Talk:Occupation of Smyrna

"Infidel Izmir"

The article is generally poor in quality and offers no surrounding facts or details which explain the historical conditions of Smyrna, which was a heavily majority Greek city throughout the entire time period covered. The Turks named Smyrna, Infidel I'zmir because there was no substantial Turkish population inhabiting the city.

The article includes a citation from the German author of the famously propagandist Kemal biography. The book was a response to the label: Kemal: "Butcher of the Bosphorus". The "biography" has been repeatedly proven to be filled with fraudulent propaganda.

Atrocities were only committed by Turkish troops. If vigilante acts of violence occurred, it was not connected to the liberation of Smyrna. The population was mostly Greek and Christian, the "occupation" ended with the Great Fire of Smyrna in which the Turks murdered close to one million inhabitants of the city. The exits/walled boundaries to the city were blocked off. This is why many aspects of Turkish claims are impossible.

It is important to remember the details of the population exchange that occurred after all these events; 775,000 Greeks went missed (the victims of a holocaust) 550,000+/- recorded officially by Ottoman documents. More than 550,000 exchanged Turkish population were then sent unharmed to migrate to the new "Turkey". Swiss Red Cross photographs document the mass killing of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians during the 1917-23 genocides.

The understanding of Greek history after the merging of Roman and Greek cultures from Emperor Constantine forward, is lacking. The A.S.i'A. minor area (Area South of the Aegean) was of one the first states to welcome many races and ethnic groups in. The entire region was predominately inhabited by several groups of Hellenic peoples (Classical and Non-classical), many different civilizations had contact and also traded in Micro-asia for close to at least 7,000 years. Many were Greek, none were Turk, Mongol (or "Uh-gur").

Read about the "seven Turkic kingdoms" or the desire for a "Turkic Super-state" to learn the real origin of the Turkish people.

Turk (an "exo-nym") is Greek language name, tur-tur or bar-barian; they have zero history in the area from ancient times (Justinian's death what is called the death of the Last of the Romans).

We won't have peace in this world until we all accept a true consensus of events and end this type of racism and sabotage, maybe then we will all enjoy success or some form of happiness instead of a future filled with brutality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.17.79 (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Your claims are extremely biased. Let's look at the facts instead.

This was the population count in 1914 in the province of Aydin (Izmir).

• Muslim (Turks): 1,249,067
• Greek: 299,097
• Jews: 35,041
• Armenian: 19,395

On top of that, nowadays the nickname "Infidel Izmir" or "Foreign Izmir" (Gavur Izmir, gavur means both foreign and infidel) isn't used negatively. The nickname is from the 14th century, not a nickname from the 19th century like you're attempting to claim. It is a reappropriated nickname. You can compare it to how Ajax football supporters nickname themselves the "Jews". And nowadays it is primarily used for the relaxed attitude of the city, compared to the more conservative Central Anatolia. Because people's lifestyle in Izmir (or Aegean Region in general) is "foreign" to conservative Central Anatolians.

Lastly, Arnold Toynbee has written in great detail about the rape of Western Anatolia, and the many atrocities and genocides committed by Greek soldiers (together with Armenian irregulars) with their delusional ideas of a Megali Idea. MrUnoDosTres (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This IP is saying Turks are barbarian and have zero history, and then complain about racism. Hypocricy at it's peak. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 19:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Another editor replied to your commentary, let me also add that "İzmir of the infidels" refers to the Christian/Crusader castle of the city. for further reading about the Christian Smyrna, you should check Smyrniote crusades article. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 19:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Occupation

In 1920 a Treaty was signed between the allies and Turkey. Turkey with its signature accepted the detachment of territories. One of these territories was Smyrna. Turkey violated this signature in 1922. The article however states that the occupation ended in 1922 -meaning- when the treaty was violated. There is something wrong here. 23x2 _φ 18:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, someone's concept of history... --E4024 (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Am i insulting Turkishness ? 23x2 _φ 19:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That I do not know, but to my intelligence and to that of my audiences in many conferences in my CV, yes. --E4024 (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sevres did not "detach" Izmir and environs. It was a "zone of influence". Let us say a prelude to actual detachment. By invading Izmir, Greeks had actually violated the treaty. Murat (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Peace treaty

Since the article concerns the Greek administration in a former Ottoman region, the related peace treaty that finally approved this action should be part of the lead. On the other hand unexplained reverts and conclusion in edit summaries such as this [[1]], can be easily understood as a product of extremist activity and should better be avoided.Alexikoua (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference to non existent international treaty

The "Treaty of Sevres", as referred to in a removed (now, by this user) sentence has never entered into force, as it was not ratified by Turkey. Learn more here. Thus I removed the reference to this text, as it never had the legal power of an international treaty binding the parties. --E4024 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

How is it possible not to mention the "Treaty of Sevres" in an article about the "Occupation of Smyrna" ? [[2]]. HelenOfOz (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the discussion page of that article; you do not need to create a link... --E4024 (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have the same question, how is it possible not to mention the "Treaty of Sevres" in this article? The argument that it wasn't ratified by Republic of Turkey, 3 years later is irrelevant in this case.

Indeed this treaty was signed by both parties (Entene and Ottoman Empire) and is a historic event.Alexikoua (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It "did not enter into force". You may ask what it means to a law student (maybe one of mine). --E4024 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(I know very well about the law, as well as relevant diplomatic terminology on such issies). The internationally accepted Treaty of Sevres was signed by both parts. Even if, as you claim this wasn't valid, it was a historic event and needs to be addressed in the article. So please avoid wp:IDONTLIKEIT.

You also need to support your view with a reliable source ( Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose. per wp:rs)Alexikoua (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

User without a signature: I am only showing you where to learn what you ignore, this is a talk page; sources are not needed. --E4024 (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: Sources are needed for the article, which it seems that you ignored.Alexikoua (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What we need for articles, basicly, is "objective" editors. They may not be "impartial", as long as they are "objective" that is not a problem. (In some cases the word "objective" may be equally seconded or replaced by "honest"...) Sources are so abundant, only depends on what you write in the search engine: Write "my POV" and you find sources for your POV, write "objective" you find the objective...This is all from me. --E4024 (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a proposal: we add that this specific Treaty was not accepted by the new Turkish government. Excactly what you claim.Alexikoua (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

1.What you call "Treaty" did not enter into force. This means it has not/does not exist(ed) as a valid international legal instrument. 2. It was not even signed (and the signature does not mean anything) in May 1919. I already said I do not want to discuss such a nonsense any more.

On the other hand, I recommend you to try to review your knowledge of history instead... --E4024 (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed). As i see you inist on wp:or reasearch, but the scope of this project is to support the historical events with reliable material. It's easly to conclude that your claims did not reflect the historical reality: About 1. & 2. above: " The Treaty of Sevres, signed on 10 April 1920, was the peace treaty bringing to an end the state of war between Turkey and the victorious powers of the First World War (Britain, France and Italy) and their lesser allies"

Quite and clear this wan't a non-existent Treaty, even the most inexperienced diplomat can easily conclude that this event came into effect the following years until a next treaty was signed 3 years latter.21:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

I wonder why the establishment of Smyrna's first university in 1920 isn't related with this article, since it concerns the specific period (1919-1922) [[3]] and it clearly states that this was 'during this period'. The edit summary appears also to be wrong (claims about a 'usual chronological anomaly', which I believe don't reflect the historical reality of the article).

It would be kind to avoid such kind of activity and discuss the issue in a civilized manner.Alexikoua (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've partly restored the specific section since there was/is no explanation why this was removed.Alexikoua (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The university info was mistakenly deleted, sorry. Taking the opportunity, please stop placing 1920 before 1919, as you see nobody is convinced that 1920 comes before 1919. In other words, do not try to present the so called "Sevres" Treaty as a pretext or justification of the occupation of Izmir, please. --E4024 (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Short History Lesson

As I see there are users who wish to learn: The Sevres "Treaty" was signed in August 1920. One of the two sides was the Ottoman Empire, while the other side was the countries that imposed this piece of paper to a vanquished, prisoner (Istanbul under occupation), war-thorn Government, who was challenged by an emerging Government in Ankara. (Maybe the basic reason of signature, from the part of Istanbul, was this last one indeed; to presume some power.) The occupation authority (established formally in March 1920 in Istanbul) "closed" (indeed the "Sultan" himself dissolved -or whatever legal term- but the cause is Allied pressure) the Turkish (Ottoman) parliament in April 1920. Just as the Greek occupation of Izmir in May 1919 sparked the beginning of the Turkish national struggle within the same month, this closure ended in the re-convening of the Turkish Parliament in Ankara, in April 1920. From this moment on, if not even before, the legitimate representatives of the Turkish people are in Ankara. They said no to the Sevres partition agreement (declared it null and void) and reconfirmed the "National Charter" (National borders of New Turkey, adopted by the Ottoman parliament in Istanbul in Feb. 1920, in one of its last sessions).

The Sevres document, like any other international treaty had to be "ratified". (The allies must have ignored or forgotten the fact that in Turkey, even though it was not a Republic yet, it was the parliament that "approved" the ratification of treaties according to the 1876 Constitution (x); when they obliged the Sultan to dissolve the parliament before the signing of that agreement.

(x) Maybe the allies confused the Empire with a banana republic... :-)

Treaties do not come into being without proper ratification, and enter into force only in a determined date (or time span) following the delivery (depositing) of all Ratification Documents. For Turkey (not the Republic the country), this never happened in the case of the said paper. This is why we made the Lausanne Peace Treaty (signed in a neutral country, not one of the occupiers). This is more or less a simple summary, trying to avoid intricate legal terminology like "initialling", "ad referendum" etc... --E4024 (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC) (P.D. One of the countries that did not ratify the so-called Sevres "Treaty" was Greece; see in "WP"...)

I'm sorry but what you are trying to say is completely irrelevant with your obsession to remove every mention about the T. of Sevres, which was signed in 1920 by all parts, no matter what happened inside Turkey. If you believe all this go on and add them provided you can support them with desent bibliography.Alexikoua (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Alexikoua . There was a treaty which was signed. A historical fact that needs to be included in the article. The political situation in Turkey following the signing of the Treaty may be also added. 23x2 _φ 11:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You are also welcome to my lectures on international relations... --E4024 (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this isn't the right place for lectures. You need support to support your views with a decent argument. Until now you proved the opposite: that the Treaty of Sevres needs to be included since it created a sequence of political and military events in the defeated Ottoman/Turkish state in 1920.Alexikoua (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not "that" article. We already have a WP article on that. You will not be allowed to put 1920 before 1919 nowhere in a serious encyclopedia. It is too obvious that you look for justification of an expansionist occupation, although the tragedy occurred a century ago. Neutral POV does not tolerate creating baseless excuses for a country's wrong deeds in the past. --E4024 (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is not the right place for such kind of arguments (defending national history etc about Treaties that should be removed from everywhere). If the Treaty was signed in 1920, it "is" part of this article's history. Yet again you pointed that this should be part of it. Plz avoid WP:IDONTLIKETHAT.Alexikoua (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hasan Tahsin

Considered one of the symbols of the Turkish national resistance. He shot dead the flag bearer of the Greek occupation forces that landed in Izmir on 15 May 1919. He was shot dead by the Greek soldiers in situ. Hasan Tahsin and family had been displaced from the city of Selanik like many Turks that had to leave the city that passed to Greek hands in 1912. I added his name to the article because he is considered a symbol of resistance to the said occupation. --E4024 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

His name was already there, but his place of origin is irrelevant to the context. Adding, out of the context, everyone's birthplace isn't a sound idea in general: Stergiadis was born in Ottoman era Creta, M. Ataturk from Thessaloniki, Caratheodory's family from Istanbul. Adding for every person his background for nationalistic reasons (as poited above to prove that the one came from 'occupied territories') is something we should avoid.Alexikoua (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The person had been expelled from his hometown "only seven years before". This shows clearly where he found the courage to shoot, with a revolver, at a military troop, risking an inevitable death. "Only seven years" (1912-1919) is the key to understand why he risked his life that day and the need to write his hometown (not only birthplace, the place where he passed most of his life, except the last seven years). This is the why it is not irrelevant.

(Again, with a very symbolic act of self sacrifice the person was saying: I will not lose my town again in 7 years. Why do you think he shot at the soldier carrying the Greek flag and not another?) What he did really is patriotism and to recall his name is not nationalism. Any objective person may understand this, it is a question of empathy. --E4024 (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Your approach doesn't seem to be objective, describing one's background. Indeed this was an action of resistance, but everyone had a similar background in this story (per above examples).Alexikoua (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The name of Hasan Tahsin is eternalised with a monument at the very place where he was killed in Izmir; I believe we should add a sentence on that monument. So we will call the monument without his name, like "Monument to a Turk"? If we do not write down that he was expelled from Salonica only 7 years before, how will the WP reader understand the symbolism of his act of courage? No need for that, because he is "a Turk"? Should we delete the article Hasan Tahsin, as I understand he is not notable for Mr Alexikoua... --E4024 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a 3 years history. I bet that numerous monuments in Greece& Turkey have been erected about all the related events. I believe adding this in the article Greek landing at Smyrna, which deals with the landing exclusively, would be ok.Alexikoua (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph being discussed here is a word for word copy of Ataturk by Mango as it is currently written. It changes one word and reverse the structure of a sentence, but even adding a bit about Hasan, does not change that the remainder is a Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I'm not getting involved with the content of this page and the nonsense attached with it. But the paragraph needs to be removed until a part that does not steal from other authors is added. For more help see Wikipedia:Copy-paste. Found a number of other areas where the writing smacks of the source material. A complete tear-down and build-up on the page is probably warranted. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

E4024, if you take a closer look at the Hasan Tahsin article, you will see he was a member of the secretive Special Organization during WW1. A major role this organization played was to act as "ground level organziers" in the Genocide of the Armenians and other Christians during WW1. This shadowy group even released and recruited murderers and rapists from the Ottoman prisons to help destroy the Armenians. During the war most Turks could plead ignorance about the Armenian Genocide in progress. Hasan, as a member of that special organization, cannot. Did the Armenians expel Hasan Tahsin from Salonica ? Is Hasan really a person the reader should empathize with ? HelenOfOz (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep it with the claims that sources say (which do not ascribe any culpability or even knowledge for Hasan for the genocide). Unfortunately, they also don't ascribe any motivation for him shooting the fist shot, as far as I can find. If anyone gets a source on his motivation at the time, whether because he had lost his home, following orders as part of the shadowy group, confused the Greeks with aliens, or whatever, then that should be added to the article for sure. Until then, his motivations (like his knowledge of the Armenian genocide) is speculative, at best, and evidence leading to explaining it is not appropriate for the article. However, his name certainly belongs in the story of the shooting on this page and is already on the page up above. But, if the article circles the same ground again (like it does here), it should at least be equally complete both times. Hasan should be mentioned, no motivation should be suggested. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think any Greek editor will object to the inclusion of Hasan. I wasn't thinking if he was following any orders or not. I objected to an "empathy" angle for this man because he was a member of that organization. HelenOfOz (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

1920 coming before 1919

Two issues:

1. From the "History" section of the current edition:

"A military administration was formed by the Greek premier Eleftherios Venizelos shortly after the initial landings. Venizelos had plans to annex Smyrna that he succeeded in realizing his objective in Treaty of Sèvres August 10, 1920.[6] He had immediately agreed to send Greek troops to Smyrna after Italian troops had landed in Antalya."

Izmir was occupied in 1919. The Treaty of Sevres was signed in 1920. So the said Treaty had no effect whatsoever on the decision by Greece to occupy Izmir. Simply because 1920 does not come before 1919. This edit is intended to "justify" the Greek invasion of Izmir.

On the other hand, the Treaty was signed by the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) on the one hand and the Allies on the other side. Neither the Ottoman Empire nor the Republican Turkey ratified the said Treaty and it never entered into force. (See section "Fate of the Treaty" in Treaty of Sèvres. In International Law this means that the said "Treaty" did never come into life. Another interesting issue, although of minor importance, is that Greece did not ratify the so-called Treaty either...)

2. From the section: "Turkish reaction to landings" of the current edition:

"The Greek landings had served to trigger the Turkish War of Independence, marked by the landing of Mustafa Kemal (later Atatürk) in Samsun on May 19, 1919, four days after the occupation. Kemal formed a nationalist movement with a separate government in Ankara, and no longer recognised the administration in Istanbul, which on August 10, 1920, had signed the Treaty of Sèvres, thus formally ceding the territories to Greece which she presently occupied."

The first sentence is true. We can see that in any book on the Turkish War of Liberation and any academic study related to that war. (I guess also in the relevant WP articles.) But the second sentence is problematic: Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) reconvened the Turkish parliament (or "established" The Grand National Assembly of Turkey, as later accepted in official history), on 23 Nisan 1920, after a series of National Congresses destined to organise the resistance against the Greek invasion of Western Anatolia that began with the occupation of Izmir. He formed the Government of Ankara several days later within that parliament. The sentence in our article claims, with the grammatical use "had been" tense that Atatürk formed a Government after the signing of the Treaty of Sevres, which is, of course not true. All the reference to this "born dead", not finalised, so to say "Treaty" is only for the reason of trying to find a justification to the Occupation of Izmir (or Smyrna) but history says that the said Treaty is "posterior" (1920) to the occupation, which is prior (1919).

I may understand some users wish to introduce this illogical "relationship" for reasons of their own POV. However, I cannot understand (and accept) why in Wikipedia, after almost a century, we would distort history blatantly, changing chronological order of events only to whitewash the occupation of a now non existent state (the Kingdom of Greece) over a defunct state (Ottoman Empire).

I request each and every WP user to help me to correct the text in an objective manner. Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this article needs to be rewritten in a chronological fashion. It's not a good read whatsoever. Also, there shouldn't be a "culture" section in this article, only a passing reference in the text. There are a few other issues. I suggest editors compile a chronological list of events and then try to write the article by strictly following that list. After that we can think about sections or perhaps new detailed WP articles. HelenOfOz (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Helen, while I agree with you on a good first step. I think the page is in too large of disrepair to be saved. It needs to be gutted entirely. A quick look shows the following problems at least. Let's start. 1. Greek name comes first in Infobox. Really? My red siren is going off for Nationalist POV right from the start. 2. "Flag of Smyrna" flag is a wiki-vention that links to the Flag of Greek Kingdom, which it is. It is fine if you want to put the Greek flag on the page, but to mislabel it intentionally is bull. 3. Map is not correct. It is a mix of war gains by Greece and official borders based on a one-sided map. Google Map of Ottoman Empire 1919 and you see they don't line up. Basing a map on a clearly one-sided source (that has been noted for problems) is ridiculous. That's just the infobox, now onto content: 4. Small writing errors. Graph 2: The "Greek occupation became very controversial" to whom?. "He had immediately agreed" With whom? "this turn of events povoked" alright simple typo. 5. Background section had no real citations until the last paragraph. And some sections awful close to original. Wiki-Article: "Lloyd George had thus concocted a report according to which Turkish guerrillas had threatened the Greek community of Smyrna" Original text: "He concocted a report that an armed uprising of Turkish guerrillas in the Smyrna area was seriously endangering the Greek and other Christian minorities" (Jensen 1979, pg. 554). 6. History section is written pulp fiction style with broken chronology, which I love. Look at the start. It starts in 1919 (post landing), then moves to 1920 with Sevres, then farther back to the Italian takeover of Antalya. 7. The history section uses sources creatively. Let's look at "Stergiadis was against any form of discrimination against the Turks", ummmmmm. Ionian Vision (the source) doesn't say that. It says he punished discrimination by censoring the news for pragmatic motives (not to look bad to the British), not that he was "against any form of discrimination". This is kinda endemic of the history section. 8. Then we get the landing with the discussion of Hasan (by the way, if we didn't mention that John Wilkes Booth was a Southern radical, that seems like it would be incomplete, his motivation seems like a worthy contribution) and Turkish and Greek responses. Which then repeats later, so yeah... 9. Treatment of local populations, while "even handed" (for including both arguments) is not based on all reputable sources. We have some random website that provides n-1 sources for its claims with glowing defense of how well the Greek administration took care of the Muslims. And we get more close to text writing: original source "loans were granted, new machine-cultivation methods were promoted, public works, such as road constructions, were inaugurated." The wiki-article "loans were granted, new machine-cultivation methods were promoted, public works, such as road constructions, were inaugurated". 10. Culture section, you and I are agreed upon. Take it out. 11. Then we have the Demography section, which distorts the record by saying "British records say...and American records show the same thing." If you go to the sources, they are the same records. The British used the American records and that is quite clear. But also, "According to some sources, the suggestion that the Greek element constituted a certain majority in the lands claimed by Greece has been contested" But it links unclearly to a book about British foreign policy ending in 1914. Hmmmmmm... 12. Then we get to the effects section, and once again are back to 1917 and before the landing. I love it when effects precede causes. Whew. This was a quick read through with minimal fact-checking. Any scratching at the surface is sure to find creative retelling, use of weird sources over reputable sources, and other nonsense. 3 of the 4 lines I've checked for copyright violations have been direct copies or close. Two are probably copyright violations, all 3 are way too close for comfort. The fact is that this page needs to be torn down, replaced with a stub, until these problems, at least, can be fixed. I wish a quick rewrite were possible, but doubt it will do any good when we can't even get the chronology right, that doesn't bode well for fixing the larger issues. I'd be willing to help out on the page, but not if it is going to be short-circuited for nationalist propaganda, which every indication shows it will. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Stubbing seems way overblown to deal with a couple of contents problems. Also, the article is already roughly chronological, we do not need to make a chronicle out of it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"a couple contents problems". (subtle chuckle to myself) I'm not sure there is one truthful statement in the article. It even gets the end date wrong (sure by only a day), but since I know you like Brill's, here ya go. Regardless, I'm not spending my time digging through iron. If you all want to make it a good page, I think starting over is best. If you all disagree with that, awesome. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of events

@All Editors, add an article-related event in the correct chronological sequence below. This list will eventually (hopefully) be used for the article rewrite. HelenOfOz (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

26 April 1917

• The Italian and Anglo-French Agreement of St. Jean de Maurienne

30 October 1918

• The Armistice of Mudros is signed.

Article 7 “The Allies have the right to occupy any strategic points in the event of a situation arising which threatens the security of the Allies.”

9 March 1919

• Italian forces coming from the Dodecanese landed in Antalya

4 May 1919

• U.S., UK and France support Lloyd George's proposal to give Smyrna zone to Greece.(Jensen 1979)

15 May 1919

• Occupation/Liberation starts. Greek forces land in Smyrna, (depending from which side one sees it).
• Hasan Tahsin shoots flag bearer

19 May 1919

• landing of Mustafa Kemal (later Atatürk) in Samsun

22 July 1920

• 6 Greek divisions cross the Milne line separating the Smyrna Zone from Anatolia (Jensen 1979)

10 August 1920

• administration in Istanbul had signed the Treaty of Sèvres

9 September 1922

• Occupation ends / starts . The last of the Greek forces leave Smyrna.
• Small British force enters the city to hand power over to the Turks. (Jensen 1979)
• Lynching of Chrysostomos of Smyrna by Turkish mob.

10 September 1922

• Kemal entered Smyrna. (Jensen 1979)

13 September 1922

• Great Fire of Smyrna (Jensen 1979)

24 July 1923

• Treaty of Lausanne

I am right now returning from a 24 hour block for an edit war on this article. (I deliberately chose to do my first edit after the block right here, in the same article, although on its talk page, not to disappoint expectations of behaviour from a supposed "edit warrior"... :-) After the joke, can I ask you, Dear Helen, "Why does 10 August 1920, the date of signature of the famous Treaty come before 22 July 1920, date of some Greek politico-military action in regional history in your timeline?" I really wonder if it is something related to a mistake in some education programme in a certain country or what, but somehow this defunct Treaty always precedes certain Greek actions in history irrespective of their date... (Maybe our friend Macrakis could contribute to the understanding of this phenomenon, because he had read some studies on Greek history textbooks. I will ask him to help here.)

That was my mistake, I entered it wrong. Apologies. Apologies all around. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

In general this timeline is ok, and it's really good that most editors agree that the Treaty of Sevres should be included. But there is a huge chronological gap between Aug. 1920- Sep. 1922. We need information about this period , which is by far the longest part of the occupation. After all, this is the topic of the article! Smyrna and surroundings, from 1919 to 1922 (military developments inside Smyrna zone, politics, society, culture). We need such information, in order to achieve comprehensiveness.

The various events should be treated in a balanced wayle. More specific thoughts:

• Since this was a territory controlled by Greece the infobox is in consistency with the specific category of articles (a Greek depedency, any alternative suggestions for another infobox would be interesting) The flag was used by the local administration, however I don't thing this is necessary, but the map is ok (Smyrna occupation zone in comparison to Greece).
• The treatment of the local population, should equally mention all communities: Christians/Muslims/Armenians etc, although this section seems to be somewhat balanced now
• Initiatives of the local admnistration (the foundation of the university can be added here, as well as the most of the culture section: education etc.)
• I suggest to get rid of quotes and replace them with prose.
• The Turkish recapture needs to be rewriten and balanced (now it just describes one side negatively with a quote).Alexikoua (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Dead-born Treaty

I never had any objection to the "mentioning" of the dead-born, invalid "treaty" (within quotation marks) that one specific user loves to remind. I only objected its being used in a wrong chronological order, in a ridiculous attempt to invent some justification for an occupation that occurred before the said text was signed. (You got it, right? Had 24 hours to rethink.) Feel free to refer to that text as long as you do not revert the order of historical events and always clarifying that the so-called "treaty" never entered into force; which means it has not achieved legal value, ever... --E4024 (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Another chronological disorder

Ref (2) refers to a speech in 1919 but the article text where the ref is added is about the Turkish parliament that reconvened in Ankara on 23 April 1920. ??? --E4024 (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

So, time has passed with little movement on getting chronology right, answering E's problems or answering my problems with the page. So, a significant rewrite was appropriate. This is based on sources by academic historians written after the British archives of the time were open for analysis. Analysis before that is incomplete, non-historian work is problematic because it isn't looking at all the evidence. I did not use Mango's autobiography of Smyrna because most of his insights are from secondary sources, unlike a lot of his other evidence and because the aim of this rewrite was to get a basic chronology with details down (if someone wants to add in Mango, I'm cool). So that's that. Some changes for possible discussion:

• Removed Culture and Demography. Neither of these play a key role in the canon of historical work on the Occupation of Smyrna (except for some Toynbee quotations about demography). We could add one in, but it needs to be far more advanced than the preceding demography discussion.
• Controversial language is quoted. But no long block quotes. I could see us developing a section about "Different Views of Violence on May 15 and May 16" like is there in the Great Fire of Smyrna article. With Harbord and the Interallied report, Toynbee, stuff like that. But, otherwise, the block quotations are not necessary.
• Got rid of the map. It shows areas shaded as Greek that they took over in 1920 (i.e. the Western Marmara). I'm also not sure if the Smyrna territory is the Smyrna Sanjak or the Smyrna of the Milne line (note: different borders).

Regardless, hope everyone thinks that this is a better tapestry to improve the content of the article. If not, say so below. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your objective contributions to this article. --E4024 (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but to me it seems like some major albeit subtle Turkish POV pushing. You have removed significant sections of the article and even the introduction makes it look like as if Greece invaded some alien country where no Greek ever lived and forcefully tried to make it Greek. You removed the demographics - why? How is it not important to show that there were more Greeks than Muslims in the Zone at the time? You keep on referring to it as an "occupation", a Turkish POV term, and you conveniently removed the sections which pointed out that Turks where in fact not a majority in the Zone. Suspecious. Also, why did you remove the map? Its obviously in 1920, why does it have to be in 1919? The Zone was not abolished in 1920, I fail to see why it has to be removed. --Philly boy92 (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Philly. I used no Turkish sources (most are Brits, I think). I collected what the best (English-Language) historians have to say on the topic. All decisions were made based upon the best sources available on the topic. So, let's go through this: 1. Fix the lead. I'm pretty sure it doesn't make it sound like they invaded some alien country but go ahead and fix it. 2. Removed demographics because none of the top histories talk about it at all. As I said above, I'm not opposed to it, but we gotta get some A+ sources for a really good section. (Also, not sure it's relevance to the article, but anyway). 3. Why use the term "occupation"? Well, because the major English language historians do. See Smith. 4. My problems with the map: A. It says it is 1919, but that isn't Greeks borders in 1919 (maybe 1920). B. It was based on a treaty that never came into force. C. It is from a Greek map with a number of problems, D. It doesn't identify what Smyrna we are talking about, the Sanjak or the Smyrna zone. It looks like the Smyrna zone, but in that case includes too much territory to the North. You want demographics added, I'll even do the work, just send me top notch sources and I'll add them into the article (they weren't in the old ones), particularly useful would be some article showing that demographics mattered to the actors involved, Toynbee suggests they didn't (by the way). Hope you'll drop the Turkish POV stuff, it won't help us have a good conversation about improving the page. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Stergiadis' Motivations

There seems to be a discrepancy in sources about the root of Stergiadis' motivations for taking a hard line against discrimination of the Turkish populations: whether he wanted to avoid the appearance of discrimination to the outside world for pragmatic reasons or whether he genuinely was against the discrimination. Here's relevance sources:

1. Richard Clogg A Concise History of Greece: "Despite the ruthless punishment of the Greek culprits and the arrival a few days later of the Greek High Commissioner, Aristeides Stergiadis, an austere disciplinarian with a genuine commitment to the even-handed treatment of Greeks and Turks, the damage had been done." Pg. 93. (emphasis mine)
2. Giles Milton Paradise Lost: "His treatment of the church leaders, coupled with his absolute impartiality, earned Stergiadis the undying hatred of many local Greeks...Such sentiments must have brought a rare smile to Stergiadis's face; they sent a signal to the outside world that he was ruling his fiefdom with absolute justice. This, after all, was what Venizelos had ordered him to do, aware that the Megali idea itself was on trial." pg. 162
3. Smith Ionian Visions: "Stergiadis struck hard at any discrimination against the Turks which might disturb order or complicate his delicate relationship with the allied representatives." pg. 92

To reflect this disagreement, I edited the article in this way: 1. Lead does not mention his motivation at all, not the place to go into that detail, 2. In content includes both possible motivations. Don't like this edit? Discuss here. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Why I'm reverting edits about culpability

I'm reverting the recent additions because the sources are problematic and because the focus crosses the WP:UNDUE threshold. The Jensen article should provide the baseline on a few things: 1. When talking about the Occupation of Smyrna, the fire should get brief mention because it came after the occupation. That is how much weight Jensen gives it. Similar in terms of weight percentage, although more lengthy, for Smith. 2. The Armenian and Greek quarters were not completely destroyed (that is just dramatic phrasing), they were mostly destroyed (as was said in article before recent edits). 3. Blame will (probably) never be known. Get over it. Jensen establishes a clear way to deal with this uncertainty, just say that everyone has been blamed and we don't know. A less optimal way to deal with the problem is to infer blame from some book review (why not use the original source?). Recent edits are problematic in terms of WP:UNDUE and a Hemingway scholar and a book review that contradict the claims in historians is a problem solved by WP:HISTRS. Jensen and Smith win. How to convince me: Find historians for the claims and who provide the weight desired in writing about the Occupation. Otherwise the claims can stay over on the appropriate article on the Great Fire of Smyrna and don't need to add too much weight to a page about the Occupation. Mention in prior form is sufficient, NPOV, and based on reliable sources for a history page. Added mentions are UNDUE, possibly POV, and not based on reliable sources for a history page. Peace. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Aybars content and reverts

So, the Aybars source has been added and reverted twice. The most recent time "post a URL" is against WP:Verifiability policy. The source clearly exists here and appears to be an RS. That doesn't mean it should be in the article and that it is quality. But the content can be verified, the source is not self-published and is from a professor. Please post thoughts here rather than reverting again. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks AbstractIllusions for the url. However, the point remains if this should be part of the text, i.e. why the specific person's death should be mentioned in detail. After all some hundreds of Greeks and Turks died that day.Alexikoua (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think I agree with that. It seems an odd addition of a person of borderline notability. None of the major English language histories seem to prioritize the event (although Smith may mention it without mentioning the name) so I find it hard to assess weight. Let's give the proponents of its inclusion 72 hours from now to justify the inclusion of the content and if there is no response remove it based on discussion here. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I added sources to show that the person was not of borderline notability but a high-ranking official who was trying to communicate with the invaders and was killed violently for trying to reject an illegal act of occupation. Note: The word "violently" is a softened form of "savage Greeks" (vahşi Yunanlılar) of the Turkish historian Yılmaz Öztuna, in "Tarih Sohbetleri". Vol. I, Ötüken Neşriyat, İstanbul, 1998, p.210. (In his article "Büyük Zafer" in "Türkiye" newspaper, 27.08.2011, he does not repeat that qualification. but he considers the violent death of Col. Fethi Bey as an event that flared national feelings and gave way to the Turkish War of National Liberation.) --212.174.190.23 (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, a source that uses the term "savage Greeks" (in 1998!) is not an WP:RS by definition. That type of polemical source is exactly why this page fell into such disrepair before. I'm not sure adding sources that use such terms is of any help in improving the content of the page. I still don't see the relevance of this particular content when mentions of the incident seem to be of minor weight in the sources that I can see. I need to see someone accord the act significant weight and not passing mention for me to be convinced it should be included. (Note: as sometimes happens with these things--is there any other spelling of the guy's name which might be used in English or other language sources? That could help) AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
      • That is none of the four sources I added to the article. I am afraid there is a prejudice against Turkish sources. If so, I am out of here. --212.174.190.23 (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Maybe you care for non-Turkish sources more. This one for example? Look for Suleiman Fethi. You may find this name also in allied documents. --212.174.190.23 (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
        • This has nothing to do with the passports held by sources (whether Turkish or Greek). This has to do with understanding the weight of the claims being made in the sources. None of the excellent post-1950 histories in English say much about the guy. So far, you've provided what appears to be a few passing mentions in sources and nothing substantive. There are passing mentions about lots of people that died or were hurt in the occupation and war which followed (those "allied documents" you refer to list hundreds of people, which is why we prefer secondary histories escaped from the fog of war). So far, it does not seem to be of significant mention to be warranted in coverage. Wikipedia can't and shouldn't include every detail about the Occupation. Our job is to discern "Is this information given enough attention in the main sources to warrant inclusion in the articles?" So far, the Fethi stuff doesn't seem to get anything but a brief mention. To repeat: "I need to see someone accord the act significant weight and not passing mention for me to be convinced it should be included." AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed Smith appears to briefly mention this event, although without details and without the name of the Turkish officer. I also noticed that this event (the way Smith describes it) is mentioned in the article about the 'Greek landing at Smyrna', an article focused in the events of the specific landing. However, this article here concerns the 3 year long Greek presence in the region and we have still no congrete argument to justify such an inclusion.Alexikoua (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Another good point and one I used above to keep lengthy discussion of the Fire from coming onto this page. I agree with Alexikoua that the if the event warrants content, it may be most appropriate on the Landing article. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Archives

Good source, this one or not, on Greek atrocities in Izmir? --212.174.190.23 (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Not good source. Primary reporting during the events is ok, but secondary reporting which takes the context and situation into consideration is better for editing Wikipedia. A report written in 1919 will not be the best source for us to determine the weight of specific claims because it doesn't deal with them but simply reports. Archives like this are great if you are writing an original study on the Smyrna/Izmir occupation, but they are less useful for us when writing a Wikipedia article. Our question is weight and not whether it happened or gets brief mention in sources: in which case, this source is not great. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY might help the issue become clearer. To keep it simple, the source you provided is a primary source which can provide some aspects of claims, but which can't really answer our weight question. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I reverted the content based upon WP:UNDUE weight. Here is the diff for future reference if we decide to re-add the content. This revision should not be interpreted as a general statement against the content--which may be appropriate on other wikipedia articles. However, it does not seem to be central to the Occupation itself which is the subject of this page. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

"A report written in 1919 will not be the best source for us to determine the weight of specific claims because it doesn't deal with them but simply reports"? I am trying to understand what is said here. What does "dealing with" mean, instead of reporting? It implies commentary, which by nature is non-neutral mostly. Secondly, this is a report prepared for Lausanne Conference, you know, where a dozen nations attended, presented to hundred diplomats, a very competent audience, so how can it not have sufficient weight? Thirdly, the long report certainly does more than just "reporting", but it puts all in historic context. Finally, how can the very impact (wanton destruction) of this occupation, which was severe enough to be raised in the Conference and where all other participants agreed a compensation was in order, can not be relevant to the central theme of occupation itself? I am surprised that there was not more discussion on this totally unwarranted and poorly justified meddling and reverting.

Greek administration

The specific section needs to be expanded since it is the core of the article. It includes the entire period from 1919 to 1922, which was not a theatre of war, concerning the Smyrna occupation zone. Thus, I'll do my best expanding it.Alexikoua (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 15 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a consensus that the current name is the WP:COMMONNAME found in reliable sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Occupation of Smyrna → Greek Administration of Smyrna – Calling it an occupation is ridiculously POV. From some points of view, the Greeks were the rightful owners and the Turks the occupiers. Let's use a neutral title instead. Genealogizer (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Let's follow neutral sources rather than inventing our own "neutral" titles. The chapter in Michael Llewellyn-Smith's book about the topic is called "The Occupation of Smyrna." We should have a very good reason for deviating from his usage: A usage based on an in-depth diplomatic study of the topic (from a largely Greek perspective) and which is likely to prevent conflict over the page name in the medium term. More importantly, "Occupation of Smyrna" is the standard description for the events in the larger scholarly community. Stephen Walt's book, or Balint's description of Ottoman war crime trials, or Rao's history of modern Europe, Tuker's document history of WWI, etc. (Side note: It is odd to argue that "occupation" is a biased term, it is a technical term that does not imply any right or wrong. Compare the Treaty of Sevres text (Article 66) with the definition of Military occupation. Seems like a good application of the term: it is only reading it with a lens focused on nationality of people that the term becomes problematic). "Occupation of Smyrna" is neutral, used in sources, and prevents infinite regress of the article title. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• Accept: It wasn't simply occupation as the Turkish pov suggests: it had full approval by the international community and the establishment of the local Greek administration was included in the provisions of the Treaty of Sevres, per article 70: (World War I: Encyclopedia) "The Greek Government will be responsible for the administration of the city of Smyrna and the territory defined in Article 66, and will effect this administration by means of a body of officials." Thus Greek "administration" or Gr. "High Command" would be a more precise (and official) title in this occasion instead for a more generalised term "occupation". Scholarship also favours "administration", for example: The Recognition of States: Law and Practice in Debate and Evolution, Nationalism in International Relations, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law.Alexikoua (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Two of those sources that you say "favour 'administration'" do not. The 'Nationalism in International Relations' book uses "Occupation" as the header for the discussion of Smyrna (page 162). Or your Israeli source: "The basic cause for the transplantation of Greek and Turkish populations was the great existing enmity between the two communities that were further exacerbated by the Greek invasion and occupation of Smyrna" (page 501). The best way to keep this page neutral is to make sure we aren't misrepresenting the actual sources on the topic. You are misrepresenting your sources. (Note: Even Greek scholars use the term "Occupation" understanding that the term doesn't have any nationalist POV. See here, or maybe here, or maybe here, etc.) AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Support: I strongly support this request. There is no unanimous academic consensus on how to call these historical events, some call them Occupation, others call them liberation, others refrain from giving them title. But this proposal is at least well balanced between the Turkish POV and the Greek POV on these events. The Turkish term used for these events, "Occupation of Smyrna", is quite biased and one-sided POV and is no better than the Greek term "Liberation of Smyrna". The Turkish term "Occupation" and Greek term "Liberation" are just the two opposite sides of the same coin, nothing more. They do not represent the events in a neutral way and without bias. Wikipedia is supposed to take no sides and rather call the events how it should. The request has my full support. --SILENTRESIDENT 17:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Sources for any of your claims? AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

George Horton: The Blight of Asia [4]

Greece in Asia Minor : the Greek administration of the Vilayet of Aidin, 1919-1922 [5]

THE HELLENIC ADMINISTRATION IN SMYRNA (MAY 15, 1919 - SEPTEMBER 9, 1922) [6]

Greek administration of Smyrna (1919–1922) [7]

These are just some English samples. Certainly the term Administration is not WP:OR and in my opinion can be a good compromise between the two POVs. --SILENTRESIDENT 19:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

To be clear: "The Turkish term "Occupation" and Greek term "Liberation" are just the two opposite sides of the same coin, nothing more." Where is your source for this claim? AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Also. Please read your own sources. They undermine your argument. To just start with George Horton, the line you link to is "charitable workers in Smyrna and its hinterland during the Greek occupation, will verify the statement that the Hellenic administration..." (page 88). This supports A. Occupation is preferred over administration for the entirety of the events as opposed to the legal rule, and B. There probably isn't a POV to the word "occupation." AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't actually agree that the international peace treaty that confirmed a WWI situation is pov but it clearly states that the Greek presence is termed "administration" and as such scholarship accepts this fact. No wonder Solomonidis dissertation in King's College is titled "Greece in Asia Minor: The Greek Administration in the Vilayet of Aydin".Alexikoua (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Article 70 reads: "The Greek Government will be responsible for the administration of the city of Smyrna and the territory defined in Article 66". If you think that "clearly states that the Greek presence is termed 'administration'" then you are not reading it correctly. There really is no basis to this move request and insistence to the contrary has led to significant distortion of evidence, insisting something is Turkish POV that clearly is not, and post a mirror of this Wikipedia article as evidence. It really is bad. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

In addition to above, George Horton, who seems to have no problems with the term "occupation", is more often than not criticised as having an anti-Turkish POV in the reviews of his work. Just another point that makes the whole "the term occupation is Turkish POV" argument look frivolous. --GGT (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - per AbstractIllusions' succinct comments. To claim that the term occupation is based on Turkish POV and to use the wording of international treaties to this end are no more than sophistry when Llewellyn-Smith, the chief scholar writing in English on the subject refers to this as "occupation". Of the three comments for the move, only Alexikoua's refers to literature. However, as perfectly illustrated by AbstractIllusions, the sources cited by no means establish that "administration" is preferred to "occupation" in literature (and indeed the sources don't even favour "administration"), I do not see how his/her conclusion stands. To add to the point above, acclaimed historian Norman Naimark also refers to this as "Occupation of Smyrna" in his book. "Occupation" is a perfectly neutral term, is ubiquitously used by the academic community to refer to the Greek military takeover and subsequent rule of Smyrna and does not even imply lack of acceptance by the international community. --GGT (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Occupation is the correct technical term used by the sources. The term is in principle neutral, although not always used neutrally. Regarding the sources given by SilentResident in support of the term "administration", all of them also use the term "occupation". In the Solomonides dissertation "Greece in Asia Minor: The Greek Administration in the Vilayet of Aydin" also mentioned by Alexikoua, the preface states "This study focuses on the administration of the areas occupied by Greece in Asia Minor". In all cases "occupation" is used for the "facts on the ground", while "administration" is used about the administration of the occupied areas. Quite logical and neutral. Even the Greek Wikipedia article has the title "Κατοχή της Σμύρνης", κατοχή meaning occupation, the same term as used about the German-Italian-Bulgarian occupation of Greece in 1941–44. The Turkish Wikipedia, on the other hand, has the title "İzmir'in İşgali", meaning "Invasion of İzmir/Smyrna", which is perhaps not quite as neutral. --T*U (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

TU-nor, your argument that "the sources given by SilentResident in support of the term administration, all of them also use the term occupation" is very poor. Here we are talking about the term "Occupation" not being included in the title name, not about the term Occupation being included in the main bodies of these sources or in the main body of the Wiki article. So please don't bring up such arguments when you are referring to my sources because that is not the case. After all, even the article here in Wikipedia uses the term "Occupation" on its main body (aside from the title), and I am absolutely fine with that. I could never ask for the term "Occupation" to be removed from the Occupation of Smyrna's main body, but I ask for the term to be removed from the article's title, and I vehemently am asking that this is corrected.

After all, in Wikipedia, a similar rationale is used for regions that Turkey occupied from the Greeks and Cypriots, such as the case of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (which is occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey), and yet, the term "Occupied" is not used for its title. That, despite the fact that the vast majority of the sources available on internet calling TRNC's territory an occupation. It stinks of bias to me that the term "Occupation of Northern Cyprus" is avoided and the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is preferred instead when the same can't be done for the Greek administration of Smyrna. I am sorry but this lacks any logic and I can't help but see this as a pro-Turkish POV. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

SilentResident, I may have expressed myself poorly, since you missed my point, that administration and occupation are not the same thing. This article is about the landing in Smyrna, about the administration of the occupied areas and about what happened next, the "disaster". The common term for this whole case complex in the literature, also in the works you cite, is "occupation".

Northern Cyprus is a bit on the side, but let me comment: If Wikipedia had been around in, say 1978, the article about Northern Cyprus could well have been named "Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus". But after more than 30 years as a de facto state (albeit a puppet state), the common term in the sources is "Northern Cyprus". And by the way, the article is not called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", as you claim, but just "Northern Cyprus". --T*U (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@TU-nor:, bit of an aside: the Turkish term "işgal" means both "invasion" and "occupation", here it can be clearly inferred that this is intended to mean "occupation". Such use of vocabulary can also be observed on the Turkish-language article on Northern Cyprus. As for the whole Northern Cyprus argument, this is clearly not only WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but also demonstrates a lack of awareness - the various articles we have on the issue, even the articles on Turkish Wikipedia, have no reservations about using the word to describe the status. More can be said but that's irrelevant. --GGT (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per the sources and arguments provided above. Furthermore, technically, the Smyrna Zone was Ottoman territory, whose administration was later (in 1920) entrusted to Greece for five years. For at least the first year, it was military occupation by Allied mandate, of the same kind as exercised by the Allies in Germany after the World Wars (and in other placed of Ottoman Turkey as well, e.g. Constantinople). Even the official title of the Army of Asia Minor was initially simply "Army of Occupation". The fact that Greece installed a civilian administration (both as a first step to eventual annexation and, and this is important, to protect the local Muslims from the excesses of a purely military administration) does not alter this. Since we are discussing this, however, what is definitely a POV title is this article's pendant, the Liberation of Izmir. This is one of the most typical WP:WEASEL words, as it was certainly not a "liberation" for the many Greeks living in the city. Constantine ✍ 12:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Cplakidas, the occupied northern half of the Cypriot territory by Turkey, however is not called "Occupation of Northern Cyprus" on its title, even though it is clearly an occupation. Instead, it is called by its administrative name: "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". Yet you are opposing doing the same for Smyrna, then an Ottoman Turkish territory occupied by Greece. I am sorry but I am failing to understand your logic in this. To me, to call the Greek administration on Turkish territory an "Occupation" on the article's title, but to not call the Turkish administration in Cyprus an Occupation on its title, lacks any known, to me, rationales and honestly, stinks of anti-Greek POV. --SILENTRESIDENT 12:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

"Occupation" is a technical term that can be used in many ways. In all of them, however, it means broadly "military-based control over a territory not part of the controlling state". Occupation can be legally sanctioned or not, it can be provisional or open-ended (e.g., Israel and the Palestinian territories), but the essence is the same. By any definition, that is what we have here. Bringing personal interpretations about the relative meaning of "occupation" is not an argument. On Cyprus, WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, it is almost the same case, with one distinction: for several decades now, the Turkish-Cypriot community operates an ostensibly "independent" and "sovereign" government, alongside the Turkish military, which is a "peacekeeping force". That this is fiction more than reality is clear to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge about the Cyprus issue, but the declaration of such a state creates facts nevertheless, regardless of its legality; that is why discussions about a reunification of Cyprus are on the lines of a bi-zonal confederation, and not about a "liberation" of the Turkish-occupied north and its reintegration into the Republic of Cyprus. If Greece had in 1919 created a "Republic of Ionia" (and certainly if said state had lasted a few decades, issued its own passports, held elections, etc.), then we would almost certainly have this article there as well. Constantine ✍ 13:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Cplakidas, technical term or not, you can't argue that it is used for cases where the military actions are followed by the establishment of a civil rule (local governments, either elected or appointed) in a region. If this article was just about the military occupation and not about the Greek government of Smyrna, then there couldn't be any reason for this move to ever be requested in the first place. --SILENTRESIDENT 13:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Not true. Civilian rule can perfectly well exist within the framework of a military occupation, when this civilian authority is a) neither independent of the nation performing the occupation, nor b) is it considered to be part of that nation's sovereign territory. The fact that the Greek occupation of Smyrna was legal and internationally sanctioned, and furthermore relatively peaceful once established and much more benign compared to say, the German occupation of Belgium during World War I, is beside the point. That being said, there is nothing to prevent anyone from starting an article about the administrative structure and record of the Greek authorities in the Smyrna Zone, and naming this article Greek administration of the Smyrna Zone, or plain "Smyrna Zone". There is plenty material to justify such a dedicated article, and ample precedent in WP about having an overview "occupation" article, and then individual articles detailing the various agencies, bodies, etc. involved in it. Constantine ✍ 14:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting splitting the article instead of moving it? --SILENTRESIDENT 14:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, from where I stand, if one wanted to make a thorough and rational analysis of the topic, there are a number of sub-topics here: one is the overall Greek occupation of Turkish territory in Anatolia during the war of 1919-1922, which is a subject in its own right, and which includes subjects such as a historical timeline, legal issues, portrayal in historiography, etc.; the Smyrna Zone, which is a distinct entity under civil administration (i.e., Stergiades), with a legal Greek mandate, being prepared for eventual annexation; then you have the rear areas of the field army, which were, AFAIK, under military authority and not under that of Stergiades (I may be mistaken here); and as a related fourth topic, the Greek administration of Eastern Thrace in the same period, which was annexed to Greece. The present article would be a good starting point for the first topic, although then it probably should be renamed. Right now it is narrowly specific to the city and environs of Smyrna in the period 1919-1922, and for this the present title is OK. Constantine ✍ 11:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV tag

• Title is POV
• View of Turkish scholars is not represented

Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

How is the title POV? "Occupation" is the commonly used name for this in scholarly literature, as shown above. "Smyrna" was the name of the city used at that time in English. And the full cite for Solomonidis, 1984 is in the "Sources" section? This one? Fair enough about Turkish scholars, that would naturally introduce some systemic bias. --GGT (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Occupation of Izmir is used by high quality sources (See Erik-Jan Zürcher), and Izmir is the more recognizable name. I have seen this link around Wikipedia many times, but I've never read the article before — I just found out about this by chance, while trying to wikilink Occupation of Izmir during an article translation.

I was also about to add that the infobox is for a former subdivision? Is this article about the occupation or a historical geographical district? If the former, shouldn't the infobox be changed to match the article subject? I think it may go against MOS:FLAG also.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: @GGT: What I've read is that Turkish sources today, in Western languages prefer using Turkish names for Ottoman-era cities even if the Turkish names weren't used in Western languages at the time. This is why Turkish authors prefer using Izmir even though Smyrne was the name in French (and Smyrna at the time was the name in English); it was after 1930 when this changed in Western languages. The question is whether this historiographical usage has spread to modern sources today, and whether this is a deliberate adoption. I notice many current English-language sources about Ottoman Constantinople use "Istanbul" even though, at the time, "Istanbul" was only used in Turkish to refer to the walled city and not the entire city ("Stamboul" was used in French/English for the walled city at the time). In this case, consider whether current-day writers of all nationalities, in English, are still using Smyrna or have switched to Izmir in regards to his event, and if they explain why they did so in their books. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)