Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupation of İzmir: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
NikoSilver (talk | contribs) merge it is |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
:::Therefore, I hereby '''withdraw''' nomination and I'm tagging the article with the above proposed tags by the policy. [[User:N!|<span style="color:#fff;background:#88b">•N<span style="background:#99c">i<span style="background:#aad">k<span style="background:#bbe">o<b><span style="background:#ccf">S</span>il</b></span><b>v</b></span><b>e</b></span><b>r</b>•</span>]] 12:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
:::Therefore, I hereby '''withdraw''' nomination and I'm tagging the article with the above proposed tags by the policy. [[User:N!|<span style="color:#fff;background:#88b">•N<span style="background:#99c">i<span style="background:#aad">k<span style="background:#bbe">o<b><span style="background:#ccf">S</span>il</b></span><b>v</b></span><b>e</b></span><b>r</b>•</span>]] 12:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Rename''' and possibly '''reshape'''. It's a topic that's notable enough to deserve it's own article, but I guess we can change the title and/or content. <tt class="plainlinks">[[User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]][[User talk:Khoikhoi|khoi]]</tt> 05:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:38, 25 October 2006
Occupation of İzmir
This article is a WP:POVFORK which was {{main}}ed out of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) without any real reason:
- Virtually all of the article serves to show the background and result (illustrated analytically in the mother article)
- The summary section of this article in the mother article is almost identical to the actual content of this one. The only additional content is ONE paragraph, namely Occupation of Smyrna#Occupation! (not to mention about its selective content)
- There is no {{main}} template in the mother article (for obvious reasons), despite the fact that the original edit stated "moved from Greco-Turkish War to have its own page" [1]
- There is hardly any academic reference to this period (Google scholar: only 12 hits- some irrelevant)
- The contents of this article are largely applicable also to the Great Fire of Smyrna
The article should be merged to Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), or the title should be expanded to include Ionia; not only Smyrna
Also, the title of the article, although a military term, is largely POV, because:
- it is anachronistic since the city was officially named "Izmir" later; should be "Smyrna"
- it is a paradox; an army does not "occupy" a city if the majority of population is of same ethnicity; it "liberates" it.
Compare the existing title to Temporary liberation of Smyrna to see the contrast of the two POV's. Either a more NPOV term should be used, to bridge those two extremes, or the article should be deleted under any name. •NikoSilver• 00:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. •NikoSilver• 00:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I am quite annoyed that this article was tagged, covered in pov, then nominated for deletion within the space of an hour. I took the time to carefully research and cite the contents of this article, and i intended to return to it when time permitted. Firstly, this article is not a pov fork. There is no pov implied in the title or the article (and its content is not selective, i've tried to show the treatment of Muslims and Christians within this city), it is simply the most common term used for the Greek presence in Izmir during the Greco-Turkish war by historians. It is certainly more notable than Greek administration of Ionia, 1919-1922 as suggested by the nominator. Granted, Occupation of Smyrna may be even more notable, but i was prepared to rename it to this, this was not an issue for me. Secondly, as to its right to be separate from Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), that article covers the Greek campaign from the landings in Izmir, to the Greek incursion right across Anatolia. I intended this article to deal solely with the Greek presence in Izmir over the war and in due course would have expanded it from its current state. Put simply, is the title verifiable through third party sources? Yes. Is the subject worthy of an article? In my opinion I believe it is. --A.Garnet 01:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- The article was created 8 whole months ago, and since then, no notable fact or source has been added to it. As Hectorian pointed below, it would be more legitimate to have a possible article named Occupation of Smyrni 9 September 1922-July 24 1923, talking about the turkish control of the city until the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. This article is a narrow POV selection, both geographicaly (should be Ionia), and as a timeframe. Those 3 lines of text should be part of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), or Greek administration of Ionia, 1919-1922, or Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). •NikoSilver• 10:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- It was not me who created it 8 months ago, i rewrote and sourced it only a few weeks ago. If your critcism is that it is not substantial enough, then this not a valid excuse for afd. That can be expanded in time, what is important is both the tite and the content be notable enough, and this is more than substantiated by third party sources. --A.Garnet 10:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Mu! See also straw man. •NikoSilver• 13:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- It was not me who created it 8 months ago, i rewrote and sourced it only a few weeks ago. If your critcism is that it is not substantial enough, then this not a valid excuse for afd. That can be expanded in time, what is important is both the tite and the content be notable enough, and this is more than substantiated by third party sources. --A.Garnet 10:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- The article was created 8 whole months ago, and since then, no notable fact or source has been added to it. As Hectorian pointed below, it would be more legitimate to have a possible article named Occupation of Smyrni 9 September 1922-July 24 1923, talking about the turkish control of the city until the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. This article is a narrow POV selection, both geographicaly (should be Ionia), and as a timeframe. Those 3 lines of text should be part of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), or Greek administration of Ionia, 1919-1922, or Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). •NikoSilver• 10:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment NickSilver, you are the "nom", so voting again to say delete per yourself is excessively senseless. Imban 01:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- ? Don't count my vote double if that's what you meant. •NikoSilver• 09:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The dispute here seems to be primarily about the section title and about the POV of the current content. There doesn't seem to be any dispute about notability or WP:V. The disputed matters can be resolved in due course. --Shirahadasha 03:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Rename to Liberation of Smyrna per the above comments. Carlossuarez46 06:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. (comments below) Hectorian 06:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The article deals with a specific event, part of the 'Greco-Turkish war (1919-1920)'. In its current state (under this title and with that content) the article serves as a POV-folk. Though it is claimed to refer to events connected with the city, it talks about Alasehir and Ataturk, not to mention that through hersays and selective usage of sources it has the place of a 'turkish pov-vehicle'... Concerning the title, it expresses the clear turkish pov, talking about 'occupation'... for the greeks, it was 'liberation' (having in mind that the majority of the population were Greeks). in addition, the Greek army landed in the city under permission of an international treaty (the one of Sevres), which had been signed by the then legitimate turkish government. Apropos, a possible article named Occupation of Smyrni 9 September 1922-July 24 1923, talking about the turkish control of the city until the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, would be more legitimate, since the turks of Kemal took a city with Greek majority, without being legitimised to do so under any treaty... Furthermore, the city's name was 'Smyrni' that time, not Izmir (also have in mind about this how the majority of the city's population and the world, or even the Ottoman administration called the city). I would agree with NikoSilver in the creation of an article named Greek administration of Ionia, 1919-1922, since: 1. this is the most NPOV title, and 2. it would talk about the whole area under Greek control (roughly corresponding to the histori region of Ionia). Hectorian 06:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- We have been here before, Greece occupied izmir a whole year before the Treaty of Sevres was signed, that is why its presence is referred to as occupation by historians. Even George Horton uses the term "Greek occupation of Smyrna". So your claim it landed under the provisions of a treaty is false. Second, invading a territory with the same ethnicity does not make it a liberation. It is still the territory of another sovereign. But all this is pointless, the title of this article is the most commonly used term for the events and it can be verified through impartial third party sources. --A.Garnet 10:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- For some weird reason though the article doesn't discuss any of this. Why?--Tekleni 10:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- To Garnet: I've no idea if my answer will be pointless, but if u look in the historic facts, u will see that Smyrni, at the time of the landing of the Greek army was not territory of another sovereign... The Ottoman Empire had been defeated in WWI, and so had sovereignty nowhere... (unless someone would thing he is ready to talk about 'French occupation of Alsace and Larraine...' (again, prior to the signing of a treaty). but even if we accept that the Ottoman Empire still was sovereign, the Greece administered the area, did not conquer it.... (that's why the ottoman flags remained in their place and there was a committement for a referendum). moreover, saying that since the treaty of Serves was not yet signed, we are free to name the article occupation, i'll have to remind u that the article does not cover the period 1919-1920, but more... In addition, under this pretext i can create another article, 'Turkish occupation of Smyrni 1922-1923', where the 'Great Fire' will be also discussed (more or less it would be as povfork as this one). Hectorian 19:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- This debate seriously doesn't belong here, but just for the record: Being defeated in a war does not strip a state of its sovereignty over its territory, according to early 20th century international law. Your point is moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- My point is that as much legitimate it may be to call the greek administration of Smyrni as 'occupation', the same validity could apply to the territories Germany, Austia-Hungary, or anyone else's who was defeated in WWI (early 20th cent.). But it seems that the Germans are not pushing any pov concerning Gdansk or Lorraine... (ο νοών νοείτο)... Hectorian 19:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- This debate seriously doesn't belong here, but just for the record: Being defeated in a war does not strip a state of its sovereignty over its territory, according to early 20th century international law. Your point is moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- To Garnet: I've no idea if my answer will be pointless, but if u look in the historic facts, u will see that Smyrni, at the time of the landing of the Greek army was not territory of another sovereign... The Ottoman Empire had been defeated in WWI, and so had sovereignty nowhere... (unless someone would thing he is ready to talk about 'French occupation of Alsace and Larraine...' (again, prior to the signing of a treaty). but even if we accept that the Ottoman Empire still was sovereign, the Greece administered the area, did not conquer it.... (that's why the ottoman flags remained in their place and there was a committement for a referendum). moreover, saying that since the treaty of Serves was not yet signed, we are free to name the article occupation, i'll have to remind u that the article does not cover the period 1919-1920, but more... In addition, under this pretext i can create another article, 'Turkish occupation of Smyrni 1922-1923', where the 'Great Fire' will be also discussed (more or less it would be as povfork as this one). Hectorian 19:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and merge any unique content into Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922); the current title is unacceptable and POV. Greece was legally administering Smyrna under the Treaty of Sèvres and it had a substantial Greek population; occupation is Turkish POV. See also the comments above on how this article is a WP:POVFORK of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), duplicates information found elsewhere etc.--Tekleni 10:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- How can it be a Turkish pov when third party verifiable sources are using the term? --A.Garnet 10:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- For the same reason that you claim that Pontian Greek Genocide is Greek POV when when third party verifiable sources are using the term.--Tekleni 10:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Correction, you have 1 third party source who mentions Pontian Greek Genocide which makes it a minority pov. Occupation of Izmir/Smyrna can be easily verified through reliable third party sources. I even got an admin to have a look at the dispute and he agreed this is the most relevant title. --A.Garnet 10:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: per WP:ANOT: an admin is just a normal user with a mop and a bucket, not an expert or a peer reviewer. I'm not denying that an admin is more likely to be cool-minded and neutral than the average wikijoe. I'm just saying that an admin's opinion is not in itself proof of anything. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Correction, there are a lot more than one (as I'm sure you are well aware), and we have more sources endorsing it than denying it (makes you wonder what the minority POV really is). This article however remains a fork of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). Most of the information here is a copy of what is at that article - any further information would comfortable fit into a section of that article. If it is so widely attested in the literature, why can't you even give the names of the Greek military commanders?--Tekleni 11:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I was the first to suggest a merge into the mother article, but that's not a matter of deletion and should preferably be discussed on the article talk page and not here. I'd be in favour of a merge because in principle I'm not a friend of splitting controversial topics up into a multitude of subarticles, as happens unfortunately far too often. I do not endorse the arguments made by the nominator in the second paragraph of his nomination; in my view, both "occupation" and the name "Izmir" are perfectly legitimate here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, this will definitely prop that merge, won't it... :-) •NikoSilver• 20:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --ManiF 09:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Some of the content should be merged to Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) upon consensus.--Eupator 14:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete & merge into [[Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). There's nothing that should not be there. This reminds me how [User:Kubura]] created Serbian expansionistic wars in the 1990s' to parallel the Yugoslav wars article, although that case far too more POV. --PaxEquilibrium 19:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: May I remind everybody that "delete and merge" isn't a valid option, for GFDL reasons. If anything is merged, the edit history and a redirect must stay (and will do no harm).
- Keep or Rename as "Invasion of Western Anatolia".The Christian population (not only Greeks) of İzmir was 30% and also the treaty of Serves was never ratified by the Meclisi Mebusan so nobody can call this event as the liberation of İzmir.--Hattusili 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Temporarily keep per (IMHO) misuse of AFD process. Other possible solutions (renaming, merging, keeping & expanding) should be discussed at the relevant talk page. Apart from that I'd agree with either merging with GrecoTurkish War or renaming to something that would signify the fact that Greece was legally holding Ionia for the time, such as "Greek administration of Ionia". --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Rename or Re-write under a suitable title. The occupation zone for 2 to 3 years extended from Bursa-Gemlik-Yalova in the north, to Aydın in the south, and Kütahya in the east. İzmir was only the western end of the occupation zone. Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) is one thing. The occupation was another thing. There are other examples of battles and occupations being treated under separate articles. There's enough material of international scope to develop an other editors above.
- Keep per Shirahadasha and Michalis Famelis --Richard 07:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Michalis. No comment about title or content. - Francis Tyers · 08:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding the name, I think Occupation of Smyrna would be more appropriate. A move request should be made on the talk page. - Francis Tyers · 11:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I am willing to retract this nomination if I have unwillingly abused the AfD process. Please cite the relevant policy. I was inspired by a relevant application for another article, which indeed has a lot more unique content. The article should definitely be merged, and I would like to ask the participants to move this discussion, where applicable for that merge. Waiting for answer to this comment before I withdraw nomination. •NikoSilver• 09:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Deletion policy. - Francis Tyers · 11:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm, more specifically that would be Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. It explicitly says:
Problem with page Solution Add this tag Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an articleMerge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect. {{mergeto¦article}} Article duplicates information in some other articleCleanup or propose merge and redirect.
If you can't figure out how to perform the merger, tag it and list on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers.
{{merge¦article}} Article is biased or has lots of POVList on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. {{npov}} or {{POV check}} Dispute over article contentList on Wikipedia:Requests for comments. {{disputed}}
- Therefore, I hereby withdraw nomination and I'm tagging the article with the above proposed tags by the policy. •NikoSilver• 12:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)