Jump to content

Talk:Greece–Turkey relations/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Requested move 1 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved as Requested to Greece–Turkey relations. Although there was no overwhelming consensus one way or the other, WP:Consistency is the driving policy here. Grammar discussions are interesting, but not supported by WP:AT title policy. Additionally, WP:Precision comes into play here as well. Greek and Turkish are terms of ethnicity. Greece and Turkey are names of recognized nation-states. Precisely, the article is clearly about the political/diplomatic relations between these two political entities. Mike Cline (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Mike Cline (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Greek–Turkish relations → Greece–Turkey relations – Follow the manual of style for bilateral relations articles. Both countries names should be in the title, not the demonyms. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  • This move is clearly not uncontroversial, per previous discussions in talk page archives: see here, here and here. Happily888 (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
    From the first linked discussion, it doesn't help when the discussion had one editor who is an admin launches a personal attack against the nominator, who has since been banned, one editor who has only made a handful of edits only on two talk pages. And another admin who like the first admin misstates how bilateral relations articles naming works. Greece–Turkey relations is not a proper title and from the second linked discussion, one user cites a few exceptions where this title isn't used. It's bizarre considering Greek-Turkish relations is more informal. When bilateral relations are concerned, the formal title is the name of the countries followed by relations. I can find several articles about the relations between Greece and Turkey that use the title I'm suggesting the article be moved to. And the idea somehow Turkish is not an ethnicity, which it is, is another bizarre statement from one of these discussions. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
    Even if we agree with you, because of past discussions, it warrants a full RM. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a contested technical request (permalink). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
TRNC is a different entity. Not Turkey. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
what's your point? Read the article below. Beshogur (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
What is your point? It covers it because of the Cyprus conflict between both Greece and Turkey. But it's not just between them. The article is mainly about the overall relations between Greece and Turkey. The Cyprus conflict is only a part of it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
What proper English are you referring to? The article is about the relations between the countries, not the people. Countries in this case, as is with every other bilateral relations article, are the relations between the governments. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with whether you use adjectives or nominal compounds for describing them. "Turkish" and "Greek" are the adjectives describing things related to Turkey and Greece, so relations between Turkey and Greece are Greek–Turkish relations. That's how the English language works. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The relation you're indicating with Greek and Turkish is of very little relevance. Greek–Turkish relations is an informal way of calling or describing the relations between both countries. We go by names of countries, not nationality, ethnic groups, or some other form of adjectival or demonymic name(s). If this article should remain under its current title, then every other bilateral relations article should follow this form. But I doubt anyone would want to start any discussion or move the articles with this reasoning. And again, this is not how the English language works. The relations between the countries are of Greece and Turkey. Not everything is Greek-Turkish relations. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
No, it's not an "informal way" of describing them, it's the English way. If you don't know English, learn English, before you start pontificating about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm a native English speaker, you are not. You're a native German speaker as indicated from the user box on your user page. Refrain from personal attacks. An admin like yourself should know better. And again, you are wrong about this. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Support per diplomatic relations and country argument as explained at the bottom of the discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: To prevent discussions for each country relations article, I guess it would be good to hold another one to the one held in 2009. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Each countries relations article already has the same manual of style when it comes to the title. This is the very last article of its kind that doesn't. Holding a discussion for one would not be the best way to go forward in my view. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Could you quickly link to the relevant discussions? As to me Fut. Perf. made a rather reasonable point both here and in the discussion in 2009, in 2009 even with an enormous amount of evidence in their favor. Would be good to see also the other side.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I doubt there is a "Manual of Style" prescription about this as WikiCleanerMan claims, and if there were it would be invalid. The MOS has no business making prescriptions about naming patterns for individual groups of articles. What we do have is the recommendation by the International Relations wiki-project, which was last discussed in 2009 and ended with an explicit statement that no prescription either way should be given (Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral relations). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
And considering just last month you reverted the change to the short description stating in the edit summary, "people don't have bilateral relations; countries do." And yet, your vote is not in line with your edit nor is the current title of the article. So, then if the "proper English" you've been referring to should reflect the title, then the reverted short description should be restored. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Nonsense. This article is about the relations between Greece and Turkey. The proper term in English for the relations between Greece and Turkey is "Greek–Turkish relations". Nothing incoherent about that. Country names in English have adjectival forms. English uses them as modifiers all the time, in preference to nominal modifiers. The borders of France are the French borders, not the France borders. The laws of Italy are Italian laws, not Italy laws. The history of Russia is Russian history, not Russia history. A treaty between France and Germany is a French-German treaty, not a France-Germany treaty. A war between Russia and Poland is a Russian-Polish war, not a Russia–Poland war. And the relations between Greece and Turkey are Greek–Turkish relations, not Greece–Turkey relations. Nothing in all of this has anything at all to do with populations or languages or whatever else. These are simply adjectival forms of the country names, referring to the countries, which is entirely normal English usage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. The current article title constitutes an uncommon, if not a lonely, exception to the common Wikipedia practice which is to precisely name the countries these diplomatic relations are about. Considering that the present article is specifically about the relations between Greece and Turkey, and considering that the "Greek" and "Turkish" have a much broader usage than just about these 2 countries (such as the historical relations between Greek people and Turkish people, and the other ethnic states in the region such as the unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus), I can't see why clarity shouldn't be preferred over ambiguity. To not mention that the article's title should be, not just be in line with the common rationale used elsewhere, but also WP:CONSISTENT with all the other articles in the same Topic Area: Albania–Greece relations, Armenia–Greece relations, Bulgaria–Greece relations, Cyprus–Greece relations, France–Greece relations. Greece–Israel relations, Greece–Italy relations, Greece–North Macedonia relations, Greece–Russia relations, Greece–United States relations, and so on, all of which were named carefully as to avoid precisely such issues of ambiguity that may cause confusions and implications among inexperienced readers, even if certain, experienced, editors around here, who are already familiar with the Greece-Turkey topics, believe that there is no problem with the current title. Therefore supporting the move. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 07:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. SilentResident has articulated the case for the move very well, I generally agree with her points, particularly about WP:CONSISTENT. I'd like to add that the current, inappropriate name has led to problems about the scope of the article e.g. Byzantine-Göktürk relations have no place here (it may well be a WP:OR concern). The term "Greek-Turkish relations" may also encompass inter-ethnic relations in Anatolia before the outbreak of WWI and in the early Republican period, as well as the situation in Western Thrace. --GGT (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is the WP:COMMONNAME per ngrams. I also disagree with the argument that readers will find this article confusing; if they don't find it confusing in recent news articles (compare to the usage of the proposed title), or in scholarly publications (compare to the usage of the proposed title) they won't find it confusing here - readers aren't idiots, and we don't need to patronize them.
I note that the other objection raised is consistency, and in line with the comments by Super Dro elsewhere, perhaps a broader RFC would be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Common names can be flexible depending on the topic. Common names for articles about individuals use first and last names very often because they're addressed that way regardless of their full names and/or middle names. But for bilateral relations articles, common names or phrases like U.S.-China, Indo-Sino relations are a colloquial way of referring or calling the relations. Not formal. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
How about Relations between Greece and Turkey?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Still colloquial and "relations between" is normally used to describe the relationship. Like, relations between Greece and Turkey are at an all-time low or high, whatever. The formal way is using the names of the countries. Using Greek and Turkish can refer to any number of things. It can be people, culture, geographical regions, etc... The two countries, in this case, are not both Greek and Turkish, rather Greece and Turkey. Two different countries that are distinct and separate. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. I can say that both sides in the RM, have strong and valid points, but that doesn't negate the importance of clarity on article titles which is to use the names of the countries these relations are about. If the article is about the diplomatic relations between Country A and Country B, then this ought to be reflected accordingly on its title as well. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
It is about the diplomatic relations between both countries. And thus, the title has reason to be changed accordingly. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I guess you are convincing me. I can now see your point. Diplomatic relations, countries, makes sense. Thanks for the patience. I'll change my vote to support. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
A new thought. How about Greek–Turkish diplomatic relations? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Relations are diplomatic relations. It would just add redundancy. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I would note that this seems to be at odds with your earlier statements that the use of "Greek-Turkish" makes it ambiguous what sort of relations it is discussing - though I would note that I do not believe it is ambiguous, as I struggle to see what other sort of relationship could be reasonably referred to. BilledMammal (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CONSISTENT. Currently, bilateral relations article are all named without the adjectives; I however support a discussion on renaming the articles on WP:INTR, possibly with a RfC. Pilaz (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CONSISTENT. There's no good reason why this should be an exception. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support (Strongly) per nom, per WP:CONSISTENT. This is literally the ONLY one that doesn't follow the established pattern of the other page titles. (And secondly, it's not the relations between "the Greeks" and "the Turkish", it's about the relations between the countries of Greece and Turkey themselves.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I shall note that the relevant category concerning the relations between the two countries, is also called Category:Greece–Turkey relations which, in my opinion, is one more reason for the RM to be supported and the article be moved to the more appropriate "Greece–Turkey relations" for wp:consistent reasons. To not mention that across Wikipedia, the term "Greece–Turkey relations" is already being used more often than the "Greek–Turkish relations". --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 04:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CONSISTENT and SilentResident. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is confusion here IMO. Consistency is desirable but only if it is possible. We don't go changing the English language simply to make all the articles consistent with each other. I think there is possible further confusion around this noun v adjective dispute. The term "Greek-Turkish" is a compond word, used here as an adjective. Personally, I prefer "Greco-Turkish", because Greco- is the component part of a compond noun about Greece and all things Greek, although more often used in relation to Ancient Greece. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Today I spent some time around Wikipedia to study the case in depth and, interestingly enough, I found that the "Greece–Turkey" is already being used for all other state-to-state related affairs already (and for valid reasons). These are:
For a number of obvious reasons (except for those editors/readers unfamiliar with the historical reality in the region), one can understand why adjectival forms such as Greek-Turkish Population exchange, Greek-Turkish border, or Greek-Turkish football rivalry are avoided and shouldn't be preferred: the Greece-Turkey border isn't the only "Greek-Turkish" border (See Green line in Cyprus which acts as the unofficial border between Greek and Turkish communities in the ethnically divided country). The Greece-Turkey football rivalry also involves other ethnicities besides Greeks and Turks. And the Greece-Turkey population exchange also involved subjects of other ethnicities, besides Greek and Turkish subjects).
Sure, it is up to the editors to make sure that there is clarity when using such adhesives for affairs/events between countries, but the titles ought to make sure as to not imply things that aren't true about them, and this means to use clarity so that the readers can know what the topic is about. Again, this shows why adjectival form "Greek-Turkish relations" should be avoided, as they can mean much more than just the country relations the scope of the present article is really about. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The modern states of Greece, Turkey (and discussed in the article but not here, Cyprus) only captures a partial history of relations between these two different ethnic groups and cultures. Greek and Turkish encapsulates in addition the Eastern Roman Empire citizens, the Greek speaking Christians during the Ottoman Age, modern day Cypriots, as well as all the Turkish tribes like Seljuk's, Ottomans not to forget modern Turks. The Greek diaspora for example has influenced international politics in major ways, like the very formation of the modern Greek state (as opposed to the more romantic declaration of independence). More to the point, you cannot understand the relations of modern Greece, modern Turkey and Modern Cyprus without understanding the history that existed before the creation of the modern European nations we know them now as. Elias (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per English grammar: As long as the adjectival form exists, it should be used. One would not talk about the 'Greece relation with ...' or the 'Turkey relation ...', but would use 'Greek' and 'Turkish' respectively. Why is a compound adjective any different? However, the correct compound adjective is 'Greek-Turkish' with a hyphen, not with n-dash. --T*U (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening paragraph needs a rewrite

Now that is a page about distinctively about the two modern states of Greece and Turkey, the article needs a rewrite. For example, the Turkish state did not get created until 1923 following its independence but the opening sentence refers to how the Greeks won independence from the Ottoman Empire and was formed in 1830.

As this is a major rewrite I am going to break it up in sections in case people disagree. It captures the same information with less words but with better context.


Recommendation 1: The first sentence

  • Mention the fall of the Byzantine Empire as when relations start as this gives context to the Greek war of Independence 400 years later and the subsequent wars "reclaiming" land.
  • Make mention of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire as this gives context to the creation of the Turkish state.

Current first sentence: Relations between Greece and the Turkey states have been marked by alternating periods of mutual hostility and reconciliation ever since Greece won its independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1830.

Proposed first sentence: The modern nations of Greece and Turkey trace their relations from when the Ottoman Empire ended the Byzantine Empire in 1453, the 1830 formation of Greece following the Greek War of Independence and the 1923 formation of Turkey following the Turkish War of Independence.

Recommendation 2: the second sentence

The wars fought following the creation of the Greek State up until the 1923 population exchange help explain relations that bring us to our modern understanding of relations between the states. Mention that in thee second sentence.

Current second sentence Since then, the two countries have faced each other in four major wars—the Greco-Turkish War (1897), the First Balkan War (1912-1913), the First World War (1914-1918), and finally the Greco-Turkish War (1919–22), which were followed by the Greco-Turkish population exchange and a period of friendly relations in the 1930s and 1940s.

Proposed second sentence: Wars were fought with the Greco-Turkish War (1897), the First Balkan War (1912-1913), World War I, and the Greco-Turkish War (1919–22).

Recommendation 3

Other content mentioned is important so I propose grouping it as follows. The population exchanges have been a major issue in relations and should be mentioned in context (Greco-Turkish population exchange, 1955 Istanbul pogrom, Expulsion of Istanbul Greeks). Cyprus is a separate country but are also Greeks and impacts Greece's relations such as the deployment of their military so deserves a separate mention (1974 Cypriot coup d'etat and Turkish invasion of Cyprus)). The island disputes mentioned such as Imia/Kardak and the broader Aegean dispute deserves it's own mention as its ties together the modern disputes.

Proposed edits

Recommendation 4

Positive aspects of relations are mentioned and should be included.

  • Both countries entered NATO in 1952.
  • "earthquake diplomacy"
  • Not sure what else there is to list but the before mentioned are from the existing first sentences.

Proposed edits

Despite these tensions, both countries entered into the military alliance NATO in 1952. Greek–Turkish earthquake diplomacy has also led to a improvement in relations.

Recommendation 5

  • Something needs to be mentioned about the migrants/refugee crisis. Not proposing anything for this yet but for completeness it does matter.


This is how the current first section is written:

Relations between Greece and the Turkey states have been marked by alternating periods of mutual hostility and reconciliation ever since Greece won its independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1830. Since then, the two countries have faced each other in four major wars—the Greco-Turkish War (1897), the First Balkan War (1912-1913), the First World War (1914-1918), and finally the Greco-Turkish War (1919–22), which were followed by the Greco-Turkish population exchange and a period of friendly relations in the 1930s and 1940s. Both countries entered NATO in 1952. Relations deteriorated again after the 1950s due to the 1955 Istanbul pogrom, the Cyprus issue, and the expulsion of the Istanbul Greeks in the 1960s, the 1974 Cypriot coup d'etat, immediately followed by the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, the Imia/Kardak military crisis in 1996 and subsequent military confrontations over the Aegean dispute. A period of relative normalization began after 1999 with the so-called "earthquake diplomacy", which notably led to a change in the previously firmly negative stance of the Greek government on the issue of the accession of Turkey to the European Union. As of 2021, military tensions have risen again due to conflicts over maritime zones in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean.


This is what my proposed edit would look like:

The modern nations of Greece and Turkey trace their relations from when the Ottoman Empire ended the Byzantine Empire in 1453, the 1830 formation of Greece following the Greek War of Independence and the 1923 formation of Turkey following the Turkish War of Independence. Wars were fought with the Greco-Turkish War (1897), the First Balkan War (1912-1913), World War I, and the Greco-Turkish War (1919–22). A series of population movements over the last century has impacted relations such as the (Greco-Turkish population exchange, 1955 Istanbul pogrom, and the 1964–1965 Expulsion of Istanbul Greeks). There is an ongoing Cyprus conflict that saw major conflict with the 1974 Cypriot coup d'etat and Turkish invasion of Cyprus. More recently, the Aegean dispute which involves disputes over islands and the continental shelf has been a major source of tension. Despite these tensions, both countries entered into the military alliance NATO in 1952. Greek–Turkish earthquake diplomacy has also led to a improvement in relations. Elias (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

As Turkey is the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, I think a format that reflects that is appropriate, as the article Greece–Russia relations does between Greece and the Russian Empire. For example, I believe it should state that relations began in 1830 following Greece winning its independence from Turkeys predecessor state, the Ottoman Empire - though I will say the change in general looks good. BilledMammal (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Sure. But Greece's predecessor state is the Byzantine Empire and this is relevant because it was impetus behind the Megali Idea that drove the wars mentioned so also needs a mention. How about this as a revision:

Greece–Turkey relations refers to the bilateral relationship between Greece and Turkey and their predecessor states. Both Greece and Turkey are full members of some international organizations, including the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation and NATO. The modern states trace their relations from when the Ottoman Empire ended the Byzantine Empire in 1453, the 1830 formation of Greece following the Greek War of Independence and the 1923 formation of Turkey following the Turkish War of Independence. Driven by the megali idea, wars were fought with the Greco-Turkish War (1897), the First Balkan War (1912-1913), and the Greco-Turkish War (1919–22). A series of population movements over the last century has impacted relations such as the Greco-Turkish population exchange, 1955 Istanbul pogrom, and the 1964–1965 Expulsion of Istanbul Greeks. There is an ongoing Cyprus conflict that saw major conflict with the 1974 Cypriot coup d'etat and Turkish invasion of Cyprus. More recently, the Aegean dispute which involves disputes over islands and the continental shelf has been a major source of tension. Despite these tensions, both countries entered into the military alliance NATO in 1952. Greek–Turkish earthquake diplomacy has also led to a improvement in relations. Elias (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. Greece isn't the successor state of the Byzantine Empire. Where did you get that bizarre idea from? Greece never existed as a political entity before 1830. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes and neither did Turkey before 1923. Thanks for pointing out that technicality. But their modern politics directly pulls from their predecessor political regimes and culture, such as Erdoğan's neo-Ottoman politics, so it would distort the article to not put it into this context. How do you define a successor state?
Here's a few questions for you even if it's for your own reflection:
  • What were the Greeks immediately before the Ottoman Conquest that they won their independence from?
  • Why was the first century of the Greek state focused on the Megali Idea?
  • Why do the Turks call Greeks Rum or Romans?
  • Why is the term "Romaioi" or "Romioi" (Roman) a term Greeks refer to themselves as?
  • What pre-Ottoman state spoke the Greek that the modern Greeks do?
  • What pre-Ottoman state had a state religion that is also the same as the official religion of modern Greece?
  • Why is John III Doukas Vatatzes known as "the Father of the Greeks."?
All the above can be answered with existing Wikipedia pages as any historian that knows the subject, such as the Byzantine empire expert Anthony Kaldellis.
Elias (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Elias: Wikipedia does not deduce succession through original research. We go by what reliable sources say. Regarding the question whether Turkey is a successor state or a continuing state of Ottoman Empire, here are a couple of sources debating the question:
  • Öktem, Emre (2011). "Turkey: Successor or Continuing State of the Ottoman Empire?". Leiden Journal of International Law. 24 (3). Cambridge University Press: 561–583. doi:10.1017/S0922156511000252. S2CID 145773201.
  • Dumberry, Patrick (2012). "Is Turkey the 'Continuing' State of the Ottoman Empire Under International Law?". Netherlands International Law Review. 59 (2): 235–262. doi:10.1017/S0165070X12000162. S2CID 143692430.
Regarding Greece as a successor state of the Byzantine empire – which in my book is nonsense – you would need to have similar sources discussing the question. --T*U (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand that. I'm not trying to introduce original research. Yes, Greece is not a direct successor of the Byzantine Empire -- 400 years passed which breaks that connection. My point, which you are missing, is that modern Greece's international relations with Turkey is directly impacted by this heritage, which is well documented already on Wikipedia like the megali idea. You cannot understand the wars fought by modern Greece with the Ottoman's without understanding this history. (As well as other political events such as the population transfers mentioned in the article.) To mention Turkey as being the direct continuation of the Ottoman Empire but that Greece was just created in a vacuum in 1830 makes this article nonsense.
  • Page, G. (2014). Being Byzantine: Greek Identity Before the Ottomans. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
  • Magdalino, P., Ricks, D. (2016). Byzantium and the Modern Greek Identity. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.
  • Finlay, G. (2016). The Hellenic Kingdom and the Greek Nation. (n.p.): CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
  • Kaldellis, A. (2019). Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium. United Kingdom: Harvard University Press. Elias (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Greece is not successor of the Byzantine Empire. Perhaps a cultural and spiritual successor yes, but not actual successor state of the Byzantines. Since this article is about relations between Greece (country) and Turkey (country), both of which aren't successors of the Byzantines, any mention on the Byzantines here is redundant IMO. The only fitting article that can expand upon about modern Greek ties to Byzantine heritage, may be articles such as the Greeks and Byzantine Greeks, not the present article whose scope is only about the relations between modern countries. However, even the information that is added to Greeks and Byzantine Greeks articles, will have to be backed by strong sources and be WP:RELEVANT to the scope of these articles. Nothing more, nothing less. Last, I have read the discussion quickly but not fully, so I will just add my two cents here regardless of whether it is discussed or not already and it has escaped me: If any info about the Byzantine heritage impacting the perceptions/ties between the modern states of Greece and Turkey has to be added, that info will have to be confirmed by WP:RS which state clearly that this is the case. Anything short of this, sounds like a passionate, patriotic approach that doesn't fit in an Encyclopedia like this, nor does it help really the readers in any way. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 23:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I made the recommendation of mentioning the fall of the Byzantine Empire as when relations start as this gives context to the Greek war of Independence 400 years later and the subsequent wars (Greco-Turkish War (1897), First Balkan War (1912-1913), Greco-Turkish War (1919–22) "reclaiming" land due to the megali idea, the foreign policy of Greece in the century that followed independence and which pre-dates the creation of Turkey. I'm in agreement that Greece is not a direct successor of the Byzantine Empire, but how is what I just wrote not relevant?
One of my proposed edits is: The modern nations of Greece and Turkey trace their relations from when the Ottoman Empire ended the Byzantine Empire in 1453, the 1830 formation of Greece following the Greek War of Independence and the 1923 formation of Turkey following the Turkish War of Independence.
However, if not one else agrees the context helps, we can just make it as follows:
The modern nations of Greece and Turkey trace their relations from the 1830 formation of Greece following the Greek War of Independence and the 1923 formation of Turkey following the Turkish War of Independence.
My issue with the later is it discusses the creation of these states in a vacuum but I'm not here to waste my time any further, just want to fix the dribble that is this current article. Elias (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
This is still constructing a false parallel between Greece in 1830 and Turkey in 1923. Within the scope of this article, these aren't parallel at all. Turkey in 1923 inherited its name, its identity and its place in the international community from earlier Ottoman Turkey. Including its rights and obligations towards other countries such as Greece, hence its bilateral relations. Greece in 1830 had nothing like that to inherit; it was created completely from scratch. Therefore, for the purposes of this article, the history of Greek–Turkish relations begins unambiguously in 1830. Not earlier and not later. As the lead paragraph quite rightly presents it, the Greco-Turkish War of 1896 is part of it exactly as much as the Aegean disputes of the late 20th and 21st centuries. Everything before that (Byzantium etc) is only part of the ideological backdrop.
There's certainly a good deal of "dribble" to clean up in this article, but the lead paragraph isn't where that is; it's actually fairly decent as it is now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok, that's fair.
Starting with opening as it sets the tone for the article. Similar content, but more balanced and curated. This is my revised proposal.
Greece–Turkey relations, also called Greek-Turkish relations, refers to the bilateral relationship between Greece and Turkey and their predecessor states. Diplomatic relations began with the 1830 formation of Greece following the Greek War of Independence and the 1923 formation of Turkey following the Turkish War of Independence. Relations have been historically tense.
Territory acquisition by Greece driven by the megali idea of Greek policy lead to the Greco-Turkish War (1897), the First Balkan War (1912-1913), and the Greco-Turkish War (1919–22) all of which dictated the first century of relations. There have been a series of population transfers driven by Turkey in reaction to events such as the Greco-Turkish population exchange, 1955 Istanbul pogrom, and the 1964–1965 Expulsion of Istanbul Greeks. There is an ongoing Cyprus conflict that peaked with the 1974 Cypriot coup d'etat and Turkish invasion of Cyprus. More recently, the Aegean dispute which involves disputes over islands and the continental shelf has been the dominant area of tension. Elias (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
That doesn't respond to anything I said. Oh, and by the way, let's not start with that inane tautology of "Greece–Turkey relationships are the relationships between Greece and Turkey". Seriously, who would have thought? And let's not start with the stupid use–mention mismatch of "X refers to Y" either. And there's no need for the "also called" either; this is not a proper name. It's perfectly fine to just start the article with "Relations between Greece and Turkey have been so-and-so …", as has been the stable wording for years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to incorporate all the feedback but let me address where yours comes out:
  • You asked to drop the false narrative and to have it start 1830. Accepted.
  • I've dropped all references to Byzantine. Accepted
  • I appreciate you saying I'm constructing a false parallel between Greece in 1830 and Turkey in 1923 but we do need to distinguish Greece's relations with the Ottoman Empire and Greece with Turkey as two different things. For this reason, perhaps we should say relations started in 1923 and put everything before that as history leading up to modern relations?
  • Your request that the wars and the Aegean dispute are the same problem does not make sense: not accepted. What’s the problem in particular that links them?
  • I added "also known" so as to incorporate the legitimate arguments before the page renaming but also which reflects a lot of the existing article still (particularly in history), now that we date relations as 1830 onwards. If we don't do this, that implies we need to remove all the pre-1830 history currently on the page.
  • Turkey being a direct continuation to the Ottoman Empire is an opinion, not fact: Ataturk would be rolling in his grave if Turkey was called that. I would like to recommend we have a separate section on the page that discussed the predecessor state linking it to opinions, which will help the reader understand context to why there is conflict for a country that only was created in 1923.
  • Greece was created from scratch. Again, that's an opinion. While I am willing to drop pre 1830 references of regimes, to say Greece started in 1830 like a new sapling such as how Australia started in 1788/1901 like no country i can think of is again, an artificial narrative as bad. I'll find the academic opinions to back whatever we agree on but this narrative is not good enough that Greece was created out of a vacuum. Let me point out you don't have to agree with me, but it's still an issue because this is not new content I'm introducing, it's already implied heavily on the page. Maybe the best solution really is to make 1923 when relations start and everything else as history.
  • the new opening was @BilledMammal's suggestion which is why I worded it like that, to mimic the Russia-Greece page. "Greece–Russia relations refers to the bilateral relationship between Greece and Russia and their predecessor states." You can blame the editors of that page for inane tautology. I'd like to think we can leverage a best practice. Happy to drop that if too hard but let's get to the actual subject....
  • "...alternating periods of mutual hostility and reconciliation" is part of the dribble I'm talking about. For example on other pages the opening sentence :
I'm trying to propose something more neutral to open. The Greeks are saying "relations of conflict into relations of cooperation"[1] and the Turks are saying "a new era since 1999...[with] long-standing problems" [2] "...inherited from the past and yet to be resolved"@[3]. Maybe we can use that language rather than the unqualified "alternating periods of mutual hostility and reconciliation "
...is that it? I hope I've addressed your points completely now. I've learnt my lesson and will hold off on a new revision until there some more agreement. Elias (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
You are still mentioning "their predecessor states", which is nonsense. You are still making the halting parallell beween 1830 and 1923. You make a weird WP:EASTEREGG by linking the formation of Turkey to the Lausanne treaty. You are making all wars a result of Greek territory acquisition. You are making population transfers a result of Turkish reaction to ... the population exchange? (There you lost me completely.) Nay! Forget it! --T*U (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • We can drop "their predecessor states" but I think it's important. While I did that because it copies the Russia-Greece page, it made me think this allows us to create a new section to talk about the opinions that Turkey is and is not a direct successor to the Ottoman Empire, which will help the reader understand the history and the modern politics.
  • Is this article not an article about Greece and Turkey? The pre-1923 relations should be treated differently. Sure, we can list academic opinions that Turkey is a direct continuation, but it's an opinion not fact. I'll give you one good reason why this matters: no major wars like before have been fought since Turkey was formed (ignoring Cyprus), which is a big difference from the Ottoman days. Differentiating the relations Greece had with the Ottoman Empire versus Turkey is an important point, not the least because it impacts modern political dialogue and how this page may help shape that.
  • The Easter Egg: noted, thanks. This is actually from the current text FYI.
  • What is the right narrative for the wars where Greece expanded, the Ottoman Empire lost territory, and Turkey pursued a Turkification policy to eliminate Greek people and names? I've suggesting the big one that's already in the current article: the Megali Idea policy or threat (and related: the enosis goal). If instead you are reacting to my sloppy language "in reaction to events", what I meant was other political events (such as preventing the megali idea and enosis politics from succeeding) but kept this general, but yes see how this looks sloppy now.
Elias (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Elias, you are welcome in that you are seeking to contribute, but I am not sure that such changes like the ones you suggested constitute actual, tangible improvements. I can tell that the changes you are proposing, are at least unhelpful to the readers since they may give false perceptions of relatedness of one information with the other, an issue TU-nor has pointed out. Wikipedia's goal is to be as informative as possible to the readers, however the restructuring of the lead will have to be careful and be done with the following in mind: information is clear, and is delivered to the readers without any editorial perceptions, and is as neutral as possible and avoids implications by placing information in an way that suggests something not stated in the sources. Since the Greece-Turkey relations article is a sensitive topic, portray the relations between the two countries in a different spotlight and without a clear encyclopedic tone, only is bound to make it worse, not better for the readers. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. To your points, here are some -- certainly not exhaustive -- issues that are with the current article:
  • Tone: The first paragraph, if not sentence, should be making a current comment about relations of the modern nations using more diplomatic language. "Mutual hostility" is not something that meets your stated requirements I suspect.
  • Relevance. Modern relations need to be bounded to the current regime, it is after-all, the title of the page now. For example, to a date that does not conflate the Ottoman Empire as the same entity as the Turkish Republic (though opinions that it is deserves it's own section, as it gives context to Greece's relations). Also, Greece has had quite a few different regimes since Ottoman liberation which you can see on the List of predecessors of sovereign states in Europe or visually with the Timeline of sovereign states in Europe
  • Scope. A decision needs to be made of what content to include for historical relations. To pick one example, it currently includes a 6th century Turkic tribe (the Western Turkic Khaganate) that the Byzantines as "speaking with ten tongues and lying with all of them" -- which by implication by being on this page means (1) Greece were the Byzantines pre the state of Greece (2) Greece is being portrayed negatively.
I could go on, but maybe we can start there -- that might be a more productive conversation to have given my proposed edits seem to be so unhelpful. Elias (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Just some short comments to your three points:
  • Wikipedia follows the sources. The term 'mutual hostility' is commonly used in literally thousands of reliable sources, including international media, academic sources from Greece, Turkey and third parties, encyclopedias, etc. Just try searching for Greece, Turkey, "mutual hostility" -Wikipedia and make your choice.
  • Wikipedia follows the sources. The academic discussions seem to concentrate on whether Turkey is a successor state or a continuing state, see Succession of states#Ottoman Empire/Turkey. In both cases, the relations before and after 1923 are relevant for this article.
  • The "History" section can certainly need some work. It should only include content that is relevant historical background for the post-1830 situation, according to reliable sources. Feel free to open a new discussion about the "History" section. As for the opening paragraph, which is discussed here, the description should imo be limited to the emergence of the Greek state.
--T*U (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • 'Mutual hostility is not just about sources: on its own, it's toxic language. Look for comparison at how Russia–United States relations describes their strategic rivalry and which in essence is what the Turkish-Greek relationship is. In one opinion, the countries use real and imagined trauma to support their own nationalism and this article should be above that.
  • If we can get consensus that modern relations started in 1923 for this page but that there is also a pre-1923 section required (focused on 1830 Greece and the Ottoman Empire) for relations then there is no disagreement from me. It's the treating of pre-1923 relations as the same as modern relations that I now see as the issue as this changes the narrative, just like how pre 1830 impacts the narrative -- not to say it shouldn't, but it's secondary to the primary article content.
  • Yes let's discuss history as a separate section. The pre 1830 history and how it relates is not an easy answer but ignoring it is not the answer either. I agree that the opening paragraph should limit itself to the emergence of the Greek state, at least based on our current discussions.
Despite your three points, you're making a fourth point so let me address that respectfully. My issue with the comment "Wikipedia follows the sources" is that you can find a source to support any position. These are contentious topics and it's difficult to distinguish the correct narrative. For good reason: history is politics and politics is manipulating for power so sorting out the truth is always a difficult thing. There is no one source that we can point to to define the correct narrative so I think it's appropriate we discuss this narrative for how we present the facts as educated people seeking truth on the topic first, before we go in to a rabbit hole of supporting evidence
  • Case in point: Ataturk when he created the nation of Turkey distanced himself from the Ottoman's and Islamic past, the "enemy", and drew on this history of the broader Turkic people to create a new identity. Erdoğan, originally elected due to disgust with the corruption of the military, gets his political support from his attempt to reconcile the historical memory to the present and which is Islamist. If I wrote anymore, you'd be saying I need a source so I'll stop while I'm ahead... but before I do that, 50 years of Armenian documentaries about genocide and an election coming with Erdoğan losing support due to an economic crisis means this topic is going to intensify in the coming years. Turkey is and is not the Ottoman Empire is the stuff that could bankrupt Turkey, change the next election, and influence the Turkish identity and decision if Turkey joins the EU so I don't take that opinion lightly
  • Aksan, Virginia H. “Ottoman to Turk: Continuity and Change.” International Journal, vol. 61, no. 1, [Sage Publications, Ltd., Canadian International Council], 2005, pp. 19–38, https://doi.org/10.2307/40204127.
Elias (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Skewed?

There seems to be a lot of focus on the negative in this article. We should add more content about the more positive aspects of Greco-Turkish relations, given the long shared history between the two countries. Yekshemesh (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Yekshemesh I agree. What are examples you can think of? i think discussing the long history up until the creation of Greece and Turkey is one way but not sure what else. Elias (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Reorganisation of history for clarity: new headings only, no content edits

Without making any edits to the content for now until we get more discussion and consensus, I propose we re-organise history under the following headings which will allow for better context, readability and perspective.

Background

  • Greek and Turk relations: pre 16th century
  • Ottoman Empire era: 1453-1822
  • First Hellenic Republic: 1822-1832
  • Kingdom of Greece and the Ottoman Empire: 1832-1923

History

  • Second Hellenic Republic and Ataturk era: 1923-1938
  • Post-Ataturk and Greece's military dictatorship era: 1938-1974
  • 1974 to present

Reasons for this change:

  • It distinguishes modern relations as when Turkey became a country with history starting then and everything before that as background, as it does not relate to the modern relations of Turkey and Greece have
  • It puts political regimes in context to define periods of relations which helps with context and without reference to events (ie, WW1, Cyprus, etc)
  • it does not make a value judgement on the relations (ie, normalisation) for a period like the current 1928-1954 period heading
  • It collapses the two Byzantine/Seljuk/Gorturk headings currently into a generic Greek and Turk relations
  • It dates each heading with the period to show better flow
  • It collapses some of the chronological event headings under post 1974 (ie, the headings of Other events in 2015, 2016–2018, 2019, 2020–2021 for example)) allowing the rest of the article to be less chronological and be able to use headings to go deeper into multi-year and complex issues (ie, the Aegean dispute, Accession of Turkey to the European Union, etc) Elias (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Reviewing the historical talk page, I've made a much needed change that I hope is not controversial, by collapsing all the individual headings under year groupings to create a better narrative and will allow us to simplify the content in future. It was a easy way to reduce some headings and we now have everything under three new headings:
  • Current diplomatic issues
  • 1986 - 1999
  • 2002 - 2022
I propose moving 1986 - 1999 and 2002 - 2022 under history but I'm holding off on that until there is more consensus from my above proposal. By making this move, I think we can further collapse the sub headings which I preserved for now which will reduce the headings further and give the reader less of a headache when looking at the table of contents (ie, we can call out only the significant events like the " Bomb at the Turkish consulate in Thessaloniki" which is now in history but keep the rest as general narrative under a year grouping). For year groupings, I think 1999 or 2002 may be good way to segment the most recent history as that's when the Earthquake diplomacy happened which according to the Turkish foreign ministry was a huge change in relations, and 2002 is when the JDP party was elected and starts the Erdoğan era. The current 1974/1975 history section is also a good segment as that's when hostilities with Cyprus peaked and the Greek Junta ended power. Elias (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Here is an alternative way to structure history based on the current content which is more detailed
  • Background: Pre-19th century
    • Byzantine–Göktürk relations: 6th century
    • Byzantine and Seljuk-Ottoman relations: 11-15th century
    • Ottoman Era: 16-19th century
  • Foundation of modern Greece
    • First Hellenic Republic and Treaty of Constantinople: 1822-1832
    • Kingdom of Greece and Ottoman Empire: 1832-1920
  • Foundation of modern Turkey
    • First Constitution of Turkey and Treaty of Lausanne: 1921-1923
    • Second constitution of Turkey, Second Hellenic Republic and Ataturk era: 1924-1938
    • Post-Ataturk, Greek military dictatorship, and WWII: 1938-1945
  • Basis of modern relations
    • Post-war, Turkish multi-party transition and Greek military junta: 1945-1974
    • Third Hellenic Republic era: 1974 to present
The headings for foundation of modern Greece and foundation of modern Turkey I hope is obvious. The reason I'm calling the last point the basis of modern relations is because
  • It's the post world war II era which is commonly accepted as the modern age
  • This is when Greece's land stabilised ie, the Dodacanese
  • The Cyprus issue began
  • The UN treaty of the Seas began which is where the current Aegean dispute originates from
  • The EU came into existence
I think there is an argument to treat the Erdogan era as it's own bullet point but that can come later as more content is added on the Blue Homeland that I shared in the history discussion above. I think this change is going to help with better content pruning, so would appreciate feedback, would like to make this edit in the next week now that all the news items have nearly been cleaned up into neater categories. @T:U @SilentResident @Future Perfect at Sunrise @Beshogur Elias (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Seems good to me. Beshogur (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Elias, sorry for my slow responses, I am a bit busy these days. At first glance, after a quick reading, seems pretty ok to me; didn't notice any particular issues, but that's because there is alot of changes and I can't tell for sure that there are indeed no issues. Better give the editors some time so that they evaluate the proposal more thoroughly and if there are no objections within a reasonable time, then, I guess you can go ahead and apply the changes to the article. PS: I admire your determination at improving the article! Cheers! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 02:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Will do. With the exception of one content addition at the start of history (which is content I wrote first on this talk page) and some link/formatting fixes, all my changes were simply collapsing headings, and moving content around after evaluating it to kill of this heading inflation on the page. Once this clean up is done, I'm looking forward to adding or rewriting content with sources to take us away from a news event narration to more issues analysis Elias (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Beshogur are you in favour of the more summarised version I originally proposed or the more detailed version? Elias (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Eliasbizannes: Honestly it doesn't matter for me much. So doesn't matter imo. But thanks for your time. Beshogur (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Great, thank you. More important, I need your feedback on my proposed rewrite of the Gorturk section, sorry for the double notificaitons you may have missed it. I see this as a problematic part of the article as it stands and your perspective matters. Elias (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • sorry for inadvertantly revert Mike Cline (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Mike Cline No problem. Would love to get your feedback on some of the changes. Right now, it's structure and clean up with probably the biggest issue being should pre Greece and Turkey relations (ie, before 1820-1830) be even included now that the name change has happened. Personally, I think this is implicit as otherwise we go in circles, by having to create a new page of Greek-Turkish relations which defeats the purpose of the name change. Elias (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
My first impression is that the article and discussion are coming along fine. I suspect it will be challenging, but being more concise in the text without losing the essence would help a lot. It is very wordy at this point. The one area where I gather there is still some contention is the pre-state history. Personally, I think it is essential to understanding centuries of animosity and hostility between the Greeks and Turks which is based not only on economic and political conflict, but religious conflict as well. It doesn’t need to be overstated and should not be biased in any way, but it belongs in the article. FYI I lived in Istanbul for several years and made the Ipsala border crossing several times. Greece and Turkey relations is no simple matter.Mike Cline (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

History

There is agreement the history needs a change. There are three areas that I believe we can structure discussion:

  • (A) since the creation of Modern Turkey in 1923 and onward
  • (B) The creation of the Greek state in 1830 (and following its revolution) up until Ottoman defeat in WW1 and/or 1923
  • (C) The history that exists before the creation of the Greek state. The current page has history from the 6th century AD.

On A: I believe this is what is modern relations and recent history should be the primary content of this page, reflecting the new title of the page.

On B: I believe this is core to this page, but secondary to modern relations. Necessary history but not leading.

On C: There is disagreement that this is relevant. Personally, I'm not sure what is correct but ignoring pre-1830 distorts the narrative. I'm going to respond separately below on this point. Elias (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to propose we remove the entire section for "Byzantine–Göktürk relations". Other than showing that there were Turkic tribes talking to the Byzantine Empire, which is interesting, I don't see what value or relevance this adds to the page. If people think we need to keep it, I think it can be condensed to one or two lines. Elias (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Beshogur I see you made this contribution 16 June 2021. I also note you got this content from First Turkic Khaganate#Relations with the Byzantine Empire. Although it is interesting, I don't see the relevance to this page in how it relates to modern relations with Turkey and Greece. If the point is to show the first time a Turkish tribe contacted the Byzantine Empire who dominated the area at the time, then I see that as value but it only needs one sentence of acknowledgement, if any at all. Do you agree or do you have a different perspective? Elias (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Eliasbizannes: Could be removed maybe. I think it was appropriate for the previous title. Beshogur (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Beshogur Thanks. I'm ok with including it, just want to make it more relevant. Perhaps we can write the first known contact between a Turkish tribe and the Byzantine Empire was 563 by the First Turkic Khaganate though we would need a source to back that. Then we can follow with the content about the Seljuk's as it wasn't really until the 11th century that Turkish tribes moved en masse to Analtolia, although please correct me if that's a misunderstanding, Elias (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Beshogur This is some quick copy and pasting from Wikipedia so would need more curating and source referencing, but perhaps we could replace the current paragraph with the following content to make it more relevant to the page and interesting:
Turk and Greek relations 6-14th century CE
See Also Timeline of the Turkic peoples (500–1300)
The first Turkic state to use the name Türk politically were the Göktürks of the First Turkic Khaganate, which existing from 546 to 603. They made contact with the Byzantine Empire, the political regime that encapsulated almost all Greek speakers during the post-classical period, in 563. In 568 an alliance was made under Justin II after a delegation of the Turks led by Sogdian Maniah arrive in Constantinople to trade silk with the Byzantines. The alliance with the Byzantines ceases after the Byzantines break their agreement accept a treaty with Avars, enemies of the Göktürks. The Göktürks seize a Byzantine stronghold in the Crimea. Subsequent relations would follow in the centuries after this with a variety of Turkish tribes:
Elias (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Beshogur I've done a complete rewrite of the Göktürks section, expanding on it and checking sources that I found across several Wikipedia pages to ensure the content has the most accurate narrative. This may be useful to other pages to increase the quality that I notice you've also been an editor to. I still question the relevance on this to the article given the time gap to modern relations but it was interesting to work on this. There is a gap until the Seljuks which I'm not sure how to link this section to that but I'm now done with my edits and moving onto other parts of the history. Elias (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Elias looks great, could you also update this on the First Turkic Khaganate article?
@Beshogur: Done. Thank you for making this initial contribution and opening my eyes, it was a fun to learn about this history Elias (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
This is on C, pre-1830. I'm writing this general knowledge to ensure we are talking from a common understanding and can be backed by reliable evidence if questioned.
The modern Greek state draws its identity from the classical age of ancient Greek states and the medieval Roman Empire (the Byzantine Empire): geography, language, religion, civil law code, etc. Why this is relevant to this page, is that the Megali Idea policy of Greece is what drove the creation and expansion of the Greek state up until what I call modern relations, when Turkey was created (or the period that I call (B).
Turkey itself has an Ottoman heritage but as a modern state especially up until 1970 has tried tried to forget this past and instead draw its identity as the Turkic people that originated from Central Asia. This is probably why it's included in the page now. I'm not sure how this is relevant to modern relations but because Turkish identity is tied to this, it plays out - for example in some efforts by Turkey to create a alternative to the EU with central Asian countries, which Greece has been a blocker of its progress a major issue of their relations.
But there is also a larger shared history
The 1071 Battle of Manzikert was a pivotal moment with the Byzantine loss of Anatolia and its colonisation by Turkish people and the precursor to the Ottoman Empire. The 1453 conquest of Constantinople was also a pivotal moment which is where I believe the pre-modern relations begin as this is what gives rise to the Greek minority in the Ottoman Empire (Rum Millet, Ottoman Greeks and Ottoman Greece) that underlie the future revolution for Greece from the Ottoman's.
While Greece and Turkey are independent nations of the modern age, they claim heritage to some of the above which shapes modern relations. The disputes around the Aegean and the continental shelf, the Cyprus issue, the issues of minorities in the respective countries is a major part of modern foreign relations. You cannot understand these issues without understanding the broader history and by focusing on only one narrative of history it distorts it to look beneficial for one party over the other. Maybe by looking at these issues independently this can help answer what pre-modern history we include
  • This is an example of history being used selectively to shape modern relations. The Cyprus issue, a major point of contention, is narrated by the Turkish Government as follows: "Cyprus has seen a succession of rulers, namely Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders and Turks who ruled the Island as part of the Ottoman Empire from 1571 until 1878. Cyprus has never been a Greek Island." With the Turk's claiming their Ottoman heritage but denying the Greeks of their Roman/Byzantine/Hellenistic Era heritage, they shape the narrative to their benefit.

Elias (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Separate to my comments on (C), this is for (A) -- a perspective from the reputable think tank Geopolitical Futures that helps explain modern relations to help narrate and expand on the current article, to make it less news/event based and more big picture. Elias (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the copyright violation above. Elias, it is not permissible to insert copyrighted content anywhere on Wikipedia and this is particularly important to avoid in talk pages. Please have a read of WP:C. --GGT (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

My apologies and thank you for letting me know. Elias (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Byzantine–Göktürk relations

Hi @Diannaa or any other admin

The extensive edits I made were flagged for copyright for a new reference I included. I've gone in and removed all statements referenced to restore the article's integrity. Please remove the copyright notice now.

I've copied the old text here and will review it for a rewrite today and only add it back once someone else can sign off on it: Talk:Greece–Turkey relations/Temp

I'm not sure what I did wrong, but I also know I'm still learning how to balance the using sources for the narrative without making it look like opinion. I sincerely apologise for this hassle and know how serious this is. Elias (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I have checked your rewrite at the temp page and find that it does not appear to be fixed adequately yet. Please view this report to see the overlap. Please don't quote text from your source or add commentary on the temp page; just put your proposed rewrite there. That way, it will be easier to check your proposed text. Thank you,— Diannaa (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
That helps, thanks! I've done as you asked, please check it now. The biggest issue and which remains is almost entirely due to a quote from a primary source which I referenced but appears as well in the medievalworlds journal, I don't think this is a copyright issue Elias (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry that's not adequately paraphrased. You are presenting the same ideas in the same order, and have only changed the wording a bit to get a clean result. But this is called Close paraphrasing, as it's only superficial modification that does not remove the copyright issue.— Diannaa (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the crash course. I've reflected, rewritten and reconsidered the sources used. I hope this latest revision meets the standard expected. Elias (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greece–Turkey_relations/Archive_5&oldid=1136776567"