Talk:Burning of Smyrna

The Greeks started the fire

I know that according to a book the troops that invaded Smyrna and were to blame for the distruction of the city were Kurdish. Kemal Ataturk had promised them (for once more in their history) an indipendant state if only they would back him up with military to win the Greco-Turkish war. Obviously Ataturk couldn't control them and the unleashed Kurdish fioury resulted in the total distruction of Smyrna, which marked the end of a 2000 year continious Greek presence in Asia minor. Mroulias 13:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Name of the book, author, edition, page? Deniz^T_C 14:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Michael Llewellyn-Smith in his book "Ionian Vision", 1973,1998 which, though largely derived from Greek sources is generally regarded as very scholarly the Turks started the fire and carried out the massacre and rapes. Edward Riou

A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin, which is one of the latest scholarly accounts of the event also claims that the Turks started the fire. AlexiusComnenus 00:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC) AlexiusComnenus 00:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bias

"Furthermore, in his book's introduction, Consul Horton states that "he was [in Smyrna] up until the evening of September 11, 1922, on which date the city was set on fire", which would disqualify him as an eyewitness, since the fire had started on 13 September."

There doesn't seem to be any credible source confirming the exact date when the fire started, so why should that disqualify Horton as an eyewitness? And the source that is cited is another person's assesment of Horton's character, which has nothing to do with the veracity of Horton's claim. I'm deleting this sentence, since it seems to exhibit bias.Zambetis 07:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Sources indicate that the fire may have started before September 13, so Horton cannot be disqualified as an eyewitness.--Yannismarou 08:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

~~ Horton is a qualified eyewitness. I doubt the Greek army started the fire. Why would Greeks burn what they considered a Greek city? Third party accounts stated that the fire began after the Turkish army entered the city. Also, why was the Greek quarter that was torched and not the Turkish quarter if the Greek army started it? The article seems to give an emphasis on the Greek army retreat as though it was the most viable perpetrator. Also, equally interesting there is no evidence that proves Kemal Ataturk's innocence in it's planning. By ApplesnPeaches ~~

Why would the Turkish army torch a city which they are going to settle in to and which they have been inhabiting for hundreds of years. Why would they burn the Greek quarters? They wouldn't because they are going to use them. This whole argument is ludicorous the Greek army burned the city just like any army would do if they had lost. Scorch Earth policy on the retreat.Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Quote: " Why would Greeks burn what they considered a Greek city?" Question: Why would the Turks burn what they considered a Turkish City? Was the Turkish Army loosing battle? Was there any need for a scorched earth policy? Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Answer: Well said, you have the answer already, the Turks did not consider Smyrna a Turkish city, it was too Westernised-Cosmopolitan-Armenian-Greek and they wanted to ensure that anything reminding the above was extinguished for ever. Is not always the loser that burns cities. Actually traditionally the victors burned cities to submission. And it served them well...do you see anything Greek or Christian in Izmir of today???????

Yes, there are many monestaries still present in Izmir, just as they are in Istanbul, Van, Adana... Your idea of Turks seeing the city in which they resided for hundreds of years not being theirs is not prooven. Can you please supply me any surveys that was conducted at the time which portrayed the Turkish peoples, better yet Turkish elites view on Izmir. If you are to provide such a source your claims would be backed up. Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Applesnpeaches (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC) (To the author of the above quote) Fair enough. But you haven't discussed my mentioning about third party statements saying they witnessed Turks lighting the fires.
Also, how would the Greeks start a fire that began 4 days after the Turkish army took over the city and why would it begin in the Armenian quarters which were closed off by the Turkish military soldiers? Do you have an interesting possible reason that shows Greeks could still have burnt the city after their army had retreated and they were fleeing to the port for rescue by the aggressive response of the Turks? Applesnpeaches (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

When did the fire start?

I don't have the book at the moment, but as far as I remember he himself states that, doesn't he? Deniz^T_C 02:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

He may state so Deniz, and there is no other evidence or account in the article to support the claim that the fire began on 13 September to disqualify Horton's claim. The way this sentence is written smacks of NPOV. If it makes you feel better keep it as it is, I have no intention of starting an edit war over an already poorly written article.Zambetis 07:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a book (by the Greek department of National Geographic) stating that the fire started from the Armenian suburbs in the evening of August 31. Melville Chater in an article of his in "National Geographic" in 1925 says that "some days after the Turks entered Izmir, flames appeared from the Armenian district". Therefore, it seems that he places the beginning of the fire some days after September 8. But how many days after? Therefore, do we have any credible sources verifying that the fire started on September 13? If yes, OK. If no, then we have a huge problem here concerning the article's credibility and claims, since the article starts like that: "The Great Fire of Smyrna is the name commonly given to the fire that ravaged İzmir/Smyrna starting 13 September 1922 and lasted for four days until the 17 September".--Yannismarou 09:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume that there are conflicting reports on who, where and when the fire started. Therefore it is quite evident that the introductory paragraph is biased, especially since there is no citation for the start date. Further passages in the article suggest the same:

“While some sources believed the fire to be the continuation of the scorched earth policy of the Greeks, some believed Armenians had received instructions to burn İzmir as a sacred duty and to bring about an international intervention.”

Source?

"Turkish sources point out to other documents; for example the official report drawn by the Chief of Smyrna Fire Fighting Department, Paul Grescowich, an Austrian national of Serbian origin, as well as an alleged[citation needed] telegram from Turkish commander in chief Mustafa Kemal."

Source for the official report? And what is an "alleged telegram"?

This article is in need of a major rewrite and there's no real point in nitpicking this point or that.Zambetis 12:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

George Horton: a few facts

Was George Horton biased towards Greeks? The following excerpt from his book provides an answer:

...I am neither “pro-Greek,” “pro-Turk,” nor anything except pro-American and pro-Christ. Having passed the most of my life in regions where race feeling runs high, it has been my one aim to help the oppressed, irrespective of race, as will be shown by documents submitted later, and I have won the expressed gratitude of numerous Turks for the aid and relief I have afforded them on various occasions.

I am aware of the many noble qualities of the Turkish peasant, but I do not agree with many precepts of his religion, and I do not admire him when he is cutting throats or violating Christian women...

Was George Horton an eyewitness of the burning of Smyrna? The following excerpts from his book provide an answer:

...On the morning of the ninth of September, 1922, about eleven o’clock, frightened screams were heard. Stepping to the door of my office, I found that a crowd of refugees, mostly women, were rushing in terror upon the Consulate and trying to seek refuge within, and that they were very properly being kept out by the two or three bluejackets assigned for the defense of the consular property...

...The Archbishop Chrysostom came to the Consulate but a short time before his death, together with the Armenian Archbishop. Chrysostom was dressed in black. His face was pale. This is the last time that I saw this venerable and eloquent man alive...

...Great clouds of smoke were by this time beginning to pour down upon the Consulate. The crowd in the street before this building, as well as that upon the quay, was now so dense that the commanding naval officer told me that in ten minutes more I should not be able to get through. The hour had struck for me to evacuate my colony, to find some refuge for it in a Christian country, and to find means for its temporary sustenance...

Whoever still disputes that George Horton was an eyewitness to the destruction of Smyrna is a pathological liar.

How did he come to feel so strongly against the Turks? The following excerpts from his book provide an answer:

...A series of sporadic murders began at Smyrna as at Saloniki, the list in each morning’s paper numbering from twelve to twenty. Peasants going into their vineyards to work were shot down from behind trees and rocks by the Turks. One peculiarly atrocious case comes to mind: Two young men, who had recently finished their studies in a high-grade school, went out to a vineyard to pass the night in the coula (house in the country). During the night they were called to the door and chopped down with axes...

...Most of the Christian houses in Asia Minor are built of a wooden framework, which serves as an earthquake proof skeleton for the walls of stone and mortar. The Turks pulled the houses down by laying a timber across the inside of the window—or doorframe—to which a team of buffaloes or oxen was hitched. A Turk would reside in one of the houses with his wife, or with his goats and cattle, and thus tear down a circle of houses about him. When the radius became too great for convenience, he moved into the center of another cluster of houses. The object of destroying the houses was to get the wooden timbers for firewood...

...The complete and documentary account of the ferocious persecutions of the Christian population of the Smyrna region, which occurred in 1914, is not difficult to obtain; but it will suffice, by way of illustration, to give only some extracts from a report by the French eye-witness, Manciet, concerning the massacre and pillage of Phocea, a town of eight thousand Greek inhabitants and about four hundred Turks, situated on the sea a short distance from Smyrna. The destruction of Phocea excited great interest in Marseilles, as colonists of the very ancient Greek town founded the French city. Phocea is the mother of Marseilles. Monsieur Manciet was present at the massacre and pillage of Phocea, and, together with three other Frenchman, Messieurs Sartiaux, Carlier and Dandria, saved hundreds of lives by courage and presence of mind... --Tedblack 10:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The title of George Horton's book is "Blight of Asia". By "blight", he means Turks. The subtitle is "An Account of the Systematic Extermination of Christian Populations by Mohammedans and of the Culpability of Certain Great Powers; with the True Story of the Burning of Smyrna". And we cite a person using such language as an impartial witness! With perfectly straight face!

It seems that the main proof of Horton's impartiality comes from Horton himself: He says "...I am neither “pro-Greek,” “pro-Turk”" Do we expect him to say "look, I have written a book about turks, but be careful, I hate them so much that I can twist facts about them?

On the other hand, we do not hesitate to declare : "Bristol was notoriously anti-Greek, describing Greeks in his correspondence as the worst race in this part of the world". Pretty double-standardy, eh? 88.234.173.240 (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)mehmet

Source

I bumped onto this the other day. Since I'm not familiar with the debate here, I thought I should drop it for your attention. NikoSilver 14:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And this. NikoSilver 15:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a story of several Greeks who fled the area because of warnings the Turks were going to create disaster.(AikateriniStudio (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

http://smyrni-heart.blogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by AikateriniStudio (talk • contribs) 21:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC) (AikateriniStudio (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

Source pre-dating event

Two news articles, both pre-dating the event that is the subject of this article, were recently added to the article. It is logically impossible for them to document or otherwise reliably refer to the subject of the article. Either a secondary source references these articles, in which case it should be cited instead, or this represents original synthesis. Jakew 23:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What are the important sources?

At the time of writing, a disproportionate amount of the article content is devoted to the (tellingly titled) "Pro-X Sources as to Who Is Responsible" sections. This, I strongly suspect, is an artifact of the editing process, rather than being a carefully thought-out narrative. Certainly, I find it a poor way to tell the story, and it is confusing and uninformative to read. As a reader, rather than one with much knowledge about the subject, I am more interested in the events themselves (together with the consequences and historical commentary) than in who was to blame.

In my view, the article would benefit from (as a minimum), harshly selecting the most important of these sources (preferably with reference to a secondary source) and combining them into a single section ("Debate over culpability"? Or perhaps someone can think of something better?). Ideally, they should be integrated into the overall narrative of the events, aftermath, and historiography, but that may take longer.

I would therefore request that editors identify the most important sources on either 'side', so that they can be discussed here. Also, please stop the edit war. Jakew 12:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Major Western Historians Claim Turks Burned Smyrna

For example, Niall Ferguson from Harvard in War of the World and David Fromkin of Boston University in A Peace to End all Peace claim that the Turks burned Smyrna. We should stop focusing on secondary sources and list primary sources. All major historians publish that the Turks burned Smyrna. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.238.58 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia should use secondary sources wherever possible. Please see WP:PSTS. Jakew 09:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, Wikipedia should use secondary sources wherever possible, but these secondary sources must be competent about the primary sources! History is all about skill in using primary sources. If a historian is writing about an issue like the great fire of smyrna, he should at least know enough turkish, or greek, or armenian to go to primary sources. Neither fromkin nor ferguson satisfies this criterion. The flashy title "harvard historian" is not enough. It can be said that a lot of evidence concerning the great fire comes from foreign residents of izmir. But this is also a distortion originating from such non-specialist historians. These people use only the evidence they can understand, flush the rest down the drain. And then, quite circularly, everybody thinks that all the evidence comes from the foreign residents of smyrna. What is more, using foreign residents bring its own problems: these people are mostly not aware of the dynamics of the country and can misinterpret what they see.(talk) 04:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)mehmet

Indeed these foreign residents also have a streotyped prejudice of the "barbarian turks" who would burn cities. Therefore they would believe the retreating Greek army quite readly for it satisfies their streotypes. I do not think western historians are a reliable source because of this prejudice. To add to this the historian you have noted down can not access primary sources making his judgement cloudy because he is taking evidence from sources that have a certain bias.Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Pro-Greek" sources

In what way sources that document the destruction of Smyrna by the Turks are "pro-Greek"? If a historical event is documented and the facts prove that one side committed a crime, are the historians responsible biased? By this ridiculous argument historians that have documented the Holocaust are "anti-German"!! Can we attempt to implement the NPOV guidelines in a way that does not give rise to nonsense?--Tedblack 14:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said above in #What are the important sources?, I'm not keen on the 'Pro-X' labelling either. Perhaps you'd care to comment on my suggestion in the above section? Jakew 09:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Niall Ferguson has provided a well researched history of the events in his book "The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Decline of the West"; however this book is not entirely devoted to this event. I have already given a list of academic sources both in the article and the discussion. There have been attacks on some of these sources claiming that they do not offer a balanced judgement. But all they are doing is documenting events from either personal experience (George Horton) or thorough research (Marjorie Housepian Dobkin).--Tedblack 15:09, 23 August 2007 (UTCWell, at the time I had organized the sources under two main groups so that they would look balanced. This is necessary if the article will have any chance of getting the POV tag removed.

I had initially named them something like Sources Claiming Greek Responsibility and Sources Claiming Turkish responsibility. But this met objections as to claiming ones innocence is not the same as claiming guilt of the other etc. So I changed it into the current form. The Pro was meant to be understood in this context only as to who is responsible, and not in the sense that the source was already biased to begin with. But if you do not like it something like

Sources Claiming Greek Responsibility and/or Turkish Innocence

Sources Claiming Turkish Responsibility and/or Greek Innocence

would also work for me. If you any have other suggestions they are of course welcome. But it has to be balanced, i.e. one cannot name one section as Pro-Turkish Sources while naming the other one as say, Neutral Sources Claiming Greek Innocence and Total Turkish Responsibility. You need to come up with a title of the form Something Something X Something Something, where X=Turkish in one case, and X=Greek for the other.

On a different note, The Pro-Greek section is too long and will need to be shortened to match the length of the Pro-Turkish section. Current length can be misleading in making the reader think that there is more Pro-Greek sources and more acceptance of the Pro-Greek point of view (needless to say, I am once again using the Pro's only for this context). Best regards, --Kudret abi 07:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)--

The POV and absurd contexts should be removed, and if your going to claim it is Pro-Greek or Turkish you need sources. --Vonones 07:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The claim that in any article there should be an equal presentation of pro- and anti- sources is absurd. What we should be concerned about is collecting authoritative sources about the event. If these sources prove that the Turks were cold blooded murderers then tough luck. --Tedblack 14:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Ted and if these sources proove the retreating greek army cowardly burned an enemies due to its shame though luck... And if these sources prove the Turks were clever enough to beat the Greek army yet dumb enough to burn their own city, though luck... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 19:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources

This needs a citation:

"Many accounts proposed by some Western scholars that the Turks burned the Armenian and Greek quarters and Nurettin Pasha, the Turkish commander of troops in Ionia, is accused of starting the fire deliberately in an act of retribution. There exist conflicting eyewitness accounts and evidence over who started the fire."

Saying Pro-Greek Sources as to Who Is Responsible or pro-Turkish is nonsense it should be included only in external links if necessary.

This needs sources:

"They then decided to burn them out by setting the building alight. According to this account, other Armenians in Smyrna, meanwhile, started another fire elsewhere to divert Turkish attention"

Someone just wrote this? --Vonones 07:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Vonones you deleted the official report of Paul Grescowich, ı know it was unsourced, but still that section do exits with the name of "official report"..How come? What now exists in the article is not their official report but what housepian Dobkin claimed as their "initial" observations..--laertes d 10:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed other context including POV against Turks, we need to neutralize this article remove unsourced material that will only confuse the viewer. Anyway it was unsourced so there is no way to verify it. --Vonones 22:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess i cant make myself clear to you Vonones, there is such thing as an "official report of Paul Grescowich", however it was unsourced and you deleted it..İt is fine until here but there still exist a section called "official report" althought there isnt any official report in it since you deleted it but there only exist something what Dobkin claimed as their initial statements..--laertes d 00:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Right when sources are found I will add it back up pretty simple. --Vonones 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

'Alleged'

Alleged should not be used per WP:WTA --Vonones 22:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

These statements are coming from someone called Akis Harabapulos, a guy from "Hellenic Council", i guess there is no need to say that he is not impartial in this issue..And the reference to him is poorly made, no page number is given for the reference..there isnt any Turkish commander called Mehmet Azıt, how could he be able to give these commands that akis claimed? it is quite reasonable to name that section as "alleged orders issued as scene"..--laertes d 00:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Vonones, if there is no such commander, then the source is not reliable. What Laertes says about Hellenic council, adds to this. We can't have it. 'Alleged' can be used, but it should be noted who 'alleges'. Also, the current title gives the impression that these orders were real, and we don't have a reliable source supporting it, at least at the moment. Deniz^T_C 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a few sources plus the quote is also found here: [1], just because there are no sources found yet doesn't mean you get to put alleged'. --Vonones 03:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That also is a pro-greek source as the name of the site makes it obvious.. I can repeat the same thing then for the section you deleted, just because there isn't any source found yet doesnt mean you get to delete the official report of Gresowich..Plus there isnt any WP:WTA statement that "alleged" can't be used..When you find some reliable source come back again and change it to the way you want..Until then the wording "alleged" is a fine compromise..Such websites with propaganda purposes are not to be used in wikipedia actually..--laertes d 12:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter they are sourcing someone else. --Vonones 21:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does matter, you have to use verifiable and reliable sources..A propaganda site is not a reliable source..Neither someone from "Hellenic council"..Plus there is no way to check this source for its verifiability: "Haralabopoulos, Akis, Hellenic Council of New South Wales 1996"--laertes d 09:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

suggestion

Can somebody explain to me why we 'taint' the article with all the blockquotes and all the not-so-reliable or irrelevant sources? Wouldn't it be better to have a more wiki-like, encyclopedic, NPOV article with nothing but reliable sources? Also events unrelated to the fire should not have its place here, this is not the article for that. A general background is fine. I don't really understand the abusive use of blockquotes, are they used to make some points? Wikipedia does not take stance. This article should possibly be rewritten. Tedblack you can help, but not like this. Deniz^T_C 18:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The situation here is very simple: there is overwhelming evidence, from unbiased academic sources that the Turks slaughtered and burned the Christian population of Smyrna. Because these are Turkish crimes most Turkish academics will be reluctant to research them. Therefore most of the academic research will come from Christian/Western sources. These sources are then accused of 'bias' and 'pro-Greek' views. This circular argument is repeated as a 'NPOV' argument.

Tedblack, define "overwhelming evidence" to me, define "unbiased academic sources" to me. Arent these concepts smack of POV? 78.185.182.52 (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)mehmet

Wikipedia has to take a stance when the facts support it. Wikipedia has taken a stance on the Armenian Genocide (the article is even locked to protect it from the malicious Turkish attacks that plague this article). The article quite rightly presents the Turks in a very bad light. Wikipedia must take a stance on the Destruction of Smyrna. Who cares what the miscelaneous Turks think.--Tedblack 16:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Then show us the overwhelming evidence from unbiased academic sources, not these. You are yourself an editor that was blocked for attacks; I would suggest you be careful when talking like above (eg. are you plaguing this article?). And Armenian Genocide is not fully protected. Anyway, I am sure we don't have an User:Ararat arev (see this) attacking it. Wikipedia never takes a stance, it is only intermediary, it just reflects what is out there. I hope your definition of unbiased academic source is a correct one. Deniz^T_C 15:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Deniz your concerns are made up. There is no objective definition of an "unbiased" source. For all we know all those people writing about the Holocaust may be doing that because they hate the Germans. What really hurts you is the overwhelming evidence coming from academic researchers which shows the crimes the Turks perpetrated at Smyrna (amongst other places). It is the result of academic research that you don't like rather whether it is "biased" or not. If exactly the same academics were concluding that all these murders were done by Greeks or Armenians you would rush to proclaim them "unbiased". --Tedblack 08:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Those damn silent lambs. Wow. Anyway, 'unbiased academic sources' was from your comment above. I suggest you change your attitude. Deniz^T_C 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Deniz, it is a fact that current scholarly discourse everywhere outside of Turkey notes that the Turks burned Smyrna. Even many Turkish academics recognize the events. Please find me a single non-Turkish modern secondary source (wikipedia should rely on secondary sources whenever possible) that seriously claims that the Greek burned Smynra. There are none in the article, while there are numerous claiming Turkish responsibility. AlexiusComnenus 22:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is this article is in a big mess. I would like to see a better, a wiki like article. I would like to see those researches. Deniz^T_C 00:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Deniz why do you keep flip-flopping? If you are offended by documented research that proves Turkish crimes come out and say it. No one will judge you for trying to protect your country's reputation. The article is still a big-mess because people like you sabotage it constantly. --Tedblack 09:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You are only making it worse. Also, it seems to me that your attacks will have no bounds, you should stop soon. The scholarly research here seems to be usually about other crimes that happened in the city, and they are dumped together along with abusive use of block quotes. For instance according to that NY Times article, Dr. Lovejoy refuses to comment about the fire. Also I don't see a reason to promote Blight of Asia more and more. When not busy, I am planning to summarize below the statements of the sources (only related to fire), and this might help us later. You can help. Deniz^T_C 22:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deniz stop threatening contributors. The article will be changed to reflect the current consensus in academic research and you can do nothing about it.--Tedblack 09:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol, so lovely. Deniz^T_C 15:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am being dragged from surprise to surprise while reading this discussion. I have a Ph. D. myself, and the most valuable thing I have learned in my scientific education is to keep an emotional distance from the object of inquiry. With subjective language like "Turks slaughtered and burned the Christian population of Smyrna", "Turkish crimes", you cannot do this. Actually your blood boil so much that you are not aware you are falling into many contradictions.

For example, there is the challenge "find me a single non-Turkish modern secondary source (wikipedia should rely on secondary sources whenever possible) that seriously claims that the Greek burned Smynra". Why non-turkish? And if we suspect that turks are lying because of their nationality, shouldnt we also exclude Housepian, on similar grounds? Or is she, by the virtue of being Armenian, somewhat superior to all these degenerate and lying turks? As for your non-turkish secondary sources (all these fergusons, fromkins etc) they dont carry any weight. If somebody wants to arrive at sharp judgements about the history of a country, he should first please bother to learn the language of that country, and do first-hand research in the documents written in that language. These guys make quite strong declarations about turkish history, but they cannot read even a road sign written in turkish language.

What is also extremely interesting, you are not above using turkish sources when they are confirming your wiews. For example, there is a lenghty quotation from Falih Rifki Atay against Nurettin Pasa. Of course, as you know only "enough" turkish history to prove your points (Turks slaughtered and burned the Christian population) you do not know the background of these comments. Nurettin Pasa was uniformly hated by all the modernizers, as he represented the old order. I do not remember reading a single good comment about him. He was blamed with all possible crimes. Atay also had some personal grudge against him, as he murdered Atay's good friend, Ali Kemal. Although Nurettin Pasa was a very unpleasant men, all the accusations directed at him should be very carefully examined. Does this mean Atay is lying and Nurettin didnt burn smyrna? No,of course not. It only means that Atay's comment should be examined much more closely. What Nurettin did in september 1922 should be put under magnifying glass. Diaries of everybody close to him must be scrutinized, all orders emanating from his headquartes must be re-read, etc. And now I think you can see now why I reject Ferguson and Fromkin as experts.

One may ask: If Nurettin was uniformly hated by Ataturk's circle, why he was kept a general at the head of an army? Well, first because he was a very competent soldier, second he did not harbour any political ambitions. In the Turkey of 1922, it was impossible to find a second person who satisfied both conditions.

Hence, there is no truth in the sentence "current scholarly discourse everywhere outside of Turkey notes that the Turks burned Smyrna". First, I do not know a single --qualified-- historian taking such a stance. Second, the state of evidence does not allow to such a strong judgement. Third, modern history generally do not like to be forced on a judge's chair.

And the oscar goes to... first declaring "Wikipedia should use secondary sources wherever possible", and then using horton and atay as major sources, dedicating most of the article to quotations from them! I thought they were primary sources, lived and witnessed the great fire. Silly me. Now I know that they are harvard professors whose offices are just next to niall ferguson.

88.234.173.240 (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)mehmet

Sources used here

George Horton

Marjorie Housepian Dobkin

Kinross

Rudolph J. Rummel

Paul Grescowich

Mustafa Kemal

Mark Prentiss

Mark Lambert Bristol

Ernest Hemingway

Thea Halo

Dr. Esther Lovejoy

Falih Rıfkı Atay

Biray Kolluoğlu Kırlı

Reşat Kasaba

Niall Ferguson

George E. Pataki

Mrs Maloney

correspondent of the Petit Parisien

Mr. L. R. Whittall

A French journalist who had covered the war of independence arrived in Smyrna shortly after the flames had died dow

The Times

Alexander MacLachlan

Bilal Şimşir

Nicole and Hugh Pope

greece.org

Colonel Rachid Galib

Horowitz

Boston Globe

Mr. H. Lamb

-- Deniz

Summarizing primary sources is a waste of time-- Wikipedia should rely primarily on secondary sources. AlexiusComnenus 17:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

These are the sources that were used here. I did not add any of them. Are you suggesting that we should remove statements 'supported' by Horton, Grescowich, Bristol, Hemingway, Halo, Lovejoy ,... ? Deniz^T_C 15:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are useful for some quotes, and should be discussed-- but we should not forget the Wikipedia is supposed to primarily rely on secondary sources. AlexiusComnenus 00:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And? Are the quotes useful? Deniz^T_C 18:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I should emphasize that both Horton and Atay, who lived through the events and witnessed them, are primary sources. According to the criterion "wikipedia should rely on secondary sources whenever possible", their testimony should not be used. 88.234.173.240 (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)mehmet

I do not doubt that Governor Pataki made some statements about the fire. However, in his biography it says that he is of Hungarian extraction. I wonder how calling him Greek-American can be justified? --AJim (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ap' to kako sto xeirotero

Good heavens, this article has taken a plunge since I last saw it, some months ago. This is now the absolutely most disgusting POV piece of writing I've seen for a long while on wiki. A disgrace. I have a strong urge to just go through the article and erase 90% of it. Wait, maybe that's just what I'll do now... Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I made a start but I must confess I haven't got the strength to go through it all. This article could do with a thorough rewrite, from scratch. Much of what is here is unsalvagable, including most of the structural plan. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Good start Fut.Perf. ☼. --Tedblack 10:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

George Horton

George Horton's testimony is only used because he was an eyewitness to the events. We do not need to mention his pro- or anti- Muslim views. I would agree it would be necessary if he was a novelist writing using second hand accounts of the events. But in this article we are only using his eyewitness account of the destruction of Smyrna and not his views about Turkey or Islam.--Tedblack 09:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Being an eyewitness account doesn't automatically stop an account from being biased, which Horton's most certainly is. The fact that he is a primary source, and one written from an unmistakably biased political perspective, makes contextualising his quotes all the more necessary. If he is to be mentioned at all, then not without also summarising the discussion of his role made by what should be our principal sources, namely reliable secondary sources by modern historians. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The points George Horton makes have been verified by other eyewitnesses. Turkish soldiers were guarding the Christian sectors of Smyrna. Turkish soldiers were seen carrying petrol tanks and incinerating houses in the Christian sectors. The fires started well after the Greek army was evacuated from Asia Minor. The Turkish quarter was not affected by the fire; that was because the whole operation was planned methodically. The Turkish soldiers were observed pouring petrol in front of the American consulate. By contrast, the points made in this article against such claims are pure conjecture: some British refugees opine that the Greeks and Armenians did it; Kemal did not want any violence against the Christians; a French journalist could not understand why the Turks would burn their own city; MacLachlan (who is cited in George Horton's book) started with one report saying the Turks set the fires and then changed it to "Armenian terrorists dressed in Turkish uniforms". Can we give the same weight to conjecture and cross-checked eyewitness reports?--Tedblack 14:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can find this argument brought forward by a modern historian in a reputable peer-reviewed publication, you are free to include it in the article. If not, not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. you are generating an infinite regression into nothing; define reputable publication; define modern historian. Obviously Niall Ferguson and Marjorie Housepian Dobkin are not your cup of tea. --Tedblack 08:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Does Fergusson include an explicit discussion of if and how and why and to what degree he finds Horton credible, and what role the other witnesses' accounts play in this assessment? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Marjorie Housepian Dobkin does. Is she good enough for you? --Tedblack 11:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Her views are already covered in the article, aren't they? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Her research shows that the events documented by George Horton actually happened. Therefore I cannot see the reason for painting George Horton as an unreliable source in relation to the events at Smyrna.--Tedblack 14:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that the Ferguson book does mention Horton's account-- unfortunately I left the book in Greece and will not be able to access it until Christmastime. It is also possible that I am mixing up Morgenthau and Horton, someone who has Ferguson's book "The War of the World" should check the section on the destruction of Smyrna to verify if he mentions Horton or not. If I recall correctly he does, but my memory obviously may be wrong. 212.201.82.41 10:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite simple, in all of his book he uses racist, hostile words to a particular group of people, while praising the invasion of a country by occupying forces of another country..That would be enough to potray him as unreliable, plus the info who accuses him is also propelry sourced material..Why to delete it? And certainly Housepian Dobkin is not enough for anything, no more than Justin McCarthy, who accused horton to be a religious fanatic..--laertes d 10:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

laertes d George Horton's account has value as an eyewitness account. His account agrees with other observers -- especially from the multinational fleet ancored in Smyrna bay. We are not using him as a historian.--Tedblack 16:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tedblack it seems you think Hortons account is relaible, but you only try to show that it is because it matches other sources which are established as reliable. this shows that you too also do not think Horton is a reliable source, becuase if you did, then you would show how we could actually rely in him, not on the authority of other sources. Any dumbass can say the same thing as a relible person, but that does not mean i should trust him/her. They might say the same thing for different (eg baised prejudice) reasons. so i still cannot trust the unreliable person. Do you know what im saying? So, it is right that the context of this source (Horton) should be made aware to the reader, so that to provide a warning, and the reader can judge for themselves. That is only fair.--Lettersound (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As I have said many times before, Horton's account is valuable only because he was first hand eyewitness of the events and not because his account agrees with other sources. Like all eyewitness accounts, they have to be cross-checked with other eyewitness accounts to eliminate distortions. But Horton's account has proven extremely robust even under this cross-examination. Even in court cases, members of the jury can be disqualified because their personal record shows bias; but eyewitness testimony can only be striken off the record because there are flaws and contradictions and not because the eyewitness is prejudiced.--Tedblack (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Still cannot understand. We have "Summarizing primary sources is a waste of time-- Wikipedia should rely primarily on secondary sources". Then we have "George Horton's testimony is only used because he was an eyewitness to the events". Which one? We have "We do not need to mention his pro- or anti- Muslim views." (By the way, does he have any pro-muslim wievs?). Then we have "Bristol was notoriously anti-Greek, describing Greeks in his correspondence as "the worst race in this part of the world"". It appears we do or do not mention the biases depending on their usefullness to a "side". Can somebody define "bigotry" to me? 88.234.173.240 (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)mehmet

"The points George Horton makes have been verified by other eyewitnesses." You can find many more eyewitnesses whose testimony completely contradict him. For example, take the Chief of Smyrna fire department, whose name was Paul Grescowich, if I am not wrong. He exactly fits TedBlack's criterion of a trustable source: christian, non-turkish. He was actually the only witness whose testimony can be trusted, as among all the witnesses only he had the necessary technical expertise. But unfortunately his story was very damaging for greeks and armenians. Not very surprisngly, only his name was mentioned, and not even a word of him is quoted. Instead, we have paragraph after paragraph of horton, with the dubious, vague, unsourced claim "The points George Horton makes have been verified by other eyewitnesses." 78.185.182.52 (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC) mehmet

Category Fires in Turkey

Can someone add Turkey to the Category by Country fires please, so that this fire appears in the subcategory Fires in Turkey (not in the main Category:Fires) Hugo999 (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, please check if this is what you wanted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Over reliance on Majorie Housepian Dobkin's book

There seem to be too many references to her book "Smyrna 1922: Destruction of a City". Is it possible to replace some of these with direct sources (or even better different sources)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedblack (talk • contribs) 09:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I count only three citations. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

misnamed article

I think this article disregards a point: In 1922, the Greek army and Greek civilians had torched down nearly all the cities of western Anatolia, which they considered to be irrevocably lost to Hellenism. Torchings started after the Greeks disastrously lost the battle of Dumlupinar (30 august 1922), and begun retreating towards Izmir. In the time-frame of a few weeks, they burned every city on their road. So, they already had an established precedence of torching down cities by the time they reached Izmir.

If these Greek survivors of Dumlupinar torched down nearly all western anatolian cities without any hesitation (all of which had sizeable, prosperous greek populations) why not Izmir, the biggest one of them all? The great fire happened only 14 days after Dumlupınar (13 september 1922). And at 13 september 1922, Izmir still contained hundreds of thousands of Greeks and Armenians. Some of these were natives of Izmir, but others were remnants of the greek army from Dumlupinar and greek refugees from other towns. All of them knew pretty well that they will be expelled shortly and will never be allowed to return. And as some of them certainly have the idea "not even leaving a toothpick behind for the benefit of turks" solidly in their mind, as demonstrated by their burning of manisa, alasehir, usak, turgutlu, salihli etc.

I think the methodology of this article is faulty. Singling out the great fire of Izmir from the torching of all other major western anatolian towns in 1922 is to take it out of context.

All of the discussion about this great fire revolves around the identity of perpetrators, (ie, Issues like: where did the fire started? when does it end? What was the efforts to control it? is never discussed). With the present state of documents it is not possible to identify them with legal precision. All ve can do is to make informed guesses by using all available evidence. In this respect, the context of the great fire of smyrna (ie, the events of 1-13 september) gives some valuable clues about the mindset of the greeks, hence constitutes one such evidence.

The article should be renamed as "Burning down of major western Anatolian cities in 1922" and the cases of other cities must also be discussed under this heading. 88.234.173.240 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)mehmet

I think this is the title which most readers are familiar with. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a point of common sense

I know that brain-washed by nationalistic/Kemalist ideology-driven public education the average Turkish citizen takes it for granted that the Greeks followed "scorched earth practices" which serves them as a plausible escape from collective guilt, but the above defies any common logic! Scorched earth means I destroy something left behind, not burning the house and my business that I still live in, risk death in the flames and then run in the thousands on the waterfront screaming for salvation! Ah, and by the way, try my best to preserve the Turkish side of the city... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.5.243 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You do not realize that grand children and children of Turks who lived and witnessed the events live today. Lies and slander can only go so far. Turkish army did not burn to ground a jewel of a Turkish city, had no motivation or reason to do that to a city it was trying to liberate. Scorched earth was on the other hand a popular Greek tactic. That is what they left behind as they pulled back from Anatolia. Even Greek sources document this barbarity. Even in previous conflicts Greeks have used fire as a weapon too often. There is really one side blinded by a blood lust here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.248.90 (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with that argument is that the Greek Army had abandoned Smyrna on September 8, 1922. The Turkish Army was in full control of Smyrna from September 9 and looted the Greek and Armenian quarters. After looting the Armenian quarter the Turkish Army waited for the wind to blow in the right direction, i.e. away from muslim homes, and then set upon their task of torching as many christian houses as they could. There was no Greek Army present in Smyrna when the fire happened. The Turkish Army also cordoned off the areas they were planning to torch in advance to ensure that the fire would not be interrupted. So much for "common sense". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the Greek Army had left Smyrna four (4) days before the fire started; four days the city was in Turkish hands before the fire started. The evidence is so overwhelming that the Turks started the fire it's not even debatable. Only Turkish people argue that the Greeks or Armenians started the fire. Now who is biased? That the Turks are still today not sorry for any crime they have ever committed contributes to the hatred of Turkey by every single neighboring nation. --Nikoz78 (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal's telegram

Date of dispatch telegrams - September 17, ie day when the massacre and the fire is coming to an end. Recipient - The Ministry of Foreign Affairs. That says everything. Atatürk instructs the Minister of deliver events in the international arena. He formulates a version of which has since become official. In doing so, he blatantly slander to the late Metropolitan, st. Chrisostom, brutally tortured by his soldiers. Sfrandzi (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Structure of Smyrna

Don't forget to mention the Armenians. There was an entire Armenian quarter.Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes do not fail to mention 2/3 of the city which was Turkish and the Arab quarters as well as Italian, German, British, Indian, Persian, Russian, Sweedish...Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As I see western sources don't agree with that 2/3 claim.Alexikoua (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Perplexing structure

It almost seems as if this article has been structured in perhaps the oddest and most confusing manner as best thought possible. It leaves the reader absolutely confused with who or what to believe and seems to shower the reader with one quote after another, attributing the blame on one party or another. Nothing is integrated and everything is placed out of context. The primary sources are mixed in with the secondary sources, and authors with dubious credentials (e.g., Stanford Shaw, the teacher Donald Webster, whose statements were probably made under duress given reluctance to criticize the host country at the time time, etc.) are provided equitable amount of space with more reputable sources. The entire article requires overhauling and appears to be too daunting a task for a single editor.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article unfairly puts all blame on turks.--193.140.194.102 (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That the Turks put the Greek and Armenian quarters to flames is without question. The evidence is so overwhelming that it makes little sense to come to any other conclusion. To say that this article "unfairly" blames the Turks is simply nonsense and one that has no basis to it. We've heard that illogical line of reasoning for so long on the Armenian Genocide, Istanbul pogrom, etc. articles that it has grown old and tiresome.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Here [2] it says Armenians set Smyrna ablaze not Turks.--193.140.194.102 (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed Marshall, I fully support you. The unsupported claims of genocide the fire and other such "atrocities" commited by the "barbarian turks" and the use of humanised langauge and quotes from sources that are clearly biast and unsubstantiated are getting tiresome and old.Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

After more than a year, the sorry shape of this article hasn't improved. Rather than providing a chronological account from the Turkish entry into the city to the breakout of the fire and the (by and large failed) rescue attempts by the Allied fleet, the reader is treated to endless quotations by everyone who is anyone about who started the fire (which should be reserved in a single section at the end of the article). Barely any second party analysis is provided. Dobkin's book, though not perfect, is the best and most reliable retelling of the events and if anyone should summon up the courage to rewrite this article, her work would be the best model to emulate.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Enosismyrenon is "perfectly good content". Are you serious?

This website was removed because it was a partisan site. I have no problem with that. But when it comes to the claims of Greeks, propagandist sites turn into "perfectly good content". This website is named "enosismyrneon", meaning İzmir Union. According to the External Links policy, Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject can be added. Do you really expect a union which aims to "the promotion, the preservation and conservation of the cultural heritage of the Greek homelands in Asia Minor as well as the research, the study and the promotion of history and culture of the Greeks of Asia Minor and their descendants before and after 1922" can be neutral? Another aim is: "Important aim of this institution is to safeguard the historical legacy of the Asia Minor Greeks making it accessible to researchers and readers interested in matters of Asia Minor Hellenism." This website is an "Asia Minor is Greek" promotional website. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• It has also been rewarded "with the Zappa Prize, by the Paris based Society for propagation of Greek studies". The Paris-based society is still a Greek society. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The website is informative on the culture of the natives of Smyrna. Since that culture was uprooted during the Great Fire the site is relevant to the article and should stay. The only argument worth noting in the above diatribe is the accusation that this is an irredentist website which however is not borne out by any evidence. Clsoing I have to say I find the tone of the section title personally offensive. --Anothroskon (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see any information on the website about the fire itself. It just lists the association's articles and books. Nothing else. This article is about the fire, not Greek culture in Anatolia before it was "uprooted". As the policy says "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article should not be linked.", this website should be removed. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It does provide a unique resource on the culture of those that were affected and uprooted by the Fire. Moreover the article itself does not now contain any significant information on that culture and neither is it likely to do so in future due to size concerns, being large enough already. So the website does in fact offer a unique and valuable resource. --Anothroskon (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The union's publication may, but the website certainly does not. I can only see these: Information about the structure of the union, a list of articles they have published, a list of books in their library (none of them are avaliable online), and an empty media area. Could you please give me a link if I am wrong? The article will never contain information on the culture because it is not on the Greek culture in İzmir, it is about the fire.And I nearly forgot, I am sorry to hurt you. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Since the article is about the Fire and since this is a website about the descendants of the people uprooted by the turks during the Fire the website is pertinent and provides information that wouldn't be found in the main article. So it should stay.--Anothroskon (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see information there at all. Just a list of articles and books, and information about the organization itself. As I said before, can you give a link? --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The link provides information on rare books contained in the association's library that could be of use to potential researchers.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The policy states that the websites should contain information, not lists of books. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I said: "information on rare books". So it pretty much falls under the remit.--Anothroskon (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Information on rare books but not the Great Fire of Smyrna. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The books and other information contained in the website are directly relevant to Smyrna. Since the article is about its Fire the link should stay. It is obvious this is getting nowhere so if you want to proceed open an RfC.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

New "Events" section

I have added a new section describing the actual fire and the events surrounding it. It always struck me as odd how an actual description of the events was missing. I have followed Naimark and Clogg, two perfectly neutral, modern, secondary sources. I do hope that we can keep the usual blame-game out of this section, for once. Athenean (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Although I doubt whether the lynch of Chrysostomos of Smyrna etc. is relevant to the events, I am not removing it. It does not matter who starts it or who is affected, a fire is a tragedy, and I am happy to see we at last have some contribution to the article. --Seksen (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph

I found this statement in the first paragraph of the article:

As a result of the fire and massacres from a lower figure of 2,000 to 10,000 and to a higher estimate of 100,000 Greeks and Armenians were killed,

Maybe I'm slow, but I don't really understand what the English means well enough to edit it. Someone who knows the material ought to fix it to follow grammatically. Does it just need a brace of commas? Ed8r (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a confusion on the numbers, nevertheless there were victims as a direct result of the fire, but also due to actions committed by regular and irregular troops. A number of references give us a limited number because they include victims that lost their lifes as a result of a specific reason (for example Kinross includes only the dead as a result of Turkish soldiery).Alexikoua (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The Grescovich report

I don't think it's too unusual that Lowry not only gets the publication date for Dobkin's book wrong (1966!) but that he seems to fabricate quotes out of thin air and attribute them to Dobkin. I have the book and not only do the page numbers not correspond, but neither do the quotes. Lowry's a controversial enough figure and I think we would be better off staying far away from his works as best possible. That other historians have already highlighted the fact that his scholarly credentials have long been compromised should be greater reason for this.

But coming to the so-called Grescovich Report. Lowry doesn't cite any article penned by Grescovich but instead cites a 7-page article dated January, 11, 1923 and sent to Admiral Mark Bristol by Mark Prentiss and titled "The Hitherto Untold Story of the Smyrna Fire Told by Mark O. Prentiss, American Representative of the Near East Relief. Armenians, not Turks, Set the Fire. Evidence of Smyrna Fire Chief Revealed." I haven't seen the article but I think it would be interesting to remind that in an article published by the New York Times and dated September 18, he said (quoted in Dobkin, Smyrna 1922, p. 201):

Many of us personally saw—and are ready to affirm the statement—Turkish soldiers often directed by officers throwing petroleum in the streets and houses. Vice-Consul Barnes watched a Turkish officer leisurely fire the Custom House and the Passport Bureau while at least fifty Turkish soldiers stood by. Major Davis saw Turkish soldiers throwing oil in many houses. The Navy patrol reported seeing a complete horseshoe of fires started by the Turks around the American school.

Within nine days, he changed his entire story and wrote another article, this time praising the restraint of the Turkish army. The about-face is difficult to explain but if a work is being cited, it's best that at least the author has a modicum of objectivity and adherence to modern scholarly standards, which is one reason why I have removed the the account attributed to Grescovich.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Lede

These additions [3] are POV and OR, the neutral and most commonly used term for this war being "Greco-Turkish War 1919-1922", while "Turkish Liberation War" is made-up by User:E4024 and highly POV for self-evident reasons. "Liberation" is one of those words to avoid, as one peoples' "liberation" is another's "occupation". The addition is also completely superfluous. It is quite sufficient to say that the Great Fire ended the Greco-Turkish war. Mentioning that the Great Fire ended the Greco Turkish war that began with XYZ ... is really unnecessary. Btw, my last rv was an accident, I thought my previous edit hadn't registered, but it did without me noticing. I have self-reverted as a token of good-faith, but I stand by the fact that I disagree with the whole "Turkish Liberation War" POV. Athenean (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for beginning to talk. If you are so disturbed about the word "liberation" can I assume that soon you will edit the articles where there is reference to "liberation of the Greeks from the Ottoman Empire" or you have one standard for the Greeks and another for the Turks? Maybe not you but many Greeks know and acknowledge that the 1919-22 adventure of Greece in Anatolia (Turkey) was an expansionist war imposed on a debilitated Turkey. There is a very general consensus among the academia that the Greek imposed war was an invasion. Or was there a conflict that took the two countries to war? Turkey at the wake of the Ist WW was not in a situation to look for adventures anywhere and of course did not give any excuses to Greece to occupy Izmir. If you have information to the contrary, share it with us. Could be a good contribution to the history of Turkish-Greek relations. Again: Thank you for remembering to "TALK". --E4024 (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well the west coast of Anatolia, and particularly the sanjak of Izmir and the city of Smyrna had a Greek/Christian majority, so we can debate about who was being "liberated" and who wasn't, but the important points are 1) The term "Turkish Liberation War" appears to be made up by you, and 2) "liberation", as with "freedom fighters", is one of those "words to avoid" Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. What goes on in other articles is irrelevant, we can only go one article at a time. Athenean (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If we can go "one article at a time" why are you referring to other articles in Talk Page of the admin Qwyrxian when I complained about only one certain article there? (I am not putting links, not to bore other people.) Your problem (one of some) is to have one standard for yourself and another standard for others. How is this called? Segregation, discrimination, being unjust or whatever, you decide. Use the same standard for yourself and for others. Please. All the best and good-bye for now. --E4024 (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It is as simple as this: The term "Turkish Liberation War" is used nowhere else on Wiki (and it gives only few thousands Google hits, mostly in quite another context: the Russian-Turkish liberation war). The term "Turkish War of Independence" is used throughout Wikipedia (and gives a million+ hits on Google). Let us stick to the commonly used name. And for your information: No I am not a Greek, nor a nationalist. And yes, I am a user without name. So what? Regards! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Turkish Liberation War

Turkish Liberation War in Turkish WP. People attack your country, occupy and invade it, and to add insult to injury want to write (distort) your own history... --E4024 (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

But this is not Turkish Wikipedia, but English Wikipedia. If you click on the "English" link on the "Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı" page, you go to the "Turkish War of Independence" page. Or for that matter, "Milito por Turka Sendependiĝo" in Esperanto. Is that, too, insulting? Since I by principle do not enter into edit wars, I will not revert your last edit, but ask you to consider again if it is not better to keep to the commonly used term. Regards! --79.160.40.10 (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

With all the due respect, the commonly used term for the struggle of a country under foreign invasion is Liberation. When has Turkey lost its independence to regain it? And from Greece (western front) and Armenia (eastern front)? (Good God...) A wrong does not make a good example. Let us change the En-WP article all together... --E4024 (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever this war was called on each spot on the world, the widely used English name is 'Greco-Turkish War'. If in Turkish history this is called liberation in Greek it's called 'Catastrophe', i.e. both terms are pov and useless in the lead of this article.Alexikoua (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

@E4024, the Ottoman Empire was not a country. It was an empire which had many peoples (Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians and so on) that became part of that empire against their will. These peoples, the Christians in particular, did not want to be a part of this empire especially after the Genocidal crimes they suffered at the hands of the Ottoman government in the years immediately preceding your so-called Liberation war. Did the Turks liberate themselves from the yoke of the stateless Armenians and Assyrians ? Yes, Turks had the right to reject the British, French and Italian claims but the Turks had no right to rule over indigenous Anatolian Christians ever again. HelenOfOz (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Bristol

Adm. Bristol doesn't need to be referred to as the U.S. High Commissioner to the "Ottoman Empire" from 1919 to 1927, as the Ottoman Empire ended in 1922; I hesitate to have anything to do with editing this article, as it seems to have been a Greek v. Turk contest and I am not on either side, but would like to see this obvious error addressed. 75.201.204.249 (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Pie Chart on Great Fire of Smyrna and Izmir Pages

Ethnic composition of Smyrna in 1922 according to Katherine Fleming

  Greeks (49%)

  Turks (24%)

  others (Armenians, Jews, Levantines) (27%)

This pie chart under International Port City on the Izmir page is being deleted by me because the source (Fleming) does not provide the data for the pie chart. Here is the source from Fleming's book Greece- A Jewish History (pg. 81): "The Greek army fled in chaos, heading for Smyrna on the coast, where the Greek population outnumbered the Turkish by a ration of two to one. Before the mass arrival of the refugees, there were about 150,000 living in the city, almost half the population." She provides 1. no percentages, 2. no discussion of others, 3. doesn't even tell us were there more others or more Turks? 4. Is not giving raw data to create percentages. The numbers in the pie chart are an invention. The construction of this pie chart from those two sentences in Fleming is a misrepresentation of her work. I have tried to resolve this on the Talk page of one person who has reverted edits on this pie chart, but to no avail. Fleming does not provide sufficient data to be a reliable source for the pie chart, and so it gets deleted. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

To respond to this, please discuss on the Izmir Talk page (which has the most watchers Here

Smyrna, the 20th century Greek capital.

What is not directly mentioned is that Smyrna for a short time was fully liberated from the occupying Ottoman Empire and all the Turks. Smyrna briefly became the Greek capital city and many ethnic populations arrived there quickly to the perception that the city was now protected. This rationale debunks most of the claims that the Turks were not exclusively responsible for most criminal acts that took place. To be protected and keep possession of your property and your life after the Turks set to burn the city meant giving loyalty to them. Pro-Turkish accounts are therefore not credible,they were already murderers. Every account is given by someone who was either threatened or a Turko-phile. The accounts are illogical in that they state not knowing who committed the act, that is was Greek or Armenian but definitely not Turkish. That phantoms dressed up as Turkish troops but were actually Armenians, this at a time when the Turkish troops were there in the same place. A telegram from the "Butcher of Bosporus", the man Adolf Hilter later admired is also not credible. Kemal was a known terrorist before becoming Turkish president. Kemal was witnessed in Thessalonica setting off terrorist bombs earlier in his career.

The fire took place some time after as a reprisal. Much in the same way as Nazi reprisals against the partisans in many countries during World War 2. The Turks named the city "Infidel Izmir". "Izmir" is a gutterized translation of the Greek phrase 'the Smyrna' (i' Smyrni) short for slang-'the city of Smyrna'.

Turkey did not exist until late 1922. Why does a "Turkish War of Independence" page or article or even a historical event with this name exist? It is propaganda. The Ottoman Empire was an imperial kingdom. The creation of the country of 'Turkey' was the formation of a synthetic state. This is all fact. The "Turkish" people did not originally even have that name, the name "turk" is short for "tur-tur" similar to 'Tartar', (tur-tur-os) a dialectal variation of the word barbarian directly from the Greek language. Whether the Turks were called Uhgurs, Osmans or something else is hard to tell based on the fact that their history was only written in Arabic and only over the period of maybe 1,000 years. The name Turk was first used by the Byzantines who allowed them access to Hellenic A.S.i'A. (area south {of the} Aegean) Minor or Mikra-Asia.

The Turk military barricaded the perimeter of the city which was semi-walled to enclose and trap the population. It was documented and witnessed by foreigners. Contemporary accounts were recorded internationally in the news outlets and newspapers. Many naval troops of many nationalities viewed the burning from ships in the harbor and on the coastline, they described it as systematic and coordinated. Smyrna was flat with a large visual vantage point the outskirts were elevated like a bowl. It is widely accounted that Japanese frigates saved the largest number of survivors that swam out to sea to escape. Other ships including those from the United States refused to pick up people from the water.

Death estimates may not have included those who drowned, because so many bodies were not recovered. Driving out people into the water to murder them was another verified tactic. The same technique was used on the Black Sea coast, where barges were loaded with people and sunk after being towed out. If divers ever find those thousands of drowned corpses in the Black Sea, then the contentions that the Turks make in these 'Ollo-caust'/ genocide denials will be exposed as bogus.

Between Greeks, Asiatic Greeks (Ponti), Assyrians and Armenians the genocides could have been as many as 3,000,000 dead. Deaths in Smyrna were in the hundreds of thousands, in contrast to what is stated here on Wikipedia. The surrounding population swelled when Smyrna became a free city and the capital of Greece, the population statics are not accurate because people who returned from as far a way as Egypt have never been counted. Older publications record the population of Smyrna as possibly closer to a million.

There has been manipulation of the Ottoman records, purposeful exclusions, and obfuscation of populations shifts that occurred during the war (World War 1). The countries that won their freedom have incomplete files in some cases, because people that disappear cannot be documented if they were never documented in the newly liberated country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.6.62 (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)