Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:55, 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)

Circassian involvement in the Gemlik- Yalova peninsula

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)

Now you are falsely distorting the facts again. Smith based his sources on the Commission/Toynbee report. There is only one sentence in his book that there was "Circassian involvement in Gemlik-Yalova" is written. This article is also based on the eyewitness allied commission and Toynbee report, they do not even mention one time Circassian involvement in the Yalova Gemlik peninsula. So the majority of the sources do not mention Circassians, which means Smith is the only one and maybe made a typing mistake. The sources you are using refer to Circassians in Balikesir Manyas region (Revolt of Ahmet Anzavur) and the Circassian revolt in Adapazari which are totally different events and are very distant and different place, several hundreds of km/miles away. In the article the report of the gendarmerie of Balikesir is written because it seems Balikesir was the headquarters of the entire south Marmara region, not because Gemlik Yalova are close. You are falsely using the Smith source to add it after every individual specific cases, in which the other present sources (commission/ Toynbee) not say anything about Circassians so please stop falsifying. I am removing it and change the lead to make your cherry picking of sources clear. DragonTiger23 (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no cherry picking, but severe case of wp:idontlikeit and now desruption, you removed not only Smith, but also Gingeras, who clearly states that Circassians committed massacres during the evacuationn of Izmit, as wel as to the entire region from Izmit to Belikesir, south of Marmara (seems you ned also to prove that the peninsula isnt located there... ). At least now you admit at least a minority of Circassians fought against the nationalists, that's a step forward. Also thanks to Athenian the population part was fixed, which means that the entire article should be checked and rewritten due to serious inconsistencies.

Yes you suffer severely from wp:idontlikeit and cherrypicking, I already explained to you about the Circassians, they are not involved in the Gemlik Yalova peninsula so do not falsely add them to the wrong events. On the other hand it seems that the amount of Circassian irregulars was few, the majority of the Greek side consisted of Greek troops and local Greeks, Circassians were a minority among them according to the sources. So do not dis proportionally increase the role of the Circassians. There is too few evidence of what Circassian irregulars actually did in Izmit, according to Toynbee, when the Greeks left the Greek soldiers, and not Circassians murdered several hundred Turks in the town, pillaged it and burnt almost all villages on their path of retreat.

And btw I already knew that some Circassians were on the Greek side, there were also some Turks on the Greek side(!), still the overwhelming majority was resisting the Greek army and this should be made clear. It is sourced that the Greek army was responsible for the coordination and planning of the destructions, do not falsely pass all the events to a few hundred Circassian irregulars.

There is nothing thanks to Athenean, I already knew about the population of the Peninsula, that is why I had already added that the region had a large Christian minority. But you in you ignorant POV put behind that sentence. Did you this with the goal to deny atrocities committed by Greek irregulars by pretending there was no Greek population?

I am trying to improve the article while you added only irrelevant parts to cover up the events.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Smith did not "maybe made a typing mistake". Athenean (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, here , why did you add wikilinks to Greek and Armenian? Is it because you want to cast Greeks and Armenians in a negative light? Would that also be reason why you so vociferously object to mentioning Circassian gangs? Athenean (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Is adding wikilinks a crime? So why then did Alexikoua add Circassian with wikilinks 1 but did not do it for the Greek or Armenian, why only Circassian? So then I added the wikilinks, no I do not want to cast anybody in negative light, this is a historical massacre but you are trying to cover it up for some reason. I do not want that Circassians will be added because according to all the other sources, who were even eyewitness there is no mention of Circassian so misusing and cherrypicking that sentence is wrong, can you not understand that.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to cover it up? How am I trying to cover it up? Watch it with the wild accusations, you have already done plenty for me to report you already. Athenean (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The source clearly says Circassian gangs participated in the massacre. I have absolutely nothing against Circassians, but if that's what the source says, we must stick to it. Whether or not you "don't want" that mentioned is irrelevant. Also, could you please learn to properly indent your talkpage comments using ":"? Thanks. Athenean (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Because you are distorting facts I think I should report you. Smith source can not be used to add Circassians to places where they are not mentioned.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Smith source is not clear at all it is only 1 sentence while the other sources are detailed pages of text, I have read them and nowhere are Circassians mentioned to the events in the Gemlik Yalova Peninsula.DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Your attempts to falsely blame the Circassians made me search for more information. And I found the following, which is very interesting since it explains exactly the same attempts as yours.

Arnold J. Toynbee writes the following: ]

"At the end of June 1921, a few weeks after that report was written, some of these Circassian mercenaries assisted the Greek chettés and regular troops at Ismid in the massacre of Turkish civilians, on the eve of the Greek evacuation of the town. But so far as I could discover, they played a subordinate part, and there is no warrant for making them the scape-goats for either this or any other Greek atrocity."DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Severe pov

I'm afraid that this article is the epitomy of wp:pov, especially in the lead, which mentions briefly the Izmid events but only to quote a part of Tonbee. The present state of the article suffers also from wp:Quotfarm in a wp:pov habit in order to point to specific opinions (for example Tonbee, but no wonder there are no quotes based on reports in the House of Commons).Alexikoua (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Another serious issue is the supposed number of the victims, which is claimed to be ca. 6,000-6,500, and still needs to be verified (a url if possible). On the other hand Gingeras, gives a completely different view:

"In total only thirty-five were reported (in Yalova/Gemlik Peninsula) to have been killed, wounded, beaten, or missing. This is in line with the observations of Arnold Toynbee, who declared that one to two murders were sufficient to drive away the population of a village."Alexikoua (talk)

For an unexplained and ...childish reason this was reverted. I don't know maybe Toynbee isn't enough in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There is severe POV from you, stop trying to cover up the massacres. M.Gehri the commission member estimates that 6-6,500 people were killed. The source of Gingeras refers only to 177 refugee people in a camp in Istanbul who responded to a questionary. This says nothing about the total number. There is abundant source of dozens of villages burned and massacred in this region claiming a deathtoll of less than 35 is incredible. BTW Toynbee further wrote that part in relation to a number of villages around Fistikli, you can read it at the online report of Toynbee in the source, he further states that in another village called Sultaniye half of the population was killed but considers this to be an exception.DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Another question is who is Oran Aslan who "ignored" multiple reports that raise the number of the 35 victims to... 6,000-6,500? the source isn't even in English and off course lacks any kind of bibliography... Abandance of sources? Sure they all claim that the number is 35, (Toynbee, Gingerian, the refugees Commission in Istanbul). The claim is of 6-6.5k. is so severely pov, that we count the total Muslim population in Gemlik/Yalova (24,000) ] and then comparing it to the supposed killed (6k) and the refugges (20k), one can easily assume that this is... childish. Actually The numbers are crying by themselves that they are wrong.Alexikoua (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you even read what I wrote? That 35 number is only based on a questionary of 177 people, according to the inter allied commission member M. Gehri total number of killed was 6,000-6,500. Why are you pushing your POV by manipulating sources? Claiming that in that entire peninsula less than 35 people died is your own amazing childish pov. Stop trolling.DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually they were the only that responded to the commission, no more. This means that the commission's report is limited to this. Gehri? I believe you need to give Gehri's url. I'm sorry but Gingarian is quite clear, and 35 means exactly that, not to mention that Tonbee agrees with that, something which is for an unexplained reason ignored about him. Also please avoid wp:NPA. Alexikoua (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Just happened to see this ], actually when someone claims that the population had disappeared from a region doesn't necessary mean that it was killed, and this number is close to the number of the refugees according to Gingarian. To sum up, the only sources we have about the number of the victims is still 35, while the refugees were some thousands (from 6k to 20k).Alexikoua (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

So it seems as though Toynbee does say that it was 35 people were killed and yet you use a non-third party source that states 6,000 people were killed? Thats an astronimical difference. Are we going to pick and choose sources here that are suitable for a certain POV? One of these sources is unreliable and it looks to be Aslan's since Toynbee's figures are confirmed by other reliable sources. So one of these sources is unreliable and cannot be used for this article, especially considering the controversy. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It's also hilarious to see that Toynbee is all of a sudden considered a reliable source when it comes to Gemlik. Turkish historians have constantly stated that he isn't due to his depiction of the Armenian genocide (12). İşimize geleni severiz gibi. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What is hilarious is that you are so prejudiced and yourself are doing the behavior you complain against Turks. Toynbee is also not the only source in case you still could not figure that out. What does Armenian genocide has to do with this and why are you assuming I deny the events, I do not deny massacres against Armenians, but I wish people were not so hypocritical. Because I know from some users edits here that they are very easy and eager to add text with Turks massacring others, but in this article they are suddenly very skeptical. Why because the victims are Turks?DragonTiger23 (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The difference is astronomical indeed. But most probably the second account (M.Gehri) never supported the 6,000 dead scenario.Alexikoua (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Toynbee never states that this is the total amount, this is source abuse by Alexikoua, it is written that according to statements gathered by Ottoman officials from 177 refugees 28 persons had their family harmed and in total 35 had been killed/wounded. Alexikoua is falsely manipulating the source, be honest, here you can read the online reports of Toynbee far more than 35 people are described to be killed here: ]

"Uluslararası Kızılhaç Örgütü temsilcisi Mr.Maurice Gehri, Yunan zulüm, yağma ve katliamlarını incelemek için Gemlik'e geldi. Daha sonra verdiği raporda 16 köyün imha edildiğini, 6.000-6.500 insanın öldürülmüş olduğunu bildirecektir. İsviçreli Gehri ile birlikte bir İngiliz Generalinin başkanlığında, İngiliz, Fransız, İtalyan, Türk askeri temsilcilerinden kurulu Araştırma Kurulu da İngiliz bayrağını taşıyan bir gemi ile İstanbul'dan Gemliğe geldi. Yunan zulümlerinden Gemlik'e kaçmış halkı dinlemeğe başladı."

Translation to English : "Mr.Maurice Gehri the representative of the International Red Cross came to Gemlik to examine Greek oppression, looting and massacres. Later, in his report he stated that 16 villages had been destroyed, 6000-6500 people had been killed. Headed by a British General, the Swiss Gehri and military representatives of British, French, Italian and Turkish military came on board a ship flying the flag of the British came from Istanbul to Gemlik. Here they listened to Greek atrocities from refugees that had fled to Gemlik."

So Gehri states this and he is not reliable only because you do not like it? Grow up. If there were only 35 people killed why would there be an inter allied commission of several countries who would investigate the events and conclude that there was an extermination of the Muslim Turkish population? Besides the number of people killed in the different villages already exceeds 35, 35 is AGAIN only based on a questionnary of 177 refugees, this is not the total number, do not do original research.DragonTiger23 (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You're again referring to the Aslan source which is in question anyways. It can easily have been mistaken for 6,000 being killed as opposed to disappeared. Find the Gehri source before anything else. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not in question it is based on the inter allied commission report, because you don't like it does not make it unreliable or that he made mistakes is not up to you to decide(this is what Athenean said earlier about Smith). But btw now you are also participating in the denial of these massacres?DragonTiger23 (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I cant believe how POV pushing some people are, Toynbee is himself the one who concludes that the Greeks were systematically murdering the Turkish and Muslim population, do you people only read you cherry picked accounts?DragonTiger23 (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not denying anything. I just don't like WP:PUFFERY. Only one source states that 6,000 were killed. This needs further affirmation from other reliable sources. The fact of the matter is, it seems as though it could have easily been mistaken for 6,000 people who chose to leave the Peninsula. The demographics of the region doesn't seem to attest to the fact that 6000 Turks got killed. The allied commission report in fact states:

• Guemlek, the principal town in the district, had some 6,000 Greek and 1,000 Moslem inhabitants before these events took place.

And as far as I am concerned, Yalova had a similar demographics and population. And again...where's the Gehri source? Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I already gave the source, I don't care whether you believe it or not, it is reliably sourced, that Turkish document is detailed information based on the international report. Besides the int commission reported that there was a extinction of the Turkish population, so why are you making original research, claiming that the demography does not support it and the Turks left the peninsula, do you have any sources of this?DragonTiger23 (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This is about the entire peninsula not only city of Gemlik, your making original research please stop denial.DragonTiger23 (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that the Muslim population of the entire peninsuala was 24k, while the number of refuggees and dead you claim (20k+6k) exceed this number. By the way Gehri said in plain English "6,000 disappeared from the region" not killed, per the link I gave from his work.Alexikoua (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't do original research. I gave you the Turkish source and translated it: it clearly says that Gehri said that "6000-6500 were massacred". BTW what you are doing is snippet view abuse.DragonTiger23 (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, then you need to bring Gehri's report as it is in its original English form, since the snippet we are interested claims something diferrend. Not to mention that it contradicts the rest of the data we have too. By the way I've checked gbooks and gscholar, seems the Gehri report is nowhere to find, or at least something that can be considered wp:rs. Toynbee's account about 35 as a total number of reported casualties is the only we have so far.Alexikoua (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)