Talk:Treaty of Sèvres
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on August 10, 2005, August 10, 2006, and August 10, 2007.|
Could anybody tell me where in the Treaty an independent Assyria is mentioned? Can't remember ever reading that, but may be I missed it. Nightworker 23:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- There is no mention of an independent Assyria, the Assyro-Chaldeans were only protected minorities within the new boundaries
- That's exactly as I remembered. Thanks - who ever you are.Nightworker 23:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This page only mentions that Kurdistan was to be an autonomus part of turkey. When in fact they (the kurds) would be granted independence from turkey if they wished acording to Section III Article 64: "If within one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty the Kurdish peoples within the areas defined in Article 62 shall address themselves to the Council of the League of Nations in such a manner as to show that a majority of the population of these areas desires independence from Turkey, and if the Council then considers that these peoples are capable of such independence and recommends that it should be granted to them, Turkey hereby agrees to execute such a recommendation, and to renounce all rights and title over these areas."
There is no mention of this! There is also no mention of that the kurdish part called the Mosul Vilayet in the traty, could if they wished join the independent Kurdistan.
- I believe there are areas within Wiki that suggests the Kurds are allowed to have an Independent Kurdistan, however, the treaty was never signed by the Ottoman Sultan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 25 November 2006.
I agree. Why not revise the text? Nightworker 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Write "Turk" by using the capital letter. Deliogul 19:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Timeline of notable events 
I would be ready to add under the footnote a short timeline of notable develoments during the 10-month period between the Armistice of Mudros (30 October 1918; the agreement that ended the war for the Ottoman Empire, and which should be mentioned here) and the Treaty of Sevres. I do not know if there are any examples of such a timeline in other articles on international treaties but it would certainly be useful. I can write it in smaller characters like the footnote, therefore the main body of the article would still jump first to the eye. Cretanforever
Soviet Participation 
The effect of Soviets looks like a key element in the indipendence war when we read this article but this is not true. Yes Soviets gave us military equipment(Max. 1/5 of the nationalist army used their ammo) but that is all. Mustafa Kemal Pasha used every help to defeat the invaders. With respect, Deliogul 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Not clear 
This article contains two maps of what is apparently the same thing, "The proposed Armenian state". However, sorry to say that neither of them is clear. One is virtually monochrome and almost entirely illegible. The other has lots of shaded bits but no legend (at least not in English) and captions only in a foreign language (Armenian perhaps?). Reading the article doesn't help. I'm left with no idea what the scope of the proposed state was. -JdSf 16:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Missing Headline 
There is a section in the main article which lacks any definition or title. Can it's author edit and present it in a more appropriate manner. It is the section which contains 2 articles from the treaty. Thalion Hurin 10:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It says "portions of southern Anatolia, were to pass to Italy". Does anyone know where to find more information about this? A map including what the Italians would have gained would be great--Stavros15 12:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Parts of the Turkish Aegean and present day Antalya were promised to Italy with couple of agreements during WWI but then Italy had problems with the Allies and withdrew from her promised territories which paved the way for Greece to show up and claim the Western Anatolia. See you, Deliogul 14:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I also have to add that the British government of the time had a big effect on this political change. Deliogul 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
ATTENTION. THERE IS A MAJOR MISTAKE CONCERNING ITALY AND THE DODECANESE ISLANDS ARTICLE 122. Turkey renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title over the following islands of the Aegean Sea; Stampalia (Astropalia), Rhodes (Rhodos), Calki (Kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso) Pscopis (Tilos), Misiros (Nisyros), Calymnos (Kalymnos) Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), Sini (Symi), and Cos (Kos), which are now occupied by Italy, and the islets dependent thereon, and also over the island of Castellorizzo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- O.K. --OttomanReference 02:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK. Correct place.Must.T C 05:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sure the material there can be copied here. I am not sure about deleting the section afterwards though, if that's what's meant by this merger. DenizTC 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please stick to English language on English wikipedia. The proposed merge is moving all/most content regarding serves from that article to here. -- Cat chi? 18:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed one of the map captions: it was described as a "modern Cambridge University" map, but it certainly isn't modern, and Cambridge University Press (the publisher) is not exactly the same thing as the university. I guess this map may be taken from the Cambridge Modern History of the early 20th century. Andrew Dalby 15:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Most populous 
To claim that Turks were the most populous is speculation. The two groups who were mostly concentrated in Eastern Anatolia were Kurds and Armenians. There was a considerable population of Circassians, Kurds, Turkmans, Zaza's etc. Assuming that Turks outnumbered Armenians in Eastern Anatolia is original research when the most populous Muslim population there were Kurds not Turks. The Turks were concentrated more Westward, Erzerum was rather the exception than the rule. VartanM 03:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Flavious, can you please provide sources that confirm your claim. VartanM 02:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please make your decision. If Turks exterminated Armenians back in 1915, it is impossible to claim that Armenians were one of the two most populous groups in the region. Even if we don't take the genocide thing into consideration, it is so clear that the Treaty of Serves was giving huge lands to Armenians that contains places where Armenians were not even close to be the "most populous". Also, there are people who claim that there were no 1,5 million Armenians in the region back in 1915 to be exterminated and these numbers are created to support the modern day strategy of Armenia to claim rights on Anatolia. Look, I didn't talk about Turks or Kurds. People just have to see that there are also problems in the stories of the other parties of the debate. Deliogul 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Deliogul, were talking about timeperiod before the Armenian Genocide. Modern day Armenia has no claims on Anatolia. can you provide sources that confirm what you just said? Here is my version:
- Armenia: was given a large part of the region; including provinces which didn't have significant Armenian populations remaining after the massacres and deportations, such as the Black Sea port city of Trabzon.
Here is his version:
- Armenia: The Armenians, who had constituted the third largest ethnic group in Eastern Anatolia after the Turks and Kurds even before the Armenian Genocide, were given a large part of the region; including provinces which didn't have significant Armenian populations such as the Black Sea port city of Trabzon.
My version doesn't even mention the "genocide thing". It's clear to me that I'm not going to get any feedback from Flavious. Deliogul, feel free to provide the source claiming that Armenians constituted the third largest ething group in Easter Anatolia after the Turks and Kurds. --VartanM 08:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- So you say modern day Armenia has nothing to do with the Greater Armenia. That doesn't sound rational to me. Also, your version can falsely make people think that Trabzon once was dominated by Armenians. That would be impossible, at least, for the last millennium (see Empire of Trebizond, reign of Mehmed II). By the way, I will have a look at the library of my college to solve this debate. See you, Deliogul 13:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Let's not forget, that an Empire is a state, that rules other nations and territories of countries. Who are majority or minority has little to do with the territory of the states ruled by an empire.
- however, the numbers cannot be objectively viewed if they are presented by a biased party. Here it is the Empire, as it clearly had an interest of lowering the, let me call them, "undesired-nations'" population in the empire at least on documents. As a result the population numbers on documents could have an effect on parliamentary elections, local governors' choice etc.
- VartanM didn't say that the modern-day Armenia has nothing to do with the Kingdom of Greater Armenia. He said that the Republic of Armenia has not presented territorial claims to the Republic of Turkey.
- I see the discussion wasn't finished after all... Aregakn (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Map inaccurate 
The current "self-made" map is inaccurate, as it describes all coloured regions as "zones", not noting the difference between the independent Armenian state, the proposed independent Kurdistan, the regions under Greek protectorate (Thrace and Smyrna), the Dodecanos annexed by Italy, and the various powers zones of influence within Anatolia itself. Also, the Kurdish "zone" is marked inaccurately as it included Diyarbakir in the French zone as well. Look here: http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/MUHLBERGER/uploaded_images/Map-color-Treaty-of-Sevres-748832.png
- I rectified it myself by uploading a new version of the map. Str1977 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
'...possibly as a sop to Armenian claims to that region).'
Conflicting Statements 
This says the Ottoman Empire didn't sign the treaty, yet 'had four signatories on behalf of the Ottoman government'.
So, the meaning is really that it was signed and not ratified, right?
NantucketNoon 15:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Signing a treaty and then having it ratified by the legal body nominally authorized to approve it, in general a congress or assembly or a parliament are two different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Surely this phrase is opinion or at least should be backed up by references 
I found the following sentence to little more than pure opinion - surely it should be backed up by references or removed - what do others think?
"This had been the dream of Christianity for nearly five hundred years beginning with Holy Leagues, the Ottoman Empire put into a condition that can never be revived again in its old form." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nznewsguy (talk • contribs) 08:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The map 
Place names 
Some placenames are obscure, e.g. "country of Mount Arisarieh", for which Google only returns this treaty. What is it called today? All place names should be linked to the proper Wikipedia article, and those articles should mention the historic names. --LA2 (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)