This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Occupation of Smyrna article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 22 October 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus; keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article may be within the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks. |
|
||
The article is generally poor in quality and offers no surrounding facts or details which explain the historical conditions of Smyrna, which was a heavily majority Greek city throughout the entire time period covered. The Turks named Smyrna, Infidel I'zmir because there was no substantial Turkish population inhabiting the city.
The article includes a citation from the German author of the famously propagandist Kemal biography. The book was a response to the label: Kemal: "Butcher of the Bosphorus". The "biography" has been repeatedly proven to be filled with fraudulent propaganda.
Atrocities were only committed by Turkish troops. If vigilante acts of violence occurred, it was not connected to the liberation of Smyrna. The population was mostly Greek and Christian, the "occupation" ended with the Great Fire of Smyrna in which the Turks murdered close to one million inhabitants of the city. The exits/walled boundaries to the city were blocked off. This is why many aspects of Turkish claims are impossible.
It is important to remember the details of the population exchange that occurred after all these events; 775,000 Greeks went missed (the victims of a holocaust) 550,000+/- recorded officially by Ottoman documents. More than 550,000 exchanged Turkish population were then sent unharmed to migrate to the new "Turkey". Swiss Red Cross photographs document the mass killing of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians during the 1917-23 genocides.
The understanding of Greek history after the merging of Roman and Greek cultures from Emperor Constantine forward, is lacking. The A.S.i'A. minor area (Area South of the Aegean) was of one the first states to welcome many races and ethnic groups in. The entire region was predominately inhabited by several groups of Hellenic peoples (Classical and Non-classical), many different civilizations had contact and also traded in Micro-asia for close to at least 7,000 years. Many were Greek, none were Turk, Mongol (or "Uh-gur").
Read about the "seven Turkic kingdoms" or the desire for a "Turkic Super-state" to learn the real origin of the Turkish people.
Turk (an "exo-nym") is Greek language name, tur-tur or bar-barian; they have zero history in the area from ancient times (Justinian's death what is called the death of the Last of the Romans).
We won't have peace in this world until we all accept a true consensus of events and end this type of racism and sabotage, maybe then we will all enjoy success or some form of happiness instead of a future filled with brutality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.17.79 ( talk) 08:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
In 1920 a Treaty was signed between the allies and Turkey. Turkey with its signature accepted the detachment of territories. One of these territories was Smyrna. Turkey violated this signature in 1922. The article however states that the occupation ended in 1922 -meaning- when the treaty was violated. There is something wrong here. 23x2 φ 18:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Since the article concerns the Greek administration in a former Ottoman region, the related peace treaty that finally approved this action should be part of the lead. On the other hand unexplained reverts and conclusion in edit summaries such as this [ [1]], can be easily understood as a product of extremist activity and should better be avoided. Alexikoua ( talk) 09:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The "Treaty of Sevres", as referred to in a removed (now, by this user) sentence has never entered into force, as it was not ratified by Turkey. Learn more here. Thus I removed the reference to this text, as it never had the legal power of an international treaty binding the parties. -- E4024 ( talk) 12:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed this treaty was signed by both parties (Entene and Ottoman Empire) and is a historic event. Alexikoua ( talk) 15:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
You also need to support your view with a reliable source ( Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose. per wp:rs) Alexikoua ( talk) 19:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, I recommend you to try to review your knowledge of history instead... -- E4024 ( talk) 20:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed). As i see you inist on wp:or reasearch, but the scope of this project is to support the historical events with reliable material. It's easly to conclude that your claims did not reflect the historical reality: About 1. & 2. above: " The Treaty of Sevres, signed on 10 April 1920, was the peace treaty bringing to an end the state of war between Turkey and the victorious powers of the First World War (Britain, France and Italy) and their lesser allies"
Quite and clear this wan't a non-existent Treaty, even the most inexperienced diplomat can easily conclude that this event came into effect the following years until a next treaty was signed 3 years latter.21:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I wonder why the establishment of Smyrna's first university in 1920 isn't related with this article, since it concerns the specific period (1919-1922) [ [3]] and it clearly states that this was 'during this period'. The edit summary appears also to be wrong (claims about a 'usual chronological anomaly', which I believe don't reflect the historical reality of the article).
It would be kind to avoid such kind of activity and discuss the issue in a civilized manner. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I've partly restored the specific section since there was/is no explanation why this was removed. Alexikoua ( talk) 22:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
As I see there are users who wish to learn: The Sevres "Treaty" was signed in August 1920. One of the two sides was the Ottoman Empire, while the other side was the countries that imposed this piece of paper to a vanquished, prisoner (Istanbul under occupation), war-thorn Government, who was challenged by an emerging Government in Ankara. (Maybe the basic reason of signature, from the part of Istanbul, was this last one indeed; to presume some power.) The occupation authority (established formally in March 1920 in Istanbul) "closed" (indeed the "Sultan" himself dissolved -or whatever legal term- but the cause is Allied pressure) the Turkish (Ottoman) parliament in April 1920. Just as the Greek occupation of Izmir in May 1919 sparked the beginning of the Turkish national struggle within the same month, this closure ended in the re-convening of the Turkish Parliament in Ankara, in April 1920. From this moment on, if not even before, the legitimate representatives of the Turkish people are in Ankara. They said no to the Sevres partition agreement (declared it null and void) and reconfirmed the "National Charter" (National borders of New Turkey, adopted by the Ottoman parliament in Istanbul in Feb. 1920, in one of its last sessions).
The Sevres document, like any other international treaty had to be "ratified". (The allies must have ignored or forgotten the fact that in Turkey, even though it was not a Republic yet, it was the parliament that "approved" the ratification of treaties according to the 1876 Constitution (x); when they obliged the Sultan to dissolve the parliament before the signing of that agreement.
Treaties do not come into being without proper ratification, and enter into force only in a determined date (or time span) following the delivery (depositing) of all Ratification Documents. For Turkey (not the Republic the country), this never happened in the case of the said paper. This is why we made the Lausanne Peace Treaty (signed in a neutral country, not one of the occupiers). This is more or less a simple summary, trying to avoid intricate legal terminology like "initialling", "ad referendum" etc... -- E4024 ( talk) 21:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC) (P.D. One of the countries that did not ratify the so-called Sevres "Treaty" was Greece; see in "WP"...)
Considered one of the symbols of the Turkish national resistance. He shot dead the flag bearer of the Greek occupation forces that landed in Izmir on 15 May 1919. He was shot dead by the Greek soldiers in situ. Hasan Tahsin and family had been displaced from the city of Selanik like many Turks that had to leave the city that passed to Greek hands in 1912. I added his name to the article because he is considered a symbol of resistance to the said occupation. -- E4024 ( talk) 19:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
His name was already there, but his place of origin is irrelevant to the context. Adding, out of the context, everyone's birthplace isn't a sound idea in general: Stergiadis was born in Ottoman era Creta, M. Ataturk from Thessaloniki, Caratheodory's family from Istanbul. Adding for every person his background for nationalistic reasons (as poited above to prove that the one came from 'occupied territories') is something we should avoid. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
(Again, with a very symbolic act of self sacrifice the person was saying: I will not lose my town again in 7 years. Why do you think he shot at the soldier carrying the Greek flag and not another?) What he did really is patriotism and to recall his name is not nationalism. Any objective person may understand this, it is a question of empathy. -- E4024 ( talk) 20:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The paragraph being discussed here is a word for word copy of Ataturk by Mango as it is currently written. It changes one word and reverse the structure of a sentence, but even adding a bit about Hasan, does not change that the remainder is a Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I'm not getting involved with the content of this page and the nonsense attached with it. But the paragraph needs to be removed until a part that does not steal from other authors is added. For more help see Wikipedia:Copy-paste. Found a number of other areas where the writing smacks of the source material. A complete tear-down and build-up on the page is probably warranted. AbstractIllusions ( talk) 01:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
E4024, if you take a closer look at the Hasan Tahsin article, you will see he was a member of the secretive Special Organization during WW1. A major role this organization played was to act as "ground level organziers" [1] in the Genocide of the Armenians and other Christians during WW1. This shadowy group even released and recruited murderers and rapists from the Ottoman prisons to help destroy the Armenians. [2] During the war most Turks could plead ignorance about the Armenian Genocide in progress. Hasan, as a member of that special organization, cannot. Did the Armenians expel Hasan Tahsin from Salonica ? Is Hasan really a person the reader should empathize with ? HelenOfOz ( talk) 09:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Two issues:
1. From the "History" section of the current edition:
"A military administration was formed by the Greek premier Eleftherios Venizelos shortly after the initial landings. Venizelos had plans to annex Smyrna that he succeeded in realizing his objective in Treaty of Sèvres August 10, 1920.[6] He had immediately agreed to send Greek troops to Smyrna after Italian troops had landed in Antalya."
Izmir was occupied in 1919. The Treaty of Sevres was signed in 1920. So the said Treaty had no effect whatsoever on the decision by Greece to occupy Izmir. Simply because 1920 does not come before 1919. This edit is intended to "justify" the Greek invasion of Izmir.
On the other hand, the Treaty was signed by the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) on the one hand and the Allies on the other side. Neither the Ottoman Empire nor the Republican Turkey ratified the said Treaty and it never entered into force. (See section "Fate of the Treaty" in Treaty of Sèvres. In International Law this means that the said "Treaty" did never come into life. Another interesting issue, although of minor importance, is that Greece did not ratify the so-called Treaty either...)
2. From the section: "Turkish reaction to landings" of the current edition:
"The Greek landings had served to trigger the Turkish War of Independence, marked by the landing of Mustafa Kemal (later Atatürk) in Samsun on May 19, 1919, four days after the occupation. Kemal formed a nationalist movement with a separate government in Ankara, and no longer recognised the administration in Istanbul, which on August 10, 1920, had signed the Treaty of Sèvres, thus formally ceding the territories to Greece which she presently occupied."
The first sentence is true. We can see that in any book on the Turkish War of Liberation and any academic study related to that war. (I guess also in the relevant WP articles.) But the second sentence is problematic: Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) reconvened the Turkish parliament (or "established" The Grand National Assembly of Turkey, as later accepted in official history), on 23 Nisan 1920, after a series of National Congresses destined to organise the resistance against the Greek invasion of Western Anatolia that began with the occupation of Izmir. He formed the Government of Ankara several days later within that parliament. The sentence in our article claims, with the grammatical use "had been" tense that Atatürk formed a Government after the signing of the Treaty of Sevres, which is, of course not true. All the reference to this "born dead", not finalised, so to say "Treaty" is only for the reason of trying to find a justification to the Occupation of Izmir (or Smyrna) but history says that the said Treaty is "posterior" (1920) to the occupation, which is prior (1919).
I may understand some users wish to introduce this illogical "relationship" for reasons of their own POV. However, I cannot understand (and accept) why in Wikipedia, after almost a century, we would distort history blatantly, changing chronological order of events only to whitewash the occupation of a now non existent state (the Kingdom of Greece) over a defunct state (Ottoman Empire).
I request each and every WP user to help me to correct the text in an objective manner. Thank you. -- E4024 ( talk) 20:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
@All Editors, add an article-related event in the correct chronological sequence below. This list will eventually (hopefully) be used for the article rewrite.
HelenOfOz (
talk)
14:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
26 April 1917
30 October 1918
Article 7 “The Allies have the right to occupy any strategic points in the event of a situation arising which threatens the security of the Allies.”
9 March 1919
4 May 1919
15 May 1919
19 May 1919
22 July 1920
10 August 1920
9 September 1922
10 September 1922
13 September 1922
24 July 1923
I never had any objection to the "mentioning" of the dead-born, invalid "treaty" (within quotation marks) that one specific user loves to remind. I only objected its being used in a wrong chronological order, in a ridiculous attempt to invent some justification for an occupation that occurred before the said text was signed. (You got it, right? Had 24 hours to rethink.) Feel free to refer to that text as long as you do not revert the order of historical events and always clarifying that the so-called "treaty" never entered into force; which means it has not achieved legal value, ever... -- E4024 ( talk) 12:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Ref (2) refers to a speech in 1919 but the article text where the ref is added is about the Turkish parliament that reconvened in Ankara on 23 April 1920. ??? -- E4024 ( talk) 18:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
So, time has passed with little movement on getting chronology right, answering E's problems or answering my problems with the page. So, a significant rewrite was appropriate. This is based on sources by academic historians written after the British archives of the time were open for analysis. Analysis before that is incomplete, non-historian work is problematic because it isn't looking at all the evidence. I did not use Mango's autobiography of Smyrna because most of his insights are from secondary sources, unlike a lot of his other evidence and because the aim of this rewrite was to get a basic chronology with details down (if someone wants to add in Mango, I'm cool). So that's that. Some changes for possible discussion:
Regardless, hope everyone thinks that this is a better tapestry to improve the content of the article. If not, say so below. AbstractIllusions ( talk) 21:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a discrepancy in sources about the root of Stergiadis' motivations for taking a hard line against discrimination of the Turkish populations: whether he wanted to avoid the appearance of discrimination to the outside world for pragmatic reasons or whether he genuinely was against the discrimination. Here's relevance sources:
To reflect this disagreement, I edited the article in this way: 1. Lead does not mention his motivation at all, not the place to go into that detail, 2. In content includes both possible motivations. Don't like this edit? Discuss here. AbstractIllusions ( talk) 13:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm reverting the recent additions because the sources are problematic and because the focus crosses the WP:UNDUE threshold. The Jensen article should provide the baseline on a few things: 1. When talking about the Occupation of Smyrna, the fire should get brief mention because it came after the occupation. That is how much weight Jensen gives it. Similar in terms of weight percentage, although more lengthy, for Smith. 2. The Armenian and Greek quarters were not completely destroyed (that is just dramatic phrasing), they were mostly destroyed (as was said in article before recent edits). 3. Blame will (probably) never be known. Get over it. Jensen establishes a clear way to deal with this uncertainty, just say that everyone has been blamed and we don't know. A less optimal way to deal with the problem is to infer blame from some book review (why not use the original source?). Recent edits are problematic in terms of WP:UNDUE and a Hemingway scholar and a book review that contradict the claims in historians is a problem solved by WP:HISTRS. Jensen and Smith win. How to convince me: Find historians for the claims and who provide the weight desired in writing about the Occupation. Otherwise the claims can stay over on the appropriate article on the Great Fire of Smyrna and don't need to add too much weight to a page about the Occupation. Mention in prior form is sufficient, NPOV, and based on reliable sources for a history page. Added mentions are UNDUE, possibly POV, and not based on reliable sources for a history page. Peace. AbstractIllusions ( talk) 19:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
So, the Aybars source has been added and reverted twice. The most recent time "post a URL" is against WP:Verifiability policy. The source clearly exists here and appears to be an RS. That doesn't mean it should be in the article and that it is quality. But the content can be verified, the source is not self-published and is from a professor. Please post thoughts here rather than reverting again. AbstractIllusions ( talk) 14:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks AbstractIllusions for the url. However, the point remains if this should be part of the text, i.e. why the specific person's death should be mentioned in detail. After all some hundreds of Greeks and Turks died that day. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Good source, this one or not, on Greek atrocities in Izmir? -- 212.174.190.23 ( talk) 16:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The specific section needs to be expanded since it is the core of the article. It includes the entire period from 1919 to 1922, which was not a theatre of war, concerning the Smyrna occupation zone. Thus, I'll do my best expanding it. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a consensus that the current name is the WP:COMMONNAME found in reliable sources. — Amakuru ( talk) 09:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Occupation of Smyrna →
Greek Administration of Smyrna – Calling it an occupation is ridiculously POV. From some points of view, the Greeks were the rightful owners and the Turks the occupiers. Let's use a neutral title instead.
Genealogizer (
talk)
20:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System (
talk)
23:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Occupation of Smyrna article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 22 October 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus; keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article may be within the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks. |
|
||
The article is generally poor in quality and offers no surrounding facts or details which explain the historical conditions of Smyrna, which was a heavily majority Greek city throughout the entire time period covered. The Turks named Smyrna, Infidel I'zmir because there was no substantial Turkish population inhabiting the city.
The article includes a citation from the German author of the famously propagandist Kemal biography. The book was a response to the label: Kemal: "Butcher of the Bosphorus". The "biography" has been repeatedly proven to be filled with fraudulent propaganda.
Atrocities were only committed by Turkish troops. If vigilante acts of violence occurred, it was not connected to the liberation of Smyrna. The population was mostly Greek and Christian, the "occupation" ended with the Great Fire of Smyrna in which the Turks murdered close to one million inhabitants of the city. The exits/walled boundaries to the city were blocked off. This is why many aspects of Turkish claims are impossible.
It is important to remember the details of the population exchange that occurred after all these events; 775,000 Greeks went missed (the victims of a holocaust) 550,000+/- recorded officially by Ottoman documents. More than 550,000 exchanged Turkish population were then sent unharmed to migrate to the new "Turkey". Swiss Red Cross photographs document the mass killing of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians during the 1917-23 genocides.
The understanding of Greek history after the merging of Roman and Greek cultures from Emperor Constantine forward, is lacking. The A.S.i'A. minor area (Area South of the Aegean) was of one the first states to welcome many races and ethnic groups in. The entire region was predominately inhabited by several groups of Hellenic peoples (Classical and Non-classical), many different civilizations had contact and also traded in Micro-asia for close to at least 7,000 years. Many were Greek, none were Turk, Mongol (or "Uh-gur").
Read about the "seven Turkic kingdoms" or the desire for a "Turkic Super-state" to learn the real origin of the Turkish people.
Turk (an "exo-nym") is Greek language name, tur-tur or bar-barian; they have zero history in the area from ancient times (Justinian's death what is called the death of the Last of the Romans).
We won't have peace in this world until we all accept a true consensus of events and end this type of racism and sabotage, maybe then we will all enjoy success or some form of happiness instead of a future filled with brutality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.17.79 ( talk) 08:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
In 1920 a Treaty was signed between the allies and Turkey. Turkey with its signature accepted the detachment of territories. One of these territories was Smyrna. Turkey violated this signature in 1922. The article however states that the occupation ended in 1922 -meaning- when the treaty was violated. There is something wrong here. 23x2 φ 18:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Since the article concerns the Greek administration in a former Ottoman region, the related peace treaty that finally approved this action should be part of the lead. On the other hand unexplained reverts and conclusion in edit summaries such as this [ [1]], can be easily understood as a product of extremist activity and should better be avoided. Alexikoua ( talk) 09:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The "Treaty of Sevres", as referred to in a removed (now, by this user) sentence has never entered into force, as it was not ratified by Turkey. Learn more here. Thus I removed the reference to this text, as it never had the legal power of an international treaty binding the parties. -- E4024 ( talk) 12:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed this treaty was signed by both parties (Entene and Ottoman Empire) and is a historic event. Alexikoua ( talk) 15:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
You also need to support your view with a reliable source ( Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose. per wp:rs) Alexikoua ( talk) 19:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
On the other hand, I recommend you to try to review your knowledge of history instead... -- E4024 ( talk) 20:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed). As i see you inist on wp:or reasearch, but the scope of this project is to support the historical events with reliable material. It's easly to conclude that your claims did not reflect the historical reality: About 1. & 2. above: " The Treaty of Sevres, signed on 10 April 1920, was the peace treaty bringing to an end the state of war between Turkey and the victorious powers of the First World War (Britain, France and Italy) and their lesser allies"
Quite and clear this wan't a non-existent Treaty, even the most inexperienced diplomat can easily conclude that this event came into effect the following years until a next treaty was signed 3 years latter.21:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I wonder why the establishment of Smyrna's first university in 1920 isn't related with this article, since it concerns the specific period (1919-1922) [ [3]] and it clearly states that this was 'during this period'. The edit summary appears also to be wrong (claims about a 'usual chronological anomaly', which I believe don't reflect the historical reality of the article).
It would be kind to avoid such kind of activity and discuss the issue in a civilized manner. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I've partly restored the specific section since there was/is no explanation why this was removed. Alexikoua ( talk) 22:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
As I see there are users who wish to learn: The Sevres "Treaty" was signed in August 1920. One of the two sides was the Ottoman Empire, while the other side was the countries that imposed this piece of paper to a vanquished, prisoner (Istanbul under occupation), war-thorn Government, who was challenged by an emerging Government in Ankara. (Maybe the basic reason of signature, from the part of Istanbul, was this last one indeed; to presume some power.) The occupation authority (established formally in March 1920 in Istanbul) "closed" (indeed the "Sultan" himself dissolved -or whatever legal term- but the cause is Allied pressure) the Turkish (Ottoman) parliament in April 1920. Just as the Greek occupation of Izmir in May 1919 sparked the beginning of the Turkish national struggle within the same month, this closure ended in the re-convening of the Turkish Parliament in Ankara, in April 1920. From this moment on, if not even before, the legitimate representatives of the Turkish people are in Ankara. They said no to the Sevres partition agreement (declared it null and void) and reconfirmed the "National Charter" (National borders of New Turkey, adopted by the Ottoman parliament in Istanbul in Feb. 1920, in one of its last sessions).
The Sevres document, like any other international treaty had to be "ratified". (The allies must have ignored or forgotten the fact that in Turkey, even though it was not a Republic yet, it was the parliament that "approved" the ratification of treaties according to the 1876 Constitution (x); when they obliged the Sultan to dissolve the parliament before the signing of that agreement.
Treaties do not come into being without proper ratification, and enter into force only in a determined date (or time span) following the delivery (depositing) of all Ratification Documents. For Turkey (not the Republic the country), this never happened in the case of the said paper. This is why we made the Lausanne Peace Treaty (signed in a neutral country, not one of the occupiers). This is more or less a simple summary, trying to avoid intricate legal terminology like "initialling", "ad referendum" etc... -- E4024 ( talk) 21:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC) (P.D. One of the countries that did not ratify the so-called Sevres "Treaty" was Greece; see in "WP"...)
Considered one of the symbols of the Turkish national resistance. He shot dead the flag bearer of the Greek occupation forces that landed in Izmir on 15 May 1919. He was shot dead by the Greek soldiers in situ. Hasan Tahsin and family had been displaced from the city of Selanik like many Turks that had to leave the city that passed to Greek hands in 1912. I added his name to the article because he is considered a symbol of resistance to the said occupation. -- E4024 ( talk) 19:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
His name was already there, but his place of origin is irrelevant to the context. Adding, out of the context, everyone's birthplace isn't a sound idea in general: Stergiadis was born in Ottoman era Creta, M. Ataturk from Thessaloniki, Caratheodory's family from Istanbul. Adding for every person his background for nationalistic reasons (as poited above to prove that the one came from 'occupied territories') is something we should avoid. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
(Again, with a very symbolic act of self sacrifice the person was saying: I will not lose my town again in 7 years. Why do you think he shot at the soldier carrying the Greek flag and not another?) What he did really is patriotism and to recall his name is not nationalism. Any objective person may understand this, it is a question of empathy. -- E4024 ( talk) 20:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The paragraph being discussed here is a word for word copy of Ataturk by Mango as it is currently written. It changes one word and reverse the structure of a sentence, but even adding a bit about Hasan, does not change that the remainder is a Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I'm not getting involved with the content of this page and the nonsense attached with it. But the paragraph needs to be removed until a part that does not steal from other authors is added. For more help see Wikipedia:Copy-paste. Found a number of other areas where the writing smacks of the source material. A complete tear-down and build-up on the page is probably warranted. AbstractIllusions ( talk) 01:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
E4024, if you take a closer look at the Hasan Tahsin article, you will see he was a member of the secretive Special Organization during WW1. A major role this organization played was to act as "ground level organziers" [1] in the Genocide of the Armenians and other Christians during WW1. This shadowy group even released and recruited murderers and rapists from the Ottoman prisons to help destroy the Armenians. [2] During the war most Turks could plead ignorance about the Armenian Genocide in progress. Hasan, as a member of that special organization, cannot. Did the Armenians expel Hasan Tahsin from Salonica ? Is Hasan really a person the reader should empathize with ? HelenOfOz ( talk) 09:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Two issues:
1. From the "History" section of the current edition:
"A military administration was formed by the Greek premier Eleftherios Venizelos shortly after the initial landings. Venizelos had plans to annex Smyrna that he succeeded in realizing his objective in Treaty of Sèvres August 10, 1920.[6] He had immediately agreed to send Greek troops to Smyrna after Italian troops had landed in Antalya."
Izmir was occupied in 1919. The Treaty of Sevres was signed in 1920. So the said Treaty had no effect whatsoever on the decision by Greece to occupy Izmir. Simply because 1920 does not come before 1919. This edit is intended to "justify" the Greek invasion of Izmir.
On the other hand, the Treaty was signed by the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) on the one hand and the Allies on the other side. Neither the Ottoman Empire nor the Republican Turkey ratified the said Treaty and it never entered into force. (See section "Fate of the Treaty" in Treaty of Sèvres. In International Law this means that the said "Treaty" did never come into life. Another interesting issue, although of minor importance, is that Greece did not ratify the so-called Treaty either...)
2. From the section: "Turkish reaction to landings" of the current edition:
"The Greek landings had served to trigger the Turkish War of Independence, marked by the landing of Mustafa Kemal (later Atatürk) in Samsun on May 19, 1919, four days after the occupation. Kemal formed a nationalist movement with a separate government in Ankara, and no longer recognised the administration in Istanbul, which on August 10, 1920, had signed the Treaty of Sèvres, thus formally ceding the territories to Greece which she presently occupied."
The first sentence is true. We can see that in any book on the Turkish War of Liberation and any academic study related to that war. (I guess also in the relevant WP articles.) But the second sentence is problematic: Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) reconvened the Turkish parliament (or "established" The Grand National Assembly of Turkey, as later accepted in official history), on 23 Nisan 1920, after a series of National Congresses destined to organise the resistance against the Greek invasion of Western Anatolia that began with the occupation of Izmir. He formed the Government of Ankara several days later within that parliament. The sentence in our article claims, with the grammatical use "had been" tense that Atatürk formed a Government after the signing of the Treaty of Sevres, which is, of course not true. All the reference to this "born dead", not finalised, so to say "Treaty" is only for the reason of trying to find a justification to the Occupation of Izmir (or Smyrna) but history says that the said Treaty is "posterior" (1920) to the occupation, which is prior (1919).
I may understand some users wish to introduce this illogical "relationship" for reasons of their own POV. However, I cannot understand (and accept) why in Wikipedia, after almost a century, we would distort history blatantly, changing chronological order of events only to whitewash the occupation of a now non existent state (the Kingdom of Greece) over a defunct state (Ottoman Empire).
I request each and every WP user to help me to correct the text in an objective manner. Thank you. -- E4024 ( talk) 20:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
@All Editors, add an article-related event in the correct chronological sequence below. This list will eventually (hopefully) be used for the article rewrite.
HelenOfOz (
talk)
14:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
26 April 1917
30 October 1918
Article 7 “The Allies have the right to occupy any strategic points in the event of a situation arising which threatens the security of the Allies.”
9 March 1919
4 May 1919
15 May 1919
19 May 1919
22 July 1920
10 August 1920
9 September 1922
10 September 1922
13 September 1922
24 July 1923
I never had any objection to the "mentioning" of the dead-born, invalid "treaty" (within quotation marks) that one specific user loves to remind. I only objected its being used in a wrong chronological order, in a ridiculous attempt to invent some justification for an occupation that occurred before the said text was signed. (You got it, right? Had 24 hours to rethink.) Feel free to refer to that text as long as you do not revert the order of historical events and always clarifying that the so-called "treaty" never entered into force; which means it has not achieved legal value, ever... -- E4024 ( talk) 12:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Ref (2) refers to a speech in 1919 but the article text where the ref is added is about the Turkish parliament that reconvened in Ankara on 23 April 1920. ??? -- E4024 ( talk) 18:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
So, time has passed with little movement on getting chronology right, answering E's problems or answering my problems with the page. So, a significant rewrite was appropriate. This is based on sources by academic historians written after the British archives of the time were open for analysis. Analysis before that is incomplete, non-historian work is problematic because it isn't looking at all the evidence. I did not use Mango's autobiography of Smyrna because most of his insights are from secondary sources, unlike a lot of his other evidence and because the aim of this rewrite was to get a basic chronology with details down (if someone wants to add in Mango, I'm cool). So that's that. Some changes for possible discussion:
Regardless, hope everyone thinks that this is a better tapestry to improve the content of the article. If not, say so below. AbstractIllusions ( talk) 21:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a discrepancy in sources about the root of Stergiadis' motivations for taking a hard line against discrimination of the Turkish populations: whether he wanted to avoid the appearance of discrimination to the outside world for pragmatic reasons or whether he genuinely was against the discrimination. Here's relevance sources:
To reflect this disagreement, I edited the article in this way: 1. Lead does not mention his motivation at all, not the place to go into that detail, 2. In content includes both possible motivations. Don't like this edit? Discuss here. AbstractIllusions ( talk) 13:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm reverting the recent additions because the sources are problematic and because the focus crosses the WP:UNDUE threshold. The Jensen article should provide the baseline on a few things: 1. When talking about the Occupation of Smyrna, the fire should get brief mention because it came after the occupation. That is how much weight Jensen gives it. Similar in terms of weight percentage, although more lengthy, for Smith. 2. The Armenian and Greek quarters were not completely destroyed (that is just dramatic phrasing), they were mostly destroyed (as was said in article before recent edits). 3. Blame will (probably) never be known. Get over it. Jensen establishes a clear way to deal with this uncertainty, just say that everyone has been blamed and we don't know. A less optimal way to deal with the problem is to infer blame from some book review (why not use the original source?). Recent edits are problematic in terms of WP:UNDUE and a Hemingway scholar and a book review that contradict the claims in historians is a problem solved by WP:HISTRS. Jensen and Smith win. How to convince me: Find historians for the claims and who provide the weight desired in writing about the Occupation. Otherwise the claims can stay over on the appropriate article on the Great Fire of Smyrna and don't need to add too much weight to a page about the Occupation. Mention in prior form is sufficient, NPOV, and based on reliable sources for a history page. Added mentions are UNDUE, possibly POV, and not based on reliable sources for a history page. Peace. AbstractIllusions ( talk) 19:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
So, the Aybars source has been added and reverted twice. The most recent time "post a URL" is against WP:Verifiability policy. The source clearly exists here and appears to be an RS. That doesn't mean it should be in the article and that it is quality. But the content can be verified, the source is not self-published and is from a professor. Please post thoughts here rather than reverting again. AbstractIllusions ( talk) 14:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks AbstractIllusions for the url. However, the point remains if this should be part of the text, i.e. why the specific person's death should be mentioned in detail. After all some hundreds of Greeks and Turks died that day. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Good source, this one or not, on Greek atrocities in Izmir? -- 212.174.190.23 ( talk) 16:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The specific section needs to be expanded since it is the core of the article. It includes the entire period from 1919 to 1922, which was not a theatre of war, concerning the Smyrna occupation zone. Thus, I'll do my best expanding it. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a consensus that the current name is the WP:COMMONNAME found in reliable sources. — Amakuru ( talk) 09:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Occupation of Smyrna →
Greek Administration of Smyrna – Calling it an occupation is ridiculously POV. From some points of view, the Greeks were the rightful owners and the Turks the occupiers. Let's use a neutral title instead.
Genealogizer (
talk)
20:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System (
talk)
23:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)