but it seems to be disputed. I encourage you to discuss it and find a compromise acceptable to everyone. Then request that the page be unprotected at WP:RFPP.— Carl (CBM · talk) 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)

You need to add more information and why it is notable enough to even have its own section. Most of the quotes are put in from remarks which is absurd to add. And don't call my edits vandalism see: WP:CIVIL --Vonones 07:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

With pleasure i am going to add more information if thats the problem..It is certainly notable enough to mention about the massacres, first beacause these massacres and brutalities were influential for the emergence of the Turkish national movement, second there already is a separate section dealing with the massacres Turks committed..--laertes d 08:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

All the section is break downs from quotes you need more general info (that is if there is). --Vonones 08:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You violated 3RR. --Vonones 08:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

you ask me add new things right? Here i added, i can add more if you want..Without any logical reason you simply want massacres against Turks to be not seen, thats the problem here..All the sources ı have used are known to be non-pro turkish..--laertes d 08:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter you can always find references the content is not notable you can add it to other sections but a section of its own is not helpful. --Vonones 08:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

thats nothing but your personal opinion, there is a section dealing with massacres Turks committed and thus there is nothing wrong with having a section about the massacres committed against Turks..--laertes d 08:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes just because Turks massacred Greeks doesn't mean you get to propagate with Greeks did to Turks. --Vonones 08:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Having one section within this long article about the large scale massacres Greeks committed against Turks has nothing to do with "propogating" anything..--laertes d 08:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Large-scale? can you please provide some references for a large scale or some big numbers? --Vonones 08:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the quotations may answer your question in regard to how large scale they were..what should one undersand for instance from the wording "general massacre of Mussulmen population"? In any case, i still cant see any reason for not having this section other than your unwillingness to mention about the massacres committed against Turks..--laertes d 08:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source which confirms your assertion that the relatively few massacres in Yalova, or the intercommunal fighting in Smyrna on the first day of the Greek landing (which incidentally, started when a Turk opened fire on Greek troops) were instrumental in the establishment of the Turkish national movement?

The "general masssacres" was in some little village, and all of the massacres you have mentioned accored in the Yalova pennisula. This is hardly evidence of some large scale policy of Greek murders of Turkish civilians, only of some commanders running amok. In contrast, there were large scale massacres of Greek civilians throughout Asia Minor, and these are recorded by a number of sources. Of course the massacres in Yalova happened, and they should be mentioned, but they do not warrant their own section as they were small scale and isolated. 87.203.160.163 09:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexius use your user name please, Toynbee states: "they obtained convincing evidence that similar atrocities had been started in wide areas all over the remainder of the Greek occupied territories since June 1921."..It dıdnt seem to me as small isolated acts..--laertes d 09:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The key words are Since June 1921 and this refers to the Greek scorched earth policy. There is already a section for this, why do there need to be two?

Agian I am not Alexius, and again this has nothing to do with anything relevent to what we are discussing. Stay focused on the issue, please.

Aslo, you are over the 3RR 87.203.160.163 09:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Youre definitely Alexius.. and Toynbee states: " The occupation of Smyrna by the Greeks in May, 1919, not only created the Turkish National Movement, but was also the immediate cause of the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922.. " p. 92

Scorched earth policy was what greeks had done after their defeat and that occurred in the summer of 1922, not in 1921..-laertes d 09:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem obsessed with this Alexius fellow :) I will argue no furher with you about my identity, as I know who I am, and regardless it does not affect any of our deliberations.

Immediate causes are different from long term-causes-- the background section needs to address the long term causes of the war in Asia Minor. That is why there needs to be a section on the Greek community in Anatolia.

Please reread the article if you are having trouble with historical dates. The Greek scorched earth policy began after the summer of 1921 and the withdrawal of Greek forces from the river Sangarious-- exactly as was stated in the Tonybee quote, which you so elegantly provided. The article confirms this, for example, the large quote about Greeks burning homes is from February 1922, before your date of summer 1922, but after the battle of Sangarious in 1921. 87.203.160.163 09:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Toynbee is not referring to scorched earth policy but argues that there were organized atrocities since the occupation of Smyrna..I can make a full quotation to that sentence, it is not related with scorched earth policy, and a British officer claims that as Akcam notes: "The National forces were established solely for the purpose of fighting the Greeks..There was not even an organized resistance at the time of the Greek occupation. Yet the Greeks are persisting in their oppression.." And ım totally convinced that youre Alexius...--laertes d 09:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do provide the full quote, as the date of June 1921 to me makes it quite clear that he is referring to the policies enacted after the battle of the Sagarious and the Greek scorched earth policy.

Can you provide me with some specific examples of atrocities committed by the Greek forces before the battle of Saggarious, that would warrant such a large section? 87.203.160.163 09:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Youre such an Alexius that you keep asking the same things, ı would provide the full quotation from Toynbee.. The section now already gives a lot examples about Greek atrocities that were committed before any battle had taken place..--laertes d 09:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The only specifics I see are on the Yalova-Gemlik penninsula-- can you explain to me why the massacres in this region warrant four quite large quote paragraphs? Should I add four enourmous quotes on massacres in Pontus, another four on massacres in Karamanhisar, then another four long enormous quotes on massaces in Ayvali, etc. We have to keep length at a reasonable rate. 87.203.160.163 10:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear sockpuppet of Alexiuscomnenus, they are not the only "specifics"-itself an alexius word by the way-, as you may notice large part of that section also deals with Izmir and other regions, like Ismid or else...Anyway for the massacres Turks committed, the citations of newspaper articles are clearly racist in their tones and pro-Greek and yet i dont say anything meanwhile i cited especially non-pro turkish sources for the Greek masssacres..Therefore please stop vandalizing this section..--laertes d 12:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this alexius owns the English word specifics, this is truly ridiculous behaviour on your part. These quotes are frivolous, and some are in fact forgeries or misattributed. 87.203.160.163 18:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Turkish Quote by American General is a Forgery

Check the source, it is not made there by the General, but rather it is on an attached document attributed to Turkish nationalists. 87.203.160.163 18:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Whilst this comment may be true, it currently is another claim without citation. Could the OP (or another editor) please supply it? Cordially, Drieux 23:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Drieux, the quotation is not a forgery, however, in any case, i had already removed that paragraph belonging to the general`s statements from the article upon the insistence of some users that a quote-farming is taking place..Regards..laertes d 23:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Greek community in anatolia

Im really bored with such editings, i guess it it really impossible to form a neutral article..This section is nothing but POV pushing. The statement by Greek prime minister is used twice as if it is the only and ultimate source regarding the greco turkish war..anny source for this Kekrops?: "In order to prevent further bloodshed, the Greeks felt the need to intervene against the Turkish government"..--laertes d 16:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that that's what the Greeks felt at the time. What's wrong with merely reporting a point of view? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I and major historians dont doubt that greeks felt that it is their opportunity to expand their lands, that was the primary motivation of the war, anything else were mere excuses to realize this scheme..--laertes d 16:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; the fact that so many Greeks lived there and were being slaughtered by the Turks didn't play in the Greek mind at all. Pull the other one. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Again Kekrops, do Greek prime minister said such thing?: "Greek prime minister Eleftherios Venizelos argued at the time that his government had to intervene against Turkey to prevent further bloodshed." and the same exact source is being used twice, the statement of Greek prime minister to justify his expansionist policies..Young Turk government wanst in power at the time of the occupation, neither there were any organised resistance movement, against what had the greeks intervened to stop further bloodshed? this section is ridiculous, in fact greek invasion caused to the bloodshed by starting the war..--laertes d 08:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And i want a page number for the sources in that section, in fact all this section do belong to the massacres section and has to be incorporated in there, as greek occupation has nothing to do with the events that has taken place under an earlier,overthrown regime..--laertes d 08:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Kekrops, we want a background to the conflict, not a Greek justification for the war. --A.Garnet 09:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem unable to grasp the simple concept that reporting a particular POV is not tantamount to endorsing it. See WP:NPOV if you're still confused. You are welcome to add the opposing view; that's not my job. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

ı will do so with pleasure kekrops, however greek nationalism and greek communith in anatolia has to be separeted..they are two different things..--laertes d 13:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't give a proper background by replacing an allegedly Greek POV with a Turkish one, and that is what happens here. You speak about the Megali Idea and the reinstatement of the Byzantine Empire, I may speak about a sincere effort to implement one of the 13 principles of Wilson. Where is the truth? Isn't it truth the presence of millions of Greeks in the regions the Greek Army occupied? So, if you really want to prove your sincere will to write an accurate backround of the war do it, without trying to replace what you call as POV with a brutal propaganda.--Yannismarou 09:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Brutal propoganda? If talking about the Megali idea is brutal propaganda, then what is trying to relate the Armenian genocide with the Pontians or Asia Minor Greeks in the opening paragraph of the article? The background should contain neither the Greek nor Turkish pov, it should be a factual account of main political events. That includes the Ottoman Empires defeat, its plan for partition and Greece's occupation of Izmir. Now when you start introducing elements such as "Greece has been in Asia Minor since antiquity" and that the Armenian genocide was only the "best known" of the massacres or that Venizelos felt he had to intervene to prevent further bloodshed, you are beginning to frame the article with a distinctly Greek pov. --A.Garnet 10:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course Greece wanted to expand its territory. But it appears some editors would prefer that readers didn't know why. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Garnet, would you care to state your beef explicitly? What exactly are you disputing? That Greeks have lived in Asia Minor since antiquity? That there were 2.5 million of them there a century ago? That hundreds of thousands of Christians were slaughtered by the Turks? Or that the Greeks argued that they had to intervene to protect them? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to remind you yanni, this text is not there for a long time as you claimed it to be when you were reverting garnett's version, it is recently added by another greek pov pusher..--laertes d 13:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem here major works of history do not take into account greek justifications for their expansionist policies...Toynbee said: "Greeks of Pontus and Turks of greek occupied territories were the victims of Mr. Venizelos and Lloyd george"..In fact greek invasion caused to the bloodshed let alone preventingg it..--laertes d 13:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In the version Laertes and Garnet refuse to accept Megali Idea is mentioned, and analyzed as a factor of the war. Unfortunately, what the two gentlemen insist not to accept is the mentioning of events such as the slaughters against minorities, including the Greek one. Being the actual reason or not for the war, these were the arguments of the Greek government, officially presented to the European governments. So, when you insist not to accept the mentioning and inclusion of these historical events, then, yes, you are promoting a propaganda. You can argue the phrasing needs improvements, but you cannot argue that these things (historical facts about the presence of concrete Greek populations in Asia Minor, and the arguments of the Greek government for the Occupation) should go, because you do not like them. After all, the article does not accept the arguments of the Greek government for the Occupation; it just mentions them. Anyway, learn to listen to both sides of a story. That is the science of history from the era of Thucydides until now asks us to do.

And Laertes progroms against minorities had started years before the Greek Occupation of Izmir.--Yannismarou 13:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

discuss it with toynbee, young turk government wasnt in power at the time of invasion, there wasnt even an organissed national unit, thus you cant use is as a reason of occupation..--laertes d 13:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The text in question which you state "has been there for a long time" has been there for two days and was added by an anon which was subsequently removed by Eliminator for being added without consensus. So this makes your argument that I should rewrite it redundant. You should first stop, along with Kekrops, adding further controversial material (or at least placing such material at the top of the article) without consensus. That you tell me it has been there for a long time also tells me you havent looked at this dispute properly but rather rushed to help Kekrops revert. As usual, none of this is the kind of conduct I'd expect from an admin. --A.Garnet 14:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Some Requests

I am not a partisan of either (or any) side in this argument; I am on the side of the article. I am a rather new-caught editor, who has a long-standing interest in the Eastern and Middle Eastern Fronts in World War 1, and the aftermath thereof. Having said that, I would like the following requests from the editors who are presently involved in the above highly heated exchange(s):

Observe/abide by the standard requirements for civility, good faith, and neutral point(s) of view. The name-calling, ad hominems and other fallacies, assuming that people aren't who they claim to be/not to be, needs to stop. I would prefer not see the people who have worked on this article to be involved in the more formal methods of remedy of such situations. Remember, if you find that you cannot contribute without rancor, take a step back.

Some form of neutral editing/writing needs to occur to bring this article back up to its former level of excellence. This area of the world is one of the major cross-roads of both civilisation and history. A NPOV article is needed to full up the blank, as it were. From what I have read in the histories of this article, this was it. I want to see that previous article come back, and have it stay. Given the demonstrated expertise of the previous authors, there is no reason for the artyic,e to return, and thrive.

Applicable citations, in terms of both quality and appropriate amount, are required. Responding to a given cite with simple flaming demonstrates a lack of interest in improving the article by more academic means. Please don't do that. Find ANOTHER credible citation to use. This is NOT to imply that quote mining is acceptable, nor is stacking witnesses. The editors involved here have experience to avoid these problems.

Finally, replacing material that has been deleted-- the Soviet material comes to mind-- will also enhance the article.

Please understand that my goal is to repair both this article, as well as to have civility restored here. I loathe rudeness, and have never seen a reason to use it. I hope that, at worst, we can agree to disagree. I'll be happy to help as I can.

Cordially, Drieux 02:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added the 'additional sources' banner just now. Please do not delete without added the citations that are required/requested. --Drieux 04:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Further commentary from the parties prior

Hi kekrops, it seems the passage of time doesnt change your old habits of imposing a particular POV..In case you dont remember, see what you wrote back in time some days ago, repying to user Garnett:

You seem unable to grasp the simple concept that reporting a particular POV is not tantamount to endorsing it. See WP:NPOV if you're still confused. You are welcome to add the opposing view; that's not my job. ·ΚέκρωΨ·

And when the opposing view is added to this section, youre now relocating it to some unrelated part of the article..These editings only make sense when they are presented with the statemnt made by the Greek prime minister, they do represent an opposing view to his claims. Plus they are related with the greek community in anatolia and the content of that section..--laertes d 13:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not concomitant. Your passages are historians' general criticisms of Allied (not just Greek) policies, and belong in the wider geopolitical context section. Perhaps you could add a quote from the Sultan to balance out Venizelos? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Kekrops i can add some Turkish sources, presenting the opinion of Turkish nationalist opposing the views of Venizelos. But me thinks that it is best to use third party sources in such debates..I reput only the quotation from Cedric James..It is directly related to both Greek community in anatolia and the arguments of Venizelos about the Greek expansion..--laertes d 16:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the views of Turkish nationalists are more appropriate here, i.e. pitting one historical player against another. Otherwise the article will degenerate into a mere collection of block quotes from historians on either side of the divide. Do you really want another Horton quote? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

thats the problem, horton is at the one side of the divide, he is of Pro-greek, but the sources that i have made citation from are not pro- of any side..--laertes d 16:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's debatable when they say it was a war of national liberation for the Turks. That qualifies as pretty blatant POV in my book. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 19:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is quite debatable, many of the areas "liberated" were in fact majority Greek, Armenian or Kurdish. Claiming it was a war of national liberation for anyone is blatant POV-- we could also find quotes claiming that it was a Greek war of national liberation for Greeks in Smyrna. AlexiusComnenus 21:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats why i didnt add toynbe quotation to Greek community section but left it where Kekrops put it..alexius if youre not following the discussion here just let me remind you, quotation from the Greek prime minister is only plausible when an opposing view is presented, balancing the article..So stop changing the form of the article please..And which reliable, non-greek pov source claim that majority was greek? Oh Greek prime minister do that, i guess..--laertes d 08:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

the quotation i re-added is not claiming a turkish national liberation struggle but mainly has its arguments contradicting the claims of Greek prime minister..Also note that it is neither pro-turkish or pro-greek as it is a book about the British foreign policy..So it is quite suitable to use in that section..--laertes d 08:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

For the other thing, if you can cite one single academical, neutral source which argues that Greek communtiy in anatolia was the main cause of the war, but not greek nationalism then put the greek community section first alexius..If you cant, please stop insisting in such things..Today there isn`t such thing as greek community in anatolia but there is still a Greek nationalism..Actually in no neutral academical book Greek community is given as a legitimate reason of launching the war.sorry but i have to say the statement of Greek prime minister has no academical value, it can well be considered as mere propaganda material.but still i dont delete that quotation, so i hope you wont delete the countering quotations i made from academical works of history..--laertes d 08:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Kekrops, im sure youre going to tell the reasons of your usual blind reversions..you cant present the statemnt of greek prime minister alone as if it is the ultimate truth..Especially when it is largely criticized and contradicted by a large historical litterature..--laertes d 11:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Take A Step Back

Having read the above entries just above-- which should have been separated from my previous comments-- and the revision history/diffs on the article page proper, I really do wonder if what's wanted is an NPOV entry on this topic. I'd also like to remind all here that 3RR is not the only form of edit war.

I have offered to assist in the task of writing/editing an NPOV article on this topic without getting an admin directly involved in the process. It appears to me that what will be required for this to happen to for all of 'the usual suspects' <grin> to simply take a break from actively editing this article. I have a very strong idea-- if only from reading the comments here-- that emotions run high along the Greek/Turk/whatever division. I am willing to assume good faith on all parts, absent that tension. BUT given the history diffs mentioned supra, without a hands-off posture for some period of time, I am not sanguine about being able to help write/edit such an article.

I really do want all of us to have a chance at a GA (or better) quality entry. I am willing (now that I have my grad students settled in to term) to spend some time on doing the work. Certainly, what is here is good research and good writing/editing in the main. My plan is to see what is common ground, and what is controversial. Common ground will be kept as such; the debatable material, if I cannot see a middle ground, will be discussed here prior to my inclusion in the article.

The alternative paths are very less pleasing. Absent cooperation on the above, the next step I can see is an RfC. Beyond that, we have the processes that result in most unpleasant results.

Bottom line: I am very willing to expend the effort/time to get this article back on track. This requires cooperation and communication amongst all parties, including those who only appear as IP addresses. Here is a good place; my talk page also gets read. Make no mistake, however; I will not expend the time and energy on doing this work without the cooperation outlined above. As is usual, silence is construed as consent.

So. Shall we do this?

Cordially, Drieux 02:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, and I very much hope the usual suspects on all sides will take the hint. This must be the first time in a long while a competent and probably neutral outside editor has offered to work on this article. This must under no circumstances be obstructed through an atmosphere of continued edit-warring and uncooperative behaviour. If there are further problems, I'd suggest asking some fellow admin to place this article under a special regime of zero tolerance against uncooperative editing (with rules like: 1RR, no reverts without prior discussion, etc.) I just tried this on another national hotspot article and it is now working quite well there, after an initial period of settling in where I had to block six participants in a row for breaking the rules. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that may be a useful way to proceed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I appreciate your comments, and for pointing out the potential means of ensuring getting the attention of others here. I hope that those methods will not be required; the pointers you gave as to to your other 'problem children' were instructive to me, and I hope to others here.. Given the history of this article, I will most likely 'cry Harry' at some point(s), if only as a sanity/objectivity check <grin>. Thanks again! Drieux 21:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to withdraw from these articles if others are willing to enforce policy and stop User:Laertes d from turning them into a hodgepodge of very selective pro-Turkish block quotes, a practice which has exasperated even other Turkish editors.[5] ·ΚέκρωΨ· 08:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I share the dislike of selective blockquotes. Just wish we could do the same elsewhere too, where some of the usual suspects have shown a predilection for them... Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Do away with them altogether, I say. But please enlighten us mere mortals: where exactly is "elsewhere", and who are the Usual Suspects? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 08:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonians and Pontic Greek genocide come to mind... Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So what are you waiting for? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Just some info about these selective blockquotes, they are not `selective` in the sense that they do manipulate the sources to say something they dont mean to say, they are just representing the opinions of the writers themselves..Plus the only reason i introduced them was that the opinion of Greek prime minister is being presented as the ultimate truth, therefore to produce an opposing point of view..In fact that was the wish of Kekrops while he was answering to Garnett:You seem unable to grasp the simple concept that reporting a particular POV is not tantamount to endorsing it. See WP:NPOV if you're still confused. You are welcome to add the opposing view; that's not my job. ·ΚέκρωΨ In its curretn format article unfortenetly simply reports the Greek justification for launching the war in the words of Greek prime minister..

Furthermore i have to remind that article was in this format for a long time since the time i made these edits, and at the time i thought it ended the edit warring until now..

All quotations are eventually selective since we cant copy the entire books on wikipedia, the point is not to manipulate the sources..--laertes d 09:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• One of my principle motivations in offering to help edit this article is alter the course of the article's future by attempting to remove the appearance of tendentious editing exemplified in the interchange between the two editors immediately above. The only way that I have figured out to get this sorted is outlined above. Certainly, seeing that the edit/revert cycle is continuing less than 24 hours after my request does NOT make me hopeful as to my receiving the break I feel is required to get this done. Cordially, Drieux 20:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay youre right, i removed personal comments..--laertes d 21:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've asked another admin to have a look here. If people won't stop edit-warring on their own accord, maybe it will have to be enforced somehow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually this time there wasnt really much a revert warring, Alexius simply made one of his usual unexplained reversions of sourced content with one of his numerous IPs and then come back to add that it was his IP who is making the edit [6]..It seems the situation is more or less okay now, i am willing to collaborate and as i said third party contribution is necessary for this article to have some form of balance..In case you didnt notice future my last edit wasnt a reversion, i just added a single missing word to already existing citation..--laertes d 21:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A reminder on reverting

Help:Reverting#Do not reads (bold emphasis not mine):

“

• Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
• Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
• Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
• There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
• Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

”

Cordially, Drieux 04:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for new edits

Hi drieux, upon your writings above, what do you think adding such materials to the article since the opinion of Greek prime minister who initiated the war can be used..Some citations from one of the few books which are written exclusively for this war..It is based on the Greek and European sources without much contribution from the Turkish ones..

Nevertheless the whole attitude of the Peace conference towards Turkey was so harsh that right had now changed sides. Justice, that eternal fugitive from the councils of the conquerors, had gone over to the opposite camp..

Winston Churchill, The World Crisis, The aftermath, p. 368 [7]

or this

The occupation of Smyrna I cannot understand to this day how the eminent statesmen in Paris, Wilson, Lloyd George, Clemenceau and Venizelos...could have been betrayed into so rash and a fatal step

Churchill, p. 369 [8]

And that is a letter from Venizelos to Greek King Constantine dating the January 1915..[9] That shows he already had his plans for a future annexation of territories from Turkey, much earlier than the massacres towards minorities had taken place and his statment to British newspaper about the war aim of greece..--laertes d 10:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• I seem to recall that this topic has been part of the on-going reversion cycle. I have no feeling as towards inclusion or exclusion of it as it is still too early in my decision process w.r.t. my editing of this article. The real question (to me) still remains is: are you and the other editors willing to take your hands off the keyboard to allow me try and salvage everyone's work? cordially, Drieux 20:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It is still useful to show what the official Greek war aims were, from official government statements. To illustrate this, would you consider deleting information about WMDs in an article about the build up to the Iraq War? AlexiusComnenus 10:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• As mentioned immediately above, we still need to understand whether or not you and the other editors wish me to help this article by taking hands from keyboard and allowing me to edit it. Making suggestions about material to include or exclude is, to me, still quite premature. So, then: Yes or no? Cordially, Drieux 20:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Im not saying lets not use it, problem emerged when you two have removed the quotations from academical works of history which contradicts the statements of Greek prime minister..Until then the quotation was already there, and i didnt delete it..Plus, im also strongly against putting the greek community just at the beginning, since we`re supposed to talk about the issues which led to the war, not about Greek justifications for the war..Greek community is a justification not a reason of occupation..We have to put geopolitical context and greek nationalsim sections before that greek community section in the article..--laertes d 10:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I made some editings in the article, i am open for suggestions, for any kind of rewording or shortening of the blockquotes..About the Greek community in Anatolia section, ı have to say that thıs article is not about the Greek communıty in anatolia but how the existence of this community affected the war..So please dont remove or put elsewhere citations about this community..I also changed the name from "Background" to "reasons for the war" since it now suits more to the content of the section..Sorry drieux ı could not keep my hands off for this time but i think they are notable citations from serious works of history, thus they deserve a place..--laertes d 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the new quote-- I'll look over the paragraphs you added though tomorrow or the next day and try to make them more NPOV. I don't have the time tonight to do it. AlexiusComnenus 20:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate the blockquote though, even though it is relevant information. Can we just integrate it into the text? AlexiusComnenus 20:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Alexius, please don try anything new or supposedly NPOV, so far nothing you have done created anything similar to NPOV but only caused further disputes..What i am suggesting is that you take off your hands from this article, but only present your sources for third party people to make the necessary editings..I will do the same..--laertes d 20:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

New rules for this article

We have people willing to contribute productively here to a controversial topic (and, quite frankly, the amount of silliness reflected in the protection log is ridiculous), but they are being deterred by edit warring.

This is situation is not acceptable, so we're going to try out some new rules for this article. The edit warriors on this page forfeited the right to gentleness quite some time ago, and no one really wants an arbitration case, methinks. As I and others have done in the past, at Liancourt Rocks and Islam (for example), the usual rules are going to be tightened up.

• Any single-purpose accounts/IPs that turn up here on their first edit, make a revert or contentious edit, and then walk off, will be blocked.
• Uncooperative editing is not permitted. Do not make an edit that you know will be reverted. "Uncooperative" means: any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance in such a way that a reasonable outside observer must know in advance it will be unacceptable to the other side.
• Instant reverting without discussion will not be permitted either. If you simply have to revert, please wait until the issue at hand has been fully discussed on this talk page.
• Edit summaries.All edits must be accompanied by precise, informative edit summaries. These must clearly indicate if an edit contains something potentially contentious. In particular, all reverts (complete or partial) must be clearly marked as such.
• Really blatant POV which obviously violates NPOV by simply declaring either side of the dispute right and the other wrong, may be treated like vandalism and reverted.
• Incivility on this talk page, or in edit summaries, will not be tolerated, and will be punished heavily by block.
• Anyone who violates 1RR within a 24 hour period will be blocked.

Violation of the above conditions will be rewarded by block, and savagely so, until the message sinks in. Fortunately, everyone seems a bit more inclined to edit constructively, so this should not be necessary. We'll keep these rules in place for a month, I think, at least to begin with. Please let users who want to edit well and are not fans of edit wars, do so. Thank you. Moreschi ^Talk 22:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)