Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Before any edits

Sorry for writing on top, the rule is still to right below older comments, stick to chronology, it makes it easier to read.

One thing to bare in mind, this article is still of average quality, but has a LONG history of stupidity, abuse, nationalism and POV pushing, believe me this is perfect compared to the past. BEFORE you complain or change anything, take some time to read the archived talk pages to see what points of controversy existed in the past.Deadjune1 (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

New rules for this article

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

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

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

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

About Source and Quotation

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)

Your source is NOT a third party source. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Army size

Any neutral source?I know that in 1921 Greek army reached it's maximum size of nearly 200,000 personnel (fighting,logistical,stationed).Obviously the Turkish army as the conflict grew could attract big numbers from the population and after 1920 could acquire guns from deals with France, Italy and USSR.Can someone help find some neutral sources about the army size of both combatants throughout the 3 years of conflict? Eagle of Pontus (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The turkish army had generally smaller numbers than the greek, but lesser needs as well. On the greek side huge quantities of manpower were needed to support the campaign. In 1922 the total size of the turkish western front (fighting the greeks) was 113,810 men of which 93,940 were combatant. The greek army (the front units) had 161,291 men, of which 85,000 were combatant. The difference comes from the fact that the turkish army did not cout the logistical units as military personnel. Every turkish division had some 7,500 men, while a greek some 11,000 men. Both had however similar actual strentgh, because the greek divisions included many non-combatant units, such as at least 3,000 transport mules and their guides (every mule had one).--Xristar (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Venizelism movement?

This section is entirely irrelevant to its title, as it barely mentions anything about Venizelos and his politics, focusing instead on King Constantine... Cplakidas (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, The National Schism was important background (and major factor for the final defeat) NOT Venizelism CORRECTED TITLE, PLEASE COMMENT Also content needs improvement, take example from the very well written National Schism article. Deadjune1 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Kapur" :
  • Kapur, H. ''Soviet Russia and Asia, 1917-1927''
  • Kapur, H ''Soviet Russia and Asia, 1917-1927''

DumZiBoT (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE do not go hot headed again and revert all my effort NO2=

Same again, i did not touch any of the controversial bits, I just hated the way the article was hard to read by someone that his first language is English and has NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE EVENTS,

All you guy's seem to forget what is the purppose of an Encyclopedia, is not a fight of "I have 12 references that support my POV you only have 11 for your POV, I win, nah-nah-nah, I am better..." RELAXXXXXXXXXX Deadjune1 (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE do not go hot headed again and revert all my effort No1=

All I did is to reedit the order of the paragraphs which was very haphazard and not in chronology, I also improved some structural problems and logical jumps. I also changed a couple of bad English. (What the F..K is "ouster???) PLEASE KEEP THE STRUCTURE or comment on your disagreement

1-Background
2-MILITARY OPERATIONS AND CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS (DO NOT MIX DATE ORDER)
3-OUTCOME-RESOLUTION-DISCUSSION OF WHY IT ENDED THIS WAY
4-ALL THE HOT ISSUES ABOUT ATROCITIES ETC KEEP AT THE END, DO NOT INCLUDE IN THE EVENTS AND MAKE IT HARD TO READ'
Deadjune1 (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened between December and August??????

I agree with other well informed comments. obviously the advance was result of some winning on the Greek side! There was a major battle in the line Eskishejir-Afyonkarahisar in June-July that is not even mentioned. Can someone write something for the advance December 1920 to August 1921? Is ridiculous to give the impression that the Greek Army was advancing for a whole year being constantly defeated! Even an ignorant can understand there is something wrong in this article.

Significant edit, please read

I am quite certain this paragraph has caused heated discussions in the past, but encouraged by the balance established, I decided to expand the section on causes of the outcome, the reason being the older version was a bit poor in modern historiographical terms. Eg we cannot say that the entente just left Greece on their own because of the return of Konstantine, this sounds like a 1930s argument!

Please note that I kept the essence of the consensus version that remained around for a year now. The essence of causes are in both versions

1-GREECE LOSING SUPPORT AFTER 1920
2-KEMAL GAINING SUPPORT AFTER 1920
3-MORALE AND MOTIVES SWINGING IN FAVOUR OF TURKS
4-TURKISH STRATEGICAL ADVANTAGES (either due to reality or talent, both documented)
5-GREEK STRATEGIC DISADVANTAGES (either due to reality or errors/incompetence, both documented)

Please discuss HERE if you want to change-add, but be critical, not passionate. Do not revert without discussion, if you bother to read, is a change in form and little expansion, not change in the essence. I hope you agree with this as a core for further improvement, IS NOT PERFECT, just a start. Feel free to comment constructively. I know that a common way of non-constructively ruining my small contribution is to fill it with 'citation needed', but come on, help, don't fight the article.Deadjune1 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

National Schism request for re-edit

Can someone re-write in the background the political situation in Greece due to the Venizelos-King split. Is not very good now. The full article is well written, I might have to steal stuff from there if nobody re-writes this the next one week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadjune1 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the Greeks and Turks are on holiday

I did some work to improve this article from the point of view of someone that knows nothing and wants to know what this war was all about. Then I had a look in the archives of talk and I freaked. I wonder how come nobody so far has not automatically reverted my edits, there is long history in this article of any attempt of NPOV to be massacred. Apparently the Greco-Turkish combatants are on holiday. Good time to improve this one! (sorry I know this is not a forum but I could not help it, hehe) Deadjune1 (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously now: This is a relatively unbiased article, and keep the way it is

This article is relatively neutral and please do not try to change by putting controversial stuff. I have been monitoring the previous Greco-Turkish editing wars in various articles and you will freak out with the level of atrocities perpetrated from both sides (permit me the pun) This is actually as good as it gets for a hot potato.Deadjune1 (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Significant expansion

I expanded a bit the Afyon battle section, please make constructive comments, I am not an expert on the topic, but I searched some secondary sources. In my undertanding this period was THE defining moment of the whole war, the Turks like to obscure their defeat then, but in reality this defeat helped them win overall, because the Greeks became emotional and instead of organising defence to keep what they had conquered/liberated, they continued the offensive with the irrational ratio of chances 50:50 (something like all or nothing logic). Deadjune1 (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

ARCHIVE page 4 now available

I archived last years comments, butr I kept the rules list because I think they should be always visible for potential editors. All of them are very reasonable, please stick to them. Deadjune1 (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Major clean up and edit

Work in progress, please contribute.
Please note that NOTHING was deleted, they just moved around under paragraphs that correspond more to the content. Do not go around shouting that I removed anything, this was an improvement of style with minor additions.
I made the background section a bit more readable without changing the established balance. Before it was quite ugly structure
The one side says-the other side says, which is not in the style of Wikipedia.
Also I made a clearer seperation beetween Claims for protection of Greek Community and Megali Idea, which are related but if you wanna keep them under different headings, please avoid duplication and the overlap in their content. Comments welcome, DO NOT REVERT. Deadjune1 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

My final addition and clean-up

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)

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)

Citation verification

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" : An authoritative source may not be absolutely authoritative.

Proposition 2: "On authoritative source" : Person A who is somewhat authoritative in a field X is not necessarily authoritative outside that field.

Proposition 3: "On cross validation" : Two sources validate if and only if they are in consensus and they are independent.

Proposition 4: "Transfer of Credibility" : 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..." : 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 Georgopl (talk • contribs) 12:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC) --Georgopl (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. --Georgopl (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Other suggestions

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?--Georgopl (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

in response to above comment

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.--Georgopl (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

--Georgopl (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. --Georgopl (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Title of article

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)

Other suggestions -response

I agree that the occupation paragraph is badly written, but it is a controversial paragraph and any changes should be well thought through, please contribute and put your comments about any changes. Could I dare to make it "some parts of the Turkish population" which reflects the fact that a significant part could not care less who had the power, nationalism was not so fiery in all, especially among the lower education-economic strata, but I might be wrong... Deadjune1 (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit

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)

"Some" is a WP:WEASEL word. Can you possibly be more specific? Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Also "The majority of the Turkish population" is vague, i.e. weasel again. Do you have a citation for this exact (majority) claim? Dr.K. (talk) 17:45, 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."

--Georgopl (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)

Naming conventions

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)

More generally, could we have a bit more respect for the fact that this is the English Wikipedia? Thus it's best to call the cities Constantinople and Smyrna rather than Istanbul and Izmir, as that is how they were known in English until the 1930s. And transliterating "Megali Idea" is not translating it, as should be done if people are to understand it: it probably needs to be "Great Vision" throughout. Diomedea Exulans (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The latter change would be in opposition to the general convention of keeping the phrase Megali Idea untranslated in all Wikipedia articles, since there is not an unambiguous way to render it properly (Idea versus Vision), and more importantly, since most anglophone academic works on the subject refer to is as Megali/Megale Idea without any attempt to translate it. As for the misquoted passages mentioned above, I was glad to see that they have already been detected and corrected by now. --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose then that I think it is the convention that is wrong, as Omnipaedista describes it. Is not Wikipedia for the general user rather than specialist academics? Diomedea Exulans (talk) 10:08, 2 August 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 İzmir." 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)

Minor additions for change of government

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)

Minor restructuring and additions for analysis of outcome

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)

Thrace

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)

Deleted the claims of massacres from both sides=

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... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonertje80 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman-occupied territories

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)

Great Fire of Smyrna

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)

Majority of eye-witness accounts stress that they see Turkish troops starting the fire, some say it was the continuation of the city burnings Greek troops committed on their retreat route. To argue that there was a systematic burning is different, that is questionable, and George Horton and the likes of him are clearly unreliable sources on that. If you want to discuss this point you have Great Fire of Smyrna Article to do that, not in here.

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.

With your kind permission I am going to revert the article to its previous version, to use Ottoman occupied is nationalist POV and there was no established scholarly consensus which claim the Fire of Smyrna to be an organized burning. You may have noticed that we do not use any such expression to describe the city burnings Greek troops committed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.153.120 (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification and possible compromise on "Ottoman-occupied territories"

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."

Removed ....adherents section. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Good? Bad? Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the "which was initially very small" refers to the "Kingdom of Greece", not to the number of supporters, so the "very few adherents" in your version doesn't match (unless you actually meant to say something so different from the previous version?). As for the question of "Ottoman-occupied", the term "occupied" is of course quite out of the question. About "Ottoman" itself, I'm not sure – at the relevant historical stage, relevant envisaged territories were no longer all part of the Ottoman Empire (e.g. Northern Epirus etc.) – I have no strong opinion about the grammatical issue of which part of the sentence to package in a relative clause. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, size and not adherents. However, I do not agree that Ottoman-occupied is out of the question since Pontus was still Ottoman-occupied at the start of the war as was much of the western coast of Asia Minor. [As was all of Armenia (in fact, much of it is still occupied today).] Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to Kansas Bear's 17:01, 14 January 2011. The "Megali Idea" (or Great Idea) was initially fostered by the Filiki Eteria and its predecessors for the liberation of Greeks from the Ottoman Empire (we are talking about pre-1820s (and some, more than a hundred years earlier). It's not about a Greater Greece. It's about the liberation of Greeks and a Greek nation from Ottoman oppression. The Greco-Turkish War was an event that came about due to a German king of Greece and sponsorship and encouragement by external powers who all ultimately betrayed Greece. Suggesting that "Megali Idea" is a driving force is not correct. The popular Greek prime minister at that time did not want a conflict and was against it. The German king of Greece made the conflict happen. The "Megali Idea" cannot be used as an excuse for this war. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nipson, I am sorry, but your version of history is pure propaganda. The Megali Idea was first articulated by Kolettis some 20 years after the War of Independence began, and was the constant ultimate foreign policy objective for all governments and de facto national ideology until 1922. If anything, Constantine and his followers were anti-Megali Idea during the National Schism, preferring the proverbial "small but honest Greece" based on the agrarian and conservative old kingdom, than a greater Greece where most people would be middle-class, liberal Venizelists. As for Kansas Bear's second version, I think it's OK. Constantine ✍ 10:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Now I am accused of "pure propaganda". Are there no limits? It doesn't make any difference who coined the phrase or who first articulated it in Greek parliament. The facts are that the concepts of Megali Idea were already well in place during the Ottoman occupation of Greece. Claiming that Kolletis was the originator when the Filiki Eteria and insurgents such as Daskalogiannis had already exercised it is a bit like putting a prime feather in a cap when somebody else actually plucked the bird. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This misses the point. The issue we are discussing is not when the megali idea was born. Nor is it of much relevance how to apportion the blame for the war between royalists and Venizelists. What's at issue here is whether it is fair to present the megali idea as one of the causing factors in the background section to this war (i.e. your claim above, "[s]uggesting that "Megali Idea" is a driving force is not correct"). But this appears to be quite uncontroversial, as any glance at the relevant literature confirms: the 1919–1923 war is unanimously described as motivated by the megali idea, and indeed as its final climax (and downfall). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Turkish "massacare" of armenians?

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)

Stanford J. Shaw

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)

Well, it is as reliable as George Horton, who had a Greek wife. I hope this is your view in that issue. These might not be presented as accepted facts, but claims. --Seksen (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, why do you keep expanding the "Greek massacres of Turks section"? Athenean (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, is it forbidden? Which policy states that expanding that section is inappropriate? Should Wikipedia just talk about Greek genocide, and other sections should not be expanded? Give me the link of that policy, and I will stop. --Seksen (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Again, I am asking you why you keep expanding it? Are you trying to prove something? Athenean (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place for information cited with reliable sources. I am doing that. I am not trying to prove anything, I am just adding the facts. And I will do so until a policy stops me, WP:DUE might, but certainly not now. Now, I am asking you why you and other users expand articles like Greek genocide? Are you trying to prove something? --Seksen (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question. I know you are expanding it, I want to know why. Btw, the only one expanding articles is you, no one else. But if you want to play the expansion game, others can do that very easily. After all, there is a world of material on Turkish atrocities from the period 1914-1923. Athenean (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

POV-pushing by quote farming

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)

Now we have four quotes, and I am aiming to reduce them to one or two by tomorrow. Now, you should be satisfied, and let me contibute to Wikipedia. --Seksen (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

One max. Any more and it's quotefarming. Athenean (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Repetition ad nauseam

The section on "Greek massacres of Turks" repeats much of the same things over and over for effect. For example:

• Graphic language: burnt and plundered houses, recent corpses, and terror stricken survivors, indiscriminately put to death and subjected to forms of torture and savagery worthy of the Inquisition and constituting in any case a barbarous violation of the laws of humanity, they massacred and raped civilians, and burned and pillaged as they went, they have continued to burn villages, kill Turks and rape and kill women and young girls and throttle to death children, committed every known outrage against defenceless Turkish villagers in its path

• Irregular bands: 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, then only a few sentences later: He added that the attrocities were committed by irregular bands of armed civilians, as well as the Greek army.

• Yalova-Gemlik peninsula: in the part of the kazas of Yalova and Gemlik occupied by the Greek army, there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Muslim population, and again that the Greek army had been employed in the extermination of the Muslim population in the Yalova-Gemlik peninsula.

• Toynbee: British historian Arnold J. Toynbee wrote that there were organized atrocities since the Greek occupation of Smyrna..., and again at the end, Arnold J. Toynbee wrote that they obtained convincing evidence that similar atrocities had been started in wide areas all over the remainder of the Greek occupied territories.

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)

So is the acoount of George Horton, which you find reliable. Find critics of these reports and add them, and it will be welcomed, but these comments are more like WP:OR, and this is not enough for tagging. And Toynbee's two quotes are not the same thing. --Seksen (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The parts about the Yalova-Gemlik Peninsula and the irregular bands are repetition, so I will remove the duplicate mention. Athenean (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

All right, I agree with you. I have not paid much attention on the repetition of irregular bands this while removing quotes and making them reported speech. --Seksen (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed the quote by M. Gehri, since it is identical in content and scope with that of the Inter-Allied Commission (Yalova-Gemlik peninsula, irregulars assisted by regulars). Athenean (talk) 22:46, 31 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".