Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

in response to above comment

Who says that Greco-Turkish war is improper English? Sounds perfect to me, is used in many secondary sources.Deadjune1 (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Under : Occupation of İzmir (Smyrna) (May 1919)

The article seems to contradict itself: "By contrast, the Turkish population saw this as an invading force, as they resented the Greeks" with later on under Massacres the citation of 48, where a "British Officer" allegedly supports that the Turks where submissive and would cooperate with any occupying force ... Maybe one should reconsider making assumptions like "as they resented the Greeks" which might be true for a few but are not easily supported.--Yparjis (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

---

1. Turkey --> Turk --> Turkish

Greece --> Greek > Greek

e.g. :

Turkish Goverment - Greek Goverment, not Greco Goverment

Turkish Parliament - Greek Parliament

Turkish market - Greek Market

Turkish War - Greek War

and so on...

Greek-Turkish War

Greco does not exist in any dictionary or under any grammatical form in English.

2. Additionally, Greco-Turkish war has to be specific. Turkey is a state after 1923 therefore a war with Turkey cannot be earlier than that.

3. The title is misleading since Greece occupied this area as a result of 1st world war. Other forces were British and French troops whom reports are recalled within the article. There was no war against a state that did not exist nor Greece had occupied this area beforehand.

I would strongly suggest a revision of title since it is both improper and misleading.

Suggestions :

Asia Minor Conflict

Anatolia Conflict

Greek Occupation of Asia Minor

Occupation of Asia Minor

Post World War Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire

Ottoman Empire Partitioning

--Yparjis (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the press articles of that era I have to agree that this term is commonly used. Therefore, I would only suggest the change based on grammatical and aesthetics claims. --Yparjis (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation verification

I am starting a citation oriented verification of this article. I am Greek so you may dislike me, tag me, judge as whatever fits your personal label-tagging system. Nevertheless, sources and citations should be verified so that quotation of text is in context.

Here are some rules in a way that I shall try to verify sources.

Proposition 1: "Absolutely Authoritative" : An authoritative source may not be absolutely authoritative.

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

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

Proposition 4: "Transfer of Credibility" : Quotation of a somewhat authoritative person A in a field X of a quotation of the sayings of person B, whom the latter may be of unknown credibility, does not necessary make person B or person's B sayings credible and or authoritative. Unless sufficient cross validation is provided.

Citation - Specifics:

Not cited: "The National Schism in Greece..." : This is not cited at all and seems superficial and speculative. It might improve the credibility of the section to provide some exact citing.

Should be removed:

"Historian Taner Akcam noted that a British officer claimed:[43] ... The National forces ... "

This falls under proposition "transfer of credibility". My personal opinion is that taking a look at the book, the scope of this is to reflect the opinion of the British that everyone was doing ethnic cleansing. Therefore, this is out of context here since the original quotation of the author does not serve the purpose here. This was to show the opinion of someone without attributing credibility. Second, the source "A British officer" is anonymous and unverifiable.Please consider revising.

Toynbee seems to be the main source. Since I could not access the related pages online, I will get back to this once i have the relative material from the library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yparjis (talk • contribs) 12:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC) --Yparjis (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE is using FOUR principal sources as references. The section under dispute (Greek Massacres) is solely based upon the views of A.J. Toynbee and his book . It is controversial how one that states : "noted that it was the Greek landings that created the Turkish Nationalist Movement led by Mustafa Kemal and it is almost certain that if the Greeks had never landed at Smyrna, the consequent atrocities on the Turkish side would not have occurred" (A.J. Toynbee) in the same book p.312 . It is controversial since under this source "«1,000,000 Greeks Killed?» January 1 1918 p.15 New York Times" there seems to be a bias on the side of the Turks. Certainly, A.J. Toynbee has to be cross-referenced. Cross - referencing does not mean referencing another source (i.e. another page ) of the same book. --Yparjis (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit

Please comment, the change was to
"By contrast, the majority of the muslim population saw this as an invading force. Some Turks resented the Greeks due to long history of conflict and antagonism. Nevertheless, the Greek landings were received by and large passively, only facing sporadic resistance"
Is not perfect, but reads less generalising and better English.Deadjune1 (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Also "The majority of the Turkish population" is vague, i.e. weasel again. Do you have a citation for this exact (majority) claim? Dr.K. (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Response

Words like "Some" and "majority" are difficult to be supported. What you can back is either they resented the Greeks or they did not. I would rephrase it:

"In contrast, a part of the Turkish population perceived this as an invasion due to a long history of antagonism and conflict (cite most recent conflicts). Though, there was only fading sporadic resistance which implies the occupation's passive endowment by the Turkish population."

--Yparjis (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments, but is probably impossible to avoid words someone might consider weasel words. Is not that there was a scientific survey of the population with the question "do you like the Greek occupation". The above is through extrapolation. If you have any direct evidence, please use it in a objective edit. Anything I searched reads "some of the Turks", ... and I cannot give any more precise facts or numbers. Still it reads better from a generalising "all-or-nobody" statement. The passivity is a well documented fact though.

I propose to leave it for now, this paragraph has much potential for abuse Deadjune1 (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Title of article

1-Hey is the above a joke or something? Are you inventing your own grammatical rules? Have you noticed that there is a HYPHEN and when "Greece" forms composite words the word becomes AS A RULE Grec- and the o is euphonic? Check Greco-Italian War, Greco-Roman world, etc etc etc etc. This is the standard, correct English. Deadjune1 (talk)

2-The argument that "Turkey" did not exist is a valid one, but this is an Encyclopedia, which means compilation of secondary sources, not original ideas or research. I agree that the term that reflects the political entities in conflict would have been Greekkingdomgovermento-Turkonationalistankarabased War, but you see what I mean with this absurd example... It was a war between Greece and a big part of Turkey, and it is mostly recorded as such, don't spent time on such minor points. Anyway, most sources of the time referred to the Ottoman empire as Turkey for decades and decades before 1923, is not a super-major difference...Deadjune1 (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor additions for change of government

I added some of the reasons why Venizelos lost the election, is wrong to assume that the Greeks just voted about the war, as usually the case all over the world, people vote-out a government mostly for the economy and internal politics, and that was the case here as well. Nobody really believed that Constantine will withdraw from Turkey the next day, that's naive to support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadjune1 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor restructuring and additions for analysis of outcome

I re edited this paragraph which was an old creation of mine dating back at least 2 years. I read many books in the meanwhile and I also thought it was a bit mix and match between moral, military and financial reasons. I do not think the previous made as clear the financial isolation of Greece after November 1921, also it needs to be said that Kemal was a great and shrewed leader that knew how to manipulate conflicting powers into one front. especially his claim for Jihad and the admiration by the Muslims of India is funny when one thinks that he was far from religious and probably his major contribution to Turkey was the founding of a secular state.

Please make good-will corrections and additions but please keep the idea of reasons divided between

FINANCIAL/LOGISTIC + MILITARY/STRATEGY + MORAL/EMOTIONAL/MOTIVATIONS

Hope you like Deadjune1 (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

About Source and Quotation

Source and Quotatins must NOT be in English. Türk Tarih Kurumu (Turkish Historical Society) is among most respected historical societies in the World. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.13.55 (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Naming conventions

Could someone revert the anonymous edit made on Jan 4? It was an automated substitution of the words Moslem and Constantinople by Muslim and Istanbul, respectively, thoughout the whole text. (I'd do it myself, but I'm not sure about how one is to revert a "bad" edit that precedes at least one "good" edit without harming the latter one.) I don't have any opinion at all on which of the two conventions should be followed in the article. The problem is that the substitution was blind: i) it changed quoted passages that contained the former words, and ii) it created so-to-speak monstrous misconstructions, such as a sentence claiming that the Megali Idea referred to (the recovery of) Istanbul, which sounds really odd since Istanbul was a name that the Greeks found offensive as a reference to Constantinople back then (many still do, but this is totally irrelevant). Omnipaedista (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I suppose then that I think it is the convention that is wrong, as Omnipaedista describes it. Is not Wikipedia for the general user rather than specialist academics? Diomedea Exulans (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of using "Constantinople" as a city name, but only because it wasn't renamed Istanbul until 1930, and this article predates 1930, and not because Constantinople is more familiar to English speakers. Istanbul should probably be used in post 1930 articles. However, I disagree with using "Smyrna" as a city name. Izmir was not renamed in the 30's. In regards to Smyrna, Wikipedia itself states about Smyrna, "This article is about the ancient Greek city. For the modern city, see İzmir." So Wikipedia's own standards tell us that we should be using Izmir. To say we should use Smyrna instead is akin to saying we should still be using Peking instead of Beijing just because it is more familiar to English speakers. Just because something is unfamiliar to us as English speakers, it doesn't mean it is incorrect, and that attitude shows a bit of prejudice in my opinion. Zargon2010 (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification and possible compromise on "Ottoman-occupied territories"

I noticed the disagreement over "Ottoman-occupied" part in this sentence;
"The Megali Idea was an irredentist vision of a restoration of a Greater Greece on both sides of the Aegean that would incorporate Ottoman-occupied territories with Greek populations outside the borders of the Kingdom of Greece, which was initially very small."

After first reading it, I also had an issue with "Ottoman-occupied". Then I realized what the sentence was trying to say.

"The Megali Idea...." is what this sentence is all about. Therefore, this part;
"was an irredentist vision of a restoration of a Greater Greece on both sides of the Aegean that would incorporate Ottoman-occupied territories with Greek populations outside the borders of the Kingdom of Greece"
..is the definition of "The Megali Idea".

Now the minor change I am suggesting.
"The Megali Idea, an irredentist vision of the restoration of a Greater Greece on both sides of the Aegean that would include Ottoman territories with Greek populations outside the borders of the Kingdom of Greece."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thrace

Hi, don't get me wrong i think this is a good article, but i just have one question. Not one of the articles on the Greco-Turkish war or the treaty of Lausanne explain what compelled the Greeks to give up Thrace. I mean it was Ethnically Greek, they controlled it and i can't see how the Turks would have got Thrace by force so why did the Greeks give it up, seems a bit weak to me unless there is some reason for their action. English Bobby (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Greece evacuted Eastern Thrace under the cease-fire agreement of Mudania. According to this agreemtn, Eastern Thrace was to be evacuated by all military forces, and only a small number of turkish policemen would keep the order. The agreement was actually signed between the big-three allies (France-Britain-Italy) and Turkey. Greece did not sign it, but in order to take effect Greece had to ratify it as well. At the time, great events were happening in Greece, as two greek colonels who had just retreated to the Aegean from Asia Minor, with some 15,000 men, landed in Athens and overthrew the government (which late they executed). Initially they were very reluctant to reatify the Mudanya agreement, but Venizelos, the political leader of the opposition advised them (the colonels) to do it, in order to focus to the internal situation. Greece signed the agreemetn eventually. However Turkey didn't follow her word. Insted of a few thousand police, Turkey transported some 35,000 troops (4 active and 2 reserve infantry divisions), capturing de facto Eastern Thrace. Greece resented that greatly, and in fact Greece was about to launch an invasion to Eastern Thrace with some 115,000 men, when the Lausanne Treaty was finally accepted by Turkey. The difference was tha Turkey accepted to not ask for any war compensation from Greece (as she normally should, given that the entire war was fought within turkish borders, and the anatolian land was badly devastated). So, essentially, Greece exchanged Eastern Thrace with the money she would give Turkey otherwise.--Xristar (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted the claims of massacres from both sides=

Dear fellows, I fail to see the reason to why the claims of massacres from both sides take place in an article concerning the Greco-Turkish War. The claims give no explanation to what happend in the war, they only make the article difficult to read. If we are to put possible burnings and killings of every village in every wars please do not fail mention them on every single war article. The reasons above state why I have deleted the unneccasary material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Yup I deleted the claims of massacre of the Young Turks against the Armenians in 1915. Still don't understand why but I think Greek army just lost the war so they have to make the Turkish army look dirty. Anyway, the Armenian claims are disputed and overrated. In Turkish view, there are 665.000 Turks massacred by the Dashnak Sutyun terrorists aswell as they killen Armenians that don't obey Dashnaks. City to city revolt killed a lot of citizens. What resulted in 500.000+ Armenians killed plus less than 200.000 Armenians die in the Syrian desert because of lack of doctors and medicals. Thats makes 1,365.000+ deaths in the revoltfrom 1914-1915. Besides Armenians are good in massacring Azeri and Turkish people too in 1918 and later in 1992 Susha what do you say? Armenians burnt Greeks alive when Turkish army recaptured Izmir and pushed it to the Turkish army. Armenians claim 1,500.000 death by cause of Turkish systematic etnic cleansing. Armenian population was 1,4 million world wide then. Armenians just added 500,000 Armenians who became muslim, 500,000 Armenians really killed in the revolt plus they count Turkish deaths as Armenian death. So, if there is an Armenian genocide, there is also a Turkish and Azerbaijani genocide. Pleese keep clear minds before writing such things as something without proof is not a fact. Armenians try to ratify their claims without a basis accepted by the world. Bribery...

please remove this massacres bullshit .it has nothing to do with greco turkish war . mmm, so losers who caanot win war at battle fields ,try to win war at wikipedia . what a pity this aricle is about greco turkish war .stop tarshing the article

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

Turkish "massacare" of armenians?

I do not see how the so called massacre of Armenians in an article adressing the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922 beneficial to the article. This is becouse it has no relevence with the subject at hand. Please edit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 15:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

please remove this massacres bullshit .those idiots working with foreign goverments try to write shit on wikipedia all the time. this massucure bs is nonsense it has nothing to do with greco turkish war .some idiots put that to overshadow the war . there is no need some sneaky racist propaganda in wikipedia. remove all the racist propaganda please

Great Fire of Smyrna

It is important that events such as these are reported accurately. It is not a nationalist POV to note that it is a known fact where the fire was started (with eye-witness reports). It is not nationalist POV to note that the burning of Smyrna was organised by the Turkish Army (since there are eye-witness reports that confirm this and all of this is referenced in detail in the article about the Great Fire of Smyrna). The paragraph is a concise report of what happened. Reducing the paragraph excludes important facts (not nationalist POV). Nipsonanomhmata (talk)

"During the confusion and anarchy that followed, a great portion of the city was set ablaze in the Great Fire of Smyrna, and the properties of the Greeks were pillaged. Eye-witness reports clearly identified where the fire was started and who started it. Moreover, the fact that only the Greek and Armenian quarters of the city were burned, and that the Turkish quarter stood, confirms the organised burning of Smyrna by the Turkish Army despite Mustafa Kemal's proclamation." Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

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

It is important for you to state who the eye witnesses are and what they nationality is. It would not be very credible if the witness was Greek, Turk or British. I can say that according to eye witnesses the Greeks/Turkish raided 1,000 vilages.Without substatiated proof you can not claim the Turkish forces started the fire. If you do have the means to support your claims I would be happy to see them. I also find it hard to believe the Turkish army would try to burn the city, or parts of it that they would reside in after the war.Would you burn your house? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

About the second issue, using the term Ottoman occupied, this is simply ridiculous and you can only read such an expression in your Greek high school books, not anywhere else. Neither of these are part of this article.

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

Stanford J. Shaw

I removed a passage from Stanford J. Shaw, a well-known Turkish apologist and genocide denialist. His History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, co-written with his Turkish wife Ezel Kural Shaw, has been widely criticized by historians [2]. It is completely unacceptable to just plonk it down into the article as accepted fact. I call on all editors active in this article to avoid using such ultra-partisan sources. Athenean (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV-pushing by quote farming

User:Seksen iki yuz kirk bes, who seems greatly interested in expanding the "Greek massacres of Turks" section and not much else [3] added today yet another quote to the section, which is already a quotefarm. For me that was one quote too many. There are already five quotes, we do not need a sixth. I don't care how reliable the source is, at this point we are deep into WP:UNDUE. I have added a quotefarm tag, as the use of quotes is excessive. I can see having one or two quotes, but five? No way. Cutting and pasting direct quotes from sources is poor editing form and not a substitute for actual editing. Wikipedia is not a repository of quotes. Athenean (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Repetition ad nauseam

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

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

• Irregular bands: This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian bands, which appear to operate under Greek instructions and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops, then only a few sentences later: He added that the attrocities were committed by irregular bands of armed civilians, as well as the Greek army.

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

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

The quotes from James Harbord is particularly POV, using dated language and highly partisan. In short, this section doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, but more like a partisan website. Tagged accordingly. Athenean (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Removed the quote by M. Gehri, since it is identical in content and scope with that of the Inter-Allied Commission (Yalova-Gemlik peninsula, irregulars assisted by regulars). Athenean (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet, it is important to stress that both Inter-Allied commission and the representative of the Red Cross, M. Gehri, points out the systemic nature of atrocities. Statements about the atrocities can be similar, there is no problem with that. In fact the section about the Turkish massacres of Greek are full of, in your wording, "highly partisan" and "identical" statements.

So I'm restoring the quotation of M. Gehri, being the first hand testimony of a human right organization member, it is important to give a place to his writings in this sub-section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.166.64 (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The specific section suffers from wp:quotefarm, moreover Gehri's description is already mentioned in the text. I'll check the rest of the quotes in order to remove and replace them with the approriate context.Alexikoua (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The description of events as witnessed by a Red Cross representative is not "quotefarming", is illustrative of a point that the Greek army has pursued a near systematic policy of ethnic cleansing at least in parts of the occupied territories. Therefore, this quotation is important for this sub-section titled as "claims of ethnic cleansing by both sides". If you insist on deleting it, I am going to follow a dispute resolution process for that single quotation alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.91.37 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Primary Sources are not permitted in the guidelines for WP:RS.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 17:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems with each new day you are going to show up with a new senseless excuse just to censure information about the atrocities Greek state and Greeks have committed, just like you have been doing in the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus article.

A published book by a historian is definitively not a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.91.37 (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? It has always been given to me as the reason why Arnold Toynbee's Blue Book cannot be quoted in the article about the Armenian Genocide. Are you saying that it is alright to quote the Blue Book in that article? All references to the Blue Book are done via secondary sources or through generalizations. It appears to me that you quote Primary Sources when it suits you and you delete Primary Sources when it doesn't suit you.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 17:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the difference between you and me is that I don't delete anything, so feel free to cite Blue Book, Red Book or a Grey Book in any article of Wikipedia.

Secondly, this is not the Blue Book which is cited here, a different book published in the year 1922. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.91.37 (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I think that, when the part titled "Atrocities and claims of ethnic cleansing by both sides" would be removed and transfered to a new article Massacres and Atrocities during the Greco-Turkish War of 1919–1922, it will be very useful and convenient for both users and readers. Needless to say massacres and atrocities also were important parts of this war. However, the quantity of related part increased to 20,615 bytes (except related part, the text and sources count 54,776 bytes). It's tooooooo large and we can open a new article only with this topic. With this large part, this war looks to be consisted only of massacres and atrocities. Moreover, as long as I know, edit wars took place especcially about related part. So we can more easily and more productively improve this article, without related part. Takabeg (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A sound approach should be to fix the existing section in this article first, since it suffers from wp:QUOTEFARM. I believe creating poor articles without enough context and repeating same-style quotes isn't the best we can do here.Alexikoua (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I also support Takabeg's idea the reason for this is as follows. The article, as said before is too large to navigate properly. It is under wikipedia guidlines that an article this magnitude should be broken down in to forks. It is only appropriate that one of the bigest segments of the article should be formed in to a new page, which in this case is the atrocities performed by both parties. This is also beneficial for this page as it improves navigation and the new page. This means the new page can be subjected to subject specific discussion and the chances of turning it in to a proper article rather than a quote farm are increased. However if it remains here its chances of improvement are lower. Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman-occupied territories

The territories in northern Greece and Crete were clearly "Ottoman-occupied". They were occupied by force and against the will of the vast majority people for three and a half centuries. That doesn't stop them from being "Ottoman-occupied". There is no time limit on occupation. Nipsonanomhmata (talk)

The greeks too ar occupying land from neantherthals heck the whole human species has taken and occupied land that was owned by animals but wait animals took it from bacteria and occupied it! Do you know how childish your argument is? Land is won and lost deal with it. If you ask me there should be no such term...Tugrulirmak (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

My final addition and clean-up

I waited for someone to do it but nobody volunteered, eventually I rewrote the National Schism paragraph to make it more relevant to this war. I also tried to shorten it, for details someone can visit the full article.

Then I did a bit of TLC and clean-up in the events, there were still some extrapolations and overlaps that made it look obvious that it was written by 20 different editors, I think now is more smooth and progressive. I did not dare touch the attrocities bit, is still very poor in style with those horrible lists of primary sources and witnesses, but I guess is impossible to change, (see Archives to understand) Deadjune1 (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC) WARNING:this person calls himself "deadjune1"is an internet terorrist working for racist governments. he is adding so called genocide posts to overshadow the article. this article is about greco turkish war thats it.article has nothing to do with so called genosides . please report these kind of cowards . edit it please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.30.210 (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I kindly request that no Greek or Turkish half-wit touches anything without good justification and discussion comments?Deadjune1 (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It is strongly necessary to prove that, your references for so-called Greek and Armenian Genocides of Turkish Government in Anatolia were not propaganda materials to justify Greek Agression for those days. Otherwise it is not possible to consider those references as acceptable sources.Thank you.. [GA] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.231.237.55 (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Repetition ad nauseam, continued

Gehri quotation is highly important and it comes from a reliable source. There is no reason to delete it unless one is intended to vandalize wikipedia. --212.175.32.139 (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the section above called "Repetition ad nauseam", where even User:Seksen iki yuz kirk bes, a Turkish user, agrees with me. Also read WP:NOTVAND. Are you the same user who has been editing from an IP before? Athenean (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I deleted the blockquote and just re-wrote that passage just like that user had done. Is it ok now?

You don't get it. The problem is not the formatting, it's that the same exact information is repeated three times: 1) M. Gehri, the representative of the Geneva International Red Cross, have presented two different reports in regard to the atrocities Greek forces committed in the Yalova-Gemlik Peninsula in the year 1921. In their report of the 23rd May 1921, 2) The members of the Commission consider that, in the part of the kazas of Yalova and Gemlik occupied by the Greek army, there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Muslim population., 3)M. Gehri presented a similar report in which he stated that the established facts as of burning of villages and massacres left no room for doubt that: "...The Greek army of occupation have been employed in the extermination of the Muslim population of the Yalova-Gemlik peninsula.". Atrocities in the Yalova Gemlik peninsula. Atrocities in the Yalova Gemlik peninsula. Atrocities in the Yalova Gemlik Peninsula. Shall we repeat it a fourth time in case our readers didn't get it the first three times around? Stop this. Even a Turkish user agreed that I was right (see "Repetition ad nauseam" section above). Athenean (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The quotation serves to a point that there was near systematic atrocities in Greek occupied regions, Yalova Gemlik being an example of it. So this point is put forward by two different reports, which collaborate with each other. If it is only mentioning about atrocities in Yalova Gemlik I would have agreed with you that there is no reason to cite it twice. Here the criticial issue is that they point the systematic nature of the atrocities, which is why it is important to cite them both.

Btw, why are you not deleting the repetitive parts in the Turkish masacres of Greek section?

Complete and utter nonsense. The quote which I left speaks of a systematic plan. The quote I removed doesn't. So it's completely unnecessary. According to your reasoning, the first quote (the one I left in the article) is sufficient to make the point. Btw there is no repetition in the Turkish massacres section, but since you mention it, I will check it. Athenean (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding right, there are about 10 newspaper articles in the Turkish massacres section making identitical remarks without providing much specific data. Any why does it bother you so much to have two sentences, which incidentally seems to have been part of this article for years, about the atrocities in Yalova? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.85.27 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No point in discussing with someone who is only interested in quantity and cannot understand a simple point. The Yalova sentences are identical. The one I removed contains no information not included in the blockquote. It is that simple. That they have been there for years means nothing ("appeal to tradition"). Also please learn to indent your comments. Athenean (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The citation provide the observations of a human right organization at a specific time and specific place, unlike most of the vague descriptions one can find in both the Greek and Turkish massacres section, thus in fact it is one of the last citations to be deleted from the article. It's the point that I have been repeating all the time. The fact that there is just another report on this issue prepared by Inter allied commission is no reason to delete it, these two reports in fact support each other and together make a sound claim. By deleting one of them, you're making it a less reliable argument.

That information is already included in the blockquote. The rest of your point is impossible to follow due to poor logic and/or broken English ("one the last citations to be deleted from the article"). So if there was a 3rd and 4th report saying the exact same things, we should include them too? By the way are you the same user that has been editing from the Adana and Gaziantep IP addresses? Athenean (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

So let me reiterate the point then, I argue that it is "one of the last citations to be deleted from the article" because it is first from a reliable source, then about a specific atrocity which occurred at a specific time. Most of the quotations in both massacres sections are full of vague descriptions when this particular citation is not. Furthermore, when put together with the report of the Inter allied commission, it does make a sound claim about the near systmatic nature of atrocities and ethnic cleansing. No reason to add a 3rd or 4th quotation btw, 2 citation is enough about the massacres of Yalova Gemlik peninsula.

And please avoid personal attacks when discussing an issue.--78.176.85.27 (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Two sources, same material. One is enough. There is nothing in the report by M. Gehri not included in the Inter-allied commission blockquote. Creating a separate sub-section makes even less sense. Btw you haven't answered my question whether you are the same editor as the other IPs. Athenean (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Athenean I seriously do not understand your behavior in regard to wanting to delete this particular citation in such a persistent manner, seriously we both are wasting our time.

As I have before said, citing two reliable collaborating reports for a specific atrocity which occurred at a specific time does not constitute "blockquoting". In fact, I believe the citation of Gehri, because of it specificity and reliability, is more valuable than much of what has been said in these massacres sections which are full of vague sentences instead of specific data. If somebody adds a third, fourth or even a fifth quotation for this same atrocity, I assure you I'll be the first one to delete them since this would indeed be "blockquoting". And I only answer your questions which make sense please stop asking me about IP's etc.--78.176.85.27 (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what you're saying simply doesn't make any sense. According to your line of reasoning, if there were a third and fourth source about the same thing, then they would also have to be included, because that would prove there was a "plan" of systematic atrocities even further. There is nothing about a "systematic plan" in the Gehri quote, and there is nothing in the Gehri quote that is not included in the Inter-allied commission quote. It is completely redundant, and its only purpose is to inflate the size of the section (quantity above quality). Now you're just repeating the same nonsense over and over and pretending not to hear what I'm saying, so I am done here. And it's "quotefarming" by the way, not "blockquoting". Athenean (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't like topic on atrocities, massacres, genocide. But unfortunately sometime we have to deal with such topics. I compared two editions (User:Athenean and User:Gob Lofa)

Athenean's and Gob Lofa's

User:Athenean remove two paragraphs as follows:

Inter-Allied commission and M. Gehri, the representative of the Geneva International Red Cross, have presented two similar reports in regard to the atrocities Greek forces committed in the Yalova-Gemlik Peninsula in the year 1921. In their report of the 23rd May 1921, Inter-Allied commission stated that:</nowiki></nowiki>

Red Cross representative M. Gehri wrote that the established facts as of burning of villages and massacres left no room for doubt that: "...The Greek army of occupation have been employed in the extermination of the Muslim population of the Yalova-Gemlik peninsula."<ref name="Toynbee 1922 285">{{harv|Toynbee|1922|p=285}}</ref>

With these removal, the name of M. Gehri, Red Cross etc... And the extermination of the Muslim population is hidden. This is important part that was used in this repot. Because this indicated an attempted genocide.

I think that we can merge these paragragh. Or we can create new article with the title Greek atrocities in the Yalova-Gemlik peninsula (Turkish: Yalova-Gemlik katliamı) and son on. I'm not sure that this title is appropriate to this massacres, because not only Gemlik and Yalova, but also Karamürsel, İznik was mentioned in the secret session of the Grand National Assembly at the time. Are there Greek sources on this atrocities ? Takabeg (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Nebahat Oran Arslan, "Yalova, Gemlik, Orhangazi ve İzmit(Samandağlı) Bölgesinde Yaşanan Yunan Mezalimi ve Bölgeye Gönderilen Uluslar arası Tahkik Heyetinin Çalışmaları", Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi, Sayı:22, Erzurum 2003., s. 295-303.

• Talat Yalazan, Türkiye'de Yunan Vahşet ve Soy Kırımı Girişimi: Cilt. 13 Eylül 1921-9 Eylül 1922, Genelkurmay Askerı̂ Tarih ve Stratejik Etüt Başkanlığı, 1994, ISBN 9789754090246, p. 100. (in Turkish)

• Richard Clogg, Politics and the academy: Arnold Toynbee and the Koraes Chair, Routledge, ISBN 9780714632902, 1986, p. 55.

• Steven Béla Várdy, T. Hunt Tooley, Ágnes Huszár Várdy, Ethnic cleansing in twentieth-century Europe, Social Science Monographs, 2003, ISBN 9780880339957, p. 190.

• Michael Llewellyn Smith, Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922, University of Michigan Press, 1999, p. 210.

• Justin McCarthy, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922, Darwin Press, 1995, p. 319.

• Stanford Jay Shaw, From Empire to Republic: the Turkish War of National Liberation, 1918-1923 : A Documentary Study, Turkish Historical Society, ISBN 9789751612281, p. 1284

• Salâhi Ramadan Sonyel, The Turco-Greek Conflict, Cyprus Turkish Cultural Association, 1985, p. 80.

• Arnold Joseph Toynbee, The Western Question in Greece and Turkey: A Study in the Contact of Civilisations, Constable and Company Ltd. LONDON · BOMBAY · SYDNEY, 1922.

Are you serious? The Inter-Allied Commission quote clearly says "extinction of the Muslim population". So this proves my point: The M. Gehri quote is completely redundant, it contains absolutely nothing not already mentioned in the Inter-Allied Commission quote. It's sole purpose is to inflate the section, to make it look longer. I'm not sure what you mean by "merging", but if you think it might resolve the problem, you're welcome to try it out. I too dislike topics about atrocities, genocides, etc, that's why I am against the creation of new articles. All this will do is create more tension, the Greek editors will create new articles about Turkish atrocities elsewhere (there is no shortage), and an endless cycle of confrontation will ensue. For example, I could just as easily come up with plenty of sources about Turkish atrocities (real easy). Rather, what needs to be done is to trim these sections to the essentials, while also avoiding gratuitously POV language. We need less, not more. Athenean (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any POV. I'm only transfer information neutrally. Gehri's repot have a historical importance, whtether he exagerated or not. It's diferrent from the case on the article Imbros. In that article User:Athenean wants to use the term "persecution" insistedly. But that is "assimilation". We can regard such behavior abusing WP:NPOV for that behavior because sources doesn't mention "persecution". However, in this case there are sources. If we can find source criticism on this report, we have to transfer them. It's normal. Takabeg (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Not that it has anything to do with article or the discussion at hand, but I changed "persecution" to the less strong "discrimination" to address your concerns. What this has to do with this article here, I have no idea. As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry, but I just don't understand it. Athenean (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Athenean, you are persistently trying to impose your views without trying to come to any agreement. I have deleted the blockquotation from Gehri and reduce it to a simple sentence with the hope that we might perhaps finally settle with it even though I thought blockquoting made more sense. To inform the reader that there were two separate collobarating reports, one from Inter-allied commission and the other from Red Cross, is surely not quotefarming. Furthermore, these are two collobarating piece of reports both of which needs citation.

You want to completely erase the information that there was a report from Gehri without trying to have a consensus view on that, and I believe that is tantamount to vandalism. I also think this is your original contribution to wikipedia to come up with the idea that if one gives more than one reference to a specific massacre then it becomes quotefarming. Using two references only makes a more valid claim that such an atrocity had indeed taken place. Just as a question of curiosity, not much to do with our discussion in here, have you counted how many similar quotations there exist in any atrocity article in wikipedia?--195.175.226.175 (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You're just repeating the same thing over and over without without listening to what I'm saying, and really starting to bore. You think my edits are vandalism? I don't really care, that's your problem. I obviously can't continue like this, so I am asking for outside mediation with an RfC. Everyone, please do not disrupt the RfC and let the RfCer comment. Athenean (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep: If any, with source criticism. The report has historical value, we don't have rights to delete any historical facts. Who will create the article Maurice Gehri ? Takabeg (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

+ The Great Betrayal; A Survey of the Near East Problem is used in the article Greek genocide. As we know, this book contains a considerable amount of false information. For example, we can see the name of Mehmet Azit (according to this book he was a commander of the Brigade). But there was no person named Mehmet Azit in the Ottoman Empire. For all that, we use this book, because it has historical value to some extent, especially its contemporaneousness is important. Of course, if any, we must use source critisism too. Takabeg (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep These are two collaborating reports and The Red Cross representative is surely a reliable source when the issue is human right abuses. I believe just to note down that there were two reliable separate reports on the specific atrocities which had taken in Yalova Gemlik peninsula in the year 1921 does not constitute "quotefarming". In fact, if we apply the same standarts to other articles on communal violence, for instance to the article of Great Fire of Smyrna, we'll simply need to delete more than half of its content as it is full of repetitive sentences which in essence say no more than "Turks burned Smyrna".

--Anapad (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Should this [4] quote of M. Gehri be kept or removed? I feel it is completely redundant and contains no information already conveyed by the blockquote from the Inter-Allied Commission. A couple of Turkish users object and discussion has now stalled. See related talkpage threads [5] [6]. Athenean (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If Gehri's report is quite similar to the report prepared by the Interallied commission, this similarity itself needs to be stressed in such articles about the atrocities. The very existence of two separate reports make a much more reliable claim that the Greek army had committed systematic atrocities in Yalova-Gemlik. Plus, Gehri quote does stress in more certain terms that the Greek army has been "exterminating" the population of Yalova Gemlik peninsula. --78.176.85.27 (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Question - The disputed quote is "M. Gehri [Intl Red Cross representative] presented a similar report in which he stated that the established facts as of burning of villages and massacres left no room for doubt that: "...The Greek army of occupation have been employed in the extermination of the Muslim population of the Yalova-Gemlik peninsula."". In order to decide if this should be included, we need to know more about the notability of M. Gehri. I see that Toynbee mentions Gehri, but is there any other evidence of Gehri's import? Was he a major representative of the Red Cross? or minor? Did the Red Cross publish a report on this topic, and can that report be cited? Did Gehri himself publish any document on the topic? Note: I am not suggesting that Gehri must have published something (to the contrary, secondary sources such as Toynbee are preferred) but it would be useful to know. --Noleander (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see a publication from Gehri in the Talk page above: Inter-Allied Commission of Inquiry into the Greek Occupation of Smyrna and Adjacent Territories, International Committee of the Red Cross, Les atrocités grecques en Asie-Mineure, Comité international de la Croix-rouge,. A few questions: (1) Does anyone have access to the contents of this document?; (2) can someone provide some citations where this document is referenced so we have some feel for its significance/authenticity? (3) what year was it published? --Noleander (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute, now I'm getting confused. This citation says that Gheri authored the Inter-Allied Commission report; but the diffs in this RfC suggest that Gehri, as a representative of the Red Cross, wrote a second report that was independent of the Inter-Allied Commission. Can someone clarify this? --Noleander (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I found another Maurice Gehri publishing titled as Prisons Russes (Russian Prisons) published in the year 1909. [7] He seems to have been long involved in recording human rights abuses. Toynbee's book is accessible to me and he clearly points out that there are two reports prepared by the commission and Gehri. It might be possible though that Gehri made a publishing on the issue which also contained the ınter-allied commission report.

I also found a Turkish source which claim that there was a separate Inter-allied commission consisted of British, French and Italian officers and the leading figures of this comission were "Bristol, Bunoust, Hare, Dall'Orlo". According to that source there was also a separate "investigation comission" for the Red Cross led by M. Gehri. (unfortunately it is written in the Turkish language) [8] --Anapad (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC) --Anapad (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Responses

• This is a "drive-by" response. I haven't looked deeply into the question. However, I have scanned the Talk Page comments above the RFC starting with the section "Repetition ad nauseam". It is worthwhile to present the same information as coming from multiple, independent sources as a way of deflecting charges that the information is POV. For this reason, it is probably useful to have the views of a representative of the International Red Cross (i.e. M. Gehri) as a supposedly semi-neutral observer. However, that does not mean we have to provide the verbatim quote of every source in the text of the article. It should be sufficient to say something like "the charges of the Inter-Allied Commission were supported by a report of the International Red Cross". The sentence can then be cited to M. Gehri and, if necessary, the quote can be provided in the footnote. Extensive quotations in the main article text degrades the readability of the article. POV pushers somehow seem to think that piling on more and more verbatim quotes makes their case stronger. It doesn't. All it does is make the article unreadable. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with presenting the information as coming from two different sources without providing a direct quotation to Gehri's report in the main body of the article. Instead we can put the quotation to the footnote, as it is suggested. I believe this might be a good way for us to finally reach to an agreement on this issue.--Anapad (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with Pseudo-Richard and Anapad. It's perfectly acceptable to have both a references section (for the external sources) and a footnotes section to expand on other information that would otherwise disrupt the readability of the article. Just for an example, Brontë family is an article that uses this system. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with the change already made by Anapad[9], putting the Gehri quote in a footnote. Propose closing this RfC if there is no objection to that solution. WikiDao ☯ 16:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree Also happy to accept the change. Berek (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Naimark

WikiDao removed Naimark's book with the comment rm ref -- there is no mention of the "inter-allied commision" in this book. But Naimark wrote:

The commissioners wrote of the 'burning and looting of Turkish villages' and the explosion of violence of Greeks and Armenians against the Turks. At the same time, the commissioners noted that the depredations seemed to take place by design There is a systematic plan of destruction and extinction of the Moslem population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian hands, which appear to operate under Greek instruction and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops.

If need, we can see Adam Jones's Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (p. 176), Michael Llewellyn Smith's Ionian vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922 (p. 213) etc... Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because it did not seem to me to support the text where it was cited:

"In their report of the 23rd May 1921, Inter-Allied commission stated that: <...blockquote...>".

The commissioners mentioned in your quote aren't clearly stated to be commissioners of the Inter-Allied commission. They are only identified in the source with the text: "In a report to the British parliament by a commission investigating Greek occupation policies...". A search of the source for the phrase "Inter-Allied commission" turns up no results. But if the Inter-Allied commission really is the commission being referred to here, ie. the one reporting to British parliament on this matter, then I would support re-instating the reference. WikiDao ☯ 23:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wikidao, we are talking about the same report which is cited in Toynbee's book as well as Naimark's. I put here the exact citation from Toynbee, (p. 283-4) the Inter-Allied Commission in the Yalova-Gemlik Peninsula, in their report of the 23rd May 1921, summed up as follows: The commission endeavoured to arrive at the causes of which, in less than two months, brought about the destruction or evacuation of nearly all the Moslem villages of that part of the kazas of Yalova and Guemlek which is occupied by the Greeks...there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Moslem population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian bands, which appear to operate under Greek instructions and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops.

As you see these two are identitical, in the quotation from Naimark's book it is written that "there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Moslem population". Therefore, there is no question that Naimark too was citing the same report of the Inter-Allied commission, dating 23rd May 1921.--Anapad (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

These numbers; in the heat of "All out assult on East" as Lenin called it, is just not logical.

"1.5 million captured Ottoman rifles from World War I, one million Russian rifles, one million Mannlicher rifles, as well as some older British Martini-Henry rifles and 25,000 bayonets would be delivered to the Kemalist forces."

minimum total makes 3,5 million riffles. Also let us not forget ottoman inventories were preyed by both turks and allies, what would an army of roughly 200 thousands do with that many riffles. Using them is illogical( 20 arms per capita), keeping them would be a huge problem, even transporting them is almost impossible. Also let us not forget, Soviets were dealing with their problems (Soviet civil war). Which is far from making sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.165.143 (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Armenian massacres?

Can someone please clarify as to how the Greco-Turkish war can relate to the "massacre" of Armenians in the south and east of Turkey where the war was no where near. The war could not have affected this places. There is also the fact that the said events happened prior to Turkish defeat by the allied forces and when the Armenians were already deported so to say there was any atrocities committed upon large swathes of Armenians during a war which raged in the western end of Turkey is nothing but utter historical revisionism. The inclusion of the events of 1915 and until the Turkish surrender has its own place in other articles; and should not do so in this irrelevant article. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

According to a book I read many years back (I think it was Misha Glenny's The Balkans, but I'm not entirely certain.) there were in fact many Armenians in western Turkey prior to the Greco-Turkish war, who in fact largely escaped the ethnic violence in the east of Turkey until the Greek invasion. After the war, the Greeks withdrew, and ferried out their citizens, while the Armenians were left high and dry. --Quintucket (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Dont you know by now, if an armenian sneezes, it is a genocide.Well at least a 900 years old late one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.165.143 (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

EDIT IN CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

APOLOGIES I had to delete a whole paragraph from there rather than make effort to save it for 3 reasons 1-Is badly written and does not flow well with the rest, is obviously an insertion of mostly irrelevant references with no editing 2-Is not clearly addressing the title of the paragraph 3- Accuracy is very dubious, e.g there was minimal (or none) input of the British in the equipment or training of the Greek Army, their training was largely independent since the last French mission in 1910, and equipment was mainly Austrian and French. British support was in loans and diplomacy.

To the fellow writer, feel free to use this info, but make it more clear how it addreses the title, and cross-check as factually has great issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.133 (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Other suggestions

Would you consider changing the title Greco-Turkish War to Greek-Turkish War or maybe Anatolia Confict, in order that this may be written in proper English?--Yparjis (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

the map of greece from 1910-1920 is wrong, greece captured crete in 1908 but it is shown as not a part of greece in 1910, when it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.139.9 (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)