![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Who says that Greco-Turkish war is improper English? Sounds perfect to me, is used in many secondary sources. Deadjune1 ( talk) 17:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Under : Occupation of İzmir (Smyrna) (May 1919)
The article seems to contradict itself: "By contrast, the Turkish population saw this as an invading force, as they resented the Greeks" with later on under Massacres the citation of 48, where a "British Officer" allegedly supports that the Turks where submissive and would cooperate with any occupying force ... Maybe one should reconsider making assumptions like "as they resented the Greeks" which might be true for a few but are not easily supported.-- Yparjis ( talk) 19:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1. Turkey --> Turk --> Turkish
Greece --> Greek > Greek
e.g. :
Turkish Goverment - Greek Goverment, not Greco Goverment
Turkish Parliament - Greek Parliament
Turkish market - Greek Market
Turkish War - Greek War
and so on...
Greek-Turkish War
Greco does not exist in any dictionary or under any grammatical form in English.
2. Additionally, Greco-Turkish war has to be specific. Turkey is a state after 1923 therefore a war with Turkey cannot be earlier than that.
3. The title is misleading since Greece occupied this area as a result of 1st world war. Other forces were British and French troops whom reports are recalled within the article. There was no war against a state that did not exist nor Greece had occupied this area beforehand.
I would strongly suggest a revision of title since it is both improper and misleading.
Suggestions :
Asia Minor Conflict
Anatolia Conflict
Greek Occupation of Asia Minor
Occupation of Asia Minor
Post World War Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire
Ottoman Empire Partitioning
-- Yparjis ( talk) 21:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
After looking at the press articles of that era I have to agree that this term is commonly used. Therefore, I would only suggest the change based on grammatical and aesthetics claims. --
Yparjis (
talk)
22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I am starting a citation oriented verification of this article. I am Greek so you may dislike me, tag me, judge as whatever fits your personal label-tagging system. Nevertheless, sources and citations should be verified so that quotation of text is in context.
Here are some rules in a way that I shall try to verify sources.
Proposition 1: "Absolutely Authoritative"Â : An authoritative source may not be absolutely authoritative.
Proposition 2: "On authoritative source"Â : Person A who is somewhat authoritative in a field X is not necessarily authoritative outside that field.
Proposition 3: "On cross validation"Â : Two sources validate if and only if they are in consensus and they are independent.
Proposition 4: "Transfer of Credibility"Â : Quotation of a somewhat authoritative person A in a field X of a quotation of the sayings of person B, whom the latter may be of unknown credibility, does not necessary make person B or person's B sayings credible and or authoritative. Unless sufficient cross validation is provided.
Citation - Specifics:
Not cited: "The National Schism in Greece..."Â : This is not cited at all and seems superficial and speculative. It might improve the credibility of the section to provide some exact citing.
Should be removed:
"Historian Taner Akcam noted that a British officer claimed:[43] ... The National forces ... "
This falls under proposition "transfer of credibility". My personal opinion is that taking a look at the book, the scope of this is to reflect the opinion of the British that everyone was doing ethnic cleansing. Therefore, this is out of context here since the original quotation of the author does not serve the purpose here. This was to show the opinion of someone without attributing credibility. Second, the source "A British officer" is anonymous and unverifiable.Please consider revising.
Toynbee seems to be the main source. Since I could not access the related pages online, I will get back to this once i have the relative material from the library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yparjis ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC) -- Yparjis ( talk) 16:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
THE ARTICLE is using FOUR principal sources as references. The section under dispute (Greek Massacres) is solely based upon the views of A.J. Toynbee and his book . It is controversial how one that states : "noted that it was the Greek landings that created the Turkish Nationalist Movement led by Mustafa Kemal and it is almost certain that if the Greeks had never landed at Smyrna, the consequent atrocities on the Turkish side would not have occurred" (A.J. Toynbee) in the same book p.312 . It is controversial since under this source "«1,000,000 Greeks Killed?» January 1 1918 p.15 New York Times" there seems to be a bias on the side of the Turks. Certainly, A.J. Toynbee has to be cross-referenced. Cross - referencing does not mean referencing another source (i.e. another page ) of the same book. --
Yparjis (
talk)
01:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Please comment, the change was to
"By contrast, the majority of the muslim population saw this as an invading force. Some Turks resented the Greeks due to long history of conflict and antagonism. Nevertheless, the Greek landings were received by and large passively, only facing sporadic resistance"
Is not perfect, but reads less generalising and better English.
Deadjune1 (
talk)
17:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Response
Words like "Some" and "majority" are difficult to be supported. What you can back is either they resented the Greeks or they did not. I would rephrase it:
"In contrast, a part of the Turkish population perceived this as an invasion due to a long history of antagonism and conflict (cite most recent conflicts). Though, there was only fading sporadic resistance which implies the occupation's passive endowment by the Turkish population."
-- Yparjis ( talk) 21:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments, but is probably impossible to avoid
words someone might consider weasel words. Is not that there was a scientific survey of the population with the question "do you like the Greek occupation". The above is through extrapolation. If you have any direct evidence, please use it in a objective edit. Anything I searched reads "some of the Turks", ... and I cannot give any more precise facts or numbers. Still it reads better from a generalising "all-or-nobody" statement. The passivity is a well documented fact though.
I propose to leave it for now, this paragraph has much potential for abuse Deadjune1 ( talk) 19:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1-Hey is the above a joke or something? Are you inventing your own grammatical rules? Have you noticed that there is a HYPHEN and when "Greece" forms composite words the word becomes AS A RULE Grec- and the o is euphonic? Check Greco-Italian War, Greco-Roman world, etc etc etc etc. This is the standard, correct English. Deadjune1 ( talk)
2-The argument that "Turkey" did not exist is a valid one, but this is an Encyclopedia, which means compilation of secondary sources, not original ideas or research. I agree that the term that reflects the political entities in conflict would have been Greekkingdomgovermento-Turkonationalistankarabased War, but you see what I mean with this absurd example... It was a war between Greece and a big part of Turkey, and it is mostly recorded as such, don't spent time on such minor points. Anyway, most sources of the time referred to the Ottoman empire as Turkey for decades and decades before 1923, is not a super-major difference... Deadjune1 ( talk) 19:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I added some of the reasons why Venizelos lost the election, is wrong to assume that the Greeks just voted about the war, as usually the case all over the world, people vote-out a government mostly for the economy and internal politics, and that was the case here as well. Nobody really believed that Constantine will withdraw from Turkey the next day, that's naive to support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadjune1 ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I re edited this paragraph which was an old creation of mine dating back at least 2 years. I read many books in the meanwhile and I also thought it was a bit mix and match between moral, military and financial reasons. I do not think the previous made as clear the financial isolation of Greece after November 1921, also it needs to be said that Kemal was a great and shrewed leader that knew how to manipulate conflicting powers into one front. especially his claim for Jihad and the admiration by the Muslims of India is funny when one thinks that he was far from religious and probably his major contribution to Turkey was the founding of a secular state.
Please make good-will corrections and additions but please keep the idea of reasons divided between
FINANCIAL/LOGISTIC + MILITARY/STRATEGY + MORAL/EMOTIONAL/MOTIVATIONS
Hope you like Deadjune1 ( talk) 15:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Source and Quotatins must NOT be in English. Türk Tarih Kurumu (Turkish Historical Society) is among most respected historical societies in the World. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.13.55 ( talk) 21:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Could someone revert the anonymous edit made on Jan 4? It was an automated substitution of the words Moslem and Constantinople by Muslim and Istanbul, respectively, thoughout the whole text. (I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure about how one is to revert a "bad" edit that precedes at least one "good" edit without harming the latter one.) I don't have any opinion at all on which of the two conventions should be followed in the article. The problem is that the substitution was blind: i) it changed quoted passages that contained the former words, and ii) it created so-to-speak monstrous misconstructions, such as a sentence claiming that the Megali Idea referred to (the recovery of) Istanbul, which sounds really odd since Istanbul was a name that the Greeks found offensive as a reference to Constantinople back then (many still do, but this is totally irrelevant). Omnipaedista ( talk) 11:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of using "Constantinople" as a city name, but only because it wasn't renamed Istanbul until 1930, and this article predates 1930, and not because Constantinople is more familiar to English speakers. Istanbul should probably be used in post 1930 articles. However, I disagree with using "Smyrna" as a city name. Izmir was not renamed in the 30's. In regards to Smyrna, Wikipedia itself states about Smyrna, "This article is about the ancient Greek city. For the modern city, see Ä°zmir." So Wikipedia's own standards tell us that we should be using Izmir. To say we should use Smyrna instead is akin to saying we should still be using Peking instead of Beijing just because it is more familiar to English speakers. Just because something is unfamiliar to us as English speakers, it doesn't mean it is incorrect, and that attitude shows a bit of prejudice in my opinion. Zargon2010 ( talk) 10:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the disagreement over "Ottoman-occupied" part in this sentence;
"The Megali Idea was an irredentist vision of a restoration of a Greater Greece on both sides of the Aegean that would incorporate Ottoman-occupied territories with Greek populations outside the borders of the Kingdom of Greece, which was initially very small."
After first reading it, I also had an issue with "Ottoman-occupied". Then I realized what the sentence was trying to say.
"The Megali Idea...." is what this sentence is all about. Therefore, this part;
"was an irredentist vision of a restoration of a Greater Greece on both sides of the Aegean that would incorporate Ottoman-occupied territories with Greek populations outside the borders of the Kingdom of Greece"
..is the definition of "The Megali Idea".
Now the minor change I am suggesting.
"The Megali Idea, an irredentist vision of the restoration of a Greater Greece on both sides of the Aegean that would include Ottoman territories with Greek populations outside the borders of the Kingdom of Greece."
Good? Bad? Thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, don't get me wrong i think this is a good article, but i just have one question. Not one of the articles on the Greco-Turkish war or the treaty of Lausanne explain what compelled the Greeks to give up Thrace. I mean it was Ethnically Greek, they controlled it and i can't see how the Turks would have got Thrace by force so why did the Greeks give it up, seems a bit weak to me unless there is some reason for their action. English Bobby ( talk) 11:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Greece evacuted Eastern Thrace under the cease-fire agreement of Mudania. According to this agreemtn, Eastern Thrace was to be evacuated by all military forces, and only a small number of turkish policemen would keep the order. The agreement was actually signed between the big-three allies (France-Britain-Italy) and Turkey. Greece did not sign it, but in order to take effect Greece had to ratify it as well. At the time, great events were happening in Greece, as two greek colonels who had just retreated to the Aegean from Asia Minor, with some 15,000 men, landed in Athens and overthrew the government (which late they executed). Initially they were very reluctant to reatify the Mudanya agreement, but Venizelos, the political leader of the opposition advised them (the colonels) to do it, in order to focus to the internal situation. Greece signed the agreemetn eventually. However Turkey didn't follow her word. Insted of a few thousand police, Turkey transported some 35,000 troops (4 active and 2 reserve infantry divisions), capturing de facto Eastern Thrace. Greece resented that greatly, and in fact Greece was about to launch an invasion to Eastern Thrace with some 115,000 men, when the Lausanne Treaty was finally accepted by Turkey. The difference was tha Turkey accepted to not ask for any war compensation from Greece (as she normally should, given that the entire war was fought within turkish borders, and the anatolian land was badly devastated). So, essentially, Greece exchanged Eastern Thrace with the money she would give Turkey otherwise.-- Xristar ( talk) 15:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear fellows, I fail to see the reason to why the claims of massacres from both sides take place in an article concerning the Greco-Turkish War. The claims give no explanation to what happend in the war, they only make the article difficult to read. If we are to put possible burnings and killings of every village in every wars please do not fail mention them on every single war article. The reasons above state why I have deleted the unneccasary material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Yup I deleted the claims of massacre of the Young Turks against the Armenians in 1915. Still don't understand why but I think Greek army just lost the war so they have to make the Turkish army look dirty. Anyway, the Armenian claims are disputed and overrated. In Turkish view, there are 665.000 Turks massacred by the Dashnak Sutyun terrorists aswell as they killen Armenians that don't obey Dashnaks. City to city revolt killed a lot of citizens. What resulted in 500.000+ Armenians killed plus less than 200.000 Armenians die in the Syrian desert because of lack of doctors and medicals. Thats makes 1,365.000+ deaths in the revoltfrom 1914-1915. Besides Armenians are good in massacring Azeri and Turkish people too in 1918 and later in 1992 Susha what do you say? Armenians burnt Greeks alive when Turkish army recaptured Izmir and pushed it to the Turkish army. Armenians claim 1,500.000 death by cause of Turkish systematic etnic cleansing. Armenian population was 1,4 million world wide then. Armenians just added 500,000 Armenians who became muslim, 500,000 Armenians really killed in the revolt plus they count Turkish deaths as Armenian death. So, if there is an Armenian genocide, there is also a Turkish and Azerbaijani genocide. Pleese keep clear minds before writing such things as something without proof is not a fact. Armenians try to ratify their claims without a basis accepted by the world. Bribery...
please remove this massacres bullshit .it has nothing to do with greco turkish war . mmm, so losers who caanot win war at battle fields ,try to win war at wikipedia . what a pity this aricle is about greco turkish war .stop tarshing the article
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sonertje80 (
talk •
contribs)
19:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not see how the so called massacre of Armenians in an article adressing the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922 beneficial to the article. This is becouse it has no relevence with the subject at hand. Please edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
please remove this massacres bullshit .those idiots working with foreign goverments try to write shit on wikipedia all the time. this massucure bs is nonsense it has nothing to do with greco turkish war .some idiots put that to overshadow the war . there is no need some sneaky racist propaganda in wikipedia. remove all the racist propaganda please
It is important that events such as these are reported accurately. It is not a nationalist POV to note that it is a known fact where the fire was started (with eye-witness reports). It is not nationalist POV to note that the burning of Smyrna was organised by the Turkish Army (since there are eye-witness reports that confirm this and all of this is referenced in detail in the article about the Great Fire of Smyrna). The paragraph is a concise report of what happened. Reducing the paragraph excludes important facts (not nationalist POV). Nipsonanomhmata ( talk)
"During the confusion and anarchy that followed, a great portion of the city was set ablaze in the Great Fire of Smyrna, and the properties of the Greeks were pillaged. Eye-witness reports clearly identified where the fire was started and who started it. Moreover, the fact that only the Greek and Armenian quarters of the city were burned, and that the Turkish quarter stood, confirms the organised burning of Smyrna by the Turkish Army despite Mustafa Kemal's proclamation." Nipsonanomhmata ( talk) 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It is important for you to state who the eye witnesses are and what they nationality is. It would not be very credible if the witness was Greek, Turk or British. I can say that according to eye witnesses the Greeks/Turkish raided 1,000 vilages.Without substatiated proof you can not claim the Turkish forces started the fire. If you do have the means to support your claims I would be happy to see them. I also find it hard to believe the Turkish army would try to burn the city, or parts of it that they would reside in after the war.Would you burn your house? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
About the second issue, using the term Ottoman occupied, this is simply ridiculous and you can only read such an expression in your Greek high school books, not anywhere else. Neither of these are part of this article.
I removed a passage from Stanford J. Shaw, a well-known Turkish apologist and genocide denialist. His History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, co-written with his Turkish wife Ezel Kural Shaw, has been widely criticized by historians [2]. It is completely unacceptable to just plonk it down into the article as accepted fact. I call on all editors active in this article to avoid using such ultra-partisan sources. Athenean ( talk) 20:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Seksen iki yuz kirk bes, who seems greatly interested in expanding the "Greek massacres of Turks" section and not much else [3] added today yet another quote to the section, which is already a quotefarm. For me that was one quote too many. There are already five quotes, we do not need a sixth. I don't care how reliable the source is, at this point we are deep into WP:UNDUE. I have added a quotefarm tag, as the use of quotes is excessive. I can see having one or two quotes, but five? No way. Cutting and pasting direct quotes from sources is poor editing form and not a substitute for actual editing. Wikipedia is not a repository of quotes. Athenean ( talk) 06:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The section on "Greek massacres of Turks" repeats much of the same things over and over for effect. For example:
The quotes from James Harbord is particularly POV, using dated language and highly partisan. In short, this section doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, but more like a partisan website. Tagged accordingly. Athenean ( talk) 06:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Yet, it is important to stress that both Inter-Allied commission and the representative of the Red Cross, M. Gehri, points out the systemic nature of atrocities. Statements about the atrocities can be similar, there is no problem with that. In fact the section about the Turkish massacres of Greek are full of, in your wording, "highly partisan" and "identical" statements.
So I'm restoring the quotation of M. Gehri, being the first hand testimony of a human right organization member, it is important to give a place to his writings in this sub-section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.166.64 ( talk) 08:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The specific section suffers from wp:quotefarm, moreover Gehri's description is already mentioned in the text. I'll check the rest of the quotes in order to remove and replace them with the approriate context. Alexikoua ( talk) 14:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The description of events as witnessed by a Red Cross representative is not "quotefarming", is illustrative of a point that the Greek army has pursued a near systematic policy of ethnic cleansing at least in parts of the occupied territories. Therefore, this quotation is important for this sub-section titled as "claims of ethnic cleansing by both sides". If you insist on deleting it, I am going to follow a dispute resolution process for that single quotation alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.91.37 ( talk) 16:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems with each new day you are going to show up with a new senseless excuse just to censure information about the atrocities Greek state and Greeks have committed, just like you have been doing in the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus article.
Well the difference between you and me is that I don't delete anything, so feel free to cite Blue Book, Red Book or a Grey Book in any article of Wikipedia.
Secondly, this is not the Blue Book which is cited here, a different book published in the year 1922. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.91.37 ( talk) 17:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that, when the part titled "Atrocities and claims of ethnic cleansing by both sides" would be removed and transfered to a new article Massacres and Atrocities during the Greco-Turkish War of 1919–1922, it will be very useful and convenient for both users and readers. Needless to say massacres and atrocities also were important parts of this war. However, the quantity of related part increased to 20,615 bytes (except related part, the text and sources count 54,776 bytes). It's tooooooo large and we can open a new article only with this topic. With this large part, this war looks to be consisted only of massacres and atrocities. Moreover, as long as I know, edit wars took place especcially about related part. So we can more easily and more productively improve this article, without related part. Takabeg ( talk) 22:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
A sound approach should be to fix the existing section in this article first, since it suffers from wp:QUOTEFARM. I believe creating poor articles without enough context and repeating same-style quotes isn't the best we can do here. Alexikoua ( talk) 18:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I also support Takabeg's idea the reason for this is as follows. The article, as said before is too large to navigate properly. It is under wikipedia guidlines that an article this magnitude should be broken down in to forks. It is only appropriate that one of the bigest segments of the article should be formed in to a new page, which in this case is the atrocities performed by both parties. This is also beneficial for this page as it improves navigation and the new page. This means the new page can be subjected to subject specific discussion and the chances of turning it in to a proper article rather than a quote farm are increased. However if it remains here its chances of improvement are lower. Regards, Tugrulirmak ( talk) 18:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The territories in northern Greece and Crete were clearly "Ottoman-occupied". They were occupied by force and against the will of the vast majority people for three and a half centuries. That doesn't stop them from being "Ottoman-occupied". There is no time limit on occupation. Nipsonanomhmata ( talk)
The greeks too ar occupying land from neantherthals heck the whole human species has taken and occupied land that was owned by animals but wait animals took it from bacteria and occupied it! Do you know how childish your argument is? Land is won and lost deal with it. If you ask me there should be no such term... Tugrulirmak ( talk) 18:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I waited for someone to do it but nobody volunteered, eventually I rewrote the National Schism paragraph to make it more relevant to this war. I also tried to shorten it, for details someone can visit the full article.
Then I did a bit of TLC and clean-up in the events, there were still some extrapolations and overlaps that made it look obvious that it was written by 20 different editors, I think now is more smooth and progressive. I did not dare touch the attrocities bit, is still very poor in style with those horrible lists of primary sources and witnesses, but I guess is impossible to change, (see Archives to understand) Deadjune1 ( talk) 11:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC) WARNING:this person calls himself "deadjune1"is an internet terorrist working for racist governments. he is adding so called genocide posts to overshadow the article. this article is about greco turkish war thats it.article has nothing to do with so called genosides . please report these kind of cowards . edit it please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.30.210 ( talk) 05:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Can I kindly request that no Greek or Turkish half-wit touches anything without good justification and discussion comments? Deadjune1 ( talk) 11:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It is strongly necessary to prove that, your references for so-called Greek and Armenian Genocides of Turkish Government in Anatolia were not propaganda materials to justify Greek Agression for those days. Otherwise it is not possible to consider those references as acceptable sources.Thank you.. [GA] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.231.237.55 ( talk) 15:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Gehri quotation is highly important and it comes from a reliable source. There is no reason to delete it unless one is intended to vandalize wikipedia. -- 212.175.32.139 ( talk) 13:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I deleted the blockquote and just re-wrote that passage just like that user had done. Is it ok now?
Btw, why are you not deleting the repetitive parts in the Turkish masacres of Greek section?
You're kidding right, there are about 10 newspaper articles in the Turkish massacres section making identitical remarks without providing much specific data. Any why does it bother you so much to have two sentences, which incidentally seems to have been part of this article for years, about the atrocities in Yalova? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.85.27 ( talk) 22:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The citation provide the observations of a human right organization at a specific time and specific place, unlike most of the vague descriptions one can find in both the Greek and Turkish massacres section, thus in fact it is one of the last citations to be deleted from the article. It's the point that I have been repeating all the time. The fact that there is just another report on this issue prepared by Inter allied commission is no reason to delete it, these two reports in fact support each other and together make a sound claim. By deleting one of them, you're making it a less reliable argument.
So let me reiterate the point then, I argue that it is "one of the last citations to be deleted from the article" because it is first from a reliable source, then about a specific atrocity which occurred at a specific time. Most of the quotations in both massacres sections are full of vague descriptions when this particular citation is not. Furthermore, when put together with the report of the Inter allied commission, it does make a sound claim about the near systmatic nature of atrocities and ethnic cleansing. No reason to add a 3rd or 4th quotation btw, 2 citation is enough about the massacres of Yalova Gemlik peninsula.
And please avoid personal attacks when discussing an issue.-- 78.176.85.27 ( talk) 22:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Athenean I seriously do not understand your behavior in regard to wanting to delete this particular citation in such a persistent manner, seriously we both are wasting our time.
I don't like topic on atrocities, massacres, genocide. But unfortunately sometime we have to deal with such topics. I compared two editions (
User:Athenean and
User:Gob Lofa)
User:Athenean remove two paragraphs as follows:
Inter-Allied commission and M. Gehri, the representative of the Geneva International Red Cross, have presented two similar reports in regard to the atrocities Greek forces committed in the Yalova-Gemlik Peninsula in the year 1921. In their report of the 23rd May 1921, Inter-Allied commission stated that:</nowiki> [1]</nowiki>
Red Cross representative M. Gehri wrote that the established facts as of burning of villages and massacres left no room for doubt that: "...The Greek army of occupation have been employed in the extermination of the Muslim population of the Yalova-Gemlik peninsula."<ref name="Toynbee 1922 285">{{harv|Toynbee|1922|p=285}}</ref>
With these removal, the name of M. Gehri, Red Cross etc... And the extermination of the Muslim population is hidden. This is important part that was used in this repot. Because this indicated an attempted genocide.
I think that we can merge these paragragh. Or we can create new article with the title Greek atrocities in the Yalova-Gemlik peninsula ( Turkish: Yalova-Gemlik katliamı) and son on. I'm not sure that this title is appropriate to this massacres, because not only Gemlik and Yalova, but also Karamürsel, İznik was mentioned in the secret session of the Grand National Assembly at the time. Are there Greek sources on this atrocities ? Takabeg ( talk) 03:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Athenean, you are persistently trying to impose your views without trying to come to any agreement. I have deleted the blockquotation from Gehri and reduce it to a simple sentence with the hope that we might perhaps finally settle with it even though I thought blockquoting made more sense. To inform the reader that there were two separate collobarating reports, one from Inter-allied commission and the other from Red Cross, is surely not quotefarming. Furthermore, these are two collobarating piece of reports both of which needs citation.
-- Anapad ( talk) 15:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Should this [4] quote of M. Gehri be kept or removed? I feel it is completely redundant and contains no information already conveyed by the blockquote from the Inter-Allied Commission. A couple of Turkish users object and discussion has now stalled. See related talkpage threads [5] [6]. Athenean ( talk) 06:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
If Gehri's report is quite similar to the report prepared by the Interallied commission, this similarity itself needs to be stressed in such articles about the atrocities. The very existence of two separate reports make a much more reliable claim that the Greek army had committed systematic atrocities in Yalova-Gemlik. Plus, Gehri quote does stress in more certain terms that the Greek army has been "exterminating" the population of Yalova Gemlik peninsula. -- 78.176.85.27 ( talk) 08:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I found another Maurice Gehri publishing titled as Prisons Russes (Russian Prisons) published in the year 1909. [7] He seems to have been long involved in recording human rights abuses. Toynbee's book is accessible to me and he clearly points out that there are two reports prepared by the commission and Gehri. It might be possible though that Gehri made a publishing on the issue which also contained the ınter-allied commission report.
I also found a Turkish source which claim that there was a separate Inter-allied commission consisted of British, French and Italian officers and the leading figures of this comission were "Bristol, Bunoust, Hare, Dall'Orlo". According to that source there was also a separate "investigation comission" for the Red Cross led by M. Gehri. (unfortunately it is written in the Turkish language) [8] -- Anapad ( talk) 18:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC) -- Anapad ( talk) 18:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
WikiDao removed Naimark's book with the comment rm ref -- there is no mention of the "inter-allied commision" in this book. But Naimark wrote:
The commissioners wrote of the 'burning and looting of Turkish villages' and the explosion of violence of Greeks and Armenians against the Turks. At the same time, the commissioners noted that the depredations seemed to take place by design There is a systematic plan of destruction and extinction of the Moslem population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian hands, which appear to operate under Greek instruction and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops.
If need, we can see Adam Jones's Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (p. 176), Michael Llewellyn Smith's Ionian vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922 (p. 213) etc... Thank you. Takabeg ( talk) 23:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikidao, we are talking about the same report which is cited in Toynbee's book as well as Naimark's. I put here the exact citation from Toynbee, (p. 283-4) the Inter-Allied Commission in the Yalova-Gemlik Peninsula, in their report of the 23rd May 1921, summed up as follows: The commission endeavoured to arrive at the causes of which, in less than two months, brought about the destruction or evacuation of nearly all the Moslem villages of that part of the kazas of Yalova and Guemlek which is occupied by the Greeks...there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Moslem population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian bands, which appear to operate under Greek instructions and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops.
As you see these two are identitical, in the quotation from Naimark's book it is written that "there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Moslem population". Therefore, there is no question that Naimark too was citing the same report of the Inter-Allied commission, dating 23rd May 1921.-- Anapad ( talk) 19:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
"1.5 million captured Ottoman rifles from World War I, one million Russian rifles, one million Mannlicher rifles, as well as some older British Martini-Henry rifles and 25,000 bayonets would be delivered to the Kemalist forces."
minimum total makes 3,5 million riffles. Also let us not forget ottoman inventories were preyed by both turks and allies, what would an army of roughly 200 thousands do with that many riffles. Using them is illogical( 20 arms per capita), keeping them would be a huge problem, even transporting them is almost impossible. Also let us not forget, Soviets were dealing with their problems (Soviet civil war). Which is far from making sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.165.143 ( talk) 06:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please clarify as to how the Greco-Turkish war can relate to the "massacre" of Armenians in the south and east of Turkey where the war was no where near. The war could not have affected this places. There is also the fact that the said events happened prior to Turkish defeat by the allied forces and when the Armenians were already deported so to say there was any atrocities committed upon large swathes of Armenians during a war which raged in the western end of Turkey is nothing but utter historical revisionism. The inclusion of the events of 1915 and until the Turkish surrender has its own place in other articles; and should not do so in this irrelevant article. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
APOLOGIES I had to delete a whole paragraph from there rather than make effort to save it for 3 reasons 1-Is badly written and does not flow well with the rest, is obviously an insertion of mostly irrelevant references with no editing 2-Is not clearly addressing the title of the paragraph 3- Accuracy is very dubious, e.g there was minimal (or none) input of the British in the equipment or training of the Greek Army, their training was largely independent since the last French mission in 1910, and equipment was mainly Austrian and French. British support was in loans and diplomacy.
To the fellow writer, feel free to use this info, but make it more clear how it addreses the title, and cross-check as factually has great issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.133 ( talk) 09:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Would you consider changing the title Greco-Turkish War to Greek-Turkish War or maybe Anatolia Confict, in order that this may be written in proper English?-- Yparjis ( talk) 16:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
the map of greece from 1910-1920 is wrong, greece captured crete in 1908 but it is shown as not a part of greece in 1910, when it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.139.9 ( talk) 04:34, 19 June 2012 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Who says that Greco-Turkish war is improper English? Sounds perfect to me, is used in many secondary sources. Deadjune1 ( talk) 17:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Under : Occupation of İzmir (Smyrna) (May 1919)
The article seems to contradict itself: "By contrast, the Turkish population saw this as an invading force, as they resented the Greeks" with later on under Massacres the citation of 48, where a "British Officer" allegedly supports that the Turks where submissive and would cooperate with any occupying force ... Maybe one should reconsider making assumptions like "as they resented the Greeks" which might be true for a few but are not easily supported.-- Yparjis ( talk) 19:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
1. Turkey --> Turk --> Turkish
Greece --> Greek > Greek
e.g. :
Turkish Goverment - Greek Goverment, not Greco Goverment
Turkish Parliament - Greek Parliament
Turkish market - Greek Market
Turkish War - Greek War
and so on...
Greek-Turkish War
Greco does not exist in any dictionary or under any grammatical form in English.
2. Additionally, Greco-Turkish war has to be specific. Turkey is a state after 1923 therefore a war with Turkey cannot be earlier than that.
3. The title is misleading since Greece occupied this area as a result of 1st world war. Other forces were British and French troops whom reports are recalled within the article. There was no war against a state that did not exist nor Greece had occupied this area beforehand.
I would strongly suggest a revision of title since it is both improper and misleading.
Suggestions :
Asia Minor Conflict
Anatolia Conflict
Greek Occupation of Asia Minor
Occupation of Asia Minor
Post World War Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire
Ottoman Empire Partitioning
-- Yparjis ( talk) 21:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
After looking at the press articles of that era I have to agree that this term is commonly used. Therefore, I would only suggest the change based on grammatical and aesthetics claims. --
Yparjis (
talk)
22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I am starting a citation oriented verification of this article. I am Greek so you may dislike me, tag me, judge as whatever fits your personal label-tagging system. Nevertheless, sources and citations should be verified so that quotation of text is in context.
Here are some rules in a way that I shall try to verify sources.
Proposition 1: "Absolutely Authoritative"Â : An authoritative source may not be absolutely authoritative.
Proposition 2: "On authoritative source"Â : Person A who is somewhat authoritative in a field X is not necessarily authoritative outside that field.
Proposition 3: "On cross validation"Â : Two sources validate if and only if they are in consensus and they are independent.
Proposition 4: "Transfer of Credibility"Â : Quotation of a somewhat authoritative person A in a field X of a quotation of the sayings of person B, whom the latter may be of unknown credibility, does not necessary make person B or person's B sayings credible and or authoritative. Unless sufficient cross validation is provided.
Citation - Specifics:
Not cited: "The National Schism in Greece..."Â : This is not cited at all and seems superficial and speculative. It might improve the credibility of the section to provide some exact citing.
Should be removed:
"Historian Taner Akcam noted that a British officer claimed:[43] ... The National forces ... "
This falls under proposition "transfer of credibility". My personal opinion is that taking a look at the book, the scope of this is to reflect the opinion of the British that everyone was doing ethnic cleansing. Therefore, this is out of context here since the original quotation of the author does not serve the purpose here. This was to show the opinion of someone without attributing credibility. Second, the source "A British officer" is anonymous and unverifiable.Please consider revising.
Toynbee seems to be the main source. Since I could not access the related pages online, I will get back to this once i have the relative material from the library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yparjis ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC) -- Yparjis ( talk) 16:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
THE ARTICLE is using FOUR principal sources as references. The section under dispute (Greek Massacres) is solely based upon the views of A.J. Toynbee and his book . It is controversial how one that states : "noted that it was the Greek landings that created the Turkish Nationalist Movement led by Mustafa Kemal and it is almost certain that if the Greeks had never landed at Smyrna, the consequent atrocities on the Turkish side would not have occurred" (A.J. Toynbee) in the same book p.312 . It is controversial since under this source "«1,000,000 Greeks Killed?» January 1 1918 p.15 New York Times" there seems to be a bias on the side of the Turks. Certainly, A.J. Toynbee has to be cross-referenced. Cross - referencing does not mean referencing another source (i.e. another page ) of the same book. --
Yparjis (
talk)
01:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Please comment, the change was to
"By contrast, the majority of the muslim population saw this as an invading force. Some Turks resented the Greeks due to long history of conflict and antagonism. Nevertheless, the Greek landings were received by and large passively, only facing sporadic resistance"
Is not perfect, but reads less generalising and better English.
Deadjune1 (
talk)
17:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Response
Words like "Some" and "majority" are difficult to be supported. What you can back is either they resented the Greeks or they did not. I would rephrase it:
"In contrast, a part of the Turkish population perceived this as an invasion due to a long history of antagonism and conflict (cite most recent conflicts). Though, there was only fading sporadic resistance which implies the occupation's passive endowment by the Turkish population."
-- Yparjis ( talk) 21:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments, but is probably impossible to avoid
words someone might consider weasel words. Is not that there was a scientific survey of the population with the question "do you like the Greek occupation". The above is through extrapolation. If you have any direct evidence, please use it in a objective edit. Anything I searched reads "some of the Turks", ... and I cannot give any more precise facts or numbers. Still it reads better from a generalising "all-or-nobody" statement. The passivity is a well documented fact though.
I propose to leave it for now, this paragraph has much potential for abuse Deadjune1 ( talk) 19:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1-Hey is the above a joke or something? Are you inventing your own grammatical rules? Have you noticed that there is a HYPHEN and when "Greece" forms composite words the word becomes AS A RULE Grec- and the o is euphonic? Check Greco-Italian War, Greco-Roman world, etc etc etc etc. This is the standard, correct English. Deadjune1 ( talk)
2-The argument that "Turkey" did not exist is a valid one, but this is an Encyclopedia, which means compilation of secondary sources, not original ideas or research. I agree that the term that reflects the political entities in conflict would have been Greekkingdomgovermento-Turkonationalistankarabased War, but you see what I mean with this absurd example... It was a war between Greece and a big part of Turkey, and it is mostly recorded as such, don't spent time on such minor points. Anyway, most sources of the time referred to the Ottoman empire as Turkey for decades and decades before 1923, is not a super-major difference... Deadjune1 ( talk) 19:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I added some of the reasons why Venizelos lost the election, is wrong to assume that the Greeks just voted about the war, as usually the case all over the world, people vote-out a government mostly for the economy and internal politics, and that was the case here as well. Nobody really believed that Constantine will withdraw from Turkey the next day, that's naive to support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadjune1 ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I re edited this paragraph which was an old creation of mine dating back at least 2 years. I read many books in the meanwhile and I also thought it was a bit mix and match between moral, military and financial reasons. I do not think the previous made as clear the financial isolation of Greece after November 1921, also it needs to be said that Kemal was a great and shrewed leader that knew how to manipulate conflicting powers into one front. especially his claim for Jihad and the admiration by the Muslims of India is funny when one thinks that he was far from religious and probably his major contribution to Turkey was the founding of a secular state.
Please make good-will corrections and additions but please keep the idea of reasons divided between
FINANCIAL/LOGISTIC + MILITARY/STRATEGY + MORAL/EMOTIONAL/MOTIVATIONS
Hope you like Deadjune1 ( talk) 15:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Source and Quotatins must NOT be in English. Türk Tarih Kurumu (Turkish Historical Society) is among most respected historical societies in the World. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.13.55 ( talk) 21:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Could someone revert the anonymous edit made on Jan 4? It was an automated substitution of the words Moslem and Constantinople by Muslim and Istanbul, respectively, thoughout the whole text. (I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure about how one is to revert a "bad" edit that precedes at least one "good" edit without harming the latter one.) I don't have any opinion at all on which of the two conventions should be followed in the article. The problem is that the substitution was blind: i) it changed quoted passages that contained the former words, and ii) it created so-to-speak monstrous misconstructions, such as a sentence claiming that the Megali Idea referred to (the recovery of) Istanbul, which sounds really odd since Istanbul was a name that the Greeks found offensive as a reference to Constantinople back then (many still do, but this is totally irrelevant). Omnipaedista ( talk) 11:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of using "Constantinople" as a city name, but only because it wasn't renamed Istanbul until 1930, and this article predates 1930, and not because Constantinople is more familiar to English speakers. Istanbul should probably be used in post 1930 articles. However, I disagree with using "Smyrna" as a city name. Izmir was not renamed in the 30's. In regards to Smyrna, Wikipedia itself states about Smyrna, "This article is about the ancient Greek city. For the modern city, see Ä°zmir." So Wikipedia's own standards tell us that we should be using Izmir. To say we should use Smyrna instead is akin to saying we should still be using Peking instead of Beijing just because it is more familiar to English speakers. Just because something is unfamiliar to us as English speakers, it doesn't mean it is incorrect, and that attitude shows a bit of prejudice in my opinion. Zargon2010 ( talk) 10:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the disagreement over "Ottoman-occupied" part in this sentence;
"The Megali Idea was an irredentist vision of a restoration of a Greater Greece on both sides of the Aegean that would incorporate Ottoman-occupied territories with Greek populations outside the borders of the Kingdom of Greece, which was initially very small."
After first reading it, I also had an issue with "Ottoman-occupied". Then I realized what the sentence was trying to say.
"The Megali Idea...." is what this sentence is all about. Therefore, this part;
"was an irredentist vision of a restoration of a Greater Greece on both sides of the Aegean that would incorporate Ottoman-occupied territories with Greek populations outside the borders of the Kingdom of Greece"
..is the definition of "The Megali Idea".
Now the minor change I am suggesting.
"The Megali Idea, an irredentist vision of the restoration of a Greater Greece on both sides of the Aegean that would include Ottoman territories with Greek populations outside the borders of the Kingdom of Greece."
Good? Bad? Thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, don't get me wrong i think this is a good article, but i just have one question. Not one of the articles on the Greco-Turkish war or the treaty of Lausanne explain what compelled the Greeks to give up Thrace. I mean it was Ethnically Greek, they controlled it and i can't see how the Turks would have got Thrace by force so why did the Greeks give it up, seems a bit weak to me unless there is some reason for their action. English Bobby ( talk) 11:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Greece evacuted Eastern Thrace under the cease-fire agreement of Mudania. According to this agreemtn, Eastern Thrace was to be evacuated by all military forces, and only a small number of turkish policemen would keep the order. The agreement was actually signed between the big-three allies (France-Britain-Italy) and Turkey. Greece did not sign it, but in order to take effect Greece had to ratify it as well. At the time, great events were happening in Greece, as two greek colonels who had just retreated to the Aegean from Asia Minor, with some 15,000 men, landed in Athens and overthrew the government (which late they executed). Initially they were very reluctant to reatify the Mudanya agreement, but Venizelos, the political leader of the opposition advised them (the colonels) to do it, in order to focus to the internal situation. Greece signed the agreemetn eventually. However Turkey didn't follow her word. Insted of a few thousand police, Turkey transported some 35,000 troops (4 active and 2 reserve infantry divisions), capturing de facto Eastern Thrace. Greece resented that greatly, and in fact Greece was about to launch an invasion to Eastern Thrace with some 115,000 men, when the Lausanne Treaty was finally accepted by Turkey. The difference was tha Turkey accepted to not ask for any war compensation from Greece (as she normally should, given that the entire war was fought within turkish borders, and the anatolian land was badly devastated). So, essentially, Greece exchanged Eastern Thrace with the money she would give Turkey otherwise.-- Xristar ( talk) 15:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear fellows, I fail to see the reason to why the claims of massacres from both sides take place in an article concerning the Greco-Turkish War. The claims give no explanation to what happend in the war, they only make the article difficult to read. If we are to put possible burnings and killings of every village in every wars please do not fail mention them on every single war article. The reasons above state why I have deleted the unneccasary material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Yup I deleted the claims of massacre of the Young Turks against the Armenians in 1915. Still don't understand why but I think Greek army just lost the war so they have to make the Turkish army look dirty. Anyway, the Armenian claims are disputed and overrated. In Turkish view, there are 665.000 Turks massacred by the Dashnak Sutyun terrorists aswell as they killen Armenians that don't obey Dashnaks. City to city revolt killed a lot of citizens. What resulted in 500.000+ Armenians killed plus less than 200.000 Armenians die in the Syrian desert because of lack of doctors and medicals. Thats makes 1,365.000+ deaths in the revoltfrom 1914-1915. Besides Armenians are good in massacring Azeri and Turkish people too in 1918 and later in 1992 Susha what do you say? Armenians burnt Greeks alive when Turkish army recaptured Izmir and pushed it to the Turkish army. Armenians claim 1,500.000 death by cause of Turkish systematic etnic cleansing. Armenian population was 1,4 million world wide then. Armenians just added 500,000 Armenians who became muslim, 500,000 Armenians really killed in the revolt plus they count Turkish deaths as Armenian death. So, if there is an Armenian genocide, there is also a Turkish and Azerbaijani genocide. Pleese keep clear minds before writing such things as something without proof is not a fact. Armenians try to ratify their claims without a basis accepted by the world. Bribery...
please remove this massacres bullshit .it has nothing to do with greco turkish war . mmm, so losers who caanot win war at battle fields ,try to win war at wikipedia . what a pity this aricle is about greco turkish war .stop tarshing the article
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sonertje80 (
talk •
contribs)
19:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not see how the so called massacre of Armenians in an article adressing the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922 beneficial to the article. This is becouse it has no relevence with the subject at hand. Please edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
please remove this massacres bullshit .those idiots working with foreign goverments try to write shit on wikipedia all the time. this massucure bs is nonsense it has nothing to do with greco turkish war .some idiots put that to overshadow the war . there is no need some sneaky racist propaganda in wikipedia. remove all the racist propaganda please
It is important that events such as these are reported accurately. It is not a nationalist POV to note that it is a known fact where the fire was started (with eye-witness reports). It is not nationalist POV to note that the burning of Smyrna was organised by the Turkish Army (since there are eye-witness reports that confirm this and all of this is referenced in detail in the article about the Great Fire of Smyrna). The paragraph is a concise report of what happened. Reducing the paragraph excludes important facts (not nationalist POV). Nipsonanomhmata ( talk)
"During the confusion and anarchy that followed, a great portion of the city was set ablaze in the Great Fire of Smyrna, and the properties of the Greeks were pillaged. Eye-witness reports clearly identified where the fire was started and who started it. Moreover, the fact that only the Greek and Armenian quarters of the city were burned, and that the Turkish quarter stood, confirms the organised burning of Smyrna by the Turkish Army despite Mustafa Kemal's proclamation." Nipsonanomhmata ( talk) 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It is important for you to state who the eye witnesses are and what they nationality is. It would not be very credible if the witness was Greek, Turk or British. I can say that according to eye witnesses the Greeks/Turkish raided 1,000 vilages.Without substatiated proof you can not claim the Turkish forces started the fire. If you do have the means to support your claims I would be happy to see them. I also find it hard to believe the Turkish army would try to burn the city, or parts of it that they would reside in after the war.Would you burn your house? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
About the second issue, using the term Ottoman occupied, this is simply ridiculous and you can only read such an expression in your Greek high school books, not anywhere else. Neither of these are part of this article.
I removed a passage from Stanford J. Shaw, a well-known Turkish apologist and genocide denialist. His History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, co-written with his Turkish wife Ezel Kural Shaw, has been widely criticized by historians [2]. It is completely unacceptable to just plonk it down into the article as accepted fact. I call on all editors active in this article to avoid using such ultra-partisan sources. Athenean ( talk) 20:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Seksen iki yuz kirk bes, who seems greatly interested in expanding the "Greek massacres of Turks" section and not much else [3] added today yet another quote to the section, which is already a quotefarm. For me that was one quote too many. There are already five quotes, we do not need a sixth. I don't care how reliable the source is, at this point we are deep into WP:UNDUE. I have added a quotefarm tag, as the use of quotes is excessive. I can see having one or two quotes, but five? No way. Cutting and pasting direct quotes from sources is poor editing form and not a substitute for actual editing. Wikipedia is not a repository of quotes. Athenean ( talk) 06:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The section on "Greek massacres of Turks" repeats much of the same things over and over for effect. For example:
The quotes from James Harbord is particularly POV, using dated language and highly partisan. In short, this section doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, but more like a partisan website. Tagged accordingly. Athenean ( talk) 06:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Yet, it is important to stress that both Inter-Allied commission and the representative of the Red Cross, M. Gehri, points out the systemic nature of atrocities. Statements about the atrocities can be similar, there is no problem with that. In fact the section about the Turkish massacres of Greek are full of, in your wording, "highly partisan" and "identical" statements.
So I'm restoring the quotation of M. Gehri, being the first hand testimony of a human right organization member, it is important to give a place to his writings in this sub-section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.166.64 ( talk) 08:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The specific section suffers from wp:quotefarm, moreover Gehri's description is already mentioned in the text. I'll check the rest of the quotes in order to remove and replace them with the approriate context. Alexikoua ( talk) 14:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The description of events as witnessed by a Red Cross representative is not "quotefarming", is illustrative of a point that the Greek army has pursued a near systematic policy of ethnic cleansing at least in parts of the occupied territories. Therefore, this quotation is important for this sub-section titled as "claims of ethnic cleansing by both sides". If you insist on deleting it, I am going to follow a dispute resolution process for that single quotation alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.91.37 ( talk) 16:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems with each new day you are going to show up with a new senseless excuse just to censure information about the atrocities Greek state and Greeks have committed, just like you have been doing in the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus article.
Well the difference between you and me is that I don't delete anything, so feel free to cite Blue Book, Red Book or a Grey Book in any article of Wikipedia.
Secondly, this is not the Blue Book which is cited here, a different book published in the year 1922. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.91.37 ( talk) 17:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that, when the part titled "Atrocities and claims of ethnic cleansing by both sides" would be removed and transfered to a new article Massacres and Atrocities during the Greco-Turkish War of 1919–1922, it will be very useful and convenient for both users and readers. Needless to say massacres and atrocities also were important parts of this war. However, the quantity of related part increased to 20,615 bytes (except related part, the text and sources count 54,776 bytes). It's tooooooo large and we can open a new article only with this topic. With this large part, this war looks to be consisted only of massacres and atrocities. Moreover, as long as I know, edit wars took place especcially about related part. So we can more easily and more productively improve this article, without related part. Takabeg ( talk) 22:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
A sound approach should be to fix the existing section in this article first, since it suffers from wp:QUOTEFARM. I believe creating poor articles without enough context and repeating same-style quotes isn't the best we can do here. Alexikoua ( talk) 18:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I also support Takabeg's idea the reason for this is as follows. The article, as said before is too large to navigate properly. It is under wikipedia guidlines that an article this magnitude should be broken down in to forks. It is only appropriate that one of the bigest segments of the article should be formed in to a new page, which in this case is the atrocities performed by both parties. This is also beneficial for this page as it improves navigation and the new page. This means the new page can be subjected to subject specific discussion and the chances of turning it in to a proper article rather than a quote farm are increased. However if it remains here its chances of improvement are lower. Regards, Tugrulirmak ( talk) 18:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The territories in northern Greece and Crete were clearly "Ottoman-occupied". They were occupied by force and against the will of the vast majority people for three and a half centuries. That doesn't stop them from being "Ottoman-occupied". There is no time limit on occupation. Nipsonanomhmata ( talk)
The greeks too ar occupying land from neantherthals heck the whole human species has taken and occupied land that was owned by animals but wait animals took it from bacteria and occupied it! Do you know how childish your argument is? Land is won and lost deal with it. If you ask me there should be no such term... Tugrulirmak ( talk) 18:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I waited for someone to do it but nobody volunteered, eventually I rewrote the National Schism paragraph to make it more relevant to this war. I also tried to shorten it, for details someone can visit the full article.
Then I did a bit of TLC and clean-up in the events, there were still some extrapolations and overlaps that made it look obvious that it was written by 20 different editors, I think now is more smooth and progressive. I did not dare touch the attrocities bit, is still very poor in style with those horrible lists of primary sources and witnesses, but I guess is impossible to change, (see Archives to understand) Deadjune1 ( talk) 11:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC) WARNING:this person calls himself "deadjune1"is an internet terorrist working for racist governments. he is adding so called genocide posts to overshadow the article. this article is about greco turkish war thats it.article has nothing to do with so called genosides . please report these kind of cowards . edit it please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.30.210 ( talk) 05:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Can I kindly request that no Greek or Turkish half-wit touches anything without good justification and discussion comments? Deadjune1 ( talk) 11:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It is strongly necessary to prove that, your references for so-called Greek and Armenian Genocides of Turkish Government in Anatolia were not propaganda materials to justify Greek Agression for those days. Otherwise it is not possible to consider those references as acceptable sources.Thank you.. [GA] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.231.237.55 ( talk) 15:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Gehri quotation is highly important and it comes from a reliable source. There is no reason to delete it unless one is intended to vandalize wikipedia. -- 212.175.32.139 ( talk) 13:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I deleted the blockquote and just re-wrote that passage just like that user had done. Is it ok now?
Btw, why are you not deleting the repetitive parts in the Turkish masacres of Greek section?
You're kidding right, there are about 10 newspaper articles in the Turkish massacres section making identitical remarks without providing much specific data. Any why does it bother you so much to have two sentences, which incidentally seems to have been part of this article for years, about the atrocities in Yalova? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.85.27 ( talk) 22:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The citation provide the observations of a human right organization at a specific time and specific place, unlike most of the vague descriptions one can find in both the Greek and Turkish massacres section, thus in fact it is one of the last citations to be deleted from the article. It's the point that I have been repeating all the time. The fact that there is just another report on this issue prepared by Inter allied commission is no reason to delete it, these two reports in fact support each other and together make a sound claim. By deleting one of them, you're making it a less reliable argument.
So let me reiterate the point then, I argue that it is "one of the last citations to be deleted from the article" because it is first from a reliable source, then about a specific atrocity which occurred at a specific time. Most of the quotations in both massacres sections are full of vague descriptions when this particular citation is not. Furthermore, when put together with the report of the Inter allied commission, it does make a sound claim about the near systmatic nature of atrocities and ethnic cleansing. No reason to add a 3rd or 4th quotation btw, 2 citation is enough about the massacres of Yalova Gemlik peninsula.
And please avoid personal attacks when discussing an issue.-- 78.176.85.27 ( talk) 22:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Athenean I seriously do not understand your behavior in regard to wanting to delete this particular citation in such a persistent manner, seriously we both are wasting our time.
I don't like topic on atrocities, massacres, genocide. But unfortunately sometime we have to deal with such topics. I compared two editions (
User:Athenean and
User:Gob Lofa)
User:Athenean remove two paragraphs as follows:
Inter-Allied commission and M. Gehri, the representative of the Geneva International Red Cross, have presented two similar reports in regard to the atrocities Greek forces committed in the Yalova-Gemlik Peninsula in the year 1921. In their report of the 23rd May 1921, Inter-Allied commission stated that:</nowiki> [1]</nowiki>
Red Cross representative M. Gehri wrote that the established facts as of burning of villages and massacres left no room for doubt that: "...The Greek army of occupation have been employed in the extermination of the Muslim population of the Yalova-Gemlik peninsula."<ref name="Toynbee 1922 285">{{harv|Toynbee|1922|p=285}}</ref>
With these removal, the name of M. Gehri, Red Cross etc... And the extermination of the Muslim population is hidden. This is important part that was used in this repot. Because this indicated an attempted genocide.
I think that we can merge these paragragh. Or we can create new article with the title Greek atrocities in the Yalova-Gemlik peninsula ( Turkish: Yalova-Gemlik katliamı) and son on. I'm not sure that this title is appropriate to this massacres, because not only Gemlik and Yalova, but also Karamürsel, İznik was mentioned in the secret session of the Grand National Assembly at the time. Are there Greek sources on this atrocities ? Takabeg ( talk) 03:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Athenean, you are persistently trying to impose your views without trying to come to any agreement. I have deleted the blockquotation from Gehri and reduce it to a simple sentence with the hope that we might perhaps finally settle with it even though I thought blockquoting made more sense. To inform the reader that there were two separate collobarating reports, one from Inter-allied commission and the other from Red Cross, is surely not quotefarming. Furthermore, these are two collobarating piece of reports both of which needs citation.
-- Anapad ( talk) 15:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Should this [4] quote of M. Gehri be kept or removed? I feel it is completely redundant and contains no information already conveyed by the blockquote from the Inter-Allied Commission. A couple of Turkish users object and discussion has now stalled. See related talkpage threads [5] [6]. Athenean ( talk) 06:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
If Gehri's report is quite similar to the report prepared by the Interallied commission, this similarity itself needs to be stressed in such articles about the atrocities. The very existence of two separate reports make a much more reliable claim that the Greek army had committed systematic atrocities in Yalova-Gemlik. Plus, Gehri quote does stress in more certain terms that the Greek army has been "exterminating" the population of Yalova Gemlik peninsula. -- 78.176.85.27 ( talk) 08:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I found another Maurice Gehri publishing titled as Prisons Russes (Russian Prisons) published in the year 1909. [7] He seems to have been long involved in recording human rights abuses. Toynbee's book is accessible to me and he clearly points out that there are two reports prepared by the commission and Gehri. It might be possible though that Gehri made a publishing on the issue which also contained the ınter-allied commission report.
I also found a Turkish source which claim that there was a separate Inter-allied commission consisted of British, French and Italian officers and the leading figures of this comission were "Bristol, Bunoust, Hare, Dall'Orlo". According to that source there was also a separate "investigation comission" for the Red Cross led by M. Gehri. (unfortunately it is written in the Turkish language) [8] -- Anapad ( talk) 18:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC) -- Anapad ( talk) 18:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
WikiDao removed Naimark's book with the comment rm ref -- there is no mention of the "inter-allied commision" in this book. But Naimark wrote:
The commissioners wrote of the 'burning and looting of Turkish villages' and the explosion of violence of Greeks and Armenians against the Turks. At the same time, the commissioners noted that the depredations seemed to take place by design There is a systematic plan of destruction and extinction of the Moslem population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian hands, which appear to operate under Greek instruction and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops.
If need, we can see Adam Jones's Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (p. 176), Michael Llewellyn Smith's Ionian vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922 (p. 213) etc... Thank you. Takabeg ( talk) 23:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikidao, we are talking about the same report which is cited in Toynbee's book as well as Naimark's. I put here the exact citation from Toynbee, (p. 283-4) the Inter-Allied Commission in the Yalova-Gemlik Peninsula, in their report of the 23rd May 1921, summed up as follows: The commission endeavoured to arrive at the causes of which, in less than two months, brought about the destruction or evacuation of nearly all the Moslem villages of that part of the kazas of Yalova and Guemlek which is occupied by the Greeks...there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Moslem population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian bands, which appear to operate under Greek instructions and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops.
As you see these two are identitical, in the quotation from Naimark's book it is written that "there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Moslem population". Therefore, there is no question that Naimark too was citing the same report of the Inter-Allied commission, dating 23rd May 1921.-- Anapad ( talk) 19:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
"1.5 million captured Ottoman rifles from World War I, one million Russian rifles, one million Mannlicher rifles, as well as some older British Martini-Henry rifles and 25,000 bayonets would be delivered to the Kemalist forces."
minimum total makes 3,5 million riffles. Also let us not forget ottoman inventories were preyed by both turks and allies, what would an army of roughly 200 thousands do with that many riffles. Using them is illogical( 20 arms per capita), keeping them would be a huge problem, even transporting them is almost impossible. Also let us not forget, Soviets were dealing with their problems (Soviet civil war). Which is far from making sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.165.143 ( talk) 06:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please clarify as to how the Greco-Turkish war can relate to the "massacre" of Armenians in the south and east of Turkey where the war was no where near. The war could not have affected this places. There is also the fact that the said events happened prior to Turkish defeat by the allied forces and when the Armenians were already deported so to say there was any atrocities committed upon large swathes of Armenians during a war which raged in the western end of Turkey is nothing but utter historical revisionism. The inclusion of the events of 1915 and until the Turkish surrender has its own place in other articles; and should not do so in this irrelevant article. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
APOLOGIES I had to delete a whole paragraph from there rather than make effort to save it for 3 reasons 1-Is badly written and does not flow well with the rest, is obviously an insertion of mostly irrelevant references with no editing 2-Is not clearly addressing the title of the paragraph 3- Accuracy is very dubious, e.g there was minimal (or none) input of the British in the equipment or training of the Greek Army, their training was largely independent since the last French mission in 1910, and equipment was mainly Austrian and French. British support was in loans and diplomacy.
To the fellow writer, feel free to use this info, but make it more clear how it addreses the title, and cross-check as factually has great issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.133 ( talk) 09:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Would you consider changing the title Greco-Turkish War to Greek-Turkish War or maybe Anatolia Confict, in order that this may be written in proper English?-- Yparjis ( talk) 16:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
the map of greece from 1910-1920 is wrong, greece captured crete in 1908 but it is shown as not a part of greece in 1910, when it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.139.9 ( talk) 04:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)