Talk:Turkish War of Independence/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Ethnic cleansing" and similar in the lead

I noticed at WP:AN that this is in the news in Turkey and seems to make people there angry. I'm all for following reliable academic sources whether or not it angers nationalists on one side or another of a border. In this case, I haven't read the sources and won't express an opinion on whether the article should describe this war as related to or comprising ethnic cleansing (although it does sound plausible with my limited knowledge of the subject).

But there's one huge problem: the lead boldly asserts thrice that the war was in part about ethnic cleansing, but the body of the article is entirely silent about the topic, apart from an empty section with the title "Ethnic cleansing". That's really, really bad editorial work, and people are right to be annoyed about it. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article. Per MOS:LEADNO, "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". If there's nothing in the body about ethnic cleansing, nothing about it should be in the lead. The same goes for the lead's references to "genocide of Christian minority groups" and "massacres and deportations in order to eliminate native Christian populations". These are all very important aspects of the topic that would need massive coverage and sourcing in the body in order to show up at all in the lead, let alone to this extent.

I'm therefore temporarily removing this material from the lead until somebody can cover it in appropriate detail in the body, using high-quality sourcing. @FDW777 and Buidhe: as experienced editors of this article you may want to get on that. Sandstein 21:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The appropriate solution would be expanding the text not removing it, I have already stated this issue earlier and then added Histography section as per WP:SOFIXIT.--Visnelma (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Good move Sandstein, I was just reading the body and found it lacking in details, and was going to do the same. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, the appropriate solution would be expanding the article body, as I wrote. But until somebody does that (and I cannot, lacking relevant sources and knowledge), the appropriate solution is absolutely to remove the material from the lead per MOS:LEADNO. Even then, the mention of the topic in the lead should be proportionate to its coverage in the body, per the same MOS guidance. Sandstein 21:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This was brought up, by me, above at #Content missing from body? I had hoped some progress would have been made by now. I don't have access to the references, other than the quotes provided. FDW777 (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote above in another section, I agree that the words 'ethnic cleansing' should not be in the first sentence of the lede. This is especially more so if it's not in the body. The ethnic cleansing that happened as a result of the war, for example in the burning of the Greek part of Smyrna, should be put in historical context in the body. Putting it on equal footing in the first sentence of the lede makes it seem like it was a core aim of the war, which is not reflected in modern Turkish historiography, in books like Zurcher's Turkey A Modern History, for example. I agree that we shouldn't be affected by what nationalists think, but the problem here is that we risk recounting this war from a very Occidentalist perspective if we totally ignore the Turkish perspective that the war was fought as a liberation war against occupation by Allied forces. Without discounting that ethnic cleansing did happen as a result of the war, and atrocities were committed by both Turkish and Greek armies on each other's communities, significant ethnic cleansing had already happened before the independence war, and continued after with the population exchanges which followed. Prominently labelling this war as having the purpose of ethnic cleansing is problematic from a historical perspective, and also has the attendant risks of further prejudicing Turkish media against Wikipedia and making problems for our Turkish Wikimedia community in their attempts to promote the projects in their own country. I think the lede could reflect further down that ethnic cleansing took place without it being so prominently put in the first sentence. Jwslubbock (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There seems to be a couple highly zealous editors here who are trying to rush the whole discussion process and circumvent the reliability ensurance just to edit the lead accordingly to their own views, not of the articles. --DriedGrape (talk)

This isn't a good reason to remove content from the lead that is adequately supported. Rather it's a reason to add content to the body. The guideline you cite states, "This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article." (t · c) buidhe 21:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Buidhe, and the section has been improved. Also other consequences for other projects should not be a factor when we are writing an article. Also according to reliable sources, ethnic cleansing took place which is important enough to be mentioned in the lead.--Visnelma (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Sandstein, that was the right call. I also note that a proper consensus was never really established for the definition of this event as an ethnic cleansing campaign. Before this blew over with this mob business, I had voiced my concerns above that the sources that have been used for this definition 1) mostly describe an ethnic cleansing campaign besides the Turkish War of Independence, rather than defining the War of Independence as an ethnic cleansing campaign (with the exception of a limited number of sources) 2) the ones that unequivocally describe the War of Independence as an ethnic cleansing campaign tend to be relatively niche sources, not from mainstream historiography but from the genocide studies field - we should not be having to look at Avedian's obscure journal articles for a definition of the War of Independence when very authoritative reference works are readily available (note that I am explicitly referring to non-denialist literature here) and 3) whilst there appears to be a tendency in newer academic works to increasingly adopt this definition, major reference works such as the Cambridge History of Turkey do not as of yet define the War of Independence as an ethnic cleansing campaign, so by adopting this definition as Wikipedia we are jumping the gun and placing ourselves ahead of the scholarship curve. I described my concerns in much greater detail above and don't want to repeat myself. I cannot see how those concerns have been addressed at all, it appears that once Srnec rescinded their objection to this statement, two users agreed to install this definition without really addressing them. Ethnic cleansing does certainly have its place in this article's introduction, but the first sentence is not the place to have it, not yet anyway until this potentially trickles down to major reference works. The disruptive edits of the mob must not hold us Wikipedians back from having a sober talk about this. --GGT (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The Cambridge History of Turkey *is* a denialist work. Probably some parts of it are written to scholarly standard but it was explicitly criticized for its (lack of) coverage and non-acknowledgement of Armenian genocide. I'm fine if we end up not mentioning the ethnic cleansing in the first sentence, but it is a crucial factor in Turkey's existence in its current form, according to reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 22:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I think GGT touched on an important point, that regardless of whether or not establishing the war as a "campaign of ethnic cleansing" is correct, it is a separate event and therefore should not be as prominent in this article. Trying to include anything else besides the conflict between the aforomentioned states and the related wars within the article expands it to something more than what it is and fails being descriptive of the Turkish War of Independence itself or of the ethnic cleansing on both sides. DriedGrape (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Just because there have been criticism by some scholars for not handling the genocide with the depth that it may have (a criticism that I would tend to agree with), we cannot decide to ignore the major reference works on the history of Turkey (and no I would not call it a denialist work, even the critique cited in the article calls it "timid" at its harshest). All major reference works would have their critiques in one form or the other. We may well agree with them but that is not to mean that it should not be those works that are our primary point of reference as an encyclopaedia. This is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. When we start excluding all sources that define the War of Independence otherwise because of this critique or that, gather a selection of articles or chapters that have not even attracted that depth of scholarly attention or scrutiny, as well as use sources that do not explicitly define the War of Independence as an act of ethnic cleansing to define it as such, that starts to sound very much like cherry picking. We are an encyclopaedia, we have to be conservative and behind the curve when it comes to these things. Anyway, I do see a scope for consensus here. I'm fine with mentioning the fact that ethnic cleansing was formative to the formation of modern Turkey - we already have multiple articles that discuss this at depth and it clearly merits being in the lead here too. The first sentence though is too much, too soon. --GGT (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I must say that GGT is not being geniune with his arguments. In Turkish Wikipedia I used the same sources to add the definition ethnic cleansing. Later it was reverted, and I said at least both definitions should be equally mentioned since it is not a fringe theory. But he said, "Hayır, maddenin tek bir tanımı olacaktır..." (No, the article will have only one definition...) But now here he argues, "Ethnic cleansing does certainly have its place in this article's introduction."[1] Besides, he only cites one source while ethnic cleansing was cited with about 12 sources. I am willing to make further translations if needed.--Visnelma (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I wish you already had. You are cherry picking his quotes, as you are doing with your edits frankly, on both the sites and disregarding how he continues to stress his other, quite valid concerns on the reputability of the written material on the article. Also, those two are not conflicting statements. "Definition" and "having a place within the article's introduction". Keep ad hominem out of the argument please.DriedGrape (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

So, you are saying that sources cited in this article are not reliable? Also he cited only one source for what he claims to be mainstream scholarship.--Visnelma (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to learn about what I wrote on tr.wiki can message me for a full translation of the discussion there (it's otherwise not relevant here), for Visnelma I would recommend a look at Graham's hierarchy of disagreement. The only other notable argument here is "you're only citing one source", well academia and Wikipedia don't really work like football, I needn't cite every other history of Turkey here to make my point, and I won't be responding to any more ad hominems. Anyway, thank you Buidhe for your recent edits, the current version is certainly more agreeable with me. --GGT (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What I am saying is you can't claim a view is mainstream by citing only one source whereas there are 12 reliable sources for the other claim.--Visnelma (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

First of all, sorry i am not a Wikipedia writer but i think you guys need an outsider of Wikipedia rules and regulations to see from a different perspective. Wikipedia is a great source when topic is scientific but a horrible place to discuss near and conflicted history. People with more resources can change anything with biased information. And editors who have no idea about that history would just confirm that change because of number of citations.

Imagine if Wikipedia was a thing in 1615 and Galileo Galilei was editing a page about Copernican heliocentrism . With your -more citation means more reliable info- logic you would delete Galileo Galilei's edit and write "Sun is orbiting Earth". Because most of the astronomers of that era was just under the influence of Catholic Church.

My point is Wikipedia should be a place of quality not quantity. If a page is argued this much removing it is better than giving false information to people. Thank you for making my voice heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.133.236.70 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

In the third paragraph of the leed reference to Ronald Grigor Suny is somewhat misleading. The relevent section of the paragraph is/can be read as follows (unrelated parts are omitted): "With the war, elimination of Christians,[62] (...) came to an end, and (...) the Turks created the modern, secular nation-state of Turkey." The referenced part of Ronald Grigor Suny's work is follows: "The Armenian Genocide, along with the killing of Assyrians and the expulsion of the Anatolian Greeks, laid the ground for the more homogeneous nation-state that arose from the ashes of the empire. Like many other states, including Australia, Israel, and the United States, the emergence of the Republic of Turkey involved the removal and subordination of native peoples who had lived on its territory prior to its founding." I have the book and examined it. The book does not examine the events during TWoI. Even the writer claims that the Genocide ended on January 1917 (see p.330: "The Genocide of the Armenians can be said to have ended by late January 1917."). The book refers to TWoI only one time on p.342 ("The Turkish War of Independence came to an end a month later with the armistice signed on October 11, 1922, at Mudanya") This source does not relate the elimination of Christians with the TWoI. Though, elimination of Christians (prior or during the TWoI) might be deemed to have laid the groundwork for nation-state building and the sentence in the leed might be deemed correct, this source cannot be referenced for a claim linking TWoI to elimination of Christians, since it does not make one. It must be further elaborated with other references. Megalomanda138 (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Protecting the discussion page

@Jeppiz: @Paradise Chronicle: @SilentResident: Constantly, same arguments repeat itself without reliable sources being cited which do not help the article to get improved. Maybe the discussion page should be protected again.--V. E. (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Visnelma: Talk Page cannot be locked from auto-confirmed editors without locking all auto-confirmed editors from accessing it, I think. That could be too extreme. You may just ignore them and try discuss with the rest of editors who aren't WP:FILIBUSTERing and who are really interested in improving the article. Keep up the good work! Also User:Buidhe is quite an asset in this topic area, considering their vast knowledge of Turkey-related issues, so, try consider cooperating together. I don't know history very well but I will be gladly here to assist in any way I can. . --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

You should keep it open, there is alot to be gained by it. Also Its good verification of peoples point of views as they discuss topics. We are all influenced by our ideology/past educations ect. I want to keep reading time to time as different discussions happen. Lets not be too extreme when challenged. I found buidhe's reply valuable, even though I don't agree with it. --Oyond (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that people are repeating same arguments without citing reliable sources, not having different opinions.--V. E. (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Topic is on turkish news

https://www.yenicaggazetesi.com.tr/mobi/wikipediada-buyuk-skandal-turk-kurtulus-savasina-iftira-attilar-450203h.htm Shadow4dark (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, you're in that, take care. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

https://www.internethaber.com/wikipediada-turk-kurtulus-savasi-skandali-iftira-attilar-2182053h.htm https://haberiskelesi.com/2021/05/04/wikipediada-turkiyeye-buyuk-saygisizlik/ They just copy paste the news from each other, lol.--Visnelma (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

https://www.aydinlik.com.tr/vikipedi-de-kurtulus-savasimiza-alcak-iftira-243224-1#1--Visnelma (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop removing these links, they are highly relevant to this article, can be incorporated potentially and give editors who look at this talk page a heads up on impending disruption. Grogudicae👽 17:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure these are all reliable but they are certainly relevant and should be discussed here, especially considering the coordinated attempt to change content in the article to suit the above mentioned sources and WP:POV. Grogudicae👽 17:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shadow4dark:, what do you mean under attack? Every other article is under attack by ip users. I can list dozens here. You simply ask for a page protection. That's it. Beshogur (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

See above, page is already under protection. Shadow4dark (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shadow4dark: that's what I am telling. Placing this above like a reddit post is really necessary? Beshogur (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It's also a good way to start a discussion on whether or not Yeniçağ should ever be used at all, considering it's in mainspace 160 times. Grogudicae👽 17:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Beshogur you also alluded to this being original research, can you enlighten me as to how you drew this conclusion? Grogudicae👽 18:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: that's not a third party talking about the news being written, simply you can't put these in an article and make your own statement. Beshogur (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that we would use this as the sole source for anything and that's why I said "should be discussed" instead of edit warring to remove topically relevant content from the talk page. Yodadicae👽 18:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that moving the use of 'ethnic cleansing' from the first sentence of the lede to somewhere else in the lede would probably be wise for a number of reasons. We can acknowledge that ethnic cleansing happened during this war without putting it so provocatively in the first sentence of the lede, which, from a Turkish perspective, seems calculated to offend. Given that Wikipedia was banned for 2.5 years in Turkey by the government, and given the Sevres Syndrome which prevails across much of the nationalist media in that country, it seems to me unwise to give such prominence to this aspect of the war. While I absolutely think that the article should talk about this aspect of the war in its body, putting it in the first sentence makes it seem like a very Western-perspective article. Because we are having this discussion in English on English Wikipedia, you won't get a lot of Turkish Wikipedians coming here to give their perspective, and I worry that the lack of this perspective risks us ignoring the strong consensus in Turkey around the image of this war as one fought primarily to defend the rump of the Ottoman Empire from Western invading forces. Again, I would emphasise that I think this article should give prominence in the body to instances of ethnic cleansing such as the burning of the Greek quarter in Smyrna, but the majority of the ethnic cleansing that happened at the end of the Ottoman Empire took place before the independence war began. Putting it prominently as one of the objectives of this war will be totally rejected by Turkish Wikipedians and most historians, gives an Occidentalist slant to the article, and also risks devaluing and damaging the work of our Turkish Wikimedia community to promote the projects in their country. I would strongly argue that these words should be moved to somewhere else in the lede and given less prominence as an objective of the war. Jwslubbock (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely don't agree that we should change our content—not because it violates core content policy, but in order to be accepted anywhere in the world. For the same reason, we should not compromise our neutrality on issues like Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjiang in order to get unblocked in China. If this view of the war is indeed "totally rejected by... most historians" then you would easily find reliable sources saying that's the case. (t · c) buidhe 20:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with Jwslubbock that we should give in to Turkish POV. If the Turkish Wikipedia community wants to change content, it can, but with reliable sources. Turks once need to learn, that what is taught to them in schools and through the media is often just not true, when it comes to minorities or the political opposition.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Including both POV's is not "giving in" into any one of them. Your second sentence is extremely racist and presumptuous and I hope you are not editing any articles with such misguided assumptions. DriedGrape (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Gonna add my voice to the chorus here. The ruffled sensibilities of Turkish nationalists is something that we, in the end, should pay no heed to. This kind of bullying has been taking place for more than a century, from everything from preventing film adaptions of the Armenian Genocide from being made to removing any references to the genocide in school curricula in the United States (!). Should we kowtow to the whims of autocrats like Erdogan or the CCP for that matter every time we write about the genocide or Kurds or Uighurs or Tibet? Gotta say, it's pretty cool to see that this much dust is kicked up on the Turkish websites, but this is nothing new. Scholarship has progressed so rapidly in the last decade that suddenly these positions are not as controversial as the din and howl of the press are making it out to be. I will, however, concede that we should not get head of the scholarship and that a case can be made to include mention of the ethnic cleansing campaigns in the second or third paragraphs (all things being equal). Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• What a shitstorm of controversy this has caused. I saw this at WP:RSN. It is always disappointing to see a fellow Wikipedian attacked in the press for their viewpoint. Everyone here is entitled to their opinion and threats and intimidation are not something we cowtow to around here. But, I don't see consensus for the present version either, although it does look as if a weak consensus is forming to include this, in some fashion, somewhere in the lede. Due to the history of edit warring here and the very controversial nature of these recent changes I think we should start an orderly RfC to explore consensus for language and positioning of the content. I'm going to leave it up to you what the wording of that proposal will be as I don't crave any further involvement in this intense and highly unpleasant controversy that has already resulted in the harassment of an editor. From the discussion at RSN (which I did not participate in) I just don't see us using these as reliable sources for the article. Spudlace (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I see no discussion at RSN that suggests the references (listed at Talk:Turkish War of Independence/Archive 2#Citation needed tag should be added (see also in the article at Turkish War of Independence#cite note-:0-62 are not reliable. Nor would there be, since anyone bothering to look at the quality of the references would see they are 100% reliable. FDW777 (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

There is so much activity on the talk page, some disruptive and some from good faith contributors, that it's become difficult to navigate. The discussion at RSN, though poorly attended was about the recent newspaper articles, also the subject of this section. Obviously, we don't use them as WP:RS. Spudlace (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

New News

1. https://haberiskelesi.com/2021/05/07/wikipediadan-geri-adim-o-skandal-ifade-kaldirildi/
2. https://www.gercekgundem.com/guncel/272815/wikipedia-tartisma-yaratan-etnik-temizlik-ifadesini-kaldirdi--V. E. (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

   I guess info would be good for the discussion: Topic is on Turkish news. I'll move it up there as the talk page for now is long and repetitive. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Neutrality

Fails WP:NPOV: "An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant." And judging by the constant disruptive edits/warrings and discussions, it seems that the dispute will continue for a while. ภץאคгöร 22:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Nothing actionable. Unless you present a proper rationale, it should be removed again. FDW777 (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason has been provided for the tag. Tags are meant to direct attention to actionable problem; using them merely because one dislikes the article is just disruptive, especially when edit-warring over them. Jeppiz (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. A general "the article isn't neutral" is insufficient, as there is no information for editors to identify which parts of the article are supposedly non-neutral. FDW777 (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring to remove a paragraph

There has been a slow burning edit war to remove the paragraph about the term "Kurtuluş Savaşı" - I don't have an opinion one way or another but feel that it should be discussed here to prevent further disruption as it does appear to be sourced so I'm not sure I understand the implication that it's propaganda. BEACHIDICAE🌊 20:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Gazete Duvar is a reliable source in Turkish. They claim that it is not mentioned in the source but it actually is:

Bu noktada ilk olarak “Kurtuluş Savaşı” kavramına dikkat çekmek istiyorum. Bence tırnak işareti ile kullansak da yanlış, çünkü bu kavram, Türkiye’yi emperyalist güçlerin kurbanı olarak gösteriyor. Azınlıklar da emperyalist güçlerin beşinci kolu olarak görülüyor. Bu tarih anlatımı, bugüne dek devam ediyor ve sadece İslamcı ve sağ görüşlü kesimlerce değil, solcular tarafından da benimseniyor. Oysa Birinci Dünya Savaşı, Osmanlı veya İttihatçılar tarafından sürülen bir yayılma savaşıydı, Orta Asya’ya kadar ilerlemeyi hedeflediler ve kaybettiler. Henüz 1918 sonbaharında Osmanlı ordusu Bakü’yü işgal etti ve bütün o bölgeye yayılmayı hedefliyordu. Mağlup olunca kendilerini mağdur ve kurban olarak gösterdiler. Savaş, gayrimüslim cemaatler için çok kötü sonuçlar doğurdu. Zaten “Kurtuluş Savaşı” İslami bir projeydi, milli müdafaa cemiyetleri, İslami örgütler olarak kuruldu. Kitaplarda öğrendiğimiz emperyalist güçlere karşı sürdürülen bir savaş olduğu ama fiilen Doğu’da Ermenilere ve Batı’da Rumlara karşı verilen bir savaştı.

Even a rough machine translation will prove that the text mentions it.--V. E. (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I've since reverted again as it appears to push a narrative that I'm not seeing in the translation. BEACHIDICAE🌊 21:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The edit by Nyxaros was actually good if they did not omit the last sentence and changed "depicted themselves" to "appeared as". Except for those two points, I think it gave the text a better flow.--V. E. (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to you restoring the good parts of it, if you are so inclined. I don't read Turkish and I'll trust your judgement on this. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I remember reading that before. Those type of articles are hard to find and requires excessive research. I am very surprised you were able to find one by google translation. Well Few clarification needed. "Zaten “Kurtuluş Savaşı” İslami bir projeydi". That directly translates into "In essence, " War of Independence" was an Islamic Project". The problem with such statement is that it contradicts what has happened after the war of independence. Secularization of the Turkish State. I read authors such as that before, I can see where his views and intentions come from. It is True some Turkish/Kurdish left is against "anti-Imperialist Nature" because the momvement was Nationalist-Bourgeoise. And it was Nationalist-Bourgeoise. But in order for nation to exist it had to fight against all of western imperialist participation/partition. I also noticed few people mentioned maybe the confusion on turkish side comes from the name. It does not. Considering Tready of Sevres, it was war of existence. Which also Went against Greek and Armenian(allied to west) interests in the Region. I posted two links before that directly verifies Lenins outlook an turkish war of independence. Which as a third party(not invested, socialist state) is reliable. But if that is not enough here is English article about Ghandis outlook to turkish war of independence. Basically the war itself was viewed as anti-british(west imperialist) by the third parties and gathered good amount of support by the subjects living under British Opression. They went as far as providing material help to fund the war effort. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/mahatma-gandhi-turkish-contours-of-indias-independence-movement/1599549. Also alternatively I would recommend this article: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/20681 "Bu durumdaki bir ulusun, bağımsızlık savaşı verdikten sonra, emperyalist güçleri yenerek, bağımsız bir devlet olarak ortaya çıkabilmesi ve yaşamını bu şekilde sürdürebilmesi kuşkusuz ki, anti-emperyalist nitelikte bir harekettir.". I am pretty sure Visnelma or Yourself can translate this article with proper sources. It talks about deliberate stalling of Ottoman Industrial revolution and its external economic dependence to the European powers before the Independence War. Its pretty well cited. If not I can do it for you. My Turkish is not too good but I can try my best. All this being said once again we are cherry picking articles that suits a narrative. At this point I have to ask for permission to make edition to this article(waiting till protection status lifted is no longer feasible). The Strong POV in this article needs to be immediately balanced by other authors. Otherwise there is risk of turning this Wiki page into Propaganda tool. If wikipedia is not open sourced and restricted to few privileged user, let me know. Addition: I dislike using the term Turkophobia because because it involves victom mentality( I find victom mentality very hindering, prevents development). But if there is systematic discrimination against the Turkish side on what they can contribute, then the term turkcophobia to the privileged authors truly applies. Oyond (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead section update proposal

I have updated historiography section. The war had Islamist characteristics but this is not mentioned in the lead. Can we update the lead in accordance with historiography section? What do you think? @FDW777: --V. E. (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Visnelma: I would somewhat like a stronger source first. Right now that paragraph is sourced to an interview with a scholar, I would much prefer us to cite one of the scholar's works, which would be peer reviewed and probably more accurate as it's subject to more review than an "in the moment" statement. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Are Turkish Sources Allowed

The following discussion 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.

---

I want to make sure Turkish sources that counteracts(With Evidence) Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide are allowed before I do anything in this page(granted they ever release this site from Protected status). Or will they be dismissed because they are Turkish. I am starting to notice US vs Them mentality here. I don't want to get into detail why but I certainly can if anyone wishes. I examined it thoroughly and I noticed a lot of the recent edits on this topic are politically motivated. If you are preventing the other side from using their own resources(ei McCarthy), then you are allowing this Wikipedia page to turn into political propaganda tool. In return, this rises a lot of question about Wikipedias Credibility. Oyond (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

To answer your question: Turkish sources are allowed. That you find RS that counteract (with evidence!) Ethnic cleansing and Genocide I doubt. Millions of Christians (Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians) have disappeared and they didn't leave voluntarily.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. What would you identify as Credible Source. What I want to do is set some premise here before anyone writing or sources are falsely dismissed as simply "Genicode Denial" or Anti-Christian. Extending 1915 events to Turkish War of Independence intentional. There will be casualties since war was fought with weapons... And yes it was literally Christian(Allied Powers) vs Muslims(Turkey). Saying Christians was killed therefore Genocide is contradictory. Tbh there are a lot of contradictions in this page I want to address once the protection is lifted. For example: Most of the pro Armenian articles sited here are written after 2000, but there is not a single mention of Bolsheviks/Lenin's outlook to Turkish War of Independence during 1920's. I think its very interesting non allied nation deemed Independence War Anti-Imperialist, war of self-determination. Oyond (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

What a Reliable source (credible source) is, you can read at WP:RS. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

There is good summery of Bolshevics point of view on Turkish War of Independence. This article also talks about Allied forces outlook on Ottoman Empire, and their intent to partition it since 1900's. http://kutuphane.halkcephesi.net/Yazarlarold/Erdogan%20Ahmet/lenin%20National%20liberation%20war%20turkish.htm Each Source mentioned in the article can be easily fact checked by the articles existing in: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/cw/volume45.htm

Mehmet Perincek Also has extensive study on Russian Archives, but it is in Turkish. If anyone has the book maybe they can share it here.

That being said there is also another intentional bias with citations here. Most of the Pro- Armenian Articles supporting Turkish War of Independence Ethnic Cleansing arguments come after 2010. It came as a wave in Academia by Pro Armenian Authors. Some of them are quiet blatantly making academic career out of it. IE: Taner Akcam. If you look at his biography he has not written anything besides this topic. If articles before 2000 are blocked then there is risk of cherry picking sources that serves Anti-Turkish sentiments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.42.14.135 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 17 May 2021 (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.

Turkish sources are allowed. but only sources with turkphobia are allowed. Even though it was written two weeks ago, it is still a reliable source. Example : "Gündoğan, Kazım (4 Haziran 2021). "Osmanlı ve Türkiye'de" . gazeteduvar (Türkçe) . Erişim tarihi: 8 Haziran 2021 ." [64] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.194.181 (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Only Armenian sources are cited in the article.

In general, many sources in the article consist of Armenian sources.This can be easily proven with a simple google search. very simply, you have turned a war of national struggle into an armenian propaganda page.even a comment in an interview is cited as a source. Using such sources makes wikipedia notorious. 90% of the sources cited for ethnic cleansing are Armenian sources. There are 2 editors who use Wikipedia for their own propaganda purposes. and as defense, the Armenian resources are not unsafe resources. Being biased doesn't mean it's unsafe. is called.If you have only one thought for a person, it does not mean that that thought is true.put an end to this extremely funny situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.194.181 (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Not only Armenian, they use every anti-Turkish source for it and consider "reliable", that even includes some news websites, such as gazeteduvar or agos. Could someone (except the user who gave these as "reliable source") explain us why they are reliable?--Isvind (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

certain people continue to carry out black propaganda on this page. this is wikipedia.I hope wikipedia management will take care of this situation.punishes those responsible for this propaganda.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2021

The following discussion 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.

---

I would like to completely remove the following segment of the article due to the source beings used for alternative reasons and deviated out of the main purpose of the article. Also it contradicts few stuff that has been established( Partitioning, Occupation, Secularization of the Turkish republic)

"Preference of the term "Kurtuluş Savaşı" (lit. Liberation War) has been criticized as it causes Turkey to be portrayed as "a victim of imperialist forces". In this version of events, minority groups were a tool of those forces. This historiography has been accepted ever since not only by Turkish Islamists and the right-wing faction but also by the leftists. In fact, Ottoman Empire had joined the First World War with expansionist goals. The CUP government intended to expand the Empire into Central Asia. When they were defeated, however, they depicted themselves as victims. The result of the war was catastrophic for non-Muslim minorities. The Turkish War of Independence was an Islamist campaign conducted against Armenian minorities in the east and Greeks in the west. National Defence Committees were organizations founded with also Islamist characteristics.[64]"

Also moving forward I would like to have ability to edit. I personally think turkish side should have full access to this page at this point. If a certain POV is being pushed biasly then other side needs to have the ability to make changes.

I would like to rewrite this section with following articles:

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/mahatma-gandhi-turkish-contours-of-indias-independence-movement/1599549 ""The Hindus displayed great enthusiasm in raising the Angora Fund and they willingly subscribed to the fund. The Muslims had chosen to starve for some days in order to contribute to the fund meant for the safety of Turkey. These collected funds were sent to Constantinople [Istanbul] from time to time, where it was received by the representatives of Mustafa Kemal Pasha," he wrote. By 1922, 375,000 Turkish liras had gone from India to help Turkish coffers."

https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/20681

Gerçekten de o yıllarda, Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı'nın önemini kavrayabilen Doğu toplumları bu savaşta, ellerinden geldiği kadar Türklere destek olmaya çaba göstermişlerdir. Bu durum da Atatürk ve önderi olduğu savaşın anti-emperyalist amacını anlamak bakımından önemli bir kanıttır. 7. Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı'nın yapıldığı yıllarda sömürge konumunda olan ve daha sonra emperyalizme İcarşı başkaldıran bu toplumların önderleri de, Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı'nı anti-emperyalist bir savaş olarak kabul etmişler ve bu savaşın önderi olan Mustafa Kemal'i saygıyla selamlamışlardı. Bu önderlerin ve temsilcisi oldukları örgütlerin görüşlerine kısaca değinmekte yarar vardır. Örneğin; Hint bağımsızlık hareketinin önderi Mahatma Gandi başkanlığında, Ahmetabad'ta toplanan Hindistan Ulusal Kongresi, 27 Aralık 1921'de - Sakarya Utkusu sonrasında- şöyle bir karar almıştı: "Mustafa Kemal Paşa ve Türkleri büyük başarılarından dolayı kutlar, Hint halkının sevgilerini sunar, Türkiye'nin bağımsızlığının korunması konusunda yardımlarını sürdüreceğini belirtir."31

Hint Meclis Başkanı S ir Abdürrahim ise, Atatürk'ün Doğu dünyası için öneminden söz ederken şunları söylüyordu: "O, uğraşlanyla, yalnız Türkiye'ye değil, bütün Doğu dünyasına kurtuluş yolunu göstermiştir. O tarih büyüğünün, O Türk kahramanının, O Doğu'nun kurtuluş ve uygarlık önderinin eserlerini her zaman sevgi ve saygıyla anacağız."32 Yine Hint Parlamento Kurulu Başkanı Madam Sucheta Kripalani de Atatürk ile ilgili görüşlerini şöyle dile getirmişti: "Atatürk, yalnız Türk Ulusu'nun değil, özgürlüğü uğrunda savaşan bütün ulusların önderiydi. O'nun direktifleri altında siz bağımsızlığınıza kavuştunuz. Biz de o yoldan yürüyerek özgürlüğümüze kavuştuk."33 Pakistan özgürlük hareketinin önderi ve bağımsız Pakistan'ın kurucusu M. Ali Cinnah da, Atatürk için aşağıdaki değerlendirmeyi yapmış ve; "O, Türkiye'yi kurmakla bütün dünya uluslanna Müslümanlann seslerini duyuracak kudrette olduğunu kanıtladı. Kemal Atatürk'ün ölümüyle, Müslüman dünyası en büyük kahramanını kaybetmiştir. Atatürk gibi bir önder önlerinde bir ilham kaynağı olarak dikildiği halde, Hint Müslümanları bugünkü durumlarına hâlâ razı olacaklar mı?"34

diye sormuştu.

Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı yıllarında, bir Fransız sömürgesi olan Tunus'un Devlet Başkanı Habib Burgiba da, o dönemde bütün Tunuslu gençlerin, bu savaşa ve Atatürk'e büyük bir hayranlık duyduklarını ve kendilerinin de böyle bir önderin özlemiyle yanıp tutuştuklarını vurguladıktan sonra şöyle söylemişti: "Mustafa Kemal'in kişiliği, halk kitlelerinin ayaklanması ve halk mücadelelerinin ölçüsü olmuştur. Bu mücadeleler O'nun ölümünden sonra gelişmiş, Doğu ve Batı bloklarının arasındaki üçüncü dünyaya da geçmiş ve onları sömürge baskısından kurtarmıştır."35 Yine o yıllarda, İngiliz sömürgesiyken bağımsızlığına kavuşan Afganistan Kralı Amanullah Han da, Atatürk'ü ziyaret eden ve O'na çok büyük bir hayranlık duyan bir Doğu ulusunun yöneticisi olarak Atatürk için; "O büyük insan yalnız Türkiye için değil, bütün Doğu ulusları için de en büyük önderdi."3

Each section talks about support Turkish War of Independence has from all the subjects under colonial powers. I can translate more here if you wish.

http://kutuphane.halkcephesi.net/Yazarlarold/Erdogan%20Ahmet/lenin%20National%20liberation%20war%20turkish.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/nov/21.htm

The Aggression, which lead to Turkey occupying Armenia was actualy initiated by the Armenian Attack due to Armenian Nationalist tendencies of Dashnaks:

'On August 14, Lenin meeting with the Turkish delegates emphasized that the “Soviet Governments policy is to render assistance to the oppressed people of the east” . During the course of the Soviet-Turkish talks from late July to August 24, 1920, a treaty of friendship treaty was drafted. The disagreement came about on the question of establishing a border line between Turkey and Armenia. Turkey’s foreign minister, Bekir Sami, who favored closer relations with Britain, deliberately mislead the Ankara government, and tries to set the leaders against the Soviet republic. Expectedly so, as Lenin points out; “the Entente diplomats provoked Dashnak Armenia's attack on Turkey. The Dashnak nationalist party, then in power in Armenia (1918-20), pursued an aggressive policy with regard to Turkey and aimed at establishing a "Greater Armenia" that would include nearly half of Asia Minor. On September 24, 1920 the Dashnak government began hostilities against Turkey, but five days later the Turkish troops checked the Dashnak offensive and, in a counter-offensive lasting from September to November occupied Sarykamysh, Kars and Alexandropol. The Turkish Government decided to take advantage of the adventurist Dashnak policy and occupy the whole of Armenia.””” (Lenin, our foreign and domestic position)'

To be honest at this point this is more of a test against wikipedias bias's, and if certain circles are being promoted to say what they want without any challenge then this project is doomed to fail. Even deleting an section by saying "bias source that deviates from what the original article is about" is itself a challenge and should be allowed. Oyond (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Not done, the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

X to y:Deletion of that segment. Addition with new sources. Are you saying you would like to know what the change might look like in writen form. Others dont have to justify what they wrote after the fact its writen. Oyond (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You might want to begin with a phrase which you want to have added or adapted. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, doable. Instead of that section I highlighted(very poorly written tbh, with alternative intention) non western outlook that also supplements "ortodox" view can be added for starters. But that raises a serious question on my part. Under what circumstances does the person have free ability to change this article without having to pre-emptively write x to y? Again these are serious questions that needs to be asked at this point. Oyond (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

One must start with reliable sources. Unfortunately, those cited above do not appear to be reliable. aa.com.tr is a news agency, not reliable for historical topics. The third and fourth (marxists.org) sources are dodgy websites and definitely not reliable for this topic. (t · c) buidhe 18:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe. Once again I have to point out the double standard I been talking about. Preference of the term "Kurtuluş Savaşı" (lit. Liberation War) has been criticized as it causes Turkey to be portrayed as "a victim of imperialist forces". In this version of events, minority groups were a tool of those forces. This historiography has been accepted ever since not only by Turkish Islamists and the right-wing faction but also by the leftists. In fact, Ottoman Empire had joined the First World War with expansionist goals. The CUP government intended to expand the Empire into Central Asia. When they were defeated, however, they depicted themselves as victims. The result of the war was catastrophic for non-Muslim minorities. The Turkish War of Independence was an Islamist campaign conducted against Armenian minorities in the east and Greeks in the west. National Defence Committees were organizations founded with also Islamist characteristics.[64] itself is sourced from similar source as aa.com.tr. But because it plays into a narritive that is promoted, it is accepted by the current circle. Second, would you consider Lenins own writing from Marxist.org a dogy site? My main point of writing this was to expose intentions here, what gets free pass and what doesn't. I didnt expect to be able to modify this article, would have been great if i could but I have realistic expectations :) Oyond (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Lenin's own writing is not a reliable source. Marxists.org does host some primary sources on Marxist related topics and can be used as an external link where relevant, but secondary sources should be used to source content. All the sources I cited in this article are scholarly sources, mostly peer-reviewed. (t · c) buidhe 18:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Buidhe but your actions contradict your words. The following suggestion and addition has your approval :This news article here[11] states that movements of other factions in the war should not be considered as a revolt but rather a civil war. You can read the article for detailed information.--V. E. (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)".It seams using news article or sources becomes problematic when it doesnt apply to the narritive being promoted. I'll let this be my final comment here. I wanted some confirmation of my suspicions, and i wanted it to remain here for others to see going forward. This project is doomed to fail, which is fine. Overall it has proven to be very usefull and insightfull tbh. Maybe I'll come back later to see final product of this circles pov. Edit: I'll leave it to more experienced turkish users to archive/cross-examine and report the problems I meantioned to the higher authorities.Oyond (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The source defended is an excerpt from an interview held in 2021. such nonsense will even be enough to question the reliability of the sources you have added before. Gündoğan, Kazım (4 Haziran 2021). "Osmanlı ve Türkiye'de" . gazeteduvar (Türkçe) . Erişim tarihi: 8 Haziran 2021

• Contrary to this assertion, I am not the only one editing the article. For edits by other users, you will have to ask them. (t · c) buidhe 02:58, 17 June 2021 (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.

Edit warring on this article

@Buidhe: If there is a problem with disruption in the talk page discussions it should be reported to administrators. I see some things that might be disruption and should be resolved by administrators who are not involved, but there is plenty of good faith discussion mixed in and it clearly is controversial. It was removed by an administrator, who started the discussion section. I'm not that worried about the result as long as you get the consensus for it. I'm strongly recommending an RfC over continued edit warring. Spudlace (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Two reverts over multiple days is not "edit warring". Discounting SPA editors is common practice. Your reversion of well-sourced material is however unwarranted. (t · c) buidhe 09:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Which SPA editors are you referring to? There is a lot of recent discussion but I don't know who is SPA or whether we would just ignore them for consensus. I think uninvolved editors would do the close. Spudlace (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted Spudlace and warned them for edit warring. Spudlace, you're right that there's edit warring going on, but I'm afraid you're very much the one most engaged in it. Your constant removal of well-sourced content is also troubling and has not been sufficiently explained. Quite the contrary, the content is better sourced than at least 99.99% of all sentences on Wikipedia. That some users don't like it is not a reason to censor it. Jeppiz (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Tag team edit warring is still edit warring. I made a mistake in reading Sandstein's reasons for removing the content. He is administrator so I took it seriously but I was just reviewing the discussions when you started personalizing this, Jeppiz. When I see an involved editor calling other contributors "trolls" who don't count towards consensus (as buidhe did) I take it seriously. It's enough to justify my revert and request that you start an RfC for this major and (potentially) controversial change to the lede of a highly visible article. Without getting that stable consensus we all know it will be a source of persistent disruption for the project and that is not what I am about. You can put those accusations right back where you found them. Spudlace (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

People disagreeing with you is not edit warring.... (t · c) buidhe 10:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Spudlace:, your attitude is troubling. You accuse others of edit warring but do edit war yourself; you accuse others over their behaviour but get upset if your own identical behaviour is mentioned. In short, you seem to believe you WP:OWN this article and that it is for you alone to decide on the content and to comment on others. All those beliefs are very much mistaken; the same rules apply to you as much as to anyone else. Regarding the matter at hand, you still have not provided any argument refusing the many sources used here. Jeppiz (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

All the changes were debated and discussed. The current version is the consensus version. It is Spudlace who should be opening a new discussion or RFC if s/he thinks it's a problem. But BRD and normal editing are how we got to the current lead. There was opposition to the initial change and the current version is a compromise. Srnec (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That is so not the case. If you were to read the discussions above, you'd see that many legitimate arguments against and criticism of new sources are simply ignored when mentioned. The article is still horribly inaccurate and leaning towards a POV heavily.DriedGrape (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I saw lots of baseless complaints by meatpuppets recruited by off-wiki posts and news articles, not much in the way of policy based objections though. FDW777 (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Have the meatpuppetry accusations been discussed elsewhere or brought to the attention of uninvolved administrators? Is there evidence to support these accusations? Striking them would help uninvolved patrollers like me evaluate a consensus. Good faith editors would still be expected to follow the policies WP:CONSENSUS WP:ONUS and WP:NPA.

@Srnec: I don't see evidence that this is a consensus for the current version on the talk page. I gave weight to comments by Marshal Bagramyan, an editor who supports inclusion but noted that "I will, however, concede that we should not get head of the scholarship and that a case can be made to include mention of the ethnic cleansing campaigns in the second or third paragraphs (all things being equal)."

The only thing I've asked is to stop restoring a version that does not have consensus and use the talk page to arrive at a consensus version, including where in the lede the content should be included. The accusations of meatpuppetry further support the need for an RfC and uninvolved close, and that I used good judgment when I suggested that option. Spudlace (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyone with eyes can see the herd of Turkish nationalist elephants in the room. Since there are no policy based objections to the content, there is no need for any RFC. There's nothing stopping you starting one. FDW777 (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm genuinely baffled as to what is going on here. At #Topic is on turkish news above Spudface now claims There is so much activity on the talk page, some disruptive and some from good faith contributors, that it's become difficult to navigate. The discussion at RSN, though poorly attended was about the recent newspaper articles, also the subject of this section. Obviously, we don't use them as WP:RS. I ask again, which RSN discussion? I also ask, specifically, which of the references you removed are "recent newspaper articles"? FDW777 (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

FDW777 We can discuss this further and provide you the links to the RSN discussion in the relevant section but please do not comment in unrelated sections. I didn't remove any references from newspaper articles. You also called me Spudface, in error. Spudlace (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Do not move my comments into a sub-section again. They are in direct reply to your edit warring over this issue, caused on your baseless assertion of unreliable references. FDW777 (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It was removed because there is no consensus about whether it is due weight in the current wording and placement in the first paragraph. And, what evidence do you have that other editors are "Turkish nationalists"? Spudlace (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

What evidence? Is that a serious question? Do you really want me to point out every SPA or editor inexplicably returning after a significant break from editing the English Wikipedia, all of which coincidentally happened at the exact same time as the "call-to-arms" on Turkish websites? FDW777 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I do want you to do that because those comments from meat puppets need to be struck. Not all of the editors who have objected to the placement in the first paragraph are meat puppets. User:MarshallBagramyan edits mostly about Armenia. I don't think he was responding to a 'call to arms' on Turkish websites when he said I will, however, concede that we should not get head of the scholarship and that a case can be made to include mention of the ethnic cleansing campaigns in the second or third paragraphs (all things being equal). There are similar remarks from other editors. The issue of due weight is important in respect to getting ahead of scholarship because we will probably have to correct it later. I don't see a consensus for this content should be in the first paragraph at this time. Spudlace (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

The following discussion 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.

---

Luisao Araujo (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

According to the Treaty of Sevres , Izmir/Smyrna (in articles of 65-83) and Eastern Thrace were given to Greece (in article 84), while Rhodes and the 12 Islands were left to Italy (in article 122). According to this Treaty, Anatolia does not have an influence zone given to Italy. And also France. http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/large/cab-24-95.pdf Cabinet Papers 24 / 95 page. 421 (or fourth meeting page 31)

France and England (with the exception of Syria and Iraq) say that there should be no territorial division in Anatolia.

Italy was not for the purpose of occupying to bring 10,000 soldiers to the Anadolia. Italy came to prevent Greece from growing towards Anatolia. And the Turkish Greek war has completely supported the Turks. Even the smallest Turkish-Italian battle was not experienced at this time.

The map on this page is incorrect. I'm showing the right. I prove it. I'm putting the resources. I also say that you can also read the Treaty. No one is listening to me. The only evidence of Anatolia is given to Italy is the 1916 treaty. That was a project and never applied. Revolutionized in Russia. The principles of Wilson were published and land demands are blocked. In addition, the British promised that Indians will not touch the Turks in 1918. In this way, they obtained 1.160,000 soldiers. They won the war in this way. There were many Muslims in India.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Treaty_of_Sèvres_1920_-_English.png

The right map is here. I put this on the Sevres Treaty page. There is no one with Turkish history information there? There is no one that has read the treaty there?Luisao Araujo (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• This is not accurate. Italy did want to annex parts of Anatolia, and initially backed the Greek landings as well. See here for example. Italy switched sides because they thought it was impossible to realize such gains and hoped to get economic concessions from the Turkish nationalists. (t · c) buidhe 08:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

What you said is not true. Italy's Istanbul occupation commissioner, Karlo Sforza, was always pro-Turkish. He did not want the expansion of Greece. Italy actually wanted land in Anatolia. However, England, France and America opposed it. And so he knew he would never be able to do that. The main reason for Italy to send troops to Anatolia was that Greece would land troops. He also aimed to settle his own people in Antalya in the future if he could find the opportunity. However, this was not the 1st goal, but the 2nd goal. Maybe he thought things would change over time.

The only time Italy and Greece got closer was during the time of Tommaso Tittoni. Because the administration in Italy had changed. Tittoni, who took office in June 1919 after the invasion, made an agreement with Venizelos. But he could only stay on duty for 5 months. When Sforza became foreign minister, he immediately condemned Tittoni and this treaty. And again, as before, they withdrew all their support to Greece and turned to a pro-Turkish policy.

Every piece of information in the article you sent confirms my words. I recommend that you read it carefully.

"The territory between Kusadasi and Antalya was recognized as an Italian economic area of ​​penetration." Can you show me which article of this agreement is written? Or does it mean 12 islands and Rhodes?

During the Turkish-Greek war, Italy always secretly supported the Turks. In December 1920, upon the return of the former King of Greece, Constantine, France and Italy, using this as an excuse, openly declared that they would support the Turks against Greece. Because Constantine was the son-in-law of the German king. And he was France's most important enemy after Wilhelm.

Later, public demonstrations and internal opposition broke out in Italy for economic reasons. Revolt movements started in Albania as well. That's why Italy had to withdraw its soldiers here and send them to Tripoli.

As a result, Antalya or Konya was not given to Italy as a zone of economic influence in the Treaty of Sevres. According to the treaty, the capitulations would continue. The given territory is 12 islands.Luisao Araujo (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• No, the Italian sphere of influence in Anatolia was covered in agreements such as San Giovanni Moriana’s Agreements and the Tittoni-Venizelos Treaty in 1919. Your edits on Treaty of Lausanne were reverted. Furthermore, the straits and Constantinople were supposed to be internationalized which is not represented on your map. For historical accuracy it is best to use a historical map that does not take present borders of Turkey as a given, such as this one. (t · c) buidhe 09:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Other maps of Sevres in reliable sources do show zones of influence for Italy and other countries, for example see page 341 in They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else]]. (t · c) buidhe 09:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No, The zones of influence you mentioned in the Venizelos-Tittoni treaty are not found in the Sevres treaty. If you have it, you have to show it. Moreover, Italy canceled the Tittoni venizelos agreement. This treaty was annulled in 1919 after Tittoni left office. It was just a project and it had no validity.

I wrote it as zone of straits on my map. This area is not an international zona. An area owned by the Turkish government, but demilitarized, and the passage of ships in the Straits is provided by an international straits commission. Also, according to this treaty, Istanbul would continue to be the capital of Turkey.The map you showed is completely wrong. Samsun was not left to Armenia. The border was passing near Tirebolu.

On the map in the book you mentioned, it is written that Anatolia was shared according to the Treaty of Sevres. On page 341. However, he does not cite any source for this. I am asking you. In which article is this sharing written in the Treaty of Sevres?

Are you sure you read the treaty?Luisao Araujo (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• I believe that some maps show the spheres of influence and others do not, rather than those which do show the spheres of influence as being inaccurate, as such maps are depicted in reliable sources. Furthermore, maps including the ones you cite display the straits area as a separate international zone, yet that is not shown on your map. I believe we should follow reliable sources rather than try to interpret the treaty for ourselves, which would be WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 10:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not a separate international zona. It is an international zona owned by the Turkish government. Because here, apart from the government, there is a straits commission.

The question I asked you is, in which article of which treaty these zonas of influence are written. I just want you to show me one piece of evidence. And I do not accept any information without evidence. My advice to you is that you should not interpret the treaty in your own way. Also, you shouldn't show me unsourced information. This is also true for information whose source is wrong.

If you can prove it, I will gladly accept it.Luisao Araujo (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Please See. Even the map in Greek history is more accurate than the map in this article.

https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Συνθήκη_των_Σεβρών_(Ελλάς_-_Τουρκία)#/media/Αρχείο:Treaty_sevres_otoman_el.jpg

Luisao Araujo (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2021 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2021

176.41.28.171 (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It says the Turkish nationalist movement carried out massacres and deportations in order to eliminate native Christian populations—a continuation of the Armenian genocide and other ethnic cleansing operations during World War I.[59] These campaigns resulted in the creation of the Republic of Turkey. That is the most racisting thing I've ever heard. The one who makes this mistake should be banned from Wikipedia. I thought this website was the source of the neutral and pure information?

You thought wrong. Wikipedia makes no claims as to if the information here is true, see WP:TRUTH. Only you can decide what is true for you. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic. If sources are not being summarized accurately, please detail the specific errors and corrections desired. If you don't like what the sources say, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia also does not claim to be free of bias; any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2021

I request that the map of the Treaty of Sevres, which was created by consensus on the Treaty of Sevres page, be used on this page as well. Luisao Araujo (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done for now There are different levels on concencus. The concencus you had was on the talk page of Treaty of Serves. The current concencus on this talk page shows that the zones of influence should be included and Straits be labelled as "international zone" on the map. Please establish a concencus on this talk page.--V. E. (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

What would you say to that?

https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Συνθήκη_των_Σεβρών_(Ελλάς_-_Τουρκία)#/media/Αρχείο:Treaty_sevres_otoman_el.jpg

Luisao Araujo (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Therefore, you can't cite an image you found on Wikipedia to support your argument since it is not reliable.--V. E. (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this might interest you.

https://ia801308.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/6/items/literarydigestat00upde_0/literarydigestat00upde_0_jp2.zip&file=literarydigestat00upde_0_jp2/literarydigestat00upde_0_0035.jp2&id=literarydigestat00upde_0&scale=2&rotate=0

This is an official sourced publication.

Luisao Araujo (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Caesar's Dictatorship

The Roman Senate extended his term again and again, until he was a dictator for life! (It actually funnily ended up a shorter term, as he was assassinated the following year). And in this article, the protection gets extended again and again. First framed as a "Hitler's war", fought for a campaign of ethnic cleansing, then CUP-CHP association, and now also the framing of Islamism!

I am not going to write another wall of text criticizing all of these, but I will however kindly ask the people who have the permission to edit add the death toll of 640.000 Turkish civilians at the Western Front in the infobox.

McCarthy, Justin (1995) Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims 1821-1922 Darwin Press, ISBN 9780878500949, Archived 26 May 2013 from its source, accessed 21 May 2011.

Karpat, Kemal H. (1997). "Book Reviews: Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 by Justin McCarthy". The International Migration Review. Sage Publications, Inc. 31 (2): 472. doi:10.2307/2547230. "The Greek invasion of western Anatolia from 1919 to 1922 caused the death of approximately 640,000 Muslims and produced 860,000 refugees ..."

Ergene, Boğaç A. (1997). "Book Reviews: Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 by Justin McCarthy". Turkish Studies Association Bulletin. Indiana University Press. 21 (2): 63. JSTOR 43385387. From 1919 to 1922, about 640,000 Muslims died in the region."

These sources were removed by the user Buidhe in this 9 May 2021 revision.

Book reviews strengthen the credibility of a source, and I see no reason for removal of them; unless one is trying to make the source look uncredible. Also checking the past arguments on this at the talk page, it looks like McCarthy was again discredited via a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, whereas my complaints of the same reason for similar "nationalist" 5 year old sources from the Greek/Armenian POV has been ignored with the same reasoning of "You're doing WP:IDONTLIKEIT." Is there clearly not a double standard here? ed (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest quickly reading the Justin McCarthy (American historian) article, first of all. FDW777 (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I am ok with addition just to balance the pro armenian POV. Whole he denied "genocide" is weak argument. We are talking about the death tolls, and death tolls of a war on the turkish side is underrepresented in western sources. It makes sense for Turkish death tolls to be under represented, considering the nature of the war. Actually this is similar to issue I had. I wanted to add news article as resource...but was denied by buidhe because its news article. Meanwhile good percent of histography section is written by 2 news articles only. --Oyond (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing is not "pro armenian POV", but simple historical fact. Justin McCarthy does not a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, in fact the polar opposite. FDW777 (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I think book reviews are posted by Emre Regarding article already. That being said this actually got my interest I am going to review death tolls in turkish sources. I want to see what they talk about and if they can be incorporated into this project.--Oyond (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is Rummel allowed as source when he actually has no intensicve work on this period while someone who studied the period and is often cited by other respected academians ? Rummel for example says 500k "Central Asian Turks" were killed by the Russians just because Toynbee mentioned it the number without studieing it. ( Most put it around 100k-200k today) He is allowed as source but McCarthy Not? Atabegli (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2021

The following discussion 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.

---

Casualties of Turkish Civilians in Western Anatolia. "When it comes to Muslims population loss, the best estimates are those of McCarthy, who argues for an estimated population loss of 1,246,068 Muslims between 1914 and 1922 in Anatolia, and arbitrarily ascribes 640,000 of those as occurring in the Greek and British zones of operation in 1919–1922" Konstanos Travis has done works of the period 1919-1922, as he has done several researches and wrote a book about the Greco-Turkish War. see here Source: The Turkish War of Independence: A Military History, 1919-1923, Chapter: Appendix A: Casualties by Professor Konstantinos Travlos, page: 352-353, Publisher:ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2021, ISBN:1440878412

Genocide Historians like Donald W. Bleacher, Donald Bloxham also cite his work when it comes to muslims/Turkish losses. So why is his estimates not added?????? Atabegli (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2021 (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.

The estimate in the source for the time line 1919-1922 is given as 640k as you can see. The loss of total Population by comparing the censuses of pre WW 1 and after thr greco-turkish war census shows a population loss of 1.25 (without eastern Thrace).The region saw no fighting in 1914-1918. The Chapter also give estimates for Greek losses, very different from Rummels estimates. Might be added too. Atabegli (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I have seen the Article Greco-Turkish war and there the deadly casualties amounted to ca. 11'000. Maybe try to add some info there as that article is editable for you. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The article says that Turks were happy to be freed from the Turkish Goverment by Greeks which is very bizarre. I've edited it with source. ps: I think the 11,000 is from Rummel, when he actually says "more than 11,000". We know from British, French sources of that time that hundread thousands of Turks were displaced by the Greek army, the head of the French community in Izmir , Elizear Guiffrey, estimates atleast 150,000 dead and 150,000 deported in 1922. Alone in one town the muslims population dropped from 30-40k to 3k. Atabegli (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

So why is it not added? Atabegli (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Impact on Nazi Germany

I removed this section as I believe it's WP:UNDUE, and per WP:BRD I'll expand on my thoughts here. Stefan Ihrig specialises on the comparison of the Turkish nationalist movement and the Nazis, so of course he has written at length about all aspects of how this period in Turkish history was perceived in Germany. That being said, some of that content will have trickled down to more mainstream works and some will be too niche for our mainstream articles such as this one. The key factor here would be whether more general histories of Nazi Germany discuss the Turkish War of Independence as a source of inspiration in the way that the Armenian Genocide is discussed, or vice versa, whether texts on the impact of the Turkish War of Independence discuss the Nazis as an important part of the legacy. The answer AFAIK is no, and basing an entire section just on Ihrig's work is certainly UNDUE for me. Furthermore, Ihrig's chapter on this is actually more of an analysis of the reception of the Turkish War of Independence in the early interbellum German press as an exemplifier of the sort of intellectual fertile ground that allowed the rise of the Nazis, so having an entire section titled "Impact on Nazis" is both uncalled for and unnecessarily sensationalistic. --GGT (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I also agree on that. The Turkish War of Independence was long before the Nazis came into power. If the war was an inspiration for the Nazis, then it should go to the article of the NAZIS. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ihrig's work is not just about the German press' attitude. Ihrig (p. 68) states that Turkish War of Independence had a more definite impact on Beer Hall Putsch than Mussolini's March on Rome. Hitler referenced Atatürk and his nationalistic movement between 1919 and 1923 in his trial (Ihrig, p. 97). Hitler also said he "was copying Atatürk" by abolishing Treaty of Versailles just like Atatürk abolished Treaty of Serves (Ihrig, p. 115). So this war did definitely had a direct influence on Nazis.--V. E. (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I think a mention is definitely warranted as part of overall aftermath/legacy information, but maybe not a dedicated section. (t · c) buidhe 00:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not even some kind of fringe theory. This article discusses impact of Atatürk and his movement (İstiklal Savaşı is used in the article) on Nazi authors even before Ihrig; and it states that there are two other works written on this topic: "Alman Basınında Atatürk ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti 1910–1944", and "Alman Basınında Milli Mücadele ve Mustafa Kemal Paşa (1919–1923)". I should remind that German press' take on this is important for us to understand Germans' and Nazis' view on the war.--V. E. (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course Ihrig makes a direct link to the Nazis, I'm not refuting that, I'm saying that the chapter's focus is not on that. By and large in that chapter, Ihrig analyses how the war was followed in the early interbellum German public discourse and how it fed into the resentment with the Treaty of Versailles. Cherry-picking the most sensationalistic bits from a scholarly work is hardly good encyclopedia-building, and frankly borders on disruption as it takes a very nuanced discussion to then unpick that. The other sources you've cited are either about general German press coverage of Turkey in that history or mention the War of Independence only briefly. And again, no one is saying that this is a fringe theory, please understand the different between something being niche and something being a fringe theory. This is just niche, you won't find major works on the development of Nazism discussing how it was influenced by the Turkish War of Independence or major works on this period discussing how this war impacted the Nazi imagination. What we do need here is generally a section on how the war was received in the Western public discourse. Within that, I'm fine with a couple of sentences at most to discuss German wartime reporting regarding the comparison to the Treaty of Versailles, and perhaps a very brief reference to the Nazis. I still do have my reservations with the latter though, for the reasons previously explained. --GGT (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Ihrig clearly states Nazis were more interested in the TWoI compared to other German nationalists. He also points out that media reporting on twoi stopped abruptly after the failed coup. Ihrig makes direct links in other chapters too, the relationship between Nazis and twoi is not limited to a specific chapter. We see this when he makes references to Atatürk and his movement on the trial. Furthermore this book is cited more than 100 times and also supported by review articles. So, calling it niche would be wrong which afaik is not a term that belongs to wikipedia. (I will be citing the reviews soon.)--V. E. (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Ihrig's book concludes that, based on this review of the book by Dr. H. Seçkin ÇELİK of the Hacettepe University:

" Ihrig points out the problems related to Nazis’ perceptions about Atatürk and Turkey at the conclusion part. For example, he writes in a part as this: “This vision was highly selective and accentuated only what the authors and the Third Reich want to see; it was also extremely settled and rigid, and by 1933 it had turned to stone. Neither Turkish “reality” since 1919 nor any developments in contemporary Turkey were to change this petrified simulacrum of Turkey.”55 According to the author, the policy of Turkey during the Second World War played a role on the continuing of this image. As the foreign policy of Turkey during Second World War has been adequately explained, I want to concentrate on the other points in the conclusion.

First of all, the Nazi image related to Turkey and Atatürk is selective and based on distortions from beginning to end, so it would not be correct to argue that one-time judgments remain same despite changing Turkey. Secondly, from the beginning of the book, the author gave very limited information about the political regime established in Turkey, the objectives of Turkey, the vision of Atatürk, and he has a vague approach about whether the perceptions of the Nazis were real or not. In short, the author did not exactly show distortions nor refrain from giving his own knowledge and interpretations of Kemalism. The author objected to the ones claiming Kemalism is not fascism; but it is “an educational dictatorship”.56 However, he stated in his study that he would not examine whether Kemalism was fascism or not, and here he states his own comments about the relationship between Kemalism and fascism. This contradictory attitude of him is a good example of that neither he avoids of using his own comments and knowledge about Kemalism nor he exactly shows the distortions. As a result, it is a fact that Nazis distorted Atatürk and Kemalism in terms of their own interest, but the author presents this information as well as including the Armenian Question/ “the Armenian Genocide” and the claims that are Turkey’s foreign policy being pro-German. While doing this, he both relies on the insufficient literature review on the true nature of Kemalism and he has an ambiguous attitude according to the distortions of Nazis about Atatürk and Kemalism. And this is a preference that makes it more difficult for readers to understand the subject properly. At this point, the study is not persuasive in terms of the necessary objectivity in scientific work as it also carries serious methodological and analytical problems. "

This review should do the job. This article in Turkish too, it focuses on the Nazi perception of races and the Turkish&Middle Eastern peoples and concludes that the "aryanship" granted to them was for diplomatic reasons, not because Hitler was a "big fan of blue-eyed blonde aryan Atatürk"! Also this quote by hitler in regards to the negotiations with Sir Wilson who was sent by the PM Chamberlain to achieve a "peaceful solution" about German claims on the Sudets, reads: "Germany was treated like [n-racial slur here]! One would not dare treat even the Turks like that!" (Hitler to Wilson, 26 Sept 1938, from Faber, "Munich," Chapter 13)

It also looks like Ihrig can't distinguish the national socialism from fascism. By the way, I must also ask why my request above of the adding of the death toll of 640.000 Turkish people on the Western front was ignored. A news website can be used as a source, Ihrig's book can also; why can McCarthy's book not? ed (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Cherrypicking one review is unhelpful when the book's reception was in fact mostly favorable. A more representative example is Erik-Jan Zürcher's review in Holocaust and Genocide Studies: "In this extremely interesting and well-researched book, Stefan Ihrig shows that

neither Heimatland nor Adolf Hitler was exceptional: the entire nationalist right followed events in postwar Turkey and expressed admiration for the nationalists and their leader... the papers on the whole were rather well informed on the situation in Turkey and their judgement was often accurate—sometimes more accurate than Ihrig gives them credit for... Among the things considered admirable about Turkey was its “national purification”: the Armenian Genocide and the expulsion of the Greeks... It is clear that for the German Right the World War I Committee of Union and Progress and the Kemalists afterwards were part of the same movement, and that the population exchange agreed in Lausanne in 1923 reflected the same Entente aggression that had pushed Turkey to the earlier Armenian killings. This legacy enhanced the Kemalists’ credentials in Nazi eyes. Ihrig’s most important, well supported, and surprising conclusion is that the Kemalist movement in Turkey, rather than the Fascist movement in Italy, formed the most important inspiration for the early National Socialists in Germany."

Anyway, whether German perceptions are accurate (perhaps more accurate than you think) is irrelevant to the question of whether they are covered in reliable sources (certainly) and suitable for inclusion in this article (I believe so). (t · c) buidhe 07:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I finished reading the chapter of the book on Turkish War of Independence. To Be honest it mostly talks about replicating the success as in militaristic sense. That makes sence...As related to article i shared before, any movement that went against the England and France used it as inspiration point. Mostly people under british/france colonies though. It is a success story afterall, and even Ihrig agrees the Anti-Imperialist nature of the war. I In case of Nazis, they used it more as propaganda. This book review concludes(they quote Ihrig’s own word, I am going to take their word for it. Correct me if they are wrong) the following: "Some pro-government voices have been getting very excited about Ihrig’s book, saying it proves the fascist tendencies in elements of the Turkish Republic's founding ideology. That may not be entirely wrong, but it misses the point: The book is fundamentally about German perception, not Turkish reality. Ihrig repeatedly emphasizes that the Nazi vision of Atatürk and Kemalist Turkey was highly selective and unresponsive to actual developments in the country, with the Nazis simply accentuating whatever they wanted to see. Kemalism may well have contained elements that foreshadowed fascism, but the Nazi fascination with Atatürk and Turkey does not in itself prove that Kemalism was fascist. “It only illustrates,” Ihrig suggests, “how selective and predetermined the Nazi vision of Turkey was and … how ambiguous the Kemalist project still was, that it could ‘accommodate’ such perceptions.”. Review can be found here:https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/william-armstrong/ataturk-in-the-nazi-imagination-75743. Even in the first chapter author talks about Nazis completely omiting Soviet Turkish Allience, because it did not suit their needs. So basically Nazis were cherry picking what they want to share to public about Turkish Independence war. To be honest Maybe this book is better suited for something that talks about Nazi Propaganda Methodologies. Maybe a section on how the war was received in the Western/East public discourse is a good idea like EG said though. A section like that is more productive. This alone, not so much. --Oyond (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure about a whole section but it definitely seems like we need to mention it at least in passing, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV don't really give us an option not to mention it at all in this situation... OP would appear to be mistaken about how WP:UNDUE applies here, it can’t be used to justify removing the whole section but it could be used to justify condensing the section down. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Unrelevant to the discussion
buidhe  : First of all, we will correct the articles that vinselma added with anti-Turkish sources. We shared the evidence we have with Wikipedia. later, we will review your preconceived decisions that you have agreed with vinselma, thank you.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 September 2021

This page is edited by a Greek Nationalist and biased. It has to get fixed by someone more objective. Alihanygt (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Totally biased

The following discussion 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.

---

This war is not a religious war. By typing "elimination of Christians" it's being pulled in completely different directions. Turkish losses are completely ignored. This site is supposed to be unbiased, but biased and completely defamatory articles are acceptable. "Remaining elements of the Committee of Union and Progress" sentence is a biased and malevolent point of view for Mustafa Kemal, who did not continue the ideas of the "Committee of Union and Progress" during the War of Independence. Sivas Congress is a proof of this. But who cares right ? Someone realized that he could spread his political views here. After all, he is a high-ranking person who tries to impose his own distorted political view, and unfortunately he does. Here, for some reason, 1-2 people have been appointed as experts, whatever they write or change is accepted. It is obvious that he can make all kinds of ridiculous changes when he reaches high ranks in some way. How reliable could this site be, where anyone can write anyway...İnsanayıdomuz (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

References

İnsanayıdomuz Yes, anyone may edit this encyclopedia, as long as they are willing to collaborate with others and summarizes what independent reliable sources. You are free to take that as you wish and believe or not believe what you read here. If you are interested in collaboration, please detail the specific errors in how sources are summarized or offer additional independent reliable sources.

Wikipedia does not claim to be unbiased. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Wikipedia presents the sources to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias. Please see WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I've already pointed out certain errors and provided the source. Is this an automated message? İnsanayıdomuz (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

İnsanayıdomuz I am a human writing messages. You offer a Wikipedia article as a source, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I'm not entirely clear on why the second source is being offered. Your concerns seem to be more general and not pointing out specific errors in how independent reliable sources are being summarized. That sources don't say what you think they should say is not a reason to exclude them; please offer your own sources that say what you think they should say, so all sources can be given due weight. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

General? really ? Could you please explain the general to me? "elimination of Christians" is not an error ? "Turkish losses are completely ignored." is not an error ? How can I write more specifically so you can understand?

Will it be reliable if I write the sources on that page collectively here? Immigration and asylum : from 1900 to the present "Turkish War of Independence" page says; "30,000+ buildings and 250+ villages burnt to the ground by the Greek military and Greek/Armenian rebels." But only 15,000+ Turkish civilians killed in the Western Front ? What a reliable source(!)... I do not know foreign authors and books, so I shared in Turkish. İnsanayıdomuz (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

References

The whole Wikipedia is biased they will accept terror-connected "news agencies"(for example ANF) but no they will not accept historians like McCarthy, Justin, or actual newspapers. But some how they will accept anf and forged documents like The Memoirs of Naim Bey. As always they're biased they're only accepting the ones who accept Armenian claims. ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2021 (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.

Ethnic Cleansing in the First Sentence (Edited on 3.9.21)

This issue has been discussed. There is no concensus among editors whether the "purpose" of the war was ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, ethnic cleansing is mentioned in the lede by the third sentence. Therefore, MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADREL are not sufficient reasons for this wording to be added to the first sentence. Extensive discussions have been made among good faith editors without reaching a concensus on the issue (please see other topics on the talk page). Therefore, please remove the wording "ethnic cleansing" from the first sentence of the lede.Megalomanda138 (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The mentions of ethnic cleansing were removed approx. 2-3 months ago because there was no such section in the body of the article. According to MOS:LEAD "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.” I restored it since the "ethnic cleansing" section has been expanded since then. I don't see the problem with it. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe:@331dot:@SilentResident:

Sorry for pinging, but it looks like no one is replying. I see that you've participated in this page before, so what are your thoughts on this? Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I would like to remind you that ethnic cleansing is mentioned in the lead. It appears in the third sentence of the lead. Therefore, MOS:LEAD cannot be the main reason for this addition to the first sentence. The info is already there in the lead. Hence, there are no concensus among the good faith editors that one of the purposes for TWoI was ethnic cleansing; yet adding the wording ethnic cleansing in the first sentence of the lead in the way it was done would mean that TWoI had this purpose (an issue on which, I would like to reiterate, there are no consensus).Megalomanda138 (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

It was already there but it got removed for violating MOS:LEADREL. Presently, it meets the requirements of MOS:LEADREL so I restored it. It wasn't removed because “there are no concensus among the good faith editors that one of the purposes for TWoI was ethnic cleansing” as you said. See here: [2] Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The third sentence of the lead is as follows: "Simultaneously, the Turkish nationalist movement carried out massacres and deportations in order to eliminate native Christian populations—a continuation of the Armenian genocide and other ethnic cleansing operations during World War I." As can be seen, the issue is covered by the lead, after an appropriate consensus has been reached.Megalomanda138 (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The second sentence covers the military campaigns of the Turkish National Movement (against Greece, Armenia, France etc) and the third sentence covers the ethnic cleansing (against the native Christian population). Thus, both “military and ethnic cleansing campaigns” should be mentioned in the first sentence of the article per MOS:FIRST. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Deji Olajide1999. This is also the standard practice in Wikipedia per WP:LEAD: The results and outcomes of the war are mentioned on the lead section, whose purpose is to summarize the main body of the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm going to wait for more opinions and then I'll proceed with restoring it to the previous version in a day or so. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, making this change in the first sentence will mean that the purpose of the TWoI was ethnic cleansing; however the third sentence does not make such a claim in its current form. Therefore, the way the third sentence mentions the ethnic cleansing cannot be a good faith reason to add the notion to the first sentence, in the way, you would like to add it. In order to make such an addition, it must be well established in the article that the "purpose" of the TWoI was ethnic cleansing. However, this is not the case. There had been massacres, etc; however these events do not make the "aim" of the TWoI into ethnic cleansing. On that ground, the reason put forward by @Sandstein: still stands. Therefore, I strongly object to this revision. And, as a good faith editor on wikipedia, since I am objecting to this revision, and another editor (@GGT:) reverted this suggested revision, and at the moment there are only two editors in favor of this addition, there is a 2-2 tie on the issue, which means there is no consensus. I would kindly urge you to refrain from making such a change without proper consensus, also without the ample development being made in that direction in the article.Megalomanda138 (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't revert, however you said “making this change in the first sentence will mean that the purpose of the TWoI was ethnic cleansing; however the third sentence does not make such a claim in its current form.” The sources which are given here [3] disagree with you. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The source you mentioned does not make such a claim, i.e. the purpose of the TWoI being ethnic cleansing. The statement is as follows: "The Armenian Genocide, along with the killing of Assyrians and the expulsion of the Anatolian Greeks, laid the ground for the more homogeneous nation-state that arose from the ashes of the empire. Like many other states, including Australia, Israel, and the United States, the emergence of the Republic of Turkey involved the removal and subordination of native peoples who had lived on its territory prior to its founding." According to established consensus on Armenian Genocide, it ended in 1917; therefore this assesment of Suny is not related to TWoI. Same goes with the Assyrian killings. These are general references to WWI not to TWoI. On the matter of expulsion of the Greeks, it was during the WWI, later during TWoI and especially after TWoI, with population exchange. On the issue of expulsion of the Greeks, the source does not link it directly to the TWoI; even if it did so, the source does not state that expulsion of the Greeks was the "purpose" of TWoI. One can find ethnic cleansing in the foundation of Turkish Republic; however this assessment does not mean that the aim of TWoI was ethnic cleansing. To summarize, this source does not claim that the purpose of TWoI was ethnic cleansing; it merely makes the assessment that you can find elements of ethnic cleansing in the foundation of Turkish Rebuplic, which is not the same as claiming that TWoI was waged for ethnic cleansing. So, no, this source does not disagree with me.Megalomanda138 (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Quoting the source: “The ‘War of Independence’ was not against the occupying Allies – a myth invented by Kemalists – but rather a campaign to rid Turkey of remaining non-Turkish elements. In fact, Nationalists never clashed with Entente occupying forces until the French forces with Armenian contingents and Armenian deportees began to return to Cilicia in late 1919.” Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

There are arguments above that mischaracterise why "ethnic cleansing" was removed from the first sentence, and there are lots of arguments that clearly demonstrate that people haven't read what was discussed in the sections above. I won't restate my arguments, please read here and here. It is a different thing to say that there was ethnic cleansing that took place besides the Turkish War of Independence and it is an altogether different thing to define it as an ethnic cleansing campaign. There is no dispute about doing the former, which is why we have the ethnic cleansing discussed later on in the first paragraph, but the latter would be Wikipedia jumping the gun on the bulk of the scholarship (it's always possible to cherrypick sources as above, particularly niche articles written by people with different academic focuses e.g. genocide studies, but that is not how we write articles). The version of the lead as it stood before 3 September was the result of a consensus (as Buidhe would recount) and it is frankly disruptive to keep coming back to this without trying to build a consensus or addressing the arguments expressed in detail above. As it stands, there is no consensus for including "ethnic cleansing" in the first sentence. --GGT (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I read it and I disagree with the comment that Avedian is WP:CHERRY. I solely used him as an example. There are other sources besides Avedian which claim the same thing as he does (taken from this [4] mass of sources) which I will proceed to quote now: 1) “The famous 'war of national liberation', prepared by the Unionists and waged by Kemal, was a vast operation, intended to complete the genocide by finally eradicating Armenian, Greek, and Syriac survivors.” 2) “[...] throughout 1914–1924, the overarching aim was to achieve a Turkey free of Greeks.” 3) “Events on the ground, diplomatic correspondence, and news reports confirmed that it was the policy (!) of the Turkish Nationalists in Angora, who eventually founded the Republic of Turkey, to eradicate the remnants of the empire's Armenian population and finalize the expropriation of their public and private properties.” Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Also this: “As such, the Greco‐Turkish and Armeno‐Turkish wars (1919–23) were in essence processes of state formation that represented a continuation of ethnic unmixing and exclusion of Ottoman Christians from Anatolia”. It's not referencing the Turkish War of Independence directly, but it's referencing two major parts of it and, to my understanding, notes that one of the purposes of these wars was the expulsion of Christians from Anatolia. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

What's your problem with this edit?

Gökhan If you revert an edit, it is expected to explain why: are the sources cited not reliable? Is there some other issue?[5] It is not acceptable to revert without an explanation unless you claim it is WP:VANDALISM. (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't discuss my political views on this. But the sources you cited are biased or opinionated sources. Also, the content you added to the article appears to be almost entirely devoted to propaganda. It is against the rule of NPOV. Therefore I reverted your edits. --Gökhan (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: your edits contain huge POV, removal of "occupied lands", implying it is not, and placing "ethnic cleansing" campaign against native Christian minorities, which is nonsensical, implying that was the goal. Ethnic cleansing is not a cause, it is a result, probably referring to Population exchange between Greece and Turkey. Beshogur (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

1. No one militarily occupied the "lands of Turkey" before the existence of Republic of Turkey, not proclaimed until 1923.
2. Most Orthodox Christians were expelled from Turkey before the so-called population exchange was agreed upon, during the period of active fighting. Many scholarly sources say that ridding Anatolia of non-Muslim minorities was indeed a goal of the Kemalist campaign. (t · c) buidhe 21:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: sure, check out Occupation of Smyrna and Occupation of Constantinople. There is indeed an occupation. Also keep in mind, not only Ottoman Empire, the Ankara government was also called "Turkey" in the Treaty of Laussane. Beshogur (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It's anachronistic to call it an "occupation of Turkey" when Turkey didn't exist yet, although these areas have been part of Turkey since 1923. The Lausanne treaty was in 1923 also and the nationalist government did not have internationally recognized territory while the war was being fought. (t · c) buidhe 21:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: it is not anachronistic. Not sure why you're thinking so. Beshogur (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You seem to fail to understand what "anachronistic" means (applying present-day borders to a conflict that occurred prior to these borders being established) as well as the definition of military occupation: you can't occupy a country that doesn't exist yet and lacks internationally recognized borders. (t · c) buidhe 22:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: US state department doesn't say so: After the war, Greece took part in the Allied occupation of Turkey. Are they also Turkish nationalist? Who says Turkey didn't exist back then? Told you Turkey applied both to the Ottoman Empire and the Ankara government. This is the last time I am saying this. Also Treaty of Sevres from 1920: Turkey appears 307 times. And there was no "internationally recognized territories" back then because there was no UN. Beshogur (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem isn't it? The territory "occupied" by Greece was for the most part what was granted to Greece by Sevres. It was not internationally recognized as part of "Turkey" until 1923. (BTW, there *was* international diplomatic recognition of countries and their territories prior to UN:[6]). Thus, the claim that this is "Turkish" rather than "Greek" territory at the time the war was fought is POV. And no, US Department of State is not a reliable source for historical topics, especially when many reliable, scholarly sources exist. (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Turkey exited for the Allied Powers also before 1923, (as seen in the Treaty of Sevres Document), just the final demarcation of the borders was not negotiated through before 1923.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: huh, it's Turkish territory. What's POV here? It's your views that's POV, see the document of Treaty of Sevres. What else do you need for "international recognition". Also still don't believe you say US department source isn't RS while everyone uses CIA world factbook, plus this is basically "recognition". It is also remarkable that "Turkish territory" appears 17 times in Sevres, and the treaty unironically uses "ocuppation" for the allied occupation. Beshogur (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way, your sources also claim this was not a war against the allied powers, what else can I say. Probably the Franco-Turkish and the Greco-Turkish wars were myths? Beshogur (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I never cited the CIA world factbook and wouldn't consider it a reliable source for this type of information. As PC states, "Turkey"'s borders were not settled until 1923, so for neutrality we should use language that does not assume the validity of particular claims to territory, such as "Anatolia". (t · c) buidhe 00:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Also Vahagn Avedian claims that The ‘War of Independence’ was not against the occupying Allies – a myth invented by Kemalists. Same person says on a Swedish tv: Nagorno karabax har tillhört armenian i arhundrade utom diktatorn stalins tid., that "Nagorno karabakh has belonged to the Armenian for centuries except the time of dictator Stalin". [7] Doesn't look like a neutral source either. Also how it isn't neutral to refert to these areas as occupied, while almost everyone in the academics uses that. Seriously. Beshogur (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of the source. Perhaps you didn't read it? He does not say that Turkish national movement did not fight with French troops, he says that their real quarrel was not with the French but with the Armenians seeking to regain their properties and move back home. Kieser says much the same thing. Furthermore, I don't see how Avedian's opinion on Karabakh conflict has any relevance to this discussion or undercuts the reliability of his published academic work. This paper has been cited more than thirty times according to Google Scholar.[8] (t · c) buidhe 21:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you trying to claim that the events described in Greek genocide or Armenian Genocide#Turkish war of independence never happened at all? Or is the claim that they had nothing to do with the Turkish war effort? (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, first off, thank you very much for your excellently sourced edits across various articles - they are a pleasure to read through and you are truly giving me a lot of ideas for my never-ending reading list! Now, nothing that I would rush to edit immediately, but the first sentence here does pose a number of questions for me. There are, theoretically speaking, two distinct possibilities about how to frame ethnic cleansing and the Turkish War of Independence. 1) The Turkish War of Independence was a campaign of ethnic cleansing against minorities as well as a struggle against Allied forces. 2) In conjunction to the Turkish War of Independence, which was a struggle against Allied forces, there was a campaign of ethnic cleansing. I think this is a subtle but absolutely crucial distinction to make. If we choose our definition to be (2), that would mean that the ethnic cleansing would not be a primary focus here, being mainly covered in the respective genocide articles; ethnic cleansing would not feature in the first sentence, but would of course feature in the later paragraphs of the lead.

Now, taking a closer look into the references you've added to support the first sentence, I'm inclined to think that there is no evidence for a broader support for definition (1) than definition (2). This is of course based on the out-of-context quotes that you've provided there, but do bear with me. Out of these quotes, only Avedian and Kevorkian unequivocally support the war of independence = ethnic cleansing campaign statement in definition (1) and currently found in the lead. Kieser actually supports definition (2) better than (1), as he talks about ethnic cleansing carried out during the War of Independence, implying that these are conceptually two separate entities. Insofar as I can see, all the other quotes discuss the Kemalist campaign leading to total ethnic cleansing and the completed Turkification of Anatolia, but they do not necessarily support the very particular equivalence in definition (1), they are equally compatible statements with definition (2).

This begs the question of the bigger picture. Avedian and Kevorkian are both established scholars in the genocide studies field, and with their expertise, it is not surprising that they would frame the Turkish War of Independence within that framework. This does not mean that scholars with different subfields of expertise in Ottoman/Turkish history have the same definition of the War of Independence. For us to unequivocally support this interpretation, I think that there must be a clear academic consensus in support of definition (1), including in scholars who do not necessarily have such backgrounds. Surely, the definition of the War of Independence must be something we can glean from more established, mainstream histories of Turkey. Now, when I pick up my copy of the Cambridge History of Turkey and look at the chapter on the independence efforts, I cannot see any support for definition (1) that we currently have in the article. The chapter clearly frames this as a collective struggle against occupying forces in Ottoman territory or Misak-ı Millî (yes, calling it occupied parts of Turkey is anachronistic, but the term occupation is very well-established in literature so your opposition to it is slightly baffling), notwithstanding its discussion of the ethnic cleansing mindset in the background (e.g. the prevention of the return of Armenian deportees being one of the goals of the mobilisation). I am also slightly concerned about possible cherry-picking, as the search terms here indicate a purposeful search for sources that juxtapose the War of Independence and ethnic cleansing. This is sure to produce a whole host of results but of course not necessarily a balanced overview of the historiography.

My preference at the moment would be to go for definition (2) and emphasise the ethnic cleansing aspect otherwise in the lead, given that this is more compatible with the more established, mainstream histories of Turkey.

--GGT (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Robert Gerwarth and Erez Manela, two top-notch historians of the First World War period and most certainly not scholars working in the genocide field, have also come out to say, "What the Young Turks and nationalist historians in Turkey to this day refer to as the “War of Liberation” (İstiklâl Harbi, 1919– 1923) was in essence a form of violent nation-state formation that combined mass killing, expulsion, and suppression and that represented a continuation of wartime ethnic unmixing and exclusion of Ottoman Greeks and Armenians from Anatolia" (see "The Great War as Global War" in Beyond 1917: The United States and the Global Legacies of the Great War (Oxford, 2017), p. 205). So this is no longer really a fringe opinion, but something that mainstream historians are increasingly coming to recognize as well. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that some sources use the phrase "Turkish war of independence" for the purely military campaign, thus excluding other aspects, and therefore there are more sources that would support a weaker formulation such as (2). But, most sources that discuss both aspects at all acknowledge the high degree of overlap between military campaigns and atrocities against civilians based on ethnicity, for example massacres and forced expulsions after a place was captured by the other army. Thus there is a closer relationship than World War I and the Armenian Genocide (which mostly took place far from the front lines). Gingeras' book discusses both military offensives and atrocities simultaneously.

(In your example I use search term to find the relevant passage in the book. In his more recent book (2018) Kieser states, "from spring 1919, Kemal Pasha resumed, with ex-CUP forces, domestic war against Greek and Armenian rivals", which seems closer to (1)).

I don't oppose the term occupied Ottoman territory as there's no question that Allies occupied parts of the Ottoman Empire after the armistice. (t · c) buidhe 00:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for the very valuable input and clarifications. I understand that this is an issue where the scholarship is in flux, and Kieser's more recent book as well as Gerwarth and Manela are excellent examples of that. My concern here is that by adopting the current definition, we seem to be potentially placing ourselves ahead of the scholarship curve, with the anticipation that this is the definition that the field will be converging upon (a very fair one, but still an anticipation). I am not comfortable in doing that given our role as an encyclopaedia. Surely, until the simple equivalence of the "War of Independence = ethnic cleansing campaign" is the definitive definition in the state-of-the-art mainstream works, we ought to be opting for a more conservative definition, perhaps (2), or some other formulation. --GGT (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This was posted at WP:RS/N and I share concerns about the weight issues and support editors here working towards a consensus. The arguments of scholars do carry weight and should be shown fair consideration in the article text but there should not be edit warring while the discussion is open. It's clear that there is no consensus yet for these changes so I am restoring the pre-edit warring version of the article.Spudlace (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no edit warring. (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Spudlace Could you also link to the discussion at RS/N? I checked there quickly, but didn't see any recent discussion. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Great, found the discussion myself Here the link to it. Then also the Turkish War for Independence defined the outcome of the Armenian Genocide and led to the population exchange between Greece and Turkey. Scholar consensus is for Buidhe, if the ethnic cleansing is mentioned in the first paragraph of the second might be worth a discussion but not the removal of a lot of very well sourced content.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The ethnic cleansing is fairly sourced and it is sure worth to be mentioned in the first phrase as Buidhe did. The presentation of the sources could be made better, so it doesn't seem it is just the POV of one source but actually of several scholars in the field.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

You can't just remove well sourced content from an article. You can maybe move it to an other place in the article (this time probably the lead) and discuss about why that place is more accurate, but a removal without a discussion is not a solution.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have adapted the lead a bit and there are now several renown scholars in the field which were often removed against the encyclopedia Britannica, Microsoft! encarta and History channel which were accepted by all editors so far. As to me, scholars should prevail over the other sources. The opposing party is invited to bring up sources as well.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what went on here in the meantime, no idea why people would talk about edit warring. Buidhe, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the concerns I expressed in my previous reply. I am still concerned that we are getting ahead of the scholarship curve here. --GGT (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• I think there are two problems with this edit. First, "military and ethnic cleansing" is in reverse order to "native Christian minorities and the Allied powers". Second, the only sources I see in the footnote that support the current wording are the two that also reject the "war of independence" label. They get to the nub of the issue. We cannot speak of a war of liberation by ethnic cleansing. This is not how people actually talk about this. If people use the terminology of "war of independence" without scare quotes, they are probably thinking in terms of military clashes with the Entente. If they are thinking about the process of ethnic cleansing they are probably not thinking about a "real" war of independence.
  Genocides are mentioned in the first paragraphs of both the World War I and World War II articles, so there is certainly good reason to mention it here. But I agree with GGT's comment about "getting ahead of the scholarship curve". After all, Edward J. Erickson has a book coming out later this year, The Turkish War of Independence: A Military History, 1919–1923. I think the current wording of the first sentence is bad. Srnec (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually, there is a veritable mountain of scholarship which connects ethnic cleansing to wars of independence and other nation-building projects based on ethnic criteria, as one academic paper states, "National identity, national self-determination, and the establishment of a state as the political expression of a group's national identity are in themselves positive concepts... Yet, these positive, laudable goals often lead, as we have seen with such horrendous clarity in the former Yugoslavia as well as in many other places around the world, to systematic efforts to destroy other peoples as part of a project of establishing an ethnically pure, homogeneous state or region, i.e., to ethnic cleansing in the form of killing, expulsion, population transfer, intimidation (to "encourage" people to move), starvation, rape."[9] To mention just a few examples:[10][11][12][13] Many historians would agree that Greek War of Independence, Israeli War of Independence, Balkan Wars, etc. were also examples of this phenomenon.
    I do not know much about Erickson except for his reputation for propagating fringe, denialist theories about the Armenian genocide. (t · c) buidhe 02:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Buidhe: I think that's better, but "is a term in Turkish historiography" is rather weak. And is it true that the term is limited to Turkish historiography? I suggest

      The Turkish War of Independence (19 May 1919 – 24 July 1923) was a series of military and ethnic cleansing campaigns waged by the Turkish National Movement after parts of the Ottoman Empire were occupied and partitioned following its defeat in World War I. The campaigns were directed against Greece in the west, Armenia in the east, France in the south, royalists and separatists in various cities and the United Kingdom and Italy in Constantinople (now Istanbul). Simultaneously, the Turkish National Movement carried out massacres and deportations in order to eliminate native Christian populations—a continuation of the Armenian Genocide and other ethnic cleansing operations conducted during World War I. These campaigns resulted in the creation of the Republic of Turkey.

      Thoughts? Srnec (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

      Srnec, The point I'm trying to convey is that it's only one event from the Turkish perspective, from the perspective of the opponents there were three separate conflicts whose efforts were not connected. (t · c) buidhe 00:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

      Also the use of "campaigns" here is vague. It implies that only the military campaigns "resulted in the creation of the Republic of Turkey". But many scholarly sources say that in fact, the ethnic cleansing campaigns during and after World War I were integral to Turkish nation building. For example, Suny states: "The Armenian Genocide was a central event in the last stages of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the foundational crime that along with the ethnic cleansing and population exchanges of the Anatolian Greeks made possible the formation of an ethnonational Turkish republic." (t · c) buidhe 00:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

      It was deliberately vague so as not to imply that only the military campaigns resulted in the creation of the Republic of Turkey. I withdraw my objection to adding "and ethnic cleansing" to the first line (see above). I think the terminology should be dealt with elsewhere than the lead. This article is written as if about events and it should start by defining them. Srnec (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I can follow Srnec. The terminology can and should be treated elsewhere. The first few phrases should define the subject of the article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill: another issue with this "occupation" thing similar to the NK conflict. Buidhe claims the name Turkey is anachronistic and these are not "occupied territories". However I showed him various examples of Turkey being used in treaties before founding of the republic. Another example of Treaty of Mudros dating 1918, finishing the WW1 clearly uses: The Armistice Convention with Turkey. What's your opinion on this? Thanks in advance. Beshogur (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Beshogur, sorry, I'm swamped this weekend and can't commit to reading through the above discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: what do you think about armistice of Mudros saying Turkey instead of the Ottoman empire? Beshogur (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Most post 1900 wars have had ethnic cleansing campaigns, it's just a side effect of modern wars. This is nothing unique with the Turkish war of Independence although it was more significant in this instance, but to deem the war itself an "ethnic cleansing campaign" is wrong. 1.5 million Greeks still lived in Turkey after the war ended, that is until Venizelos offered to exchange Greek-Turkish populations in their countries. Also if we use the logic that Turkey did not exist (de jure) until 1923 we can say the same about the United States which did not have de jure independence until 1783, after the "American" Revolution already ended. After all the Balkan wars also featured massive ethnic cleansing campaigns where millions of Turks and Muslims were forced out of the Balkan Christian countries, yet I don't see that in the first sentence. Borab00 (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This is untrue, only about 200,000 Greeks were displaced by the population exchange since the rest have already been expelled. After all the Balkan wars also featured massive ethnic cleansing campaigns where millions of Turks and Muslims were forced out This should be taken up at Talk:Balkan Wars but the reality is that during Balkan wars all sides committed serious atrocities and civilians between all ethnic groups suffered from ethnic cleansing to a similar extent. (t · c) buidhe 01:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: according to the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey, it involved more than 1 million greeks. My point was not that I had an intent to label the Balkan wars itself as an "ethnic cleansing campaigns" but rather to show that literally 90% of wars post 1900 are "ethnic cleansing campaigns" according to your definition. The key is that ethnic cleansing is rather a side component of these wars and should be considered a separate entity as it has always been (also there is no record of Christian Balkan peoples being ethnically cleansed on a mass scale during the Balkan Wars yet there is here for turks and muslims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims_during_Ottoman_contraction). I understand that your hatred of Turks makes you so you are eager to label a war as "ethnic cleansing campaigns" (three times!!!) in the heading of the article yet make no mention of Greek ethnic cleansing campaigns of Turks which were at a similar scale (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_during_the_Greco-Turkish_War_(1919%E2%80%9322)). Rather a better suggestion would be to actually talk about the DETAILS of the "massive ethnic cleansing campaign" that supposedly only the Turks did in the main article text itself. Borab00 (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of all of this in the first place, there is no evidence for a centrally organized ethnic cleansing campaign done by the Kemalist government in the first place, as the massacres were done by rogue soldiers and officers in the military (same thing can be said as with the Greek military, rogue soldiers massacring Turks during the initial invasion, even though there was later a scorched earth campaign during the Greek retreat). Ataturk mentioned specifically during the Great fire of Smyrna that his intentions were not to massacre the Greek or Armenian populations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_great_fire_of_Smyrna#Mustafa_Kemal's_telegram) Borab00 (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that further criticism should be brought forward with RS and not through unreferenced arguments and Wikipedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Content missing from body?

Largely relating to the above, the article itself doesn't appear to detail the ethnic cleansing allegations, or not obviously. "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" both appear in the lead but nowehere in the main body of the article. Equally, the infobox claims 264,000 Greek civilians were killed and 60,000–250,000 Armenian civilians killed, there's no mention of these in the article body. Obviously these are things that need to appear in the article, so hoping someone with access to references can add something appropriate. FDW777 (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess the article is planned to be reworked a bit by buidhe. I also saw that there are large unsourced sections that need a better presentation.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

i dont think trustable knowledge source, Wikipedia, should be letting change of articles with the resources stating ' i think, i also thought ' but one should show some references. Turkish War of independence has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing of Armenians. actually there is no such thing as ethnic cleansing of Armenians. please, the responsible authorities of Wikipedia, fix this mistake and have the last editor of this article get the proper response because of this subjective and false editing. if 'I think' is a proper statement to change the articles. please remove that insult from the article, because i think and see that no such thing as ethnic cleansing happened. because there is no scientific proof for that. Arslankoraytr (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

So some angry Armenian edited this part of the Wikipedia stating the genocides and literally plainly falsely blaming a nations victory over world nations assault and an invasion, I clearly can say this , I will stop my funds for the Wikipedia . Nekarman (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)