Talk:Battle of the Sakarya/Archive 1

to reword or not to reword?
That's a very one-sided and biased article. I demand re-wording! Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.149.28.125 (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2004 (UTC)

Smyrna versus Izmir
Symrna is old name of Izmir and not used for a long time except Greek Nationalists who defend The Idea Megola. Otherwise many people around the world know and use the name Izmir. Since because of the fact that the well known name is written first and old or other side names are written in paranthesis, it must be written as Izmir (Symrna). The opposite is a product of biased approach. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zkaradag (talk • contribs) 15:56, 12 November 2006.


 * No one denies that the city is called İzmir today, but it was still widely called Smyrna in English at the time, and this is English Wikipedia. Khoikhoi 02:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No you are biaed saying that "it is called Symrna in English". I advice you to go http://maps.google.com/ and type Symrna, you will see a place in GA not in Turkey, instead, if you go and type Izmir, guess what you see ? Zkaradag


 * I never said it is called Smyrna in English, I said at the time, its most common English name was Symrna. Those are two different things. Khoikhoi 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So, what! It is better to call as Izmir if it is known as Izmir all around the world and to put the old name in paranthesis. Zkaradag


 * This article refers to the city in a historical context, not a modern-day one. All around the word we call the city New York, but at one time it was called New Amsterdam, so would it make sense to say, "The Dutch colony of New York"? Khoikhoi 21:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Both of you have a point - the city is most definitely İzmir, but in the context of this particular battle should be noted as Smyrna. I think it's fair to say that Smyrna was the main name of the city (see Great Fire of Smyrna) up until it was taken by Turkish Republic troops, and henceforth became known as İzmir (the city largely had to be rebuilt after the aforementioned Great Fire, and is today largely a new city). It always was known as İzmir to Turks, and as Smyrna to Greeks, but en.wikipedia is trying to form a consensus based on the most common-sense naming scheme in English. Just be glad we're not editing the DRC article - it's had three names in 40 years and one incarnation even had a song dedicated to it. Orderinchaos78 (t 14:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have an evidence that it is called smyrna in english? However I provide soem concrete example for Izmir. See above!. Zkaradag 05:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not is, was called Smyrna in English. For example, see this newspaper headline, which says, "Dean of Institute at Smyrna Says..." Khoikhoi 06:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not show me a piece of newspaper without a name or even a date (maybe B.C)! Why do not you go google earth and ask where Symrna is. lolol 74.98.126.182 03:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See straw man. Khoikhoi 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Biased report!
This part of the article is completely Unhistorical and makes no sense. This article states that "The "Great Fire of Smyrna" soon followed, due to the fires that were set out by the Greek troops who were escaping from Anatolia." This is false. Why would the Greeks set fire to Smyrna before they were forced to be massacred by the thousands by the Turkish army? Can someone explain why the Greeks would set fire to a Greek city that was founded by the Greeks dating back to the 3rd Millenium BC (2000-3000 BC)? How could the Greeks set fire to a city settled by Greeks for thousands of years WHILE being massacred? This definitely looks bad on Wikipedia. If historical facts can NOT be included in their articles, they should atleast maintain a form of neutrality, lies should not be spread. Article changed to maintain neutrality, in spite of the facts... --Xenophonos 06:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC) -- I strongly disagree with the above comment. Why would Turks burn a city they are intending to live? It makes no sense. It must be Greeks. As you said they were abandoning a city they built about 7000 years ago. They must think "if we can't have the city neither will you" By the way the comment adds that Turks massacred Greeks. It was actually vice versa. ANd unlike the above comment I have a proof. After the war Greeks had to pay money for burning villages, destroying railways, destroying 7 bridges on Sakarya vs. And in Battle of Sakarya Greeks were killing any injured Turkish soldier they can see. Again I have a proof. Constantine I of Greece was writing letters to his fiancee/lover/friend Paola(I am not exactly sure about the relationship). In one of the letters he was defending the morality of killing war prisoners or injured soldier. If thats not enough to convince I have more. General Stratigos from the Battle of Sakarya mentioned in his book that some of the Greek Soldiers were intending to be a War prisoner just to get a meal to eat(there was a lack of food in greek side). Now who would want to be a prisoner if the other side will kill you? That proves Turkish side wasn't treating brutally to Greek Soldiers.

Beregorn

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beregorn (talk • contribs) 09:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC) This report is obviously and clearly written by a Turkish National. Not only it is extremely one-sided but it is also full of crude historical mistakes. Very unprofessional on Wikipedia's part! Please either retract or rephrase your reference by reading the universally accepted historic facts of this event. -- I dont agree with above comment.I am as an objective Turk have read that article and found it very realistic.Maybe some Greek side documents can be helpful on this article.I should add ,after 22 days fierce battle,Greeks have had heavy casualties and supply shortage.Decided retreat and had made retreat in order.The Greeks were having  political fractions in army.This was helpful to Turkish side. There was a division in the Greek army that all formed by Ottoman nationality Greek origin  Turkish citizens. Ahmet Özgen Aozgen54@yahoo.com --- It was indeed very biased. In general, as in Turkey this war is seen somehow as their 'revolutionary' or 'independence' war, it is natural that they are very passionate and subjective on matters concerning this war. Moreover, the Turkish militarized state bases a lot on promoting innerly a picture of the 'unbeatable' turkish army, that 'defeated the Greek army even when the odds where overwhelming'. I added information given officially by the publications of the Greek Army Staff. Xristar

The last sentence of the article "Shortly after on September 9, 1922, the Turks liberated Smyrna." is extremely biased. The city was attacked and nearly burnt to the ground, its Greek inhabitants slaughtered. I have changed the sentence to be neutral in meaning. --Xenophonos 16:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm an Australian observer of central European stock, and I both have Greek friends and have been to Turkey. In my view, it doesn't make much sense for the Turks to have burnt a city with many Turkish occupants that they themselves intended to occupy (and in fact had to rebuild). I'm not saying this means the Greeks did it, I'm just making the case that the argument can be made for both sides. I think some of the strong language in the above ("lies", "massacre", "slaughtered") belies a lot of the emotion underneath this debate. It doesn't help at all that a lot of people on both sides (mainly innocents) died or were made homeless by armed people on the other, or that it happened just after World War I and the end of the Ottomans. Orderinchaos78 (t 15:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Then cn someone explain to me why the turk would burn down a city they would have to rebuild afterwards? Armanalp 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Turks didnt slaugther Greek residants. Those who call themselves "Greek" were subjected to population exchange called Türk-Yunan Mübadelesi. So stop lying about these facts. Greeks burnt down the city you miserable fuckers.

Violent Attack
In the article it states that: "The Turks counter-attacked and took Chal Dagi on 8 September, but were unable to pursue the enemy as their violent counter-attack was stopped by the Greek 7th division." How can an attack be violent? --Atcooo 02:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

All wars are violent. but yes from what I've read that counter-attack was very violent because Greek were informed that the turks will make a counter-attack and therefore they were ready and stubborn. But the turkish side was more in numbers and determinated. So that was a bloody conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beregorn (talk • contribs) 09:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

this article has been screwed
Is it me or this article got destroyed somehow? I think it used to have some more information than the next to nothing now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xristar (talk • contribs) 15:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Relatively unbiased article
Guys, guys this article is relatively neutral and please do not try to change by putting controversial stuff. I have been monitoring various Greco_Turkish editing wars in various articles and you will freak out with the level of attrocities perpetrated from both sides (permit me the pun) This is actually as good as it gets.

ALSO, let me congratulate the reasonable wikipedian that changed the numbers of forces to a more realistic, someone before put the maximum forces that existed in the whole Anatolia...only a fraction took place to this battle. Actually the Greeks only dedicated 7 divisions which contributed to the defeat.

Thanks, but PS DOCUMENT the reasons you change something, is common courtesy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadjune1 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

TO DO request
Sorry again, I noticed that in factbox the Greek-Turkish info is reversed from the convention followed in wikipedia, it should be the attacking on the left and the defendant on the right, that's why is called Greco-Turkish war methinks, but I might be wrong, I want opinions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadjune1 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there something that clearly states that the conflict ended as a Turkish victory? Reading the article, as well as the more general one (Greek-Turkish War 1919-1922) someone can infer that both sides withdraw from battlefield.Alexikoua (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Preciceness, sourced information
This edit is harmful. Because it damaged preciceness. And user removed many sourced information without consensus. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The article I initially wrote was done by following neutral English language books. The whole writing was sketched following mainly Llewellyn Smith's book. Since this is an english version geographical names and terms must be in English. Else, there is a turkish language version where you can place your POVs, nomeclature and the Turkish official story. Mind, that I even do not use any Greek source so as to try to be as neutral as possible. Plus, when you insert paragraphs inside those which are sourced you are distorting the whole sence of quoting. If you happen to read both the Turkish and the Greek articles about this same topic, you will find that the stories inside them differ very much. It took a long time to reach a neutral article. It would be moronic to loose it.Periptero (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, your edition is more POV pushing. For example, you insist that "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk issued the following order upon seeing that... " with using only the book of Stanford J. Shaw, who is known as a Pro-Turkish scholar. I tried to improve neutrality of that part with using other sources and I mention to only possibility. Because every history book (including Turkish official story) and scholar (including Stanford Show) uses Mustafa Kemal's Nutuk fot that part. Furthermore, I think that Lonely Planet is not reliable source. In short, your edits damaged both historical preciseness and neutrality. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Chap, we had no decent article at the begining, and there was a constant "edit-warring" between Pro-Turkish and Pro-Greek users. In order to fix this I relied upon Michael Llewellyn Simith so as to write this one, mixed with Christopher Chant's for Military Subjects(Look at the references). Turkish "offcial" history is already present in the totally biased Turkish Wikipedia's article about this topic. Greek Wikipedia's article isn't a neutral one either. This one is (or at least tries to be). If you think that it is not, instead of editing straight away (and distorting the whole article's structure with your edits) why don't you share your impressions first, discuss the topic and reach an agreemet. Then we can include some of your contributions correctly, and not just inserted in the middle of a paragraph taken from an original text. You keep on placing geographical names and militar or political terms in Turkish language which aren't suitable for an Eng-Lang one. Periptero (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's very clear that your edition is similar to the Turkish official historiography. I'm sure that Turkish nationalist readers should prefer your edition :)) Frankly to say, I've felt that those who support Turkish official historiography wrote this article when I read it for the first time. I prefer to improve this article in stead of adding And I reccomend you to read Ownership of articles. Takabeg (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal's order mustn't be in the lead of this article. With only this strangeness, the neutrality of this article was damaged seriously. Takabeg (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My edition is based upon the authors that I cited. Pay a visit to the books (and page quotes) and you will see. I can assure that I have nothing to do with Turkey or Turkish nationalists (in fact, my grandpa's brother died fighting in Kale Grotso as part of the evzones). Besides, do you really think that placing Kemal's words in the starting resume attempts neutrality? I personally don't, but it harms no one if changed (or even erased), so go ahead. I instead find this article neutral (or at least, much more neutral than previous versions). Frankly, I do know that I do not "own" the article, what I only want is that it keeps its grammatical sence and not to develop into a cheap collage.-Periptero (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This paragraph,
 * ''During this battle, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk issued the following order upon seeing that the Turkish army was losing ground rapidly, with little distance and virtually no natural defenses left between the battle line and the capital Ankara: "There is no line of defense, but a territory of defense and that territory is the whole of the motherland. No inch of the motherland may be abandoned without being soaked in the blood of her sons...",
 * Is supposedly sourced by this reference Shaw, Stanford Jay;, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.(1976). ISBN 978-0521212809. pg.357
 * However, upon searching google books and amazon.com, I found none of what is purportedly referenced.
 * Shaw, refers to "Ataturk" as Kemal, which is historically accurate(until 1934), but makes no mention of Kemal's statement concerning the "motherland". I find this reference questionable, the paragraph in question needs to be referenced or removed and this article needs to be re-written for historical accuracy concerning correct names prior to 1934. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, so be done.- Mind that most of the nomeclature is taken from Smith's "Ionian vision" and Chant's "Warfare of the 20th. Century". I think we are going far too deep.Periptero (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, Afyonkarahisar, Eskisehir are neither common use nor accurate name at the time. Mustafa Kemal, Mustafa Fevzi etc. didn't have their surname until 1934. Takabeg (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Geographical names were taken from both the Smith's and Chant`s books which are English language qualified texts.- There you will find both Afyonkarahisar and Eskisehir. Now that we are pointing out geographical accuracy it is clearly stated in Ionian Vision that the river involved is the Gok River (" .... 'Crossing the shallow GOK' ...") not Goksu as in your revision. Was Smith mistaken? Are both the same river and it is just a different nomenclature? Mind that there are two WP pages (one for Gok River and another for Goksu River) which show they are different ones and in different regions. Also, the use of specific Turkish terms (i.e."Nutuk", "Müşir,") in this english language article is a window so as others to start introducing Greek terms as well: Megali Idea (Μεγάλη Ιδέα), Strategos (στρατηγός), Evzones (Εύζωνες) and so on. I agree instead, on the Family names question. Periptero (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry to intervene but about the onomatology its better to stay in accordance to common English and carefully avoid the local forms (Afyonkarahisar, Eski Shehir instead of Eskişehir, Evzones instead of Εύζωνες), there is no reason to make thinks boring I believe.Alexikoua (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Result: Tactically inconclusive???
Greece lost the battle! Böri (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Biased story
This is too much of a onesided story. Evil Greeks vs Turkish heroes. I strongly suggest everyone not to take into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.177.54.246 (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Sakarya. 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/20090627034148/http://www.tsk.tr:80/8_TARIHTEN_KESITLER/8_8_Turk_Tarihinde_Onemli_Gunler/Sakarya_Meydan_Muharebesi/Sakarya_Meydan_Muharebesi.htm to http://www.tsk.tr/8_TARIHTEN_KESITLER/8_8_Turk_Tarihinde_Onemli_Gunler/Sakarya_Meydan_Muharebesi/Sakarya_Meydan_Muharebesi.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect narrative of the battle
Currently it says: "On August 26, the Greeks attacked all along the line." This is incorrect, as the attack was initiated by the Turks. Does this page have an editorial owner? Thanks. Todd (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 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: Moved - Moving was favoured by the majority of !votes, and their arguments based on the RS sources cited in the article are persuasive. The only oppose !vote argued based on other variants being possible, but the specific variant they mentioned is also "the Sakarya" and they provided no evidence to support their position. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Sakarya → Battle of the Sakarya – "Sakarya" is the name of a river and so should be preceded by the definite article (cf. "Battle of the Somme" or "Battle of the Boyne"). This is in line with how the battle is referred to in reliable sources:   Zacwill (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 17:45, 17 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.
 * Oppose: there are also other variations like ´´Battle at the Sakarya´´. Definitely not comon name. Beshogur (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is that the definite article should be there. The variation you gave also uses the definite article. Zacwill (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Which is the WP:commonname?—blindlynx (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Battle of Sakarya I suppose. Not sure. Beshogur (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. It makes sense to move since reliable sources use the proposed name and it is consistent with other river battles, like battle of the Ebro to mention another one. Vpab15 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom given the use by RS. -2pou (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Result
Per WP:MILMOS, it isn't "Tactically inconclusive,strategic Turkish victory". If it's a strategic Turkish victory, then it goes in the infobox as simply "Turkish victory". FDW777 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)