Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)/Archive 6

Copyright Violation
This article reads:
 * "As Greek troops advanced to the barracks, where the Ottoman commander Ali Nadir Pasha has been ordered to offer no resistance, a Turk in the crowd fired a shot, killing the Greek standard-bearer.[37] Greek troops started firing both at the barracks and the government buildings. Between 300 to 400 Turks were killed or wounded, against 100 Greeks, two of whom were soldiers, on the first day."
 * Mango, Ataturk reads (copy and pasted words in bold): "As Greek troops advanced to the barracks, where the Ottoman commander Ali Nadir Pasha had been ordered to offer no resistance, a Turk in the crowd fired a shot, killing the Greek standard bearer. Greek troops panicked and started firing both at the barracks and the government buildings...During the first day, 300 to 400 Turks were killed or wounded, against 100 Greeks, two of whom were soldiers."
 * I hope a conscientious editor with the appropriate background knowledge about this war will fix the section and scan for other potential violations. Thank you.  AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Smaller changes made; change to newspaper quote pgraph proposed
OK, I’m neither Turkish nor Greek, so I thought I’d tackle some things here.

The verb “argued” is not appropriate to the findings of independent fact-finding bodies because it connotes an attempt to support an opinion. Changed to “found”.

Deleted “In another case of atrocity” to avoid editorializing. “Atrocity” is an opinion; the rewrite lets the facts speak for themselves (better writing, as well as Wikipedia policy).

So far just nibbled around the edges. The biggest problem here is pgraph that starts “There were also several contemporaneous Western newspaper articles ...”. These sources may be contemporaneous, but they are far from authoritative. In fact, many of them sound like yellow journalism at its worst. There were surely tens of thousands of newspapers in the English-speaking world of the day, many of them with unabashed axes to grind and some not above making sensationalist things up out of whole cloth. With such a large sample to choose from, I’m sure one could find half a dozen saying that the moon is made of green cheese. The rationale given in the Christian Science Monitor quote is so absurd, and so absurdly bigoted, as to beggar the imagination; so why would one turn around and trust this article as a source of facts?

I’d suggest either deleting the pgraph entirely or: Gould363 (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * pruning it to keep at most 2 or 3 quotes
 * confining it to highly respected ‘papers of record’ -- the only only I see so far that I know to be in that category is the Times of London. (The Christian Science Monitor in later years enjoyed an excellent reputation, but one look at the quotes suffices to nix it here.)
 * recasting the context to explicitly distinguish between “contemporaneous reports” and “facts” -- eg, start out by stating a rationale for why it might be illuminating to look at contemporaneous newspaper reports.

Territiorial changes in infobox
There has been a heated dispute concerning the "Territorial changes" in the infobox. Could we just discuss the disputed sentence calmly? It has three elements:

1. The first part concerns what land we are talking about. One suggestion is "Lands occupied by Greece", the other is "Lands initially ceded to Greece from the Ottoman Empire". The first one is without doubt true. The second one is also true, but it has two problems. The first problem is that the ceding of the area never was ratified. This may not exclude the sentence, since a treaty with the Ottoman Empire had been agreed. The other problem is that the Treaty of Sèvres was signed more than one year after the Greek landing at Smyrna, and I think that gives the second sentence a bias that excludes it. What I feel the first sentence needs, however, is some kind of qualification to show the reader seeking information that this was not merely a military occupation, but also an attempt to create a civil administration in the Smyrna Zone (initially agreed to by the great powers). My suggestion is therefore "Lands occupied and administrated by Greece".

2. The second part is about what happened to the land: "recovered by" as opposed to "annexed to". I find "recovered" completely unacceptable. Firstly, it assumes that what the Ottoman Empire lost, the Turkish Republic could "recover", indicating that modern Turkey is a continuation of the Ottoman Empire. And secondly, it makes one think about other earlier Ottoman areas that have not been recovered (yet?). There is nothing wrong with "annexed", but it gives the impression that there existed a state it could be annexed to, while the reality is that this actually was part of the creation prosess of the modern Turkish state. I suggest "incorporated into" as a more exact phrase.

3. The last part is to which country the land was ceded, "Turkey" or "the Republic of Turkey". Both are of course valid, but in this context it seems appropriate to be precise, not least because Turkey also could be used about the Ottoman Empire, causing possible confusion for the reader seeking information.

My suggested sentence is thus: "Lands occupied and administrated by Greece incorporated into the Republic of Turkey." Regards! --79.160.40.10 (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(IT WAS NEVER RATIFIED BY THE PARTIES THAT SIGNED IT, INCLUDING GREECE. HOW MANY TIMES MORE DO YOU NEED TO BE EXPLAINED? TREATIES NEED TO BE RATIFIED TO BECOME VALID and BINDING. ALL THE SOURCES INFORM US THAT SEVRES WAS NOT RATIFIED. SIMPLY WRITE "SEVRES TREATY NOT RATIFIED" IN A SEARCH BOX AND YOU WILL FIND MANY SOURCES. THAT TEXT WAS DEFUNCT; TREATY DEAD-BORN. SORRY, WE CANNOT CHANGE HISTORIC FACTS TO YOUR LIKING! ALSO SORRY FOR WRITING WITHIN YOUR OWN TALK AND IN CAPITAL LETTERS; HOPING THIS TIME YOU READ AND UNDERSTAND, FOR THE SAKE OF WIKIPEDIA COLLABORATION. THANKS.) --E4024 (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It was never ratified by whom? Nevertheless the edit summary doesn't mention the treaties stuff. Also your version doesn't mention the Ottoman Empire at all, something that makes it highly problematic.Alexikoua (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that the use of the word "occupied" is problematic when it refers to a territory where Greeks were a majority. Athenean (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The extraordinary claim that the Treaty wasn't ratified is irrelevant here, Ottoman Empire as a political entity, diferrent of R. of Turkey should be added. No wonder there is still no argument on that removal.Alexikoua (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been away for a while, but am now back and would like to bring a couple of comments:


 * @Athenian: I cannot believe that you really mean that the term "occupied" is problematic. The relevant heading inside the article is "Occupation of Smyrna (May 1919)" and there is a link to the main article "Occupation of Smyrna". I completely agree, however, that using the term "occupied" alone is problematic. (BTW: The fact that the Greeks were a majority, is, of course, not relevant. Think Northern Cyprus 1974!)


 * @E4024: As Alexikoua has pointed out, the non-ratification is not relevant, as long as the treaty was a political reality at the time. (Also: I have seen that you other places have commented on shouting. This must be screaming, at least. Please lower your voice.)


 * @All: Regarding the first part of the sentence: Ideally, both the occupation and the ceding (in that order) should be mentioned as the "before"-situation. I have, however, not managed to put both of them into one sentence without making it too complicated. Unless someone can manage that, we seem to have to choose between the two. In that case, I have concluded that I accept the "ceded to" as the more central "before"-situation. But I still hope someone can manage to combine it with "occupied".


 * Last point: I am still hoping for comments on my suggestion of using "incorporated into" instead of "annexed to" (for arguments, see above). Regards! 79.160.40.10 (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Small change made and proposed change
The part on population exchange was referring to Greeks in Turkey and Muslims in Greece - not sure why refer to ethnicity only for one group and religion only for the other; so referred to both and made it more clear.

According to the individual article on population exchange, most of the people emigrated prior to the treaty, and the treaty only formalised what was already happening. This section does not read like that though and gives the impression a whole 1.5m people were uprooted due to the treaty. Would be better to express this so it doesn't; however since I am a newbie on this page will not make a bigger change like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.237.124 (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Turkish casualties
The numbers given in the table as Turkish military casualties are a gross understatement. Even if one adds the individual battles' of 1921-1922 totals as found in the relevant wikipedia articles the sums are greater. And those numbers and not particularly reliable either. They also exclude the battles of 1919 and 1920 which are included in the Greek total, and the fighting with irregular bands. Most obviously, there were thousands upon thousands of missing, either deserters or many of them dead collected and buried by the Greek army, while the Greek side also held about 20,000 prisoners (IIRC) at the end of the conflict which were exchanged with the ones held by Turkey.--Xristar (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC) More casualty numbers were added. Between 1919-20 there were no large battles, but small clashes, ambushes, raids,.. so casualties were lower during these years. By the way, western works, which I have read, give higher total casualty figures, much higher as the ~101,000, for the Greek army, contrary to the official historiography.187.185.71.90 (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Real History
There is a mistake about Greek regression. A coup happened in Greece then they returned their homeland. After 2 days scout group of Turkish Army has arrived to İzmir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruhsuz (talk • contribs) 07:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Western Front and "Genocides"
Greetings. Since the massacres of Greeks and Armenians throughout the Greco-Turkish War, or the Western Front of Turkish War of Independence, can only be related to especial events that have already occurred during the conflict - within the conflict, I find such endeavors aspiring to merge the controversial events that have taken place prior to the war and in irrelevant locations compared with Western Anatolia such as the reciprocal massacres betwwen the peoples of Anatolia during WW1 and in different locations with the Western Front of the War extremely malevolent and wherefore briefly disgusting. The policies of Ittihat ve Terakki party towards Armenians and the "brutal" oppression of Pontic Greek Rebellion is an entirely other subject of discussion and therefore has nothing to do with the topic of this very article. It's not any different from involving the atrocities committed against Turks during and after the Greek War of Independence in the Greek massacres of Turks section. Besides, we already have two gigantic articles concerning 'genocides'. Please, let us be more objective on such sensitive and controversial issues. I hope I made myself clear. :)

Secondly, just to clarify, the part of sentence "A Turkish governor, Ebubekir Hazim Tepeyran of the Sivas province, said in 1919 that the massacres were so horrible that he could not bear to report them. He referred to the atrocities committed against Greeks in the Black Sea region (...)" that refers to the Tepeyran is simply incorrect. Tepeyran became the governor of Sivas after the Kocgiri Rebellion - which occurred in 1921 - and for three months. In fact, he was a Minister of the Ottoman Government in 1919, the year author suggests that he was the governor of Sivas. Likewise, the comment of disgust he made was about the Kocgiri Rebellion, not the Pontic one. The rest is - unfortunately - true, but again, has nothing to do with the time and place. Another article explaining the especial subject very broadly yet again subjectively already exists.

Thirdly, you cannot simply quote every single reference you use - there is a reason why the references are packed at the bottom - especially if the references are as extremely biased as the Western newspapers of the time accusing an enemy nation with anything they could find, which is exactly what they are. Again, if Wikipedia's policies accept these racist citations as proper references, then I have no problem with that - they could stay, but the waste of space should be recovered anyway.

Lastly, I'm bored so I'm gonna go quickly :)), 1) lynchers of the archbishop is as unclear as the borderline of the known universe, there is no eye-witness or anything it seriously needs evidence. 2) the population exchange is irrelevant, especially since it involved both Turks and Greeks, GOD, was the author high, IDK, NOTHING to do with massacres done by either side, I mean, god.

I am leaving the article as what it is for now, but I would really appreciate a response, so that we could think of improving the article later. Peace. Batuhan Erdoğan (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

To Batuhan Erdogan: By not having Greeks or Turks writing it. It's a paradox; they know best what happened, but they're too impassioned by nationalism and religion to write a good article. It'd be best if robots wrote the article. As it is any discussion here is just maddening. Did both sides commit atrocities? Of course, they were humans. I feel bad for someone like yourself trying to get to the truth. Good luck, brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.173.0.16 (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(Circassian) Ethem Bey never fought for the Greeks. Should not be under Greek commanders... (Turkish war-time propaganda spilling to international wikipedia?)
Ethem Bey never fought with the Greeks. He in fact played a vital role in Turkish War of Independence from the start; stopping Greek advance around Salihli early on and putting down almost every major rebellion against the government in Ankara throughout Anatolia.

His name was change to "Cherkess" Ethem after Ismet Inonu's suggestion. Presumably to put down and embarrass the Circassian minority in nationalist Turkey (see Turkification on wikipedia) of post-1922. He was known as Ethem Bey during the period of 1911-1921.

Ethem Bey was an extremely important leader early on in the war of independence later on he was extremely popular with the people. Soon he was seen as a threat, a rival, and the once close relations between him and the government of Ankara started breaking apart.

The lie here is that he turned against the Turkish army and fought against them with Greek forces (complete fabrication; the grand total of evidence on this is "0" ). What happened after the Ankara government turned against him and sent 2 divisions (13000) men against him (he only had a force of 2000 militia at this point) was much more different.

He disbanded his army, offered them 3 choices;

1: Join Ankara's forces. 2: Return to their homes. 3: Go to the hills and act as they like.

Ethem Bey asked "right of passage" from the Greek command (quite different than surrender or an alliance offer as the Turkish propaganda says). From Greece he moved to Germany for treatment for his wartime injuries. Lived in Jordan and always rejected any offer of pardon and return to homeland by the Turkish government. He asked to be judged in a military court if he returned. He received no reply. \

Until a new evidence comes up that he fought with the Greeks against the Turks (which is about as likely as a new evidence coming up and suggesting; Mustafa Kemal Pasha fought with the Greek army), I suggest that he be removed from "the Greek Commanders" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.35.186 (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Disinformation of the nationalists
Today I saw a number saying that more than 200.000 Greek civilians dead during the war. The war continued in Anatolia. And in Anatolia there were even not more than 50.000 Greek people. Do not put no-scientific fake informations to Wikipedia my Greek brothers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.119.254 (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well i dont know how many Greeks were there at the time but are we sure this '200.000 civilian causalties' happened in 1919-23 not in 195-16 ? Can anyone please put down a note that clarifies the reference? kazekagetr 13:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Burnt down Western Anatolian towns map
Alexikoua removed the Burnt down Western Anatolian towns map from the article. Now, I did not create the map, I merely translated it from Turkish, and the map is open to everyone's improvement. In this case, Alexikoua's objection was "not exactly 'a matter of debate', the vast majority points to a Turkish responsibility, see article", referring to the Great Fire of Smyrna. Well, I don't need to see the article, I think I know enough about the event, but let's look at the Wikipedia article. What we see is there is exactly that, "a debate". I don't see a vast majority. Even if we agreed most sources confirm Turkish responsibility, I wonder what we should use in place of "a matter of debate". "Most probably Turks, perhaps Greeks, or maybe Armenians burnt the city"? "65% chance that Turks, 20% chance that Greeks, 15% chance that Armenians burnt the city"? What exactly? "a matter of debate" is just the most NPOV way to put it in short, and anybody who wants more lengthy information can see the respective article, as Alexikoua said.--Cfsenel (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears that this isn't the only issue about the map, I have the following concerns:
 * Serious neutrality issues: an wp:rs is absent in the image description in commons. Thus, for example for the fires in Yalova region irregular Circasians were also responsible.
 * Smyrna/Izmir fire started when the war was over & the last Greek soldier had already left Anatolia.

I propose something more simple: the map is based on the official Turkish pov and this should be stated in legend "towns burnt according to the report of the Turkish delegation in Laussane".Alexikoua (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would not object to that. (I should say that the map does not exactly represent the Turkish delegation's point of view either; apparently according to them there was no debate about the Great Fire of Smyrna). I am adding it back with that legend.--Cfsenel (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Commanders
I think that we need to trim down the commanders list. We should state only high ranking (like army commanders and general staff) officers cause it is a huge list. kazekagetr 10:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The list for Greece at least contains people who were not even commanders (like Myrivilis) or very junior ones at the time (e.g. Frizis or Papagos). I'll trim that right away. Constantine  ✍  12:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. I've kept only the successive commanders in chief of the Army of Asia Minor, and the two main political leaders of the period, Venizelos in 1919–20 and Gounaris in 1921–22 (even when he was not PM, he was the leading figure of all cabinets in the period). I've left King Constantine out because he was very much a figurehead by this time and exercised no real influence either in operations or in politics. Constantine  ✍  12:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree, but the same trimming should be performed in both sides, in order to have only the chiefs of staff.Alexikoua (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but I don't have such an accurate knowledge of the Turkish side to determine who should stay. Constantine  ✍  13:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"the toughness of the Turkish peasant/soldier"
I strongly doubt how appropriate the above quote from section "Factors contributing to the outcome" under the section "Resolution" is. First of all, there is a slash which is not usually found in Wikipedia prose. Secondly, words "Turkish peasant/soldier" are not within quotes in the passage, so they must mean their literal meaning and I don't see how this is appropriate. I only raise this question as I think it may be offensive. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right about the style; "peasant–soldier" would probably be better. I'm unsure how it's inappropriate or offensive, though, assuming that it's a legitimate representation of the two sources that are cited for that sentence.  I don't own either source, so I can't double check on that. Binabik80 (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverting to remove duplicated content
Recent editing by Gala19000 has resulted in the content of the article being duplicated twice, and in one instance three times. Gala19000 seems to have added new content along with the duplication, but I do not know if it has been added to all of the duplicated content or in just one copy of the duplication, or some into one copy and some into another - and it is not really up to me or any editor to find out since it is all due to Gala19000's ineptness. So, I have reverted the article back to its last stable and duplicate-free version. Gala19000, please do not blindly revert my edit - you will be vandalizing the article. Regarding future content addition, I suggest that, rather then renewing the fruitless edit warring, involved editors discuss proposed content additions or changes on the talk page first. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I would propose removing that, as well as removing content that blatantly calls the Greeks "invaders" and the Turks "defenders of the motherland," as well as the praise by the Khilafet Committee per WP:WTA: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint". --Oatitonimly (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and sory for that mistake. Have already asked the other user to go to the talk page but he refuses to do so. Gala19000 (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There have been about 15 edits made to the article since I reverted it to remove the duplication, but there has been no discussion on the talk page. I agree that wording like "invaders" and "defenders of the motherland" are inappropriate if they are in the article, but none of the recent edits state that their removal is the reason for the edit - the edit summaries are just full of edit warring and vandalism allegations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing "genocide" of the Turks
Hello, why is there no mention of the countless atrocities committed by the invading Greek army against the Ottoman Turkish population in Western Turkey? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.74.186.109 (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922). 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/20070629163221/http://www2.mfa.gr/NR/rdonlyres/3E053BC1-EB11-404A-BA3E-A4B861C647EC/0/1923_lausanne_treaty.doc to http://www2.mfa.gr/NR/rdonlyres/3E053BC1-EB11-404A-BA3E-A4B861C647EC/0/1923_lausanne_treaty.doc
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.antalya-ws.com/english/location/antalya/whistory.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources obsession
Specific sections of the current version rely entirely on primary sources: in particular tons of newpaper articles of the early 1920s. Needless to say that a large scale cleanup is needed per WP:HISRTS.Alexikoua (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Do not delete sourced material
If you have any issues with deleting the properly sourced material from credible sources, please first discuss it in here and state your reasons for doing so. Anapad (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The material you are inserting is a direct quote from a primary source. It is gratuitous quote-farming, from which the article suffered in the past.  Also, in wikipedia we prefer secondary sources to primary sources, see WP:PSTS. Khirurg (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I also have a problem with this material, based on WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. First, this officer is unnamed. Second, we have no clue about his expertise in the conflict. How can he make sweeping statements like How does he know that The Turks are willing to remain under the control of any other state. Did he take a poll of the Turks? What was the sample size? This looks to me like an unsupported opinion of an unknown person. In such a difficult subject, which is ripe with propaganda and exaggerations from all sides, this opinion should not be given such a prominent place.  Dr.   K.  01:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

He was an officer in the field, an eye witness to the events. Plus, he was from a country which, at least nominally, was supporting the Greek side at the early stages of the conflict when he wrote these sentences. You have a point, of course, his language seems exaggerated, however, by the same standards you apply here, we should simply delete half of the section "Turkish massacres against the Greeks". In conflictual subjects, we should also look for an eye to establish a balance. If you don't have a problem with quote farming 8 newspaper articles in one section, you naturally should not be bothered by a single quotation at another part of the article.

Would that work for you if I delete the newspaper quotations in the Turkish massacres against the Greeks section as they likewise break the rule of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and reword the British officer's comments in a single sentence instead of quoting it in full as a paragraph? Anapad (talk) 06:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You're joking, right? Take a good look at the "Greek atrocities" section. It's basically one giant quotefarm. On the other hand in the "Turkish atrocities" section, every quote has been reduced to a single sentence. But you want to delete those single sentence quotes, while keeping the quotes in the Turkish section.  You can't be serious.  Khirurg (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for interrupting but wp:quotefarm is quite evident in 'Greek scorched-earth policy' section. To be more precise there is one quote that describes specific events (Kasaba, Manisa etc.) and then straight after there is another quote that mentions the very same events (both statements from the same person). It's more than obvious that at least one quote needs to go.Alexikoua (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Lol, Alexi, you never interrupt. :) Anyway, I find the statement of the British officer quite insulting to the Turks: The Turks are willing to remain under the control of any other state. Really? Seriously? What nation is willing to remain under the control of any other state.? I don't know of any. The thousands of wars of liberation across the globe attest to the fact that every nation on Earth wants to be independent and not under the rule of a foreign power. Why would the Turks be any different. If we follow this statement to its logical conclusion, the birth of Turkish nationalism was due to the Greeks. This is obviously poppycock, to borrow a phrase from our British friends. The comments of the British officer sound to me like the typical haughty nonsense of a prejudiced British imperial officer who thinks that Turks were natural-born serfs, who, if it were not for those pesky Greeks, they would not mind to live forever under the yoke of some imperial power. Sigh. That's utter nonsense of course, and does a great disservice to the independence struggles of the Turks and the leadership and ideals of Atatürk.  Dr.   K.  10:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Repeating my question; does this not count as quote-farming? I can count 8 newspaper articles that says similar things, why do we need this paragraph in the article?

''"There were also several contemporary Western newspaper articles reporting the atrocities committed by Turkish forces against Christian populations living in Anatolia, mainly Greek and Armenian civilians.[99][100][101][102][103][104] For instance, according to the London Times, "The Turkish authorities frankly state it is their deliberate intention to let all the Greeks die, and their actions support their statement."[99] An Irish paper, the Belfast News Letter wrote, "The appalling tale of barbarity and cruelty now being practiced by the Angora Turks is part of a systematic policy of extermination of Christian minorities in Asia Minor."[104] According to the Christian Science Monitor, the Turks felt that they needed to murder their Christian minorities due to Christian superiority in terms of industriousness and the consequent Turkish feelings of jealousy and inferiority. The paper wrote: "The result has been to breed feelings of alarm and jealousy in the minds of the Turks, which in later years have driven them to depression. They believe that they cannot compete with their Christian subjects in the arts of peace and that the Christians and Greeks especially are too industrious and too well educated as rivals. Therefore from time to time they have striven to try and redress the balance by expulsion and massacre. That has been the position generations past in Turkey again if the Great powers are callous and unwise enough to attempt to perpetuate Turkish misrule over Christians."[105] According to the newspaper the Scotsman, on August 18 of 1920, in the Feival district of Karamusal, South-East of Ismid in Asia Minor, the Turks massacred 5,000 Christians.[100] There were also massacres during this period against Armenians, continuing the policies of the 1915 Armenian Genocide according to some Western newspapers.[106] On February 25, 1922 24 Greek villages in the Pontus region were burnt to the ground. An American newspaper, the Atlanta Observer wrote: "The smell of the burning bodies of women and children in Pontus" said the message "comes as a warning of what is awaiting the Christian in Asia Minor after the withdrawal of the Hellenic army."[101] In the first few months of 1922, 10,000 Greeks were killed by advancing Kemalist forces, according to Belfast News Letter.[99][104] According to the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin the Turks continued the practice of slavery, seizing women and children for their harems and raping numerous women.[99][104][107] The Christian Science Monitor wrote that Turkish authorities also prevented missionaries and humanitarian aid groups from assisting Greek civilians who had their homes burned, the Turkish authorities leaving these people to die despite abundant aid. The Christian Science Monitor wrote: "the Turks are trying to exterminate the Greek population with more vigor than they exercised towards the Armenians in 1915."[102]''

Dr.K., I don't want to get a lengthy debate about the British' officer's interpretation of the situation in Anatolia at the time. But the fact remains that his opinions are equally credible as bombastic journalism from that time. If one needs to go, we should likewise delete these newspaper headlines as well.

Another thing is Winston Churchill paragraph does not belong in the Greek Massacres against the Turkish section, which is meant to be solely devoted to the atrocities committed against Turkish civilians. If you want to add it, it should be in the Turkish massacres against Greeks section.

Secretary of State for the Colonies and latter Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill comparing the specific activities with the genocide policies perpetrated by the Turkish side noted that the Greek atrocities were on "a minor scale" compared to the "appalling deportations of Greeks from the Trebizond and Samsun district."[117] Anapad (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Anapad, I also don't want to get into a lengthy debate involving the British officer's prejudiced, if not worse, comments. As far as trimming the quotes, I leave this up to you and the rest of the editors who commented here. Trimming quotes is not my cup of tea. Dr.   K.  20:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Dr. K., so you mean you can see no prejudice whatsoever in these newspaper articles that warrant you to take action against it? And if you don't want to get involved in editing a section of the article that is obviously so problematic, then why exactly are you involved in a debate about another section of the article that is surely less problematic? '''The bottom line is, you want to create an article that favors the Greek side as much as it is possible and you have zero interest in creating a genuine encyclopedic entry and you do so by force of numbers, not by the rigor of your arguments. You invent excuses to delete the parts you don't like, but the same standards then don't apply to other parts of the article. Enjoy your work, however, just remember that this is an article about a relatively minor conflict in world history that most people on earth don't care to read about. At the end of the day, only Greeks and Turks are going to bother to read this article, so there is really little point for this relentless POV pushing by a handful of Greek editors.''' Anapad (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This is really funny coming from a single purpose account whose sole purpose on wikipedia is to maximize claims of Greek atrocities while trying to minimize Turkish atrocities, and came back after a 5 year hiatus to push exactly the same pov. Khirurg (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, I was editing wikipedia as an IP address for years now, but I stayed clear of the conflictual articles like this, knowing that they are horrible places to be.Anapad (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * @Khirurg: I am not going to defend myself against the WP:CLUEless attacks of that account. If that's what s/he understood from my comments above, I have nothing more to add, since it's hopeless. But I did give him/her two applicable warnings. Dr.   K.  21:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Which "attacks" are you talking about? By the way, while accusing me of attacking you, you called me "clueless" and "hopeless", that was funny. Anapad (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Anapad, stop it. I didn't call you "clueless". I called your attacks clueless. Your attacks are not you. I also didn't call you hopeless. Talking to you is hopeless. I hope you can see the difference. Dr.   K.  21:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Dr. K., well your edits on this article are not you either, and I was not criticizing you, but your edits on this particular conflictual article, which seemed to me as fairly biased. Anapad (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Anapad, can you count how many you's you have in your bolded comments above? "You" means "me", personally. Ergo, PA. But despite all this, I have a certain regard for you. I detect a certain lightness of spirit in your comments. I think you are a decent person. Dr.   K.  21:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * (although I can'tunderstand the aggresive nature of Anapad) There is also wp:quotefarm in the section about Turkish atrocities where multiple newspaper headings are mentioned. I believe we should focus on the description of the events instead of what each one said that period.Alexikoua (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Content has been identified as copied directly from ahistoryofgreece.com and other sources (such as this one). Fortunately, much of the material has already been removed, but some lingering copy-paste and derivative material remained. Removed text must not be restored, unless the material can be proved to be free of copyright restrictions. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Bayonet attack during the Greco-Turkish War of 1919–1922.png

Citation Needed Tags from February 2007
Where in the Greek expansion#Landing at Smyrna (May 1919) section it says the Greek landings were received by and large passively, only facing sporadic resistance, mainly by small groups of irregular Turkish troops in the suburbs. The majority of the Turkish forces in the region either surrendered peacefully to the Greek Army, or fled to the countryside. and the citation needed tags are nearing 12 years old... what does that mean we should do? Nargothronde (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

ALSO, I think this is made even more important by the fact this is in conflict with almost every other authoritative account on the subject. For example, the Wikipedia page: List of massacres during the Greco-Turkish War (1919–22) lists the Greek landing at Izmir at the very start, where it cites "The orderly landing of the Greek army soon turned into a riot against the local Turkish population by local Greeks and Greek soldiers. Stores and houses were looted, many cases of beatings, rape, killing. Estimates for killed and wounded Greeks are 100, for Turks between 300-400. " This hardly seems like something that was "received passively", or that "only (faced) sporadic resistance (from) small groups of irregular Turkish troops...", and there is nothing anywhere to suggest "Turkish forces... surrendered peacefully... and fled to the countryside", nor is this falling short of being incredibly suggestive and supportive of the previous bizarre claims.

This kind of thing seems to be evident throughout the article. I smell some possible violations of WP:OR or WP:POV going on here. Nargothronde (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The removal of text cn-tagged for close to 12 years is, of course, uncontroversial. Also, it is fine to copy well-sourced text from another article, as long as it is properly attributed.
 * What I am not so happy about, is your last paragraph, where you mention This kind of thing ... throughout the article and smell some possible violations of WP:OR or WP:POV without giving any examples. You have earlier used a similar formula in Talk:Greek genocide. I have asked you there what you mean with "this type of language" and also asked you to explain what you mean by WP:OR in that context, without getting any answer. Please refrain from this kind of vague, unsupported critisism unless you are willing to elaborate with specific examples. --T*U (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi T*U. I thought 1: the Greek landings were received by and large passively, only facing sporadic resistance, mainly by small groups of irregular Turkish troops in the suburbs. The majority of the Turkish forces in the region either surrendered peacefully to the Greek Army, or fled to the countryside. was a clear example... the other examples I'd like to refer are: 2: Noting the King's hostile stance during World War I, the Allies warned the Greek government that if he should be returned to the throne they would cut off all financial and military aid to Greece (Were there really such warnings? Is it fair to say that such warnings were given? Can this be cited? Weren't the allied powers just unconvinced that Greece's plan was unlikely to work?) 3: The Greeks, with their faltering morale rejuvenated, failed to appraise the strategic situation that favoured the defending side; pressed for a 'final solution' (What final solution? There are no citations given to explain what that 'final solution' is.) 4: British historian and journalist Arnold J. Toynbee stated that when he toured the region he saw numerous Greek villages that had been burned to the ground (Where did he tour? What region? The source doesn't do this any justice either, unless if I just overlooked it?)...
 * It's likely there are more that I've missed. That's what I'm trying to point out; there are clear discrepancies dotted around here and there, which to me are suggestive of possible attempts of WP:OR or WP:POV, and which have been pointed out with tags/comments by other editors too. One certainly cannot rule that out given the ambiguity and positioning of these sentences?
 * Next time I'll provide specific examples instead of waiting to be prompted... I was just trying to be brief and to the point, but I see I should still always show people what I'm talking about.
 * Thanks as always by the way. I was actually just looking through the article as it related to Cyprus, and my eye caught onto these possible issues. You can understand I've had a bit of experience seeing "controversial" and "strange" things dotted about here and there from other articles (do you want me to cite these articles too?). I'm not always right about it, but it's still worth pointing out possible discrepancies. Nargothronde (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * T*U. About point 3: the 'final solution', could this be a reference to the scorched earth policy? (See: ) Nargothronde (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have problems seeing that your examples 2 and 3 constitute any kind of thing that smells of possible violations of WP:OR or WP:POV. It is true that your examples are unsourced, but apart from that, they look credible and should quite likely be possible to source. I also do not see that they constitute any biased POV. You may have found something in your example 4, but it is hardly supporting any claim of systematic bias you seem to be hinting at.
 * Regarding 2: It is a well known (and easily sourcible) fact that the allies were against the restoration of monarchy, and they certainly used economic pressure (described by Michael Llewellyn Smith in the book you cite). Whether the exact text as it stands can be sourced, I do not know, but the main content is fine, possibly with a slight rephrasing. Your question Weren't the allied powers just unconvinced that Greece's plan was unlikely to work?, connecting the restoration of monarchy and/or the economic pressure to the prospect of the Greek plans, is pure conjecture and would certainly need a strong source.
 * Regarding 3: The content is completely consistent with mainstream sources and their analysis of the situation at the time, but use of the term 'final solution' is probably not a good choice, given the connotations to WW2 and "the Jewish question". I could suggest changing it to "The Greeks, ... instead, pressed for a decisive victory" or similar, which I am sure could be easily sourced. Your question could this be a reference to the scorched earth policy? is again pure conjecture. Do you suggest they attacked in order to burn villages?
 * Regarding 4: Where Toynbee saw those villages is hardly an important point. The phrase when he toured the region seems to be something left over from when this text was moved a bit around some years ago, but that phrase can just be removed; problem solved. As far as I can see, this text was added in 2006/2007 by an IP editor with several questionable additions, and it is possible that the text in the article is not supported by the source, in which case it could be challenged with a failed verification-tag or even removed.
 * In any case, finding four different "problems" that has been added and edited by different editors during a period of many years is not difficult. I am sure I could find ten more. And of course it is worth pointing out possible discrepancies. But four examples, at least two of them very weak, is not a reason for stating that This kind of thing ... throughout the article and smell some possible violations of WP:OR or WP:POV. The article has been edited many hundred times over more than a decade, by IPs from all over the world, by registered users with one edit or with thousands of edits, some good edits, some bad edits. Please concentrate on correcting errors you find, not on vague criticism against ... well, against whom, actually? --T*U (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for the lengthy look into this T*U. I can't help but feel like something is being avoided or overlooked though, and I don't know what you mean by they look credible? Are you suggesting we can just assume/guess something may possibly be right, and pick and choose whether to include it or not without needing to reference it clearly or word it un-suggestively?
 * I think the term 'final solution' was used to describe the scorched earth policy. See: I think that link should be made to avoid any confusion i.e. your comparison to the holocaust etc.
 * Oh right, I never knew of the failed verification tag. Thanks for that! I'll certainly look more closely into that tag and what it means etc for future reference.
 * I provided examples that would be easy and clear to find, and that they were highlighted by others just simplified and eased that process. Needless to say, I'm not criticising, I'm just questioning/pointing out where I'm seeing clear errors, again, many of which were highlighted by other editors in different parts of this article. I think that constitutes possible errors or discrepancies throughout the article, be it weak or not, unless they were otherwise placed there on purpose to satisfy whatever point of view or original editing the editor at the time had in mind, be it on purpose or not... and they have been left there as you pointed out relatively unchanged or looked into even after years of being flagged for possible errors or discrepancies... I think this is clearly demonstrable in what I've shown, and again, weak or not, an error or discrepancy is an error or discrepancy, full stop... anyway, I'm just highlighting things to iron out these problems and improve the article, instead of gun-ho editing right away. It's always better to come to the Talk page and incite discussion first. Nargothronde (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we can just assume/guess something may possibly be right, and pick and choose whether to include it or not without needing to reference it clearly or word it un-suggestively? No, I am not suggesting anything like that! It is a rather offensive suggestion, since my sentence continues they look credible and should quite likely be possible to source. There is nothing to prohibit using your knowledge to sort out what is credible or plausible. If the claim was implausible, I would not bother to look for sources. The claims in 2 and 3 are well in line with other information, so I would look for sources; I even mentioned one possible source (Llewellyn Smith). Your comment is completely out of order.
 * You say that you think the term 'final solution' was used to describe the scorched earth policy. The text is trying to explain why the Greeks made their ill-fated attack at Sakarya, in spite of the strategic situation. If you want to look for sources supporting a claim that they attacked in order to burn villages, good luck with that. I would prefer to look for sources that they attacked in the (misjudged) hope off getting a decisive victory. --T*U (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent removals of material
I have opened a thread at ANI about some of the recent removals of material from this article. The thread is at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. DuncanHill (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Those removals have been because of two reasons: 1. There are like 4-5 sentences about perspectives on the situation of people of no historical significance on the subject, so it is easily thought by readers who dont know that these opinions might be expert opinions or balanced opinions, but instead they are comfusing and one sided favourable opinions. 2. The citations used are merely by 2 authors known for favoring one side (turks), thus they are incredible and historically wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.220.4 (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2019
Under the title of "Battle of Sakarya (August and September 1921)", on 7th line there is a spelling mistake. "Greek forces marched 200 km for a week throught the desert to reach attack positions". "throught" Eksen1907 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 04:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The turkish counter attack
I could say there are many mistakes here:First there wasn't any battle at Tumlu Bunar on Augoust 1922( correct name of Dumlupinar. Second Generals Trikoupis and Digenis,after the breakthrough fought 2 battles on their way to Tumlu Bunar(on 29  and 30 Augoust 1922,this second battle at Ali Veran).They holded the battlefield of Ali Veran all day until sundown against Turkish charges. Then, living behind all woundeds, cars, guns(except 6 mountain barels),left in the dark. Retreating for 3 more days without water, food and ammounations,found themselves surrounding by Turkish forces on September 2. So they surrentered(Department of History of the Greek Army Forces,The Minor Asia Campaigne by Lieutenant Colonel Aristidis Skylitsis,volume 7th, Athens 1962.28regiment (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"Decisive"
That "the sources use the word decisive + it is on many articles like this" is not relevant, use of terms such as "decisive" is expressly deprecated per Template:Infobox military conflict, which says of the "result" field this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". I have once again removed it. FDW777 (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Travlos (2021) and Lachenmann & Wolfrum (2017)
It is our job as editors to check and verify the content of other editors. And that's what i tried to do yesterday concerning the citation from "The Turkish War of Independence: A Military History, 1919–1923". Two pages are cited from it, namely 352 and 353. Page 352 i was able to find through Google Books, and it didn't contain any part of the relevant quote you cited. Thus, this leaves us page 353. I searched through Google Books and its "Search in this book" option for this specific book, the quote you shared, but i received absolutely no results in relation to it. So, since i couldn't verify it, i chose to remove it altogether, bearing in mind that it wasn't actual content, and a second relevant source (McCarthy 1996) had already been added in the article to support the text. But regardless of that, i didn't stop there because i wanted to be sure, and i sent an email to the author of this chapter (Casualties; Konstantinos Travlos), asking him whether he could share the rest of his chapter that wasn't provided by Google Books. Just sat down to check both my Watchlist and my emails, and saw that he was kind enough to reply back this morning with an attachment of his whole chapter. It turns out that the aforementioned quote checks out, and can remain after all. As i am writing this, i also received a reply from the main author, Edward J. Erickson, to whom i also reached out, and he was kind enough to attach the entirety of his book for me. For future reference and anyone else who would like to confirm, here are the relevant pages that are cited in the article: Having said all that, you repeatedly blind reverted a number of edits yesterday (diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4), instead of carefully examining every single change, and reverting appropriately per the reasons in your edit summaries. Please, revert only when necessary, and avoid removing improvements with absolutely no reason. I am reinstating back all the other constructive changes i made in my last edit – pertaining to Lachenmann & Wolfrum (2017) – aside of the removal of Travlos' (2021) quote. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Page 352 (Google Books)
 * Page 353
 * Atabegli probably intended to cite this: However it was written on the page 351 not 352 or 353.--V. E. (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thanks for your reply. I am aware of this quote, since it was included in this edit summary (same as diff3 i mentioned above) of Atabegli, and i have also read all of page 351. As i explained in the edit summary of my reversion (diff) though, this was a form of WP:OR known as WP:SYNTHESIS, because even though the Greek side did recognize the obligation to make reparations for damages caused in Anatolia, it didn't recognize Ismet Pasha's (chief negotiator of the Turkish delegation) estimates on the size of the damages and casualties; that is natural because this would require the investigation of a special biliteral committee in order to find out the exact amount of reparations that would need to be payed, but that committee was never established due to Turkey's renouncement of all claims on reparations. By the way, bear in mind that these aforementioned estimates were not published in the Treaty of Lausanne, but presented by the Turkish side at the Conference of Lausanne. Anyway, that's what Atabegli tried to reinstate over and over again:
 * Instead, the current version is more precise:
 * But that was not the main issue i presented above with my first comment, since the recognition of the Greek side for damages it caused, is supported by another source Atabegli added, namely Lachenmann & Wolfrum (2017). My main issue was that he/she kept blind reverting every change made, and also called me a vandalizer (diff), simply because i removed a quote that i couldn't initially verify; besides there was already a second source that supported the relevant text. Demetrios1993 (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But that was not the main issue i presented above with my first comment, since the recognition of the Greek side for damages it caused, is supported by another source Atabegli added, namely Lachenmann & Wolfrum (2017). My main issue was that he/she kept blind reverting every change made, and also called me a vandalizer (diff), simply because i removed a quote that i couldn't initially verify; besides there was already a second source that supported the relevant text. Demetrios1993 (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But that was not the main issue i presented above with my first comment, since the recognition of the Greek side for damages it caused, is supported by another source Atabegli added, namely Lachenmann & Wolfrum (2017). My main issue was that he/she kept blind reverting every change made, and also called me a vandalizer (diff), simply because i removed a quote that i couldn't initially verify; besides there was already a second source that supported the relevant text. Demetrios1993 (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

short description - should be short
Per WP:HOWTOSD the short description should give the reader a glance of what the article is about. The article title already gives the years, so repeating the years is redundant. Also the title says it was a war, so repeating the word serves no purpose. But the SD does not say it was part of the war for independence, so keeping that term in the SD provides context to the reader. – S. Rich (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Also, the SD is now 39 characters, which is within the desired 40 character limit. 21:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

What's the original source for the numbers used in the table "Distribution of Nationalities in Ottoman Empire (Anatolia)"?
The article makes reference to Pentzopoulos, Dimitri (2002) who in turn gives reference to "Polybius, Greece Before the Conference". But what's the original "Ottoman Official Statistics" source from 1910 and why does it differ so much from available official censuses from 1893, 1906 and 1914?

An example from the three censuses I mentioned and the "Ottoman Official Statistics, 1910". While the 1893 census says that the Greek population of Aydın is 196,558, 1906 says 285,105 and 1914 says 299,096; the "Ottoman Official Statistics, 1910" says 629,002. How can this be an official statistics by the Ottomans and why are there no other references to any census from 1910 anywhere?

There's even an article for Ottoman censuses, Census in the Ottoman Empire, and it says:

Four general censuses were held in the Ottoman Empire. These were 1831 census, 1881–82 census, 1905–06 census, and 1914 census.

Maybe a more important question is why this "Ottoman Official Statistics, 1910" is used in the article instead of actual official censuses? Wouldn't it be better to show actual Ottoman figures together with the ones from "Ecumenical Patriarchate Statistics, 1912" so people can see the difference? Nippytabasco (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Primary accounts
The article, particularly the section on atrocities, has become enormously bloated due to massive and ongoing insertion of first-hand accounts of the conflict. Not are all of these WP:PRIMARY, they add little value to the article given they are selectively quoted. If no one objects, I propose the creation of a spin-off article, e.g. First-hand accounts of the Greco-Turkish War (or something similar) and moving all the first-hand accounts there. The alternative would be to remove them all. Readability is non-negotiable for an encyclopedia article, and currently this article is anything but. Khirurg (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Quite a mess
This article seems quite a mess, and I don't have the expertise to even begin to take it on. But just for starters: "The Greeks received an order to land in Smyrna by the Triple Entente as part of the partition." If this is so, can anyone clarify the date of this order, who exactly gave what order to whom, etc.? Is there any citation for this at all? - Jmabel &#124; Talk 02:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The Genocide vs Massacre wording
I have read the cautionary note for editors and decided to ask to my fellow editors how come one side's atrocities during 1919-1922 and the population swap is considered GENOCIDE and the other's massacre? And what is the relation of the disputed events, albeit heartbreaking and devastating, of 1915 to the Greco-Turkish war?

The subsection titles need to change and present something resembling an objective approach in order to uphold the expectations from the wikipedia experience. Deniz Galip Oygür (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello, moderators
I need to make a grammar error on the Belligerents page where it said 2500 armenian joind the Greek Army Windy62776 (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

distortion of civilian casualties
The estimate of 264,000 Greek deaths was fictitiously estimated on paper by R. J. Rummel, who used this estimate for a wide range from 1912 to 1922, so the number 264,000 cannot be used as the result of a war that began in 1919. 176.237.245.159 (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)