Talk:Turkish War of Independence

The continuation of the Armenian genocide and genocides against other ethnic groups

This news does not become a genocide because it is introduced to the USA with the pressure of only a few Armenian and Greek channels. There was no genocide in the Turkish War of Independence. The Greeks started the fire, which the Greeks called the Izmir genocide.Do not believe such lies. Armenians and Greeks massacred Turks in the Turkish War of Independence 85.99.159.253 (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and many of them state that the term genocide applies to what occurred to the Armenians. The article Armenian genocide denial covers the opposing viewpoint- which is an integral part of the founding of the Turkish nation, taught in their schools, and as such is likely difficult to accept for citizens of Turkey. You are free to believe what you wish, but that does not change what sources state. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Again you are missing the point. What you are doing with this article is literally giving the opposing idea a spotlight at the very beginning of the other one. This is the same as going to Armenian Republic's page and writing in the first paragraph the Genocide narrative installed by Soviet Russia is the fundamental reason Armenian state exists and ASALA a French backed terrorist organisation gave the nation their entry to euro-centricity. Your sources are not reliable at the least, they do not cover any academic actively contesting this idea Turkish or otherwise. This line of argument is not about petty patriotism of people, it is the lack of intellectual honestly you are displaying, just to exhibit a stance in alignment to main stream opinion. This is the laziest form of contributing to an intellectual discussion. AdaletAdam (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph starts with genocide. It’s not like this in any of the other country’s independence war page.

This is just using wiki as a propaganda tool. It just makes it less credible…

I am not saying it shouldn’t mention that. But saying genocide let turkey to establish a country is just cringy. 2A01:4B00:865F:C600:84B0:6EDB:2637:A6E4 (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say, and most of them say that the genocide was an integral part of the creation of Turkey as a nation. If those sources are not being summarized accurately, please describe the specific errors. If the sources are being summarized accurately but you disagree with what they say, you will have to take that up with the sources. Remember that the Turkish government promotes and educates its citizens with a certain narrative. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

see WP:UNDUE Göktuğ Canik (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you don't copy arguments you don't understand from the talk page of a totally different article. FDW777 (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

It is at best laughable the reliable sources are from Armenian State Founded Academics and thought leaders supported by the diaspora. There is hundred of sources in Turkish and English explaining the events that Misak-i Milliye Movement encountered when they were established the Republic, it is very convenient for you to deem all of the arguments that academics of one nation makes delving into Archives of Ottoman, American, English states as "promotion of a certain idea" where as more then half of the attribution under [57] is literally and openly connected to the other sides government. If you are making a claim about intellectual honestly, it can with full confidence be said that you are not exhibiting it in the slightest. AdaletAdam (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

1 ATROCITIES AGAINST MUSLIM TURKS DURING THE TURKISH WAR OF INDEPENDENCE

In the early 20th century, both Christians and Muslims under the Ottoman rule had their own recollection of massacres. In the eyes of the West, it was the Muslim Turks who had massacred Christian Greeks, Bulgarian, and Serbs. However British historian David Nicolle states that Muslims suffered as much as Christians during this period. [1, p. 154] Turkish people were unfairly stigmatized as “Terrible Turk” or “Unspeakable Turk” in Europe. As the nationalist movement emerged, the memory of “Terrible Turk” passed down from Ottomans to Turkish nationalists. [2, pp. 46-47] During the War of Independence, any effort to rally the nationalist movement to defend the Turkish rights was perceived as an intent to massacre the Christian population. For example, on 6 June 1919, British relief officer Captain L. H. Hurst British High Commissioner in Istanbul stated that Mustafa Kemal was “organizing a movement which is only too likely to find an outlet for its energies in massacre.” [3, p. 246] Turkish academician Hakan Yavuz called such narratives “racist” and “orientalist”. [4]

As a result of the Balkan Wars and World War I, the relationship between Christian and Muslim population in Anatolia was strained in the post-war period. When the Greek forces landed in Smyrna, Muslims in Anatolia joined guerilla forces to fight against them, while most Greek and Armenian minorities fought alongside the Greek army; this further increased ethnic tensions in the region. As a result of this, the Anatolian population was fractured into religious groups which eventually led to ethnic cleansing by both sides. [5, p. 4]

After the occupation of Smyrna and its surroundings, the Greek forces massacred Muslim Turks in Western Anatolia and plundered their goods. A detailed account of the atrocities in Bilecik province is provided by Turkish academician Ali Sarıkoyuncu. [6] Another Turkish academician Emir Bostancı has an article that documents the Greek atrocities in İzmir and Aydın provinces. [7]

After the Greek defeat at Battle of Dumlupınar, the Greek forces started retreating from Anatolia. The Greek army adopted a scorched earth policy thereby plundering the region as it retreated. Even though Turkish forces conducted a swift tactical pursuit to limit the damage, the Greek army killed thousands of Muslims Turks and burned down that many as houses. [3, p. 368] After the war, Greek government recognized the massacres of Muslim Turks in the Treaty of Lausanne. [8, p. 351]

2 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] D. Nicolle, The Ottoman Empire of Faith, 2008. [2] J. M. V. Lippe, "The “Terrible Turk”: The Formulation and Perpetuation of a Stereotype in American Foreign Policy," New Perspectives on Turkey, pp. 39-57, 1997. [3] A. Mango, Atatürk, John Murray, 1999. [4] M. H. Yavuz, "Orientalism, the ‘Terrible Turk’ and Genocide," Middle East Critique, pp. 111-126, 2014. [5] P. S. Jowett, Armies of the Greek-Turkish War 1919-1922, Osprey Publishing, 2015. [6] A. Sarıkoyuncu, "Bilecik ve Çevresinde Yunan Mezalimi [Greek Atrocities in Bilecik and Surrounding Region]," Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi, pp. 19-48, 1994. [7] E. Bostancı, "Osmanlı Arşiv Belgelerine Göre İzmir ve Aydın’da Yunan İşgali ve Mezalimi Üzerine İtilaf Devletleri Nezdinde Yapılan Siyasi Teşebbüsler," Oltu Beşeri ve Sosyal Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi , pp. 52-81, 2021. [8] E. J. Erickson, The Turkish War of Independence, ABC-CLIO, 2021. 176.219.152.219 (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• It is not clear what specific edit is being asked for and if so, whether it has consensus. (t · c) buidhe 08:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022 (2)

FOREWORD

This request has been revised appropriately and reposted as it was told that the request was not specific.

1 CONTENTS

1 Request and Explanation 2 Atrocities against Muslim Turks during the Turkish War of Independence 3 Bibliography

2 REQUEST AND EXPLANATION

This article mentions death of Christians in Anatolia during the Turkish War of Independence; however, it completely omits the agony Turkish people faced during the war. In fact, this sorrowful memory is not some sort of national mythology, but a fact covered many academic sources. The following section of this request involves the instances of atrocities conducted by Greek army during the war with background information on how the events unfolded based on proper references. It’s kindly requested this information to be added to the article.

3 ATROCITIES AGAINST MUSLIM TURKS DURING THE TURKISH WAR OF INDEPENDENCE

In the early 20th century, both Christians and Muslims under the Ottoman rule had their own recollection of massacres. In the eyes of the West, it was the Muslim Turks who had massacred Christian Greeks, Bulgarian, and Serbs. However British historian David Nicolle states that Muslims suffered as much as Christians during this period. [1, p. 154] Turkish people were unfairly stigmatized as “Terrible Turk” or “Unspeakable Turk” in Europe. As the nationalist movement emerged, the memory of “Terrible Turk” passed down from Ottomans to Turkish nationalists. [2, pp. 46-47] During the War of Independence, any effort to rally the nationalist movement to defend the Turkish rights was perceived as an intent to massacre the Christian population. For example, on 6 June 1919, British relief officer Captain L. H. Hurst British High Commissioner in Istanbul stated that Mustafa Kemal was “organizing a movement which is only too likely to find an outlet for its energies in massacre.” [3, p. 246] Turkish academician Hakan Yavuz called such narratives “racist” and “orientalist”. [4]

As a result of the Balkan Wars and World War I, the relationship between Christian and Muslim population in Anatolia was strained in the post-war period. When the Greek forces landed in Smyrna, Muslims in Anatolia joined guerilla forces to fight against them, while most Greek and Armenian minorities fought alongside the Greek army; this further increased ethnic tensions in the region. As a result of this, the Anatolian population was fractured into religious groups which eventually led to ethnic cleansing by both sides. [5, p. 4]

After the occupation of Smyrna and its surroundings, the Greek forces massacred Muslim Turks in Western Anatolia and plundered their goods. Local Muslim leaders who did not leave their homes in the face of Greek invasion were commonly persecuted. According to British historian Arnold Toynbee, regular Greek soldiers and guerillas routinely performed “murder of rich men and subsequent seizure of their property.” The conclusions of a Commission of Enquiry for the Ismid Peninsula matched with Toynbee’s findings which stated that Greek forces “raped women, and robberies and acts of violence have been committed.” [6, pp. 124-125] A detailed account of the atrocities in Bilecik province is provided by Turkish academician Ali Sarıkoyuncu. [7] Another Turkish academician Emir Bostancı has an article that documents the Greek atrocities in İzmir and Aydın provinces. [8]

After the Greek defeat at Battle of Dumlupınar, the Greek forces started retreating from Anatolia. The Greek army adopted a scorched earth policy thereby plundering the region as it retreated. Even though Turkish forces conducted a swift tactical pursuit to limit the damage, the Greek army killed thousands of Muslims Turks and burned down that many as houses. [3, p. 368] After the war, Greek government recognized the massacres of Muslim Turks in the Treaty of Lausanne. [9, p. 351]

4 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] D. Nicolle, The Ottoman Empire of Faith, 2008. [2] J. M. V. Lippe, "The “Terrible Turk”: The Formulation and Perpetuation of a Stereotype in American Foreign Policy," New Perspectives on Turkey, pp. 39-57, 1997. [3] A. Mango, Atatürk, John Murray, 1999. [4] M. H. Yavuz, "Orientalism, the ‘Terrible Turk’ and Genocide," Middle East Critique, pp. 111-126, 2014. [5] P. S. Jowett, Armies of the Greek-Turkish War 1919-1922, Osprey Publishing, 2015. [6] B. Lieberman, Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe, 2006. [7] A. Sarıkoyuncu, "Bilecik ve Çevresinde Yunan Mezalimi [Greek Atrocities in Bilecik and Surrounding Region]," Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi, pp. 19-48, 1994. [8] E. Bostancı, "Osmanlı Arşiv Belgelerine Göre İzmir ve Aydın’da Yunan İşgali ve Mezalimi Üzerine İtilaf Devletleri Nezdinde Yapılan Siyasi Teşebbüsler," Oltu Beşeri ve Sosyal Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi , pp. 52-81, 2021. [9] E. J. Erickson, The Turkish War of Independence, ABC-CLIO, 2021. 176.219.154.137 (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This large a change will need discussion before implementation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems like some of this content may be more appropriate for Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922). The first paragraph strikes me as not the mainstream view in overall scholarship. For example, "During the War of Independence, any effort to rally the nationalist movement to defend the Turkish rights was perceived as an intent to massacre the Christian population." -> the phrasing is biased, since it assumes that "Turkish rights" are valid, and besides other sources would argue that there is plenty of evidence for such intent. (t · c) buidhe 14:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Reply to abstention from mentioning the atrocities against Muslim Turks

CONTENTS

1 Foreword

2 The Question of Turkish Rights

3 Turkish war of Independence v. Greek-Turkish war

4 Bibliography

5 Afterword

1 FOREWORD

The sentence in question does not make a call on the Turkish rights over Anatolia, but it explains how mobilization of the Turkish war effort was perceived by the West. The legitimacy of the war effort should be discussed separately from the atrocities against Muslims. If the problem is about wording, the phrasing can be changed from “Turkish rights” to “Turkish claims”. Nevertheless, the section below is given to explain why there are reasons to consider the Turkish rights to be valid. It has also been proposed to transfer “some of this content” to Greek-Turkish war, albeit it is not specified which parts those are. Therefore, the second section examines the terminology of war and how it is related to the Turkish national memory and massacres.

2 THE QUESTION OF TURKISH RIGHTS

The Turkish rights were justified based on the principle of national sovereignty. After the World War I ended, Ottomans wanted a peace with fair conditions in accordance with Wilsonian principles. However, the harsh terms that the Allies imposed with the Armistice of Mudros in 1918 were beyond anything the Ottoman government expected. [1, p. 2] Clauses of the armistice were abused by Entente states to invade Ottoman territory, which caused public outrage among Ottoman Turks. [2, p. 133] The occupation of Izmir and Istanbul after the armistice further enflamed the public attitude against the Allies. [3] The Greek government did not merely aimed to “liberate their kin” but aimed to restore the borders of ancient Byzantine Empire with the support of Imperialist European states; this irredentist policy was commonly known as Megali Idea. The materialization of this plan would mean the subjugation of Anatolian Muslim population. [4] Therefore, the nationalist movement organized communities for the protection of the rights of Muslim Turks in the face of foreign occupation. Treaty of Sevres, signed in 1920, was not negotiated with the defeated Ottoman Empire but was dictated over it. It aimed the partition of remaining Ottoman Empire. [2, p. 136] However, as British historian A. E. Montgomery calls it the Treaty of Sevres, which was not ratified, was stillborn. [5, p. 15]

3 TURKISH WAR OF INDEPENDENCE V. GREEK-TURKISH WAR

The war in Anatolia in 1919-1923 is known by many names: Turkish War of Independence, Asia Minor Campaign or Greek-Turkish War and so on. Both E. J. Erickson and Konstantin Travlos have interesting discussions about the terminology of the war in their books. The term Turkish War of Independence ignores the fact that Armenians, Greek and French armies did not coordinate military efforts with each other. For the Turks, however, Greek-Turkish War was simply the western theater of a multifrontal military conflict. In fact, many sources using the term Greek-Turkish War also cover the Turkish-Armenian and Turkish-French Wars [6], possibly preferring the initial term because it sounds more neutral, and the western front was where the most intense fighting took place. However, ignoring that these atrocities were committed during the War of Independence by claiming killings simply took place during the Greek-Turkish War would be despising the view and experience of the Turkish people and academic literature.

4 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] E. J. Erickson, The Turkish War of Independence, ABC-CLIO, 2021. [2] E. J. Zürcher, Turkey: a Modern History, I. B. Tauris, 2004. [3] E. J. Zürcher, "The Ottoman Empire and the Armistice of Mudros," in At the Eleventh Hour: Reflections, Hopes and Anxieties at the Closing of the Great War, 1918, Pen & Sword Books, 1998. [4] K. Travlos, "Introduction," in Salvation and Catasthrope: The Greek-Turkish War, 1919-1922, 2020. [5] A. E. Montgomery, "VIII. The Making of the Treaty of Sèvres of 10 August 1920," The Historical Journal, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 775-778, 1972. [6] P. S. Jowett, Armies of the Greek-Turkish War, 1919-1922, Osprey Publishing, 2015.

5 AFTERWORD

If you are not interested into reading these books, there is a fine documentary series on Youtube by Timeghost History which neutrally documents the military campaigns, diplomatic stances, and atrocities committed.

Ep. 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1QkqAyOIYU

Ep. 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxRGCr52eQg

Ep. 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_WG0nHUsEE

Ep. 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2y-XylcGtM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.219.152.12 (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Refence No: [57] and It's First Attribution in the Introduction Is Misleading and Is a Clear Violation of Advocacy, Propaganda Statement of This Platform

"Simultaneously, the Turkish nationalist movement carried out massacres and deportations in order to eliminate native Christian populations—a continuation of the Armenian genocide and other ethnic cleansing operations during World War I.[57] These campaigns resulted in the creation of the Republic of Turkey."

First, It is not "Turkish Nationalist Movement", first the general zeitgeist that developed in face of illegal occupation of France, Greece, Armenia, Britain should be referred to as "Kuvay-i Milliye"

Has no basis in reality other then the multitude of articles listed that tangentially addresses events that took place during the WW1 from an orientalist and euro-centric point of view at best, or at worst only tangentially relevant and justified in the way of making this statement, furthermore Armenian State founded academics' opinion is given special treatment. Whatever the consensus of Armenian Genocide about Ottoman-Armenian conflicts is, Anatolian Movement that founded 1. Turkish Grand Assembly and later the 2. Turkish Assembly didn't have any remaining relations with Enver Pasha or the Cabinet that illegally overtook the civil government of Ottoman Sultanate in Istanbul. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk led Anatolian movement is so distinct in the temporal perspective to the Ittihat ve Terakki group that, making the claim given above indicates either a layman understanding of the events that occurred after WW1 in Anatolia or there is intellectual dishonesty in the way of enabling Advocacy and Propaganda for diplomatic gain. The facts remain as such:

- In Damascus Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's group founded Vatan ve Hurriyet (1905), when he was in charge of 5th Army

- In Thessaloniki Vatan and Hurriyet and Ittihat Terakki merged, whilst Ittihat ve Terakki was putting pressure on the Civil Government in Istanbul

- Civil Government wanted to arrest all members of Ittihat ve Terakki in 1908, as a result Enver led rebellion pushed backed the conflict resulted in 2. Restoration to be declared

- In 1909 one member of Ittihat ve Terrakki shot a journalist opposing restoration, in protest anti-Ittihat rebellion named "31st March" started. Abdulhamid didn't approve military action against the rebellion in fear of large scale civil war, then Ittihat ve Terraki formed an army group and gave Mustafa Kemal the command, due in group politics command was given to Ahmet Sevket which transferred it to Enver. In the same year they were commanded to start opposition in Libya Trablus in which clear accounts from other commanders were given to how much Enver Pasha and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk started opposing each other. Again in the same year in Ittihat group's executive general assembly Mustafa Kemal openly contested the trajectory of the executives as such:

" 1) Cemiyet, gizli bir komite kimliğinden sıyrılmalı ve modern bir siyasi parti haline gelmelidir. 2) Ordu, siyasetten kesinlikle ve bütünüyle çekilmelidir. 3) Cemiyet ile masonluk arasındaki ilişki kesilmeli, Cemiyet tüzüğünden mason localarına ilişkin biçimsel kurallar çıkartılmalıdır. 4) Hükûmet işleri, kesinlikle din işlerinden ayrılmalıdır."

or: "1) Group should declare itself as a modern political party instead of a underground group. 2) Military should completely isolate itself from the political party. 3) Group's relations with local Mason's should be limited. 4) All government domain should be strictly isolated from religious matters."

- 23 January 1913 Talat Pasha and Enver Pasha forcibly over takes Bab-i Ali in a military coup. This is follows after fall of the resistance in Libya opposing illegal Italian invasion.

- 1914 and tangential years Enver was leading Ittiat ve Terakki officially, in which their government wanted to join WW1 along side Germans. This was again contested by the Mustafa Kemal's group, in which Enver forced German ships to sail with Ottoman identification to bomb the shores of "Ally" group (again a very eurocentric word to define a warmonering group) in Black Sea.

- 1915 Mustafa Kemal requested to command at Cannakkale which denied by Enver, in which Mustafa Kemal again contested sternly. He was appointed to command the reserves in Canakkale. At the peak of the Armenian-Ottoman conflict, in which the Armenian Genocide/Relocation/Event or whatever the term suits ones perspective took place, Mustafa Kemal was commanding Anafartalar Group that managed the repel the landing of ANZAC group, in response to this Enver Pasha and his cabinet went out to congratulate all but the Anafartalar group in Canakkale, sending a clear message to Mustafa Kemal. He responded by quitting command and Ittifak ve Terrakki shortly after.

- He was mostly appointed to guarding duty for Sultan Resat and similar opposing actions for illegal occupation after that again in 1917 when Resat was invited to Germany, he sent the prince Vahdettin. During this trip, Mustafa Kemal tried to persuade Vahdettin to create a seperate army to Enver Led Ittihat ve Terakki based one. While he managed to get some positive outcome he fell ill and sent to Austria by Vahdettin. Shortly after Vahdettin took the crown and was persuaded by Enver to deny Mustafa Kemal's request. When Mustafa Kemal came back from Austria he was in summary exiled to Syria to command the army group there, however the army group was so ill-equiped that even in party consensus was to literally abandon it.

- 1918 Ottomans were crushingly defeated, Enver escaped from the country in fear of execution. Following this Mustafa Kemal came back to Istanbul to land to Samsun in 1919. Two congress' in Erzurum and Sivas was resulted in the Merging of Anadolu ve Rumeli Mudafaa-i Hukuk Cemiyeti (Anatolian and Rumelian Protection of Rights/Law Group) that started to create an organised army from the civilian movements that started in opposition to invasion of Anatolian mainland. Almost for it's whole duration 1st Assembly never left Ankara where it was founded, nor the following 2nd Assembly stated anything against an ethnic minority in the Assembly sessions. It is absurd to claim ethnic cleansing by the Grand Assembly as 1st Assembly was literally founded by inviting a representatives from all available city that could meet in majority and select a person to go to Ankara. The Assembly demographic included Islamist Hoca's to military man to anyone locals trusted enough to send in. This is not in regard of ethnicity, it was to create an opposing rule to Ottoman Monarchy. Armenian Republic itself was in direct communication with the 2nd Assembly and even requested military help against Soviet Invasion. The first head of Armenian State, which was in the Armenian Rebellion as it was happening never once claimed anything against the newly founded Turkish Republic other then them being justifiably cautious.

These are objective facts, they are clearly documented in Turkish and English even in Armenian in bits. It is by choice that I am not providing references to wait for whatever reason you are in need to contest these events, as any unbiased observer clearly can see the amount of racism against Turkish History that is accepted to the extent that trying rewriting history by attributing Armenian State Founded thought leaders is deemed "unbaised" or "objective". The sources will be provided however, fret not. Any claim that the Misak-i Milliye was aiming anything other then an Independent Turkish Republic does not have a place on an encyclopaedia page, I am ashamed in your place to go this extent lock down the article and not even pay mind to legitimate sources and narratives provided over and over again, saying these people are just Turkish Nationalists. This is not about petty nationalism, the "Free encyclopaedia" cannot be free when it is using it's platform to silence factual information only because it is not westernised and european based enough for their taste. I request immediate correction of this article, without the cynicism that drove the editors to disregard intellectual honesty or human decency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdaletAdam (talk • contribs) 17:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC) — AdaletAdam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:TLDR. That sentence is the best referenced part of the whole article. FDW777 (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

By best referenced, I mean you are indicating the most thought that was put in it, since it is literal engineered propaganda. Kuvay-i Milliye didn't interact with Armenians in any form between 1915-1917 nor showed military action towards ethnic civilians. If you are so up to debate about this, we can go name by name of each attribution and document these individuals' relations with Armenian diaspora and the government. [57] is clear violation of propaganda statement. AdaletAdam (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore your behaviour "wp:tldr" shows a disgusting tendency of cutting of arguments when they are not suiting you. AdaletAdam (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC) — AdaletAdam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I choose not to waste my team time reading argyments that have no basis in Wikipedia policy. FDW777 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I see so Wikipedia policy became to act like you are better then people for no reason and denying factual chronology, based on state propaganda. If your attitude is anything to go on we can right now go name by name of the attribution list, as you are so confident in dismissing any form of countering argument to your viewpoint. Racism doesn't go away when you try to wrap it around intellectualism. AdaletAdam (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)— AdaletAdam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi AdaletAdam, FDW777 is right and I actually checked if the Kuvay i-Millyie was mentioned in the phrase in question but it wasn't. I suggest you begin to edit an article on which you can work on to start with.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I will. However, still from an objective position an observer can see there is intellectual dishonesty here, stemming from euro-centric orientalism. I am going to format this chronology as necessary and include the first hand account of the Armenian Head of State present in 2nd Assembly, with all the "relaible attributions" actual sources and connections with state propaganda. However as much I believe the value of having Wikipedia as it is, just because there is a diplomatic and political push is present no matter how much attribution and contesting is done in the end very regrettably it is not possible to display there is a wider grey area in this topic particularly in Anatolia as all the intellectual effort is tagged in some form of denial or the similar. Whilst the opposite is the aim. All parts of this chronology is widely available and will be attributed suitably in this talk page if that what it takes to dismiss undeserved guilt put on to Anatolian civilians who picked up arms from ages 13 to 70, donating their last possessions to push down illegal occupation wrecking their existence caused by an Illegal government which later tried to assassinate Mustafa Kemal in Izmir after the second assembly was formed. I will in essence attribute the undoubtable facts similar to how gravitational pull exists in Newtonian physics. But I know in some form this effort how sound and clear it is will not taken in good faith claiming I am biased or it is some kind of propaganda, or maybe breaching NPOV in this specific case. At least thank you for your more civilised input. AdaletAdam (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I am still contesting that part of the passage, the sources listed breach NPOV, clearly. CUP and CHP has distinct temporal difference and cannot be categorised as the same group. The resources presented is clearly written from an Anti-Turkish perspective. Just because there is intellectual sophistication here doesn't mean that this is a literal hate crime against Turkish people and their history. AdaletAdam (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

CUP and CHP has distinct temporal difference and cannot be categorised as the same group The majority of RS do consider them closely related that the latter a successor/continuation of the former. Wikipedia is based on what the RS says. I'm also curious on what basis the occupation of Turkey can be deemed "illegal"? This area of international law was not conclusively developed until after WWII. (t · c) buidhe 12:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Armenian genocide is a real hate crime, stop being so melodramatic. FDW777 (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment on addition of atrocities against Muslim Turks during the Turkish War of Independence

Should the following content be added to the article? 176.219.212.111 (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

a) Yes. b) No.

Content

ATROCITIES AGAINST MUSLIM TURKS DURING THE TURKISH WAR OF INDEPENDENCE

In the early 20th century, both Christians and Muslims under the Ottoman rule had their own recollection of massacres. In the eyes of the West, it was the Muslim Turks who had massacred Christian Greeks, Bulgarian, and Serbs. However British historian David Nicolle states that Muslims suffered as much as Christians during this period. [1, p. 154] Turkish people were unfairly stigmatized as “Terrible Turk” or “Unspeakable Turk” in Europe. As the nationalist movement emerged, the memory of “Terrible Turk” passed down from Ottomans to Turkish nationalists. [2, pp. 46-47] During the War of Independence, any effort to rally the nationalist movement to defend the Turkish claims was perceived as an intent to massacre the Christian population. For example, on 6 June 1919, British relief officer Captain L. H. Hurst British High Commissioner in Istanbul stated that Mustafa Kemal was “organizing a movement which is only too likely to find an outlet for its energies in massacre.” [3, p. 246] Turkish academician Hakan Yavuz called such narratives “racist” and “orientalist”. [4]

As a result of the Balkan Wars and World War I, the relationship between Christian and Muslim population in Anatolia was strained in the post-war period. When the Greek forces landed in Smyrna, Muslims in Anatolia joined guerilla forces to fight against them, while most Greek and Armenian minorities fought alongside the Greek army; this further increased ethnic tensions in the region. As a result of this, the Anatolian population was fractured into religious groups which eventually led to ethnic cleansing by both sides. [5, p. 4]

After the occupation of Smyrna and its surroundings, the Greek forces massacred Muslim Turks in Western Anatolia and plundered their goods. Local Muslim leaders who did not leave their homes in the face of Greek invasion were commonly persecuted. According to British historian Arnold Toynbee, regular Greek soldiers and guerillas routinely performed “murder of rich men and subsequent seizure of their property.” The conclusions of a Commission of Enquiry for the Ismid Peninsula matched with Toynbee’s findings which stated that Greek forces “raped women, and robberies and acts of violence have been committed.” [6, pp. 124-125] A detailed account of the atrocities in Bilecik province is provided by Turkish academician Ali Sarıkoyuncu. [7] Another Turkish academician Emir Bostancı has an article that documents the Greek atrocities in İzmir and Aydın provinces. [8]

After the Greek defeat at Battle of Dumlupınar, the Greek forces started retreating from Anatolia. The Greek army adopted a scorched earth policy thereby plundering the region as it retreated. Even though Turkish forces conducted a swift tactical pursuit to limit the damage, the Greek army killed thousands of Muslims Turks and burned down that many as houses. [3, p. 368] After the war, Greek government recognized the massacres of Muslim Turks in the Treaty of Lausanne. [9, p. 351]

Bibliography

[1] D. Nicolle, The Ottoman Empire of Faith, 2008. [2] J. M. V. Lippe, "The “Terrible Turk”: The Formulation and Perpetuation of a Stereotype in American Foreign Policy," New Perspectives on Turkey, pp. 39-57, 1997. [3] A. Mango, Atatürk, John Murray, 1999. [4] M. H. Yavuz, "Orientalism, the ‘Terrible Turk’ and Genocide," Middle East Critique, pp. 111-126, 2014. [5] P. S. Jowett, Armies of the Greek-Turkish War 1919-1922, Osprey Publishing, 2015. [6] B. Lieberman, Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe, 2006. [7] A. Sarıkoyuncu, "Bilecik ve Çevresinde Yunan Mezalimi [Greek Atrocities in Bilecik and Surrounding Region]," Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi, pp. 19-48, 1994. [8] E. Bostancı, "Osmanlı Arşiv Belgelerine Göre İzmir ve Aydın’da Yunan İşgali ve Mezalimi Üzerine İtilaf Devletleri Nezdinde Yapılan Siyasi Teşebbüsler," Oltu Beşeri ve Sosyal Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi , pp. 52-81, 2021. [9] E. J. Erickson, The Turkish War of Independence, ABC-CLIO, 2021.

Opinions

YES. It should be added to the article because the killings are mentioned by a lot of reliable sources and these events are omitted in the current version of this article.--176.219.212.111 (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Do not include as proposed. Some of this looks like it's about Greco-Turkish War and would be more appropriate for that article. The first paragraph seems entirely irrelevant; although it's undeniable that some Westerners had stereotypical negative views of Turkey it's not clear how it had any bearing on the subject of this article. (Besides, wasn't Hurst's view accurate?) (t · c) buidhe 00:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

Andrew Mango quotes Hurst specifically to reflect the perception of Turkish mobilization by the Western nations in his book. He also states that Christian minorities did their best to reinforce this perception to weaken the Turkish position. He concludes, "The fate of Muslim Turks did not figure in Allied concerns." I think this section is important it shows the reality that in the West, the death of Muslims was under-represented, while the death of Christians was somewhat over-represented so that they could gather support for the war effort. If you still object to include this paragraph, I would suggest trimming it to keep the relevant parts instead of completely removing it.

Regarding your objection whether some parts -albeit it is not specified which parts those are- should be transferred to Greek-Turkish War, Greek-Turkish War is sometimes used to simply refer to Turkish War of Independence probably because it was where the most intense fighting took place. Killings that took place during Greek-Turkish War is simply known as killings that took place in the Western Front from the other perspective. The best compromise I can offer is to keep the section you want to transfer in this article in a summarized way and put a link to access the other article.

Lastly if you ask my views on whether Hurst views are accurate, we should take into consideration whether those massacres where (a) an intentional campaign to destroy the population, or (b) an inevitable but terrible byproduct of the war. I think there are sources that fairly argue for either position. However, the bulk of the sources currently cited in this article support the former (a), whilst never balancing the content by mentioning counter positions against them. For example, P. Tacar and M. Gauin wrote a reply [1] to Avedian but their reply isn’t reflected in the article.

[1] Pulat Tacar, Maxime Gauin, State Identity, Continuity, and Responsibility: The Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide: A Reply to Vahagn Avedian, European Journal of International Law, Volume 23, Issue 3, August 2012, Pages 821–835 176.219.154.255 (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

in the West, the death of Muslims was under-represented, while the death of Christians was somewhat over-represented Likely true if we're discussing contemporary depictions, but you need some reliable source that says it's the case for TWOI specifically, or else I'd say it's original research. I do think that this article should be about the entire TWOI and that content specifically about Greeks belongs on the Greek war page. You seem to be assuming that Gauin & Tacar's reply is considered as correct as Avedian's paper, which is verifiably false—Avedian's paper is cited more than twice as much. Gauin & Tacar also take the fringe position of denying the Armenian genocide (Yavuz also holds this position) which undermines their credibility. (t · c) buidhe 07:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I didn’t dig deeply but with a quick search here’s an instance for the depiction of massacres on Southern front in Western media, “The French vigorously protested the attacks on their soldiers, as did the Armenian delegation protest the massacres of Armenian civilians. The European newspapers bestowed the name Maras Massacre and covered the gory details using greatly inflated numbers, which were later revised downward.” [1, p. 161]

Regarding Greek-Turkish War vs. Turkish War of Independence issue, Greek-Turkish War is the Western frontier of the Turkish War of Independence, which is a war composed of multiple wars. Scholars who write on War of Independence consider massacres by the Greek army in the Western front to be an integral part of the former. If we were to go by the same logic, the death of Christians should also be transferred to their respective articles.

Lastly regarding Tacar & Gauin and Yavuz’s papers I disagree with your opinion. I don’t think we should deem them to be uncredible just because it refuses to describe events of 1915 as genocide. Do you hold the view that any such article is uncredible even if it is published in a reputable journal? I think it is not. Yes, Gauin and Tacar’s paper has a smaller citation count but isn’t that typical for the most response articles. And by the way if you compare Avedian’s position to other authors, none of them is as harshly critical as him perhaps except for Kevorkian. So, Avedian’s position is radical even compared to other scholars who have such an approach to killing of Christians. This strictly necessities a balance with the mention of counter position.

[1] E. J. Erickson, The Turkish War of Independence, ABC-CLIO, 2021. 176.219.154.97 (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Not as proposed. The proposed text would violate WP:DUE. If the Fronts/Western Front section weren't empty, or if we had a section about civilian losses I would support adding a brief summary of the events. Regarding the discussion of the Western perception of these events, I'm not sure it passed WP:DUE. Alaexis_¿question? 06:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

There is indeed a section for civilian loses: it exists under the heading "ethnic cleansing". P. S. Jowett makes it very clear there was ethnic cleaning from both sides [1, p. 4]. B. Lieberman also covers the atrocities against Muslims Turks under his book titled "Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe." As we've clarified that an appropriate section exists, I'm sure you would now gladly support adding the proposed text to the article.

Best regards.

[1] P. S. Jowett, Armies of the Greek-Turkish War 1919-1922, Osprey Publishing, 2015.

[2] B. Lieberman, Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe, 2006. 176.219.214.110 (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think the proposed text should be added to the ethnic cleansing section. While there is one sentence which does mention ethnic cleansings by both sides, the rest of the content doesn't belong to it, not to mention WP:DUE issues. Alaexis_¿question? 06:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The page you've linked ("WP:DUE") states that, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." The content I proposed (i.e., atrocities against Muslims Turks) is supported by a lot of sources which are written by subject experts. Besides, none of the existing sources present in the article seem to contradict that atrocities were committed against Muslim Turks during the war. Under these circumstances, I am unable to understand precisely why you oppose to the addition of this content. If you elaborate your concerns, I can fix the problems you've perceived.

Best regards. 176.219.212.205 (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

If you bring on sources for phrases in the several unsourced sections it would probably be accepted and you might get a successful wikipedia experience.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, I believe all the references are available above the "Opinions" heading. Could you please provide specifics in case I am missing something? Which parts do you think are unsourced? 176.219.212.205 (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It also says An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. In other words, the section on ethnic cleansing in the article about the Turkish War of Independence should discuss the atrocities committed by all sides proportionally to the weight they are given in reliable sources (in the hope that the said said weight reflects the importance and gravity of the events in question). Adding the text you propose in its entirety would make the section unbalanced. Alaexis_¿question? 08:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Alaexis, I completely agree with you that atrocities from both sides should be covered. However, when I check the article right now, I can clearly see that atrocities against Christians are already well-covered, not just in ethnic cleansing section but also in the article abstract. That's why the content suggested by me only covers atrocities against Muslim Turks—because, the atrocities against the Christians is already present in the article. The content suggested by me aims to balance the article as the killings against Muslim Turks also have its treatment in reliable sources.

If you want to add more information regarding atrocities against Christians, more power to you; grab your sources and add them but this shouldn't be a reason to oppose the content I propose.

Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. 176.219.212.205 (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP how about suggesting sources for uncited text and creating an account? Then you can build up some reliability in your edits and at one point you will not need to make edit requests anymore and discuss through time consuming discussions and can just add the info you deem improving the article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The soruces were already present at the bottom of the content proposed. Nevertheless, I reworked the its heading in order to make it easier to notice. Best regards.--176.219.215.136 (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

YES If article covers atrocities from one side, then it should cover the other sides to reflect neutral point of view. Considering RS provided, may be some polish on the wording, but in general YES. --Abrvagl (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, with modifications to fit WP:DUE, but I think the phrasing and amount of detail to include can be adjusted eventually. Suggested content has reliable sources; inclusion of non-Western perspectives helps fight Wikipedia's systemic bias. My main concern is the weight created by the section header. However, there conveniently already exists an ethnic cleansing section mostly detailing atrocities done to Christians, so I think the content can go under there and actually help bring WP:BALANCE to that section as well, perhaps rename the section to be "Ethnic cleansing and atrocities". I believe this is a reasonable compromise for those who have concerns about weight. tofubird | ✉ 07:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• It hardly helps our systemic bias to cite articles literally written in order to deny the Armenian genocide (Yavuz' piece) by claiming that accusations of genocide are the product of bias against Turkey; including this viewpoint does not help with systemic bias but actually helps perpetuate it. (t · c) buidhe 07:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  I also agree on that point.

  That said, reliable sources aren't required to be neutral or objective. I believe given Yavuz's explicit denial of the Armenian genocide, in-text attribution of his position would be appropriate. For example "...Yavuz, Turkish academic and director of the Turkish Studies Project of the Turkish Coalition of America's, writes that..." or more explicitly, Yavuz, a historian and Armenian genocide denialist, writes that....", etc. Alternatively, I'm happy with excluding the Yavuz piece since the "Terrible Turk" article is also discussed by JMV Lippe article. I also do agree with your intuition that the paragraph on the war's contribution to Western stereotypical views on Turkey can be pared down to be more concise as per WP:DUE, but I don't think it's inappropriate to include some mention of it.

  Regardless, the bulk of the proposed section is about atrocities committed by Greek forces during the war, which as you mentioned, was part of the Greco-Turkish war. However, this itself was a significant part of the Turkish War of Independence. Modifications can be tweaked for balance and achieving due weight, but omission of the spirit of the suggested section (Turkish victims of the war) would be WP:BABY. tofubird | ✉ 21:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Tolubird, thank you for the detailed compromise offer, which I mostly concur for. I'd prefer to go with the former in-text attribution which is more neutral. Because, we shouldn't confuse 'disputing a genocide' with 'denying a genocide'. For example, there are a lot of academicians that dispute Holodomor constitutes a genocide in Holomodor genocide question article, where as its genocide denial aspects is discussed in Denial of the Holodomor article. Best regards. 176.219.154.144 (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Tofubird, thank you for your careful evaluation of the content and your objective analysis. I have no objections to the compromise you've suggested. I'd like to address the concerns put forward by Buidhe with regards to Yavuz's article. According to Reliable Sources policy, "The reliability of a source depends on context." In the content I proposed, Yavuz's article discusses the "Terrible Turk" image in the Western world. Therefore, his position on AG is irrelevant in a non-AG related context. Best regards. 176.219.155.193 (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's the problem though: Therefore, his position on AG is irrelevant in a non-AG related context. Armenian genocide hardly irrelevant though, since many RS see this war as a continuation of the genocide. Furthermore, whether the idea of "Terrible Turk" is "unfair" (your words) is exactly the kind of opinion that Wikipedia is not allowed to espouse. For a much more balanced discussion of Western attitudes, Bloxham's "The roots of American genocide denial: Near eastern geopolitics and the interwar Armenian question" is a good source to cite. (t · c) buidhe 22:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Read this article by Robert Trask (The "Terrible Turk" and Turkish-American Relations in the Interwar Period). The Terrible Turk image was created as a war-time propaganda to sway the public opinion against the Turks. Unquestionably, killings occurred; however, these were intentionally exaggerated by Christian missionaries.

Also, the references in the abstract are cherry-picked. I don't have statistics but there are probably more sources that do not describe Turkish War of Independence "as a continuation of genocide". Because, (a) It is a fraction of scholars who extend the 'genocide' period from 1915/16 to 1923; (b) There are those who dispute that the events constitute a genocide based on UN Genocide definition (c) Most of the cited academicians in the article abstract are 'genocide scholars' (rather than 'military historians' for example), therefore probably giving excessive emphasis on humanitarian/war crime aspects of the war compared to military, economic, and diplomatic aspects.

I do not deny Christians suffered during this war. However, it is a both academic and moral mistake to pick a fraction of 'convenient' sources to describe the war as 'genocide' and then conclude that the 'Terrible Turk' stigmatization is not 'unfair'. 176.219.213.125 (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"Unfair" is an opinion. Whether you think genocide is unfair or Turkish stereotypes are unfair, neither has a place in Wikipedia voice per WP:IMPARTIAL. Bloxham is a well-regarded scholar whose work helped complicate somewhat simplistic ideas about Turkey and the Armenian genocide.

As for stereotypes of "terrible Turk", these existed long before WWI. The reality is far more complex than your version suggests, given that Germany was pumping out pro-Turkish propaganda and Armenian genocide denial both during and after WWI (see both of Stefan Ihrig's books). In the UK and Ireland there was an opposite stereotype of "clean-fighting Turk" during and after WWI. A more nuanced view specifically about Western perceptions of the Nationalist faction can be found in Elusive forces in illusive eyes: British officialdom's perception of the Anatolian resistance movement whose author, Alp Yenen, can hardly be accused of anti-Turkish bias. I just cannot endorse your proposed version because it does not reflect the latest scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 04:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bloxham article is great, that said the content on Turkish stereotypes as a result of the war might enter WP:COATRACK territory if the discussion is too extensive; so caution should be done here -- perhaps a one or two sentence summary of the views would be best.

Finally -- and I think this is the spirit of the RFC proposal -- there isn't even a summary of massacres on civilian Turks. It's especially bizarre given that there's a link to the main article on the massacres in the ethnic cleansing section, but there's no summary in this article at all. FWIW, an editor raised this issue in October 2021 but did not receive any attention. Inclusion of a summary is warranted -- if not necessary, and the proposed content can be modified fit WP:DUE.

I suggest that the proposed summary of massacres on Turkish civilians be three or four sentences, starting with The Greek government recognized the massacres of Muslim Turks in the Treaty of Lausanne... and going from there (e.g. mentioning Yenemen and Yalova Peninsula). tofubird | ✉ 08:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Do not include - much of it refers to unrelated earlier conflicts and is a WP:SOAPBOX for an undue Turkish victimhood narrative. At least two of the bibliography authors, Mango and Erickson, are genocide deniers. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. Erickson does recognize the events as 'genocide'. 176.219.154.125 (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrong he is a denialist. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

If Erickson were to be a denialist, he wouldn't let Konstantin Travlos write this in his book,

"I am a believer in the Greek national idea and accept the Greek argument of a genocide committed against Ottoman Greeks in the period 1914–1922. With that said, I am also cognizant of the devastation and atrocities committed by either the Greek army or groups protected by the Greek army during the prosecution of the war against the Turkish Nationalist movement, a responsibility taken officially by Greece in the Treaty of Lausanne." (Erickson, The Turkish War of Independence. in Appendix A by Konstantin Travlos) 176.219.155.234 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

That being said, on my comment at 10:09, I accidentally attributed Travlos's passage to Erickson, which resulted in my assumption that Erickson recognizes the 'genocide'. If I were to write that now, I would say that Erickson is neither a denier nor recognizer. In his book, he simply cites sources from both sides to give proportional view.--176.219.212.225 (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• No, at least not as presented. Among the many gaping holes in the article is the empty section "Western Front". A WP:SUMMARYSTYLE section with content from Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) would likely include content about Greek atrocities. I would support a paragraph or two in the "Ethnic cleansing" section with content from or similar to Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)#Greek massacres of Turks, which is linked as a "main article" in the hatnote but not summarized at all. I am not sure how to rank addition of this content on the priority list of needed improvements to this article. Filling out the Western Front section seems like #1 to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Update, the Western Front section has been filled by Benlittlewiki. I'm sure you would now support the addition of the massacres against Turks by Greece to the article. 176.219.153.122 (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

How about a shorter archive term?

The Talk page has several discussions not going on anymore and I suggest a shorter archive term like 280 or another possible term, maybe even 180. Anyone opposes, supports or suggestions to a shorter archive term?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, I couldn't agree more, even 180 seems too long compared to other articles, I've set it to 60 days for now (which is the norm in most article archives I've seen), we can change it if we need to. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It didn't see, that you have changed it to 60, how did you do it? It didn't show beside the auto archiving period a 60 days and a blue i. I have changed it to 180 for now. Let's see, if it helps.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

after checking it again I hadn't noticed that the header had a different day count, I think the top one is just for display and the bot settings is the one that should be changed for it to work (the lowercase sigma bot template "MiszaBot"). I went ahead and set that to 180 days as well. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It worked!Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Short description is slightly POV

My edit to the short description was reverted with the reason being that the topic was discussed in the talk page. I have since found the discussion, but it doesn't address my reasons for changing it. The description "Series of wars and massacres by the Turkish National Movement" tend to take the conflict out of context. It was a reactionary war to the Ottoman loss in WWI and subsequent occupation of the empire, which I assume everyone here already knows. This is slightly POV (I say slightly because massacres WERE committed by the Turkish nationalists) in the sense that a first time reader cannot be blamed for assuming it was an offensive war waged by the Turkish Nationalist Movement. Therefore I propose a more neutral title with better context: Post-World War I conflict in Anatolia. This reflects that the war happened as a result of World War I. My exact wording doesn't have to be used, but the description should include WWI in some form. —Central Data Bank (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe 1919-1923 series of wars in Turkey or Series of wars in Turkey, 1919 to 1923? Using dates are clearer — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The short description is indeed problematic. Short descriptions on wars usually don't mention war crimes, for instance the shortdescs for Eritrean War of Independence and the Bosnian War (keep in mind acts of mass murder was one of the defining features of both conflicts) don't mention massacres. It's not the norm. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 02:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

For comparison, the Greco-Turkish War is described as:Part of the Turkish War of Independence, when it could also be described as Military offensive and massacres by Greece. The second description, takes the situation out of context, which is why the current description for this page is problematic and should be changed. —Central Data Bank (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Support changing short description to Post-World War I conflict in Anatolia or similar variants. It is much more clear and neutral compared to the current sd. 176.219.153.122 (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

As MOS:LEAD says, The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. In contrast, the short description exists only to distinguish an article from others that may also be returned in the results of some sort of search. In the case of wars or other armed conflicts, saying where the event happened and when it happened will make it clear which event the article covers. We can reasonably assume that place + date range is enough to be unambiguous. In this case, I think the date range is agreed to be 1919–1923 and the location is generally agreed to be a place that can be called Turkey. So, is the article covering a single armed conflict or a series? Is this armed conflict classified as a war? If we accept that it was a single war, then the short description might be War in Turkey, 1919 to 1923. If it was a series of armed conflicts, rather than one continuous war between nations, then the short description might be Series of armed conflicts in Turkey, 1919 to 1923, but that is 49 characters, so Armed conflicts in Turkey, 1919 to 1923 would be better, being only 39 characters. So, details of exactly who did what and to whom and why should be kept to the lead and the article itself. For a short description, simple is good — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

These variants you've proposed are also fine to me. 176.219.153.122 (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• There are some well-put arguments here that build on previously articulated concerns by demonstrating how this article's short description is an outlier when compared to similar events. I would support any of the proposed alternatives, "Armed conflicts in Turkey, 1919 to 1923" is particularly succinct. --GGT (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  I support all options above because the current name has no consensus and is added sneaky. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  Since we seem to have come to a consensus here, I will change the short description to: Post-World War I conflict in Turkey. —Central Data Bank (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  We do seem to have a consensus to change the Short description, but as yet no consensus for what it should be changed to, so such a change is a bit too soon — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 12:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Meh, I'd say the general consensus is that anything shorter that doesn't include the undue reference to the massacres is better than one that does. We can discuss ad infinitum which precise formulation is the best but the edit is in line with the spirit of that. GGT (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yep. NPOV and short is good, but technically, 2021 is also Post-World War I, so using actual dates is much clearer. You seemed to approve of Armed conflicts in Turkey, 1919 to 1923? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  I wouldn't mind adding in the years, but WWI should be included to state it was a result of the Great War. Perhaps Post-World War I conflict in Turkey, 1919-23? —Central Data Bank (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Absolute dates are clearer and simpler. Adding Post-World War I is just duplication — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think Interwar conflict in Turkey, 1919-23 is better. Beshogur (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

  I like it. Simple, less than 40 characters, serves to indicate readers that they've found what they're looking for (or not). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• So Post-World War I conflict in Turkey, 1919-23 or Interwar conflict in Turkey, 1919-23? Both are fine but interwar perhaps is worded better. —Central Data Bank (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Central Data Bank: and @Firefangledfeathers: so you support Interwar conflict in Turkey, 1919-23? Are there any other comments? Beshogur (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  ... 1919–1923 — full years with an n-dash (and, of course, interwar is redundant) — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Interwar conflict in Turkey, 1919-23 is reasonable for me. There is no point in writing the full years, so 1919-23 is sufficient as per the norm. - Central Data Bank (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  Years in full with an n-dash is the norm, see MOS:YEARRANGE and WP:SDDATES — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me}

  Fair enough, I stand corrected. —Central Data Bank (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Result: Victory vs. Decisive Victory

2/3 references (11,12,13) explicitly refer to the result as a “decisive victory”, however the article states otherwise. Shouldn’t the definition of the result term & the descriptions of decisive victory, victory, stalemate, et cet. be standard? In my opinion, decisive applies here as most of the tactical and strategic goals were completely met. 176.237.115.146 (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't use dexisive victory on wiki. Beshogur (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2022

In the introduction, please replace "elimination of Christians" with "the elimination of Christians". The other clauses of the sentence all start with "the": "the war...the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, and the abolition of the sultanate." 49.198.51.54 (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Biased

Biased as hell, also didn't mention Armenian/Greek/French atrocities against Muslums and Turks,Kurds 2401:7000:D84F:1100:A418:C188:AEBB:5032 (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Article title

'War of Independence' seems kind of a joke... The people who occupied others for centuries made a war of independence? Onoufrios d (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• War of Independence is how it is known in English. The actual name used in Turkish is War of Liberation (Kurtuluş Savaşı). Central Data Bank (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This page should be renamed as "Turkish Liberation War"

Turkey the legal successor of Devlet-i Aliye (Ottoman Empire) was never been colonised like European countries or neighbouring countries.

So it is incorrect to call National Resistance Movement against invasion as "independence". It was invaded by allies namely England, Russia, France, Italy, Armenia, Greece and fought back to "liberate" itself from the invasion.

My suggestion is to rename this page as "Turkish Liberation War"

PS: Arguments like "everyone says so" does not hold up any value. Please stay away from the common logical fallacies. 176.88.88.207 (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

What matters is not what we think it should be called, but what English language independent reliable sources commonly call it(WP:COMMONNAME). You will have to show that what you propose is the common English term for it(you aren't the first to propose this) 331dot (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's look at a few reliable English dictionaries:

independence: freedom from being governed or ruled by another country.

Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821.

Reference: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/independence

independence: (from somebody/something) (of a country) freedom from political control by other countries.

Cuba gained independence from Spain in 1898.

Reference:https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/independence_1

liberation:an occasion when something or someone is released or made free.

the liberation of France from Nazi occupation

Reference: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/liberation

liberation: (from something) the act or process of freeing a country or a person from the control of somebody else.

a war of liberation

Let's also check wikipedia articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence

The semantic differecence between these two words are quite clear.

Devlet-i Aliye or Turkey did "liberate" itself from the invasion and did not gained its independence. It was not a "depedent state", "colony" or "mandate" of another state.

Let's check Treaty of Lousanne which concluded WW1 in Turkey.

https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Treaty_of_Lausanne

"Independence" can only be seen in the opening sentence of the treaty.

"Being united in the desire to bring to a final close the state of war which has existed in the East since 1914, Being anxious to re-establish the relations of friendship and commerce which are essential to the mutual well-being of their respective peoples, And considering that these relations must be based on respect for the independence and sovereignty of States, Have decided to conclude a Treaty for this purpose..."

One may claim Turkey gained its independence from another country,then we should ask which country was it? Where is the declaration of independence? Is there any treaty on that?

If you (or any user) have any reliable sources that backs Turkey did not liberated itself but gained its independence from another state please feel free to share it and add it to the article.

"So many people says" is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Using logical fallacies is not the way for a reasonable argument.