Talk:Burning of Smyrna

Destroyed parts of the city
The citation of the statement "The fire completely destroyed the Greek and Armenian quarters of the city; the Muslim and Jewish quarters escaped damage." does not provide any reference for the claim while it does for most of the other claims in the same resource. Is there any more reliable source on this? Otherwise, we need to change the sentence to a mention of the fire's starting point (Armenian quarter) for the credibility. 136.159.213.222 (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Unverified usage of "most" and "a few"
In the text, it is mentioned that "most" sources support Greek side's claims while "a few" support Turks' side. However, the cited sources do not make such statement. Are the "most" and the "a few" used because there are 2 citations for the Greek side and 1 citation for the Turkish side on the sentence? Should not the usage of "most"/"a few" statements be based on a research analyzing the extent of all the available resources (if such research exists)? I removed these 2 specific problematic usages and another user has revoked the change suggesting me to write to talk. Here I am. Let us talk before forming it collaboratively. 136.159.213.222 (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It’s customary to treat the anti-Turkish viewpoint as objective as we are on Sikipedia 71.247.20.96 (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Reference [27] is incorrect
Page 32 of reference [27] as cited in the sentence "According to the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the time, Henry Morgenthau, more than half of Smyrna's population was Greek." does not contain such information. Either the citation must be corrected or replaced by another resource. If not found, the sentence must be removed. 136.159.213.222 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The source very clear supports the statement.  // Timothy :: talk  21:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"Landing" vs "Occupation"
The more I read the article the funnier it gets. Why is it called "landing of Greek army" after 493 years of Ottoman rule but "Turkish occupation" after 3 years of Greek rule? I will not request for a change as I realize maybe Wikipedia is not what I thought it is, but will definitely come back reading this article when I want to have some laugh. 136.159.213.222 (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Reply: These are military operations and it's common English; the language accurately reflects what happened.
 * Landing. What other word would you use? Troops are frequently referred to as "landing"; for example the phrase, "the Allied landing at Normandy", when we liberated Europe from the Nazis, is the same phrasing as the "Greeks landing at Smyrna".
 * Occupation. What other word do you want to use for an army taking control of a city? "Occupation" is the best word to describe what Turks did, when an army takes control of a city it is referred to as an occupation, for example "the Nazis occupied Paris" during World War II, and "The Turks occupied Smyrna" is the same phrasing.
 * Neutral sources reflect the use of these words.
 * You never explain how 493 years of Ottoman rule makes the Greek landing not a landing and the Turkish occupation of the city not an occupation. Whether it was 490 years or 1 year makes no difference in the appropriate language to describe these operations.
 * If you can find more accurate phrasing to describe the events, without violating WP:NPOV please suggest it and if you can gain a WP:CONSENSUS for your phrasing it will be made.  // Timothy :: talk  21:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear Timothy, I will explain myself step by step, please evaluate my points with a technical point of view.
 * Now, please open the Wiki page titled "Greek landing at Smyrna" you specifically linked to this page after my complaint (btw, thank you for this, you just made my job easier).
 * In that very page, it says "The Greek landing at Smyrna" ... "became important for creating the three-year-long Greek Occupation of Smyrna".
 * Since it is a page you linked, I do not think you will oppose that so-called Greek landing is a part of the Greek occupation.
 * Now, my question is, why do you (not only specifically you but also all the Wiki editors who resent to such fair changes) use the intermediate term "Landing" for Greek side's actions which also led to occupation, but the end result "Occupation" directly for Turks' side's actions? Either both sides' actions should be named as "landing" which leads to "Occupation", or "occupation" directly.
 * Such biases are easily visible to outsiders but Wikipedia has become such a political instrument with a single and narrow perspective that it is not even possible to try to improve it.
 * Anyway, as I told before, I do not expect any changes here (both the article and the entire Wikipedia), and it does not matter either. I just wanted to express that it is just sad to see such a big chance like Wikipedia did go to waste in the hands of a bunch of people with a fixed view. I do not think this platform deserves anyone's time. So long. 136.159.213.81 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your bias is even apparent in your analogy, parallelling Turks with Nazis and Greeks with the Allied forces. It’s pretty funny how bald it is, really. Funny and sad. 71.247.20.96 (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)