Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Proposals for Article

Firstly, I propose that the above section which contains a lot of personal attacks and nonsense, should be deleted, as noone will have any use for it.MegasAllexandros 04:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I totaly agree with you--Hattusili 04:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the section. I trust noone would disagree with the decision. In the future, we should try to be careful not to offend anyone and start a fire. MegasAllexandros 04:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the deletion and archived the piece. It is in Archive 2 now, along with an older section and a section commenting the trolling. From here on, let's try and keep focused on discussing this particular article here. Irrelevant discussions should take place elsewhere. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I regret to see an article that is obviously written by an unobjective author and has many unfair and unsubstantiated (most references are unacademic and politically motivated) attacks. The article is well below wikipedia's standards Please keep politics out of WikiPedia and let the history be done by historians. EDITORS: Please correct and clean the article as much as possible before you "editprotect" it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.177.77 (talk)

How come all the information is based on Greek resources although the events took placed on Turkish territory? My grandparents lived in the western part of Turkey which was occupied by Greek army and they witnessed a massacre executed by the Greek army. Why is this not mentioned?Azak

This article is strongly sided and mostly wrong. The references and the comments show this approach clearly. My family also originated from west part of Turkey. I personally know many people who witnessed massacre and rapes and fires contucted by greek army. They killed animals, burned grains so that Turks cannot use later. Now should I believe this article or people who witnessed ? I think this article should be marked as "NOT OBJECTIVE".User:aergenc

Unprotection?

Should the article be unprotected? It can't stay protected forever.MegasAllexandros 02:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, list it on WP:RPP. —Khoikhoi 03:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

references

reference 3 http://www.antalya-ws.com [1] is totaly unrelated with the article, it even doesn't have a "history" section. Can we delete it?--Hattusili 04:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I found it, it's in the "Museum" section. —Khoikhoi 04:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any information about Italian military aid to Kemalist Turkish troops on Museumsection either.It is only about the foundation of the museum.--Hattusili 05:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, in that case it can be either replaced with a fact tag or deleted. —Khoikhoi 06:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we use {{Editprotected}} for this? (I think unprotecting the page will cause chaos)--Hattusili 07:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hattusili about causing chaos. However, i think that semi-protection would be the best solution at the moment, and if things will prove to be optimistic, it can be totally unprotected again. --Hectorian 14:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you guys want a reference you should check out "Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor" by Michael Llewellyn Smith. Aristotellis 04:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

requested edit in Outcome of Greek Offensive section

Reference 3 is tottaly unrelated with the "The Italians used their base in Antalya to arm and train Turkish troops to assist the Kemalists against the Greeks" statement.It should be replaced with a fact tag or the statement must be deleted.--Hattusili 05:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a history section on the website but now I can't find it. The site must have been updated. SERGEI

Done --  Netsnipe  ►  15:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I request the editors of this page to replace the citation needed tag in the "The Italians used their base in Antalya to arm and train Turkish troops to assist the Kemalists against the Greeks" statement with a source:"Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor" by Michael Llewellyn Smith. Mitsos 16:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Done --  Netsnipe  ►  16:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.antalya-ws.com/english/location/antalya/whistory.asp

The old source actually has it.

Alexius Comnenus

Numbers

Numbers are fully wrong.Greek army was over 200.0000 men, i am not sure about this, but i am sure Turkish army couldn't have 450.000 men.This is just a nonsense.When Turkish army began to fight, it had 60.0000 men, and after the defeat at Kutahya-Eskisehir the army lost its half.

There is a dialogue between Mustafa Kemal and Ismet Inonu after the war; talkin about casualties;

Inonu says he had lost 30.000 men and they both proceeds that it was the half of the army.

Middle Anatolia couldn't have recruited 450.000 soldiers after Balkan wars and First World War already.Really impossible guys.

That's true, and I 'm going to fix it Mitsos 08:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to remind you about numbers, they are still the same, thanks for your concern. - M. R.

Smyrna majority Greek?

There is a citation for the statement that Smyrna was majority Greek at the time of the invasion, but the citation is "Hellenic Army General Staff, 1957, Ο Ελληνικός Στρατός εις την Σμύρνην, p.56"--in Greek!, a Greek military document! Come on, can't we do better than this? --Anthon.Eff 01:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I insist on an edit about the numbers.

THIS ARTICLE IS BIASED!!!!!

This paragraph is misleading

According to the British historian Patrick Kinross, the Greek retreat involved a scorched earth policy leaving large tracts of land and property ruined or destroyed and the inhabitants of Smyrna close to starvation. Kinross writes "Already most of the towns in its path were in ruins. One third of Ushak no longer existed. Alashehir was no more than a dark scorched cavity, defacing the hillside. Village after village had been reduced to an ash-heap. Out of the eighteen thousand buildings in the historic holy city of Manisa, only five hundred remained"[4]. Talking of the attrocities committed, Kinross goes on to add "Everywhere the Greek troops, especially those from Anatolia, revenging themselves in desperation and in obedience to orders for generations of Ottoman oppresion and persecution, carried off Christian families that their quarters too might be burned and not a roof left for the advancing Turks. They tore up the railway between Smyrna and Aydin. They pillaged and destroyed and raped and butchered"

This paragraph can be offensive. Especially when it says that the Greek troops pillaged and destroyed and raped and butchered. I realize that this is the opinion of a historian, but there is no opinion to present something else. The reader should decide for his/her self what the truth is. The way this is worded, it is as if we are spoon-feeding the reader what to believe. I insist on presenting an altering viewpoint to balance out the equation. Periklis* 06:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This section overrate the few attrocities of the Greek troops, but under-analyse the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Greeks. It is POV and I've tagged it.--Yannismarou 10:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Following the debate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupation of İzmir, it has been suggested that the article should be merged into this one. Parts of this debate are also in the Occupation article's talk.

Please indicate your preference by voting in the respective column. Kindly use only your signature and the timestamp (sign by #~~~~) and if you want to comment, do so only below in the comments section. •NikoSilver• 13:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Sign below:

1. •NikoSilver• 13:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Mitsos 10:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Tekleni 08:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Sshadow 09:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Hectorian 15:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Aristovoul0s 16:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Miskin 14:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

| class="col-break " |

Don't merge

Sign below:

1. --Hattusili 20:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2. --A.Garnet 15:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
3. --E104421 05:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
4. -- Cretanforever 17:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
5. --Karcha 01:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on merger

• The unique content of the daughter article is limited to 4-5 lines of highly selected text (in Occupation of Izmir#Occupation). Academic sources tend to include this period in a broader timeframe (war) and in a broader geographic extent (Ionia). The rest of the article for Occupation of Izmir only reproduces material from the main and other articles, such as Great Fire of Smyrna. •NikoSilver• 13:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to "vote" just yet, but I think you may be jumping the gun a bit. As always though, I'm not particularly counting on our Turkish contributors to make anything like a decent article out of it, so my opinion hangs in the balance. There are enough sources, but can they do it?. :) - Francis Tyers · 13:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Jumping the gun was not my intention, sincerely. The article has been there for 8 months(!) and the talk about merging it started a good 10 days ago and not by me (diff). I think we have dragged ourselves over a title dispute, due to the apparent WP:POVFORK de{{main}}ing [sic] of this section. We don't really need to argue, and we don't need to wait. Merge now, expand, de{{main}} later, and bitch about the article name then (we'll have more data on how to call it too)! •NikoSilver• 14:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the occupation is notable enough to be separate from the war. Also, Francis, i dont know what you mean by "As always though, I'm not particularly counting on our Turkish contributors to make anything like a decent article out of it". I'm sure your not suggesting that Turkish contributors are less capable of creating a decent article than other contributors, but that is how it reads. --A.Garnet 15:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the tone of Francis' comment either. It's not just a slam on the capabilities of "our Turkish contributors" but also raises the question of why "they" should do it and not "we". Are the sources written in Turkish so that only "they" can do it? Or does this comment originate from a Greek/Turkish POV problem? I got here via AFD and so know very little about this topic. Francis' comment just sounds snide. Forgive me if it wasn't meant in the way that I interpreted it. --Richard 16:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there's an explanation to this. Fran is always courteous to everybody. A misunderstood motivation perhaps? •NikoSilver• 23:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my Talk Page so that we can all discuss A.Garnet's point

Hi Richard, in the afd you state "It appears that the occupation of Smyrna/Izmir was not just a single event in the war but rather the major focal event of the war. If this is not true, I would reconsider my position."

The Occupation of Izmir was only one part of the war. It can be broken down in the occupation of Izmir, First Battle of İnönü, Second Battle of İnönü, Battle of Sakarya, and the Battle of Dumlupınar, and finally the Great Fire of Smyrna. These are all significant stages of the Greco-Turkish war. The current level of content should not detract from the fact that it is a notable part of the war which deserves its own article. Thanks, --A.Garnet 18:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Aaargh! I'm stung again by not having read enough articles on this subject.

I think A.Garnet makes a valid point. However, if you look at the articles for the various battles that he mentions, each article is very short. I would say that we need to be consistent. Either all the battles should be merged into this article or each significant battle should be dealt with separately (and hopefully expanded to have a bit more content). This second option argues for keeping the Occupation of Izmir as a separate article. It is no less significant than the other battles.

However, I think that there is also an inconsistency between the Occupation of Izmir which spans a 3 year period of tiem and the battles which are much shorter in duration. It seems that there was very little about the Occupation of Izmir that is notable between its capture by the Greeks and its recapture by the Turks. (Yeah, there was the creation of the university but that's not enough to tip the scale.)

It would seem to me that, if we were to keep the battles as separate articles, then we should break apart the Occupation of Izmir into Greek capture of Smyrna and Turkish re-capture of Smyrna (of course, I'm open to suggestions for better titles).

--Richard 19:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That exactly reminds me of Hectorian's comment in the AfD. •NikoSilver• 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Greek capture of Smyrna and Turkish re-capture of Smyrna" you said, huh? Not so bad... •NikoSilver• 00:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my Talk Page so that we can involve everybody in the discussion...

From A.Garnet to Richardshusr

In light of what i have said, do you still believe merge and redirect is the most suitable and consistent option? --A.Garnet 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I think it could go either way. I am comfortable with the merge it all into one big article approach (i.e. all the articles not just the Occupation of Izmir but also all the articles on the other battles. This is a close call.

I don't agree with the original argument that this was POV fork although the AFD debate certainly brought out some arguments that suggested that it might have been. Assuming good faith, I would see this as just a question of how to structure multiple articles about the war. Eventually, this could require multiple articles. Right now, it's not clear that multiple articles are necessary. One big article could do the job nicely. Seems like a waste to throw away all the work done on the subsidiary articles, though.

I think the subsidiary articles on the battles are just barely at the level where they could warrant an article unto themselves. What's needed is an expansion of all the articles. I just don't know enough to be able to tell whether there is more that can be written about these articles.

Can you provide an outline of what could be added to the Greek capture of Smyrna or Turkish re-capture of Smyrna articles such that they would warrant being articles of their own separate from the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) article?

--Richard 22:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be researched Richard, what little i added was done in a hour or so. I know we have Turkish contributors here who have access to Turkish sources, and probably our Greek users can source interesting material also, either way I'm certain information can be sourced for its expansion. The point is the article is notable and should remain there to be expanded. Also, i must disagree that the article is a pov fork, user:Ottomanreference clearly created these series of articles (all the ones i mentioned above) with the intetion of allowing more detailed coverage of the Greco-Turkish war, how this makes it a pov fork i dont know. In my rewrite of it i took care to cite the material our Greek users would find controversial and also include casualty figures for both communities, as well as incidents such as the lynching of the Archbishop, but these are not considered when accusing it of a POV fork.

But in all honesty Richard, what has rallied so many of the Greek users to suggst Delete or Merge is not any concern for the content of the article, but rather having an article which uses the term occupation for the Greek presence in Izmir, despite it being both verifiable and the most notable term to use. This is the crux of the matter with our Greek editors, and if you read the discussion on the talk page, you will realise it has been their main concern since before the afd process. But renaming is not a case for afd (nor is merging), it is a matter of consensus based discussion. --A.Garnet 23:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Alf, I'm gonna be frank: I really don't find the word 'occupation' npov. I also don't like splitting articles into bits and pieces without having elaborated on them first. Even if that wouldn't constitute a fork (despite the fact OR confessed so in the AfD page), it is really bad practice. How would you feel if I violated WP:POINT and created the Turkish lynching of the Archbishop of Smyrna with 5 lines of text to see what I mean? •NikoSilver• 00:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have, on a number of occasions, saved articles from deletion by doing the research and expanding the article in the matter of half an hour to an hour. Admittedly, some of these articles were more current than this one is (e.g. Crime in Mexico, Poverty in India, Adaptation to global warming, etc.). Nonetheless, instead of spending all this time debating, somebody should go do some research and render this whole discussion moot by expanding the articles in question. --Richard 05:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

After checking the voters, it can be realized that Greeks support, Turks oppose merging. Emotional POV push from both sides. E104421 05:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

But the important question is: Which side are Wikipedians supposed to be on? I'm neither Greek nor Turk so I don't know which side to vote for. --Richard 07:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[unindenting] - At this point, what I would suggest as a preliminary exercise is to streamline both articles in their present configuration and then see where that leads us. Shorten the "occupation" article taking out all the duplicate "background" stuff, and making sure both articles link seamlessly into each other. Then we'll see with how much really unique material in the subarticle we're left and whether it's really enough for a good branch-out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the article should (for the time being) be merged in this one, until more info would justify its existence as seperate. And in that time, a possible article about 'occupation' in Smyrni should be divided in two: Greek and Turkish occupation. E104421 is right about the emotional part (which i would not call pov-pushing, though); for the Greek 'emotional reasons', i have explained, i guess most of them, refering to international treaties and censuses. For the Turkish reasons, i bet our fellow Turkish users have also plenty of... By falling in the trap of WP:POINT, i can say that i am in the position to create an article titled Turkish lynching of the Metropolitan of Smyrna, which won't be just "5 lines", as NikoSilver said above, and which would probably cause the anger of some readers or users. However, it would be sourced and it would be as much neutral as it can be. Regards to all. Hectorian 12:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, cool down. By doing so, you would also push others to create counter articles. Edit conflicts would turn out to be article creation wars, then all to be voted for speedy deletion. I do not think that it's a good solution. In my opinion, maybe it would be better to generalize the major topics first (by building consensus for all sides, of course, at the same time), then remove the controversial parts. After doing this, minor ones could be merged. Merging should not cause loss of information. The references themselves should also be neutral and based on scientific sources. Everbody should consider the ways to compromise for reaching a consensus in all conflicts, rather than increase the tension. Regards E104421 16:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If the article will have much content and if it would be sourced and ballanced (always according to the sources provided: e.g. that he cooperated with the Greek army, id est turkish pov, and that he was brutaly murdered and dismembered, id est greek pov backed up by sources), 'speedy deleting' would seem like a supreme act of hypocrysy... Cause in that case we will not have to deal with the article's title (there are no doubts about that fact) nor with its content (nowhere in wikipedia the reasons, the background and the details of his lynching are presented). If i create such an article, i really wouldn't mind rephrasing and rewording it, as long as the sources would not be deleted. But in the article we are talking here (Occupation of Izmir), i see no reason for it not be merged: dublicated info, pov title, one-eyed content, sources used in the same exact way in other articles, etc... The only way that i would agree in keeping it seperate would be to rename it into Greek administration of Smyrna or '...of Ionia' (as NikoSilver has proposed before)-npov title, possibilities of article expansion and coverage of more fields, or to rename it into 'Greek occupation of Smyrni' (note: the name in use that time), but (pay attention all on this) to create another one named 'Turkish occupation of Smyrni' (again the name used that time and also according to international treaties, historic facts, majority vs minority population, legal government-have in mind that the legal government was still the one under the Sultan). also, and maybe this is more important than all the rest, such an article would also include 'Great Fire of Smyrni', since it occured when the turks were in charge of the city. Regards Hectorian 17:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, maybe it's better to put everything to its place and time according to neutral scientific sources. Greek & Turkish pov, claims, names,...,etc may be different, but there should be a way to represent the information neutrally, together. We can try to focus on first the major issues, after neutralizing them, maybe we could then find better ways to deal with the minor ones (including renaming, merging, even removing repeated or disputed parts). As i stated above, we should built consensus on the major issues. If the "fire" is to be included we include, if the name is to be changed we change, but what we are doing now is defocusing from the main issues, creating new controversies, article creation/merging/deletion/renaming. Can you safely say that all the articles related with Turkish/Greek conflicts other than the current one are neutral? or Is there any neutral one about these conflicts? Rather than discussing each issue separately or creating new controversies, we can try to determine the pov ones, and start neutralizing them together. If we could provide comprehensive information based on scientific sources, the minor ones would be treated more easily in the future. Regards E104421 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've been giving this some more thought and here's what I would propose...

First off, the current Occupation of Izmir article simply has to go because the scope of that article overlaps too much with the scope of this article. However, we should salvage as much as we can from that article and create new subsidiary articles. Here's what I would propose Transfer of Smyrna to Greece (1919), Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922), Turkish capture of Smyrna (1922). Note that this last article will have great overlap with the Great Fire of Smyrna. We should probably merge the two and make Great Fire of Smyrna redirect to Turkish capture of Smyrna (1922).

Thoughts and comments?

--Richard 09:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your proposals, in my opinion, will create new problems. If we try to improve the quality and the neutrality of the major topics, the minor ones will automatically be solved. I appreciate your proposals but all are minor ones. Administration, occupation, capture and emancipation all are different issues. The fire is not related with the Turkish emancipation. It was started either by Greek forces or an accident. It is riduculous to speculate that the turkish forces would burn their own city. The fire is well known to happen before the arrival of Turkish forces to Izmir. All these speculaions are the result of anti-turkish propaganda which favors the occupation of western anatolia by the greek. On the contrary, if someone starts countering these arguments, the debate starts, even speedy deletion is offered rather than merging or renaming. That's why i'm proposing to start firstly with the major issues but altogether, if we are to compromise. Otherwise, the debate will not end. Regards E104421 10:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Richard, but i disagree with this approach. Why have 3/4 articles covering the same subject (Greek occupation of Smyrna) when you can easily have one? It is needlessly complicated imo. As for the suggested titles, they seem more concerned with appeasing the Greek pov that there was no occupation than with using the most notable and verifiable term. There was no 'transfer' of Smyrna to Greece, Greece invaded by force of arms a whole year before any treaty was signed. The only article which i believe can stand separate is the Great Fire of Smyrna since it is notable and substantial enough to stand on its own. The rest should simply be expanded within a Occupation of Smyrna article. --A.Garnet 12:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[Unindenting] Richard your proposal is NPOV, and that makes it being rejected by the other side. I am tired of eternal compromises that end to POV articles (and this is general). I propose we just do what we have to and merge everything back to the mother article (this one -War) and then we see which one is substantial to drag its own course out of it and be {{main}}ed out. We can bitch about their titles then, when we will have more sources to know how to call them. For the moment, the only article that matches this criteria is the Great Fire of Smyrna. I also find Garnet's position in refuting the most appealing version regarding the fire, an unfair gesture. I suggest to my fellow Turkish editors in engaging themselves to more editing and less argueing. I'd be willing to help, but you can't expect someone to work on articles of disagreeable title and content (plus I am too busy these days). •NikoSilver• 16:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not reject his proposal because i want to push a pov, but because Occupation of Izmir is simply the most notable and verifiable term used for the event, as Francis has shown on the discussion page. It is no different from Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, depsite the fact that Turkish Cypriots consider it a intervention or a peace operation. Even if Turkey did have a right to intervene under the treaty of guarantee, it does not detract from the fact that she launched a military invasion in antoher country. Likewise, if Izmir did have a significant Greek population, she was still occupying the terriroty for another sovereign entity. You have still failed to come up with a valid argument why this title is not npov. --A.Garnet 17:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss all the Greco-Turkish subjects with you in this page Alf. Therefore I do not respond to your obvious one-sided story of all relative and unrelative articles. Also, I am not contesting the title yet. I am contesting the existence of a separate article, and quite efficiently I may add. :-) •NikoSilver• 19:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Without withdrawing my entire proposal, I do want to retract the proposed title Transfer of Smyrna to Greek control. Somehow I got confused and thought that the Greeks had been granted control of Smyrna through the Treaty of Sevres BEFORE they took control. I realized afterwards (late at night and bleary eyed) that the conquest of Smyrna occurred in 1919 and the Treaty of Sevres was signed in 1920. My first proposal Greek occupation of Smyrna is probably a better title. Forgive my muddle-headed confusion. I'm still learning about this topic. --Richard 02:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If such a name is to be given to any article, then the article must cover the uears 1919-1920 (till the signing of the Treaty of Serves) and also, another article has to be created named Turkish occupation of Smyrna covering the years 1922-1923 (till the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne), which, apparently will also include the Fire, which occured when the Turks were in charge of the city. Hectorian 03:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not forget that the Treaty of Sevres was never ratified by the Ottoman Empire and it never came into force.--Hattusili 06:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of that. And that leads to my other proposed title which would be Greek conquest of Smyrna (1919). You know, what threw me off is the claim that Turkish troops were initially ordered not to fire on Greek troops when they landed. Is that true? If so, why was that order given?

Anyway, as I stated above, the parallel to the Greek conquest of Smyrna (1919) article would be Turkish re-capture of Smyrna (1922). The idea is that these two articles would be primarily about military operations and their impact on the civilian population. The Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922) article would discuss the civilian administration under Aristide Stergiadis. Am I getting closer?

--Richard 06:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To Hattusili: the Treaty of Sevres was accepted by the sultan. I do not know if the Ottoman empire ratified the treaty, but it came in for for everyone else. To Richard: as far as i know, the Turkish troops were initially ordered not to fire on Greek troops when they landed because the treaty was something that the sultan had accepted, and also the Greek army did not land to "conquer", but to administer. This is why the Turkish troops did not open fire, this is why the Ottoman flags were not removed, this is why the inhabitants of the regions were not granted greek citizenship and this is why there was the obligarion for a referendum about the regions future to be held 5 years later. Hectorian 08:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian please read the 433rd article of the treaty saying "The present Treaty, in French, in English, and in Italian, shall be ratified. In case of divergence the French text shall prevail, except in Parts I (Covenant of the League of Nations) and XII (Labour), where the French and English texts shall be of equal force. The deposit of ratifications shall be made at Paris as soon as possible." and "From the date of this first procès-verbal the Treaty will come into force between the High Contracting Parties who have ratified it.For the determination of all periods of time provided for in the present Treaty this date will be the date of the coming into force of the Treaty. In all other respects the Treaty will enter into force for each Power at the date of the deposit of its ratification.". So you can decide whether it came into forcr or not.(Also if you want I can provide you neutral sources about this issue)--Hattusili 10:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the article should be merged. I'm definitely not confortable with the way this article is now. I'm still indecisive, however, because the "occupation" was a notable event, but, at the same time, it was a part of the broader Greco-Turkish War. For me, most important is historical accuracy and not so much the merger. What I mean:

• It is a hugely POV article. Sentences like this one: "The Greek soldiers burned all the city before they left. The Turkish Soldiers didn't kill any Greek who lives in Smyrna after the Greek soldiers left Smyrna." are totally inacceptable. Ok, if the Turkish soldiers did not kill anybody, then who killed them? Who killed the bishop Chrysostomos of Smyrna? You'll tell me the mob. Ok, but why aren't these events mentioned?
• The sections are stubby.
• The last section needs expansion (I've tagged it) and analysis.

And more and more and more ... As a matter of fact, it is a terrible article. Even the title is POV: "Occupation". But the Greek army was there implementing an international mandate. Is this an "occupation"?

I don't know if this article will be merged or not, but, if it is not, it needs renaming, un-POV work, layout and referencing improvements, prose improvements etc.--Yannismarou 14:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And an answer to Hattusili who touched legal issues: I'm sorry but as a jurist and former lawyer, I must point out, Hattusli, that your comments concerning the Treaty of Sevres are irrelevant. Of course, the Treaty was not ratified, but the Greek army was not in Izmir implementing a non-ratified Treaty, but implementing the mandate given to Greece by the Supreme Council of the Allies, who was in session in Paris. The mandate was given the April of 1919 after a request of the Greek Prime Minister, Eleftherios Venizelos. Afterwards, the Greek Army disembarked in Izmir, implementing a legal mandate of the Supreme Council and not the Treaty of Sevres, which was not yet even signed. The Treaty was signed in August 1919, after the legal "occupation" of the city by the Greek Army; an "occupation" which was in accordance with the international law, e.g. in accordance with the mandate which was given to Greece the April of 1919. That is why, we do not have to do with an illegal presence of the Greek troops in Izmir and that is why the word "Occupation" used in the title of the article is POV. If the article survives, it definitely needs renaming and it definitely has to respect historical reality - something that it definitely fails to do right now.--Yannismarou 14:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly we have to think about the meaning differences between occupation and war;

Occupation is act of forcefully taking possession of an area, seizure; conquest; possession or settlement of land.(this action is unilateral activity). However, war is state or period of combat between two sides (especially two countries); state of conflict or contention between two sides; theory of combat; effort against something, (there is reciprocity in wars, there are fight and battle between two sides).

Secondly, Occupation of Izmir is an important issue and it could be evaluated in a seperate title.--Karcha 01:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Armistice of Mudanya

The current text reads:

The Armistice of Mudanya was concluded on October 11 1922, with the Allies retaining control of eastern Thrace and the Bosporus, but the Greeks evacuating these areas.

I'm confused as to what this means. Specifically, what is meant by "the Allies retaining control of eastern Thrace and the Bosporus but the Greeks evacuating these areas".

What is meant by "the Allies"? Is this France, Britain and Italy?

According to the Armistice of Mudanya article, it is stated "eastern Thrace as far as the Maritsa River and Adrianople were handed by Greece to Turkey and Turkish sovereignty over Istanbul and the Dardanelles was recognized".

This seems to be a contradiction with the text in this article wherein the Allies retained "control of eastern Thrace and the Bosporus".

Can anyone explain this apparent contradiction?

--Richard 17:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Major expansion of the background section

I have just made a major expansion of the background section. Some may think that the background section is now too long. Let me explain my reasoning...

I got here via the AFD debate on the Occupation of Izmir article. I will readily confess that I knew nothing about this war before a few days ago. So, in some ways, I am a good guinea pig for determining whether the article is sufficiently explanatory and helpful to a reader who does not know anything about the topic.

I am sad to say that the answer to the question is No. While looking for additional content to insert into the Occupation of Izmir article, I found information about the "Megale Idea", Constantine I, Venizelos, Alexander and the Treaty of Sevres that were just not well presented in the article. Without this context, it is difficult to understand why this war was fought and what the implications of the Greek loss were.

I think the new content that I have inserted fills this deficiency. I am open to the idea that the text might be tightened up a bit and thus made shorter. However, I think the key ideas need to be presented to help the reader understand better the context in which this war was fought.

--Richard 07:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could reduce the part on "Greece's difficult position in World War I". I had started this Chronology of the Turkish War of Independence; please bear in mind that for the moment it has only been started. Maybe it could help in limiting the time frame for this article and for having a title for the other article (instead of Occupation of İzmir) more in line with the evolution and the space of the occupation. Cretanforever 01:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Occupation of Izmir should be merged, but it definitely needs renaming and un-POV work. Another problem for me is the this article co-exists with the Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922), which is an article with the same topic, but written by other editors. This is another important problem there. Maybe we should merge these two articles under a non-POV title, which will not include the word "occupation". See also my comments in the above section.--Yannismarou 14:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I created the Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922) article as part of a proposal to split the Occupation of Izmir article into three articles: Greek occupation of Smyrna (1919), Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922) and Turkish re-capture of Smyrna (1922). I fully agree that the Occupation of Izmir and Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922) articles should not co-exist in their current form as the scopes of the two articles overlap greatly. If the Occupation of Izmir article is not deleted, then the Greek administration of Smyrna (1919-1922) should be merged into it. However, the argument for deleting the current content of the Occupation of Izmir article, is that it duplicates much of the material that is already in this article.

--Richard 17:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Expanded and reorganized article

I started expanding the article and somewhere along the way, small reorganizations became bigger reorganizations. I now feel that it is a mistake to try to separate political, diplomatic and military chronologies. For one thing, the separation led to my earlier confusion about which came first: the Treaty of Sevres or the occupation of Smyrna. But more importantly, the story of this war is about how international diplomacy and domestic politics (both Greek and Turkish) influenced the course of the war. This story should be told as a single integrated narrative rather than as two separate threads that the reader has to absorb separately and then integrate himself.

I have made steps towards creating this integrated narrative but more work needs to be done so I have left a {{cleanup}} tag behind to document that the article, as it stands, is still a bit of a mess.

--Richard 17:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)