Talk:Yalova Peninsula massacres

Unxplained revert with sarcastic summary

Obviously the specific edit-summary [[1]] explains poorly th performed revert: last paragr. of the background section describes events that occurred one year after the events described in the main section (for an unexplained reason they link only to Greek massacres, thus ignoring the wider paragraph about massacres during the war). An explanation is also needed on why the 'Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)' should be termed 'Invasion of Anatolia' and not remain simply as Greco-Turkish War, like the title of the correspodent article.Alexikoua (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This is:

During its retreat the Greek army carried out a scorched-earth policy and laid waste to many Turkish cities and villages and committed massacres against its inhabitants.

See also: Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) § Greek massacres of Turks

See also: Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) § Greek scorched-earth policy

related to the other numerous massacres and village burning during the same war, by the same perpetrators: the Greek army against local Turks. So why should this linking to the larger events during the same war be deleted? It also based upon contemporary sources that the Greek army systematically carried out a scorched earth policy after they started to retreat before the Turkish army, in this peninsula it was the same case.

About invasion, see Invasion, An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution.

It is obviously an invasion of a army into another country so why change this into a weasel word by calling it "penetration".

Shall we change massacre into "collective high death rate".DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems obvious you misintepreted various historical events. But if you insist on that, you should first try to rename the title of the correspondent article (invasion isn't in generally accepted as an internationally recognized political decision under the terms of a peace treaty, as it is here). Then you are welcome to change the term here. As for the massacres perpetrated by Greeks these are part of the wider massacres perpetrated by both sides in this region, it shouldn't be neglected.Alexikoua (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A large army of one state advancing into another state among heavy fighting between them and the local state's army and population. Penetration does not sound the exact wording to describe these events. The Greek side saw it as justified to advance with their army into Anatolia, but the majority of the Ottoman/Turkish side disagreed, this is why the Greek landing was from the very beginning resisted by the Turkish inhabitants of Smyrna, which resulted in the Greco-Turkish war. So it was a military conflict from the moment of the Greek landing, there is no case of advancing under peaceful agreements. The majority of the Ottoman Turks refused this "internationally recognized political decision" a term to cover up the partition of the Ottoman Empire between some Imperialist allied powers. And in the end after some years new agreements were made who undid the previous decisions.

As for the massacres committed by both Turks and Greeks, that really happened, but not so much in this region. Here it seems that the Greeks were the perpetrators and the international commission speculated that there was no real reason (for example revenge for previous massacres) to thoroughly destroy the entire peninsula in two months time. So linking this page to other massacres committed by Turks against Greeks in different regions and times only to cover up or justify these massacres is not really necessary and very farfetched.DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC).

According to the source:Online reports of Arnold Toynbee

I (Arnold Toynbee) do not think that bands of Turkish chettés had been at work here before the organised atrocities I do not judge merely from the fact that this district was behind the front—guerillas might have crossed the lines—but from the circumstance that during May and June isolated Christian villages were still occupied by their inhabitants, and that the military pickets and the squads of Greek kurujus (irregular guards) posted in the Turkish villages were so small that their lives would not have been safe if Turkish as well as Greek bands had been in the neighborhood. In this area, at any rate, I believe that the Greek troops and chettés had the field to themselves, and this was also the opinion of M. Gehri, the representative of the Geneva International Red Cross:

At the time of our investigation, the Peninsula of Samanli- Dagh [=the Yalova-Gemlik Peninsula] was behind the Greek front, and it has never been a theatre of hostilities since the beginning of the Greek occupation. Until March last, the region was quiet. The crimes which have come to our knowledge fall within the last two months (end of March to the 15th May). They are subsequent to the retreat of the Greek army after the defeat of Eski Shehir [=In Önü]. Possibly they are a consequence of it.

DragonTiger23 (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have rephrased specific sections of the article per given sources, and was based especially to Smith (1999): Ionian Vision. Also all neutral opinions tend to view the events in the context of the general Greek-Turkish violence (including Smith). I would appreciate if you decide to discuss the recent adjustments in case you disagree (just remember that I based my edits on the sources you'd already presented in the article).Alexikoua (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

As for the Turkish violence, Smith is detailed about the events during WWI, the burning of Greek villages in Ismid district, as well as next to the Peninsula. Since we have secondary references that mention this events under the same context, I see no reason for exclution here. Alexikoua (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The book Smith (1999): Ionian Vision covers these massacres briefly with only 2 pages of text which were actually based on the sources I already added with their online versions. (The report of the international commission and Toynbee's report. The information about Greeks massacred in Izmit is not relevant to the Gemlik- Yalova area massacres, I already wrote the opinion of the international commission above. The Izmit area's case is separate but you are falsely distorting the facts and combining the events. The book Smith (1999) is also doing some distortion by ignoring the statements made by the commission and instead merging different events together. But in another page it repeats the conclusion of the commission and states planned ethnic cleansing as the primary reason not revenge counter massacres:

(Smith (1999) page 213.Online here "the age long hatred between Christian Greek and Armenian and Muslim Turk and the presence of numerous Armenian and Greek refugees in the area were insufficient to explain the rapidity and thouroughness of the reprisals taken on the Turks in the area".

The Gemlik Yalova area was not a conflict zone like Izmit, that should be made clear. According to the commission the massacres happened during a short time with a systematical plan by the Greek army and local Greeks/Armenians.

If there is more info we could expand the events in Izmit in a separate section or article but we need more info about the massacres against Christians in the Izmit region. But in the end it seems that the Greek side did the most damage by burning all towns and villages before they fled, so we should avoid making the article unbalanced. The article must make clear the difference, between killings, massacres and large scale planned destruction of an entire region.DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Location of Izmit and gemlik Yalova Peninsula

These are bordering areas but still different Izmit is more in the east and Iznik southeast. Maps of the location of Izmit and the Gemlik Yalova Peninsula.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Location of Izmit district.

Yalova districts.

location of Iznik district.

Circassian involvement in the Gemlik- Yalova peninsula

Sure, the info about Izmit can stay in the background section as you did. About the Circasian involvement in Yalova-Gemlik Peninsula, Smith mentions it clearly [[http://books.google.gr/books?id=E4OuoSFztt8C&pg=PA209&dq=%22irregulars,+Greek+Armenian+and+circassians%22&hl=el&sa=X&ei=1FWRUf7eD4qE4gSLxoCgCg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22At%20the%20same%20time%20bands%20of%20Christian%20irregulars%2C%20Greek%20Armenian%20and%20Circassian%2C:It doesn't say somewhere that the specific commission was the only one justified to describe the events. In fact neutral secondary sources we use in wikipedia (for example Smith) tend to use a wide variety of material (so selectively exluding any source we don't like can't be sometimes disruptive) I don't thing that this is termed 'Cherry Pikcking', on the other hand selectively removing information that doesn't suit to our own taste isn't constractive. Since it's sourced that

1. .Circassian groups fought in the Greek side
2. ."At the same time bands of Christian irregulars, Greek Armenian, and Circassian, looted, burned and murdered in the Yalove-Gemlik peninsula."%20%22&f=false]] in p. 209.Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Smith must have made a mistake, the original report of the commission and all other sources do not mention Circassians. Circassians themselves were Muslim an and most of them fought on the Turkish side, in fact several of the burned villages were Circassian. So you are cherry picking from one source and adding that everywhere is disproportional. The majority of the perpetration were clearly Greek soldiers and local Greeks with Armenians, this is the result of the commission investigation which is the primary source. I am removing it, Smith source is not enough evidence.DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't thing so, in fact there were Circasian irregulars that supported the Greek Army and were also anti-Kemalists [[2]] (p.9)

"There is no doubt that the Muslim population of Asia Minor could be divided into different groups and categories according to descent, language, religious particularities and socio-economic conditions. A number of these differences had been politicized, a fact which explains the alliance of some Circassian chieftains with the Greek army against Kemal Ataturk.

But the main issue here is we are not the ones to judge if one wp:RS makes mistakes if we simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Alexikoua (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence in the allied commission report that they participated here in this specific massacres, stop with un neutral cherry picking. I know why you add Circassians, you want to blame the Circassians and minimize Greek involvement, even though all the primary sources state that the Greeks/Armenians were responsible. Your source does not say anything about Circassian involvement in Gemlik-Yalova.DragonTiger23 (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say somewhere that the specific commission was the only one justified to describe the events. In fact neutral secondary sources we use in wikipedia (for example Smith) tend to use a wide variety of material (so selectively exluding any source we don't like can't be sometimes disruptive) I don't thing that this is termed 'Cherry Pikcking', on the other hand selectively removing information that doesn't suit to our own taste isn't constractive. Since it's sourced that

1. .Circassian groups fought in the Greek side
2. ."At the same time bands of Christian irregulars, Greek Armenian, and Circassian, looted, burned and murdered in the Yalove-Gemlik peninsula."

Also it appear that there is a mountain of sourced material about the Circasian participation in favor of the Greek cause [[3]][[4]] (something about the alliance with the Circasians from Manyas area).Alexikoua (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

For example (per above link) claims: "Together these heavily armed cetes (Circasians) were to be an instrument for the execution of Greek atrocities, with licence to burn down villages, rape women, and rob and execute Muslims." and it points to the area south of the Marmara and near Balikesir.Alexikoua (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that they participated in Gemlik- Yalova region, we have already the report of the commission, Smith sentence is not clear and is very likely a mistake, what are you not understanding? The majority of Muslims were killed by Greeks, you try to use the Circassians as scape goats eh? BTW majority of Circassians fought on the Turkish nationalist side, a minority was on the Greek sideDragonTiger23 (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but that's not what I'm claim (even minority this doesn't reject any claim). What makes Smith non-reliable in this one? Actually the (partly) Circassian partitipation is in accordance with a wide variety of primary and secondary material [[5]]. Actually we need something that claims "Circassians committed attrocities in Anatolia in 1920 but abstained from this peninsula" this will be ok, then Smith will be considered problematic in this one.Alexikoua (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We have this primary report [[6]], which clearly claims that Circassians took part. It's really unconrtuctive to claim that if an "x" report claims "Y", that is the only truth that must be presented in wiki.Alexikoua (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) I agree with Alexikoua here. The source (Smith) is both reliable and crystal clear. What part of "At the same time bands of Christian irregulars, Greek Armenian, and Circassian, looted, burned and murdered in the Yalove-Gemlik peninsula." do you not understand? And keep your guesses about people's intentions (" I know why you add Circassians...") to yourself, or I will report you. Athenean (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Now you are falsely distorting the facts again. Smith based his sources on the Commission/Toynbee report. There is only one sentence in his book that there was "Circassian involvement in Gemlik-Yalova" is written. This article is also based on the eyewitness allied commission and Toynbee report, they do not even mention one time Circassian involvement in the Yalova Gemlik peninsula. So the majority of the sources do not mention Circassians, which means Smith is the only one and maybe made a typing mistake. The sources you are using refer to Circassians in Balikesir Manyas region (Revolt of Ahmet Anzavur) and the Circassian revolt in Adapazari which are totally different events and are very distant and different place, several hundreds of km/miles away. In the article the report of the gendarmerie of Balikesir is written because it seems Balikesir was the headquarters of the entire south Marmara region, not because Gemlik Yalova are close. You are falsely using the Smith source to add it after every individual specific cases, in which the other present sources (commission/ Toynbee) not say anything about Circassians so please stop falsifying. I am removing it and change the lead to make your cherry picking of sources clear. DragonTiger23 (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no cherry picking, but severe case of wp:idontlikeit and now desruption, you removed not only Smith, but also Gingeras, who clearly states that Circassians committed massacres during the evacuationn of Izmit, as wel as to the entire region from Izmit to Belikesir, south of Marmara (seems you ned also to prove that the peninsula isnt located there... ). At least now you admit at least a minority of Circassians fought against the nationalists, that's a step forward. Also thanks to Athenian the population part was fixed, which means that the entire article should be checked and rewritten due to serious inconsistencies.

Yes you suffer severely from wp:idontlikeit and cherrypicking, I already explained to you about the Circassians, they are not involved in the Gemlik Yalova peninsula so do not falsely add them to the wrong events. On the other hand it seems that the amount of Circassian irregulars was few, the majority of the Greek side consisted of Greek troops and local Greeks, Circassians were a minority among them according to the sources. So do not dis proportionally increase the role of the Circassians. There is too few evidence of what Circassian irregulars actually did in Izmit, according to Toynbee, when the Greeks left the Greek soldiers, and not Circassians murdered several hundred Turks in the town, pillaged it and burnt almost all villages on their path of retreat.

And btw I already knew that some Circassians were on the Greek side, there were also some Turks on the Greek side(!), still the overwhelming majority was resisting the Greek army and this should be made clear. It is sourced that the Greek army was responsible for the coordination and planning of the destructions, do not falsely pass all the events to a few hundred Circassian irregulars.

There is nothing thanks to Athenean, I already knew about the population of the Peninsula, that is why I had already added that the region had a large Christian minority. But you in you ignorant POV put behind that sentence. Did you this with the goal to deny atrocities committed by Greek irregulars by pretending there was no Greek population?

I am trying to improve the article while you added only irrelevant parts to cover up the events.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Smith did not "maybe made a typing mistake". Athenean (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, here [7], why did you add wikilinks to Greek and Armenian? Is it because you want to cast Greeks and Armenians in a negative light? Would that also be reason why you so vociferously object to mentioning Circassian gangs? Athenean (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Is adding wikilinks a crime? So why then did Alexikoua add Circassian with wikilinks 1 but did not do it for the Greek or Armenian, why only Circassian? So then I added the wikilinks, no I do not want to cast anybody in negative light, this is a historical massacre but you are trying to cover it up for some reason. I do not want that Circassians will be added because according to all the other sources, who were even eyewitness there is no mention of Circassian so misusing and cherrypicking that sentence is wrong, can you not understand that.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to cover it up? How am I trying to cover it up? Watch it with the wild accusations, you have already done plenty for me to report you already. Athenean (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The source clearly says Circassian gangs participated in the massacre. I have absolutely nothing against Circassians, but if that's what the source says, we must stick to it. Whether or not you "don't want" that mentioned is irrelevant. Also, could you please learn to properly indent your talkpage comments using ":"? Thanks. Athenean (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Because you are distorting facts I think I should report you. Smith source can not be used to add Circassians to places where they are not mentioned.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Smith source is not clear at all it is only 1 sentence while the other sources are detailed pages of text, I have read them and nowhere are Circassians mentioned to the events in the Gemlik Yalova Peninsula.DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Your attempts to falsely blame the Circassians made me search for more information. And I found the following, which is very interesting since it explains exactly the same attempts as yours.

Arnold J. Toynbee writes the following: [[8]]

"At the end of June 1921, a few weeks after that report was written, some of these Circassian mercenaries assisted the Greek chettés and regular troops at Ismid in the massacre of Turkish civilians, on the eve of the Greek evacuation of the town. But so far as I could discover, they played a subordinate part, and there is no warrant for making them the scape-goats for either this or any other Greek atrocity."DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Severe pov

I'm afraid that this article is the epitomy of wp:pov, especially in the lead, which mentions briefly the Izmid events but only to quote a part of Tonbee. The present state of the article suffers also from wp:Quotfarm in a wp:pov habit in order to point to specific opinions (for example Tonbee, but no wonder there are no quotes based on reports in the House of Commons).Alexikoua (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Another serious issue is the supposed number of the victims, which is claimed to be ca. 6,000-6,500, and still needs to be verified (a url if possible). On the other hand Gingeras, gives a completely different view:

"In total only thirty-five were reported (in Yalova/Gemlik Peninsula) to have been killed, wounded, beaten, or missing. This is in line with the observations of Arnold Toynbee, who declared that one to two murders were sufficient to drive away the population of a village."Alexikoua (talk)

For an unexplained and ...childish reason this was reverted. I don't know maybe Toynbee isn't enough in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There is severe POV from you, stop trying to cover up the massacres. M.Gehri the commission member estimates that 6-6,500 people were killed. The source of Gingeras refers only to 177 refugee people in a camp in Istanbul who responded to a questionary. This says nothing about the total number. There is abundant source of dozens of villages burned and massacred in this region claiming a deathtoll of less than 35 is incredible. BTW Toynbee further wrote that part in relation to a number of villages around Fistikli, you can read it at the online report of Toynbee in the source, he further states that in another village called Sultaniye half of the population was killed but considers this to be an exception.DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Another question is who is Oran Aslan who "ignored" multiple reports that raise the number of the 35 victims to... 6,000-6,500? the source isn't even in English and off course lacks any kind of bibliography... Abandance of sources? Sure they all claim that the number is 35, (Toynbee, Gingerian, the refugees Commission in Istanbul). The claim is of 6-6.5k. is so severely pov, that we count the total Muslim population in Gemlik/Yalova (24,000) [[9]] and then comparing it to the supposed killed (6k) and the refugges (20k), one can easily assume that this is... childish. Actually The numbers are crying by themselves that they are wrong.Alexikoua (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you even read what I wrote? That 35 number is only based on a questionary of 177 people, according to the inter allied commission member M. Gehri total number of killed was 6,000-6,500. Why are you pushing your POV by manipulating sources? Claiming that in that entire peninsula less than 35 people died is your own amazing childish pov. Stop trolling.DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually they were the only that responded to the commission, no more. This means that the commission's report is limited to this. Gehri? I believe you need to give Gehri's url. I'm sorry but Gingarian is quite clear, and 35 means exactly that, not to mention that Tonbee agrees with that, something which is for an unexplained reason ignored about him. Also please avoid wp:NPA. Alexikoua (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Just happened to see this [[10]], actually when someone claims that the population had disappeared from a region doesn't necessary mean that it was killed, and this number is close to the number of the refugees according to Gingarian. To sum up, the only sources we have about the number of the victims is still 35, while the refugees were some thousands (from 6k to 20k).Alexikoua (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

So it seems as though Toynbee does say that it was 35 people were killed and yet you use a non-third party source that states 6,000 people were killed? Thats an astronimical difference. Are we going to pick and choose sources here that are suitable for a certain POV? One of these sources is unreliable and it looks to be Aslan's since Toynbee's figures are confirmed by other reliable sources. So one of these sources is unreliable and cannot be used for this article, especially considering the controversy. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It's also hilarious to see that Toynbee is all of a sudden considered a reliable source when it comes to Gemlik. Turkish historians have constantly stated that he isn't due to his depiction of the Armenian genocide (12). İşimize geleni severiz gibi. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

What is hilarious is that you are so prejudiced and yourself are doing the behavior you complain against Turks. Toynbee is also not the only source in case you still could not figure that out. What does Armenian genocide has to do with this and why are you assuming I deny the events, I do not deny massacres against Armenians, but I wish people were not so hypocritical. Because I know from some users edits here that they are very easy and eager to add text with Turks massacring others, but in this article they are suddenly very skeptical. Why because the victims are Turks?DragonTiger23 (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The difference is astronomical indeed. But most probably the second account (M.Gehri) never supported the 6,000 dead scenario.Alexikoua (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Toynbee never states that this is the total amount, this is source abuse by Alexikoua, it is written that according to statements gathered by Ottoman officials from 177 refugees 28 persons had their family harmed and in total 35 had been killed/wounded. Alexikoua is falsely manipulating the source, be honest, here you can read the online reports of Toynbee far more than 35 people are described to be killed here: [[11]]

"Uluslararası Kızılhaç Örgütü temsilcisi Mr.Maurice Gehri, Yunan zulüm, yağma ve katliamlarını incelemek için Gemlik'e geldi. Daha sonra verdiği raporda 16 köyün imha edildiğini, 6.000-6.500 insanın öldürülmüş olduğunu bildirecektir. İsviçreli Gehri ile birlikte bir İngiliz Generalinin başkanlığında, İngiliz, Fransız, İtalyan, Türk askeri temsilcilerinden kurulu Araştırma Kurulu da İngiliz bayrağını taşıyan bir gemi ile İstanbul'dan Gemliğe geldi. Yunan zulümlerinden Gemlik'e kaçmış halkı dinlemeğe başladı."

Translation to English : "Mr.Maurice Gehri the representative of the International Red Cross came to Gemlik to examine Greek oppression, looting and massacres. Later, in his report he stated that 16 villages had been destroyed, 6000-6500 people had been killed. Headed by a British General, the Swiss Gehri and military representatives of British, French, Italian and Turkish military came on board a ship flying the flag of the British came from Istanbul to Gemlik. Here they listened to Greek atrocities from refugees that had fled to Gemlik."

So Gehri states this and he is not reliable only because you do not like it? Grow up. If there were only 35 people killed why would there be an inter allied commission of several countries who would investigate the events and conclude that there was an extermination of the Muslim Turkish population? Besides the number of people killed in the different villages already exceeds 35, 35 is AGAIN only based on a questionnary of 177 refugees, this is not the total number, do not do original research.DragonTiger23 (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You're again referring to the Aslan source which is in question anyways. It can easily have been mistaken for 6,000 being killed as opposed to disappeared. Find the Gehri source before anything else. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not in question it is based on the inter allied commission report, because you don't like it does not make it unreliable or that he made mistakes is not up to you to decide(this is what Athenean said earlier about Smith). But btw now you are also participating in the denial of these massacres?DragonTiger23 (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I cant believe how POV pushing some people are, Toynbee is himself the one who concludes that the Greeks were systematically murdering the Turkish and Muslim population, do you people only read you cherry picked accounts?DragonTiger23 (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not denying anything. I just don't like WP:PUFFERY. Only one source states that 6,000 were killed. This needs further affirmation from other reliable sources. The fact of the matter is, it seems as though it could have easily been mistaken for 6,000 people who chose to leave the Peninsula. The demographics of the region doesn't seem to attest to the fact that 6000 Turks got killed. The allied commission report in fact states:

• Guemlek, the principal town in the district, had some 6,000 Greek and 1,000 Moslem inhabitants before these events took place.

And as far as I am concerned, Yalova had a similar demographics and population. And again...where's the Gehri source? Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I already gave the source, I don't care whether you believe it or not, it is reliably sourced, that Turkish document is detailed information based on the international report. Besides the int commission reported that there was a extinction of the Turkish population, so why are you making original research, claiming that the demography does not support it and the Turks left the peninsula, do you have any sources of this?DragonTiger23 (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This is about the entire peninsula not only city of Gemlik, your making original research please stop denial.DragonTiger23 (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that the Muslim population of the entire peninsuala was 24k, while the number of refuggees and dead you claim (20k+6k) exceed this number. By the way Gehri said in plain English "6,000 disappeared from the region" not killed, per the link I gave from his work.Alexikoua (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't do original research. I gave you the Turkish source and translated it: it clearly says that Gehri said that "6000-6500 were massacred". BTW what you are doing is snippet view abuse.DragonTiger23 (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, then you need to bring Gehri's report as it is in its original English form, since the snippet we are interested claims something diferrend. Not to mention that it contradicts the rest of the data we have too. By the way I've checked gbooks and gscholar, seems the Gehri report is nowhere to find, or at least something that can be considered wp:rs. Toynbee's account (ca. 2 victims in each village) as well the 35 claim is a total number of reported casualties is the only we have so far.Alexikoua (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It does not contradict the data, did you even read the sources, the casualties in the separate villages already constituted more than 35. How many times must I repeat 35 casualties is based upon an inquiry of 177 people, this is not the total amount of casualties or claims this to be. You are so falsely distorting the source, Toynbee only mentions that in the are of Fistikli there were no wholesale massacres.

The original sentences of Toynbee:

"The drawing of the outlying coverts may be illustrated from the treatment of the six little Turkish villages round Fistikli, about which I obtained details from survivors. Here there were no wholesale massacres. From Selimié, for instance, all 300 inhabitants escaped to Kapakly, Narly, and Karaja Ali, and did not perish till these latter places were overwhelmed on the 15th May (see above). At Ihsanié, only 5 were killed and 2 wounded out of 100; at Sultanié, 1 killed and 1 wounded out of 56; at Mejidié, 2 missing out of 250. Only at Khairié half the population were known to have been killed in this first phase, but that was premature. A murder or two was generally sufficient to terrorise the villagers into abandoning their homes and fleeing either to the forests and mountains (where many perished of exposure and starvation) or to the larger centres. (My own informants had been rescued by the Red Crescent after two months’ precarious shelter at Armudlu.) The 6 villages2 round Fistikli were evacuated in rapid succession during the week ending the 18th April 1921, and then ransacked and burnt by the chettés at their ease."

"They had not fared so badly as the Turks of Fistikli, who had had to receive three parties of ‘guests’ in succession—a band of chettés from Katyrly, another from Arnautkeui, and a detachment of fifty-five Greek regulars from "

But in the Yalova area in the village of Akkeu (Akköy) he states that a horrified Muslim priest(hodja) tells him after he ask if there ae any problems:

"‘Yes. A week ago, or perhaps as much as nine days (later we learnt from an independent source that it was at any rate less than a fortnight) the Rum chetteleri (Greek chettés) came into the village and killed sixty people [out of about 400]. Some are buried in the open square through which you have just come, others on a little hill between the two mahallas [quarters] of the village.’ It was terrible to leave that poor hoja and his fellow-villagers with the night coming on, the ‘rural guards’ standing by with their rifles and bandoliers and evil countenances, and the Greek chettés (some of whom had ridden out of Yalova ahead of us) lurking somewhere in the neighbourhood"

As far as I can tell, the only source for the figure of 6,000 is that unpublished paper by Oran Arslan. Who is Oran Arslan? What kind of university is Ataturk University? Why is his paper not published in a peer reviewed journal? The only part in English is the abstract, where the language used ("In this article, information on the tyrannical treatment of the Turkish Muslim people living in Samanlıdag by the Greek during their march..") shows this person is not neutral, and neither is his paper. Until such a time as someone produces the actual report by Gehri, I am tagging this info as dubious. Athenean (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Do not try to discredit the author or the source, the Turkish author is probably a not very known historian but this doesn't makes her account unreliable or that he is Turkish or that it is written in Turkish, this does not make her non neutral, claiming this makes you a racist. Her account is based upon the commission and Toynbee and has footnotes everywhere it does not disagree with the allied report at all. We have Arslan's source which states that there were in total 6-6,500 casualties, that other snippet view agrees with this number, it calls it "dissapearing" but we have no evidence that these disappeared people left the peninsula, most likely we can assume they were killed. After all the commission report describes it clearly as "extinction".DragonTiger23 (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sever POV problems 2

The article suffers from even more severe POV problems than I first thought.

• Virtually the entire article is based on a single source, this [12], which is a non-peer reviewed, unpublished piece in Turkish by a certain Oran Arslan. The only part in English is the abstract, wherein the language used is non-neutral and highly partisan. This leads me to question the reliability and neutrality of this source. Seeing how the entire article relies on this source, I find this particularly problematic

• Repetition: The same information is repeated over and over for effect. For example, in the background section we have "However according to the report of the Allied commission the events during World War I and the problems of the refugees were not the primary reason of the thorough destruction of numerous Turkish villages and towns in the Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula. They stated that the massacres and destruction was carried out according to a plan by the Greek army who also encouraged the local Greek and Armenians to participate.". Then in the "Massacres in 1920-192" section we have "The Inter-Allied commission, consisting of British, French, American and Italian officers,[c] and the representative of the Geneva International Red Cross, M. Gehri, prepared two separate collaborative reports on their investigations in the Yalova-Gemlik Peninsula. These reports found that Greek forces committed systematic atrocities against the Turkish inhabitants.[40] And the commissioners mentioned the "burning and looting of Turkish villages", the "explosion of violence of Greeks and Armenians against the Turks", and "a systematic plan of destruction and extinction of the Moslem population", which is then again repeated in the quote box below that just to make sure: "A distinct and regular method appears to have been followed in the destruction of villages, group by group, for the last two months... there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Muslim population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian bands, which appear to operate under Greek instructions and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops."

• The tone and language of the article are non-neutral throughout.

For the reasons above, I am placing a POV tag on it, and ask that it not be removed until the issues are resolved. Athenean (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• The article is not based upon one source but multiple sources. The Turkish source is based upon the allied commission report and does not contradict the other English sources. Most of the article is actually based upon the commission report in the document of Arnold Toynbee.

• Toynbee, Arnold (6 April 1922) [9 March 1922], "Letter", The Times (Turkey)
• Andros Odyssey: Liberation: (1900-1940), Stavros Boinodiris Phd
• Naimark, Norman M (2002), Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe, Harvard University Press.
• Gingeras, Ryan (2009). Sorrowful Shores:Violence, Ethnicity, and the End of the Ottoman Empire 1912-1923. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780191609794.
• Smith, Michael Llewellyn (1999). Ionian vision : Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922 (New edition, 2nd impression ed.). London: C. Hurst. ISBN 9781850653684.
• Online Turkish document with detailed information
• Online reports of Arnold Toynbee

The language of the Turkish source is also not non-neutral and highly partisan, You probably can not speak Turkish but still you claim this before even reading the entire article. Mentioning the Greeks massacring of Turks tyrannical in the abstract does not make it non neutral, the inter allied commission itself describes the Greek conduct as planned by the Greek army. here

The commission states "are unworthy of a civilised government" is the commission alse partisan now? The citation of the commission: Source

‘A distinct and regular method appears to have been followed in the destruction of villages, group by group, for the last two months, which destruction has even reached the neighbourhood of the Greek headquarters. ‘The members of the Commission consider that, in the part of the kazas of Yalova and Guemlek occupied by the costume in Turkey. Greek army, there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Moslem population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian bands, which appear to operate under Greek instructions and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops. ‘This destruction of villages and the disappearance of the Moslem population consequent thereon doubtless has as its object to guard the flanks and rear of the Greek army against any possible attack by the population in the event of an early offensive, and perhaps even to create in this region a political situation favourable to the Greek Government. ‘In any event, the Commission is of opinion that the atrocities reported against Christians on the one hand, and Moslems on the other, are unworthy of a civilised government, and that in the region occupied by the Greek army, the Greek authorities, who are alone in authority there, are responsible, and, in the region under the Kemalist régime, the Turkish authorities.’

• Those sentences are necessary because one source explains the violence as caused by a refugee problem while, the commission report does not agree with this. This an article about a massacre ofcourse there will be information added about the events, mentioning them is not making the tone of article non neutral.

So I will remove POV tag, one source tag, there is no dispute everything is based clearly upon neutral sources.DragonTiger23 (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

@DragonTiger23: I'm afraid that from the above mentioned sources not a single one claims about the ca. 6,000 number, Gingaras says only 35 are reported, nothing more only that. Also when you disagree about something this is not a reason to remove the tags, in fact this is the most extreme way to become disruptive.Alexikoua (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Again your ignoring the facts and sources and explanation above, you continue to distort the source, I reported you for extreme non neutral pov behavior. The death toll is far higher than 35, here is yet another example, Gehri states that in about five villages near Gemlik:(More than 550 houses burned down and hundreds of people massacred)

A la fin de son périple, Gehri dresse un tableau du nombre de maisons et de fermes détruites par l’armée grecque ou par des bandes grecques (ou arméniennes) dans quinze villages à majorité musulmane. Son bilan fait état de pas moins de 550 maisons rasées et de centaines des personnes «massacrées».(More than 550 houses burned down and hundreds of people massacred) Par la suite, les opérations menées par le Croissant-Rouge aboutiront au transfert de plus de 2660 civils de la Péninsule de Marmara en Turquie.Here onlineDragonTiger23 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Who wrote this? I see neither author nor signs of any bibliography. It isn't unpublished too.Alexikoua (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You are so not neutral, it is really ironic since now you are questioning the source your buddy Athenian has added to prove a Greek massacre in Iznik,here but apparently he didn't realize the source he added confirms the massacres of the Greek army of local Turks, he only cherry picked the sentence where Turks are massacring others.DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way the tables contain only partially Toynbee's statements, I see never written that [[in line with the observations of Arnold Toynbee, who declared that one to two murders were sufficient to drive away the population of a village."]]. If we do the math, bingo, 35 seems a quite reasonble number compared to the villages, while the supposed refugees+dead you claim exceed even the number of the Muslim population.Alexikoua (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

POV and One Source Tags are not necessary

• The article is based upon multiple sources not one.
• The sources are neutral, there is no dispute about the massacre so the pov tag is not necessary.DragonTiger23 (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not pretend to be an expert on the matter, but I've a hard time trusting any article where references are direct links to Gbooks search results. It's usually an indication of prooftexting. — Lfdder (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually nothing has been yet addressed, especially the claim about the 6,500-6,000 dead, which is based by one and only partisan source.Alexikoua (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The bulk of the article is sourced to the Oran Arslan source, as such the one-source tag should stay for now. Seeing how this author does not have any publications in peer-reviewed journals, and is a contributor to an Armenian Genocide denialist publication [13], I have strong doubts about the quality and impartiality of this source. Similarly, tot he extent that the the article relies on other partisan sources, such as Stanford J. Shaw, there are POV problems. In addition, my concerns about the repetition of things over and over for effect, as well as the use of quoteboxes for effect, mean that the POV tag should stay as well, until such issues are resolved. There is also a problem with Toynbee. In the lead it says Toynbee doesn't mention Circassians, but in the body text there is a quotebox where Toynbee does mention Circassians. Athenean (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Toynbee mentions Circassians in Izmit not in Gemlik Yalova peninsula, these are separate regions and events unrelated to each other.DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The bulk of the article is based upon this source.

• Toynbee, Arnold Joseph (1970). The Western Question in Greece and Turkey:A Study in the Contact of Civilizations. H. Fertig, originally: University of California. The full version can be found here (Online reports of Arnold Toynbee) {{cite book}}: External link in |quote= (help)

If Toynbee only mentions Circassians in Izmit, but not Gemlik, why do you quote him about the subordinate role of Circassians in Gemlik? Athenean (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned, some points are stated again and again, for effect, (why we have 3 lists of the same villages? the third doesn't give any detail at all, only repeats their names). Some other points are completely ignored, thus promoting the pov and making the article more imbalanced, for example:

1. "Statements gathered by Ottoman officials reveal, somewhat strangely, a fairly low number of casualties in this campaign of destruction...".
2. this is in lince with the observations of Toynbee, declared that one to two murders were sufficient in driving away the population of a given village" (although Toynbee's comments are mentioned in several cases 'word by word', for example in the case of the Circassion participation).Alexikoua (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The 6k figure seems to come from Arslan citing somebody's memoirs. — Lfdder (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The quote is about Izmit and other areas but not Gemlik-Yalova, Circassians are not mentioned in the events of Yalova Gemlik according to Toynbee or the inter allied comission, in fact Circassians are not related to this article at all I had already tried to explain it above, the only reason they are in the article now is because Alexikoua tries to shift the blame on them.DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC) The two tables are based upon two different sources, Toynbee and the Ottoman report. The third contains some additional villages.

Arslan is actually citing from another source who states it is based upon M. Gehri. But the figure of 5-6000 seems to be mentioned in multiple English sources so it seems reliable.

The massacre part of the article is based upon the reports of an inter allied commission, all the other sources in the article are citing from this, including Arslan, I have checked the document of Arslan with the report of Toynbee and other English sources, they are supporting Arslan, this means Arslan source is not unreliable. Athenean claim of Arslan (source attacking) as a genocide denier and partisan are not relevant because Arslan source is in agreement with the other English sources. Shaw source is only used in the background section, massacre is based upon multiple English sources which are all online.DragonTiger23 (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question: If Toynbee does not mention Circassians in Gemlik, why do you quote him about the subordinate role of Circassians in Gemlik? It seems you want to have it both ways: Use Toynbee to cast doubt on the Circassians' participation, but also use Toynbee to minimize such participation. You can't have it both ways. If the article is based on "other English sources", why do you not use those instead of Arslan? Regarding the repetition, your answer is not at all satisfactory regarding the table. Things are repeated over and over, for effect it seems, as is the use of quoteboxes. Also, would you please learn to indent your comments, see WP:INDENT. Athenean (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not quote him about Gemlik, they are not even mentioned in Gemlik, quotation is about Izmit. I will add them do not worry. Things are not repeated all over again, there are only 3 quoteboxes, one of Toynbee about Gemlik Yalova, on about Circassian, and the allied report quote. Please first you have to learn to be neutral.DragonTiger23 (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK

Yesterday I trimmed mention of a massacre that took place in Izmit [14], per WP:COATRACK. Izmit is not part of the Gemlik Yalova area. To the extent that it is necessary to mention the massacre at Izmit, a simple mention should be enough. An entire paragraph, going into detail, seems beyonf the scope of the article. Athenean (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not coatrack, the article's first version was fine, Alexkioua and Athenean added irrelevant parts and so did coatrack themselves, Izmit was only added to blame Turks of massacre, but now they are removing the sources which state the massacres of Turks, I already summarized the source, it was longer, now they are removing info and leaving vague sentences, " 300 were executed" it is not even clear by who.DragonTiger23 (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what WP:COATRACK is? "Izmit was only added to blame Turks of massacre"? What? That doesn't even make sense. In my version I made sure to mention that 300 Turks were exectued, it follows that they were executed by the Greek army. How could it not be clear by who? And I once again ask you to indent your comments. Athenean (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Izmit was added by Alexikoua why do I have to explain everything again and again. You remove everything and only leave 300 Turks were executedDragonTiger23 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC) I had already summarized it, they are only 3 more sentences.DragonTiger23 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Is Izmit part of the Gemlik-Yalova area? No, it's not. Why do we have an entire paragraph on it then? Athenean (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

How many times do I have to explain it? When I first created the article, there was no Izmit or Iznik or Circassian, they were all added by Alexikoua who did this to you say coatrack for that reason.DragonTiger23 (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This [15] was added by you, no? Athenean (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Just realized that the massacre at Izmit occured after Gemlik-Yalova. Why is it even mentioned here at all? Athenean (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

English source states 5,500 died.

McNeill, William H. (1989). Arnold J. Toynbee: A Life. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199923397. To protect their flanks from harassment, Greek military authorities then encouraged irregular bands of armed men to attack and destroy Turkish populations of the region they proposed to abandon. By the time the Red Crescent vessel arrived at Yalova from Constantinople in the last week of May, fourteen out of sixteen villages in that town's immediate hinterland had been destroyed, and there were only 1500 survivors from the 7000 Moslems who had been living in these communities.

DragonTiger23 (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Toynbee again? So another source from the same author

(94.66.220.242 (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC))

Wrong data on table

The table about the population figures adds numbers of irrelevant disrticts (not part of this peninsula), so I conclude that, Izmit, Iznik & Karamürsel should be removed of it.Alexikoua (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Potato Riots which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Gallery of non-POV images

In the case of large galleries from a neutral source (by the way those images [[16]] are scanned from a non-neutral source), per WP:GALLERY: In articles that have several images, they are typically placed individually near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text.Alexikoua (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Term "Ethnic Cleansing"

After reading the cited source (Gingeras, Ryan (2009). Sad Shores: Violence, Ethnicity and the End of the Ottoman Empire 1912-1923 Oxford University Press. Page 28. ISBN 9780191609794), I did not find a statement that this event is ethnic cleansing. If there will not be quotation, the source will need to be changed. Demo66top (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)