This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Burning of Smyrna article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreece
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
In the text, it is mentioned that "most" sources support Greek side's claims while "a few" support Turks' side. However, the cited sources do not make such statement. Are the "most" and the "a few" used because there are 2 citations for the Greek side and 1 citation for the Turkish side on the sentence? Should not the usage of "most"/"a few" statements be based on a research analyzing the extent of all the available resources (if such research exists)? I removed these 2 specific problematic usages and another user has revoked the change suggesting me to write to talk. Here I am. Let us talk before forming it collaboratively. 136.159.213.222 (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more I read the article the funnier it gets. Why is it called "landing of Greek army" after 493 years of Ottoman rule but "Turkish occupation" after 3 years of Greek rule? I will not request for a change as I realize maybe Wikipedia is not what I thought it is, but will definitely come back reading this article when I want to have some laugh. 136.159.213.222 (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: These are military operations and it's common English; the language accurately reflects what happened.
Landing. What other word would you use? Troops are frequently referred to as "landing"; for example the phrase, "the Allied landing at Normandy", when we liberated Europe from the Nazis, is the same phrasing as the "Greeks landing at Smyrna".
Occupation. What other word do you want to use for an army taking control of a city? "Occupation" is the best word to describe what Turks did, when an army takes control of a city it is referred to as an occupation, for example "the Nazis occupied Paris" during World War II, and "The Turks occupied Smyrna" is the same phrasing.
Neutral sources reflect the use of these words.
You never explain how 493 years of Ottoman rule makes the Greek landing not a landing and the Turkish occupation of the city not an occupation. Whether it was 490 years or 1 year makes no difference in the appropriate language to describe these operations.
Dear Timothy, I will explain myself step by step, please evaluate my points with a technical point of view.
Now, please open the Wiki page titled "Greek landing at Smyrna" you specifically linked to this page after my complaint (btw, thank you for this, you just made my job easier).
In that very page, it says "The Greek landing at Smyrna" ... "became important for creating the three-year-long Greek Occupation of Smyrna".
Since it is a page you linked, I do not think you will oppose that so-called Greek landing is a part of the Greek occupation.
Now, my question is, why do you (not only specifically you but also all the Wiki editors who resent to such fair changes) use the intermediate term "Landing" for Greek side's actions which also led to occupation, but the end result "Occupation" directly for Turks' side's actions? Either both sides' actions should be named as "landing" which leads to "Occupation", or "occupation" directly.
Such biases are easily visible to outsiders but Wikipedia has become such a political instrument with a single and narrow perspective that it is not even possible to try to improve it.
Anyway, as I told before, I do not expect any changes here (both the article and the entire Wikipedia), and it does not matter either. I just wanted to express that it is just sad to see such a big chance like Wikipedia did go to waste in the hands of a bunch of people with a fixed view. I do not think this platform deserves anyone's time. So long. 136.159.213.81 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your bias is even apparent in your analogy, parallelling Turks with Nazis and Greeks with the Allied forces. It’s pretty funny how bald it is, really. Funny and sad. 71.247.20.96 (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the Esteemed Editorial Board of Wikipedia,
Serious Neutrality and Historical Accuracy Concerns Regarding Attribution of Responsibility for the Smyrna Fire
I am respectfully requesting an urgent reassessment of the current article, specifically regarding the attribution of responsibility for the Burning of Smyrna (1922). Upon detailed examination, substantial neutrality and logical inconsistencies have been identified.
The current narrative predominantly reflects sources alleging Turkish responsibility without sufficient acknowledgment of credible, neutral sources asserting the contrary. Crucially omitted are the official reports of İzmir Fire Chief Paul Grescowich (an Austrian citizen of Serbian origin) and the detailed eyewitness report by American engineer Mark Prentiss, preserved in the U.S. Library of Congress ("Bristol Papers"), both explicitly rejecting Turkish culpability. These sources offer critical historical evidence countering widely cited yet heavily biased accounts, such as those from George Horton, who had clear affiliations favoring Greek perspectives, and Marjorie Housepian Dobkin, whose accounts are largely based on selective testimonies.
Furthermore, applying a fundamental historical analytic principle ("Cui Bono?"), attributing the fire to Turkish forces immediately after their successful and peaceful re-entry into İzmir on September 9, 1922, defies military logic. Strategically, Turkish forces had no incentive to set fire to their own recently regained city four days later, risking international backlash and destruction of valuable infrastructure critical to their consolidation of victory.
Historical context also clearly shows a documented pattern of scorched-earth tactics by retreating Greek military units, extensively reported by neutral parties such as U.S. Vice Consul James Loder Park, who detailed similar Greek actions in Manisa, Alaşehir, and Turgutlu. Alexander MacLachlan, a respected neutral eyewitness and educator present in İzmir, explicitly stated (The Times, September 25, 1922) that Turkish forces actively attempted to control and extinguish the fires, further supporting Turkish non-responsibility.
Additionally, direct familial testimony from my grandfather, retired Chief Commissioner Kadri Tezcan, attests firsthand to Greek and Armenian militants explicitly warning local residents of their intent to set fire to İzmir, urging evacuations prior to Turkish arrival.
As a journalist for a reputable Turkish national newspaper committed to historical accuracy and integrity, I chose to bring this issue directly to Wikipedia’s discussion forum to responsibly and ethically encourage corrective action and balanced representation.
I respectfully request Wikipedia editors to carefully and objectively reconsider these points, integrate neutral and verifiable sources, and correct the existing bias to uphold Wikipedia’s standards of impartiality, credibility, and historical truth.
Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful attention and anticipated cooperation. Dr.Soner (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
