![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I think this phrase was written by someone who does not speak English very well, can anyone tell us what this means? I don't want to just delete it since it is sourced, despite the poor semantics. AlexiusComnenus 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should have one of these combatant boxes-- this is an article about the administration of a city, right? It is not about warfare.
Lets look at Wikipedia precedents. AlexiusComnenus 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
the correct title would be: the liberation of smyrna.
No, the title is correct, the city was occupied by Greek forces as it states.
The name SHOULD be Smyrna, as this was the name of the city at the time of these events. It was Smyrna, Turkey. This is un-academic and reeks of nationalist propaganda. Good history is objective and factual. In this way, it is false to refer to Constantinople as Istanbul before 1937. Constantinople was not renamed until the late 30's. Again, before the late 30's it was literally Constantinople, Turkey. The correct title would be: Occupation of Smyrna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.177.5 ( talk) 23:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Old Turks had a habit of renaming cities they conquered. Istanbul is the name of that city since 1453 and Izmir is the name of that city since 14th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.67.27 ( talk) 15:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Denomination is always a strenuos matter as mostoften it reflects an expression of political will, a way of shaping ones´ environment according to ones´ idea. The european denomination of geographical structures all over the world always tended to be a demonstration of political influence or showing the appetite to influence or dominate these regions, as it happens in other historical cases as the roman empire, the chinese empire, the mughal empire, the russian empire etc. This seems to be a common process in history and a human cultural tradition. In the tense situation of turko-greek conflicts it seems clearly impossible to find a just denomination which does not carry also a political interpretation of the affair. The reference to "old turks" seems as less helpful as the reference to denominations which the Europeans, educated in antics and often fascinated from the antique history, gave to places, also it seems not correct to use denominations evolving from the economically dominating classes of levantinian, armenian or greek origins. The turkish denominations on the other hand also demonstrate obviously the clear wish to annihilate foreign identities in order to stabilize their growing - then ailing empire. As a matter of fact and in regard to the present differences between european and islamic cultures a apolitical denomination cannot be found here - therefore the use of both names should make everybody involved happy, e.g. "the occupation of Smyrna/Izmír". This solution does well in many bilingual or bicultural regions as in South-Tyrol, the basque country or Slovenia, why not try it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.238.53.45 ( talk) 09:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Takabeg ( talk) 17:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I do dispute Kekrops for instance naming it "The greek city", thats a Greek nationalist wording instead call it city, a neutral term..Then there is nothing wrong to name the historian who said these things , i am not deleting anything merely add which historian says so..-- laertes d 09:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The majority of the population of the city was Turkish according to Turkish sources,and only greek sources claım that majority was greek and the article's name happens to be "occupation of Izmir" as you may not noticed..How come it ended up being a Greek city?Greeks simply invaded it..And that is also a pathetic attempt in my opinion to justify the invasion by claiming that greeks improved the city thus it is good that they invaded it..Dobkin is a controversial figure, she never mentioned of the occurenece of large scale massacres in the city..Toynbee called Greek rule a "reign of terror", she tried to represent it almost as heaven..Even if she wasnt a controversial figure there is still nothing wrong with saying which person has said these things..-- laertes d 10:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
"according to Turkish sources",yes. --
Severino
06:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Severino, and which Greek sources did any census of Izmir before the Greek occupation? Occupying a city with military force, subjecting the ethnic Turks to terror causing them to flee for their lives would be a convenient way to reduce the Turkish population and claim it is a Hellenic city.
Also, I don't see what the relevance is of listling the establishment of creches etc and all these other irrelevant activities, this article is about the occupation of Izmir. I think this is a veiled attempt to try sweeten the realities of what the Greek occupation did. I'm sure the Megali Idea sympathisers see Izmir as their home, but if this isnt to be a POV article then these irrelevant items should be removed.
This article is very, very poorly written
Giordaano (
talk) 09:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I felt at least 5-6 times the same when I was reading it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.214.4.112 (
talk)
08:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The infobox (military conflict) seems wrong in this article since the title makes it clear that this is about a former administrative division and not a conflict. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)Hah, yes, that is the map of Greece as it was supposed to become. N. Epirus and the Dodecanese were to be ceded according to the 1919 Venizelos-Tittoni agreement, but Italy unilaterally withdrew from it in 1920, and it was never implemented. You could have these areas in a lighter shade of green if you want, but this needs to be explained, as Greece did not exercise control over them. Constantine ✍ 13:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The title of this article is based on the Turkish POV. The Greek POV is that Smyrna was liberated from Turkish occupation. Therefore this article cannot be called "Occupation of Smyrna" when the Greek army is there. Recommend that the title of this article is changed to "Greek landing at Smyrna". Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 15:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that "Greek administration of Smyrna" is the best non-POV title. Although "Zone of Smyrna" and "Landing at Smyrna" are also non-POV titles. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 15:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
(unindent) No. "Occupation" is, as I said, a period where a military administration over a conquered territory exists, until a conflict is ended by a treaty that settles any territorial claims. From the moment the military regime is lifted, and a lawful civilian authority is installed, it ceases to be an "occupation". Of course, to a Turk, the whole Greek presence was illegal and hence a "Greek occupation", just as for many Greeks, the period of Ottoman rule was "Turkish occupation", regardless if it lasted for 400 years and if the Ottomans were the sole legitimate authority over Greece (Venice excepted). And if Greece had somehow won the war and retained the Smyrna Zone, Turks would still call it "occupation" just as the French did with Alsace-Lorraine. One must be careful to distinguish the technical use of the term from the colloquial one, for the latter always has POV connotations (the "illegality" I have referred to). As for your latter statement, again you confuse things: the Smyrna Zone is the area placed under Greek administration by the Sevres Treaty, it is not the entire area occupied by the Greek army during the war. Outside the bounds of the Smyrna Zone, the administration was run by the Greek Army, and that constituted military occupation both de facto and de jure. Notice that Greece did not lay formal claim to this territory, even though she occupied it. Theoretically at least, the war was fought for the recognition of the Sevres status quo, not the expansion of the Smyrna Zone to include more of Anatolia. However, this article does not deal with the entirety of Turkish territory captured, but with the city of Smyrna and the area around it, viz. the Smyrna Zone, in 1919-1922. At least, that is what it should deal with, for right now it deals more with the capture and re-capture rather than what happened in between. Constantine ✍ 19:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we should have 2 articles: 1. for the capture of the city in 1919, 2. for the 3 year administration. Each article deals with a diferrent subject. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The city was governed by the Ottoman Empire before it was occupied. So is the name of this section true? As we consider that Ottoman Empire was commonly named "Turks", the name of the section should be "Turkish recapture". Kemalist capture might be another alternative. -- Seksen ( talk) 15:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I am amazed that such an ethnic wiki warrior-editor is allowed to spew such nonsense on these pages. Why and how Izmir of centuries becomes Smyrna is a mystery. Same people get bent out of shape when one refers to Istanbul by its current name for event pre-1930. Even names of Turkish islands in Aegean are in Greek in Wikipedia articles. Go check. It is a disgrace that such ethnic warfare on these pages has made Wikipedia far less than a relaible source. Izmir was/is the official name of the city at the time of relevance of this article, what exactly is the issue? What does this have anything to do with any alleged genocide? What kind of argument is that? Murat ( talk) 11:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
From 1919 to 2011
Last 20 years
Last 10 years
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I think this phrase was written by someone who does not speak English very well, can anyone tell us what this means? I don't want to just delete it since it is sourced, despite the poor semantics. AlexiusComnenus 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should have one of these combatant boxes-- this is an article about the administration of a city, right? It is not about warfare.
Lets look at Wikipedia precedents. AlexiusComnenus 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
the correct title would be: the liberation of smyrna.
No, the title is correct, the city was occupied by Greek forces as it states.
The name SHOULD be Smyrna, as this was the name of the city at the time of these events. It was Smyrna, Turkey. This is un-academic and reeks of nationalist propaganda. Good history is objective and factual. In this way, it is false to refer to Constantinople as Istanbul before 1937. Constantinople was not renamed until the late 30's. Again, before the late 30's it was literally Constantinople, Turkey. The correct title would be: Occupation of Smyrna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.177.5 ( talk) 23:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Old Turks had a habit of renaming cities they conquered. Istanbul is the name of that city since 1453 and Izmir is the name of that city since 14th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.67.27 ( talk) 15:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Denomination is always a strenuos matter as mostoften it reflects an expression of political will, a way of shaping ones´ environment according to ones´ idea. The european denomination of geographical structures all over the world always tended to be a demonstration of political influence or showing the appetite to influence or dominate these regions, as it happens in other historical cases as the roman empire, the chinese empire, the mughal empire, the russian empire etc. This seems to be a common process in history and a human cultural tradition. In the tense situation of turko-greek conflicts it seems clearly impossible to find a just denomination which does not carry also a political interpretation of the affair. The reference to "old turks" seems as less helpful as the reference to denominations which the Europeans, educated in antics and often fascinated from the antique history, gave to places, also it seems not correct to use denominations evolving from the economically dominating classes of levantinian, armenian or greek origins. The turkish denominations on the other hand also demonstrate obviously the clear wish to annihilate foreign identities in order to stabilize their growing - then ailing empire. As a matter of fact and in regard to the present differences between european and islamic cultures a apolitical denomination cannot be found here - therefore the use of both names should make everybody involved happy, e.g. "the occupation of Smyrna/Izmír". This solution does well in many bilingual or bicultural regions as in South-Tyrol, the basque country or Slovenia, why not try it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.238.53.45 ( talk) 09:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Takabeg ( talk) 17:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I do dispute Kekrops for instance naming it "The greek city", thats a Greek nationalist wording instead call it city, a neutral term..Then there is nothing wrong to name the historian who said these things , i am not deleting anything merely add which historian says so..-- laertes d 09:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The majority of the population of the city was Turkish according to Turkish sources,and only greek sources claım that majority was greek and the article's name happens to be "occupation of Izmir" as you may not noticed..How come it ended up being a Greek city?Greeks simply invaded it..And that is also a pathetic attempt in my opinion to justify the invasion by claiming that greeks improved the city thus it is good that they invaded it..Dobkin is a controversial figure, she never mentioned of the occurenece of large scale massacres in the city..Toynbee called Greek rule a "reign of terror", she tried to represent it almost as heaven..Even if she wasnt a controversial figure there is still nothing wrong with saying which person has said these things..-- laertes d 10:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
"according to Turkish sources",yes. --
Severino
06:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Severino, and which Greek sources did any census of Izmir before the Greek occupation? Occupying a city with military force, subjecting the ethnic Turks to terror causing them to flee for their lives would be a convenient way to reduce the Turkish population and claim it is a Hellenic city.
Also, I don't see what the relevance is of listling the establishment of creches etc and all these other irrelevant activities, this article is about the occupation of Izmir. I think this is a veiled attempt to try sweeten the realities of what the Greek occupation did. I'm sure the Megali Idea sympathisers see Izmir as their home, but if this isnt to be a POV article then these irrelevant items should be removed.
This article is very, very poorly written
Giordaano (
talk) 09:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I felt at least 5-6 times the same when I was reading it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.214.4.112 (
talk)
08:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The infobox (military conflict) seems wrong in this article since the title makes it clear that this is about a former administrative division and not a conflict. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)Hah, yes, that is the map of Greece as it was supposed to become. N. Epirus and the Dodecanese were to be ceded according to the 1919 Venizelos-Tittoni agreement, but Italy unilaterally withdrew from it in 1920, and it was never implemented. You could have these areas in a lighter shade of green if you want, but this needs to be explained, as Greece did not exercise control over them. Constantine ✍ 13:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The title of this article is based on the Turkish POV. The Greek POV is that Smyrna was liberated from Turkish occupation. Therefore this article cannot be called "Occupation of Smyrna" when the Greek army is there. Recommend that the title of this article is changed to "Greek landing at Smyrna". Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 15:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that "Greek administration of Smyrna" is the best non-POV title. Although "Zone of Smyrna" and "Landing at Smyrna" are also non-POV titles. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 15:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
(unindent) No. "Occupation" is, as I said, a period where a military administration over a conquered territory exists, until a conflict is ended by a treaty that settles any territorial claims. From the moment the military regime is lifted, and a lawful civilian authority is installed, it ceases to be an "occupation". Of course, to a Turk, the whole Greek presence was illegal and hence a "Greek occupation", just as for many Greeks, the period of Ottoman rule was "Turkish occupation", regardless if it lasted for 400 years and if the Ottomans were the sole legitimate authority over Greece (Venice excepted). And if Greece had somehow won the war and retained the Smyrna Zone, Turks would still call it "occupation" just as the French did with Alsace-Lorraine. One must be careful to distinguish the technical use of the term from the colloquial one, for the latter always has POV connotations (the "illegality" I have referred to). As for your latter statement, again you confuse things: the Smyrna Zone is the area placed under Greek administration by the Sevres Treaty, it is not the entire area occupied by the Greek army during the war. Outside the bounds of the Smyrna Zone, the administration was run by the Greek Army, and that constituted military occupation both de facto and de jure. Notice that Greece did not lay formal claim to this territory, even though she occupied it. Theoretically at least, the war was fought for the recognition of the Sevres status quo, not the expansion of the Smyrna Zone to include more of Anatolia. However, this article does not deal with the entirety of Turkish territory captured, but with the city of Smyrna and the area around it, viz. the Smyrna Zone, in 1919-1922. At least, that is what it should deal with, for right now it deals more with the capture and re-capture rather than what happened in between. Constantine ✍ 19:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we should have 2 articles: 1. for the capture of the city in 1919, 2. for the 3 year administration. Each article deals with a diferrent subject. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The city was governed by the Ottoman Empire before it was occupied. So is the name of this section true? As we consider that Ottoman Empire was commonly named "Turks", the name of the section should be "Turkish recapture". Kemalist capture might be another alternative. -- Seksen ( talk) 15:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I am amazed that such an ethnic wiki warrior-editor is allowed to spew such nonsense on these pages. Why and how Izmir of centuries becomes Smyrna is a mystery. Same people get bent out of shape when one refers to Istanbul by its current name for event pre-1930. Even names of Turkish islands in Aegean are in Greek in Wikipedia articles. Go check. It is a disgrace that such ethnic warfare on these pages has made Wikipedia far less than a relaible source. Izmir was/is the official name of the city at the time of relevance of this article, what exactly is the issue? What does this have anything to do with any alleged genocide? What kind of argument is that? Murat ( talk) 11:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
From 1919 to 2011
Last 20 years
Last 10 years