Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:16, 14 May 2013

Unxplained revert with sarcastic summary

Obviously the specific edit-summary ] explains poorly th performed revert: last paragr. of the background section describes events that occurred one year after the events described in the main section (for an unexplained reason they link only to Greek massacres, thus ignoring the wider paragraph about massacres during the war). An explanation is also needed on why the 'Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)' should be termed 'Invasion of Anatolia' and not remain simply as Greco-Turkish War, like the title of the correspodent article.Alexikoua (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This is:

During its retreat the Greek army carried out a scorched-earth policy and laid waste to many Turkish cities and villages and committed massacres against its inhabitants.

related to the other numerous massacres and village burning during the same war, by the same perpetrators: the Greek army against local Turks. So why should this linking to the larger events during the same war be deleted? It also based upon contemporary sources that the Greek army systematically carried out a scorched earth policy after they started to retreat before the Turkish army, in this peninsula it was the same case.

About invasion, see Invasion, An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution.

It is obviously an invasion of a army into another country so why change this into a weasel word by calling it "penetration".

Shall we change massacre into "collective high death rate".DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems obvious you misintepreted various historical events. But if you insist on that, you should first try to rename the title of the correspondent article (invasion isn't in generally accepted as an internationally recognized political decision under the terms of a peace treaty, as it is here). Then you are welcome to change the term here. As for the massacres perpetrated by Greeks these are part of the wider massacres perpetrated by both sides in this region, it shouldn't be neglected.Alexikoua (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A large army of one state advancing into another state among heavy fighting between them and the local state's army and population. Penetration does not sound the exact wording to describe these events. The Greek side saw it as justified to advance with their army into Anatolia, but the majority of the Ottoman/Turkish side disagreed, this is why the Greek landing was from the very beginning resisted by the Turkish inhabitants of Smyrna, which resulted in the Greco-Turkish war. So it was a military conflict from the moment of the Greek landing, there is no case of advancing under peaceful agreements. The majority of the Ottoman Turks refused this "internationally recognized political decision" a term to cover up the partition of the Ottoman Empire between some Imperialist allied powers. And in the end after some years new agreements were made who undid the previous decisions.

As for the massacres committed by both Turks and Greeks, that really happened, but not so much in this region. Here it seems that the Greeks were the perpetrators and the international commission speculated that there was no real reason (for example revenge for previous massacres) to thoroughly destroy the entire peninsula in two months time. So linking this page to other massacres committed by Turks against Greeks in different regions and times only to cover up or justify these massacres is not really necessary and very farfetched.DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC).

According to the source:Online reports of Arnold Toynbee

I (Arnold Toynbee) do not think that bands of Turkish chettés had been at work here before the organised atrocities I do not judge merely from the fact that this district was behind the front—guerillas might have crossed the lines—but from the circumstance that during May and June isolated Christian villages were still occupied by their inhabitants, and that the military pickets and the squads of Greek kurujus (irregular guards) posted in the Turkish villages were so small that their lives would not have been safe if Turkish as well as Greek bands had been in the neighborhood. In this area, at any rate, I believe that the Greek troops and chettés had the field to themselves, and this was also the opinion of M. Gehri, the representative of the Geneva International Red Cross:

At the time of our investigation, the Peninsula of Samanli- Dagh was behind the Greek front, and it has never been a theatre of hostilities since the beginning of the Greek occupation. Until March last, the region was quiet. The crimes which have come to our knowledge fall within the last two months (end of March to the 15th May). They are subsequent to the retreat of the Greek army after the defeat of Eski Shehir . Possibly they are a consequence of it.

DragonTiger23 (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have rephrased specific sections of the article per given sources, and was based especially to Smith (1999): Ionian Vision. Also all neutral opinions tend to view the events in the context of the general Greek-Turkish violence (including Smith). I would appreciate if you decide to discuss the recent adjustments in case you disagree (just remember that I based my edits on the sources you'd already presented in the article).Alexikoua (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

As for the Turkish violence, Smith is detailed about the events during WWI, the burning of Greek villages in Ismid district, as well as next to the Peninsula. Since we have secondary references that mention this events under the same context, I see no reason for exclution here. Alexikoua (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The book Smith (1999): Ionian Vision covers these massacres briefly with only 2 pages of text which were actually based on the sources I already added with their online versions. (The report of the international commission and Toynbee's report. The information about Greeks massacred in Izmit is not relevant to the Gemlik- Yalova area massacres, I already wrote the opinion of the international commission above. The Izmit area's case is separate but you are falsely distorting the facts and combining the events. The book Smith (1999) is also doing some distortion by ignoring the statements made by the commission and instead merging different events together. But in another page it repeats the conclusion of the commission and states planned ethnic cleansing as the primary reason not revenge counter massacres:

(Smith (1999) page 213.Online here "the age long hatred between Christian Greek and Armenian and Muslim Turk and the presence of numerous Armenian and Greek refugees in the area were insufficient to explain the rapidity and thouroughness of the reprisals taken on the Turks in the area".

The Gemlik Yalova area was not a conflict zone like Izmit, that should be made clear. According to the commission the massacres happened during a short time with a systematical plan by the Greek army and local Greeks/Armenians.

If there is more info we could expand the events in Izmit in a separate section or article but we need more info about the massacres against Christians in the Izmit region. But in the end it seems that the Greek side did the most damage by burning all towns and villages before they fled, so we should avoid making the article unbalanced. The article must make clear the difference, between killings, massacres and large scale planned destruction of an entire region.DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Location of Izmit and gemlik Yalova Peninsula

These are bordering areas but still different Izmit is more in the east and Iznik southeast. Maps of the location of Izmit and the Gemlik Yalova Peninsula.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the info about Izmit can stay in the background section as you did. About the Circasian involvement in Yalova-Gemlik Peninsula, Smith mentions it clearly [[http://books.google.gr/books?id=E4OuoSFztt8C&pg=PA209&dq=%22irregulars,+Greek+Armenian+and+circassians%22&hl=el&sa=X&ei=1FWRUf7eD4qE4gSLxoCgCg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22At%20the%20same%20time%20bands%20of%20Christian%20irregulars%2C%20Greek%20Armenian%20and%20Circassian%2C:It doesn't say somewhere that the specific commission was the only one justified to describe the events. In fact neutral secondary sources we use in wikipedia (for example Smith) tend to use a wide variety of material (so selectively exluding any source we don't like can't be sometimes disruptive) I don't thing that this is termed 'Cherry Pikcking', on the other hand selectively removing information that doesn't suit to our own taste isn't constractive. Since it's sourced that

1. .Circassian groups fought in the Greek side
2. ."At the same time bands of Christian irregulars, Greek Armenian, and Circassian, looted, burned and murdered in the Yalove-Gemlik peninsula."%20%22&f=false]] in p. 209.Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Smith must have made a mistake, the original report of the commission and all other sources do not mention Circassians. Circassians themselves were Muslim an and most of them fought on the Turkish side, in fact several of the burned villages were Circassian. So you are cherry picking from one source and adding that everywhere is disproportional. The majority of the perpetration were clearly Greek soldiers and local Greeks with Armenians, this is the result of the commission investigation which is the primary source. I am removing it, Smith source is not enough evidence.DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't thing so, in fact there were Circasian irregulars that supported the Greek Army and were also anti-Kemalists ] (p.9)

"There is no doubt that the Muslim population of Asia Minor could be divided into different groups and categories according to descent, language, religious particularities and socio-economic conditions. A number of these differences had been politicized, a fact which explains the alliance of some Circassian chieftains with the Greek army against Kemal Ataturk.

But the main issue here is we are not the ones to judge if one wp:RS makes mistakes if we simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Alexikoua (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence in the allied commission report that they participated here in this specific massacres, stop with un neutral cherry picking. I know why you add Circassians, you want to blame the Circassians and minimize Greek involvement, even though all the primary sources state that the Greeks/Armenians were responsible. Your source does not say anything about Circassian involvement in Gemlik-Yalova.DragonTiger23 (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say somewhere that the specific commission was the only one justified to describe the events. In fact neutral secondary sources we use in wikipedia (for example Smith) tend to use a wide variety of material (so selectively exluding any source we don't like can't be sometimes disruptive) I don't thing that this is termed 'Cherry Pikcking', on the other hand selectively removing information that doesn't suit to our own taste isn't constractive. Since it's sourced that

1. .Circassian groups fought in the Greek side
2. ."At the same time bands of Christian irregulars, Greek Armenian, and Circassian, looted, burned and murdered in the Yalove-Gemlik peninsula."

Also it appear that there is a mountain of sourced material about the Circasian participation in favor of the Greek cause ]] (something about the alliance with the Circasians from Manyas area).Alexikoua (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

For example (per above link) claims: "Together these heavily armed cetes (Circasians) were to be an instrument for the execution of Greek atrocities, with licence to burn down villages, rape women, and rob and execute Muslims." and it points to the area south of the Marmara and near Balikesir.Alexikoua (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that they participated in Gemlik- Yalova region, we have already the report of the commission, Smith sentence is not clear and is very likely a mistake, what are you not understanding? The majority of Muslims were killed by Greeks, you try to use the Circassians as scape goats eh? BTW majority of Circassians fought on the Turkish nationalist side, a minority was on the Greek sideDragonTiger23 (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but that's not what I'm claim (even minority this doesn't reject any claim). What makes Smith non-reliable in this one? Actually the (partly) Circassian partitipation is in accordance with a wide variety of primary and secondary material ]. Actually we need something that claims "Circassians committed attrocities in Anatolia in 1920 but abstained from this peninsula" this will be ok, then Smith will be considered problematic in this one.Alexikoua (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We have this primary report ], which clearly claims that Circassians took part. It's really unconrtuctive to claim that if an "x" report claims "Y", that is the only truth that must be presented in wiki.Alexikoua (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with Alexikoua here. The source (Smith) is both reliable and crystal clear. What part of "At the same time bands of Christian irregulars, Greek Armenian, and Circassian, looted, burned and murdered in the Yalove-Gemlik peninsula." do you not understand? And keep your guesses about people's intentions (" I know why you add Circassians...") to yourself, or I will report you. Athenean (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)