Talk:George Horton

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries: Ottoman Empire

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire.

Merger

The article on the book has been a quite short stub for quite some time, and I don't think, at least at its current state, it warrants a different article. It should be merged here. Deniz^T_C 22:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

by merger 2009-01-07. --P64 (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

This is far from a WP:Stub, rather a low-quality Start! --P64 (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horton's letter to Venizelos about Blight of Asia

Dear GGT how are you?

Hope you are doing fine and had a good Christmas time!

I found a document in the http://www.venizelosarchives.gr/rec.asp?id=73102 a letter written by Horton to Venizelos http://www.venizelosarchives.gr/venjpg/%CE%9C%CE%9F%CE%A5%CE%A3%CE%95%CE%99%CE%9F%20%CE%9C%CE%A0%CE%95%CE%9D%CE%91%CE%9A%CE%97/371%20-%20380/173.372.120.jpg clearly stating his propaganda and distortions about the events and that he ask for support for his book. He even states that he sent copies to every member of the state and prevented the discussion of Lausanne Treaty. He even lies there and states he witnessed the destruction but in his own book he states that neither he was a witness to the Hrisostomos' lynching https://archive.org/details/blightofasiaacco00hort/page/99/mode/1up?view=theater&q=chrysostom (Also gives inaccurate date, the accurate is 10th of September. Horton was in İzmir on both days yet gives false date.) nor that he was a witness in the fire as he already left on the day (13th of September https://archive.org/details/blightofasiaacco00hort/page/149/mode/1up?view=theater) that the fire started. I'd like to know you opinion on the topic and add this archival source to the page as well as to other pages.

I wish you a happy new year in advance!

Utku Utku Öziz (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Utku Öziz:. I have to be clear about this as we’ve previously discussed this sort of thing about this article but also similar issues seem to have come up on other articles.

This sort of approach of reading primary sources, trying to interpret and synthesise them, isn’t really ideal for Wikipedia. This is meant to be a tertiary resource - which means that ideally it should be based on secondary sources. Stuff is only significant if there’s reliable secondary scholarship about it. I honestly don’t care from a Wikipedian’s point of about whether Horton lied (I obviously have my personal opinion but that has no bearing), if there’s no scholarship that has made that conclusions. What you’re saying may be true but that actually has no bearing if it’s just your conclusion - this isn’t the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and certain things are just underresearched.

At this point I would suggest to you to not even look at primary sources, especially for controversial articles like this. You’ll end up just getting reverted or dismissed. And if you’re keen to continue this line of research, I suggest you take your writing to another online platform (and this sort of stuff reads more like blog material than Wikipedia material). That would be the most efficient use of everyone’s time.

Best wishes and happy new year. GGT (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this now more @GGT. So this can be used in a Secondary source where a researcher uses this letter in his research. But unless that researcher does not do this we may be reverted. However it still does not need to be reverted as I do not believe putting his letter is against any Wikipedia rule. But thank you for your kind explanation. I just want to know the facts as much as I can and since secondary sources can also be biased, propaganda or even outright lies I want to make sure so that we do not take the responsibility of misinforming our readers and spreading inaccurate information. I have however found some secondary sources about Horton already. I am sorry if I have bothered you with this and thank you again for your time and effort in explanation. I will also write to you regarding Cyprus and with independent secondary sources!

Best wishes and happy new year!

Utku Utku Öziz (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]