Talk:Occupation of Smyrna/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Greek Concession Concessions

I think this phrase was written by someone who does not speak English very well, can anyone tell us what this means? I don't want to just delete it since it is sourced, despite the poor semantics. AlexiusComnenus 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Combatants

I'm not sure we should have one of these combatant boxes-- this is an article about the administration of a city, right? It is not about warfare.

Lets look at Wikipedia precedents. AlexiusComnenus 23:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Title

the correct title would be: the liberation of smyrna. 

No, the title is correct, the city was occupied by Greek forces as it states.

The name SHOULD be Smyrna, as this was the name of the city at the time of these events. It was Smyrna, Turkey. This is un-academic and reeks of nationalist propaganda. Good history is objective and factual. In this way, it is false to refer to Constantinople as Istanbul before 1937. Constantinople was not renamed until the late 30's. Again, before the late 30's it was literally Constantinople, Turkey. The correct title would be: Occupation of Smyrna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.177.5 (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Old Turks had a habit of renaming cities they conquered. Istanbul is the name of that city since 1453 and Izmir is the name of that city since 14th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.67.27 (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Denomination is always a strenuos matter as mostoften it reflects an expression of political will, a way of shaping ones´ environment according to ones´ idea. The european denomination of geographical structures all over the world always tended to be a demonstration of political influence or showing the appetite to influence or dominate these regions, as it happens in other historical cases as the roman empire, the chinese empire, the mughal empire, the russian empire etc. This seems to be a common process in history and a human cultural tradition. In the tense situation of turko-greek conflicts it seems clearly impossible to find a just denomination which does not carry also a political interpretation of the affair. The reference to "old turks" seems as less helpful as the reference to denominations which the Europeans, educated in antics and often fascinated from the antique history, gave to places, also it seems not correct to use denominations evolving from the economically dominating classes of levantinian, armenian or greek origins. The turkish denominations on the other hand also demonstrate obviously the clear wish to annihilate foreign identities in order to stabilize their growing - then ailing empire. As a matter of fact and in regard to the present differences between european and islamic cultures a apolitical denomination cannot be found here - therefore the use of both names should make everybody involved happy, e.g. "the occupation of Smyrna/Izmír". This solution does well in many bilingual or bicultural regions as in South-Tyrol, the basque country or Slovenia, why not try it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.238.53.45 (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Takabeg (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Dobkin

I do dispute Kekrops for instance naming it "The greek city", thats a Greek nationalist wording instead call it city, a neutral term..Then there is nothing wrong to name the historian who said these things , i am not deleting anything merely add which historian says so..--laertes d 09:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as the city was under Greek administration and had a majority Greek population, I don't see any problem. The wording refers to a specific point in history, and is a common convention in English, akin to "Ottoman Greece", which incidentally never had a majority Turkish population. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The majority of the population of the city was Turkish according to Turkish sources,and only greek sources claım that majority was greek and the article's name happens to be "occupation of Izmir" as you may not noticed..How come it ended up being a Greek city?Greeks simply invaded it..And that is also a pathetic attempt in my opinion to justify the invasion by claiming that greeks improved the city thus it is good that they invaded it..Dobkin is a controversial figure, she never mentioned of the occurenece of large scale massacres in the city..Toynbee called Greek rule a "reign of terror", she tried to represent it almost as heaven..Even if she wasnt a controversial figure there is still nothing wrong with saying which person has said these things..--laertes d 10:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


"according to Turkish sources",yes. --Severino 06:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Severino, and which Greek sources did any census of Izmir before the Greek occupation? Occupying a city with military force, subjecting the ethnic Turks to terror causing them to flee for their lives would be a convenient way to reduce the Turkish population and claim it is a Hellenic city.

Also, I don't see what the relevance is of listling the establishment of creches etc and all these other irrelevant activities, this article is about the occupation of Izmir. I think this is a veiled attempt to try sweeten the realities of what the Greek occupation did. I'm sure the Megali Idea sympathisers see Izmir as their home, but if this isnt to be a POV article then these irrelevant items should be removed.


This article is very, very poorly written Giordaano (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I felt at least 5-6 times the same when I was reading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.4.112 (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox (military conflict) seems wrong in this article since the title makes it clear that this is about a former administrative division and not a conflict.Alexikoua (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about Greek Administration of Smyrna. If you want you can write that article with its culture, legal system, political system and so on. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually this is the article (whether administration or occupation it;s about the very same entity), and there are already parts that mention cultural issues (i.e. the Ionian University) that will be expanded inside this article the next days.Alexikoua (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
OK how about if we just call it "Zone of Smyrna", which is the Greek name anyway? --Philly boy92 (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 12:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The infobox looks good, but the map is incorrect: Northern Epirus was not a part of Greece after World War I. On title and content of this article, I've already expressed my view below. Constantine ✍ 13:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I've based the map on this original, it also (incorrectly?) includes part of the dodecanese. --Philly boy92 (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)Hah, yes, that is the map of Greece as it was supposed to become. N. Epirus and the Dodecanese were to be ceded according to the 1919 Venizelos-Tittoni agreement, but Italy unilaterally withdrew from it in 1920, and it was never implemented. You could have these areas in a lighter shade of green if you want, but this needs to be explained, as Greece did not exercise control over them. Constantine ✍ 13:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Title of this article

The title of this article is based on the Turkish POV. The Greek POV is that Smyrna was liberated from Turkish occupation. Therefore this article cannot be called "Occupation of Smyrna" when the Greek army is there. Recommend that the title of this article is changed to "Greek landing at Smyrna".  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 15:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not Turkish POV. See the US government sources, Ohio State University, and many others. Occupation of Smyrna is far more popular than landing at Smyrna. Even if we add Greek in the front: [1] [2]. The difference is obvious. And anyway, this article does not just talk about the landing, but the time in which the city was occupied. --Seksen (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Disputed. Nobody has the right to claim that the Greek army was occupying Smyrna when it was finally ending the Ottoman occupation. The land has thousands of years of ancient Greek heritage and the ethnic makeup of the city itself was predominantly Greek and Christian. Claiming that it is a Greek Occupation of Smyrna is a POV-oriented claim.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 19:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Now this is really disputed. The land has been under Ottoman control for hundreds of years, and there were more Turks in the city than the Greeks according to the official statistics: [3]. And anyway, we should consider such a vast difference in reliable sources. Even the US calls this an occupation. You mean that the US was pro-Turkish? I do not think so. --Seksen (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
"Greek landing at Smyrna" is also a rather awkward title, as the opening phrase shows: "Greek landing at Smyrna occurred from 15 May 1919 to 8 September 1922". Wow, a landing that lasted for three years... The Greeks must have been trillions for them to need three years to disembark... Greece did indeed militarily occupy the Smyrna zone, and certainly, the present title is a valid one. However, a form like "Smyrna under Greek administration" or "Greek administration of Smyrna" might work better as a more neutral, descriptive alternative title. After all, "occupation" implies a heavy dose of illegality, while the Greek military occupation was within the Allies' right to order per the terms of the Mudros Armistice, and was recognized and legalized at Sevres by the official Ottoman government. From a standpoint of international law, in 1920-22 at the very least, it was no longer a military occupation but a lawful civilian regime. Constantine ✍ 21:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This sounds quite reasonable. Also the conflict infobox is problematic under these circumstances, it's not about the conflict but about a 3 year period of administration (or else occupation).Alexikoua (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
"Greek administration of Smyrna" is POV neutral and it is commonly used. "Occupation of Smyrna" inferring a "Greek Occupation of Smyrna" is completely unreasonable.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 01:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
What about the popularity? As far as I know, yes it was not illegal for Greece to occupy Smyrna. However, the US was one of the allies and even it uses the word occupation. And the Treaty of Sévres uses the word occupation: Article 44: it will inform the representatives at Constantinople of the Allied Powers providing the occupying forces provided for in Article 178. Article 287: in territory in the effective occupation of the Allied Powers [..] inflicted by the occupying authorities. And to occupy does not mean something illegal, it means to take control of (a place, especially a country) by military conquest or settlement. Even Woodrow Wilson uses occupation. --Seksen (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Greek administration of Smyrna. Occupation is far more popular. --Seksen (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you say "far more popular"? That's not the way Google sees it if you dig deeper. Occupation (120 hits) v. Administration (76 hits) v. Landing (130 hits) v. Liberation (48 hits). It looks like the only reason there are a few more hits for Occupation v. Administration is because of the title of this Wikipedia article.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 14:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not know how you managed to find these results, but they are really misleading. I will repeat my Google Books results: Occupation 2090 - Landing 570 - Greek administration: [4] + [5] = 67. The difference in reliable sources is obvious. --Seksen (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
As even Google Books has ~ 2000 results for occupation, it is impossible to have 120 results all on internet. --Seksen (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Not so obvious on Google Scholar. Occupation (87 hits) v. Administration (10 hits) v. Landing (46 hits) v. Liberation (2 hits).  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 15:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Nor in fact, are your results for Google Books accurate. Occupation (367 hits) v. Administration (70 hits) v. Landing (248 hits) v. Liberation (7 hits).  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 15:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
And if occupation was the Turkish POV, neutral universities and the US government would not publish it. Examples of universities which use the word occupation for this issue: Ohio State University, Duke University, Cornell University. And a Greek author, Paschalis M. Kitromilides uses the word occupation for this issue: [6]. --Seksen (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Since when were universities ever neutral? The universities sing the tune of whoever sponsors them. As for the United States. They sing the tune that is in their best interests.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 14:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is original research. Do you mean that Ohio State/Cornell/Duke University is sponsored by Turkey? They should actually be pro-Greek, for they were an ally of Greece in the World War I. Universities do academic research, so they are at least more reliable, unless they are Turkish or Greek universities in this issue. --Seksen (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
You very well know that universities are usually sponsored by departments. WP:OR has nothing to do with it.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 15:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The specific article deals with the presence of the Greek Army not only in the specific city, but also in the surrounding area, which incorporated cities and towns like Aivalik, Aydyn etc. This territory was known as Smyrna Zone by official documents and this term is also widely established in literature [[7]]. Since this article isn't limited in the military conflicts (it's not the Greco-Turkish War 1919-1922), but the local administration/occupation of this region, a title "Smyrna Zone", or "Zone of Smyrna" would be ok.Alexikoua (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Zone of Smyrna was how Greece called this occupation/administration. And 2090/366= 5.7. Occupation is 5.7 times more well-established in literature than this. --Seksen (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
In fact on Google Books, for Occupation v. Administration that is 367/70 = 5.2. And for Occupation v. Zone that is 367/29 = 12.7.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 15:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure? --Seksen (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
100% certain that when I carried out the searches and recorded the number of hits yesterday (that they were accurate) and my division calculations are also accurate. Obviously, the number of Google hits will change over time. But they don't change much in a week unless the media is going nuts about the subject.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 20:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that "Greek administration of Smyrna" is the best non-POV title. Although "Zone of Smyrna" and "Landing at Smyrna" are also non-POV titles.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 15:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that occupation does not violate the POV policy here, since it is the most popular naming by far and even Treaty of Sévres, Woodrow Wilson and some Greek authors use this name. --Seksen (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I must point out two things: a) if you search for the specific term "Greek administration of Smyrna", the results are low, but a more nuanced approach gives far more and b) "occupation of Smyrna" also includes numerous irrelevant hits, e.g. "in order to prevent a forceful occupation of Smyrna province by Italy", "foundation or first occupation of Smyrna by a Greek people", "an occupation of Smyrna by the Venetians" or even "Turkish occupation of Smyrna". It remains the most popular term, however one important fact must be made clear: the term "Greek occupation of Smyrna" as used in many if not most of the sources reflects the physical act of occupying the city, in other words, the landing in May 1919, and this is made clear explicitly in several cases: "The occupation of Smyrna by the Greeks (May 1919)", "when the news of the occupation of Smyrna reached him.", "it was the Greek occupation of Smyrna that was most responsible for inspiring the Nationalist movement", "the Greek occupation of Smyrna had set off great indignation in all parts of Turkey", "the occupation of Smyrna only a fortnight before?" etc. This is an article dealing with the entire period of Greek control over the city, and as I said above, the situation was far from a military occupation regime. In 1920-22 at least there was a legitimate civilian-run administration, and military operations inside the bounds of the Smyrna Zone were close to zero. Constantine ✍ 16:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
You miss that this includes many off-topic results, too. For example, "After taping half a dozen interviews with escapees from the Smyrna [..] The Greek Administration of the Vilayet of Aidin", "The Greek administration will have the right to regulate and tax the consumption of salt at Smyrna", "the city of Smyrna and the territory defined [..] The relations between the Greek administration and the local parliament", "The first clash, in Smyrna itself, left a hundred dead, and it was only the beginning [..] the dead were a heavy burden upon the Greek administration locally and in Athens". This is not a detailed look, and I guess half of these results are off-topic. As for the occupation, it is 2090 hits even in inverted commas, this gives 21,000 results. And occupation has nothing to do with legitimacy or a regime, it only means to take control of (a place, especially a country) by military conquest or settlement. --Seksen (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Erm, not quite. First, "The Greek administration will have the right to regulate and tax the consumption of salt at Smyrna" or "relations between the Greek administration" implies "the Greek administration [of Smyrna]". The title is supposed to be descriptive, after all. That is why I said a "more nuanced" approach. Second, comparing it to a random search for occupation and Smyrna in the same page is not really logical, it includes tons of totallyn irrelevant results. On the meaning of "occupation", I agree 100%: it means "to take control", i.e. the act of taking control through militarily means. What happens however, when the act of occupation is succeeded by a civilian administration? That is the point here. Because, when the term "occupation" is used for longer periods, as in "German occupation of France" or "Axis Occupation of Greece", it always implies a) a military administration, b) a transitional nature (by international practice, a military occupation regime is by definition temporary until a peace treaty is signed) and hence c) a certain lack of legality, as it is based on force of arms alone. Plus, as I said above, most sources use "occupation of Smyrna" to refer to the Greek landing, not necessarily the entire period. Constantine ✍ 16:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, I am not necessarily opposed to a title like "Greek occupation of Smyrna". I just think that there is considerable merit in the alternative proposal. Constantine ✍ 16:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
As this was in the middle of a war, and borders of this zone changed every day, it is not really possible to say that the situation was completely unrelated with a military conflict. There were still lots of soldiers in the streets of the city, battleships at the harbour etc. See Smyrna Greek Occupation. But adding Smyrna next to Greek administration gives many off-topic results, too. And 515 results for Occupation of Izmir should be added to Occupation of Smyrna. I assume that off-topic results in "Occupation of Smyrna" are 200 in number (although I believe this is still too much). So 1800 + 500 = 2300. I assume that off topic results in "Greek administration" Smyrna are 100 in number. So 2300 v. 650 is a huge difference. --Seksen (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Except, the war was not fought "in" the Smyrna Zone, and the borders of the zone certainly did not "change every day". The Smyrna Zone was occupied and held until the final collapse of the Greek front in 1922. There were skirmishes along its boundaries in 1919-20, but the Greek-Turkish front ceased to coincide with the zone's boundaries in summer 1920. Plus, you still don't answer a fundamental issue with the search results: phrases like "the Greek occupation of Smyrna, on May 15, 1919" refer to the act of landing and taking possession, not the whole period. And these instances are many (3-5 on each results page, leaving aside complete misses or results that refer to the occupation of Western Anatolia, and not just the Smyrna Zone). From at least the moment of the Sevres Treaty, legally the Smyrna Zone was no longer under a military occupation, but a sort of protectorate destined to be annexed, and this article is supposed to cover the entirety of this period 1919-1922. Constantine ✍ 17:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Occupation also means the period in which the land is occupied. From 1919 to 1922, the city was under occupation. A temporary one, and the city was occupied. If it was not temporary, it would not be an occupation as you have just said. And what you have just said contradicts the claim that this article is about the whole Smyrna Zone, the war was fought in Smyrna Zone, at least the war continued, and the front was also a part of this zone. --Seksen (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) No. "Occupation" is, as I said, a period where a military administration over a conquered territory exists, until a conflict is ended by a treaty that settles any territorial claims. From the moment the military regime is lifted, and a lawful civilian authority is installed, it ceases to be an "occupation". Of course, to a Turk, the whole Greek presence was illegal and hence a "Greek occupation", just as for many Greeks, the period of Ottoman rule was "Turkish occupation", regardless if it lasted for 400 years and if the Ottomans were the sole legitimate authority over Greece (Venice excepted). And if Greece had somehow won the war and retained the Smyrna Zone, Turks would still call it "occupation" just as the French did with Alsace-Lorraine. One must be careful to distinguish the technical use of the term from the colloquial one, for the latter always has POV connotations (the "illegality" I have referred to). As for your latter statement, again you confuse things: the Smyrna Zone is the area placed under Greek administration by the Sevres Treaty, it is not the entire area occupied by the Greek army during the war. Outside the bounds of the Smyrna Zone, the administration was run by the Greek Army, and that constituted military occupation both de facto and de jure. Notice that Greece did not lay formal claim to this territory, even though she occupied it. Theoretically at least, the war was fought for the recognition of the Sevres status quo, not the expansion of the Smyrna Zone to include more of Anatolia. However, this article does not deal with the entirety of Turkish territory captured, but with the city of Smyrna and the area around it, viz. the Smyrna Zone, in 1919-1922. At least, that is what it should deal with, for right now it deals more with the capture and re-capture rather than what happened in between. Constantine ✍ 19:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should have 2 articles: 1. for the capture of the city in 1919, 2. for the 3 year administration. Each article deals with a diferrent subject.Alexikoua (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this might be possible. Two articles are a good idea. But occupation also means to enter and stay. --Seksen (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Seksen. Occupation is the best title. The article about World War I and World War's colonialism. With Treaty of Sèvres, Ottoman Empire was forced to accept occupation because Ottoman government was defeated in the war. After Turkish War of Independence, Treaty of Lausanne was signed, so the Treaty of Sevres was not legal any more, and the Greek administration was an occupation. Koc61 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The Lausanne Treaty reversed the Sevres Treaty's territorial stipulations, it did not make it "illegal". The very fact that another treaty was necessary is a clear indicator that Sevres was the legal status quo in 1920-22. other than that, I agree with Alexi's proposal. Constantine ✍ 17:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I see no harm in Alexikoua's proposal. This article can easily be broken down in to two or three articles, including "Greek landing at Smyrna", "Greek administration of Smyrna", and "Smyrna Zone".  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 18:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
"Occupation of Smyrna" for the military stage of occupying, and "Greek administration of Smyrna" or "Smyrna Zone" as an "administrative division" might be a good idea, yes. --Seksen (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. Because the "Greek Landing at Smyrna" was legitimate and sanctioned. It was an administration from day one. If you want an article about the "Occupation of Smyrna" then we also need to discuss the "Ottoman Occupation of Smyrna" and then the "Republic of Turkey's Occupation of Smyrna" and I would suggest creating independent articles for those too.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 20:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Only Greeks find this name offending. Even Woodrow Wilson does not. And I am doubtful that Greeks do, since there are some Greek authors who use the term "occupation" for the occupation of Greeks. I am ignoring the other wholly biased part of the comment. --Seksen (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems for an unknown reason the move hasn't been performed, although we had concensus. I'll wait 24h.Alexikoua (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Consensus on what exactly? Moving the article? Splitting the article? Under which names? --Seksen (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I have said above that splitting the article into two could be possible, but this does not seem to be viable now. We have very little details about the "civilian" administration established in the city. We have no evidence that this was a civilian administration, not a military one in the article. Occupation does not mean taking over, but it means staying (I am not saying this, they are: "the action, state, or period of occupying or being occupied by military force"). Under these conditions, I think splitting the article into two articles about the act of occupying and the state of being occupied is not necessary. --Seksen (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Turkish capture?

The city was governed by the Ottoman Empire before it was occupied. So is the name of this section true? As we consider that Ottoman Empire was commonly named "Turks", the name of the section should be "Turkish recapture". Kemalist capture might be another alternative. --Seksen (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please use the same argument when we are discussing the Genocide of Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians, since Turkey usually claims that it was nothing to do with them.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 15:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The Ottomans were Turks, but the government of Turkey is different from the government of the Ottoman Empire. And you have said nothing about the name. --Seksen (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be called "Turkish Occupation" because that is what it is but "Turkish capture" will do. If Turkey stops blaming the Genocide on the Ottomans then "Turkish recapture" will also do.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 17:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I am amazed that such an ethnic wiki warrior-editor is allowed to spew such nonsense on these pages. Why and how Izmir of centuries becomes Smyrna is a mystery. Same people get bent out of shape when one refers to Istanbul by its current name for event pre-1930. Even names of Turkish islands in Aegean are in Greek in Wikipedia articles. Go check. It is a disgrace that such ethnic warfare on these pages has made Wikipedia far less than a relaible source. Izmir was/is the official name of the city at the time of relevance of this article, what exactly is the issue? What does this have anything to do with any alleged genocide? What kind of argument is that?Murat (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out two things:
1. This article is about a dependency of Greece, whose official language was Greek and for all intents and purposes was considered under Greek control between 1919 and 1922. I highly doubt that the Greek government refered to Smyrna as Izmir (Ιζμίρ) and not its ancient and modern Greek name, Smyrna (Σμύρνη).
2. This article is on the English wikipedia. The names used on all articles are those used in colloquial English. Much like the Fall of Constantinople article is not named Fall of Istanbul, this article is named the Occupation of Smyrna. Also keep in mind that this article is about an event in the 1920s, when Istanbul and Izmir were still Constantinople and Smyrna to most foreigners.
--Philly boy92 (talk)
"...when Istanbul and Izmir were still Constantinople and Smyrna to most foreigners", what does that really mean? The name of this ancient city is well defined, and official. Why not apply the same convention and Wikipedia rules that is rigorously applied to many other cities, Istanbul for example? You seem to be confusing "occupation" with actual annexation, where Izmir becomes a sovereign part of state of Greece. No such thing took place. This simply smells of ethnic propaganda and nationalism, I have not heard one good argument yet. Murat (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Philly boy's argument makes sense to me, it was called Smyrna when it was captured. --AW (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
No it was not. The name of the city is İzmir. In 1919 it was also İzmir. In all maps it is İzmir. (Any reader can easily find it on maps.) But for reasons beyond my understanding it is named Smyrna in this article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not saying it was not called Izmir in Turkish, but the European diplomats used the name 'Smyrna' for Izmir, 'Constantinople' for Istanbul, 'Salonica' for Thessaloniki and so on. Also a simple search on google books gives 4,620 results for "Occupation of Izmir" and 20,300 results for "Occupation of Smyrna". For example, US military intelligence from the time refer to it as 'Smyrna'. --Philly boy92 (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Which European diplomats? And is these articles for diplomats or experts? Or all internet users? It have to be İzmir in my opinion. --Duke ϡ»» ileti ^^ 20:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
With your logic the article about the fall of Constantinople should be named "Fall of Istanbul". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such the most widely-used name in the scientific community should be used per WP:POVTITLE, and that appears to be Smyrna as shown by Takabeg's post. --Philly boy92 (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I said the same thing, too. Diplomats and experts don't matter. Common usage is important. And Smyrna is an ancient city and a greek name. Smyrna isn't suitable for occupation which one is at 1919-1922. 'Cos it's about a modern city, not ancient. Also Turks have the city before and after occupation. --Duke ϡ»» ileti ^^ 22:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
If by that you mean that we should ignore the scientific community and adopt the modern Turkish name, you better familiarize yourself with the rules of wikipedia, and in particular the non-neutral but common names policy. The policy states that "When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria)". You are also systematically overlooking the fact that for the Western diplomatic world Izmir was still Smyrna in 1919. This is also true for the Treaty of Sevres which refers to the city as 'Smyrna' and not 'Izmir'. --Philly boy92 (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. On User:koc61's claim, some logical discrepancies may arise with using Smyrna. But it's similar to the case of İstanbul'un Fehti (literally the Conquest of Istanbul) in modern Turkish historiography. Logically the city that had been conquered in 1453 is not İstanbul but Konstantinopolis, but the term "İstanbul'un Fethi" was accepted and became common name today. Of course we can use the term Konstantinopolis'in Fethi (literally the Conquest of Constantinople) in Turkish. It's the same thing. Takabeg (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Personally I believe that both Smyrna and Izmir are POV, the first Greek and the second Turkish. Accusing people of POV in such sensitive articles is very easy, and I find myself doing it sometimes too. However, lets just stick to the established conventions of the English scientific community. I seriously doubt that "Izmir" is more commonly used to refer to occupation and administrations of the city by the Greeks between 1919 and 1922. What better proof than the 1919 Treaty of Sevres which legalized the Greek occupation? --Philly boy92 (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no problem on "Occupation of Smyrna". And I don't think that it's sensitive issue. It's enough for us to behave and chose common name in accordance with Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. Today "Occupation of Smyrna" is common name. Maybe tomorrow "Occupation of Izmir" will be common name, with estimating by the trend of last 10 years. Takabeg (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

From 1919 to 2011

Last 20 years

Last 10 years

Takabeg (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupation_of_Smyrna/Archive_2&oldid=1137054025"