Talk:İzmir

To the Turkish anon with IPs 81.212.127.249, 81.212.126.129, 81.212.126.173 and 81.212.126.245: while your contribution to the Wikipedia is welcomed, please do not distort this article by removing historic facts. I am aware official Turkish policy is to deny the Hellenic Holocaust, but since this is an encyclopedia and not a Turkish textbook facts must be used. If you feel the text is not NPOV, feel free to edit or introduce an additional point of view. Jo r 19:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To Darkelf: This is a topic in which "you" are trying to change historical facts, not me. Historical truths of Izmir are consistent with that I've posted so far. So, this facts are to be included on this page, not the ones of those generated by occupying nations.

If you think different, which is not consistent with the truth, this is not a place to change people's mind. Stop reading "one sided" books, and try to learn what really happened.

I'm the who have contributed the most of the text in this topic, and as a Turk, you should be able to see that I know more about this rather than you. Please stop ignoring the facts.

As I posted initially, I am well aware of the Turkish view of the aftermath of the Treaty of Sèvres. You should be aware that the Turkish view that the Greeks occupated a Turkish city and then set it on fire is a Turkish view only: historical third parties as well as the Greeks cite that this was done by the Turks as part of the ethnic cleansing commonly referred to as the Hellenic Holocaust. I will attempt another edit to try and incorporate the Turk POV more, but if you insist on removing any material which is not consistent with Turkish POV we have a problem. That is why I will request peer assistance here. Jo r 19:53, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neither Greek would say "Yes, I burned Izmir," nor a third part that wasn't cooperating with the Turks.

Here, we are not talking about the ancient city, Smyrna, but about Izmir. If you want to provide information on Smyrna, go to "Smyrna" page and tell what you have to say.

Also, this's not a place that we should judge what happened or what didn't happen. This's the job of historians. This's a topic of Izmir, a city of Republic of Turkey and of course the information resource about the city is Turkey, not Patagonia.

Guess what would an American do if an Iraqi wrote "This's the most ugly city of ever" for New York City on Wikipedia? (I'm not discussing if it's ugly or not. Just an example.) This post would be removed. Because they are dominant in Wikipedia and think that what they say is "law."

Finally, just go search for information how beautiful Izmir is or just come to see it when you have time to see and be able to write more about it. Don't blame others while sitting on your chair.

Exactly, this is not the place where we should judge what happened. Thus since history is not 100% clear, both views should be incorporated. That is what NPOV means. It is inevitable that to a Turk any indication the Turks were to blame for the fire that destroyed Smyrna is inacceptable, just like blaming the Greeks is inacceptable to the Greeks. This page is now listed as having an NPOV conflict in the hope that others may be able to establish a better version of this page. Jo r 20:12, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's clear to me, but I'm not making judgement, I'm telling what actually happened. I've read tens of thousands of historical documents and tens of books about this issue. My uncle is a historian has a great "deep knowledge" of Izmir history. I've had a chance to meet and talk with the most known historians of Izmir. So, please stop posting the "changed" version of my city and begin to call it Izmir. (We are talking about Izmir, not ancient Smyrna.) Or open a new page titled "Historical Fire Blames" and start to type what you know about this.

"It's clear to me what actually happened": please read NPOV. I am not trying to make judgement here, just trying to introduce the other point of view. I am sure there are many Greeks who are also clear on "what actually happened". I will make one more attempt to incorporate both points of view. Jo r 20:33, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ha ha... I see your posts in every topic about Turkey or the Turks. You must be an Armenian, or a Greek or must be financed by them to change the truths everwhere about them in Wikipedia. But you are doing wrong.

To the Anon Poster: by making ad hominem attacks, you are hurting your argument. And please add either 3 or tildes (the character "~") at the end of your posts so we know who is speaking. -- llywrch 21:28, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

~ I'm not hurting the argument. BTW, see the latest version of the page.

Yes, you are hurting your position. Wiipedia is built on a basis of debate, compromise, & acknowledging other people's POVs. The words "You must be an Armenian, or a Greek or must be financed by them to change the truths everwhere about them in Wikipedia" suggest that you are not interested in finding a middle ground, but only pushing your own POV; further, those words suggest paranoia on your behalf. In both cases, it makes you appear less sympathetic, & alienates people who might agree with you. Consider my words, & act accordingly. -- llywrch 23:38, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

~ I wish Flockmeal had let it

to the anon: Hi, Can you please list here, on the talk page, some Web links which contain the info you want us to include in the article? We'll have a look and we will incorporate the info in the article in an NPOV way, acceptable by everyone. O p t i m^·.· 21:44, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

~ http://www.izmirturizm.gov.tr/e_history_of_izmir.html

First of all, this's a goverment site and there's no copyright issue. Some information I provided come from my mind, so I am unable to give a link for that. BTW, I hope Darkelf reads my latest edit, before Floskmeal's. We were about to come to an agreement.

~ To Flockmeal: Me and Darkelf don't do vandalism. We're from the same IPs (of two differen user) and trying to solve something. I've added some new paragraphs.

POV Dispute over?

Given that there have been no more reverts can I safely assume that the history bit in this article is now sufficiently NPOV to remove the notice? Typed when the most recent edit was [1], the one edit after it was the removal of the neutrality disputed note. Jo r 22:15, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Somebody reverted my changes and plugged in the claim of killing of christians by turks around symrna, about which i had provided references. maybe that person would want to discuss these changes here? any other comments are welcome of course. Ato 15:10, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Book by Marjorie Housepian Dobkin

I removed the following:

This book gives an historical account of the events of Sept. 1922 when Mustapha Kemal (Ataturk) led his troops into Smyrna (now Izmir)- a predominantly Christian City as 27 Allied warships including 3 American destroyers stood by. Turkish troops proceeded to victimize the residents of this city and subsequently set fire to this historic city and totally destroyed it. A massive coverup by agreement of Western Allies followed, because of oil and trade interests in Turkey.

If there is any truth to these claims (especially predominantly Christian City and oil and trade interests in Turkey), provide sources and include them in appropiate places in the article, not in description of a book. I'd like to point out that the killings at this time is mentioned in the article, as well as the dispute about the source of the fire. AFAIK, that dispute is not resolved conculusively. at0 00:03, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proper location for article

Should this actually be located at İzmir? Gerry Lynch 23:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contextual name

Shouldn't the name of the city in its history change according to whatever name was used at the time? Compare Vyborg, which was also called variously Viborg and Viipuri before it acquired its modern Russian name.

I have a proposal. We call the city Smýrna during the ancient period, then Smýrnē during the Hellenistic period, then Smýrni during the Byzantine period, then İzmirni from the start of Ottoman rule up to the point where the contraction İzmir became official by the Turkish government, with explanations about the gradual name changes. For example, Smýrna is an Aeolic name, but Smýrnē is Ionic/Attic/Koine. From the Byzantine period, ē became i in all contexts (except for Pontus and Cappadocia, but those don't pertain to Smýrni), and İzmirni was the closest available Turkish approximation of the Greek name. - Gilgamesh 20:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editing needed

This article has a rambly quality and needs to be edited for clarity and flow.

Also, some sections come near broaching the neutrality question, in my opinion. The "Homer" section, for instance. The article uses purple prose to describe Homer and states without equivocation that he was born in Izmir, but a quick jump to the Homer article would make it clear that many places are claimed to be his birthplace and his entire existence is tstill hotly debated. Perhaps this could be worked into a "Cases for Izmir being Homer's birthplace" section? (after adding a link to the Homer page)

It's great to have such a wealth of information about such a beautiful city (I learned much from the article), but the article deserves a higher standard of composition.