Talk:Treaty of Sèvres

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Peace dove.png
This article can be in the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks.

Assyria[edit]

Could anybody tell me where in the Treaty an independent Assyria is mentioned? Can't remember ever reading that, but may be I missed it. Nightworker 23:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention of an independent Assyria, the Assyro-Chaldeans were only protected minorities within the new boundaries
That's exactly as I remembered. Thanks - who ever you are.Nightworker 23:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Kurdistan[edit]

This page only mentions that Kurdistan was to be an autonomus part of turkey. When in fact they (the kurds) would be granted independence from turkey if they wished acording to Section III Article 64: "If within one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty the Kurdish peoples within the areas defined in Article 62 shall address themselves to the Council of the League of Nations in such a manner as to show that a majority of the population of these areas desires independence from Turkey, and if the Council then considers that these peoples are capable of such independence and recommends that it should be granted to them, Turkey hereby agrees to execute such a recommendation, and to renounce all rights and title over these areas."

There is no mention of this! There is also no mention of that the kurdish part called the Mosul Vilayet in the traty, could if they wished join the independent Kurdistan.

I believe there are areas within Wiki that suggests the Kurds are allowed to have an Independent Kurdistan, however, the treaty was never signed by the Ottoman Sultan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.81.252.12 (talkcontribs) 22:33, 25 November 2006.

I agree. Why not revise the text? Nightworker 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Write "Turk" by using the capital letter. Deliogul 19:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of notable events[edit]

I would be ready to add under the footnote a short timeline of notable develoments during the 10-month period between the Armistice of Mudros (30 October 1918; the agreement that ended the war for the Ottoman Empire, and which should be mentioned here) and the Treaty of Sevres. I do not know if there are any examples of such a timeline in other articles on international treaties but it would certainly be useful. I can write it in smaller characters like the footnote, therefore the main body of the article would still jump first to the eye. Cretanforever

Soviet Participation[edit]

The effect of Soviets looks like a key element in the indipendence war when we read this article but this is not true. Yes Soviets gave us military equipment(Max. 1/5 of the nationalist army used their ammo) but that is all. Mustafa Kemal Pasha used every help to defeat the invaders. With respect, Deliogul 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not clear[edit]

This article contains two maps of what is apparently the same thing, "The proposed Armenian state". However, sorry to say that neither of them is clear. One is virtually monochrome and almost entirely illegible. The other has lots of shaded bits but no legend (at least not in English) and captions only in a foreign language (Armenian perhaps?). Reading the article doesn't help. I'm left with no idea what the scope of the proposed state was. -JdSf 16:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing Headline[edit]

There is a section in the main article which lacks any definition or title. Can it's author edit and present it in a more appropriate manner. It is the section which contains 2 articles from the treaty. Thalion Hurin 10:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Italy[edit]

It says "portions of southern Anatolia, were to pass to Italy". Does anyone know where to find more information about this? A map including what the Italians would have gained would be great--Stavros15 12:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Parts of the Turkish Aegean and present day Antalya were promised to Italy with couple of agreements during WWI but then Italy had problems with the Allies and withdrew from her promised territories which paved the way for Greece to show up and claim the Western Anatolia. See you, Deliogul 14:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I also have to add that the British government of the time had a big effect on this political change. Deliogul 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION. THERE IS A MAJOR MISTAKE CONCERNING ITALY AND THE DODECANESE ISLANDS ARTICLE 122. Turkey renounces in favour of Italy all rights and title over the following islands of the Aegean Sea; Stampalia (Astropalia), Rhodes (Rhodos), Calki (Kharki), Scarpanto, Casos (Casso) Pscopis (Tilos), Misiros (Nisyros), Calymnos (Kalymnos) Leros, Patmos, Lipsos (Lipso), Sini (Symi), and Cos (Kos), which are now occupied by Italy, and the islets dependent thereon, and also over the island of Castellorizzo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.140.167 (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Kurdistan[edit]

Material regarding Sèvres should be merged here. There is more than enough room for the material here. -- Cat chi? 01:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

O.K. --OttomanReference 02:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. Correct place.Must.T C 05:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure the material there can be copied here. I am not sure about deleting the section afterwards though, if that's what's meant by this merger. DenizTC 16:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you merging exactly? again as collective Turkish group doing "Karanlik isler". Özgūr Talk Hist 18:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to English language on English wikipedia. The proposed merge is moving all/most content regarding serves from that article to here. -- Cat chi? 18:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Map caption[edit]

I changed one of the map captions: it was described as a "modern Cambridge University" map, but it certainly isn't modern, and Cambridge University Press (the publisher) is not exactly the same thing as the university. I guess this map may be taken from the Cambridge Modern History of the early 20th century. Andrew Dalby 15:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Most populous[edit]

To claim that Turks were the most populous is speculation. The two groups who were mostly concentrated in Eastern Anatolia were Kurds and Armenians. There was a considerable population of Circassians, Kurds, Turkmans, Zaza's etc. Assuming that Turks outnumbered Armenians in Eastern Anatolia is original research when the most populous Muslim population there were Kurds not Turks. The Turks were concentrated more Westward, Erzerum was rather the exception than the rule. VartanM 03:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Flavious, can you please provide sources that confirm your claim. VartanM 02:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Please make your decision. If Turks exterminated Armenians back in 1915, it is impossible to claim that Armenians were one of the two most populous groups in the region. Even if we don't take the genocide thing into consideration, it is so clear that the Treaty of Serves was giving huge lands to Armenians that contains places where Armenians were not even close to be the "most populous". Also, there are people who claim that there were no 1,5 million Armenians in the region back in 1915 to be exterminated and these numbers are created to support the modern day strategy of Armenia to claim rights on Anatolia. Look, I didn't talk about Turks or Kurds. People just have to see that there are also problems in the stories of the other parties of the debate. Deliogul 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Deliogul, were talking about timeperiod before the Armenian Genocide. Modern day Armenia has no claims on Anatolia. can you provide sources that confirm what you just said? Here is my version:

Armenia: was given a large part of the region; including provinces which didn't have significant Armenian populations remaining after the massacres and deportations, such as the Black Sea port city of Trabzon.

Here is his version:

Armenia: The Armenians, who had constituted the third largest ethnic group in Eastern Anatolia after the Turks and Kurds even before the Armenian Genocide, were given a large part of the region; including provinces which didn't have significant Armenian populations such as the Black Sea port city of Trabzon.

My version doesn't even mention the "genocide thing". It's clear to me that I'm not going to get any feedback from Flavious. Deliogul, feel free to provide the source claiming that Armenians constituted the third largest ething group in Easter Anatolia after the Turks and Kurds. --VartanM 08:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So you say modern day Armenia has nothing to do with the Greater Armenia. That doesn't sound rational to me. Also, your version can falsely make people think that Trabzon once was dominated by Armenians. That would be impossible, at least, for the last millennium (see Empire of Trebizond, reign of Mehmed II). By the way, I will have a look at the library of my college to solve this debate. See you, Deliogul 13:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's not forget, that an Empire is a state, that rules other nations and territories of countries. Who are majority or minority has little to do with the territory of the states ruled by an empire.
however, the numbers cannot be objectively viewed if they are presented by a biased party. Here it is the Empire, as it clearly had an interest of lowering the, let me call them, "undesired-nations'" population in the empire at least on documents. As a result the population numbers on documents could have an effect on parliamentary elections, local governors' choice etc.
VartanM didn't say that the modern-day Armenia has nothing to do with the Kingdom of Greater Armenia. He said that the Republic of Armenia has not presented territorial claims to the Republic of Turkey.
I see the discussion wasn't finished after all... Aregakn (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Map inaccurate[edit]

The current "self-made" map is inaccurate, as it describes all coloured regions as "zones", not noting the difference between the independent Armenian state, the proposed independent Kurdistan, the regions under Greek protectorate (Thrace and Smyrna), the Dodecanos annexed by Italy, and the various powers zones of influence within Anatolia itself. Also, the Kurdish "zone" is marked inaccurately as it included Diyarbakir in the French zone as well. Look here: http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/MUHLBERGER/uploaded_images/Map-color-Treaty-of-Sevres-748832.png

How can this be rectified? Str1977 (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I rectified it myself by uploading a new version of the map. Str1977 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are we not using the original map as it appeared in the treaty itself such as http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/versa/vmap7.gif ?--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Because it is completely black and white and hard to make sense of, I guess, there seems to be good map of the treaty available in the whole internet! Akash (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Meaning?[edit]

'...possibly as a sop to Armenian claims to that region).'


I am supposing this means 'slap'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NantucketNoon (talkcontribs) 15:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It means something like 'small concession' or 'thing to make them feel better'. I know that this is an old commment, but I am just responding in case anyone else has the same question.130.216.234.135 (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting Statements[edit]

This says the Ottoman Empire didn't sign the treaty, yet 'had four signatories on behalf of the Ottoman government'.

So, the meaning is really that it was signed and not ratified, right?


NantucketNoon 15:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Signing a treaty and then having it ratified by the legal body nominally authorized to approve it, in general a congress or assembly or a parliament are two different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.156.90 (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaced?[edit]

I added a fact tag to the "replaced the Treaty of Sevres" and renamed the supposed "Nullification" section to something more approriate. - Fedayee (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely this phrase is opinion or at least should be backed up by references[edit]

I found the following sentence to little more than pure opinion - surely it should be backed up by references or removed - what do others think?

"This had been the dream of Christianity for nearly five hundred years beginning with Holy Leagues, the Ottoman Empire put into a condition that can never be revived again in its old form." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nznewsguy (talkcontribs) 08:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree: this is historically nonsensical Gugawn (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The map[edit]

Ottoman Empire by Treaty of Sevres

I do not know who removed this map, but this is better than a drawing. --TarikAkin (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The map is an unclear map with wrong borders. Aregakn (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Place names[edit]

Some placenames are obscure, e.g. "country of Mount Arisarieh", for which Google only returns this treaty. What is it called today? All place names should be linked to the proper Wikipedia article, and those articles should mention the historic names. --LA2 (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Misleading article[edit]

So is there not going to be a single mention of the fact that throughout most of the Turkish rule the region was predominantly Turkish or are these articles just written to justify an unjust, illegal treaty. Why is'nt there a single mention of the fact that the Ottoman government was put there by the Allied invaders and did not in any way, shape or form represent the will of the Turkish people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.206.116 (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

see Sèvres Syndrome --Երևանցի talk 15:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfArtaxiad (talkcontribs)
because nobody other than the ultranationalist user Yerevanci responded, İm going to suggest that the demographics of the region should be included.
DO it yourself.88.242.208.71 (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
see WP:CIVIL and try to avoid using terms such as "ultranationalist". That does not prove your point. Most of Eastern Turkey was populated by Armenians before the Armenian Genocide. If that makes me a nationalist, then yes, I am a nationalist. If you are so interested in historical ethnography, then you should probably add somewhere in Turkey that large areas of its territory was inhabited by Greeks and Armenians until early 20th century. You and me or any other user is not a judge here to claim that the Sevres Treaty was "unjust, illegal treaty." --Երևանցի talk 17:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as how Greeks were the dominant population of Smyrna and the Eastern area was depopulated and formally populated by Armenians, no, I would not say mentioning that is notable, because it's a lie. And do not delete other people's comments. If you continue your vandalism, you will be blocked. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Eastern Turkey was populated mostly bu Turks. This is proven by every census and estimate except the Armenian Patriarchs and the notoriosly manipulative Arnold Toynbee estimates. İt is also unlikely that Armenians were a majority or even a notable minority in tebizond. Both of your claims are baseless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.168.61 (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
It is proven that Armenians were majority both in Van and Mush, also in Zeitun, Hachn, Marash and many more areas. Also, I suggest you stop relying on Ottoman census, because most historians say they were inaccurate and manipulated for political purposes. --Երևանցի talk 15:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Proven. thats an awfully audacious claim. Proven by whom exactly. Contemporary sources put Armenians as a minority in eastern Turkey. it is also highly unlikely Armenians were a majority in Marash. I suggest you read the demographics of the Ottoman empire page before you make any claims on demographics80.43.13.95 (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ambassador in Picture[edit]

I believe the "unknown" figure in the picture is Paul Cambon, brother of Jules Cambon. Ealtram (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Wilsonian Armenia[edit]

Removed the part where it said Trabzon weren't inhabited by Armenians. According the Trabzon page, it was inhabited by Armenian, plus Armenians have been living in that region for centuries even before the Ottoman period. Adorkable Corgi (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Question on rewording of US non-involvement[edit]

I just now edited the sentence "Of the Principal Allied and Associated powers, the treaty excluded the United States" to include "Associated" since US was not an Allied power. However, the tone of the sentence might (falsely) connote that the treaty expressly excluded the US. I believe on the other hand that the US was (a) uninvolved in that theater of WWI and therefore had no interest to be involved in this treaty and (b) had by this time begun to shrink back into an isolationist stance. Now that is all too off topic for this article. But can someone come up with a better phrasing of the sentence indicative that the US was just uninvolved. Alternatively the sentence could be deleted. Juan Riley (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I might stand correcting on this, but I think the United States never actually declared war on the Ottoman Empire. All that happened was the Ottoman Empire severed diplomatic relations with the US after America declared war on Germany. If I'm correct, that is a far more likely explanation for exclusion of the US in the treaty. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Tiptoethrutheminefield: And thus no reason to say they were "excluded"? Just uninvolved. No? Or not mention US at all? (as I have so edited.) Juan Riley (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ratification[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this treaty signed and ratified by Damat Ferid Pasha's government in Constantinople and not Ataturk's in Ankara? How does that work. --92slim (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Treaty of Sèvres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Wilsonian Armenia relevancy[edit]

Tiptoethrutheminefield, are we sure we should be removing information concerning Wilsonian Armenia from this article? The territory concerning "the vilayets of Erzerum, Trebizond, Van and Bitlis" was to be placed under Wilsonian as specified in Article 89 of the Treaty of Sevres. We need to have at least some background information regarding that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The section is still there, if anyone want's to add accurate content. I removed the existing content only because I felt it was inaccurate, not because I thought there should be no content about this subject. However any wording or suggestion (such as the claim I removed, which was already fact tagged) that Armenia was actually given (or was ceded) specific territory under the text of the Treaty of Sevres would be false. The text of the treaty set up the arbitration procedure to decide on what (if any) territory would be transferred, and bound all the signing parties to abide by the arbitrator's final decision on this. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree. But we should work together to add that information back into the article again, bearing in mind a more accurate picture though. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of Turkish name[edit]

Hi what are everyone's views on this please? I added the Turksh name of the treaty to this article on the grounds that the treaty is about Turkey and anyone interested in knowing more might reasonably want to know what it was called in Turkish. Another editor has removed this info on the grounds that Turkish was not an official language of the treaty. This wasn't the reason for my including it in the first place and I'm not sure that matters very much. Should the Turksh term be in or out? Mccapra (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Treaty of Sèvres. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)