Talk:Burning of Smyrna/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The Greeks started the fire

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

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

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

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

When did the fire start?

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

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

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

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

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

Source?

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

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

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

Source pre-dating event

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

What are the important sources?

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

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

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

Sources

This needs a citation:

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

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

This needs sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Alleged'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ap' to kako sto xeirotero

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

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

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

Category Fires in Turkey

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

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

George Horton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over reliance on Majorie Housepian Dobkin's book

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

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

misnamed article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mustafa Kemal's telegram

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

Source

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

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

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

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

Sources used here

George Horton

Marjorie Housepian Dobkin

Kinross

Rudolph J. Rummel

Paul Grescowich

Mustafa Kemal

Mark Prentiss

Mark Lambert Bristol

Ernest Hemingway

Thea Halo

Dr. Esther Lovejoy

Falih Rıfkı Atay

Biray Kolluoğlu Kırlı

Reşat Kasaba

Niall Ferguson

George E. Pataki

Mrs Maloney

correspondent of the Petit Parisien

Mr. L. R. Whittall

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

The Times

Alexander MacLachlan

Bilal Şimşir

Nicole and Hugh Pope

greece.org

Colonel Rachid Galib

Horowitz

Boston Globe

Mr. H. Lamb

-- Deniz

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a point of common sense

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

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

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

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

Major Western Historians Claim Turks Burned Smyrna

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

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

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

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

"Pro-Greek" sources

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

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

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

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

Sources Claiming Greek Responsibility and/or Turkish Innocence

Sources Claiming Turkish Responsibility and/or Greek Innocence

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

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

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

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

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

Ethnic Structure of Smyrna

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New "Events" section

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

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

Perplexing structure

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Grescovich report

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

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

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

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

First paragraph

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

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

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

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

Lede

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

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

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

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

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

Turkish Liberation War

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

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

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

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

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

Bristol

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

Pie Chart on Great Fire of Smyrna and Izmir Pages

Ethnic composition of Smyrna in 1922 according to Katherine Fleming

  Greeks (49%)

  Turks (24%)

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

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

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

Japanese ship that rescued the lives of 1200 refugees

I happen to be very interested in the wiki article fire of symrna and thought it was well done...

I noticed the Japanese ship that rescued refugees was referred to as a freighter ...when I searched this event a number of years ago ...I found a reference that indicated it was a Japanese naval cruiser and when I edited that sentence I properly inserted the reference thus authenticated the minor editing. Again I felt the overall article was well done...and that the writer(s) have helped in preserving an important historic event. I commend them their work.

I had not idea that I was in near violation...so therefore I will refrain from trying to add or edit that part of the article as you requested since the essence of the event has been described.

Thanks and take care,Alathya (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Smyrna, the 20th century Greek capital.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica the population of the city was more than 250,000, of which fully a half was Greek.1DragonTiger23 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bristol Commission found atrocities by Greece in 1919 Smyrna. Constantinople offered control of Black Sea but offended comitata that rapes East Roumelia. Greeks went to Smyrna and Alexandria because of 1893 national bankruptcy. Trojans were Hittites like Solomon's mom. Send islamosoviet nigrasiates back as kebabs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.207.4 (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Problem with 2 identical sources in the lead

The lead contains two identical sources. One of them a Times of London article, the other the very same article from a wayback machine style webpage. The original article is now behind a paywall.

What is the point of having two identical sources? A reader will naturally conclude they are two seperate sources, lending more credibility to the quotation, which is not correct. I edited it to include one source only, user Dr.K reverted it and told me "No. We must keep the original in case the other one becomes inactive.". Really? "in case"? What is the Wiki policy on paywall-links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxr033 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The original reference must be kept in the article because it provides the original link to the source. The Internet archive link is not the same url and it is only used as verification of the material behind the paywall but it is not the primary link. Regardless, now I merged both into one reference. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers!Oxr033 (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers indeed. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

George Horton's book The Blight of Asia

Is George Horton a reliable source? I've been reading his book [ebook] and it seems extremely biased. He was a very religious Christian with with what looks like a pure hatred of the Turk. Just glance at his book and you'll see - the opening line is

  MOHAMMEDANISM has been propagated by the sword and by violence ever since it first appeared as the great enemy of Christianity, as I shall show in a later chapter of this book.

  It has been left to the Turk, however, in more recent years, to carry on the ferocious traditions of his creed, and to distinguish himself by excesses which have never been equaled by any of the tribes enrolled under the banner of the Prophet, either in ancient or in modern times.

He then goes a multitude of rants about Mohammedanism and Mustapha Khemal and the perils of Islam. Not a reliable source at all in my opinion. A short history of the Near East by Stearns Davis gives far better account. For a start, he was actually a historian.

Can the text naming The Blight of Asia be removed, or at least toned down, and give a mention of the authors bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxr033 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Horton's account is an eyewitness account, and as such valuable, and it has been used by historians. We are not interested in Horton's views on Islam here, only his eyewitness account of the fire. It is mentioned that this is only his account, not gospel truth, and that he is considered biased biased (just like those historians are considered biased by others). Btw is Ataturk's telegram neutral and unbiased? Athenean (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Turkish soldiers setting fire to houses according to the Naimark source

The article has eyewitness accounts of people who saw Turkish soldiers setting fire to houses. But the following information whether true or false is not included. The Turkish army did not deny setting fire to some buildings. The Naimark source [4] states:

"Once the fire was burning, many observers report having seen Turkish soldiers spread kerosene around certain buildings, including the American consulate, to set them on fire. The Turkish authorities responded to these accusations by insisting that they only burned down structures as a way to prevent the fire."

But Naimark response to this:

"But if this were true it seems odd that the Turkish quarter did not burn....why not other methods of fire fighting were used".

But Naimark concludes:

"Still, no concrete and substantial evidence that the Turks set the fire has been found, and there are plenty of arguments why it was unnecessary and not in their interest to destroy the city. Moreover the Greek and Armenians had their own good reasons to start a fire, given the history of the Greek retreat from the Sakarya(the battle front between Greeks/Turks in 1922) and the Armenian attack during the first day of the occupation".(some bombs were thrown at Turkish soldiers entering the city)

DragonTiger23 (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Map?

Are there any co-ordinates? I'd never heard of this -and still don't know where it is! JRPG (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Pie chart controversy

Aside from the irony of Turkish users insisting on using George Horton as a source, we should stick as much as possible to modern, reliable sources, such as Flemming. As for the Ottoman statistics, the name says it all: Heavily biased, unreliable, outdated. Not only that, but the ethnic composition of the aydin vilayet has nothing to do with this article. Athenean (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree about the Ottoman statistics. I think we can safely dismiss that pie graph. As for Fleming vs. Horton (or both), there was a lengthy discussion in October at the Izmir talk page. Fleming is probably the best source (modern, reliable), but the problem is that she does not give any numbers, just "ratio of two to one" and "almost half the population". The pie chart giving exact percentages (49%, 24%) is therefore at least very close to OR. A solution might be not to quote the percentage numbers in the legend, but that makes the graph far less interesting. The main problem with Horton is that we do not know exactly what year his estimates refer to. Apart from that, I see no reason to dismiss his numbers. In October there was more or less consensus to use the Horton graph with this addition to the caption: "Other sources suggest that Greeks outnumbered Turks by as much as 2:1." For some reason it was never effectuated. I think we should go back to that solution and use the Horton graph with the additional text. If not, my vote is for having no pie graph at all. Fleming is just not exact enough. And after all, the text tells the whole story: Fleming, Horton, Ottoman stats and even more. Regards! --T*U (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I cannot be bothered with this discussion. TU-nor already linked OR. But here again, Wikipedia:No original research. I'll also copy and paste

"This pie chart under International Port City on the Izmir page is being deleted by me because the source (Fleming) does not provide the data for the pie chart. Here is the source from Fleming's book Greece- A Jewish History (pg. 81): "The Greek army fled in chaos, heading for Smyrna on the coast, where the Greek population outnumbered the Turkish by a ration of two to one. Before the mass arrival of the refugees, there were about 150,000 living in the city, almost half the population." She provides 1. no percentages, 2. no discussion of others, 3. doesn't even tell us whether there more others or more Turks 4. Is not giving raw data to create percentages either on page 81 or in footnotes. The numbers in the pie chart are an invention." (Talk:Izmir#Pie_Chart_on_Great_Fire_of_Smyrna_and_Izmir_Pages) Cavann (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I will remove the Ottoman statistics as they are irrelevant to this article and clearly there is no consensus to include them. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop being disruptive to yet another Balkan-issues article (after edit-warring to add original research into the article). If you are going to include a third source statistics, include the official statistic as well. Cavann (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your WP:BATTLE attitude and read the comments of the other editors above you. Noone wants the Ottoman statistics which do not even apply to this article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course Ottoman statistics are outdated, so are Horton's or Fleming's, since they were not updated in 2011 (not to mention both are dead). I cannot take nonsensical arguments seriously. Cavann (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please be gentle when you tell Fleming that she is dead. It may come as a chock. --T*U (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so, she is not even a firsthand witness, unlike Horton. Cavann (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure Horton had his own census agency gathering statistics for the population. Surely that was a very rigorous process. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should start with your own for comparing the currency of a 2008 reference with that of sources from 1906 and 1926. Also aside from being biased, unreliable and outdated what do Ottoman stats about Aidin Vilayet have to do with Smyrna? Last I checked this article is not about the region it's about the city of Smyrna. Using them here is the real nonsense. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman statistics of a wider region which includes large areas of interior Asia Minor, is completely irrelevant to this article. If we need a somewhat reliable statistic about the region (and to add it in a relavant article, i.e. not this one), this should be the English statistics of 1919. I can assume that pov users won't like it since it shows Greek majority in Smyrna Sanjack (375k vs 325k).Alexikoua (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Find Ottoman statistics for Izmir then. The link in the article is not working. Cavann (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• In addition to an RfC on the pie chart (I think you should have one), there needs to be a check on reliable sources here. That someone was an eyewitness to events does not make their count correct--in fact, it might be a hindrance, and if anyone thinks that "firsthand" means "authoritative" for data such as this, they are sorely mistaken. (You can ask Sitush to explain how in India the British colonial overlords, prime eyewitnesses, consistently got it wrong. FWIW, I am an academic with some training in history, so I claim a certain amount of experience.) Numbers for a region can't easily apply to a city, especially not since, say, the 18th/19th century. Now somebody start that RfC so we can get to work here and move along. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, yeah. Best not to use eyewitness sources - if you'll excuse the pun, much can be missed or exaggerated in the heat of a moment. They're primary sources and really should be used only for their opinions. Always prefer a reliable secondary source that cites them over the primary source itself. I've not read this article but it seems a pretty sensible rule of thumb, especially if the subject matter is contentious. - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I was gonna add official statistics, but they are saying it's "unreliable". Cavann (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The problematic nature of Cav's arguments is that he provides statistics of a wider region, that even includes districts which were never part of the Greco-Turkish War theater, i.e. all the coastal area of sw Anatolia, (Kusadasi, Kas, Bodrum, and its interior included too, all the Mentese Sanjak, ).

We can include statistics for Izmir, but from 1893, not 1905, unless you find a source for 1905. Cavann (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

1893 is rather a long time before the Great Fire, and even 1905 seems like the wrong time period. It is a bit like using data from the 1970s and 1980s to illustrate the situation today in, say, former Yugoslavia or Afghanistan. There had been rather turbulent times inbetween, to put it mildly. --T*U (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed the pie chart. There are many sources, and there is no need to give special emphasis to Horton's figures, which is what the pie chart does. It's all in the text anyway. Athenean (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Origin of "Infidel Izmrir"

The Ottoman ruling class of that era referred to the city as Infidel Smyrna (Gavur Izmir) due to its strong Greek presence and large non-Muslim population.

This is a common misconception. Don't tell me it's sourced, a common misconception is going to be sourced. The truth is, the origin of "Infidel Izmir" notion dates back to the 14th century when Izmir was divided between Latin-held "Infidel Smyrna" and Turkish-held "Muslim Smyrna". And Orthodox Christian Greeks of the time actually lived in the Turkish-held Muslim Izmir. And this type of Latin/Turkish division wasn't unique to Izmir, it also existed in Samsun, where there was a Genoan colony called "Infidel Samsun". --Mttll (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Checked it, its sourced by multiple references. In facts it wasn't only held by the rulling class, but by the Turkish people in general.Alexikoua (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, it's a common misconception. Obviously, there is going to be a number of sources that circulate it. Historians who specialize in the Ottoman era like Murat Bardakçı disproved it. --Mttll (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems Athenean couldn't have the time to say something here for last 2 months, but he had to the time revert my edit in less than an hour. --Mttll (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Greeks burnt half of Western Anatolia before fire of Smyrna

A very interesting fact is missing, the Greek army retreating from Anatolia burnt almost every Turkish city and village on their path. This is totally ignored in the article for obvious propoganda reasons. It should be mentioned, this is highly relevant, probably this behavior resulted in the fire of Smyrna by Turks or Greeks. Turks for revenge or Greeks continuing their burning of Western Anatolia. What is also interesting that the burning of one "Greek" (It was only half Greek) city has an own article while the burning of dozens of Turkish cities is ignored. Note I am not a nationalist and every wiki user should avoid bringing his nationalist agenda's to Wikipedia. DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The Greek Army retreated days before the fire started. As I see nothing is... hidden about this part.Alexikoua (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Deliberate Greek scorched-earth policy is documented here, but a section has to be added here as well. BedriIST (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

George Horton: a few facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes I added a section about this. I don't think this man's book should be taken as a reliable source, because it's absolutely full of bias. There are other historians who have done a much better job describing the fire of Smyrna.Oxr033 (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Horton was married to a Greek and a scholar of Greek and Latin. Now, I do not personally know what went on once the couple lied in bed, but I too, would write books against a whole nation just to avoid the bedtime murmur of the missus.--82.9.60.181 (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead problems

I've noticed that some information in the lead isn't clear and can easily be taken as wp:synth and cherry picking. In fact the last paragraph is supposed to summarize the most convincing theories about who and why caused the fire. However, neither of these are representative ones according to the descriptions given in the main article of the text: 1. uniformed Turkish soldiers set fire (however as the article itself describes in the main text below, several irregular cettes where also blamed) 2. Greeks and Armenians started the fire as part of the scorched earth policy of the retreating Greek army during the last days of the Greco-Turkish War (but the Greek army had already evacuated Anatolia some days before, the war was over, and the most important it lacks proper citation. Also no wonder the main body of the article doesn't connect the Greek army scorched earth policy with the events).

Thus, this part: "There are different accounts and eyewitness reports about which side was responsible for the fire" is enough and representative for the lead. Any detail about why each side is blamed should be properly described in the correspondent sections.Alexikoua (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Off course essential part of the catastrophe were the massacres committed already before the outbreak of the fire. I see no reason why such info should be removed from lede. On the other hand the issue on who started the fire is still balanced.Alexikoua (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Resat Kasaba's essay

It appears that the above essay should be moved to the appropriate section: "Turkish sources claiming Turkish responsibility", since he clearly states that Turkish "pro-Turkish sources offer different and even contradicting explanations to this event, some of them blaming the Turkish side".Alexikoua (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Heavy bias and overwhelming number of Greek and Armenian sources

The article is clearly biased and the point of view of one side outweighs the other. Many dubious and controversial claims are based on one source (Dobkin), which appears suspiciously often. Many references come from Greek or Armenian persons, obviously to push the POV of its side, while there very few Turkish ones. Therefore the tags of POV and unweight must be added. Akocsg (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. The tags should be removed. There is no inaccurate information in these references. LardoBalsamico (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I also don't agree with the tags. The rationale for the tags is also based on the ethnicity of the authors of the sources, not on their accuracy, record or academic credentials. Comments such as:

Many dubious and controversial claims are based on one source (Dobkin), which appears suspiciously often. Many references come from Greek or Armenian persons, obviously to push the POV of its side, while there very few Turkish ones.

are not based on any academic criteria but are etnicity-based. These are very low quality arguments. Neutral POV is not achieved by equal numbers of opposing ethnically-based sources but by their acceptance by the academic community. There is nothing in the arguments of the OP to indicate that these sources are not widely accepted by historians. The tags should be removed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with the tag removal. I also notice that the vast majority of the sources are secondary ones by non-Greek, non-Turkish authors.Alexikoua (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course this plays a role, this is an event that concerns those two ethnic groups. The article is biased from the beginning to end, to make up a falsified outcome. And here we have 2 greek users, and one (LardoBalsamico) who is on a personal mission against me, who don't respond to the mentioned "sources" of me. Akocsg (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Leave this nonsense for your personal blog and stop attacking other editors based on their ethnicity. Consider this your final warning. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The unscientific and untenable source "Dobkin" is used at least 7 times, for quite controversial and dubious information. This article is definitely POV. Other than flaming and attacking on a personal level, you didn't relate to any point mentioned by me. There is no reason for "warning" me. Stop threatening by issuing baseless warnings. Akocsg (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

What you call the "unscientific and untenable source "Dobkin"" is in most cases used together with sources like Clogg and Milton. Are they, too, unscientific and untenable? You have so far not documented that the information given by Dobkin is controversial and dubious, just stated that it is. If you want to put heavy tags to the article, you will need to create a foundation for them, not just your statement that something is controversial or dubious. --T*U (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Akocsg. I agree with T*U. As far as Stop threatening by issuing baseless warnings, don't presume to lecture me. Aside from the lack of any arguments to support your tags you have resorted to edit-warring and attacks using the ethnicity of other editors to impose your POV against the consensus. These are sure signs of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. I advise you to stop your disruption. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

When did the fire start redux

The article says "The first fire broke out in the late afternoon of 13 September" as though that is undisputed and in Wikipedia's voice rather than attributed. Now I'm already having an argument with someone over whether the fires reported earlier by Grescovich are part of the Great Fire (and I don't think we can say they were not without a source putting forward that position). I note that Naimark, who is the source for that assertion, also uses Hepburn quite a bit and is the source for Hepburn. But looking at another source, Lowry's "Turkish History : On Whose Sources Will It Be Based? A Case Study On The Burning Of Izmir " which you can all read at [5], he reprints Hepburn's timeline which he calls the most important day by day account. This clearly says "Wednesday, September 13, 1932: U.S. Consul-General Horton sails from Izmir for Piraeus with naturalized Americans [p. 24]; First report of fire: a house burning; in the Armenian quarter in the forenoon [p. 25]; 2:00 p. m. reports of three fires burning around the compound of the Intercollegiate Institute [p. 25]; By 6:00 psn. Hepburn observes that : <Three distinct lanes of fire were to be seen, two of which appeared to have originated in the Armenian district close to the Collegiate Institute, so far as I could judge, and the third was somewhat to the left. The first two fires were burning fiercely and sweeping directly towards the water front. The Consulate was directly in the path of the southernmost blaze." So Hepburn reports fires burning before noon and more fires at 2PM - in other words, before late afternoon. I'm not sure why Naimark says late afternoon and ignores Hepburn's timeline, but I am sure that we can't do that and that we need to present Hepburn's timeline as well (which partially backs Grescovich's). The NPOV solution is simple. We report what the various sources say, attributing each. We make sure that the article doesn't take sides. Dougweller (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I will first carry over part of my response at my talk page where this point was also brought up by. First, what I wrote in reply to earlier edits and queries by Dougweller: "We surely don't have an unbiased source in Lowry, writing in the Journal of Ottoman Studies of which he was co-editor about what he pointedly labels "burning of İzmir"; and doing so, as I pointed out, via quotes from Prentiss as twisted by Bristol, not from the original source. Lowry makes some well-taken criticism of Housepian, but oddly ignores other works on the fire, and gives something away when he closes a "history" article with this sycophancy: "The burning of Izmir is only the final page in the struggle of Turks to establish their own national state out of the remnants of the Ottoman empire." That is part of the issue here: Editors who think they are writing about the "Grescovich report" are actually leaning on one of the sides' potentially selective and definitely indirect reporting about it. [...] As for the earlier fire(s) versus The Fire, there may well have been previous fires that day, and they may have contributed to limiting the fire brigade's efficiency later (in which case Grescovich would certainly want to mention them as his report is, ultimately, about the failure of the possibly impossible mission of his brigade); but these are not, in any source, to be confused with the conflagration that ended up burning most of the city and that, again in all sources I know of, started in the afternoon. In this respect I don't get your reading of Hepburn. The quote is "a house burning in the Armenian quarter in the forenoon", but the wording separates this from the source(s) near the Intercollegiate Institute from which the Great Fire burned out of control (as indeed Hepburn also reports). I see no logic for conflating the one "house burning", or even others which are reported in some sources, with the Great Fire." So, we can report more of Lowry, and thereby more of Prentiss, but it is questionable that reporting the same thing several ways and under apparently different authors contributes to NPOV; I think rather the contrary. In any case, as I said, I'll see what I can use meaningfully.

With respect to when the Great Fire started, per the above, there is one question remaining: Whether it started at "2:00 p. m." per Prentiss as quoted by Lowry, or later that afternoon as other sources discuss. That's a straightforward addition.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you are taking the 'start' a little too literally. It looks to me as though people started setting fires in the morning as Hepburn reports, and either the same people or others copying them kept setting fires until a major conflagration took hold. And that actually seems to have perhaps been three separate fires - that's what Hepburn describes. Why would there have had to be only one source? The entire event is described as the Great Fire. In fact the article makes it clear. The section called Burning says "Miss Minnie Mills, the director of the American Collegiate Institute for Girls. She had just finished her lunch when she noticed that one of the neighboring buildings was burning. She stood up to have a closer look and was shocked by what she witnessed. "I saw with my own eyes a Turkish officer enter the house with small tins of petroleum or benzine and in a few minutes the house was in flames." She was not the only one at the institute to see the outbreak of fire. "Our teachers and girls saw Turks in regular soldiers' uniforms and in several cases in officers' uniforms, using long sticks with rags at the end which were dipped in a can of liquid and carried into houses which were soon burning." So more than one fire and those just after she had lunch. All of these fires are part of the events that led up to the destruction of the city by fire. And I hope you agree now that the article can't state that the fire started late afternoon. I guess we could say that Naimark says that in a round-up of various statements about when it started, but I'm not sure what the point would be. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

whole article looks like written by a fanatic Greek

this article is highly biased and should be rewritten by group of senior independent wikipedia users.

--Ail Subway (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a Greek of any kind. Any specific commplaints? Backed by sources or comments on sources? Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

His complaint likely stems from the official Turkish claims standing directly in contrast to scholarly consensus, which claims that "raiding and raping" (not my words) Turkish invaders started the fire. Since this atrocity went hand in hand with the traditional Armenian and Greek genocides, wishing for the whole article to be rewritten appears to be a textbook attempt at revisionism. Hundreds of thousands of Greeks and Armenians died in a time where their quarters were sacked and they were deported throughout the land. Some of this article's unconventional views aren't even mutually exclusive with the mainstream version; it claims, for example, that Jewish citizens applauded the intervention of Turkish forces in keeping the fire under control. Well, it makes complete sense that the soldiers kept it under control. They did this by keeping it contained within Armenian and Greek quarters. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Burning of Smyrna/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Long quotes, stubby sections, some of them tagged. These issues should be settled.--Yannismarou 11:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Substituted at 04:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Historiography section

Can we not work on merging the "Sources claiming Turkish responsibility" and "Sources claiming Greek or Armenian responsibility" sections into the "Historiography" section? The current state of the article is very repetitive and is quite far away from an encyclopaedic tone, being more like a quotefarm. The contents of the quotes can be summarised. This will also facilitate the addition of the evaluation of each of the sources by other scholars and hopefully pave the way for a higher-quality article. --GGT (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree regarding the quotefarming but I think it's better to have separate sections. Khirurg (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Kemal's telegram as a source of non-Turkish responsibility

I wonder why this piece of information should be used as an argument for non-Turkish responsibility: the inlines do not claim this too. Kemal's stance towards the fire is expressed in a variety of statements the most representative being: [[6]][[7]] Let it burn, let it crash down.Alexikoua (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, the entire text of the telegram definitely does not belong in the article, that is Wikisource material. More importantly though, I highly suspect that the translation is subject to copyright (the translation seems to have been made either by the Turkish Ministry of Culture or by Karavasilis, and under either scanario it would be copyrighted) and should be removed as a possible copyright violation.

The problem at the core of the matter is, I believe, the listing of primary sources. I think, as told above, that both sections about "sources" must be subsumed under the historiography section per WP:PRIMARY - a Wikipedia article must ideally be based on secondary sources and their evaluation of primary sources. That this article contains essentially a comparison of primary sources to argue both ways leaves a lot of room for original research, and as Alexikoua has pointed out, possibly misrepresentation.

The point of the telegram is that the official position of Atatürk and thus the subsequent official position of the Turkish government has been that the blame for the fire lies in "Greeks and Armenians" (Kinross quoted in the text: "Kemal maintained to Admiral Dumesnil that it had been deliberately planned by an Armenian incendiary organization"). This official position definitely must be mentioned in the article, and for that the telegram would be useful piece of additional information. Other than that, I do not see any particular academic importance attached to this telegram or any secondary use that indicates its encyclopaedic value.

Mustafa Kemal's stance during the fire is an entirely different point. I unfortunately cannot access the text through the Google Books links provided. @Alexikoua: would you mind providing brief quotes from the texts? --GGT (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

There are definitely wp:PRIMARY issues in the entire section as you pointed. One of them is Kemal's telegram. Off course Kemal presented the official position of the state. Thus, instead of simply adding primary material (or even a list of authors that are in favor of the one or the other opinion) it would be more helpful to add what supports the one or the other side. (some context of the above books  :*[[8]] "There is an illuminating passage in the memoirs of Ismet Inonu. When Ismet arrived on the scene with Kemal, he remembers the latter watching the fire from afar and muttering, one day we might find ourselves making an alliance with the Greeks', but feeling no remorse for the fire burning the city; his reposnse was simply ' Let it burn, let it crach down., *[[9]] Mustafa Kemal did not mention the great fire of Izmir in the long report which he presented to the assembly in Ankara on 4 November 1922, although he did refer to the fires started by the Greeks in Afyonkarahisar. Nor did he speak of the Izmir fire in his six-day speech in 1927. Some things are better left unsaid. Ismet is a little more forthcoming. He speaks in his memoirs both of the fires started by the Greeks and of the great conflagration in Izmir. 'The cuase of these fires' he says, 'should be sought in the great events of history. Subordinates say that they carried out orders; senior figures that there was a breakdown in discipline. ... But , when he contemplated the conflagration in Izmir, Mustafa Kemal could only say, 'Let it burn, let it crash down'. It was not an order; it was the consummation of ethnic conflict. Falih Rifki (Atay) the Turkish journalist who had come from Istanbul to Izmir to interview Mustafa Kemal, noted in his diary that looters had helped the fire to spread. He went on: Why were we burning down Izmir? Were we afraid that if waterfront mansions, hotels and restaurants stayed in place, we would never be free of the minorities? ... A feeling of inferiority had a part in it.It was as if anywhere that resembled Europe was destined to remain Christian and foreign and to be denied to us... I believe that but for Nurettin Pasa, known as thorough fanatic and a rabble-rousing demagogue, this tragedy would not have run its course.).Alexikoua (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great fire of Smyrna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100629144852/http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/658406/through-levantine-eyes.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/658406/through-levantine-eyes.thtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100629144852/http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/658406/through-levantine-eyes.thtml to http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/658406/through-levantine-eyes.thtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggest split

Suggest splitting content into a new article titled Responsibility for the great fire of Smyrna. The responsibility is a highly debated topic and certainly notable in its own right. However, keeping these historiographical details in this article leads to a lack of balance. (t · c) buidhe 10:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Created technical move request to move to Burning of Smyrna. (non-admin closure) Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 12:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

---

Great fire of Smyrna → 1922 Smyrna fire – Per WP:Commonname, see below. (t · c) buidhe 05:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Per NGRAMS the name "Great fire of Smyrna" only became common after this Wikipedia article was created under this title in 2006. Nevertheless, it is still significantly less common than the name "Smyrna fire". So I suggest "Smyrna fire" or "1922 Smyrna fire", since it's often preferable to include the date in an article title referring to an event. (t · c) buidhe 05:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Burning of Smyrna Looking at NGRAMS, there is no mention of the "1922 Smyrna Fire" in books, so I don't think WP:COMMONNAME assists here. The NGRAMS item brought up by buidhe also isn't exactly convincing me; the use of the term prior to 1922 indicates to me that there very well might noise in the data after 1922 associated with fires in Smyrna that are not related to the article's topic. On the other hand, NGRAMS suggests that "Burning of Smyrna" is more common than "Smyrna fire". We also don't see a pre-1922 use of the term "Burning of Smyrna", which (coupled with looking through google scholar to see a good number of academic articles using the term to describe the event that is the topic of the article) indicates that this is related to the same event that is currently described in the article as the "Great Fire of Smyrna". This also isn't really an uncommon phrasing for events like this (see Burning of Cork). I think that "Burning of Smyrna" suits WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA better than the current name and the proposed name. I therefore oppose a move to "1922 Smyrna Fire" and support a move to "Burning of Smyrna". — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Burning of Smyrna primarily (1922 Smyrna fire secondary). I believe the current name isn't COMMON. I spent some time digging through print newspapers (WP:Newspapers.com), and find that "Burning of Smyrna" is very common, with "1922 Smyrna fire"/"Smyrna fire of 1922" also common. I believe the former to be more accurate (as it was the willful act of burning the city which is core to the event), whereas the latter is a bit passive (simply stating the year/location/event). The current title though is hyperbolic, not common, and doesn't address the willful acts. -- Netoholic @ 17:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Burning of Smyrna per WP:COMMONNAME. Macedonian (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Burning of Smyrna per Mikehawk10's reasoning. Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I see that Burning of Smyrna has an interesting edit history

18:58, 8 April 2016‎ Xqbot talk contribs block‎ m  34 bytes 0‎  Bot: Fixing double redirect to Great fire of Smyrna 
13:14, 22 January 2012‎ Xqbot talk contribs block‎ m  34 bytes +1‎  Robot: Fixing double redirect to Great Fire of Smyrna undo
11:22, 22 January 2012‎ AvicBot talk contribs block‎ m  33 bytes −1‎  Robot: Fixing double redirect to Great Fire of Izmir undo
02:41, 20 November 2006‎ Awiseman talk contribs block‎  34 bytes +14‎  change redirect to proper page undothank
20:47, 13 April 2005‎ The Anome talk contribs block‎  20 bytes −1,495‎  #redirect Smyrna undothank
20:45, 13 April 2005‎ Powergrid talk contribs block‎  1,515 bytes −23‎  already exists under Smyrna undothank
20:45, 13 April 2005‎ The Anome talk contribs block‎  1,538 bytes +34‎  Category:Genocide undothank
20:41, 13 April 2005‎ 207.172.82.122 talk block‎  1,504 bytes +1,504‎

showing multiple moves and a possible previous merge or cut/paste move. This page history probably needs preserving. Andrewa (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, the original content of Burning of Smyrna was actually copied from Smyrna, so no attribution is lost by deleting the redirect. Compare Special:Diff/12269368 and Special:Diff/11417947. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On primary sources

I don't mean to be presumptuous Utku, but there seems to be some misunderstanding on your end that just because someone may have said or wrote something we have to mention it in the article. The account by the Greek colonel doesn't necessarily seem to tell us anything unique or different that would distinguish him from some of the other individuals we have quoted here. How close was he to the events in question that would give his insight added weight? Was he in Smyrna itself? On a warship? A prisoner among the Turks? etc. The same could also be applied to The New York Times article. Was the correspondent quoting someone? Was it quoting a cable from another news source? Was this during or immediately after the fire, when information was in a state of flux? Unless these questions are satisfactorily answered, we can choose not to include the accounts. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Reasonable criteria maybe but if applied uniformly, probably most references here would have to be dropped. Numerous claims are made (mass rapes, mass killings etc..), a book is referenced, but we do not know if the author was there, or talked to a witness, or talked to someone who talked to a witness, or if another source was referenced or quoted. Times is a very recognizable reference, well connected and resourced. Used extensively in many similar articles without issues. The very fact that it is printed there has a lot of weight. This discussion should have been held before a unilateral revert; would have carried more weight so to speak. Murat (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure we do. Every work that has appeared since Dobkins has become more and more rigorous in their research methods and consulted a wider variety of sources. The New York Times is generally a very reliable source, but a solitary article from the early 1920s can't be used to substantiate a contentious subject mater that has otherwise been thoroughly studied by historians. No one takes the claims that Armenians and Greeks burned their own belongings seriously. That includes scholars working on modern Turkey who've looked at how the Turkish state in the 1920s basically applauded the expulsion of Christian minorities through the destruction of Smyrna and other violent means. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Dear Bagramyan, well, seemingly some points are clearly being skipped on your end. I reckon there is firstly a need to make things clear, which are already taken for granted by many Wiki writers such as this particular case. I recommend you to look the word "dispution" up in any dictionary, which in our case will mean that the responsibility as to burning of Smyrna has not been concluded with one side's guilt. Otherwise, the term "disputed" would not be used in the main article Burning of Smyrna. Secondly, no one offers the Times article to be the primary and only resource so as to determine any result or conclusion. It is a well known and credible newspaper that has been utilized in many Wiki articles. What is more, the claim of the article proves to be true and reliable, and then credible enough to be presented, based on the following reports in article. Thirdly, or more importantly, your very weak claim "No one takes the claims that Armenians and Greeks burned their own belongings seriously" seems rather groundless and insubstantial since there is a considerable amount of solid evidence and tangible proof for the responsibility of Greeks and Armenians over the fire. Besides, it is not only the Turkish sources but also the many global ones that reiterate the mentioned claim. Let us not act as if the case is predestined. Again, it appears to be beneficial and helpful to internalize what the user Murat offered, which is to apply the reasonable criteria objectively and neutrally. The explicit cherry-picking method on sources is what Wikipedia disfavours. Warm regards. BitikciKebbenek (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

M. Bagramyan, newspapers that I have added are deleted by saying "UNDUE" and POV, but there is such another newspaper in French as well, advocating the same testimonies of eyewitnesses who are Greeks and these newspapers are unaware of each other and in different languages. Then this not "UNDUE". Also, I only translate what is in the article. Utku Öziz (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not how that works. That's not how any of this works. You guys are welcome to request a comment from a third-party, but let me emphasize now that the validity of the primary sources are not necessarily in question. What is in question is the validity of reports published in the chaos and confusion of the immediate aftermath of the fire. And as I said above, no serious scholar who have studied this event doubts that the Nationalists put the city to the torch. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Present your list of serious researchers, Mr. Bağramyan. Moreover, you have stated that you have a certain opinion. This topic is disputed, and thus evidence should not be blocked or hidden. If those researchers have not mentioned these newspapers, then they have either not made extensive research or have deliberately chosen not to mention. Do your researchers mention NY Times articles from other days and do not mention this article from the 3rd of October or the French Article from the 20th of September or the Spanish Article from the 17th of September? In that case, those researchers would be unreliable sources and have low scientific value in their research. Utku Öziz (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I have to point out that you seem to have a very specific opinion on what this article should say and what references are acceptable etc., so given your lack of objectivity, maybe you should refrain from making claims and stick to facts and widely accepted norms here. As many here try to do. It is hardly a reasonable conclusion that Turks would celebrate their great victory by burning their jewel of a city, the economic backbone of the whole Western Turkey. The fire set back development of the young Republic by many decades. Also let me point out that while withdrawing, the Greek Army had already torched any city, town, and village on their path as documented by international press and outside observers. Burning of Izmir would have been a natural extension of their policy up until that time in the war. That is why it is a controversial topic, and there is a whole separate article on it. I also notice that the articles of the same newspapers of the time that decorate these and other pages presumably pass the muster but a particular one from same sources is the problem one? I am surprised you still follow this line of argument instead of presenting objective and tangible ones. Murat (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Official Turkish talking points will not fly here. You can rage and seethe and grouse until you are all red in the face, but in the end it comes down to what serious historians, the ones who have worked extensively with the primary sources and know the period well, have to say. And what they have to say is that the notion that the Armenians and Greeks set fire to their homes and belongings and cut their own noses to spite their faces is utter and complete twaddle. Beginning with Marjorie Housepian Dobkin, Giles Milton, and Michael Llewellyn-Smith, to Robert Gerwarth, Michelle Tusan, and Biray Kolluoğlu Kırlı in the present-day - all are in agreement that the Nationalist forces started the fire. The Greek army left on the last transport ships days before the first Turkish soldiers even entered the city. It was completely in line with Mustafa Kemal's policies to force out and reduce the Christian population of the future republic down to the smallest numbers. This happened everywhere his forces marched into - Cilicia, the Republic of Armenia - and continued well into the republican years. His own rabble army didn't bother to wait too long before it began the customary ritual of murdering, raping, and looting the homes of Armenians and Greeks. This point is settled. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Was the Smyrna (İzmir) fire part of a genocide (Greek, Armenian, or Turkish)?

The page creator(s) or editor(s) and I have been at odds over my removing of a reference to a "Greek genocide" in the caption above the photograph associated with the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Smyrna. Instead of pressing the issue with a further edit, here is my reply to "him": 1) I note that you have added an “Armenian genocide” to the caption as well and are now referring to two publications . Your first reference [1] is a book written by two Armenians, one related to an Armenian institute in the United States and the other a lecturer in Armenia. Both your feeling of necessity in adding an “Armenian genocide” to the caption and your use of a book by Armenian authors weaken your position that there was a “Greek genocide”, as I am guessing that the Armenian authors would be strongly biased. Your second reference [2] by Israeli authors has received poor reviews, which makes one suspect that Armenian money is hiding behind this Israeli “study” as well, since lack of quality scholarship is generally an indicator of that. 2) There are western references which claim that the İzmir (Smyrna to you) fire was started not by Turks but by Greeks and Armenians who wanted to destroy the city that the Turks had liberated from the Greek army that had occupied it since 1919 in violation of the Sevres Treaty. See e.g. Powell,E.A. “The Struggle for Power in Moslem Asia” (1925), chapter 2. The book by Powell does not have Armenian or Turkish money behind it, and it was written back then by someone who was reporting from Turkey at the time, unlike made to order “research” books showing up a century after the event. Not only was the city destroyed, but also any stores of food, weapons, fuel, etc. that would have been of use. Many of the waterfront villas also belonged to Greeks. Why would the Turks want to destroy a beautiful city they had just liberated from occupying forces? And consider the economic problems the fire posed. There are many other flaws in your text and references, an immediately obvious one being as to how you can fit 400,000 people on the quay in old Izmir. Your references must be absolutely clueless if they cannot know whether the Greek and Armenian dead were 10,000 or 125,000. Why not give numbers and opinions from Turkish publications as well and see how they compare? 3) If Powell is right (as I suspect he is, since he references the findings of a French board of inquiry), then the Izmir fire would actually be part of a “Turkish genocide” evidenced by the widespread atrocities committed by the regular Greek army and Greek bands during the occupation of western Anatolia and the war against the Turkish Nationalist armed forces. See e.g. Toynbee, A., “The Western Question in Greece and Turkey” (1922), and by Armenian volunteers in eastern Anatolia after the Bolshevik Revolution left them in control (see e.g. Rawlinson,Adventures in the Near East, 1918-1922" (1924)). An American navy intelligence officer in Admiral Bristol’s staff in Anatolia writes of the destruction of the city of Aydin by Greek artillery and the bombardment of civilians fleeing the town of Gemlik in boats. See Dunn, R., World Alive; A Personal Story (1956). The “Turkish genocide” (I only use that word because you do, not because I am a judge of it) started with the massacres of Navarino and Tripolitza during the Greek Revolution, continued with the Eastern Question leading to the wars of 1877-88 and the Balkan War, but apparently did not end with the deaths of easily over 20 million Ottoman Moslems and the occupation of the Ottoman Empire, since the 1974 coup d’état in Cyprus continued the wholesale killing of Turks by Greeks. 4) I cannot object if you were to state in the text that "some consider that the burning of Izmir was part of a Greek genocide" (and throw in Armenian if you wish), but I will object if you write this as a foregone conclusion based on two questionable books. By the way, did you know that the population exchange between Greece and Turkey was initiated by the League of Nations? It was not just some deportation decided on by Turks. 5) Are we, you and I, qualified to pass judgment? My purpose is not to get into an argument with you as to who is most culpable for atrocities or as to whose suffering weighs more, but to point out that it is not as simple an argument as you may wish to make it to accuse others of Genocide that, in any case. is only within the purview of an international court such as the International Court of Justice, which, by the way, has not ruled on either ”genocide” you claim. The Armenian issue is still another subject, but if they (you?) were so right in every claim, how come there are so many exaggerations and falsifications at every step? Why not sit down and research every detail properly instead of constantly generating propaganda? 6) In conclusion, I believe you are violating ethics and Wikipedia principles by claiming that the Izmir fire was part of a “Greek genocide” and later, in reply to my edits, by adding an “Armenian genocide” as if that somehow strengthens your argument, showing two weak publications as references. As you can see, I can just as well claim that the Izmir fire was part of a “Turkish genocide” and I would have stronger proof. 7) Thank you for the opportunity.

====== =============================== ====== 70.164.212.36 (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll start working on a new section for the article on the subject of the event's role in the wider genocide of Greeks and Armenians, so there will be 15+ references. I think this is something that should be highlighted with as much information and as many references as needed to fully cover the topic otherwise an important aspect of the event will not be covered.  // Timothy :: talk  07:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do, and I will be sure to read it, but in the meanwhile kindly remove your unproven and controversial claims of genocide. The Wikipedia pages are for proven facts, not for propaganda. If you insist on not removing these claims, I will escalate the matter to the next stage. In the meanwhile, it is clear that you have no intention or capability of replying to any of the points I have raised.2600:1012:B160:363E:8536:8544:22B8:D879 (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection to the authors of the referenced works. Can you explain?  // Timothy :: talk  21:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

If an Armenian author claims genocide, it is no proof, as s(he) is clearly biased. If the International Court of Justice says there was an "Armenian Genocide" or a "Greek Genocide", I will then accept it and you will have my apologies. As for other authors, I know of many that were motivated by Armenian money or promises of fame (Balakian, the poet, is one), and their scholarship leaves much to be desired. The poor reviews of the Israeli book tells me much. Surely you did not want to say that the existence of two modern books talking of genocide is sufficient proof that there were genocides. Why do Armenian historians refuse to team up with Turkish ones for an in-depth investigation? Why are the Armenian archives closed to scrutiny? Ask yourself (yourselves?) these questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B02E:D62:619A:F484:9D98:A8F (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I am adding to my previous comments, and now from a Wikipedia principles point of view. I believe you are in violation of several major Wikipedia guidelines. 1) A photo or figure caption should only refer to what is on the photo or the figure. 2) You are interpreting references, which is not allowed (Wikipedia calls that writing your own research), and 3) as far as I can tell, you, and maybe others, have tried to convert a page on the Smyrna fire into one on alleged genocides, which changes the subject of the article. I am sure others will figure out also that many of the modern references in that article have little value and that their authors do not have a high standing. Since you have not replied to my concerns, I will again remove your interpretation (along with the two irrelevant references) and also ask for independent review soon after I receive some technical information I have asked for.70.164.212.36 (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I made as scientific an accurate an edit as anyone could do, with references and quotes, put in a lot of time to prepare it and someone, probably from a particular group, reversed it before a day was over, citing "weak references and original research", probably boiler plate language, without any proof. Clearly the person who made the reversal has nothing meaningful to show for their action. This is clearly an abuse of Wikipedia use and convenience. I believe I now have sufficient reason and evidence to ask for independent review, since I do not wish to get into an edit war.70.164.212.36 (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I have reversed back to my edits, indicating the reasons clearly. I have also contacted the reverser of my edits on their Talk page, indicating my intent to ask for third opinion if another similar reversal without proof of reasoning occurs. We will then see how fair Wikipedia is.70.164.212.36 (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Another reversal of my edit on the same day, by someone else from the same group that is guarding their POV, but not the same person so that it will not be considered edit war on the face of it, or perhaps the same person with different accounts. It does not matter. The truth of the matter is that this is a coordinated effort, using boilerplate language to reverse meaningful edits, claiming, of all things, propaganda, whereas any careful reader can see who is doing what, especially after reading the edit summaries even if foreign to the subject matter. There is no point in talking things over with a bunch of people acting in concert so that a Talk sequence would be needed with each non-responsive editor. Thank you for the opportunity to expose what is going on. Let us start with a third opinion.04:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC) 70.164.212.36 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that I have filed with the dispute resolution board.70.164.212.36 (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Burning_of_Smyrna 70.164.212.36 (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)