Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)/Archive 4

How come and Greek army reached Ankara
when according to the editors here was defeated in all battles;;.I mean this article is laughable Bursa,Eskisehir,Afyon Karahisar,Oussak some 700km deep into Asia Minor fell to the Greek army.How did they reach Ankara;;with parachutes;;;Get real people.We don't write propaganda pages here for our self masturbation ,we write about history facts.Black Horseman 10:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

hehe you seem to write your quotes for your own self masturbation. Greece was clearly beaten in all battles based on the overall outcome of the conflict which resulted in the complete removal of all Greek troops (with their English Allied Support) from Turkish soil. It is a shame that after more than 80 years the Greek people are unable to come to terms with this complete and undisputed defeat :) Good Luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.218.94 (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One correction:
 * The Greek Army defeated one time the Turkish Army (see main article):
 * Between 27 June and 20 July 1921, a reinforced Greek army defeated the Turkish troops commanded by Ismet Inönü in a big battle on the line of Afyonkarahisar-Kutahya-Eskisehir occupying the aforementioned strategically important centres.
 * But winnning a battle was not enough, finally they lost the war. Chonanh (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

occupying smyrna or not  you are still a barbarian! :)

Also, here is a map of Turkey for you, http://e-turkey.net/images/maps/turkey_map_political.jpg just in case you have any confusion that Smyrna is now Izmir. Happy Zafer Bayrami :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.218.94 (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Quotefarm-- Greek Massacres of Muslisms
There is no reason to have a bunch of quotes about Greek actions in Yalova, which was pretty minor and only deserves a sentence or two. This section is nothing more than a quote farm, and it needs to be fixed.

I just wonder what can be done against you dear Alexiuscommenus, you again showed up using a different IP..You shouldd havee been banned long ago IMHO..--laertes d 06:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

New edits
These new edits are clear POV pushings and im going to revert them in due time..--laertes d 09:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are just deleting sourced background information. You are clearly pushing a Turkish nationalist POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

There isnt any source for this thing:"In order to prevent further bloodshed, the Greeks felt the need to intervene against the Turkish government", i started to think you might be another Alexius resurection case..what Greek prime minister said in order to justify his expansionist policies already has its place in the article,  but youre  using it as if it is the absolute truth..I hope you really dont expect anyone else except for a greek nationalist to believe that greeks occupied western anatolia for human right reasons? Especially while committing gross human right abuses themselves in the occupied territories..Sigh..--laertes d 13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know both of you have violated the 3RR and I suggest you guys stop. --Vonones 20:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is unfair for Laertes to be deleting sourced material.

You are a nationalist as all of your edits show, and you are simply trying to distort history and whitewash the shameful Turkish crimes during this period.

It is important that readers know that Greeks were an indigenous minority in Western Anatolia, who had lived there for thousands of years while the Turks were still in Turkmenistan and the rest of Central Asia. People need to have a background as to the fact that Greeks haved lived in Smyrna for perpetuity, and that the Greek army went in to protect the minority. This is simply fact.

Obviously it was the case that the Greeks went into Western Anatolia to protect the Greek minority there, which was being butchered due to their Christian religion as the Turks did to Armenians, Assyrians, Lebanese Christians, Greeks, etc. In 1915 the Turks killed 300.000 Greeks in the Smyrna region. This is the reason for the Greek landings, and the statements of the Greek premier show this quite clearly. 85.75.172.58 20:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, you dont have any other source other than the statement of the Greek prime minister, according to a multitude of non-pro turkish historians there wasnt even an organised Turkish unit before the greek invasion, there isnt any source for any of these pov pushing material, like ":"In order to prevent further bloodshed, the Greeks felt the need to intervene against the Turkish government" and you still continue of accusing me of "distorting history".. For instance Arnold j. toynbee, someone without any particular sympathy with Turks, stated that massacres at both sides of turks and Greeks during 1920's, were the direct result of the Greek occupation..but you still try to show it as if Greeks were occupying western anatolia in order to prevent human rights abuses..--laertes d 17:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is important to any reader who is not well acquainted with Greek and Turkish history to understand that Greeks had lived in Asia Minor for millennia, and had been heavily persecuted by the Turks on numerous occassions. A neutral reader cannot understand the root of the conflict without understanding the complex ethnological situation in the region. I see no reason for you to obscure historical facts and delete sourced content. 85.74.124.113 16:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Laertes, the Treaty of Sevres makes it quit clear that the Greek mission was primarily a humanitarian one, with the aim of protecting the Christian inhabitants in the Smyrna region, who had in the past been brutalized by the Turks. The treaty document makes Greek aims quite clear:

ARTICLE 71.

The Greek Government shall be entitled to maintain in the city of Smyrna and the territory defined in Article 66 the military forces required for the maintenance of order and public security.

ARTICLE 72.

A local parliament shall be set up with an electoral system calculated to ensure proportional representation of all sections of the population, including racial, linguistic and religious minorities. Within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty the Greek Government shall submit to the Council of the League of Nations a scheme for an electoral system complying with the above requirements; this scheme shall not come into force until approved by a majority of the Council.

The Greek Government shall be entitled to postpone the elections for so long as may be required for the return of the inhabitants who have been banished or deported by the Turkish authorities, but such postponement shall not exceed a period of one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty.

ARTICLE 73.

The relations between the Greek administration and the local parliament shall be determined by the said administration in accordance with the principles of the Greek Constitution. 85.74.124.113 16:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am asking again tell me which source has any statement as this one: "Despite these claims, Greek Prime Minister Venizelos made it quite clear that Greek intervention was at least in name about protecting human rights, not about religion or nationalism." or this one:"In order to prevent further bloodshed, the Greeks felt the need to intervene against the Turkish government"..Youre imposing a non-sourced greek nationalist point of view into the article, thats the major problem with the new edits..The young Turk government wasnt in power at the time of the greek occupation, what relation does greek invasion has with the policies pursued by that overthwrown government?--laertes d 18:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To repeat myself for you vonones, young Turk government wasnt in power at the time of occupation, thus Young Turk policies are not an explanation for Greek invasion..And do not delete the properly sourced content on your own as you did to "Greek massacres of Turks" section..--laertes d 17:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are, many of the same people involved in Ataturks new regime were the same, just read Taner Akcam. Pretty much every Turkish government has brutalized Christian minorities. No doubt the Greeks killed some Turkish civilians in Yalova, but this does not warrant a whole section as this was not an organized policy, like the Turks butchering Christians, but rather the work of a few overzealous commanders. There do not exist any sources which claim that the orders for these events came from Athens.

Also, stop trying to obscure the fact the Greeks have lived in Anatolia for 3000 years. YOU are the one deleting relevant, sourced information. 87.203.160.163 07:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexius I would prefer that you use your user name instead of these several IP's..The fact that Greeks lived in Anatolia for 3000 years do not give them the reason to invade a territory which wasnt theirs at the time, and to massacre and brutalize the non-greek inhabitants living there..My point remains, there wasnt a Turkish national movement previously of Greek occupation, and the Greek invasion created it as numerous historians put it that way, therefore you cant claim that Greeks occupied to protect local people against the Turkish  national  movement beacause there wasnt such a thing..--laertes d 07:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not Alexius, nor would it affect the validity of my arguments were I anyone other than myself. Perhaps you should deal with your issues of paranoia before arguing further.

"wasnt a Turkish national movement previously of Greek occupation" Of course there was, the Young Turks were a Turkish national movement and they butchered millions of Anatolian Christians. This is why the Greek government felt the need to intervene in Asia Minor in order to protect the majority inhabitants in the Smyrna region, who happened to be Christians.

Let us not forget was a tremendous impact the Armenian Genocide had on Western policymakers-- simply no one in the world trusted the Turks to govern minorities. In hindsight, they were proved correct as the Christians of Western Asia Minor would be expelled in 1922 by the Turks.

Of course the Greeks did not go into Smyrna to protect the local Greeks and Armenians from Ataturk, because as you correctly stated, Ataturk's movement had not began. Rather, the Greeks went in to protect the local inhabitants from vengeful Turks in general, as Anatolian Christian had suffered greatly in the years preceding 1919 and the Greek government was loath to allow more atrocities to occur, whoever was to pereptrate them. 87.203.160.163 09:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, the Greek invasion was not one of humanitarian motives. It was obviously nationalistic and was for the sole purpose of expanding Greek territories to what Greeks see as their ancient homeland. It was a war, and the victors decided whose territory it is, and since the Ottomans were there for 700 years it obviously makes it as much as their homeland as the Greeks. They weren't there protecting minorities, if they were, why were they killing Muslim civilians?

Secondly, stop citing Taner Akcam's work he is not a Turkish historian, and has never had access to Turkish or Ottoman archives, therefore he is no where near qualified to be writing any history on the Ottoman Empire or the Turks. Stop adding quotes or statements that make GREEKS OR TURKS look like some evil race because neither side was evil, if you're adding statements like "These guys were butchering these guys" then you are a propagandist, simple as that. The Christian minorities in Anatolia during this time were not brutalized this is simply nationalistic propaganda, there was no gain in brutalizing citizens of their own nation, and considering the amount of Christian churches in each of those cities that was built before the Ottoman Empire is evidence for that. Arsenic99 05:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

editprotected Administrators, can the following section which was deleted by Laertes be re-addded? It is essential for the background of the article.

The Greek Community in Anatolia
Greeks have lived in Asia Minor since antiquity. Before the outbreak of the First World War, over 2.5 million Greeks lived in Turkey, where they had resided in their homeland since antiquity. In 1915 the Young Turk government enacted genocidal policies against Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Christians. While the Armenian Genocide is the best known of these events, the butchery included many Greeks in Pontus and Western Asia Minor. In order to prevent further bloodshed, the Greeks felt the need to intervene against the Turkish government and its "corrupt, ignominious, and bloody administration" in the words of the Greek Prime Minister, Eleftherios Venizelos.


 * As i already stated sockpuppetry of user alexiuscomnenus, according to numerous non-pro turkish historians Turkish national movement was created by the greek occupation, Greek occupation wasnt the result of protecting the Greeks from Turkish national movement beacuse there wasnt such a thing as Turkish National Movement previously of Greek occupation..From Arnold J. Toynbee: " The occupation of Smyrna by the Greeks in May, 1919, not only created the Turkish National Movement, but was also the immediate cause of the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922" p. 92


 * Taner Akcam citing a British officer: "The National forces were established solely for the purpose of fighting the Greeks...The Turks are willing to remain under the control of any other state...There was not even an organized resistance at the time of the Greek occupation. Yet the Greeks are persisting in their oppression, and they have continued to burn villages, kill Turks and rape and kill women and young girls and throttle to death children".--laertes d 10:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The truth is Greeks occupied western anatolia not for any human right reason but for the sake of expanding their territory, that is the point of view of most of the notable and reliable historians..Only a Greek nationalist would have claimed that  they invaded to protect local people...I dont have any problem with mentioning about the atrocities Turks committed against Greek civilians, as there is a section dealing with these atrocities, but i do have a serious problem when you try to represent the Greek invasion as if it is made for the sake of humanity..Especcially while Greeks were ruthlessly buthchering Turkish civilians  themselves..--laertes d 10:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the information is right or not, but it seems to be disputed. I encourage you to discuss it and find a compromise acceptable to everyone. Then request that the page be unprotected at WP:RFPP.&mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)
You need to add more information and why it is notable enough to even have its own section. Most of the quotes are put in from remarks which is absurd to add. And don't call my edits vandalism see: WP:CIVIL --Vonones 07:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

With pleasure i am going to add more information if thats  the problem..It is certainly notable enough to mention about the massacres, first beacause  these massacres and brutalities were influential for the emergence of the Turkish national movement, second there already is a separate section dealing with the massacres Turks committed..--laertes d 08:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All the section is break downs from quotes you need more general info (that is if there is). --Vonones 08:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You violated 3RR. --Vonones 08:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

you ask me add new things right? Here i added, i can add more if you want..Without any logical reason you simply want massacres against Turks to be not seen, thats the problem here..All the sources ı have used are known to be non-pro turkish..--laertes d 08:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter you can always find references the content is not notable you can add it to other sections but a section of its own is not helpful. --Vonones 08:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

thats nothing but your personal opinion, there is a section dealing with massacres Turks committed and thus there is nothing wrong with having a section about the massacres  committed against Turks..--laertes d 08:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes just because Turks massacred Greeks doesn't mean you get to propagate with Greeks did to Turks. --Vonones 08:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because you guys have nationalistic agendas of displaying how the Greeks massacred Turks or how the Turks massacred Greeks doesn't give you the right to write all that down and create more hate in the world. These are UNRELATED TO THE GRECO-TURKISH WARS.  And since none of you can come up with sourced documents of unbiased historians discussing this, there is no need to add such inflammatory statements. You're not helping anyone except to hate one side.Arsenic99 06:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Having one section within this long article about the large scale massacres Greeks committed against Turks has nothing to do with "propogating" anything..--laertes d 08:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC) I think the quotations may answer your question in regard to how large scale they were..what should one undersand for instance from the wording "general massacre of Mussulmen population"? In any case, i still cant see any reason for not having this section other than your unwillingness to mention about the massacres committed against Turks..--laertes d 08:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Large-scale? can you please provide some references for a large scale or some big numbers? --Vonones 08:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source which confirms your assertion that the relatively few massacres in Yalova, or the intercommunal fighting in Smyrna on the first day of the Greek landing (which incidentally, started when a Turk opened fire on Greek troops) were instrumental in the establishment of the Turkish national movement?

The "general masssacres" was in some little village, and all of the massacres you have mentioned accored in the Yalova pennisula. This is hardly evidence of some large scale policy of Greek murders of Turkish civilians, only of some commanders running amok. In contrast, there were large scale massacres of Greek civilians throughout Asia Minor, and these are recorded by a number of sources. Of course the massacres in Yalova happened, and they should be mentioned, but they do not warrant their own section as they were small scale and isolated. 87.203.160.163 09:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexius use your user name please,  Toynbee states: "they obtained convincing evidence that similar atrocities had been started in wide areas all over the remainder of the Greek occupied territories since June 1921."..It dıdnt seem to me as small isolated acts..--laertes d 09:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The key words are Since June 1921 and this refers to the Greek scorched earth policy. There is already a section for this, why do there need to be two?

Agian I am not Alexius, and again this has nothing to do with anything relevent to what we are discussing. Stay focused on the issue, please.

Aslo, you are over the 3RR 87.203.160.163 09:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Youre definitely Alexius.. and Toynbee states: " The occupation of Smyrna by the Greeks in May, 1919, not only created the Turkish National Movement, but was also the immediate cause of the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922.. " p. 92

Scorched earth policy was what greeks had done after their defeat and that occurred in the summer of 1922, not in 1921..-laertes d 09:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem obsessed with this Alexius fellow :) I will argue no furher with you about my identity, as I know who I am, and regardless it does not affect any of our deliberations.

Immediate causes are different from long term-causes-- the background section needs to address the long term causes of the war in Asia Minor. That is why there needs to be a section on the Greek community in Anatolia.

Please reread the article if you are having trouble with historical dates. The Greek scorched earth policy began after the summer of 1921 and the withdrawal of Greek forces from the river Sangarious-- exactly as was stated in the Tonybee quote, which you so elegantly provided. The article confirms this, for example, the large quote about Greeks burning homes is from February 1922, before your date of summer 1922, but after the battle of Sangarious in 1921. 87.203.160.163 09:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Toynbee is not referring to scorched earth policy but argues that there were organized atrocities since the occupation of Smyrna..I can make a full quotation to that sentence, it is not related with scorched earth policy, and a British officer claims that as Akcam notes: "The National forces were established solely for the purpose of fighting the Greeks..There was not even an organized resistance at the time of the Greek occupation. Yet the Greeks are persisting in their oppression.." And ım totally convinced that youre Alexius...--laertes d 09:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do provide the full quote, as the date of June 1921 to me makes it quite clear that he is referring to the policies enacted after the battle of the Sagarious and the Greek scorched earth policy.

Can you provide me with some specific examples of atrocities committed by the Greek forces before the battle of Saggarious, that would warrant such a large section? 87.203.160.163 09:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Youre such an Alexius that you keep asking the same things, ı would provide the full quotation from Toynbee.. The section now already gives a lot examples about Greek atrocities that were committed before any battle had taken place..--laertes d 09:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The only specifics I see are on the Yalova-Gemlik penninsula-- can you explain to me why the massacres in this region warrant four quite large quote paragraphs? Should I add four enourmous quotes on massacres in Pontus, another four on massacres in Karamanhisar, then another four long enormous quotes on massaces in Ayvali, etc. We have to keep length at a reasonable rate. 87.203.160.163 10:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear sockpuppet of Alexiuscomnenus, they are not the only "specifics"-itself an alexius word by the way-, as you may notice large part of that section also deals with Izmir and other regions, like Ismid or else...Anyway for the massacres Turks committed, the citations of newspaper articles are clearly racist in their tones and pro-Greek and yet i dont say anything meanwhile i cited especially non-pro turkish sources for the Greek masssacres..Therefore please stop vandalizing this section..--laertes d 12:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this alexius owns the English word specifics, this is truly ridiculous behaviour on your part. These quotes are frivolous, and some are in fact forgeries or misattributed. 87.203.160.163 18:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Turkish Quote by American General is a Forgery
Check the source, it is not made there by the General, but rather it is on an attached document attributed to Turkish nationalists. 87.203.160.163 18:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Whilst this comment may be true, it currently is another claim without citation. Could the OP (or another editor) please supply it? Cordially, Drieux 23:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Drieux, the quotation is not a forgery, however, in any case, i had already removed that paragraph belonging to the general`s statements from the article upon the insistence of some users that a quote-farming is taking place..Regards..laertes d 23:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Greek community in anatolia
Im really bored with such editings, i guess it it really impossible to form a neutral article..This section is nothing but POV pushing. The statement by Greek prime minister is used twice as if it is the only and ultimate source regarding the greco turkish war..anny source for this Kekrops?: "In order to prevent further bloodshed, the Greeks felt the need to intervene against the Turkish government"..--laertes d 16:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that that's what the Greeks felt at the time. What's wrong with merely reporting a point of view? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I and major historians dont doubt that greeks felt that it is their opportunity to expand their lands, that was the primary motivation of the war, anything else were mere excuses to realize this scheme..--laertes d 16:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed; the fact that so many Greeks lived there and were being slaughtered by the Turks didn't play in the Greek mind at all. Pull the other one. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Again Kekrops, do Greek prime minister said such thing?: "Greek prime minister Eleftherios Venizelos argued at the time that his government had to intervene against Turkey to prevent further bloodshed." and the same exact source is being used twice, the statement of Greek prime minister to justify his expansionist policies..Young Turk government wanst in power at the time of the occupation, neither there were any organised resistance movement, against what had the greeks intervened to stop further bloodshed? this section is ridiculous, in fact greek invasion caused to the bloodshed by starting the war..--laertes d 08:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And i want a page number for the sources in that section, in fact all this section do belong to the massacres section and has to be incorporated in there, as greek occupation has nothing to do with the events that has taken place under an earlier,overthrown regime..--laertes d 08:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Kekrops, we want a background to the conflict, not a Greek justification for the war. --A.Garnet 09:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem unable to grasp the simple concept that reporting a particular POV is not tantamount to endorsing it. See WP:NPOV if you're still confused. You are welcome to add the opposing view; that's not my job. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

ı will do so with pleasure kekrops, however greek nationalism and greek communith in anatolia has to be separeted..they are two different things..--laertes d 13:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't give a proper background by replacing an allegedly Greek POV with a Turkish one, and that is what happens here. You speak about the Megali Idea and the reinstatement of the Byzantine Empire, I may speak about a sincere effort to implement one of the 13 principles of Wilson. Where is the truth? Isn't it truth the presence of millions of Greeks in the regions the Greek Army occupied? So, if you really want to prove your sincere will to write an accurate backround of the war do it, without trying to replace what you call as POV with a brutal propaganda.--Yannismarou 09:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Brutal propoganda? If talking about the Megali idea is brutal propaganda, then what is trying to relate the Armenian genocide with the Pontians or Asia Minor Greeks in the opening paragraph of the article? The background should contain neither the Greek nor Turkish pov, it should be a factual account of main political events. That includes the Ottoman Empires defeat, its plan for partition and Greece's occupation of Izmir. Now when you start introducing elements such as "Greece has been in Asia Minor since antiquity" and that the Armenian genocide was only the "best known" of the massacres or that Venizelos felt he had to intervene to prevent further bloodshed, you are beginning to frame the article with a distinctly Greek pov. --A.Garnet 10:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course Greece wanted to expand its territory. But it appears some editors would prefer that readers didn't know why. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Garnet, would you care to state your beef explicitly? What exactly are you disputing? That Greeks have lived in Asia Minor since antiquity? That there were 2.5 million of them there a century ago? That hundreds of thousands of Christians were slaughtered by the Turks? Or that the Greeks argued that they had to intervene to protect them? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to remind you yanni, this text is not there for a long time as you claimed it to be when you were reverting garnett's version, it is recently added by another greek pov pusher..--laertes d 13:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem here major works of history do not take into account greek justifications for their expansionist policies...Toynbee said: "Greeks of Pontus and Turks of greek occupied territories were the victims of Mr. Venizelos and Lloyd george"..In fact greek invasion caused to the bloodshed let alone preventingg it..--laertes d 13:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In the version Laertes and Garnet refuse to accept Megali Idea is mentioned, and analyzed as a factor of the war. Unfortunately, what the two gentlemen insist not to accept is the mentioning of events such as the slaughters against minorities, including the Greek one. Being the actual reason or not for the war, these were the arguments of the Greek government, officially presented to the European governments. So, when you insist not to accept the mentioning and inclusion of these historical events, then, yes, you are promoting a propaganda. You can argue the phrasing needs improvements, but you cannot argue that these things (historical facts about the presence of concrete Greek populations in Asia Minor, and the arguments of the Greek government for the Occupation) should go, because you do not like them. After all, the article does not accept the arguments of the Greek government for the Occupation; it just mentions them. Anyway, learn to listen to both sides of a story. That is the science of history from the era of Thucydides until now asks us to do.

And Laertes progroms against minorities had started years before the Greek Occupation of Izmir.--Yannismarou 13:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

discuss it with toynbee, young turk government wasnt in power at the time of invasion, there wasnt even an organissed national unit, thus you cant use is as a reason of occupation..--laertes d 13:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The text in question which you state "has been there for a long time" has been there for two days and was added by an anon which was subsequently removed by Eliminator for being added without consensus. So this makes your argument that I should rewrite it redundant. You should first stop, along with Kekrops, adding further controversial material (or at least placing such material at the top of the article) without consensus. That you tell me it has been there for a long time also tells me you havent looked at this dispute properly but rather rushed to help Kekrops revert. As usual, none of this is the kind of conduct I'd expect from an admin. --A.Garnet 14:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Some Requests
I am not a partisan of either (or any) side in this argument; I am on the side of the article. I am a rather new-caught editor, who has a long-standing interest in the Eastern and Middle Eastern Fronts in World War 1, and the aftermath thereof. Having said that, I would like the following requests from the editors who are presently involved in the above highly heated exchange(s):


 * Observe/abide by the standard requirements for civility, good faith, and neutral point(s) of view. The name-calling, ad hominems and other fallacies, assuming that people aren't who they claim to be/not to be, needs to stop.  I would prefer not see the people who have worked on this article to be involved in the more formal methods of remedy of such situations.  Remember, if you find that you cannot contribute without rancor, take a step back.


 * Some form of neutral editing/writing needs to occur to bring this article back up to its former level of excellence. This area of the world is one of the major cross-roads of both civilisation and history.  A NPOV article is needed to full up the blank, as it were.  From what I have read in the histories of this article, this was it.  I want to see that previous article come back, and have it stay.  Given the demonstrated expertise of the previous authors, there is no reason for the artyic,e to return, and thrive.


 * Applicable citations, in terms of both quality and appropriate amount, are required. Responding to a given cite with simple flaming demonstrates a lack of interest in improving the article by more academic means.  Please don't do that. Find ANOTHER credible citation to use.  This is NOT to imply that quote mining is acceptable, nor is stacking witnesses.  The editors involved here have experience to avoid these problems.


 * Finally, replacing material that has been deleted-- the Soviet material comes to mind-- will also enhance the article.

Please understand that my goal is to repair both this article, as well as to have civility restored here. I loathe rudeness, and have never seen a reason to use it. I hope that, at worst, we can agree to disagree. I'll be happy to help as I can.

Cordially, Drieux 02:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added the 'additional sources' banner just now. Please do not delete without added the citations that are required/requested. --Drieux 04:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Further commentary from the parties prior

 * Hi kekrops, it seems the passage of time doesnt change your old habits of imposing a particular POV..In case you dont remember, see what you wrote back in time some days ago, repying to user Garnett:

'''You seem unable to grasp the simple concept that reporting a particular POV is not tantamount to endorsing it. See WP:NPOV if you're still confused. You are welcome to add the opposing view; that's not my job. ·ΚέκρωΨ'''·

And when the opposing view is added to this section, youre now relocating it to some unrelated part of the article..These editings only make sense when they are presented with the statemnt made by the Greek prime minister, they do represent an opposing view to his claims. Plus they are related with the greek community in anatolia and the content of that section..--laertes d 13:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They are not concomitant. Your passages are historians' general criticisms of Allied (not just Greek) policies, and belong in the wider geopolitical context section. Perhaps you could add a quote from the Sultan to balance out Venizelos? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Kekrops i can add some Turkish sources, presenting the opinion of Turkish nationalist opposing the views of Venizelos. But me thinks that it is best to use third party sources in such debates..I reput only the quotation from Cedric James..It is directly related to both Greek community in anatolia and the arguments of Venizelos about the Greek expansion..--laertes d 16:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I think the views of Turkish nationalists are more appropriate here, i.e. pitting one historical player against another. Otherwise the article will degenerate into a mere collection of block quotes from historians on either side of the divide. Do you really want another Horton quote? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

thats the problem, horton is at the one side of the divide, he is of Pro-greek, but the sources that i have made citation from are not pro- of any side..--laertes d 16:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's debatable when they say it was a war of national liberation for the Turks. That qualifies as pretty blatant POV in my book. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 19:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is quite debatable, many of the areas "liberated" were in fact majority Greek, Armenian or Kurdish. Claiming it was a war of national liberation for anyone is blatant POV-- we could also find quotes claiming that it was a Greek war of national liberation for Greeks in Smyrna. AlexiusComnenus 21:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats why i didnt add toynbe quotation to Greek community section but left it where Kekrops put it..alexius if youre not following the discussion here just let me remind you, quotation from the Greek prime minister is only plausible when an opposing view is presented, balancing the article..So stop changing the form of the article please..And which reliable, non-greek pov source claim that majority was greek? Oh Greek prime minister do that, i guess..--laertes d 08:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the quotation i re-added is not claiming a turkish national liberation struggle but mainly has its arguments contradicting the claims of Greek prime minister..Also note that it is neither pro-turkish or pro-greek as it is a book about the British foreign policy..So it is quite suitable to use in that section..--laertes d 08:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

For the other thing, if you can cite one single academical, neutral source which argues that Greek communtiy in anatolia was the main cause of the war, but not greek nationalism then put the greek community section first alexius..If you cant, please stop insisting in such things..Today there isn`t such thing as greek community in anatolia but there is still a Greek nationalism..Actually in no neutral academical book Greek community is given as a legitimate reason of launching the war.sorry but i have to say the statement of Greek prime minister has no academical value, it can well be considered as mere propaganda material.but still i dont delete that quotation, so i hope you wont delete the countering quotations i made from academical works of history..--laertes d 08:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Kekrops, im sure youre going to tell the reasons of your usual blind reversions..you cant present the statemnt of greek prime minister alone as if it is the ultimate truth..Especially when it is largely criticized and contradicted by a large historical litterature..--laertes d 11:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Take A Step Back
Having read the above entries just above-- which should have been separated from my previous comments-- and the revision history/diffs on the article page proper, I really do wonder if what's wanted is an NPOV entry on this topic. I'd also like to remind all here that 3RR is not the only form of edit war.

I have offered to assist in the task of writing/editing an NPOV article on this topic without getting an admin directly involved in the process. It appears to me that what will be required for this to happen to for all of 'the usual suspects' to simply take a break from actively editing this article. I have a very strong idea-- if only from reading the comments here-- that emotions run high along the Greek/Turk/whatever division. I am willing to assume good faith on all parts, absent that tension. BUT given the history diffs mentioned supra, without a hands-off posture for some period of time, I am not sanguine about being able to help write/edit such an article.

I really do want all of us to have a chance at a GA (or better) quality entry. I am willing (now that I have my grad students settled in to term) to spend some time on doing the work. Certainly, what is here is good research and good writing/editing in the main. My plan is to see what is common ground, and what is controversial. Common ground will be kept as such; the debatable material, if I cannot see a middle ground, will be discussed here prior to my inclusion in the article.

The alternative paths are very less pleasing. Absent cooperation on the above, the next step I can see is an RfC. Beyond that, we have the processes that result in most unpleasant results.

Bottom line: I am very willing to expend the effort/time to get this article back on track. This requires cooperation and communication amongst all parties, including those who only appear as IP addresses. Here is a good place; my talk page also gets read. Make no mistake, however; I will not expend the time and energy on doing this work without the cooperation outlined above. As is usual, silence is construed as consent.

So. Shall we do this?

Cordially, Drieux 02:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestions, and I very much hope the usual suspects on all sides will take the hint. This must be the first time in a long while a competent and probably neutral outside editor has offered to work on this article. This must under no circumstances be obstructed through an atmosphere of continued edit-warring and uncooperative behaviour. If there are further problems, I'd suggest asking some fellow admin to place this article under a special regime of zero tolerance against uncooperative editing (with rules like: 1RR, no reverts without prior discussion, etc.) I just tried this on another national hotspot article and it is now working quite well there, after an initial period of settling in where I had to block six participants in a row for breaking the rules. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that may be a useful way to proceed. Tom Harrison Talk 22:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your comments, and for pointing out the potential means of ensuring getting the attention of others here. I hope that those methods will not be required; the pointers you gave as to to your other 'problem children' were instructive to me, and I hope to others here..  Given the history of this article, I will most likely 'cry Harry' at some point(s), if only as a sanity/objectivity check .  Thanks again!  Drieux 21:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm quite happy to withdraw from these articles if others are willing to enforce policy and stop User:Laertes d from turning them into a hodgepodge of very selective pro-Turkish block quotes, a practice which has exasperated even other Turkish editors. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 08:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I share the dislike of selective blockquotes. Just wish we could do the same elsewhere too, where some of the usual suspects have shown a predilection for them... Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do away with them altogether, I say. But please enlighten us mere mortals: where exactly is "elsewhere", and who are the Usual Suspects? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 08:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ancient Macedonians and Pontic Greek genocide come to mind... Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So what are you waiting for? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Just some info about these selective blockquotes, they are not `selective` in the sense that they do manipulate the sources to say something they dont mean to say, they are just representing the opinions of the writers themselves..Plus the only reason i introduced them was that the opinion of Greek prime minister is being presented as the ultimate truth, therefore to produce an opposing point of view..In fact that was the wish of Kekrops while he was answering to Garnett:'''You seem unable to grasp the simple concept that reporting a particular POV is not tantamount to endorsing it. See WP:NPOV if you're still confused. You are welcome to add the opposing view; that's not my job. ·ΚέκρωΨ''' In its curretn format article unfortenetly simply reports the Greek justification for launching the war in the words of Greek prime minister..
 * Furthermore i have to remind that article was in this format for a long time since the time i made these edits, and at the time i thought it ended the edit warring until now..


 * All quotations are eventually selective since we cant copy the entire books on wikipedia, the point is not to manipulate the sources..--laertes d 09:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One of my principle motivations in offering to help edit this article is alter the course of the article's future by attempting to remove the appearance of tendentious editing exemplified in the interchange between the two editors immediately above. The only way that I have figured out to get this sorted is outlined above.  Certainly, seeing that the edit/revert cycle is continuing less than 24 hours after my request does NOT make me hopeful as to my receiving the  break I feel is required to get this done.  Cordially,  Drieux 20:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay youre right, i removed personal comments..--laertes d 21:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've asked another admin to have a look here. If people won't stop edit-warring on their own accord, maybe it will have to be enforced somehow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually this time there wasnt really much a revert warring, Alexius simply made one of his usual unexplained reversions of sourced content with one of his numerous IPs and then come back to add that it was his IP who is making the edit ..It seems the situation is more or less okay now, i am willing to collaborate and as i said third party contribution is necessary for this article to have some form of balance..In case you didnt notice future my last edit wasnt a reversion, i just added a single missing word to already existing citation..--laertes d 21:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not been that involved in this article, but I have occasionally intervened to revert what I thought was ugly pov. Yet I recognise this is happening from both sides, that is why I am perfectly willing for third party editors to intervene here and help rewrite from top to bottom. As I've said to Drieux, I think the main focus should first be on resolving the large and ugly massacres section which is basically the result of an edit war between Alexius, Kekrops and Laertes. Perhaps once we can all come to an agreement how to cover these atrocities, we can move on to creating a good narrative for this important conflict. --A.Garnet 11:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A reminder on reverting
Help:Reverting reads (bold emphasis not mine):
 * Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
 * Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Assume good faith.
 * Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
 * There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Neutral point of view/FAQ
 * Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

Cordially, Drieux 04:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for new edits
Hi drieux, upon your writings above, what do you think adding such materials to the article since the opinion of Greek prime minister who initiated the war can be used..Some citations from one of the few books which are written exclusively for this war..It is based on the Greek and European sources without much contribution from the Turkish ones..

''Nevertheless the whole attitude of the Peace conference towards Turkey was so harsh that right had now  changed sides. Justice, that eternal fugitive from the councils of the conquerors, had gone over to the opposite camp..''

Winston Churchill, The World Crisis, The aftermath, p. 368

or this

The occupation of Smyrna I cannot understand to this day how the eminent statesmen in Paris, Wilson, Lloyd George, Clemenceau and Venizelos...could have been betrayed into so rash and a fatal step

Churchill, p. 369

And that is a letter from Venizelos to Greek King Constantine dating the January 1915.. That shows he already had his plans for a future annexation of territories from Turkey, much earlier than the massacres towards minorities had taken place and his statment to British newspaper about the war aim of greece..--laertes d 10:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall that this topic has been part of the on-going reversion cycle. I have no feeling as towards inclusion or exclusion of it as it is still too early in my decision process w.r.t. my editing of this article.   The real question (to me) still remains is:  are you and the other editors willing to take your hands off the keyboard to allow me try and salvage everyone's work?  cordially,  Drieux 20:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It is still useful to show what the official Greek war aims were, from official government statements. To illustrate this, would you consider deleting information about WMDs in an article about the build up to the Iraq War? AlexiusComnenus 10:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As mentioned immediately above, we still need to understand whether or not you and the other editors wish me to help this article by taking hands from keyboard and allowing me to edit it. Making suggestions about material to include or exclude is, to me, still quite premature.  So, then:  Yes or no?  Cordially,  Drieux 20:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Im not saying lets not use it, problem emerged when you two have removed the quotations from academical works of history which contradicts the statements of Greek prime minister..Until then the quotation was already there, and i didnt delete it..Plus, im also strongly against putting the greek community just at the beginning, since we`re supposed to talk about the issues which led to the war, not about Greek justifications for the war..Greek community is a justification not a reason of occupation..We have to put geopolitical context and greek nationalsim sections before that greek community section in the article..--laertes d 10:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I made some editings in the article, i am open for suggestions, for any kind of rewording or shortening of the blockquotes..About the Greek community in Anatolia section, ı have to say that thıs article is not about the Greek communıty in anatolia but how the existence of this community affected the war..So please dont remove or put elsewhere citations about this community..I also changed the name from "Background" to "reasons for the war" since it now suits more to the content of the section..Sorry drieux ı could not keep my hands off for this time but i think they are notable citations from serious works of history, thus they deserve a place..--laertes d 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the new quote-- I'll look over the paragraphs you added though tomorrow or the next day and try to make them more NPOV. I don't have the time tonight to do it. AlexiusComnenus 20:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate the blockquote though, even though it is relevant information. Can we just integrate it into the text? AlexiusComnenus 20:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Alexius, please don try anything new or supposedly NPOV, so far nothing you have done created anything similar to NPOV but only caused further disputes..What i am suggesting is that you take off your hands from this article, but only present your sources for third party people to make the necessary editings..I will do the same..--laertes d 20:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't read your suggestion until I had already made the changes... but it sounds fair.

Still, I stand by the current version of the section "Greek Community in Anatolia," I think that it is quite balanced. AlexiusComnenus 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk page archive 3 created
As this page was getting to be too large to easily track items upon-- at least to me-- I created the newest archive. Just have a look at the archive for the collected comments and suggestions for inclusion/exclusion in the current edit of the article, and bring them back to the current talk page. Please do so thoughtfully. Cordially, Drieux 00:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Blockquotes
Can we paraphrase a lot of the blockquotes, or work them into the text?

I think that they just make the article look ugly and should be integrated into the text. AlexiusComnenus 16:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure beginning with the statement of greek prime minister, i hope..--laertes d 23:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Can one single sane person tell me that these two statements are even remotely close to each other:

thats is the original quotation: "For Greek claims were at best debatable, perhaps a bare majority, more likely a large minority in the Smyrna Vilayet, which lay in an overwhelmingly Turkish Anatolia

and this one Alexius created: Thus the Greeks constituted a possible majority in the Smyrna area, and were a significant minority in Anatolia, where the majority population was Turkish.

Youre completely changing what the sources are saying Alexius..--laertes d 00:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is part and parcel of my target-version to remove most-- if not all-- of the large quotations and replace them with cited paraphrase(s). If you (the collective 'you') have never read a refereed/peer reviewed paper in the history or other humanities areas, I highly reccomend that you do so as a model of what I have in mind for this article's rewrite.  My own publications, being in the sciences, have other criteria to meet.  However, the overall notion is that-- given an objective authour/editor-- the only reason to include lengthy quotations is to use one or more as a means of setting context or establishing that authour's (the one being quoted)  point of view.  Clear?


 * I remind those reading this page that I haven't gotten any actual commitment to the break that I have requested, and the two members of the Arbcom (who were most gracious in offering their help) have pretty much required. I especially note that the 1RR mode of revision/reversion control is in effect for this article.  Please be aware that blocks for this are on the same order as they would be for any multiple offender of the 3RR policy.


 * Finally, I would request that the collective you resist the temptation to 'shop for a favourable answer'. This is the behaviour of asking different people, usually in academic authourity, until the person asking gets the answer that they want.  This, along with plagiarism, is the fastest route possible to a failing mark in any of my classes.  In this project, I simply find it to be both saddening, and not a little disgusting. Cordially (still assuming good faith) Drieux 05:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Drieux is right, of course. As for the summarised piece picked out above by Laertes, it just demonstrates that summarising needs to be done with care too. I have to agree with him that Alexius' summary is misleading. It should be made clear that we are citing a source that is explicitly criticising the Greek government for making exaggerated claims about Greek population; otherwise there's really not much point in quoting it. But the whole paragraph is very poor anyway, it should be completely rewritten. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Progress summary
I have it in mind to use this section to give an indication as to my progress on the rewite/re-edit of this topic. Please use another headin g to indicate what inclusions/exclusions you'd like to see, and please include the rationale for your position. I have baselined the version of this article as of 30-SEPT-07, and will be monitoring this talk page for your input. Please do NOT edit the article! The impression I have of the revised rules as stated by Moreschi and Fut. Perf. is that 1 (one) revert cycle per day is borderline acceptable, any more will be courting a substantial block. So please think over what you want (or don't) to see in the rev. 2.0 of the article. Please note that my internet provider is having problems, and my presence or absence online is thus not always my choice. Cordially, Drieux 06:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

More comments from parties prior
Oooops, sorry I rewrote the Greek Community in Anatolia section before I saw that you did not want anyone editing the article. I didn't change much, I just got ride of the blockquotes and reorganized a few things.

I think that the new version is better, check it out. AlexiusComnenus 09:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You told the exact same thing for your previous edit alexius: Sorry I didn't read your suggestion until I had already made the changes... At least use the same excuse for only once to make it a bit believable..


 * Isnt that alexius violating pre-established 1RR now?--laertes d 10:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, because I didn't revert anything the changes were quite different check out the versions... and it was over two days. AlexiusComnenus 11:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Laertes, why did you delete the following sentences:

"The Young Turk government, which had perpetrated many of the atrocities during the First World War, was not in power at that time since their leaders fled the country with the end of World War I. Following the surrender of the Ottoman Empire following the first world war, that the Ottoman government in Constantinople was under Allied administration. Openly, the Venizelist Greek government claimed that intervention in Anatolia was due to a desire to protect the Greek and other Christian minorities from being brutalized."

Because it was poor writing, and it says nothing different or adds nothing to the section..--laertes d 19:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you dispute any of these facts? I find the sentences above to be quite vital in setting a background for the events which led to the war.

I also find this statement which you added to be completely POV: "However, the fact that the Young Turk government was not in power at that time since their leaders fled the country with the end of World War I and that the Ottoman government in Istanbul was under British control does not support the statements of Greek prime minister."

It does not support the statements of the Greek Prime Minister? According to who? Which statements. Venizelos spoke of the Ottoman administration as a whole, which, at least in his opinion and according to his statements, bad been brutal for centuries. He did not directly reference the Young Turks. Whether or not the fact that the Young Turks were out of power does not support or condemn hist statements. Of course we should state the the perpetrators of the brutal 1915 massacres were out of power, but to present it in the light of supporting or negating statements is nothing more than presenting a POV.

Why to refer then to the massacres commmitted under the rule of Young Turk regime in this period as the opening sentence of this article? Plus, against which Ottomam government Venizelos was planning to fight, since it ceased to exist with the end of WW I..--laertes d 19:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also I doubt the accuracy of this statement: "The Greek claims based upon the argument that Greeks were constituting the majority in large parts of the Anatolia were contested by a number of historians."

Can you tell me where Greeks claimed that they were the majority in large parts of Anatolia? Greeks were only in the majority in some coastal areas, everybody knew that Greeks were a minority in Anatolia, and I have no seen any sources which made me believe that Greeks were ever claiming to be the majority in "large parts of Anatolia."


 * Venizelos claimed right in large parts of Turkey, that includes virtually entire coastal regions, and some inner lands in the western anatolia..But okay lets change it to `occupied areas` instead of using the word `large`..--laertes d 19:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I will refrain from making any changes until after we have discussed, but I would like to re-add the sentences you deleted, and delete or modify the sentences I mentioned. Could you present me with reasons as to why I should not re-add those sentences, and could you present modifications of those sentences which would be mutually agreeable?


 * I would say lets wait for Drieux to rewrite the article..--laertes d 20:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

AlexiusComnenus 14:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Laertes, would you please discuss things with me rather than arbitrarily reverting all of my edits.

I want to make two points:

1) The words "opponents of the Greek argument" are clearly weasel words. Who are these opponents-- you? The sentence clearly needs to be rephrased.

2) Please explain to me why the latter Venizelos quote should be in the section on the Greek Community in Anatolia rather than the Greek Nationalism section. Clearly, Venizelos is talking about Greek territorial expansion and strengthening the Greek state-- the Megali Idea-- which is Greek nationalism and not about Greek minorities. AlexiusComnenus 14:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Greek nationalism is not the phenomena of one single person, it is not about a letter sent to greek king by Venizelos.. However that quote is added in relation with the statements of Greek prime minister Venizelos in 1920, and that fits best to this section.Greek nationalism has to include information about the greek nationalism as a concept.. `Opponents` was a word added by Kekrops not by me, but greek claims had many opponents as you can notice, like Cedric James, Arnold J. Toynbee or else, so there is nothing wrong to say` opponents of greek arguments`..
 * Anyway could you please stop editing this article, you dont make this article NPOV at all, and you often edit very poorly, these repetitive sentences were a catastrophe..Just let the article as it is, i am also not liking the current situation of the article, i strongly think that Geopoliticcal context and Greek nationalism has to be given priority over Greek community as the causes of war but im not changing it. Just let drieux make his rewriting of this article..--laertes d 18:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

New rules for this article
We have people willing to contribute productively here to a controversial topic (and, quite frankly, the amount of silliness reflected in the protection log is ridiculous), but they are being deterred by edit warring.

This is situation is not acceptable, so we're going to try out some new rules for this article. The edit warriors on this page forfeited the right to gentleness quite some time ago, and no one really wants an arbitration case, methinks. As I and others have done in the past, at Liancourt Rocks and Islam (for example), the usual rules are going to be tightened up.


 * Any single-purpose accounts/IPs that turn up here on their first edit, make a revert or contentious edit, and then walk off, will be blocked.
 * Uncooperative editing is not permitted. Do not make an edit that you know will be reverted. "Uncooperative" means: any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance in such a way that a reasonable outside observer must know in advance it will be unacceptable to the other side.
 * Instant reverting without discussion will not be permitted either. If you simply have to revert, please wait until the issue at hand has been fully discussed on this talk page.
 * Edit summaries.All edits must be accompanied by precise, informative edit summaries. These must clearly indicate if an edit contains something potentially contentious. In particular, all reverts (complete or partial) must be clearly marked as such.
 * Really blatant POV which obviously violates NPOV by simply declaring either side of the dispute right and the other wrong, may be treated like vandalism and reverted.
 * Incivility on this talk page, or in edit summaries, will not be tolerated, and will be punished heavily by block.
 * Anyone who violates 1RR within a 24 hour period will be blocked.

Violation of the above conditions will be rewarded by block, and savagely so, until the message sinks in. Fortunately, everyone seems a bit more inclined to edit constructively, so this should not be necessary. We'll keep these rules in place for a month, I think, at least to begin with. Please let users who want to edit well and are not fans of edit wars, do so. Thank you. Moreschi Talk 22:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Kapur" :
 * Kapur, H. Soviet Russia and Asia, 1917-1927
 * Kapur, H Soviet Russia and Asia, 1917-1927

PLEASE do not go hot headed again and revert all my effort No1
All I did is to reedit the order of the paragraphs which was very haphazard and not in chronology, I also improved some structural problems and logical jumps. I also changed a couple of bad English. (What the F..K is "ouster???) PLEASE KEEP THE STRUCTURE or comment on your disagreement

'''1-Background

'''2-MILITARY OPERATIONS AND CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS (DO NOT MIX DATE ORDER)  3-OUTCOME-RESOLUTION-DISCUSSION OF WHY IT ENDED THIS WAY  4-ALL THE HOT ISSUES ABOUT ATROCITIES ETC KEEP AT THE END, DO NOT INCLUDE IN THE EVENTS AND MAKE IT HARD TO READ Deadjune1 (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

--- Ouster noun 1. expulsion or removal from a place or position occupied

Maybe you shouldn't be the one to change "a couple bad English."

PLEASE do not go hot headed again and revert all my effort NO2
Same again, i did not touch any of the controversial bits, I just hated the way the article was hard to read by someone that his first language is English and has NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE EVENTS,

All you guy's seem to forget what is the purppose of an Encyclopedia, is not a fight of "I have 12 references that support my POV you only have 11 for your POV, I win, nah-nah-nah, I am better..." RELAXXXXXXXXXX Deadjune1 (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened between December and August??????
I agree with other well informed comments. obviously the advance was result of some winning on the Greek side! There was a major battle in the line Eskishejir-Afyonkarahisar in June-July that is not even mentioned. Can someone write something for the advance December 1920 to August 1921? Is ridiculous to give the impression that the Greek Army was advancing for a whole year being constantly defeated! Even an ignorant can understand there is something wrong in this article.

Significant edit, please read
I am quite certain this paragraph has caused heated discussions in the past, but encouraged by the balance established, I decided to expand the section on causes of the outcome, the reason being the older version was a bit poor in modern historiographical terms. Eg we cannot say that the entente just left Greece on their own because of the return of Konstantine, this sounds like a 1930s argument!

Please note that I kept the essence of the consensus version that remained around for a year now. The essence of causes are in both versions

'''1-GREECE LOSING SUPPORT AFTER 1920  2-KEMAL GAINING SUPPORT AFTER 1920  3-MORALE AND MOTIVES SWINGING IN FAVOUR OF TURKS  4-TURKISH STRATEGICAL ADVANTAGES (either due to reality or talent, both documented)  5-GREEK STRATEGIC DISADVANTAGES (either due to reality or errors/incompetence, both documented) '''

Please discuss HERE if you want to change-add, but be critical, not passionate. Do not revert without discussion, if you bother to read, is a change in form and little expansion, not change in the essence. I hope you agree with this as a core for further improvement, IS NOT PERFECT, just a start. Feel free to comment constructively. I know that a common way of non-constructively ruining my small contribution is to fill it with 'citation needed', but come on, help, don't fight the article.Deadjune1 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Venizelism movement?
This section is entirely irrelevant to its title, as it barely mentions anything about Venizelos and his politics, focusing instead on King Constantine... Cplakidas (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, The National Schism was important background (and major factor for the final defeat) NOT Venizelism CORRECTED TITLE, PLEASE COMMENT Also content needs improvement, take example from the very well written National Schism article. Deadjune1 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

National Schism request for re-edit
Can someone re-write in the background the political situation in Greece due to the Venizelos-King split. Is not very good now. The full article is well written, I might have to steal stuff from there if nobody re-writes this the next one week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadjune1 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the Greeks and Turks are on holiday
I did some work to improve this article from the point of view of someone that knows nothing and wants to know what this war was all about. Then I had a look in the archives of talk and I freaked. I wonder how come nobody so far has not automatically reverted my edits, there is long history in this article of any attempt of NPOV to be massacred. Apparently the Greco-Turkish combatants are on holiday. Good time to improve this one! (sorry I know this is not a forum but I could not help it, hehe) Deadjune1 (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously now: This is a relatively unbiased article, and keep the way it is

This article is relatively neutral and please do not try to change by putting controversial stuff. I have been monitoring the previous Greco-Turkish editing wars in various articles and you will freak out with the level of atrocities perpetrated from both sides (permit me the pun) This is actually as good as it gets for a hot potato.Deadjune1 (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Significant expansion
I expanded a bit the Afyon battle section, please make constructive comments, I am not an expert on the topic, but I searched some secondary sources. In my undertanding this period was THE defining moment of the whole war, the Turks like to obscure their defeat then, but in reality this defeat helped them win overall, because the Greeks became emotional and instead of organising defence to keep what they had conquered/liberated, they continued the offensive with the irrational ratio of chances 50:50 (something like all or nothing logic). Deadjune1 (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Before any edits
Sorry for writing on top, the rule is still to write below older comments, stick to chronology, it makes it easier to read.

One thing to bare in mind, this article is still of average quality, but has a LONG history of stupidity, abuse, nationalism and POV pushing, believe me this is perfect compared to the past. BEFORE you complain or change anything, take some time to read the archived talk pages to see what points of controversy existed in the past.Deadjune1 (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

ARCHIVE page 4 now available
I archived last years comments, butr I kept the rules list because I think they should be always visible for potential editors. All of them are very reasonable, please stick to them. Deadjune1 (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Major clean up and edit
Work in progress, please contribute. Please note that NOTHING was deleted, they just moved around under paragraphs that correspond more to the content. Do not go around shouting that I removed anything, this was an improvement of style with minor additions. I made the background section a bit more readable without changing the established balance. Before it was quite ugly structure The one side says-the other side says, which is not in the style of Wikipedia. Also I made a clearer seperation beetween Claims for protection of Greek Community and Megali Idea, which are related but if you wanna keep them under different headings, please avoid duplication and the overlap in their content. Comments welcome, DO NOT REVERT. Deadjune1 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Army size
Any neutral source?I know that in 1921 Greek army reached it's maximum size of nearly 200,000 personnel (fighting,logistical,stationed).Obviously the Turkish army as the conflict grew could attract big numbers from the population and after 1920 could acquire guns from deals with France, Italy and USSR.Can someone help find some neutral sources about the army size of both combatants throughout the 3 years of conflict? Eagle of Pontus (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The turkish army had generally smaller numbers than the greek, but lesser needs as well. On the greek side huge quantities of manpower were needed to support the campaign. In 1922 the total size of the turkish western front (fighting the greeks) was 113,810 men of which 93,940 were combatant. The greek army (the front units) had 161,291 men, of which 85,000 were combatant. The difference comes from the fact that the turkish army did not cout the logistical units as military personnel. Every turkish division had some 7,500 men, while a greek some 11,000 men. Both had however similar actual strentgh, because the greek divisions included many non-combatant units, such as at least 3,000 transport mules and their guides (every mule had one).--Xristar (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Other suggestions -response
I agree that the occupation paragraph is badly written, but it is a controversial paragraph and any changes should be well thought through, please contribute and put your comments about any changes. Could I dare to make it "some parts of the Turkish population" which reflects the fact that a significant part could not care less who had the power, nationalism was not so fiery in all, especially among the lower education-economic strata, but I might be wrong... Deadjune1 (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)