Talk:Greek landing at Smyrna

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why not İzmir ?[edit]

Any hint why this city is called Smyrna ? It was İzmir before the landing, it was İzmir after it was liberated and it is İzmir now . Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Takabeg (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless Article[edit]

I have to admit this article is ridiculous and has no place on Wikipedia. There is already an article about the occupation of Smyrna. Therefore it should be deleted.Abbatai 12:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to write the article Greek landing at Smyrna with military oriented contents. Many users who are interested in the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) are focusing on its atrocities and massacres too much. In the article Occupation of Smyrna, there are various topics of the occupational area around Smyrna throughout 1919-1922. And the article Occupation of Smyrna cannot be regarded as the one of the article of Category:Battles of the Greco-Turkish War of 1919–1922. As you know, in English Wikipedia, there are articles Normandy landings (6 June 1944), Operation Overlord (6 June – 25 August 1944), Western Front (World War II) etc... So I intend to focus on this incident in this article. In Turkish language, this incident is known as Yunanistan'ın İzmir'e asker çıkarması (15 Mayıs 1919). I'm going to start the article with the topic of the dismissal of Nureddin Pasha. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion request - RfC[edit]

I proposed the "deletion" of this article, because there is already a more comprehensive article on the Occupation of Izmir by Greece. That article currently has the name "Occupation of Smyrna". I think we should take the opportunity to also rename the said article by adding the word "Greek or Greece" in the title, like, p.e. "Greek occupation of Smyrna". This way it will be more clear, because in every occupation or invasion as important as the occupied or invaded place is the name of the occupier or invader; like in the case of Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

I am writing these opinions here, because in the framework of my proposal, while we discuss the issue we may also consider merging/moving this present article into the article Occupation of Smyrna and also, maybe, consider renaming it "Greek occupation of Smyrna" or with another similar name. --E4024 (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should stay. At the moment it is devoid of details but that's not due to lack of source material. Adding the detailed history of the Greek landing to Occupation of Smyrna is not appropriate when a paragraph or 2 should suffice. HelenOfOz (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you said "there is an article on Greek occupation of Smyrna". Yes, we know (we means every user except you) that. But that occupation continued from 1919 to 1922. A military operation that had continued from May to June 1919. This military operation have to be explained in this article (I hope this military operation will be explained more detail). Takabeg (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Takabeg I will respond to you in your own TP. --E4024 (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be deleted while the information, here provided, continues to be scattered and be less informative than the landing section within the article "Greek Occupation of Smyrna". Khadkhall (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion discussion is on this page in fact. --E4024 (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Takabeg (above) when he says he wants this to be a page just about the Military aspects and fit more in line with the other Military history pages. I think he is right about why this should be separate from Occupation of Smyrna, to focus on the Battle alone. But as an editor, I'm struck by two problems: 1. There wasn't a battle, there was violence. This is fundamentally different than the Battle of Sakarya, Normandy landings, or Battle of Lima Site 85. Two armies did not take the field at Smyrna. The Greeks were authorized by the allies to land, the Ottoman authorities acquiesced, then ethnic mob violence broke out (sometimes involving troops, sometimes not). From Smith and the Inter-Allied Commission report, the Ottoman troops were in their barracks when a shot hit the Greek troops and the Greeks responded by firing into the Barracks until the Ottoman troops surrendered. That does not make a battle. 2. There isn't a 'Military History' about the topic in English. At least that I can find. There are histories, but not military histories in terms of 'this General did this, this commander did this and this strategy worked'. I agree with Takabeg as for intentions, but this is a square peg in a round hole: it isn't a battle or military exercise like the Normandy landings was a battle (it was just chaos with ethnic violence). I think Merge is the right approach. I think anyone who wants to keep should edit this article to provide it with significant details (about Nureddin Pasha or the Allied command) to really justify its division. Simply saying "Occupation was 3 years, this is a month in those 3 years" is not a good reason for keeping the separation. Good, unique content is a good reason for separation; this type of content is currently lacking. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- DEletion is certainly not the right answer; merger might be. I do not know the statistics, but at the end of WWI, there was a very substantial Greek population on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor.
    • Because English people studied clssical Greek at school (or perhaps for other reasons), the contemporary name for the English city would have been the Greek one Smyrna. In contrast, Turkish is a language that few English (or Americans) speak. As a result of the exchanges of population under the Treaty of Lausanne, the cities of the Aegean coast lost theri Greek-speaking population and acquired a Turkish speaking one. Accordingly from 1923, the appropriate name to use for the city, from that date, is Izmir. Appropriate redirects (using Izmir for artiles with Smyrna in the title) should of course exist. This of course followed the defeat of the Greeks during the Turkish War of Independence and their loss of the occupation zone alloted to them under the earlier treaty. I think there have been other subjects, where we use a Greek name for an ancient city (and archaeological site) and a Turkish one for the modern Turkish settlement there.
    • We have two articles, one on the landings and the otrher on the occupation. I see no reason in principle why these should not be merged, but equally have no strong view either way. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Was event"?[edit]

I think if we cannot reach a consensus on deleting or moving this article someone should spare time to re-write it in proper English... --E4024 (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on that, the present form is terrible.Alexikoua (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what is worse is that those people who do not want to delete this article do not do anything to develop it... --E4024 (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy-edit to make English clear in already existing details and added with information from Occupation of Smyrna page and Inter-Allied Commission of Inquiry reports. I could not find a good English military history to add to the details. I did not fact-check or delete existing material at all, some of which I have serious problems with (like the 12 sources in the lead that add little content). It still needs significant help, but hopefully this starts us down that road. And finally: Yes, the good norm to follow is if you vote keep on any page, you should add reputable information to that page to make it better. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Abstract. The WP project needs people like you. (Note: I took the opportunity to sign a previous talk of mine that apparently I had forgotten to sign and the Sinebot must have missed...) --E4024 (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation or invasion[edit]

In the first paragraph it is written that it is termed also a liberation or invasion of the city. I think there is no need to be diplomatic here since it is entirely accepted fact that it was an invasion so I will change it if no one suggest otherwise. Khadkhall (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to respectfully disagree. 1. If the word invasion is in the lead, the word liberation should be there as well because there is different usage in sources, but, 2. why is that line necessary anyway? There is no engaged debate between people weighing whether to call it a liberation or an invasion, there is just different POV usage. If there was a debate on naming, we should certainly include that, but there isn't. I think the better answer would be to remove the line entirely. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Abstract: I agree; go for it. Please remove the funny line with many refs. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, do not remove the sentence.Why occupation and not liberation? We have different sources saying different things. 23x2 φ 20:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Becauauause, 1. We are speaking about invasion and liberation, and not occupation and liberation. 2. If we remove the whole paragraph, the reference to the "occupation of Smyrna" will also be removed. 3. If you want "occupation" to be deleted from the Occupation of Smyrna open another unnecessary move request. 4. If a place is occupied it is occupied. (For example we are now occupying pages of WP, and the time of the people who are kind enough to read us... :-) 5. While the Government of the "Republic of Cyprus" refers to the Turkish "intervention" in Cyprus with the words "intervention, military intervention" do you happen to support the use of "invasion" in the Turkish invasion of Cyprus article? --E4024 (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Agree per AbstractI, E4024, 23x2: whether we keep or we remove both. I prefer the last one.Alexikoua (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That user said s/he disagrees with me and you say you agree with me and with him/her... How come? --E4024 (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Abstract: I have not seen any credible resource mentioning that it was a liberation. If you happen to have any would you please share them? My Greek is not perfect but I read Greek documents as well as talk to Greek professors here in Kapodistriakon Uni. At best they would call the whole event as catastrophe but more likely the treason of the Greek government at the time of invasion. When you say liberation it means something other than invasion. Liberation would in this case mean that this region was occupied by Ottomans shortly before and Greek army came to liberate them. While the region was Ottoman rule (I am saying Ottoman not Turk because there is a difference) for long time, such claims can not true but could only be a propaganda which was actually used in Greece before the invasion. Second case would be that before the invasion, local Christians in Izmir were not free and would like to free from Ottoman rule then you might call it liberation. But again, it is not the case if you would have read the memoirs of the Greek victims who had to move to Greece from their homelands you would see more than anyone they would not want to "freed" by Greek army. Probably I was wrong then it is not entire accepted fact that this episode was an invasion. So I will not change the line. Khadkhall (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@E4024: Well are you arguing that Cyprus was not invaded? I did not understand why would you bring it up here. Not even in Turkey there is nobody in academic sphere claims that Atilla Operation was not an invasion. Khadkhall (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am arguing something about consistency in use of terminology. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Khadhall, Ref 7 and Ref 8 both use the word liberation, in conjunction with either occupation (ref 7) or invasion (ref 8). Personally, I think "occupation" and as a less effective alternative "invasion" are the correct terms, but sources do mention that "liberation" was viewed by some people and so if we are going to defer to a POV term like invasion, the other POV term should be used equally. If we choose a neutral term, used in non-biased sources (I think occupation fits the bill), I think we can avoid all POV stuff entirely. 3 alternatives for lead: 1. Current: The Greek landing at Smyrna (modern day Izmir), termed also a liberation or invasion of the city, according to different points of view, was the event that led to the Greek occupation of the area and sparked the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)., 2. Your proposal (approx): The Greek landing at Smyrna (modern day Izmir) was an invasion of the city that led to the Greek occupation of the area and sparked the Greco-Turkish war (1919-1922). or 3. My proposal (approx): The Greek landing at Smyrna (modern day Izmir) was a military occupation of Smyrna and surrounding areas by the Greek army which resulted in the creation of the Greek Zone of Smyrna and sparked the Greco-Turkish war (1919-1922). I think this is the most justified use by the English language sources and the historical facts. Or Compromise, in the Lead we say simply occupation, and then below in content, we use "invasion" and note that some consider it a "liberation." That seems justified by the sources. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Abstract I have read the Ref 7 and Ref 8, in Baskin Oran's article the word liberation mentioned as "occupation (liberation in the Greek frame of mind)" and in the Ref 8 it is mentioned as following "...part of him was a bit nervous since all newspapers were reporting at the time the Greek-Turkish war and Greek "invasion" or "liberation" of Izmir ..."". Nevertheless, I think your proposal(3rd one) is fair and justified. Khadkhall (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, I would be convinced of use of the word invasion if a Military history of the issue (note: not a general history, but a military history) used the term or if you could find a Wikipedia page that used invasion for a similar operation (i.e. accepted by the local authorities, broadly "allowed" by a cease-fire agreement, etc), but this is a different case than Operation Barbarossa, or French invasion of the Isle of Wight, or Invasion of Grenada. I can't find a page that uses the term "invasion" for a similar operation as the planned one in Smyrna (now this one went horribly wrong, but it is unlike most other invasions). I could be convinced by either of these that the use of the term invasion is neutral pov and should be prioritized in the lead (other editors may disagree). AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstract, you have my support, to choose by yourself, whichever of the options you propose (vote for the 2 if needed). In other words, I give you a blank cheque to spend, in my name, in this article's lead, to show you my appreciation as an objective user. --E4024 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Abstract Turkish Invasion of Cyprus Khadkhall (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Khadkhall, check out the lead I rewrote. I'll admit I am not good at writing leads, so please edit and correct it, I'm sure it is clunky in some areas and just not great in others. And if you really think it is being overly diplomatic (something bad) or dishonest (something worse), just say so. AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Abstract I think it is good. Khadkhall (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@46 (that's 23 x 2, right). I think you make a good point and if you want to force the issue, I could be convinced, but 1. Do you think the mention of different names is necessarily the best in the lead? It seems to me, if mentioned, it is better for the content. and 2. English-language sources do prefer either invasion or occupation, and usually mention liberation only as "some people considered it a liberation". Khadkhall is right at a certain point, the historians looking at the topic do not seem to privilege Liberation at all. They may mention liberation, but they prefer occupation and secondly invasion. A good example of a similar page might be Liberation of Bulgaria, which starts very clearly establishing its POV "In Bulgarian historiography". If we want to write a page about the Greek historiography concept of the Greek landing as a liberation, it might make sense to use the term, but it just is not justified as a primary usage in major, reputable English sources. These two reasons, 1. not best in the lead and 2. major sources prefer other primary term are the reasons I opted for Occupation, which I believe is a non-POV term for a military movement into a territory. if you disagree, please let me know. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that the use of alternative names doesn't offer much. By the way the Turkish preparations in prelude section need to be remodelled. Maybe the release of the Tukrish prisoners (per Smith.) should be included in the same paragraph.Alexikoua (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's still sad that some editors still insist on this one sided, childish, invasion/liberation game.Alexikoua (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is vandalism?[edit]

So this was not vandalism according to this? And I am the Statue of Liberty... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.190.23 (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vandalism is an important allegation. Read WP:Vandalism for a more full definition of the issue. The edit that you reverted was not vandalism. That doesn't mean it was good editing and you should feel free to change the page and try to improve the content. However, you should always assume good faith from other editors and that they were trying to improve the article with the edits except in extreme situations. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greek landing at Smyrna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 October 2018[edit]

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: No move is the clear consensus. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 00:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greek landing at Smyrna → Greek invasion of Smyrna – Invasion is an objective term defined as "an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country".[1] All dictionaries support this definition, and this is not a POV or debatable term. The city's history or anything else also has no relevance whatsoever. Junk2711 (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "invasion". Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge University Press.
Oppose: Per wp:COMMONNAME. The landing was part of the terms of a post-WWI peace treaty and some small scale sporadic clashes occurred in the process. Invasion of what? No reference presented so far.Alexikoua (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexikoua: What do you mean "invasion of what?" I've clearly specified the "invasion of Smyrna". What I'm saying is that there could have been a massive slaughter or "small scale sporadic clashes" as you claim - none of this makes a difference because this was clearly "an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country". There was also clearly resistance as seen by these clashes. Also according to your logic about it being part of a treaty - are you saying that Turkey did not invade Cyprus and that should be called the Turkish landing at Cyprus since Turkey was a guarantor state according to the Treaty of Guarantee (1960)? I am not disputing the content of the article right now - I am just talking about the title so my reference can be this article itself. Junk2711 (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexikoua: Also, if you mean a reference to an example identifying it as an invasion, there is Arnold J. Toynbee: "The war between Turkey and Greece which burst out at this time was a defensive war for safeguarding of the Turkish homelands in Anatolia. It was a result of the Allied policy of imperialism operating in a foreign state, the military resources and powers of which were seriously under-estimated; it was provoked by the unwarranted invasion of a Greek army of occupation."[1] Even without this source, though, the same argument can still be made for the aforementioned reasons. Finally, the examples at wp:COMMONNAME seem unrelated - is there a more specific section there to look at in order to have a better discussion on that aspect? Thanks. Junk2711 (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Toynbee, Arnold J; Kirkwood, Kenneth P (1926), Turkey, London: Ernest Benn, p. 94.
There is a huge difference between invasion and landing & this kind of military operation is clearly a landing.Alexikoua (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexikoua: A landing operation is described here as a military action transferring a force "to land with the purpose of power projection ashore." An invasion can be carried out with a landing operation, they are not mutually exclusive. This is therefore an invasion featuring a landing operation. If the Greek forces entered the city from land instead, what would the justification for your argument be then? Junk2711 (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greek forces landed in a region held by an already defeated power as part of the implementation of an international peace treaty. This kind of military deployment was not part of war developments but of a peace-keeping operation.Alexikoua (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexikoua: My friend, if you consider this "a peace-keeping operation" then I'm not sure if you are free enough of bias to make an accurate decision on this matter. I will of course assume good faith and we can keep discussing further if you have any other points.
First is that by the very nature of the term, this was an invasion as I have explained in my previous messages. Force was used to take control of the city, regardless of the background. I am trying to explain that this is not an objective matter but rather a matter of definition. Like I said in my previous example, Turkey was given the right to enter Cyprus as a guarantor state yet that is automatically an invasion by definition - not because I or someone else says so, but because of the very definition of the term. To realize the terms of the treaty in this event, you enter and you have to use military force (automatically making it an invasion by its definition). It's not like you just send in some clerks and government officials, and then instantly start running the place as your own. You yourself even mentioned that were some clashes and that there was of course a military naval landing.
Second, this invasion is actually the first event in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) so technically, yes, it is part of a war.
Third, you say that this was an implementation of a treaty and I even though I have explained why that is irrelevant to this discussion, I would like to point out something else on the subject. The Armistice of Mudros allowed the Allies "to occupy any strategic points in the event of any situation arising which threatens the security of Allies."[1] I think you can agree that this is a very open-ended statement that could allow "threats to security" to be used as a pretext to occupy anywhere. So in addition to any treaty not being relevant for the term "invasion", this particular treaty is far from satisfactory for our discussion as literally any offensive action could fall under that. Junk2711 (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Shaw, Stanford (1977). History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Cambridge University Press.
  • Oppose. You've just said it yourself: Invasion is "an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country". Greeks would most certainly have disputed that Smyrna was "another country", so the use of "invasion" is actually not objective. "Landing" is. In any case, I'm really not sure "invasion" would be the correct term for attacking a city. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: I'm sorry, are you trying to dispute that Smyrna was a part of the Ottoman Empire at the time? That is a fact and it does not matter at all that some people might have viewed the land as their own.
I also don't think you've understood what I'm trying to say because the Greek viewpoint (or any side's viewpoint) is completely irrelevant. Not calling it an invasion because many Greeks probably don't see it that way is completely POV and frankly a bit ridiculous. It doesn't matter that some people didn't see Smyrna as "another country" because it is an objective fact that it was indeed. Use of the word "invasion" is completely objective for the very reason it (by its very definition) does not take into account the opinions of the sides involved! So if many Turks saw Cyprus as their own land (using the same irredentist logic) and the Turkish operation was called a "peace-keeping" operation, does that change the fact that it was an invasion? Of course not, so the same applies here. Finally, there is no reason invasion would not "be the correct term for attacking a city" - you can also look into the definition yourself because I haven't seen any definition saying a city cannot be invaded. Junk2711 (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You don't invade a city. You attack or besiege a city. You invade a country or a land. The current wording is fine and completely objective and NPOV. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason that invasion cannot be used to describe what happens to a city. Yes, an invasion usually refers to a larger area or country but that does not prevent the term from being used for cities. You can also find many sources describing this event as an invasion of the city, so it's not just something that I've invented. Junk2711 (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per Necrothesp. POV move proposal. Dr. K. 14:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr.K.: I've replied to Necrothesp so you can see my response there but I would also like to reiterate for you here: "use of the word "invasion" is completely objective for the very reason it (by its very definition) does not take into account the opinions of the sides involved". Junk2711 (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does "landing". So what's your objection to that exactly? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right and I am not claiming that saying that there was a landing is false. I am saying that the landing was part of (or the means by which) the invasion was carried out. For example, if Xcountry attacked Ycountry by firing missiles at them would the event be called "Xcountry firing of missiles at Ycountry" or rather "Xcountry attack on Ycountry"? They are both true, but the means by which the action is carried comes secondary to what the action carried out is (attack in that example, invasion in this case). Junk2711 (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or another example with the Greek and Turkish sides would be calling the Turkish invasion of Cyprus "Turkish paratrooper entry into Cyprus". Hopefully that is a better example. Junk2711 (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could also rename that Turkish landing in Cyprus. But in that instance "invasion" is what most of the world calls it. It's the common name. The common name for this event is Greek landing at Smyrna. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand what you mean with the point about the common name and it is not unreasonable. Yet, regardless of whether the common names were something different, that wouldn't change that Turkey in Cyprus is an invasion, and Greece in Smyrna is an invasion by default because of the definition of the word invasion. For WP:COMMONNAME, I said to Dr.K. (as you can see below) that the guideline is not definitive ("generally prefer common names") and considering there are a notable number of sources calling it "invasion" (around 1/3 of the numbers he presented) I would argue that being completely accurate in naming trumps a guideline that is not definitive. What do you think of this? Junk2711 (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As in, just because most of the world calls it something that should not prevent us an encyclopedia from being as accurate as we can be. What I'm trying to say is that there are a good deal of sources using the other name, and WP:COMMONNAME gives us this freedom by saying to generally (not in every single instance) prefer the common name. Junk2711 (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is not convincing. Also "Greek landing at Smyrna" has 1,670 results in Google books vs. 688 results for "Greek invasion of Smyrna". So it is the WP:COMMONNAME. Dr. K. 15:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain why my argument isn’t convincing after reading this whole section? Unfortunately I have not seen an argument besides the general idea of “Greeks didn’t view it as an invasion”.
Also WP:COMMONNAME states that Wikipedia “generally prefers the name that is most commonly used”. Since our aim on here is to be as accurate as possible, this is not a definitive guideline simply because more people give the event one name. There are still a notable number of sources calling it otherwise. Junk2711 (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that line of argument. COMMONNAME is the gold standard for page moves. Dr. K. 16:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it isn't or shouldn't be the standard. What I am saying that it is not definitive and your opinion does not change that. You oppose this change but you have yet to present an argument I have not refuted.
1-You claim that this proposal is POV by saying the Greek side did not view it an invasion. I have explained in detail why that is irrelevant. It is also ironic because what you are saying is actually a perfect example of POV.
2-You refer to WP:COMMONNAME but I have directly quoted from there that we are to "generally prefer" the common name so it is not definitive. I'm sure you'd agree that accuracy is more important than simply saying what is more common.
So if you have another reason for your decision to oppose, please share that so we can discuss. Junk2711 (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look, badgering the editors you don't agree with, is not a way to carry your point across. Again, you have not provided any, I repeat any, arguments, why WP:COMMONNAME, the gold standard of page moves should be ignored in this case. Dr. K. 17:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you see this as badgering rather than a civil discussion, as I viewed it. I am not saying to ignore the guideline, we can apply the guideline fully and make this change because it says to "generally prefer" the common name - not in every single instance. I guess you haven't read the whole section before coming to a decision because I have provided many arguments by explaining that:
1-Invasion is the correct word to use (for the reasons given in length above)
2-Although more people just call it a landing, WP:COMMONNAME does not tell us to automatically use a name because that's what most people use.
3-There are still many sources that do call it an invasion, as I have pointed out that almost 1/3 of the sources you mentioned use the word invasion.
So I have explained why invasion is the correct word to be used in great length, we see that there are many sources supporting this usage, and I have pointed out how this change does not contradict the "gold-standard" WP:COMMONNAME guideline because it does not dictate that the most common name absolutely must be used. Junk2711 (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you can keep coming up with these putdowns: So if you have another reason for your decision to oppose, please share that so we can discuss. implying that my arguments have been rebutted, although they have not been. I guess you haven't read the whole section before coming to a decision... attempting to insinuate essentially the same thing as the first quote. I think this is needless arguing. Somehow, you don't get my point. I will not accuse you of IDHT. Instead, let's just agree to disagree. This dispute is not between us. It is part of a wider wiki discussion. Let others express their opinions. Cluttering this discussion by repeating the same points between two editors is counterproductive. This is my final say on this matter. You are welcome, of course, to have the final word. But I will not reply. Dr. K. 18:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies then. When I say something like "if you have another reason please share" I say that because I feel I have written my argument in great length yet it just comes back to the same thing. So I guess we'll agree to disagree. Junk2711 (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I can say almost for certain that you have not read what I have written here. My point is that the arguments for keeping "landing" are actually POV while "invasion" is objective by its definition, and I have explained this in great detail. Another important matter discussed is that just because more people call it something does not mean we cannot change it in the name of accuracy, staying in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. If you would like to read through this section that would probably be helpful but that's of course up to you. Otherwise it's just kind of a shame really. Junk2711 (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what you wrote here. Because the only policy that matters is WP:COMMONNAME. Khirurg (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you just read my answer to you, you would have seen that I said this change does not contradict WP:COMMONNAME. This is because the policy says to "generally prefer" the most common name. "Generally preferring" is not a firm requirement, and I'm sure you'd agree that accuracy is more important than just going with the majority. In light of this, maybe you can re-assess your point. Junk2711 (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Also more precise: a mostly unopposed landing operation sanctioned by the allied powers in the aftermath of a war is a "landing operation", not an "invasion".
    Comment: Also, I have tidied the references. --T*U (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that was discussed in the first part with Alexikoua and if you would like to see why that is incorrect for the name, you can look there. Junk2711 (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
if you would like to see why that is incorrect for the name. I can see that your opinion is that "invasion" is more correct than "landing" to such a degree that it overrides the rule to "generally prefer the common name". I disagree. Even if "invasion" may be an accurate term, so is "landing", and in my opinion more precise in this context, as supported by 70 percent of the sources. Your opinion does not make my opinion incorrect. --T*U (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just my opinion that invasion is accurate. I have explained why it is certainly more accurate than just "landing". WP:COMMONNAME can allow for a less common name to be used and I am showing that this is appropriate here because it is more accurate, both for the reasons I have stated in this section and because the difference between the number of sources using one is only 20% from 50-50. If the ratio was like 95% landing to 5% invasion then I could agree. Of course everyone can have their opinion but you have not offered a definite reason against this. Junk2711 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you do not present your mathematical argument the difference between the number of sources using one is only 20% from 50-50 to any mathematicians (unless you want to give them a good laugh or give them ideas for updating this book. 70–30 means simply that for every three sources using "invasion", there are seven using "landing", more than double. That is a qualified majority, more than is required to change the constitution in most countries. --T*U (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also for the record the bibliography which uses "invasion" refers to the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-22 in general not about this specific (landing) operation of May 1919.Alexikoua (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The difference does not matter. I'm trying to find a different way to explain that it is not completely unacceptable. I have yet to be shown the part in WP:COMMONNAME that definitively, absolutely requires the more common name to be used. Most of the argument here is based on this allegation yet I have not seen a quote from WP:COMMONNAME dictating this. Instead, I have produced a quote from there showing that we only "generally prefer" the more common name. Junk2711 (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Invasion and Landing?[edit]

Dont we need to be clear and neutral about invasions like Turkish Invasion of Cyprus? Boratkn16 (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greek_landing_at_Smyrna&oldid=1207421219"