|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Menemen article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Turkey||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Please do not vandalize the pages with POV containing edits. There was no plausible legal motive for the Greek Army to invade Anatolian territory. It was merely an unproportional gift from the WWI Allies, especially from The Great Britain.Smyrniot 07:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
Good day Alexikoua. In this edit you removed the link to the Menemen massacre in the article of Menemen town, why? Further you edited the massacre on Turkish civilians as if it were mutual, why? In disregard of the western sources which describe it as one sided violence. The new sentences added by you are based on pro Greek sources. Can you please add the link and removed information back? Dunderstrar (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- 1. The link to the article is still there. 2. I wounldn't agree that Phd dissertations published by King's college are biased. 3. The section was one-sided and without references before I took the initiative and fixed it. Please follow wp:npovAlexikoua (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
We have a investigating report of a neutral Western commission. The other source cites directly from the Greek military which is obviously unreliable in this case. Ignoring multiple sources to give precedence to one is not exactly following wp:npov. I wouldn't call this fixing a one-sided text, rather it has became one. Dunderstrar (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You need to follow wp:HISTRS: top graded academic references are the best we can have, especially if this is from a renowned institution such as the Uni of London. Reports of that time are primary sources and of second grade value, nevertheless I have no objection if they are presented in an neutral way.Alexikoua (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The source your mentioning cites itself from a primary Greek source; see footnote (Stergiadis to Venizelos). The Western delegation disagreed with the statements of them.Dunderstrar (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
You have removed so much sentences based on academic sources calling them povish, however I see no real reason. Even the date of the occupation of Menemen was replaced with a broken sentence, why? It was based on the source you added.Dunderstrar (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- There isn't doubt, that excesses were committed from both sides. In Menemen the situation got out of control as the phd dissertation (V. Solomonidis) states (which is deleted but Dund. but why?). I've provided the full quote: A few days later, the retreat of the Greek troops from Menemen was met with fierce Turkish resistance and a two hour battle ensued within the town during which deplorable excesses took place on both sides !/. These events were soon followed by inflammatory nationalist proclamations calling for the immediate mobilization of the Turkish nation.
- The problem is that Dunderstrar claims that this was just what a Greek military report claimed and instantly removes this without a question. On the other hand, per wp:HISTRS primary sources aren't generally preferred in wikipedia. Off course if we have the opportunity to present academic material such as the above one there is no doubt that this should be preferred per policy.Alexikoua (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
There was no deletion only putting in context, western delegation disagrees with Greek claims. The mutual claim comes from a primary military Greek source (letter from Stergiadis to Venizelos) shown in a footnote below the page.Dunderstrar (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well it appears you can't get it: a phd dissertation from King's College which claims that atrocities were committed from both sides is enough to be wp:rs. If you believe that this fact is questioned and only presents the pov of the Greek military take it to wp:RSN. I'm afraid you will need real luck to convince an editor besides you that this academic institution produces unreliable papers.Alexikoua (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Another newly emerged issue is why the claimed massacre is mentioned twice: After World War I Greek troops landed at Smyrna and advanced inland during the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). Their advance into Menemen was marked with arming of the local Greeks, this resulted in murder of Turkish civilians and looting, and the following text is recycling the same: Menemen was occupied by the Greek Army as part of the Greek occupation zone of Smyrna (İzmir), and on 17 June 1919 a massacre occurred in which Turkish civilians were killed by the Greeks. It seems obvious that one of the two should go.Alexikoua (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Phd is still there with relevant context, if you disagree go to wp:RSN. Second sources relate to different cases on different dates. One is from the initial Greek advance into the town the other is the massacre several months later. Dunderstrar (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nope the dissertation doesn't say anywhere that this was the opinion of the Greek military administration, i.e. I'm afraid this context is created by you, simply to refute the validity of the paper. To sum up again: both parts are repeating the very same: "this resulted in murder of Turkish civilians and looting" and then again "a massacre occurred in which Turkish civilians were killed by the Greeks.". I can only imagine that you simply didn't notice it.Alexikoua (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Only repeating. Stergiadis was the leader of the Greek administration and its his letter which is quoted. Western report includes objections of the Greek military. But the western delegation totally disagrees with Greek claims, this must be included. Dunderstrar (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- What's really weird is that a phd dissertation of King's College is degraded to Greek military report, and the same time DUND. doesn't present in the same context a paper by the "Atatürk Institute for Modern Turkish History", [], a leading institution in the Armenian Genocide denial movement.Alexikoua (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Source has no mention of one incident, seperate events, reference states "Greek advance". In Yalova article some additions were fixing of existing source and the others from scholars Shaw, Ryan Gingeras and the "Current history and forum" (American magazine citing a contemporary western report). Turkish denialist source cites the same western report. Dunderstrar (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Greek genocide in Menemen
I believe that DUND. needs an explanation about posting this [][]. If there is any disagreement about expanding this section it would be nice to comment here (in the appropriate talkpage).Alexikoua (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Adding Greek genocide in detail, reducing text about Menemen massacre to "mutual excesses". Ignoring western report while overtly relying on Greek sources. Are symptoms of one sided behavior. Dunderstrar (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Following wp:HISTRS is fine. As for the Allied reports, although I don't agree that secondary sources should be negleted, they seem to coclude with this [].Alexikoua (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
1. Link given is totally unrelated. 2. But balanced neutral expansion is fine if this is going to be a neutral article ofcourse. The reasons for the Ottoman policy in 1914 can be added, namely the events preceding it. There is room to add about the extremely violent ethnic cleansing of Greek Muslims in Crete by fellow Christian Greeks. Thousands of them settled at areas close to Menemen. Or the most direct reason for the policy the violent ethnic cleansing of Macedonia by the Greek army in which Muslim villages were burned and ten thousands of them left their homes to settle in areas around Menemen. One could argue that these events would be described as genocide had the victims not been Muslims. These were the basis of the Ottoman policy. According to the source Greeks created the origin of Ottoman policy themselves by their violent nationalism. Dunderstrar (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Why were Cretans hundreds of miles away from their home? Needs some background. Because first nationalist Greeks had violently ethnically cleansed them from their homes, killing, raping and looting. Was it fine because they were "Turco", in fact they were local Greeks who had converted to Islam and only spoke Greek. Greek nationalism and the Greek church were intolerant of Muslims ofcourse. Dunderstrar (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
According to the British and Americans investigators there were in the Menemen massacre not even one Greek killed/wounded while 100-200 Turkish civilians were killed without provocation. But still by the efforts of User:Alexikoua this article is going to present the events as mutual. Revisionism succeeded. Dunderstrar (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
In general when an author uses brackets, he doesn't necessarily adopt the same view, as in this case [], especially if this starts like this "According to Justin Maccarthy..."[]. All of the sudden this view is expressed by Justin MacCarthy, a leading genocide denialist.
- The claim that attrocities happened twice still needs to be referenced. To be precise this part "This was before the Menemen massacre which happened several weeks later." is completely wp:OR and if not explained and supported with decent bibliography it needs to go.Alexikoua (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)