Talk:İzmit massacres

Untitled
The previous version of the article was supposed to present the event as a massacre committed by the Greek army. However, it appears that under this name there were massacres committed by both sides, in the same district under the same time period.Alexikoua (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Widescale disruption
A decent explanation is needed for these edits [], for example changing the conclusion of the Allied commission who accepted, as fundamentally true, the Greek claim of 12,000 civilians massacred [] p. 11 "not withstanding a certain amount of exaggeration in the figures".

This part is also confirmed by [Shenk]. In general claiming that the specific sources are unreliable can be considered at least childish as an argument.Alexikoua (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article seems to have been completely written by two users who have written it blatantly from one POV in an anti-Turkish tone, in an attempt to talk past the other Greek massacres in the region (using less-than signs for numbers killed by the Greeks, etc. other forms of systemic bias). It also ignores clear sources such as this:



which put the blame on the Greek Army. The entire article was written very recently. Unfortunately, mine and another user's edits have been reverted and deleted by these two users. Ithinkicahn (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

For certainty widescale disruption was caused by a blocked wp:spa & his sock accounts. Fortunately this is history. The pov issues have been fixed, and neutrality has been restored, per corespondent report submitted by an Allied commission (which puts the blame mainly to the Turkish side).Alexikoua (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You have implied that I have been POV pushing in this article here and here. If I may ask, under what basis to you regard any one of my 6 edits to this article as POV pushing? Here are the diffs: . Remember that these topics are under arbitration and accusations of POV pushing without any such basis is not WP:CIVIL practice as it ultimately highlights WP:BADFAITH assumptions towards your fellow Wikipedia editors. Also, please remember this. Thank you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the other user. Just because they have been blocked doesn't mean their points don't stand. Also, I have reason to assume bad faith on your part because of my experience with you in the past. Reports by World War I's Allied commission on something allegedly occurring against a member of the Allies by an enemy state don't suddenly have supreme priority over the facts reported in multiple sources disagreeing with the report; I'm sure the Central Powers' commission would disagree with that.


 * Please remember the warning that you have put on my talk page in the past, in an incident that causes me to have bad faith in you and Alexikoua's edits? In that case, please remember the identical warning that I have put on your page around the same time. Throwing around random WP policy links doesn't help your point or your POV cause in the case of this article.


 * Also, please don't remove template messages until the issue is resolved, which it definitely isn't. Ithinkicahn (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe I wasn't too clear enough or you have misunderstood my point. You've been going around saying that I've been POV pushing in this article. So I'd like to ask you, which of my edits in this article constitute POV pushing? Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * So far, no pov issues have been addressed. I admit to say that wp:npa violations can't be used as an excuse to place a pov tag. It appears like a disruptive plan B to target this article, after a failed attempt in the afd nomination (not to mention that Ithinc. was the only editor that voted for deletion, generally talking about unrealistic wp:or issues).Alexikoua (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, how do you know what my POV towards this article even consists of? You claim that I am POV pushing in this article. I have provided the diffs for the only edits I have ever done with this article. So please, point to me as to which of my edits to this article constitute POV pushing. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The general tone of this article is blatantly slanted towards one side. Please stop removing the template message to make your page look like it's authoritative. The entire lede right now is one big paragraph of "you killed more than me". And this article only cites sources that claim that the Turks were the chief perpetrators, and ignores the sources that claim that Greeks were the chief perpetrators, such as the one I mentioned, this, among others. Ithinkicahn (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The general tone of the article, particularly the lede, is blatantly slanted towards stating what reliable sources report. I do not think a travel guide would be a good source compared to what we cite already. Huon (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * About Ithinc's,yet unexplained, issues, it appear to be clear that:


 * 1) A number of reliable sources are already supporting the described events (among them Toynbee (a contemporary source), but especially Shenk (a recent secondary source) & Allied report on Izmit events)
 * 2) The fact that the one side was more violent than the other is perfectly cited, in fact this part is verbally taken from the Allied report +secondary source (Shenk).
 * 3) @Ithnic. I can only assume that this stubborn wp:IDONTLIKEIT approach is simply a product of communication with permablocked DT23 (&socks, I wonder why his talkpage isn't yet blocked), who is eager to take revenge against me and some other users (as he recently declared).Alexikoua (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Large scale disruption
It appears that blocked user user:DragonTiger23 can't get.So, while his initial attempt to hit the article failed he creates now more and more pov forks (Izmit executions, Izmit Massacre etc) in order to promote his pov.Alexikoua (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Update Title
I request that the title of this page be changed to 'Izmit Massacres' (plural). These were a series of massacres in the Izmit region, not just the town of Izmit. As mentioned, 35 villages were affected in the entire region. Note: Izmit was a region as well as a town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euxine (talk • contribs) 11:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC) That's a good proposal. We had several instances of atrocities not a simple one.Alexikoua (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Editorial comments removed from the article
I've removed this from the article, since it is an editorial comment about how to improve the article. The paragraph was added by :
 * Although references is made to sources such as Arnold J. Toynbee, above content needs a broader view, including the full and authentic sources and references for the reader to form an objective opinion. It is important to use sources an references on this topic such as Toynbee, The Western Question in Greece and Turkey, A Study In the Contact of Civilizations (Chapter VII for specific information on Izmit). Toynbee carefully draws the attention to the conditions that brought both sides to commit atrocities. His account, as a witness, to the criminal acts of Greek civilians, soldiers, militia on the Turkish civilians during the retreat of Greek forces should motivate readers not to limit their knowledge to above description. US Naval Detachment in Turkish Waters 1919 - 1924, US Navy Department Library, white paper by the Inter Allied Commission of Enquiries, 1921.

-- John of Reading (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)