Talk:Turkish War of Independence

Expelled populations

There are many references to 1M expelled Greeks here and other places. I wonder how did anyone reach to these figures. Is there a reliable source of population counts in May 1919 in what is now Turkiye? How did they get expelled specifically, dates, places and numbers for example. It is also known that many minorities have been leaving, and more escaping the war torn country for better prospects in the West. In fact, such migrations were taking place continuously since 1900 or so. It seems all this population movement is lumped under "expelled" category. Which seems misleading.

Violation of neutral point of view

This article seems to be more about the Armenian genocide than the Turkish war of liberation. WP:NPOW The article's introduction mentions the Armenian genocide, I think it is intended for vandalism. WP:VD "Young Turk Revolution" at the beginning of the article. But this has nothing to do with the Turkish War of Independence. Tiginbeg (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources provided seem to disagree with you. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If those sources are not being accurately summarized, please detail the specific errors. If you have additional sources with other points of view not currently present, please offer them. Please understand that the Turkish government educates its citizens with its preferred narrative. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep your absurd theories to yourself, such as "Please understand that the Turkish government educates its citizens in its preferred discourse". WP:NOPA Tiginbeg (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I have made no personal attack. That the Turkish government educates its citizens in its preferred version of history is not my theory, it's what we state at Armenian genocide denial; "denial has been the policy of every government of the Republic of Turkey, as of 2022", "One of the most important reasons for this denial is that the genocide enabled the establishment of a Turkish nation-state. Recognition would contradict Turkey's founding myths. Since the 1920s, Turkey has worked to prevent official recognition or even mention of the genocide in other countries; these efforts have included millions of dollars spent on lobbying, the creation of research institutes, and intimidation and threats. Denial also affects Turkey's domestic policies and is taught in Turkish schools". 331dot (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The article "Armenian genocide denial" does not even have a source for this claim. Tiginbeg (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I copied the lead of the article, the main text of the article contains the sources. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I checked the article again, there are no sources. Tiginbeg (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That is demonstrably incorrect, there are literally hundreds, so I'm not sure what you are looking at. In any event, this is drifting from discussing this article. I've said how you can proceed. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, and don't need to know, if you are Turkish or not, but if you are, consider if you are content to believe what your government wants you to believe. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

History is a science, so it is no matter what the governments say about historical events. Armenian affairs (some calls genocide, or some calls deportation in the scientific areas) should be mentioned with an objective attitude in this article. In wikipedia, unfortunately some people behave as nonobjective about that, and dogmatise this topic. We must say Armenian affairs with archive documents, historical sources etc, otherwise it is unfair, nonscientific.

Best regards.

-Historianengineer (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)-

Seems irrelevant, and not sure if you understood the above statement. Topic of such deep interest to you has been covered numerous places already in countless articles. Not closely related to the main topic of this article, but given a whole paragraph at the top. Needs to be remedied. Not to mention, it is incomplete information as it ignores the masses of dispossessed Muslims making their way to Asia Minor. Murat (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Do Armenians also mention about 2.5 Turkish civilians that were genocided by Armenians ? Violet.blues12 (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That is a talking point of the Turkish government that is discussed at Armenian genocide denial. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, in some statements (for exp: -a continuation of the Armenian genocide and other ethnic cleansing operations during World War I.), the same sources were cited more than once to overestimate the sources. Since the page is under protection, I have no chance to delete the extra added sources. Kyzagan (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead too long

The article's lead is grossly overlength, per MOS:LEAD, both in terms of overall word length and paragraph structure. The recommended length is no more than three or four paragraphs. Most featured articles have 300 words; here it's 650 words. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added the section sizes template to the top of the talk page, which is instructive on the relative size of different sections in the page. The lead is expected to broadly reflect the same emphasis on different subjects as in the page's body. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2023

My request is that you need to add United States of america to the enemy Side of the turkish belligerents (sorry for my English, its not my first language) because United States of america bombed Samsun while the turkish War Of Independence happened. You can find it in the Wikipedia, just write: bombardement of samsun Efe urluca (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Khilafat movement

@Benlittlewiki: Gandhi played a major role in Khilafat Movement. It was because of Gandhi that the movement became this significant and popular all over Indian subcontinent.

• "Khilafat Committee was formed at Lucknow in September 1919. Gandhi's public support had a dramatic effect on the Khilafat cause. Hitherto it had been an amorphous campaign within the Muslim League, but now it emerged to all-India significance. The timing of Gandhi's decision to take up the Muslim cause is significant." Locality, Province and Nation: Essays on Indian Politics 1870 to 1940, John Gallagher, Gordon Johnson, Anil Seal, Cambridge University Press, p. 130.
• "Gandhi became the leader of both the nationalist and the Khilafat struggles . He toured the country with the Ali Brothers and Hindu-Muslim cordiality touched a high tide. Gandhi was heard with reverence by Hindus as well as Muslims." Mahatma Gandhi: A Biography, B.R. Nanda, Oxford University Press, p. 185-186.

Therefore, my edits should be restored. Thanks Editorkamran (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Despicable falsification of literature by Wikipedia that utterly violates the principles of academic integity

In this article, Handbook of Ethnic Conflict is cited to suggest there was a supposed "ethnic cleansing" campaign by the Turks against the Greeks and Armenians. Wikipedia completely falsifies what the source actually states. On the contrary, it supports Turkish claims as seen in the following excerpt,

Hunderds of thousands of Armenians were relocated to territories that eventually fell outside of the borders of Republic of Turkey (...) The second decision was the enormous population exchange with Greece - Orthodox Greeks for Muslims - to eliminate any future threat of Greek nationalism (...) By the early years of the Republic, therefore, the multi-ethnic character of Turkey had been transformed dramatically. The large Christian populations of Anatolia were gone. Muslims went from being 80% of the population just before World War I to 98%.

If you read Lemkin on Genocide, the posthumously published manuscripts of the man who coined the word genocide, you will see the Greek invasion of Anatolia is designated as a "genocide by the Greeks against the Turks".

You have created yourselves fictional history and carelessly violated academic ethics with bogus citations to whitewash the brutal invasions and bloodthirsty war-crimes of Greeks and Armenians.

Change your memory. 81.214.104.244 (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you have picked a single exerpt to support your opinion. Even if you are correct about this particular source, there are likely plenty of other sources that describe the general academic consensus(especially outside of Turkey where the Turkish government educates its citizens with its preferred narrative and criminalizes differing views) that can be found at Armenian genocide. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@331dot There is no academic consensus. It is a highly debated subject. You can read those sources to familiarize yourself with the literature.

1. Binark. İ. (1995). Arşiv Belgelerine Göre Kafkaslar’da ve Anadolu’da Ermeni Mezâlimi/Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on Archives–Vol. I (1906-1918) and Vol. II (1919). Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, Ankara
2. Çiçek, K. (2012). The Great War and the forced migration of Armenians. Athol Books.
3. Çiçek, K. (2020). The Armenians of Musa Dagh, 1915–1939: A Story of Insurgency and Flight. Lexington Books.
4. Çiçek, K. (2010). Relocation of Ottoman Armenians in 1915: A Reassesment. Review of Armenians Studies, 22, 115-134.
5. Dyer, G. (1976). Turkish ‘falsifiers’ and Armenian ‘deceivers’: historiography and the Armenian massacres. Middle Eastern Studies, 12(1), 99-107.
6. Erickson, E. J. (2013). Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency (p. 119). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
7. Erickson, E. J. (2008). The Armenians and Ottoman military policy, 1915. War in History, 15(2), 141-167.
8. Gauin, M. (2015). “Proving” a “Crime against Humanity”?. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 35(1), 141-157.
9. Göyünç, N. (1983). Osmanlı İdaresinde Ermeniler. Gültepe Yayınları.
10. Güçlü, Y. (2012). A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire.
11. Gürün, K. (1985). The Armenian file: The myth of innocence exposed. Rustem.
12. Halaçoğlu, Y. (2002). Facts on the Relocation of Armenians (1914-1918) (No. 94). Turkish Historical Society Printing House.
13. Halaçoğlu, Y. (2008). The story of 1915: what happened to the Ottoman Armenians? (No. 113). Turkish Historical Society.
14. Halaçoğlu, Y. (2006). Die Armenierfrage. Wieser.
15. Lewis, B. (1961). The emergence of modern Turkey (No. 135). Oxford University Press.
16. Lewy, G. (2005). Revisiting the Armenian genocide. Insight Turkey, 89-99.
17. Lewy, G. (2005). The Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A disputed genocide. University of Utah Press.
18. Lewy, G. (2007). Can there be genocide without the intent to commit genocide?. Journal of Genocide Research, 9(4), 661-674.
19. McCarthy, J., Arslan, E., & Taskiran, C. (2006). The Armenian Rebellion at Van (p. 282). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
20. McCarthy, J. (2003). Missionaries and the American Image of the Turks. In Turkish-American Relations (pp. 49-71). Routledge.
21. Palabıyık, M. S. (2015). Understanding the Turkish-Armenian Controversy Over 1915. Beta.
22. Sarinay, Y. (2011). The Relocations (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of 1915–16. Middle East Critique, 20(3), 299-315.
23. Sarınay, Y. (2001). Ermeniler Tarafından Yapılan Katliam Belgeleri/Documents on the Massacre Perpetrated by # Armenians–Vol. I (1914-1919) and Vol. II (1919-1921). Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
24. Stone, N. (2004). Armenia and Turkey. TLS-The Times Literary Supplement, (5298), 17-17.
25. Yavuz, M. H. (2011). Contours of scholarship on Armenian-Turkish relations. Middle East Critique, 20(3), 231-251.

81.214.104.244 (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The article Armenian genocide states "As of 2023, 34 countries have recognized the events as genocide, which is also the academic consensus." If the academic consensus part of that statement is in error, you will need to work to demonstrate that it isn't to get that statement removed- which I think will be very hard to do. "Consensus" doesn't mean that there is no debate or that everyone agrees, obviously not everyone agrees. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@331dot There are 159 countries, which do not recognize the events as genocide including, United Kingdom, Israel, Spain, Norway and Finland. Yet you are citing parliamentary decisions, which are not legally applicable. Article V of the UN Convention on Genocide states that the charge of "genocide" can only be prosecuted by an international court or a local court. There is no court verdict for the Armenian and Greek cases. 81.214.104.244 (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Most countries that haven't recognized it do so for geopolitical reasons, to avoid offending the Turkish government(especially Finland who needed Turkish support to enter NATO)- this is why the US federal government only recently recognized it. That statement does not say a legal determination was made. I know of no international legal body that makes such formal determinations(maybe the International Court of Justice but there would need to be a case and Turkey would need to agree for the ICJ to hear it). This isn't the place to debate that statement. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@331dot Those 159 governments reached their conclusions with impartial research. The UK Parliament states that in the absence of unequivocal evidence to show that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at the time, British governments have not recognised the events of 1915 and 1916 as "genocide".[1]

On the contrary, there has been intense campaigning against Turkey by the Armenian lobbying groups and the Armenian government to push their views into the parliaments. The only reason the US recognized it as "genocide" was to curry favors with the Armenian lobby.[2] 81.214.104.244 (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Most countries are not going to say "we're not recognizing it to avoid offending Turkey", they will find some reason to hang their hat on. Turkey lobbies, too. We're not going to solve this issue here, and I'm not attempting to do so. The focus must be on summarizing what sources say, and that's what this and the Armenian genocide article do currently. You aren't the first and won't be the last person to bring this up, but if you want these articles to say what you think that they should say, you need to do the work to obtain a consensus that the current statements are in error. As I said, no one has made a legal determination here and there doesn't need to be one. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Turkish civilians massacred by the Greek army, May 1919, painted by Italian artist Vittorio Pisani.

@331dot You have been citing me the article on the Armenian relocation of 1915, but it has no relevance to the Turkish War of Independence of 1919-22. They are separate topics. Furthermore, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. You may not cite a Wikipedia article to claim there is a consensus. Do not use a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article. Consensus is determined by the reliable sources written by experts. I have cited 25 different academic works by 16 different scholars and also the manuscript of Raphael Lemkin. There is also visual evidence of the devastation caused by the Greek armies. You have not cited any sources. This makes me think that you are not working to build a consensus with me. 81.214.104.244 (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't offering Wikipedia as a source to use in an article, only to show where I got that information. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There should be "a legal determination" to call these events as "genocide" my friend.

And there are already two international documents point out that current statements that blame Ottoman Empire and Turkey cannot be regarded as "facts".

The first one:

"Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of

Genocide"

adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948.

"Article VI

Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall

be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was

committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect

to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction."

"Article IX

Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application

or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility

of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be

submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to

the dispute.”

Official full text:

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf

It says a court, a trial, a judgement is a must!

Second one:

European Court of Human Rights

CASE OF PERINCEK v. SWITZERLAND

(Application no. 27510/08)

Page 76:

3. Necessity of the interference in a democratic society

(a) The Chamber judgment

The Chamber, having examined the applicant’s statements in the context in which they had been made, and having regard to the applicant’s position, found that they had been of “a historical, legal and political nature” and related to a debate of public interest, and on this basis concluded that the Swiss authorities’ margin of appreciation in respect of them had been reduced. It found it problematic that the Swiss courts had relied on the notion of “general consensus” on the legal characterisation of the events of

1915 and the following years to justify the applicant’s conviction.

It went on to state that there was no indication that the applicant’s statements had been likely to stir up hatred or violence, and drew a distinction between them and statements denying the Holocaust on the basis that they did not carry the same implications and were not likely to have the same repercussions. The

Chamber also had regard to recent comparative-law developments and the position of the UN Human Rights Committee. On this basis, it expressed doubts that the applicant’s conviction had been required by a pressing social need.

It also took into account the severity of the penalty imposed on the applicant, and came to the conclusion that his criminal conviction and sentence had not been “necessary in a democratic society” for the protection of the honour and feelings of the descendants of the victims of the events of 1915 and the following years

official full text:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/pdf?library=ECHR&id=001-158235&filename=

TLDR:

- Court said a “general consensus” is not enough, "a pressing social need" is not enough

- You cannot convict someone even if he says "There is no genocide in 1915" (Why?)

Finally Turkish Liberation War is not related with 1915 events. This war was against invading allied forces. 79.123.129.20 (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Comparison

Can you please share your comments on the Handbook of Ethnic Conflict? The source clearly doesn't support the statement written in the article. Had a Turkish user falsified a source in such a way, it would be a scandal.

Original source
Hunderds of thousands of Armenians were relocated to territories that eventually fell outside of the borders of Republic of Turkey (...) The second decision was the enormous population exchange with Greece - Orthodox Greeks for Muslims - to eliminate any future threat of Greek nationalism (...) By the early years of the Republic, therefore, the multi-ethnic character of Turkey had been transformed dramatically. The large Christian populations of Anatolia were gone. Muslims went from being 80% of the population just before World War I to 98%.

Article text
The ethnic demographics of the modern Turkish Republic were significantly impacted by the earlier Armenian genocide and the deportations of Greek-speaking, Orthodox Christian Rum people. (...) Following these campaigns of ethnic cleansing the historic Christian presence in Anatolia was destroyed, in large part, and the Muslim demographic had increased from 80% to 98%.

--81.214.104.244 (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yup, this kind of nasty propaganda is unfortunately all over wiki. 88.230.168.76 (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: @Beshogur: @Hudavendigar: @Editorkamran: @GGT: @Nanahuatl: @Basak: @Vincent Vega: @Wooze:--81.214.104.244 (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

It is certainly true that the population exchange, while an odious piece of history, like the partition of India, was a two-way affair, and agreed with the Greek government - to sweep this up together with the more hotly contested Armenia forced marches certainly fails the smell test. The text on the right blends two separate historic moments into one, and equally making no mention of the Greek Muslims who were equally victimized by the political calculus. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2023

There are lines that are implying Turkish War of Independence was an continuation or related to Armenian Genocide,which is definitely incorrect.I would like to change those lines. Atasarpkaya (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done The edit request process is for proposing specific changes, in the format of "change X text to Y text". If the sources provided are inaccurately summarized, please detail the specific errors, or offer independent reliable sources that support your claims. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a biased explanation

When we look at the English page of the War of Independence, it is written that Atatürk and his comrades and Turks massacred Armenians and Greeks, it is not written there that Armenian and Greek gangs massacred more than 350-700 thousand Turkish civilians. In addition, the French army was an invading army in Anatolia and the Armenian gangs gathered and gave weapons to their hands. Armenians killed Turkish people and raped Turkish women. In the same way, the first uprisings among the Turkish people started because of the massacre and rape in the Greek army. The French army did not collect the Armenian refugees and bring them home, there is a mistake. It is written as if the Turks occupied the lands of the Greeks and the allied states. The Greeks with the original Entente states occupied Turkish lands. 88.236.96.160 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This article summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not the official Turkish government position that they want and require their citizens to hear. If those sources are not accurately summarized, please detail the specific errors. If they are accurately summarized, but you disagree with them, we probably can't help you. Consider if you are content to believe what your government wants you to believe. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

looks like only armenian sources are reliable right so that you can do your revanchism and distort history 78.175.238.164 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

As a matter of fact mosly foreign sources are used for the article. This conflict was happened in Anatolia original Turkish documents were rarely cited. Remember, Turkey was invaded, Turkey defeated invading armies and Turkey forced all of them to a peace treaty. So ignoring Turkish sources is just trying to rewrite the history.

For example you may find many sources that try to reduce this conflict a mere Greco-Turkish conflict. But Treaty of Lousanne cannot be ignored:

"Article 1

From the coming into force of the present Treaty, the state of peace will be definitely re-established between the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State of the one part, and Turkey of the other part, as well as between their respective nationals." 178.241.43.229 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents section is confused

I feel like belligerents section is quite confusing.

How is it possible that France is purported to have supported both sides? I understand that there was an agreement between Turkey and France towards the end of the war, in late 1921. Does this mean France were essentially out of the war, or does the agreement mean that they then supported Turkey? If so, then Turkey must also be listed in the "supporters" section of their opponents, right after signing the final peace treaty. With a little note beside: "From 1923".

How is that Italy is in the supporters section? Italian expedition/occupation army landed in Antalya during the war. (Goes by Adalia in contexts)

How did Soviets support Turkish nationalists while war had pretty much ended by the time Soviet Union was established? Still, if that is correct, isn't it better and more tidy to write "Soviet Union"? Or if it indeed hadn't been established, simply "Russia"?

It just seems from an outside point of view, there's just a "war" to put as many belligerents as possible to one side make it look better for the other side. 78.174.116.81 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2023

"Otlu Council Government" in the article Should be "Oltu Council Government" "Otlu" is an obvious typo and means "Grassy" or "Weedy", "Oltu" instead is name of a geographical location. Cactus Ronin (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents

that's typed "Indian nationalist" that's wrong, we should change that to "Indian Muslims" LeUnOis (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Armenians

Only 250k Armenians killed and not 1.5m? RickyBlair668 (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Also more than 1 million Turks and muslims were killed in this horrible civil conflict. Don't even count total losses due to the WW1 178.241.43.229 (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)