![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hi, Cplakidas. As you requested I have written something from the Italian perspective. I see that you erased the exact words of Mack Smith, the english considered the best scholar on Mussolini and his Fascism, about the Anatolian Greeks in the Greek Army. I have added additional sentences to explain the meaning. It is not a matter of "inferior Latins" or inferior Greeks.....It is a matter of historical evidence and Wikipedia is based on this, not on racial or nationalistic opinions, don't you believe? Anyway, feel free to do what you want on those phrases of Mack Smith: I don't want to have any edit war with you. I have plenty of work to do and it is going to be very difficult for me in the future to add something more to your article (which by the way, I believe it is worth more than a simple "B").
Allow me one final little commentary on the subject "anatolian greek janissaries": May be you in Greece don't realize this, but we Italians (I should say most of us) consider the attack on Greece one of our humiliations during the disaster that was WWII. An humiliation even because was an attack against the Greeks, with whom we have had since Roman (and Magna Grecia) times a special relationship like big and small brothers. Many Italian historians (not only Mack Smith) pinpoint the fact that the million anatolian Greeks (who moved to Greece in the 1923 "exchange") probably (of course it is impossible to demonstrate precisely this) made the Greek army a very stubborn one, full of rage because of the "exchange". The memory of the disaster of Smirne was present in many Greek prisoners of war, according to interviews (done in 1940/1) registered by the "Ufficio Storico" of the Italian Army. Those soldiers declared to be strongly motivated against the Italians, even because they were told by their superiors that Mussolini wanted to give Epirus to the Albanians (like Smirne was given to The Turks) and to make Corfu (with other Greek islands) an Italian island. Regards.-- Brunodam 23:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
A fourth of Greek soldiers were from the refugees from Anatolia. That is a big chunk. That means a different mentality in all the greek army. A mentality similar to the greek Janissaries of the glorious times of our Ottoman Empire. Eteturk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.105 ( talk) 19:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Without the turkish fighting mentality of the anatolian soldiers the greek army would have been defeated, like in Ataturk times when we liberated Izmir from the greek invasors. Only a racist Greek cannot see this fundamental difference of mentality and despise & ignore the turkish mentality of this 25%!! Wikipedia doesn't belong to Greeks!! Even Churchill hinted to the fact that the greek soldiers fought in Epirus against the Italians in a similar way to how fought the glorious Turks against his troops in Dardanelles in WWI!!!!!!!The problem is that you Greeks deny this historical evidence because hate us Turks and cannot accept that your only partial victory (the temporary reject of the Italians, who later won you) was because of the many anatolian soldiers in your army WITH TURKISH FIGHTING MENTALITY. This is historical evidence that is surfacing slowly but steadily, even if greeks racists don't like it.Eteturk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.201.42 ( talk) 03:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The Anatolian Greeks had "the warrior mentality of the Ottomans", according to the serious scholar Mack Smith. Why Cplakidas wants to erase this evidence? This is wikipedia, and every admin knows the rules of impartiality and objectivity. Those anatolian Greeks grew for centuries in the Ottoman empire and assimilated the fighting mentality of the Turks. They brought to the greek army in Epirus their "warrior mentality" -supported even by the rage for their forced exodus- and this factor caught by surprise the italian generals who had just seen the greek army defeated by our beloved Ataturk. We are NOT talking of the greek Janissaries, but of the "warrior mentality" of the anatolian greeks. It is racist and nationalistic to erase the evidences! And it NOT wikipedian to erase evidences from a serious english scholar like Mack Smith. Eteturk.
The same nonsense is what Hitler and the Nazis claimed for the Germans, for heaven's sake... As for b), as explained over and over again, the Greeks in Anatolia were merchants, farmers and workers, not soldiers. How this mentality could have been imparted to them from the Ottoman Turks, is not clear, unless it came genetically or via the soil... c) to attribute (indirectly but quite clearly) the success of the entire Greek army to this particular 25% and to this "warrior mentality", is pushing racial prejudices to the extreme. Dennis Mack Smith may be a serious scholar, but this particular statement of opinion (and, if I may say so, prejudice), taken from the self-serving memoirs of the Italian generals, who were anxious to explain their defeat, cannot be taken for definite and indisputable proof that what he says is true.
Last week James D. Watson said that blacks were not as intelligent as whites, but noone will cite that as serious proof that these differences actually exist... But, as afar as I can see, what bothers you is my refusal to accept the existence of a "warrior mentality" transmittable through unclear means to some populations and not others.
You (and Mack Smith) seem to forget the fact that all Greeks had lived, for several centuries, under Ottoman rule. So why did this not impart to all of them (and the Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians etc) this stupendous "warrior mentality", but limited itself only to the Anatolian Greeks (whose majority, BTW, did not even fight in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922))?
I do not dispute that they, just as the non-Anatolian Greeks, fought valiantly, but to attribute this success to racial backgrounds has nothing to do with modern-day science or history. If you persist on this, I'll have no choice but to go through WP:RFC. Cplakidas 11:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The position that Greek military success was due to an "Ottoman mentality" is so laughable that it is almost hard to argue with it... Should I bring up the fact that the Ottomans had been trounced by every European army for the past four centuries?
Or the fact that the majority of the army was made up of mainland Greeks? That the modern officer corp of the Greek army has traditionally been Peloponnesian? Or that the Italian strategy in the campaign was quite poor? That the Greeks had a very defensible position? To attribute Greek military success to any "Ottoman mentality" is just ludicrous. I wonder why Italy was able to lick Turkey so harshy in the Italo-Turkish war in 1911, was it because of the Southern Italian's Greek heritage :-P
Please don't bring up ridiculous racist ideas when we are talking about serious military matters.
So what if one British historian made one statement-- historians are not infallible. For example, I could quote a racist remark by a newspaper, it does not make it the gospel truth. The New York Tribune told its readers in the year 1919:
The fact that something was published does not make it the truth, please use common sense.
AlexiusComnenus 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
How much clearer can I say this? Unless you try to say that this mentality is transmitted via genes or other ways, which is ludicrous, there is no basis for Mack Smith's argument. To argue anything else is to try to belittle the achievement of the Greek army by attributing it to some fantastical notion of an "imported mentality", and indirectly imply that otherwise Greeks wouldn't have fought successfully. If that isn't nationalistic anti-Greek bias, then what is?
As to who I am, I am someone who uses reason, and that comment that Mack Smith made certainly does not stand up to any objective evaluation.
As for bringing up Watson, my point is that respected scholars are also humans, and that sometimes they say and write nonsense (Watson and his work on DNA helped disprove the supposed genetic differences between races, and yet he made racist comments), and that it is up to our critical ability to distinguish what is what. Cplakidas 23:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
WITH YOUR WAY OF THINKING ALL OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THE OTTOMAN WARRIOR MENTALITY OF THE ANATOLIAN GREEKS ,THEN,YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THAT THIS MENTALITY WAS INHERITED BY ANCIENT GREEKS.
THE WARRIOR MENTALITY OF OTTOMANS WAS INHERITTED BY THE WARRIOR MENTALITY OF BYZANTINES WHO TAUGHT THEM HOW TO FIGHT LEARNING THIS MENTALITY BY THEIR ANCESTORS THE ANCIENT GREEKS.
IF YOU DONT SUPPORT THIS THEN YOUR CLAIM IS REDICCULUS AS MINE.
Warning:It is a loss of time to try to convince fanatics like Plakidas. They will erase even the evidences brought by serious scholars!
A "fighting mentality" indeed is a social characteristic, admits Cplakidas. That means that it is created, modified and increased/reduced by external social factors. The Anatolian Greeks were influenced by the fighting mentality of the Ottomans for many centuries, this is an undeniable fact. The same has happened with the Germans (despised by Napoleon and judged terrible warriors in WWII) under the Prussian mentality during the nineteenth century. But I am sure that nationalists like Cplakidas (and friends) will deny all this forever.
Without the turkish fighting mentality of the anatolian soldiers the greek army would have been defeated, like in Ataturk times when we liberated Izmir from the greek invasors. Only a nationalist Greek cannot see this fundamental difference of mentality and despise & ignore the turkish mentality of this 25/30%!! Wikipedia doesn't belong to Greeks!! Even Churchill hinted to the fact that the greek soldiers fought in Epirus against the Italians in a similar way to how fought the glorious Turks against his troops in Dardanelles in WWI!!!!!!!The problem is that you Greeks deny this historical evidence because hate us Turks and cannot accept that your only partial victory in modern history (the temporary reject of the Italians, who later won you) was because of the many anatolian soldiers (in your army) WITH TURKISH FIGHTING MENTALITY. This is historical evidence that is surfacing slowly but steadily, even if greeks fanatics don't like it.
My complain is a last WARNING to the admins and all the not partialized forumers. Eteturk.
There are a host of reasons why eteturk's comments are totally ridiculous... we could mention the fact that Christians including Anatolian Greeks were not allowed to serve in the Ottoman military, or the fact that mainland Greeks beat the pants off of the Ottomans in 1912, as did the Italians in 1911, and as did the Russians, English, Bulgarians, Serbs, Montenegrins and a host of other European powers.
Attributing racial/national characteristics as reasons for military success are just examples of the fascist ideologies of Nazism, Mussolinism and Kemalism, and have no impact on serious scholarly discourse. AlexiusComnenus 21:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not the Wikipedian's job to decide weather such a "fighting mentality" (or whatever...) exists or not but to improve articles. And I really do not see how the inclusion of such a small phrase improves this article. But, for the shake of argument, let's accept for the moment that weather or not the Greek soldiers had a certain "ottoman fighting mentality" was a decisive factor that influenced the course of the war. If so, it would be desirable to have more than one source to confirm that. After all, I do suspect that Mack Smith's phrase has been isolated, misused and out of context (bad faith yes, but this talk page isn't that encouraging). So, to put it bluntly: if more scholarly work on the effect of the "ottoman fighting mentality" on the Greco-Italian war can be found by the concerned user, then let's have it. Otherwise, all we have here is a lame case of WP:POINT. -- Michalis Famelis (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It's an insignificant, inappropriate, POVish piece of information. Contributions of User:209.215.160.102 suggest that it's no worth dealing with it. Remove Odysses (☜) 12:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I thought that "national fighting mentality" theories was popular with certain types of late victorian chauvinists, not in 2007 wikipedia articles?-- victor falk 17:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Every human present on Earth is descended from successful fighters or they wouldn't be here. That said, maybe the Anatolian soldiers battled more fiercely than the Greeks fighting alongside. I believe that it's possible for an army to be strengthened or stiffened by the inclusion of a small proportion of fanatic fighters; that's not the issue. What I wonder is who was the more motivated soldier: recently dispossessed Anatolians or the long-time Greeks who were fighting to hold the soil they'd been born on? I haven't yet seen solid evidence that either was more effective. Binksternet 18:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Only in GREEK WIKIPEDIA we can see a refusal of what write scholars, because not accepted by greek opinions. T.Y.
I DON'T SEE A RACIAL OFFENSE ON THE "OTTOMAN FIGHTING MENTALITY" SENTENCE. I SEE ONLY A CONTROVERSIAL POINT OF VIEW OF A SCHOLAR, LIKE MANY WE CAN READ IN MANY TOPICS OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. WHAT I SEE -CLEARLY- IS THAT A GROUP OF GREEKS WANT TO ERASE THE OPINION OF A SCHOLAR. THEY SHOULD WRITE THEIR POV NEXT TO THE OPINION OF THE SCHOLAR MACK SMITH: THAT IS THE WAY WIKIPEDIA WORKS. EVEN IF THEY DISAGREE WITH THE SCHOLAR, THE GREEK CPLAKIDAS-ALEXIUS COMNENUS-MIKALIS FAMELIS-ODYSSES SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT WIKIPEDIA IS OPEN TO ALL OPINIONS AND POINTS OF VIEW AND THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES WHO DECIDES WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE WRITTEN! I PERSONALLY AGREE TO PLACE BOTH POINTS OF VIEW: THE GREEK AND THE SCHOLAR TOGETHER IN THE ARTICLE. THEN WE WIKIPEDIA READERS WILL JUDGE. FRANK R.
Racial oriented, unsupported ,profoundly unfounded bitter comments driven by the famous colonial arrogance which seeks answers into stupid unscientific idealistic theories even expressed by God himself doesn't make them worth mentioning. Eagle of Pontus 18:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest to follow the opinions of Smith & Churchill instead of that of greek nationalists that write childish Lol and rant about supposed racism. -- Kemal2 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, why don't you read the references by yourself and investigate what is in the indicated page? -- Kemal2 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.77.23.98 ( talk) 17:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That's unbelievably funny.I myself am a Pontic-Greek but i can't stop laughing since seeing those comments.I can't believe that there is anyone above the age of 5 and with a minimum 60IQ level who can seriously believe what our "Ottoman mentality" friend supports.Hahaha.Still can't stop laughing. Eagle of Pontus 13:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
After all this discussion on a single phrase by "serious scholar" Mack Smith, we do not have an article on the scholar, any idea of his/her ideological views, the context of the phrase or the sources used for it. Should not Kemal expand on this before treating Smith as an authority on the subject?
Was this phrase included in "Italy: A Modern History" by Denis Mack Smith? Questia has the complete text of the book but gives its publication date as 1959. Which might account for the racist terminology used but might still give us a view on the subject from this period.
Could the name-calling cease and some research commence? User:Dimadick —Preceding comment was added at 08:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The comments made by Italian officers should be rejected as pure conjecture, not based on statistical, sociological or even military facts. Since the population exchange took place in 1923-24, Greek refugees fighting in 1940 would have to be 34 years or older to have received training in the Turkish military. Since the vast majority of recruited men would have been younger than this age, it is simply silly to claim that these men had any relation to the tactics or morale of Turkish soldiers of World War I, any more than they bare resemblance to any other fighter fighting for his country. As such, the comments add no value to this article and should be removed. -- Ferengi 12:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, Christians typically did not serve in combat in the Ottoman army. Only after the Hat-i Sherif of Gulhane in the 1850s were Christians allowed to serve, and typically they went in labor battalions rather than combat battalions. 212.201.82.183 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe the Greeks from Anatolia knew better what it means to live under occupation so they might have fought more bravely not "because" of Ottomans, but actually in spite of them, but again those speculations even if done by people at that time should not be included into an Encyclopedia. -- AdrianTM 07:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added the tag "Disputed" because of the continuous cancellation by a group of Greeks of some paragraphs from renowned scholars.
The following paragraphs are not speculations of wikipedians, since are referenced:<<After the war, Italian commanders like General Prasca would compare the stubborn Greek resistance in Epirus with that of the Turks in the Dardanelles in World War I, and even go as far as attributing it to the large numbers of Anatolian Greeks serving in the Greek army (about one fourth of the recruits were from Anatolia) after the population exchange of 1923-24.[9] Furthermore, the English scholar Mack Smith wrote that many Greek recruits were the sons of those Greeks forced to move to the Kingdom of Greece. He added even that the Anatolian Greeks had the warrior mentality of the Ottomans.[10]>>. The first paragraph was written by the greek Plakidas and the references 9 and 10 can be found at the bottom of the article. Sincerely I don't see any racism in the above paragraphs, but I see a reality fact that can irritate only the most fanatic Greeks. And this irritated behaviour is NOT wikipedian. Many articles in Wikipedia irritate someone, but the admins defend the objectivity and the different opinions of all of us.-- Kemal2 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
That statement about the Anatolian Greeks can be true.They had fought against the Turks for so many years(:D) so they might have a little more expereience —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.38.10.145 ( talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I am really impressed by the fanaticism that some people employ to attribute a victory of one nation to the influence of their own. The Greek victory over the italians is attribute to the ottomans?? I remain utterly impressed by that notion and the fact that some people have managed to transform a wikipedia article over greek-italian war to an ottoman matter!! I ask all of you with historic nicknames to take your fight somewhere else. The huge advantage of the web is that you can simply change page by pressing a button and this discussion is really not historical nor scientific. so it simply does not worth our precious time. Everyone with real historical interest please avoid reading this. I for once do not think in writing again. Nico Madrid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.12.235 ( talk) 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are cancelled the scholar references (about the Anatolian Greeks)? Why this happens only in this greek article? Why in other articles -and I can cite many as examples- all the references from scholars are accepted without accusations of "unneeded nationalist or racial opinion"? There is it a greek lobby inside wikipedia? -- Kemal2 ( talk) 15:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Again the same repetition about most of the editors, but the problem is that ALL the editors are Greeks and friends of Greeks. If someone disagrees, the greek lobby will erase his writings and block him in a NOT democratic way, like has been done to me. Your comments, AdrianTM, are the proof of the existence of this lobby!-- Kemal2 ( talk) 22:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Kimon, seriously though, have you considered that perhaps this comment is not wrong: <....That statement about the Anatolian Greeks can be true.They had fought against the Turks for so many years(:D) so they might have a little more expereience ......>? and don't forget that wikipedia is based on consensus , but the consensus of all of us and NOT the consensus of a single group or lobby!-- Kemal2 ( talk) 22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
noclador ( talk) 23:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Was the Greco-Italian War really part of World War II? Being that it didn't involve the Germans (Greece was weary of provoking them) and only limited air-support from the British, it would seem to me that it was a contemperous war, almost exactly like the Anglo-Iraqi War (British against Iraqi forces with limited air-support from the Germans).
Can someone provide sources one way or the other? Oberiko ( talk) 20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Also Iraq was definitely part of WWII - the Brits invaded because of the German threat to Britain's supplies of oil from there. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 18:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that you could put Ioannis Metaxas in the list of commanders also.
Was the Greco-Italian War really part of World War II? Being that it didn't involve the Germans (Greece was weary of provoking them) and only limited air-support from the British, it would seem to me that it was a contemperous war, almost exactly like the Anglo-Iraqi War (British against Iraqi forces with limited air-support from the Germans).
Can someone provide sources one way or the other? Oberiko ( talk) 20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Also Iraq was definitely part of WWII - the Brits invaded because of the German threat to Britain's supplies of oil from there. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 18:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that you could put Ioannis Metaxas in the list of commanders also.
I think that you could put Ioannis Metaxas in the list of commanders also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.58.248 ( talk) 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that you could put Ioannis Metaxas in the list of commanders also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.58.248 ( talk) 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Metaxas.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 05:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Metaxas.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 05:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The "Greco-Italian relations..." section, in discussing the Greek army, contains this:
I cannot make any sense of the fragment "regained some land". It might mean that the army was given some land (for exercises?) but it doesn't make grammatical sense in the context of the sentence.
What is the intended meaning? Molinari ( talk) 23:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The "Greco-Italian relations..." section, in discussing the Greek army, contains this:
I cannot make any sense of the fragment "regained some land". It might mean that the army was given some land (for exercises?) but it doesn't make grammatical sense in the context of the sentence.
What is the intended meaning? Molinari ( talk) 23:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The dispute concerns the following language:
1)Main original excerpt:
Furthermore, the english scholar Mack Smith wrote that many Greek recruits were the sons of those Greeks forced to move to the Kingdom of Greece (and had the warrior mentality of the Ottomans) [2]. He was referring to the excuse done by the Italian officers (like General Prasca) who wrongly influenced Mussolini to attack Greece. These officers used to say that "the Greeks in Epirus fought like the Greek Janissaries of the Turkish Army in the Dardanelles during WWI", and that their mistake (on believing in an easy two weeks war) was done because they did not realize that the Greek army was now full of "Anatolian Greeks" (from whom historically many Janissaries were recruited) after the 1923 exodus of one million Greeks from Anatolia [3]
2)secundary & successive excerpt:
After the war, Italian commanders like General Prasca would compare the stubborn Greek resistance in Epirus with that of the Turks in the Dardanelles in World War I and even go as far as attributing it to the large numbers of Anatolian Greeks serving in the Greek army after the population exchange of 1923-24. [4]One fourth of the Greek army soldiers in 1940 were from Anatolia and they fought in Epirus with a typical turkish fighting mentality (like the Turks did in the Dardanelles during WWI) [5]
-- Stlemur ( talk) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: I have added the main original excerpt from which has started all the problem. The secundary excerpt (added by Stlemur) is the result of modifications done successively and that don't give the right idea of the causes of the discussions about the writings of the scholar Mack Smith.-- Kemal2 ( talk) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
With all respect, Noclador, but what has to do the history of your Alpini in Greece with the discussion? If you do not approve what I and others write about the Anatolian Greeks in the Epirus campaign, it is OK for me, but why even the Italian Army? All the discussion is about the fighting mentality of the Anatolian Greeks, who were 1/3 of the recruits in the Greek Army in Epirus. As I wrote before: you should be the first to know that the fighting mentality in a population changes (remember the warrior mentality of the majority of the Romans and compare them to the majority of the Italian soldiers in WWII). Of course there were many factors in the Italian disaster in Epirus (I agree with you on this), but one certainly is related to what writes the scholar Mack Smith in the above main excerpt.
A "fighting mentality" indeed is a social characteristic, as a Greek wikipedian admitted in a former section of the talkpage. That means that it is created, modified and increased/reduced by external social factors. The Anatolian Greeks were influenced by the fighting mentality of the Ottomans for many centuries, this is an undeniable fact. The same has happened with the Germans (despised by Napoleon as soldiers but successively judged good warriors in WWI & WWII, thanks to the infusion of Prussian "fighting & warrior mentality" after the German unification) under the Prussian rule during the nineteenth century.
In the original excerpt Mack Smith clearly states that Prasca (with others) did an "excuse" to defend his mistakes: nobody doubts about his incompetency.
About the reference to the Janissaries: the officers declared as an excuse that "the Greeks in Epirus fought like the Greek Janissaries of the Turkish Army". What is wrong with this declaration? There were Greek Janissaries for many generations until the XIX century.
About the reference to the excuse of those officers (like Prasca) that: "their mistake (on believing in an easy two weeks war) was done because they did not realize that the Greek army was now full of "Anatolian Greeks" (from whom historically many Janissaries were recruited)". Again, what is wrong here? They are free to find an excuse and believe that those Anatolian Greeks made the difference in the Greek Army. And historically (until the XIX century) those Anatolian Greeks (converted to moslem religion in many cases) proved to be good warriors as Janissaries. Let's remember that most of the actual population of western Anatolia is Turkish today, but is mainly (ar least 60%) made of Greeks converted through five centuries of assimilation (even their DNA confirms this reality). And they assimilated not only the religion and language, but even the "warrior mentality of the Ottomans", as Mack Smith writes (and this assimilation/change has happened -for example- with the Prussian military education with the Germans in just one century).
Finally I want to remember what a wikipedian wrote in a preceding section of the talkpage: "That statement about the Anatolian Greeks can be true.They had fought against the Turks for so many years(:D) so they might have a little more expereience". I agree with him: those Italian officers knew very well the army of fascist Metaxas. They trained many Greek officers to fight on their side, but they did not know the mentality of those Anatolian Greeks and their stubborness, similar to that of the Ataturk troops in the Dardanelles in WWI and that was appreciated even by Churchill.
This is going to be my last edit (in the article & the talkpage). I am satisfied to see that a lot of wikipedians are paying attention to the discussion (THIS IS WHAT I WANTED!) and I respect the contrary opinions of many of them. With these "requested comments", the truth about the importance of the Anatolian Greeks' mentality in the Epirus campaign will come out soon or later, even if the Greek lobby keeps erasing and erasing. -- Kemal2 ( talk) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
WITH YOUR WAY OF THINKING ALL OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THE OTTOMAN WARRIOR MENTALITY OF THE ANATOLIAN GREEKS ,THEN,YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THAT THIS MENTALITY WAS INHERITED BY ANCIENT GREEKS.
THE WARRIOR MENTALITY OF OTTOMANS WAS INHERITTED BY THE WARRIOR MENTALITY OF BYZANTINES WHO TAUGHT THEM HOW TO FIGHT LEARNING THIS MENTALITY BY THEIR ANCESTORS THE ANCIENT GREEKS.
IF YOU DONT SUPPORT THIS THEN YOUR CLAIM IS REDICCULUS . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.18 ( talk) 12:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The dispute concerns the following language:
1)Main original excerpt:
Furthermore, the english scholar Mack Smith wrote that many Greek recruits were the sons of those Greeks forced to move to the Kingdom of Greece (and had the warrior mentality of the Ottomans) [6]. He was referring to the excuse done by the Italian officers (like General Prasca) who wrongly influenced Mussolini to attack Greece. These officers used to say that "the Greeks in Epirus fought like the Greek Janissaries of the Turkish Army in the Dardanelles during WWI", and that their mistake (on believing in an easy two weeks war) was done because they did not realize that the Greek army was now full of "Anatolian Greeks" (from whom historically many Janissaries were recruited) after the 1923 exodus of one million Greeks from Anatolia [7]
2)secundary & successive excerpt:
After the war, Italian commanders like General Prasca would compare the stubborn Greek resistance in Epirus with that of the Turks in the Dardanelles in World War I and even go as far as attributing it to the large numbers of Anatolian Greeks serving in the Greek army after the population exchange of 1923-24. [8]One fourth of the Greek army soldiers in 1940 were from Anatolia and they fought in Epirus with a typical turkish fighting mentality (like the Turks did in the Dardanelles during WWI) [9]
-- Stlemur ( talk) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: I have added the main original excerpt from which has started all the problem. The secundary excerpt (added by Stlemur) is the result of modifications done successively and that don't give the right idea of the causes of the discussions about the writings of the scholar Mack Smith.-- Kemal2 ( talk) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
With all respect, Noclador, but what has to do the history of your Alpini in Greece with the discussion? If you do not approve what I and others write about the Anatolian Greeks in the Epirus campaign, it is OK for me, but why even the Italian Army? All the discussion is about the fighting mentality of the Anatolian Greeks, who were 1/3 of the recruits in the Greek Army in Epirus. As I wrote before: you should be the first to know that the fighting mentality in a population changes (remember the warrior mentality of the majority of the Romans and compare them to the majority of the Italian soldiers in WWII). Of course there were many factors in the Italian disaster in Epirus (I agree with you on this), but one certainly is related to what writes the scholar Mack Smith in the above main excerpt.
A "fighting mentality" indeed is a social characteristic, as a Greek wikipedian admitted in a former section of the talkpage. That means that it is created, modified and increased/reduced by external social factors. The Anatolian Greeks were influenced by the fighting mentality of the Ottomans for many centuries, this is an undeniable fact. The same has happened with the Germans (despised by Napoleon as soldiers but successively judged good warriors in WWI & WWII, thanks to the infusion of Prussian "fighting & warrior mentality" after the German unification) under the Prussian rule during the nineteenth century.
In the original excerpt Mack Smith clearly states that Prasca (with others) did an "excuse" to defend his mistakes: nobody doubts about his incompetency.
About the reference to the Janissaries: the officers declared as an excuse that "the Greeks in Epirus fought like the Greek Janissaries of the Turkish Army". What is wrong with this declaration? There were Greek Janissaries for many generations until the XIX century.
About the reference to the excuse of those officers (like Prasca) that: "their mistake (on believing in an easy two weeks war) was done because they did not realize that the Greek army was now full of "Anatolian Greeks" (from whom historically many Janissaries were recruited)". Again, what is wrong here? They are free to find an excuse and believe that those Anatolian Greeks made the difference in the Greek Army. And historically (until the XIX century) those Anatolian Greeks (converted to moslem religion in many cases) proved to be good warriors as Janissaries. Let's remember that most of the actual population of western Anatolia is Turkish today, but is mainly (ar least 60%) made of Greeks converted through five centuries of assimilation (even their DNA confirms this reality). And they assimilated not only the religion and language, but even the "warrior mentality of the Ottomans", as Mack Smith writes (and this assimilation/change has happened -for example- with the Prussian military education with the Germans in just one century).
Finally I want to remember what a wikipedian wrote in a preceding section of the talkpage: "That statement about the Anatolian Greeks can be true.They had fought against the Turks for so many years(:D) so they might have a little more expereience". I agree with him: those Italian officers knew very well the army of fascist Metaxas. They trained many Greek officers to fight on their side, but they did not know the mentality of those Anatolian Greeks and their stubborness, similar to that of the Ataturk troops in the Dardanelles in WWI and that was appreciated even by Churchill.
This is going to be my last edit (in the article & the talkpage). I am satisfied to see that a lot of wikipedians are paying attention to the discussion (THIS IS WHAT I WANTED!) and I respect the contrary opinions of many of them. With these "requested comments", the truth about the importance of the Anatolian Greeks' mentality in the Epirus campaign will come out soon or later, even if the Greek lobby keeps erasing and erasing. -- Kemal2 ( talk) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
WITH YOUR WAY OF THINKING ALL OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THE OTTOMAN WARRIOR MENTALITY OF THE ANATOLIAN GREEKS ,THEN,YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THAT THIS MENTALITY WAS INHERITED BY ANCIENT GREEKS.
THE WARRIOR MENTALITY OF OTTOMANS WAS INHERITTED BY THE WARRIOR MENTALITY OF BYZANTINES WHO TAUGHT THEM HOW TO FIGHT LEARNING THIS MENTALITY BY THEIR ANCESTORS THE ANCIENT GREEKS.
IF YOU DONT SUPPORT THIS THEN YOUR CLAIM IS REDICCULUS . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.18 ( talk) 12:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
A couple times a year I come and reread this article. I've noticed this time that it has been gutted of much of its' appeal. Where are all the quotes and photos? What was once an exciting, immersive article, it now feels bare bones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
A couple times a year I come and reread this article. I've noticed this time that it has been gutted of much of its' appeal. Where are all the quotes and photos? What was once an exciting, immersive article, it now feels bare bones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The Greco-Italian war has produced thousands of pictures on both sides. When I was small I remember an encyclopedia on the war with thousands of pictures in the library. Yet on this encyclopedia there are very rare to find, not the mention a simple google image search. I believe that at the end at least of this article there should be alot of pictures from this war. Perhaps I can provide the editors with pitcures if you wish to add historical "color" to this article, or better upload them myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Constantineix ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The Greco-Italian war has produced thousands of pictures on both sides. When I was small I remember an encyclopedia on the war with thousands of pictures in the library. Yet on this encyclopedia there are very rare to find, not the mention a simple google image search. I believe that at the end at least of this article there should be alot of pictures from this war. Perhaps I can provide the editors with pitcures if you wish to add historical "color" to this article, or better upload them myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Constantineix ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
it's a good article but i'd like to see more pictures and map at the discription of the actual war, i cant get a good image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.99.4.52 ( talk) 18:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
No free material found so far... Off course there are plenty of nice pictures to show but unfortunately there are cp problems. Off course next year the cp status of most pictures taken during 1940 will be lifted... Alexikoua ( talk) 20:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
it's a good article but i'd like to see more pictures and map at the discription of the actual war, i cant get a good image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.99.4.52 ( talk) 18:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
No free material found so far... Off course there are plenty of nice pictures to show but unfortunately there are cp problems. Off course next year the cp status of most pictures taken during 1940 will be lifted... Alexikoua ( talk) 20:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
i just read this funny converstation abt the mentality of greek warriors who came from anatolia. If some persons support that many anatolian greeks were influenced by the barbarian methods of turkish army and they transfered it to the greco-italian war in Albania,i think they are completely ignorant abt the social structure in Greece before the WW2
These refugees were not professional soldiers but mainly farmers or traders.Also in Greece the first years when they came their situation was very difficult and many of them i guess they hated the Greek State for its mistakes abt their situation.They were not "barbarian ottoman monsters" fighting all the time ,but simple people;it is strange that many of them they didnt even purticipated in the greco-turkish war in minor asia!i can say that they were more peaceful and less nationalists than traditional local greeks
if someone is wondered abt the reasons of greek victory,the better that has to do is to take a look at the terrible italian mistakes during the war and the perfect preparation of Greece and greek army during the pre-WW2 years
Greco22 ( talk) 23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
References include Papagos(who was the leader of the Greek army), official Greek textbooks, Hadjipateras who uses personal experiences as told by Greek soldiers of the war, the Army General Staff of Greece and David Irving, a Holocaust denier. Due to the amount of such references, I'll add the pov template.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC) The memories of Leni Riefenstahl are being used as a source for this:
-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
After reading more I found out that official Italian texbooks and Sebastiano Visconti Prasca are used as sources.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The mere use of biased sources does not necessarily make the article itself POV. In fact sources with opposite biases may well cancel each other out. It's the editor's job to ensure that the article is NPOV, regardless of the biases of its references. ZjarriRrethues is too strict on judging POV, IMO, otherwise any and all official histories of every war ever published would be unusable as being POV, which is nonsense.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with what the Wikipedia naming conventions are, but I don't feel comfortable with the fact that some of the cities in this arcticle are referred to by their Italian or Greek denominations. I understand Albania was occupied at the time, but did this mean that the cities kept changing their names back and forth as they changed hands? jonosphere ( talk) 14:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with what the Wikipedia naming conventions are, but I don't feel comfortable with the fact that some of the cities in this arcticle are referred to by their Italian or Greek denominations. I understand Albania was occupied at the time, but did this mean that the cities kept changing their names back and forth as they changed hands? jonosphere ( talk) 14:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Hi, Cplakidas. As you requested I have written something from the Italian perspective. I see that you erased the exact words of Mack Smith, the english considered the best scholar on Mussolini and his Fascism, about the Anatolian Greeks in the Greek Army. I have added additional sentences to explain the meaning. It is not a matter of "inferior Latins" or inferior Greeks.....It is a matter of historical evidence and Wikipedia is based on this, not on racial or nationalistic opinions, don't you believe? Anyway, feel free to do what you want on those phrases of Mack Smith: I don't want to have any edit war with you. I have plenty of work to do and it is going to be very difficult for me in the future to add something more to your article (which by the way, I believe it is worth more than a simple "B").
Allow me one final little commentary on the subject "anatolian greek janissaries": May be you in Greece don't realize this, but we Italians (I should say most of us) consider the attack on Greece one of our humiliations during the disaster that was WWII. An humiliation even because was an attack against the Greeks, with whom we have had since Roman (and Magna Grecia) times a special relationship like big and small brothers. Many Italian historians (not only Mack Smith) pinpoint the fact that the million anatolian Greeks (who moved to Greece in the 1923 "exchange") probably (of course it is impossible to demonstrate precisely this) made the Greek army a very stubborn one, full of rage because of the "exchange". The memory of the disaster of Smirne was present in many Greek prisoners of war, according to interviews (done in 1940/1) registered by the "Ufficio Storico" of the Italian Army. Those soldiers declared to be strongly motivated against the Italians, even because they were told by their superiors that Mussolini wanted to give Epirus to the Albanians (like Smirne was given to The Turks) and to make Corfu (with other Greek islands) an Italian island. Regards.-- Brunodam 23:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
A fourth of Greek soldiers were from the refugees from Anatolia. That is a big chunk. That means a different mentality in all the greek army. A mentality similar to the greek Janissaries of the glorious times of our Ottoman Empire. Eteturk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.105 ( talk) 19:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Without the turkish fighting mentality of the anatolian soldiers the greek army would have been defeated, like in Ataturk times when we liberated Izmir from the greek invasors. Only a racist Greek cannot see this fundamental difference of mentality and despise & ignore the turkish mentality of this 25%!! Wikipedia doesn't belong to Greeks!! Even Churchill hinted to the fact that the greek soldiers fought in Epirus against the Italians in a similar way to how fought the glorious Turks against his troops in Dardanelles in WWI!!!!!!!The problem is that you Greeks deny this historical evidence because hate us Turks and cannot accept that your only partial victory (the temporary reject of the Italians, who later won you) was because of the many anatolian soldiers in your army WITH TURKISH FIGHTING MENTALITY. This is historical evidence that is surfacing slowly but steadily, even if greeks racists don't like it.Eteturk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.201.42 ( talk) 03:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The Anatolian Greeks had "the warrior mentality of the Ottomans", according to the serious scholar Mack Smith. Why Cplakidas wants to erase this evidence? This is wikipedia, and every admin knows the rules of impartiality and objectivity. Those anatolian Greeks grew for centuries in the Ottoman empire and assimilated the fighting mentality of the Turks. They brought to the greek army in Epirus their "warrior mentality" -supported even by the rage for their forced exodus- and this factor caught by surprise the italian generals who had just seen the greek army defeated by our beloved Ataturk. We are NOT talking of the greek Janissaries, but of the "warrior mentality" of the anatolian greeks. It is racist and nationalistic to erase the evidences! And it NOT wikipedian to erase evidences from a serious english scholar like Mack Smith. Eteturk.
The same nonsense is what Hitler and the Nazis claimed for the Germans, for heaven's sake... As for b), as explained over and over again, the Greeks in Anatolia were merchants, farmers and workers, not soldiers. How this mentality could have been imparted to them from the Ottoman Turks, is not clear, unless it came genetically or via the soil... c) to attribute (indirectly but quite clearly) the success of the entire Greek army to this particular 25% and to this "warrior mentality", is pushing racial prejudices to the extreme. Dennis Mack Smith may be a serious scholar, but this particular statement of opinion (and, if I may say so, prejudice), taken from the self-serving memoirs of the Italian generals, who were anxious to explain their defeat, cannot be taken for definite and indisputable proof that what he says is true.
Last week James D. Watson said that blacks were not as intelligent as whites, but noone will cite that as serious proof that these differences actually exist... But, as afar as I can see, what bothers you is my refusal to accept the existence of a "warrior mentality" transmittable through unclear means to some populations and not others.
You (and Mack Smith) seem to forget the fact that all Greeks had lived, for several centuries, under Ottoman rule. So why did this not impart to all of them (and the Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians etc) this stupendous "warrior mentality", but limited itself only to the Anatolian Greeks (whose majority, BTW, did not even fight in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922))?
I do not dispute that they, just as the non-Anatolian Greeks, fought valiantly, but to attribute this success to racial backgrounds has nothing to do with modern-day science or history. If you persist on this, I'll have no choice but to go through WP:RFC. Cplakidas 11:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The position that Greek military success was due to an "Ottoman mentality" is so laughable that it is almost hard to argue with it... Should I bring up the fact that the Ottomans had been trounced by every European army for the past four centuries?
Or the fact that the majority of the army was made up of mainland Greeks? That the modern officer corp of the Greek army has traditionally been Peloponnesian? Or that the Italian strategy in the campaign was quite poor? That the Greeks had a very defensible position? To attribute Greek military success to any "Ottoman mentality" is just ludicrous. I wonder why Italy was able to lick Turkey so harshy in the Italo-Turkish war in 1911, was it because of the Southern Italian's Greek heritage :-P
Please don't bring up ridiculous racist ideas when we are talking about serious military matters.
So what if one British historian made one statement-- historians are not infallible. For example, I could quote a racist remark by a newspaper, it does not make it the gospel truth. The New York Tribune told its readers in the year 1919:
The fact that something was published does not make it the truth, please use common sense.
AlexiusComnenus 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
How much clearer can I say this? Unless you try to say that this mentality is transmitted via genes or other ways, which is ludicrous, there is no basis for Mack Smith's argument. To argue anything else is to try to belittle the achievement of the Greek army by attributing it to some fantastical notion of an "imported mentality", and indirectly imply that otherwise Greeks wouldn't have fought successfully. If that isn't nationalistic anti-Greek bias, then what is?
As to who I am, I am someone who uses reason, and that comment that Mack Smith made certainly does not stand up to any objective evaluation.
As for bringing up Watson, my point is that respected scholars are also humans, and that sometimes they say and write nonsense (Watson and his work on DNA helped disprove the supposed genetic differences between races, and yet he made racist comments), and that it is up to our critical ability to distinguish what is what. Cplakidas 23:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
WITH YOUR WAY OF THINKING ALL OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THE OTTOMAN WARRIOR MENTALITY OF THE ANATOLIAN GREEKS ,THEN,YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THAT THIS MENTALITY WAS INHERITED BY ANCIENT GREEKS.
THE WARRIOR MENTALITY OF OTTOMANS WAS INHERITTED BY THE WARRIOR MENTALITY OF BYZANTINES WHO TAUGHT THEM HOW TO FIGHT LEARNING THIS MENTALITY BY THEIR ANCESTORS THE ANCIENT GREEKS.
IF YOU DONT SUPPORT THIS THEN YOUR CLAIM IS REDICCULUS AS MINE.
Warning:It is a loss of time to try to convince fanatics like Plakidas. They will erase even the evidences brought by serious scholars!
A "fighting mentality" indeed is a social characteristic, admits Cplakidas. That means that it is created, modified and increased/reduced by external social factors. The Anatolian Greeks were influenced by the fighting mentality of the Ottomans for many centuries, this is an undeniable fact. The same has happened with the Germans (despised by Napoleon and judged terrible warriors in WWII) under the Prussian mentality during the nineteenth century. But I am sure that nationalists like Cplakidas (and friends) will deny all this forever.
Without the turkish fighting mentality of the anatolian soldiers the greek army would have been defeated, like in Ataturk times when we liberated Izmir from the greek invasors. Only a nationalist Greek cannot see this fundamental difference of mentality and despise & ignore the turkish mentality of this 25/30%!! Wikipedia doesn't belong to Greeks!! Even Churchill hinted to the fact that the greek soldiers fought in Epirus against the Italians in a similar way to how fought the glorious Turks against his troops in Dardanelles in WWI!!!!!!!The problem is that you Greeks deny this historical evidence because hate us Turks and cannot accept that your only partial victory in modern history (the temporary reject of the Italians, who later won you) was because of the many anatolian soldiers (in your army) WITH TURKISH FIGHTING MENTALITY. This is historical evidence that is surfacing slowly but steadily, even if greeks fanatics don't like it.
My complain is a last WARNING to the admins and all the not partialized forumers. Eteturk.
There are a host of reasons why eteturk's comments are totally ridiculous... we could mention the fact that Christians including Anatolian Greeks were not allowed to serve in the Ottoman military, or the fact that mainland Greeks beat the pants off of the Ottomans in 1912, as did the Italians in 1911, and as did the Russians, English, Bulgarians, Serbs, Montenegrins and a host of other European powers.
Attributing racial/national characteristics as reasons for military success are just examples of the fascist ideologies of Nazism, Mussolinism and Kemalism, and have no impact on serious scholarly discourse. AlexiusComnenus 21:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not the Wikipedian's job to decide weather such a "fighting mentality" (or whatever...) exists or not but to improve articles. And I really do not see how the inclusion of such a small phrase improves this article. But, for the shake of argument, let's accept for the moment that weather or not the Greek soldiers had a certain "ottoman fighting mentality" was a decisive factor that influenced the course of the war. If so, it would be desirable to have more than one source to confirm that. After all, I do suspect that Mack Smith's phrase has been isolated, misused and out of context (bad faith yes, but this talk page isn't that encouraging). So, to put it bluntly: if more scholarly work on the effect of the "ottoman fighting mentality" on the Greco-Italian war can be found by the concerned user, then let's have it. Otherwise, all we have here is a lame case of WP:POINT. -- Michalis Famelis (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It's an insignificant, inappropriate, POVish piece of information. Contributions of User:209.215.160.102 suggest that it's no worth dealing with it. Remove Odysses (☜) 12:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I thought that "national fighting mentality" theories was popular with certain types of late victorian chauvinists, not in 2007 wikipedia articles?-- victor falk 17:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Every human present on Earth is descended from successful fighters or they wouldn't be here. That said, maybe the Anatolian soldiers battled more fiercely than the Greeks fighting alongside. I believe that it's possible for an army to be strengthened or stiffened by the inclusion of a small proportion of fanatic fighters; that's not the issue. What I wonder is who was the more motivated soldier: recently dispossessed Anatolians or the long-time Greeks who were fighting to hold the soil they'd been born on? I haven't yet seen solid evidence that either was more effective. Binksternet 18:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Only in GREEK WIKIPEDIA we can see a refusal of what write scholars, because not accepted by greek opinions. T.Y.
I DON'T SEE A RACIAL OFFENSE ON THE "OTTOMAN FIGHTING MENTALITY" SENTENCE. I SEE ONLY A CONTROVERSIAL POINT OF VIEW OF A SCHOLAR, LIKE MANY WE CAN READ IN MANY TOPICS OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. WHAT I SEE -CLEARLY- IS THAT A GROUP OF GREEKS WANT TO ERASE THE OPINION OF A SCHOLAR. THEY SHOULD WRITE THEIR POV NEXT TO THE OPINION OF THE SCHOLAR MACK SMITH: THAT IS THE WAY WIKIPEDIA WORKS. EVEN IF THEY DISAGREE WITH THE SCHOLAR, THE GREEK CPLAKIDAS-ALEXIUS COMNENUS-MIKALIS FAMELIS-ODYSSES SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT WIKIPEDIA IS OPEN TO ALL OPINIONS AND POINTS OF VIEW AND THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES WHO DECIDES WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE WRITTEN! I PERSONALLY AGREE TO PLACE BOTH POINTS OF VIEW: THE GREEK AND THE SCHOLAR TOGETHER IN THE ARTICLE. THEN WE WIKIPEDIA READERS WILL JUDGE. FRANK R.
Racial oriented, unsupported ,profoundly unfounded bitter comments driven by the famous colonial arrogance which seeks answers into stupid unscientific idealistic theories even expressed by God himself doesn't make them worth mentioning. Eagle of Pontus 18:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest to follow the opinions of Smith & Churchill instead of that of greek nationalists that write childish Lol and rant about supposed racism. -- Kemal2 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, why don't you read the references by yourself and investigate what is in the indicated page? -- Kemal2 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.77.23.98 ( talk) 17:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That's unbelievably funny.I myself am a Pontic-Greek but i can't stop laughing since seeing those comments.I can't believe that there is anyone above the age of 5 and with a minimum 60IQ level who can seriously believe what our "Ottoman mentality" friend supports.Hahaha.Still can't stop laughing. Eagle of Pontus 13:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
After all this discussion on a single phrase by "serious scholar" Mack Smith, we do not have an article on the scholar, any idea of his/her ideological views, the context of the phrase or the sources used for it. Should not Kemal expand on this before treating Smith as an authority on the subject?
Was this phrase included in "Italy: A Modern History" by Denis Mack Smith? Questia has the complete text of the book but gives its publication date as 1959. Which might account for the racist terminology used but might still give us a view on the subject from this period.
Could the name-calling cease and some research commence? User:Dimadick —Preceding comment was added at 08:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The comments made by Italian officers should be rejected as pure conjecture, not based on statistical, sociological or even military facts. Since the population exchange took place in 1923-24, Greek refugees fighting in 1940 would have to be 34 years or older to have received training in the Turkish military. Since the vast majority of recruited men would have been younger than this age, it is simply silly to claim that these men had any relation to the tactics or morale of Turkish soldiers of World War I, any more than they bare resemblance to any other fighter fighting for his country. As such, the comments add no value to this article and should be removed. -- Ferengi 12:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, Christians typically did not serve in combat in the Ottoman army. Only after the Hat-i Sherif of Gulhane in the 1850s were Christians allowed to serve, and typically they went in labor battalions rather than combat battalions. 212.201.82.183 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe the Greeks from Anatolia knew better what it means to live under occupation so they might have fought more bravely not "because" of Ottomans, but actually in spite of them, but again those speculations even if done by people at that time should not be included into an Encyclopedia. -- AdrianTM 07:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added the tag "Disputed" because of the continuous cancellation by a group of Greeks of some paragraphs from renowned scholars.
The following paragraphs are not speculations of wikipedians, since are referenced:<<After the war, Italian commanders like General Prasca would compare the stubborn Greek resistance in Epirus with that of the Turks in the Dardanelles in World War I, and even go as far as attributing it to the large numbers of Anatolian Greeks serving in the Greek army (about one fourth of the recruits were from Anatolia) after the population exchange of 1923-24.[9] Furthermore, the English scholar Mack Smith wrote that many Greek recruits were the sons of those Greeks forced to move to the Kingdom of Greece. He added even that the Anatolian Greeks had the warrior mentality of the Ottomans.[10]>>. The first paragraph was written by the greek Plakidas and the references 9 and 10 can be found at the bottom of the article. Sincerely I don't see any racism in the above paragraphs, but I see a reality fact that can irritate only the most fanatic Greeks. And this irritated behaviour is NOT wikipedian. Many articles in Wikipedia irritate someone, but the admins defend the objectivity and the different opinions of all of us.-- Kemal2 23:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
That statement about the Anatolian Greeks can be true.They had fought against the Turks for so many years(:D) so they might have a little more expereience —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.38.10.145 ( talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I am really impressed by the fanaticism that some people employ to attribute a victory of one nation to the influence of their own. The Greek victory over the italians is attribute to the ottomans?? I remain utterly impressed by that notion and the fact that some people have managed to transform a wikipedia article over greek-italian war to an ottoman matter!! I ask all of you with historic nicknames to take your fight somewhere else. The huge advantage of the web is that you can simply change page by pressing a button and this discussion is really not historical nor scientific. so it simply does not worth our precious time. Everyone with real historical interest please avoid reading this. I for once do not think in writing again. Nico Madrid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.12.235 ( talk) 14:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Why are cancelled the scholar references (about the Anatolian Greeks)? Why this happens only in this greek article? Why in other articles -and I can cite many as examples- all the references from scholars are accepted without accusations of "unneeded nationalist or racial opinion"? There is it a greek lobby inside wikipedia? -- Kemal2 ( talk) 15:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Again the same repetition about most of the editors, but the problem is that ALL the editors are Greeks and friends of Greeks. If someone disagrees, the greek lobby will erase his writings and block him in a NOT democratic way, like has been done to me. Your comments, AdrianTM, are the proof of the existence of this lobby!-- Kemal2 ( talk) 22:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Kimon, seriously though, have you considered that perhaps this comment is not wrong: <....That statement about the Anatolian Greeks can be true.They had fought against the Turks for so many years(:D) so they might have a little more expereience ......>? and don't forget that wikipedia is based on consensus , but the consensus of all of us and NOT the consensus of a single group or lobby!-- Kemal2 ( talk) 22:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
noclador ( talk) 23:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Was the Greco-Italian War really part of World War II? Being that it didn't involve the Germans (Greece was weary of provoking them) and only limited air-support from the British, it would seem to me that it was a contemperous war, almost exactly like the Anglo-Iraqi War (British against Iraqi forces with limited air-support from the Germans).
Can someone provide sources one way or the other? Oberiko ( talk) 20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Also Iraq was definitely part of WWII - the Brits invaded because of the German threat to Britain's supplies of oil from there. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 18:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that you could put Ioannis Metaxas in the list of commanders also.
Was the Greco-Italian War really part of World War II? Being that it didn't involve the Germans (Greece was weary of provoking them) and only limited air-support from the British, it would seem to me that it was a contemperous war, almost exactly like the Anglo-Iraqi War (British against Iraqi forces with limited air-support from the Germans).
Can someone provide sources one way or the other? Oberiko ( talk) 20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Also Iraq was definitely part of WWII - the Brits invaded because of the German threat to Britain's supplies of oil from there. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 18:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that you could put Ioannis Metaxas in the list of commanders also.
I think that you could put Ioannis Metaxas in the list of commanders also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.58.248 ( talk) 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that you could put Ioannis Metaxas in the list of commanders also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.58.248 ( talk) 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Metaxas.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 05:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Metaxas.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 05:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The "Greco-Italian relations..." section, in discussing the Greek army, contains this:
I cannot make any sense of the fragment "regained some land". It might mean that the army was given some land (for exercises?) but it doesn't make grammatical sense in the context of the sentence.
What is the intended meaning? Molinari ( talk) 23:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The "Greco-Italian relations..." section, in discussing the Greek army, contains this:
I cannot make any sense of the fragment "regained some land". It might mean that the army was given some land (for exercises?) but it doesn't make grammatical sense in the context of the sentence.
What is the intended meaning? Molinari ( talk) 23:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The dispute concerns the following language:
1)Main original excerpt:
Furthermore, the english scholar Mack Smith wrote that many Greek recruits were the sons of those Greeks forced to move to the Kingdom of Greece (and had the warrior mentality of the Ottomans) [2]. He was referring to the excuse done by the Italian officers (like General Prasca) who wrongly influenced Mussolini to attack Greece. These officers used to say that "the Greeks in Epirus fought like the Greek Janissaries of the Turkish Army in the Dardanelles during WWI", and that their mistake (on believing in an easy two weeks war) was done because they did not realize that the Greek army was now full of "Anatolian Greeks" (from whom historically many Janissaries were recruited) after the 1923 exodus of one million Greeks from Anatolia [3]
2)secundary & successive excerpt:
After the war, Italian commanders like General Prasca would compare the stubborn Greek resistance in Epirus with that of the Turks in the Dardanelles in World War I and even go as far as attributing it to the large numbers of Anatolian Greeks serving in the Greek army after the population exchange of 1923-24. [4]One fourth of the Greek army soldiers in 1940 were from Anatolia and they fought in Epirus with a typical turkish fighting mentality (like the Turks did in the Dardanelles during WWI) [5]
-- Stlemur ( talk) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: I have added the main original excerpt from which has started all the problem. The secundary excerpt (added by Stlemur) is the result of modifications done successively and that don't give the right idea of the causes of the discussions about the writings of the scholar Mack Smith.-- Kemal2 ( talk) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
With all respect, Noclador, but what has to do the history of your Alpini in Greece with the discussion? If you do not approve what I and others write about the Anatolian Greeks in the Epirus campaign, it is OK for me, but why even the Italian Army? All the discussion is about the fighting mentality of the Anatolian Greeks, who were 1/3 of the recruits in the Greek Army in Epirus. As I wrote before: you should be the first to know that the fighting mentality in a population changes (remember the warrior mentality of the majority of the Romans and compare them to the majority of the Italian soldiers in WWII). Of course there were many factors in the Italian disaster in Epirus (I agree with you on this), but one certainly is related to what writes the scholar Mack Smith in the above main excerpt.
A "fighting mentality" indeed is a social characteristic, as a Greek wikipedian admitted in a former section of the talkpage. That means that it is created, modified and increased/reduced by external social factors. The Anatolian Greeks were influenced by the fighting mentality of the Ottomans for many centuries, this is an undeniable fact. The same has happened with the Germans (despised by Napoleon as soldiers but successively judged good warriors in WWI & WWII, thanks to the infusion of Prussian "fighting & warrior mentality" after the German unification) under the Prussian rule during the nineteenth century.
In the original excerpt Mack Smith clearly states that Prasca (with others) did an "excuse" to defend his mistakes: nobody doubts about his incompetency.
About the reference to the Janissaries: the officers declared as an excuse that "the Greeks in Epirus fought like the Greek Janissaries of the Turkish Army". What is wrong with this declaration? There were Greek Janissaries for many generations until the XIX century.
About the reference to the excuse of those officers (like Prasca) that: "their mistake (on believing in an easy two weeks war) was done because they did not realize that the Greek army was now full of "Anatolian Greeks" (from whom historically many Janissaries were recruited)". Again, what is wrong here? They are free to find an excuse and believe that those Anatolian Greeks made the difference in the Greek Army. And historically (until the XIX century) those Anatolian Greeks (converted to moslem religion in many cases) proved to be good warriors as Janissaries. Let's remember that most of the actual population of western Anatolia is Turkish today, but is mainly (ar least 60%) made of Greeks converted through five centuries of assimilation (even their DNA confirms this reality). And they assimilated not only the religion and language, but even the "warrior mentality of the Ottomans", as Mack Smith writes (and this assimilation/change has happened -for example- with the Prussian military education with the Germans in just one century).
Finally I want to remember what a wikipedian wrote in a preceding section of the talkpage: "That statement about the Anatolian Greeks can be true.They had fought against the Turks for so many years(:D) so they might have a little more expereience". I agree with him: those Italian officers knew very well the army of fascist Metaxas. They trained many Greek officers to fight on their side, but they did not know the mentality of those Anatolian Greeks and their stubborness, similar to that of the Ataturk troops in the Dardanelles in WWI and that was appreciated even by Churchill.
This is going to be my last edit (in the article & the talkpage). I am satisfied to see that a lot of wikipedians are paying attention to the discussion (THIS IS WHAT I WANTED!) and I respect the contrary opinions of many of them. With these "requested comments", the truth about the importance of the Anatolian Greeks' mentality in the Epirus campaign will come out soon or later, even if the Greek lobby keeps erasing and erasing. -- Kemal2 ( talk) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
WITH YOUR WAY OF THINKING ALL OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THE OTTOMAN WARRIOR MENTALITY OF THE ANATOLIAN GREEKS ,THEN,YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THAT THIS MENTALITY WAS INHERITED BY ANCIENT GREEKS.
THE WARRIOR MENTALITY OF OTTOMANS WAS INHERITTED BY THE WARRIOR MENTALITY OF BYZANTINES WHO TAUGHT THEM HOW TO FIGHT LEARNING THIS MENTALITY BY THEIR ANCESTORS THE ANCIENT GREEKS.
IF YOU DONT SUPPORT THIS THEN YOUR CLAIM IS REDICCULUS . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.18 ( talk) 12:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The dispute concerns the following language:
1)Main original excerpt:
Furthermore, the english scholar Mack Smith wrote that many Greek recruits were the sons of those Greeks forced to move to the Kingdom of Greece (and had the warrior mentality of the Ottomans) [6]. He was referring to the excuse done by the Italian officers (like General Prasca) who wrongly influenced Mussolini to attack Greece. These officers used to say that "the Greeks in Epirus fought like the Greek Janissaries of the Turkish Army in the Dardanelles during WWI", and that their mistake (on believing in an easy two weeks war) was done because they did not realize that the Greek army was now full of "Anatolian Greeks" (from whom historically many Janissaries were recruited) after the 1923 exodus of one million Greeks from Anatolia [7]
2)secundary & successive excerpt:
After the war, Italian commanders like General Prasca would compare the stubborn Greek resistance in Epirus with that of the Turks in the Dardanelles in World War I and even go as far as attributing it to the large numbers of Anatolian Greeks serving in the Greek army after the population exchange of 1923-24. [8]One fourth of the Greek army soldiers in 1940 were from Anatolia and they fought in Epirus with a typical turkish fighting mentality (like the Turks did in the Dardanelles during WWI) [9]
-- Stlemur ( talk) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: I have added the main original excerpt from which has started all the problem. The secundary excerpt (added by Stlemur) is the result of modifications done successively and that don't give the right idea of the causes of the discussions about the writings of the scholar Mack Smith.-- Kemal2 ( talk) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
With all respect, Noclador, but what has to do the history of your Alpini in Greece with the discussion? If you do not approve what I and others write about the Anatolian Greeks in the Epirus campaign, it is OK for me, but why even the Italian Army? All the discussion is about the fighting mentality of the Anatolian Greeks, who were 1/3 of the recruits in the Greek Army in Epirus. As I wrote before: you should be the first to know that the fighting mentality in a population changes (remember the warrior mentality of the majority of the Romans and compare them to the majority of the Italian soldiers in WWII). Of course there were many factors in the Italian disaster in Epirus (I agree with you on this), but one certainly is related to what writes the scholar Mack Smith in the above main excerpt.
A "fighting mentality" indeed is a social characteristic, as a Greek wikipedian admitted in a former section of the talkpage. That means that it is created, modified and increased/reduced by external social factors. The Anatolian Greeks were influenced by the fighting mentality of the Ottomans for many centuries, this is an undeniable fact. The same has happened with the Germans (despised by Napoleon as soldiers but successively judged good warriors in WWI & WWII, thanks to the infusion of Prussian "fighting & warrior mentality" after the German unification) under the Prussian rule during the nineteenth century.
In the original excerpt Mack Smith clearly states that Prasca (with others) did an "excuse" to defend his mistakes: nobody doubts about his incompetency.
About the reference to the Janissaries: the officers declared as an excuse that "the Greeks in Epirus fought like the Greek Janissaries of the Turkish Army". What is wrong with this declaration? There were Greek Janissaries for many generations until the XIX century.
About the reference to the excuse of those officers (like Prasca) that: "their mistake (on believing in an easy two weeks war) was done because they did not realize that the Greek army was now full of "Anatolian Greeks" (from whom historically many Janissaries were recruited)". Again, what is wrong here? They are free to find an excuse and believe that those Anatolian Greeks made the difference in the Greek Army. And historically (until the XIX century) those Anatolian Greeks (converted to moslem religion in many cases) proved to be good warriors as Janissaries. Let's remember that most of the actual population of western Anatolia is Turkish today, but is mainly (ar least 60%) made of Greeks converted through five centuries of assimilation (even their DNA confirms this reality). And they assimilated not only the religion and language, but even the "warrior mentality of the Ottomans", as Mack Smith writes (and this assimilation/change has happened -for example- with the Prussian military education with the Germans in just one century).
Finally I want to remember what a wikipedian wrote in a preceding section of the talkpage: "That statement about the Anatolian Greeks can be true.They had fought against the Turks for so many years(:D) so they might have a little more expereience". I agree with him: those Italian officers knew very well the army of fascist Metaxas. They trained many Greek officers to fight on their side, but they did not know the mentality of those Anatolian Greeks and their stubborness, similar to that of the Ataturk troops in the Dardanelles in WWI and that was appreciated even by Churchill.
This is going to be my last edit (in the article & the talkpage). I am satisfied to see that a lot of wikipedians are paying attention to the discussion (THIS IS WHAT I WANTED!) and I respect the contrary opinions of many of them. With these "requested comments", the truth about the importance of the Anatolian Greeks' mentality in the Epirus campaign will come out soon or later, even if the Greek lobby keeps erasing and erasing. -- Kemal2 ( talk) 05:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
WITH YOUR WAY OF THINKING ALL OF YOU WHO SUPPORT THE OTTOMAN WARRIOR MENTALITY OF THE ANATOLIAN GREEKS ,THEN,YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THAT THIS MENTALITY WAS INHERITED BY ANCIENT GREEKS.
THE WARRIOR MENTALITY OF OTTOMANS WAS INHERITTED BY THE WARRIOR MENTALITY OF BYZANTINES WHO TAUGHT THEM HOW TO FIGHT LEARNING THIS MENTALITY BY THEIR ANCESTORS THE ANCIENT GREEKS.
IF YOU DONT SUPPORT THIS THEN YOUR CLAIM IS REDICCULUS . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.52.18 ( talk) 12:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
A couple times a year I come and reread this article. I've noticed this time that it has been gutted of much of its' appeal. Where are all the quotes and photos? What was once an exciting, immersive article, it now feels bare bones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
A couple times a year I come and reread this article. I've noticed this time that it has been gutted of much of its' appeal. Where are all the quotes and photos? What was once an exciting, immersive article, it now feels bare bones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The Greco-Italian war has produced thousands of pictures on both sides. When I was small I remember an encyclopedia on the war with thousands of pictures in the library. Yet on this encyclopedia there are very rare to find, not the mention a simple google image search. I believe that at the end at least of this article there should be alot of pictures from this war. Perhaps I can provide the editors with pitcures if you wish to add historical "color" to this article, or better upload them myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Constantineix ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The Greco-Italian war has produced thousands of pictures on both sides. When I was small I remember an encyclopedia on the war with thousands of pictures in the library. Yet on this encyclopedia there are very rare to find, not the mention a simple google image search. I believe that at the end at least of this article there should be alot of pictures from this war. Perhaps I can provide the editors with pitcures if you wish to add historical "color" to this article, or better upload them myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Constantineix ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
it's a good article but i'd like to see more pictures and map at the discription of the actual war, i cant get a good image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.99.4.52 ( talk) 18:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
No free material found so far... Off course there are plenty of nice pictures to show but unfortunately there are cp problems. Off course next year the cp status of most pictures taken during 1940 will be lifted... Alexikoua ( talk) 20:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
it's a good article but i'd like to see more pictures and map at the discription of the actual war, i cant get a good image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.99.4.52 ( talk) 18:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
No free material found so far... Off course there are plenty of nice pictures to show but unfortunately there are cp problems. Off course next year the cp status of most pictures taken during 1940 will be lifted... Alexikoua ( talk) 20:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
i just read this funny converstation abt the mentality of greek warriors who came from anatolia. If some persons support that many anatolian greeks were influenced by the barbarian methods of turkish army and they transfered it to the greco-italian war in Albania,i think they are completely ignorant abt the social structure in Greece before the WW2
These refugees were not professional soldiers but mainly farmers or traders.Also in Greece the first years when they came their situation was very difficult and many of them i guess they hated the Greek State for its mistakes abt their situation.They were not "barbarian ottoman monsters" fighting all the time ,but simple people;it is strange that many of them they didnt even purticipated in the greco-turkish war in minor asia!i can say that they were more peaceful and less nationalists than traditional local greeks
if someone is wondered abt the reasons of greek victory,the better that has to do is to take a look at the terrible italian mistakes during the war and the perfect preparation of Greece and greek army during the pre-WW2 years
Greco22 ( talk) 23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
References include Papagos(who was the leader of the Greek army), official Greek textbooks, Hadjipateras who uses personal experiences as told by Greek soldiers of the war, the Army General Staff of Greece and David Irving, a Holocaust denier. Due to the amount of such references, I'll add the pov template.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC) The memories of Leni Riefenstahl are being used as a source for this:
-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
After reading more I found out that official Italian texbooks and Sebastiano Visconti Prasca are used as sources.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The mere use of biased sources does not necessarily make the article itself POV. In fact sources with opposite biases may well cancel each other out. It's the editor's job to ensure that the article is NPOV, regardless of the biases of its references. ZjarriRrethues is too strict on judging POV, IMO, otherwise any and all official histories of every war ever published would be unusable as being POV, which is nonsense.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 02:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with what the Wikipedia naming conventions are, but I don't feel comfortable with the fact that some of the cities in this arcticle are referred to by their Italian or Greek denominations. I understand Albania was occupied at the time, but did this mean that the cities kept changing their names back and forth as they changed hands? jonosphere ( talk) 14:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not very familiar with what the Wikipedia naming conventions are, but I don't feel comfortable with the fact that some of the cities in this arcticle are referred to by their Italian or Greek denominations. I understand Albania was occupied at the time, but did this mean that the cities kept changing their names back and forth as they changed hands? jonosphere ( talk) 14:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)