Talk:Battle of the Sakarya

to reword or not to reword?

That's a very one-sided and biased article. I demand re-wording!

Biased report!

This part of the article is completely Unhistorical and makes no sense. This article states that "The "Great Fire of Smyrna" soon followed, due to the fires that were set out by the Greek troops who were escaping from Anatolia." This is false. Why would the Greeks set fire to Smyrna before they were forced to be massacred by the thousands by the Turkish army? Can someone explain why the Greeks would set fire to a Greek city that was founded by the Greeks dating back to the 3rd Millenium BC (2000-3000 BC)? How could the Greeks set fire to a city settled by Greeks for thousands of years WHILE being massacred? This definitely looks bad on Wikipedia. If historical facts can NOT be included in their articles, they should atleast maintain a form of neutrality, lies should not be spread. Article changed to maintain neutrality, in spite of the facts... --Xenophonos 06:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

---

This report is obviously and clearly written by a Turkish National. Not only it is extremely one-sided but it is also full of crude historical mistakes. Very unprofessional on Wikipedia's part! Please either retract or rephrase your reference by reading the universally accepted historic facts of this event.

---

I dont agree with above comment.I am as an objective Turk have read that article and found it very realistic.Maybe some Greek side documents can be helpful on this article.I should add ,after 22 days fierce battle,Greeks have had heavy casualties and supply shortage.Decided retreat and had made retreat in order.The Greeks were having political fractions in army.This was helpful to Turkish side. There was a division in the Greek army that all formed by Ottoman nationality Greek origin Turkish citizens. Ahmet Özgen Aozgen54@yahoo.com

---

It was indeed very biased. In general, as in Turkey this war is seen somehow as their 'revolutionary' or 'independence' war, it is natural that they are very passionate and subjective on matters concerning this war. Moreover, the Turkish militarized state bases a lot on promoting innerly a picture of the 'unbeatable' turkish army, that 'defeated the Greek army even when the odds where overwhelming'. I added information given officially by the publications of the Greek Army Staff. Xristar

The last sentence of the article "Shortly after on September 9, 1922, the Turks liberated Smyrna." is extremely biased. The city was attacked and nearly burnt to the ground, its Greek inhabitants slaughtered. I have changed the sentence to be neutral in meaning. --Xenophonos 16:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm an Australian observer of central European stock, and I both have Greek friends and have been to Turkey. In my view, it doesn't make much sense for the Turks to have burnt a city with many Turkish occupants that they themselves intended to occupy (and in fact had to rebuild). I'm not saying this means the Greeks did it, I'm just making the case that the argument can be made for both sides. I think some of the strong language in the above ("lies", "massacre", "slaughtered") belies a lot of the emotion underneath this debate. It doesn't help at all that a lot of people on both sides (mainly innocents) died or were made homeless by armed people on the other, or that it happened just after World War I and the end of the Ottomans. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 15:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Smyrna versus Izmir

Symrna is old name of Izmir and not used for a long time except Greek Nationalists who defend The Idea Megola. Otherwise many people around the world know and use the name Izmir. Since because of the fact that the well known name is written first and old or other side names are written in paranthesis, it must be written as Izmir (Symrna). The opposite is a product of biased approach. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zkaradag (talk • contribs) 15:56, 12 November 2006.

No one denies that the city is called İzmir today, but it was still widely called Smyrna in English at the time, and this is English Wikipedia. Khoikhoi 02:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No you are biaed saying that "it is called Symrna in English". I advice you to go http://maps.google.com/ and type Symrna, you will see a place in GA not in Turkey, instead, if you go and type Izmir , guess what you see ? Zkaradag

I never said it is called Smyrna in English, I said at the time, its most common English name was Symrna. Those are two different things. Khoikhoi 22:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• So, what! It is better to call as Izmir if it is known as Izmir all around the world and to put the old name in paranthesis. Zkaradag

This article refers to the city in a historical context, not a modern-day one. All around the word we call the city New York, but at one time it was called New Amsterdam, so would it make sense to say, "The Dutch colony of New York"? Khoikhoi 21:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of you have a point - the city is most definitely İzmir, but in the context of this particular battle should be noted as Smyrna. I think it's fair to say that Smyrna was the main name of the city (see Great Fire of Smyrna) up until it was taken by Turkish Republic troops, and henceforth became known as İzmir (the city largely had to be rebuilt after the aforementioned Great Fire, and is today largely a new city). It always was known as İzmir to Turks, and as Smyrna to Greeks, but en.wikipedia is trying to form a consensus based on the most common-sense naming scheme in English. Just be glad we're not editing the DRC article - it's had three names in 40 years and one incarnation even had a song dedicated to it. Orderinchaos78 ^(t|c) 14:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Do you have an evidence that it is called smyrna in english? However I provide soem concrete example for Izmir. See above!. Zkaradag 05:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)