Jump to content

Talk:Turkish War of Independence/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Deletion of a section added with consensus

I added some time ago info about the war's influence on Weimar and Nazi Germany and created a section about possible influences on other nations. As seen in the talk page of this article, although User:GGT criticised it for WP:UNDUE at first, most users agreed that the influence on Nazi Germany should be mentioned; and nobody objected to the revised version by me up until now. Besides, I don't think the reason for deletion stated by User:Beshogur in the edit summary is a clear reason to delete it; because, his criticism seems to be rather focused on the wording; the edit summary doesn't challange the validity of the information. This section should be added back.--V. E. (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

his criticism seems to be rather focused on the wording then give me a valid reason why this is relevant to the topic itself. As I told, against whom and what is Ihrig arguing? Beside this, the text says: Germans, including Adolf Hitler, wanted to abolish the Treaty of Versailles just like the Treaty of Sèvres was abolished. this doesn't give a single relevance to the article either. Beshogur (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
If you think to write "argue" is not accurate, you can propose a better wording; if your proposal turns out to be more clear, I will be glad to change it. However, for clarification, Ihrig is not arguing against specifically someone; and as I said, we can change it for a better wording. Lastly, I do not understand why it is not relevant to the article; abolishion of Treaty of Serves is specifically related to the Turkish War of Independence. Can you please elaborate on why you think it is not relevant?--V. E. (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Like how the other editors have said above in the very talk page, in the section titled "Turkish War of Independence: Impact on Nazi Germany", I do too believe that something about this influence on Germany has to be mentioned somehow on this article. Be it in a section of its own or in passing. Complete removal of information cannot be justified like that. To those editors who may question the influence of one war on another, they should bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a ground that has to reflect editorial opinions over what sources do say. The wars have everlasting effects and influences, no matter when or where they happen. And the history of the 20th century Europe isn't just random irrelevant events. It is an amalgam of events which may have influenced each other in many ways, direct or indirect ones. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I do also think that it should be mentioned somehow without falling into Godwin's Law. A clearer wording might be provided, and the entire section has to developed with the TWoI's influence on other nations other than Germany. Positive influences can also be found, since it was also perceived as an anti-imperialist war at the time by some.Megalomanda138 (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@SilentResident: that text is vague and doesn't add single value to the topic itself. It looks more like a smear campaign on Turkey, "how Nazis were influenced by the Kemalists". Beshogur (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
"a smear campaign on Turkey". The article here is about an war, not about the country Turkey. What does this has to do with the Republic of Turkey? The war wasn't staged by the country. The RoT wasn't founded until a year later. Your argument just doesn't make sense. Even if it did, then I am afraid, per Wikipedia's WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, what we editors may believe about smear campaigns doesn't matter. You should know that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research and reflects, not upon editorial opinions but upon the sources. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 10:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
The article here is about an war, not about the country Turkey. It doesn't matter whether Turkey was founded after the war or not, it is about Turkey and its history. You said Wikipedia is not a ground that has to reflect editorial opinions over what sources do say but haven't seen a single logical reasoning why this should stay here and how it is related to the war. You claim Turkey has nothing to do with this topic (which isn't true) but saying that an author's opinion about how Nazis were supposedly influenced by the Kemalists has something to do with this? Beshogur (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Both the article's subject and the information in question are about the War and that makes the information WP:RELEVANT to the article. Simple as that. Had it been about Turkey (the country) as you claim, then we couldn't been debating here but at Turkey's talk page. Which isn't the case here at all.
I don't think the issue here is the reliable source. The issue here is why you - a mere editor - is opposing the source's inclusion to the article on the grounds that it is a "smear campaign on Turkey". Your responses are instilling me less and less faith that your priority as an editor in Wikipedia is really to expand the article with information related to the war and the impact of it for Germany. If you have more valid reasons, I will be happy to hear them. Until then, I am afraid you lack the necessary consensus for removing the information from the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Beshogur, history and wars of nations are interwined; so, it is perfectly normal for a war to influence someone or a group one way or another even if it was not intended. Besides, this doesn't mean TWoI only had an impact on Nazi Germany. You can expand the relevant section with reliable sources to show how other figures or countries were influenced by the war. However, lack of perspective of other nations is no reason to delete the current text.--V. E. (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 September 2021

This article describes the independence war in a very negative and biased light, especially in the first paragraph of the article. In particular, it is said that the Turkish nationalist movement carried out massacres and deportations in order to eliminate native Christian populations during the war. This is incorrect for the given time period and context. Crimes against Christian populations were neither conducted, nor was there an intent to eliminate a Christian population. This can be seen directly as a result of the introduction of secularism in Turkey, which eliminates state affairs involving any religious motives, regardless of the given religion(1). Technically speaking, Ataturk, the leader of the independence movement, advocated for (and ultimately succeeded law-wise) any person to be eligible to become Turkish (2). It is also stated that the independence war continued the Armenian genocide, which is factually wrong, considering that there was a war between the nations, with Armenia being the belligerent in east turkey, with the aim of creating an Armenian state in eastern Anatolia(3). While The Armenian genocide saw the Ottoman empire conducting a genocide on the Armenian population, the Turkish republic is a different nation that did not conduct continued assaults in the name of the Armenian genocide. The article also states that these operations resulted in the creation of the republic of Turkey, which is not sourced, making it a biased statement. These details should be altered as they are misrepresentative of history.

  1. Mardin, Serif. "Religion and secularism in Turkey." Atatürk: Founder of a modern state (1981): 191-219.
  2. Atatürk, Kemal, 1881-1938. Nutuk. Ankara :Kültür Bakanlığı, 1995.
  3. Gawrych, George W. "Kemal Atatürk's politico‐military strategy in the Turkish war of independence, 1919–1922: From Guerrilla warfare to the decisive battle." The Journal of Strategic Studies 11.3 (1988): 318-341. Siwff22 (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, it is not clear how these sources support your request. Please provide quotations and page numbers.--V. E. (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic harassment and misconduct accusations

This is the wrong page to discuss this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There is this one user named ERLIK on Twitter who seems to have an influence on Turkish nationalists. He says "our Wiki team is not ready yet" and "we are calling seasoned editors to join us". His posts target articles such as Turkish War of Independence, and Nutuk.[1] Another example is one user posting a message under the same post by ERLIK calling other nationalist users to delete an image on Wikimedia Commons.[2] A few months ago, he posted other messsages some of which target these articles.[3] Best regards.--V. E. (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This is common. My account and edits (1 week ago) were targeted as well, but the article was protected at the time. [4] [5] Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deji Olajide1999: Neither I nor Erlik is a nationalist view. I am the guy who created the delete request. If you want to see my political view you can just simply visit my profile at Wikipedia Turkey. I am actually a socialist. And you're a greek nationalist. Do you have brain seizures or what? ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with political ideologies. It has to do with organized trolls, targeting accounts and vandalizing English Wikipedia articles with edits such as this [6] which I reverted 5 minutes ago. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

by the way Smyrna burning we conducted by Greeks. And about Erlik situation it's not about organized trolling maybe it is organized but not trolling for sureZeusAmmon1 (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It is interesting that you know so much about Erlik's organized Wiki edit community. Can you please tell me more about it and your apparent link to the group?--V. E. (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I dont have any connection with him. But i do know an organized Armenian community ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@ZeusAmmon1: Are you referring to this: https://mobile.twitter.com/ISafaryan/status/1411241670541287424 ? Isvind (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Isvind: yes they're a well-organized group and possibly they're far from being objective. But I don't have solid proof ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@ZeusAmmon1: At the moment there is no clue about who they are. But this organization should be investigated deeply. Isvind (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

User:GGT deleted a section written by me saying that it was a "verbatim translation". In fact, this is not true.

As you see, it is not a verbatim translation.--V. E. (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Visnelma, what you've done above is to add three more copyrighted paragraphs to prove that the paragraph is not a copyvio. That is a clear copyvio (absolutely no way you can claim that was a fair use of copyrighted content) and it's also disruptive. Close paraphrasing also counts as copyvio and many of the sentences are not even close paraphrases, they are clear verbatim translations. I note that other users have tweaked around some sentences since they have been reinstated so I'll need to have a closer look at the article. But I've removed the copyvio above and please don't do this again. --GGT (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@GGT: It is not a copyright violation; because, there is no other way for me other than transferring the text here to show that is not a "verbatim translation" as you wrongly claim. Comparing to the direct Google translation, the text parahrased my me is not alike to its original; and it's only you who object my reasoning, let the other users to decide whether it violates copyright or not.--V. E. (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Nope, that is entirely incorrect, and this is not a two-way conversation. Textual excerpts are explicitly covered under the WP:Non-free content policy and lengthy quotations in particular are prohibited on talk pages, which means that posting copyrighted content on the talk page to make a point is a more blatant copyvio. Any further violations will result in admin attention. --GGT (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@GGT: There's no specific limit on the lenght of quotes. Many academic works quote a full paragraph from other non-free works occasionally such as in this case; this is called a block quotation. WP:POINT is completely irrelevant in this case, as showing that you are right with appropriate means is not prohibited in anyway. If you still disagree, you can attempt to report it at WP:ANI--V. E. (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Did you even check the block quotation page you just linked to? What you have copied and translated is not a quote, not even close. Not contextually or visually separated but written as if it was paraphrasing. This isn't an academic paper, Wikipedia has rules and expected approaches towards copyright from editors. Please refer to WP:CV Also, I just checked the source and doesn't having a big chunk of the first section after the lead, that being Historiography here, constist of a single source, that one being a recent interview with a single historian on an obscure news site, make it undue and even fringe? Especially when in the exact same source, the interviewee admits their field of expertise is not the ethnic cleansings that took place during the era? Even the interviewer doesn't seem reliable as the entire interview has loaded questions, claiming TWoİ had an İslamist purpose. Again, this is terrible editorial work, just selecting parts of obscure second (or third in this case)hand accounts to insert sensational paragraphs. There needs to be extensive discussions on these contributions. DriedGrape (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you are quite following; the 'block quotation' referred to a talk page message of mine GGT removed not the text in article itself which is already paraphrased and supported by an academic source.--V. E. (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I was referring to the majority of the last paragraph in historiography, which is a direct translated quote, not a paraphrasing. Also, again, using a single niche source to justify constituting a significant portion of the articles first section of such sensational opinions is most definitely not exemplary work. Rather than directly copying selected historians, the section should actually hold some relevant factual weight. DriedGrape (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
If you look at the page history, you can see I had already re-paraphrased it 2 days ago. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK, because you are reinitiatizing a concluded discussion up to a point of ad nauseam.--V. E. (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
And yet that portion of the paragraph is still an almost exact translation of a selected part of the source. Is your edit still even remotely up to Wiki standards besides the CV concerns? I'd say no, either way I won't continue to off topic under this discussion. DriedGrape (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Possible planned vandalism by Turkish far right groups

On Eksi Sozluk, basically a turkish version of 4chan, this article is a current point of discussion, and there is talk about changing it by sheer number of edits, reporting it to the government, and even someone calling for help of government controlled bots.

https://eksisozluk.com/turkish-war-of-independence-wikipedia-maddesi--6904650

What should we do? Funkistan (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Above is categorically not true, so why make a statement? eksisozluk is a forum and all kinds of folks blog there. Other motives?Murat (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, it's semi-protected for now, if that's not enough admins can up it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine attempts at whitewashing by four different editors despite the semi-protection. Something needs to be done about this. FDW777 (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, i suggest fastly discussing this definition sentence in question. I am trying to assume good faith but adding such misinformation can also be a vandalist act. In the link you share, people are discussing what should be done against such misinformation, it's not fair to call it planned vandalism, and i do not think there is a need to worry. What wikipedians need to worry most is the ensuring neutral point of view.--Basak (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the definition of WP:MEAT and WP:Canvassing#Off-wiki canvassing, which is definitely not allowed. (t · c) buidhe 08:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The lead has been modified after a concencus. So, I see no merits of discussing it. And people in that website are doing WP:Meatpuppetry.--Visnelma (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I meant discussing the definition the article. It has to be disscussed. --Basak (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The definition was added after a concencus and it is supported by reliable sources. There is no point of discussing it.--Visnelma (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I understand. But after the edit is online, this piece of information is visible to every internet user and it's normal that there will be more people who would like to share their knowledge and point of view that. Naturally, many of them are not familiar with Wikipedia editing and policies. So, such reactions could be expected. We must be open to new discussions.--Basak (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Visnelma, nothing is immune from discussion. However it would need to be discussion based on what high-quality references say (such as are cited at present), rather than lots of arm-waving and editors asserting it wasn't a genocide or ethnic cleansing. FDW777 (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say it can't be discussed. I said there is no point of discussing it since there are reliable sources and concencus.--Visnelma (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
"Sheer number of edits", eh? Let them try. Then we can laugh when they see how ridiculously easy it is for us to restore old revisions and EC-protect articles. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 09:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Eksisozluk.com is not a 4chan-like site, to be honest. Most of the users are supporting the opposition parties, which is most of them leftist, even the current ruling party sued a lot of lawsuits against them. So calling them government-controlled and far-right is just absurd and misinformation.Thorrul.btc (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
"Left" doesn't mean anything more than "not religious right" in Turkey tbh. 3512495a (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Ekşi is a left-oriented website. You can even find PKK sympathizers there. And the comment above is really useless and senseless. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 17:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The PKK sympathizers are a minority. I think the left label is self-proclaimed, only makes sense in the context of Turkish politics and has little relation to how the word is used throughout the world. Just go and check the most liked entries of topics related to Arabs, Armenians, Greek Cypriots, Pan-Turanism, Turkism and Kemalism and see if you can find any leftism in them. 3512495a (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree that something should be done to keep the current disinformation based anti-Turkish propaganda from being removed from the article. Otherwise we risk being having non-biased and historically accurate information available. – anlztrk (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Another sh*tstorm is going on on reddit/Turkey. Comments about getting the editors living in Turkey arrested are being upvoted. Be careful about the links you get sent. Since there have been a lot of complaints on CİMER (Presidential Communication Center) I'm pretty sure the cyber crimes are looking into it too. https://reddit.com/n4xyo9/ https://reddit.com/n4kq0t/ https://reddit.com/n50i4d/ https://reddit.com/n55aw9/ https://reddit.com/n59vk8/ 3512495a (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Lol eksisozluk 4chan? It's even older than reddit. It's simply a forum website. You have every people of every ideas there. Beshogur (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I really hate ekşi sözlük, but it's nothing near 4chan. it's just a forum. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~Contact Circassia 21:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Firstly it's not far right groups and secondly you're telling lie by it's ethnic cleansing and continuation of ethnic cleansing. what were you expecting of course people will want it fix it. ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Problem with the leading paragraph persists

It seems to me that though there has never been consensus, the problematic insertions in the first paragraph persist and not removed. Not only it tries to add irrelevant and wrong information, the supporting references do not even support the assertions made:

- Turkish War of Independence is really about four major battles, I. and II. Inonu Battles, Sakarya Battle and Dumplupinar. All fought against Greek Army, and all major and large scale battles. Some skirmishes with French in the south and Armenians in the east should be included of course. - There are no systematic ethnic cleansings or massacres documented through 1919-1922 in Anatolia. No such events are mentioned in any major and classic books or literature on this piece of history. No such documents, orders, records, no places, dates, mass graves, numbers etc. exist but the statement in question is still in the lead. - Naturally any war involves atrocities, but in this case nothing systematic has taken place as far as we know. No such record. Those events should be dealt with in another section in the body of the article, and naturally should be balanced. - Also naturally, people on all sides have moved and migrated away from war zones, mostly to avoid retributions. There was an outflow of people, no numbers are available, and also an inflow, Muslims escaping invaders and atrocities. Major population exchanges with Greece took place years after the war, and should be noted, per the wish of the Greek government at the time. - There is no record of Turkish government at the time deporting any group anywhere. They did not have the means to begin with, and by that time the country has shrunk to where the Turks were overwhelming majority anyway. - None of the references offered in this regard offer dates, places, documents, orders, independent witness statements and it seems some general statements have been taken out of context. In the end, no specifics. Crimes of that nature and scale should have specifics. Especially if trying to convince other editors who are doubtful.

These are verifiable facts. I wanted to air them here before removing the misleading statement from the leading paragraph. Thank you. Murat (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hey @El C. the version me and another editor tried to restore [7], [8] was the stable version of the article. I believe that description has been discussed on talk previously. Maybe @Buidhe will correct me if I'm wrong, since she's been involved a lot in the article, but I'm almost certainly sure that was the stable/consensus version. And it enjoyed consensus, at the very least loosely per WP:SILENCE. Recent undiscussed controversial changes like removing "massacres" from the short description almost certainly warrant a discussion, especially when those get reverted by multiple editors. Editors failed to discuss, and per WP:BRD I asked Shadow4dark to discuss and reach consensus for his/her changes, and I restored the long-standing stable version. I believe my reason of restoring stable edit was enough, and if you think that it wasn't, equally, Shadow4dark didn't provide sufficient reason for their re-reverts either [9]. Quote:"It is not covered in whole page, read it..."

Even the lead of the article which (should) summarize the body states: 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. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, I've already explained to you that SILENCE may only be invoked when there is silence. It is not grounds for reverting. WP:BOLD edits are allowed. Objecting to and reverting such edits requires substantiation even in the most nominal sense. In this case, I'm not really that concerned with how the reverts cascaded after that. El_C 15:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
El C shouldn't the editor who is WP:BOLDLY changing the consensus version discuss on talk instead of re-reverting, especially when the same edit has been reverted by 2 editors and is controversial in nature? Per WP:BRD I believe it's BOLD, revert, discuss. I asked them multiple times to discuss, they refused to do so. I was just restoring stable version as I believe this short description was already discussed, and we actually have consensus for it. If the editor wishes to change it, maybe they should reach a new consensus? I don't understand what exactly I'm in the wrong here? I'll wait for more involved editors to chime in as I said I'm almost certain there was a consensus for my restored edit, and certainly if editors wish to change it, they shouldn't just re-revert and edit-war but discuss. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
ZaniGiovanni, again, I'm not really that concerned with how the reverts cascaded after your initial revert. Accompanying it with an edit summary that reads (in full): rv, no consensus isn't a valid justification in this instance since it fails to address anything about your objection beyond that, so it simply comes across as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. El_C 15:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
ok El C, I understand you. Do you think my explanation is good enough now? I clarified my rationale as you asked. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes. El_C 15:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
El C I'm glad all is sorted out. Reading your replies now more clearly, you were more concerned about the proper edit descriptions being shown, rather than all the edit-war shenanigans. Gonna be honest, since it was the long-standing article version I restored, I was a bit careless with my edit description(s), will improve in future situations like this. And thanks for always being on point.
I was going to ask if we should restore the stable version? If other users still wish to change it, they're free to discuss and reach consensus. With best, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Given the first paragraph details that the massacres and ethnic cleansing were an integral part of the war, I see no reason why a rose tinted short description should stand. FDW777 (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
It seems to me that first paragraph itself is problematic. The last sentence is simply not true. I am not aware of any systematic massacres or ethnic cleansing by the Kemalists during the War of Independence. Some of the population surely moved or ran away afraid of reprisals. Similarly, other populations were moving in running away from threats on the other side. Major population exchanges between Greece and Turkey took place much later. Claims of continuation of massacres during WWI are completely out of place and not true. This needs to be rectified. Seems like the work of pov editors to me. Murat (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I am not aware of any systematic massacres or ethnic cleansing by the Kemalists during the War of Independence. (this one is something special)
Seems like the work of pov editors to me
You either need to make sense or stop with this nonsense. We have let's see how many, hmmm...12 sources cited for the lead part in question, including Turkish ones, and you're out here saying "I'm not aware of systematic massacares..." as if your "awareness" is of any relevance to the article or its cited sources. The stable version should be restored, just because El C reverted to something you may prefer (because of formality/edit description reasons), doesn't mean you have to jump-in instantly with your personal commentary, which sources directly contradict. When I say editors are free to discuss and reach consensus, I don't mean original research. And to be frank, there isn't much to discuss here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
You tone is offensive and your insults support my claim. Most of citations are opinions of people who were not witnesses or well known partisans who are not capable of rendering objective opinions. This particular history is something a I know something about and I am not aware of any such systematic massacres that would warrant mention in the very first paragraph. No specifics of such massacres given, locations, dates, mass graves, victims, perpetrators, most importantly documents, orders etc.. Not sure why insist on such problematic and categorically wrong information be spread? Murat (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I know this WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it's important to form a consensus on the amount of details that should be included in article short descriptions, since articles on other massacre-heavy wars such as the Granada War, Haitian Revolution, the related Greek War of Independence, Second Sino-Japanese War, and the Eastern Front (World War II) do not mention the massacres in their short descriptions. Lightspecs (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
If you want to discuss anything about the articles you mentioned, this talk isn't the place for it. If you think said articles have as strong of a case of massacres as this one with multiple sources cited, go ahead and open a discussion in said articles' talk pages. You've yet to present an actual argument related to this page and as to why the short desc. should be changed. It is indeed WP:OTHERSTUFF to list other articles as an argument. We have multiple sources cited for massacres in the lead, from various authors of various nationalities, it is an undeniable fact. The stable version should be restored as it was accurate and needed no change. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
We can add 100 sources about the massacres but it should be covered in the article. It has small mention at lede and it is covered by one paragraph. Unless the whole page is rewritten it should be deleted. Shadow4dark (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
And what guideline/rule says that? What are you basing that on? And it's covered in multiple sources, just because it isn't expanded in the article doesn't mean it's insignificant. Similarly, we can always expand the article based on those sources, you know it really helps when we have 12 sources cited. But let me guess, you wouldn't like it, would you? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I did not say "i do not want it" i said it is not much covered in the page and it need be more covered for such claims at top, see the 3 points at Purposes WP:SHORTDES Shadow4dark (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Don't ever incorrectly change my text again, it is 'covered' as I intended to write. And as I said already, it won't be a problem to expand the article since we have so many sources citing massacres. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
it was a small mistake, whould you be less combative? Shadow4dark (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
You need to learn what combative is, and refrain from misusing such terms in the future. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
This discussion seems to be about making the lead less NPOV in order to reflect the body, which needs further improvement to meet NPOV. What I think would improve the article is working to make the article better, not the lead worse. (t · c) buidhe 07:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Buidhe, the discussion isn't about the lead, it's about the short description that was changed recently. Users arguing for the changed short desc say that the "article doesn't talk about massacres enough" and hence the short desc should be changed, while my argument is that the short desc is fine because massacres were significant and have many sources cited. If expanding the body to include about the massacres more would solve the issue, I'm all for it. But you're probably have more knowledge about short descs and whatnot, I'd like to hear what you think. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
nvm, seems like the article's body already has it covered: Turkish War of Independence#Ethnic cleansing. More in other related articles: Armenian genocide#Turkish War of Independence, Greek genocide, Population exchange between Greece and Turkey. Do you think the body should be expanded more? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • A Short description should be short – see WP:SDSHORT.
    Also, a Short description should not attempt to define the article's subject – see WP:SDNOTDEF.
    A Short description exists to clarify which article has been found by a search.
    As such, dates do help and details of what happened do not.
    A suitable Short descriptions might then be: 1919-1923 series of wars in Turkey or 1919-1923 wars forming the Turkish republic — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 17:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    Adding massacres there isn't lengthening, isn't "attempting to define the subject". It's a significantly cited part of the lead, which is also covered in the body. Here's a better version – 1919-1923 series of wars and massacres in Turkey. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
It surely does and also seems to add unrelated topics, not to mention correctness challenged here.
I think this topic has been beaten to death. Turkish War of Independence is mostly and mostly about War against the Greek Army. That is the main event and basic definition.
I also think "wars in Turkey" may sound less accurate since one can argue Turkey as country, not geography (that would be Anatolia), did not exist yet. Murat (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Hudavendigar, sorry but I moved your sig down a line, I think both lines above were from you? Would 1919-1923 wars forming the Turkish republic be better to avoid the issue of Turkey not yet being a thing during 1919-1923? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@GhostInTheMachine: There's nothing wrong with the name Turkey. The Ottoman Empire was also called Turkey back at that time. It was used synonymously. Beshogur (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Stay with 1919-1923 series of wars in Turkey then — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 16:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@GhostInTheMachine You don't listen, do you? Provide an actual argument to why exactly you want massacres to be absent. I've yet to see one from you. Please communicate when someone asks you to. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Your great suggestion still misses massacres, and you still didn't explain why. Current version is fine to me, and I showed the rationale for it multiple times. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It surely does and also seems to add unrelated topics, not to mention correctness challenged here – whoever left this first sign your comment, and secondly, saying "it does" isn't an argument.

No further comments in six days – Do you mean no further replies to my argument, and still not any that I can see of? Again, massacres are a significantly cited area of the article with over 10 sources, probably the most cited one, and it's also covered in the article, see Turkish_War_of_Independence#Ethnic_cleansing. If there are no better arguments than just saying one liners with no elaboration, I'm going to restore what resembles stable version the most and with regard and adjustments to WP:SDSHORT . ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

As said by me and buidhe you need expand it. Can you restore back last version? Shadow4dark (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Don't speak for other people. Buidhe initially thought that we were discussing the lead, and they didn't respond further when I showed them that the discussion is about short description. And massacres/ethnic cleansing is already covered and expanded in the article's body, with more than sufficient references cited in the article. If you feel like those should be expanded more, then go ahead. Right now, I see no problem in remaining and adjusting the correct long-standing version of the short desc, which I've done. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
the correct long-standing version of the short desc, which I've done.wrong the desc was [[10]]. Shadow4dark (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the diff, didn't notice it previously. Still doesn't change anything, and consensuses do switch. Your only argument of "it isn't in the body" is wrong regardless, and again for the tenth time, not only massacres/ethnic cleansing is in the body, but it probably has the most sources cited throughout the article [11]. If you have arguments to present, go ahead. Other than that, I feel like this is just becoming WP:JDLI. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated, but El C you asked to remind you to restore the semi-protection. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, man. El_C 11:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Short desc

This is getting ridicoulous. @Beshogur your revert of "how many times are you gonna ignore other users, even an admin. Stop edit warring about a short descr" doesn't contain a valid argument/reason, and is disruptive. Consensus isn't assumed by numbers but by strength of the arguments. I demonstrated the rationale as to why massacres need to be included in the short desc multiple times, and I'm not the only one with that opinion, for whatever that's worth. Please don't speak for admins from herein, the edit you linked was reinstated by El C because at the time, I didn't explain my rationale. Later on talk, El C was satisfied by my explanation. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. An argument needs to be presented for why we should remove the reference to massacres. Are users arguing the massacres didn't happen? Or that they did happen but aren't relevant? Regardless, an argument needs to be presented, rather than the current disruptive drive-by removals. Jeppiz (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
GhostInTheMachine indef p-blocked from the main article. As I consider the next steps, perhaps someone would be kind enough to establish a timeline (with diffs) that shows which version is the longstanding and which is the contending one. El_C 13:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
El C The closest one to the current short desc seems to be 4 months ago (10:16, 20 June 2021). I don't know what exactly constitutes as long-standing, but regardless, consensuses can change as I understand, and I've been consistently showing my rationale for the current version. We have 12 sources stating that ethnic cleansing/massacres did in fact happen, many from reliable publishers like Oxford University Press/Harvard Press/etc, and even Turkish authors. We also have an entire section about ethnic cleansing in the article body. My belief is that we shouldn't whitewash the short desc even if it's considered (or by some considered) a minor part of the article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I think this is even more accurate: Series of wars and massacres by the Turkish National Movement, and is short enough. Per lead/body and sources:
  • "The Turkish War of Independence[note 3] (19 May 1919 – 24 July 1923) was a series of military campaigns waged by the Turkish National Movement after parts of the Ottoman Empire were occupied and partitioned following its defeat in World War I."
  • "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" ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
ZaniGiovanni, looks like opponents of that change waited too long (months) before restoring the original shot description on 17:13, 13 September 2021, so the version with massacres is now the longstanding version and the one without has become the contending one (unless there's an earlier revert I missed). Which means that during an WP:RFC, it benefits from the general expectation of being the one displayed, and more importantly, reaps the benefit of being defaulted to in the event of a no consensus outcome. So, you see (SO YOU SEE...), WP:SILENCE be stealth! (edit conflict) Let me write the thing! El_C 14:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
El C Finally, I was right about WP:SILENCE (or was I?). Still learning, a lot. Thanks for the mediation, it was really getting frustrating with users not engaging my comments and reverting blindly. I'm going to restore the longstanding version, giving due attribution to the national movement. I won't include the "culminating in the creation of the Turkish republic" as I understand it would be in conflict with WP:SDSHORT (too long). ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
No, no. The original 20 June version or bust. El_C 14:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
You mean with no modifications? Got you. Yeah you are right, long-standing (because of silence) means exactly how it was at the time. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I restored the longstanding short desc per discussion here. If there are disagreements from any of the users involved, I'm happy to do my part in answering them. Thanks again El_C for the mediation, take care everyone. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I now see that 1919-1923 series of wars and massacres in Turkey [independence be gone!] was called: "stable version prior to all the edit warring" by Jeppiz, so they are welcome to establish the veracity of that claim. Otherwise, figure out among yourselves the top two competing short desc versions and conduct an RfC about it. That seems most intuitive. El_C 14:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
As I understand at this point, an WP:RFC should be the option in case of a disagreement. I think enough already has been said. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
An RfC is meant to solicit outside input and codify the consensus through an uninvolved close. Obviously, if suddenly everyone agrees, they'd be no need, but enough already has been said isn't a valid argument. El_C 14:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Got you, only valid arguments here. Or else... ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Not satisfactory at all. None of the major classic books and references make mention of these systematic atrocities you seem to be stuck on. Most of these references you bring up seem to hark back to periods before the War of Independence, none of them are actual documentaries, so it seems you are trying include irrelevant material here for some reason. Why in the lead paragraph? Clearly not the main topic and seems mostly unrelated. Most significantly, if such large scale atrocities did occur (only one that actually occurred and fully documented was the rape and pillage of Western Turkey by the Greek Army in retreat, which was even acknowledged by Greek allies in Lausanne and caused them to secede some islands since they could not pay) then why not mention specifics, dates, places, perpetrators, mass graves, numbers etc. None offer it but you still insist on them. I am at a loss. This is not resolved at all. There seems to be a systematic manipulation of this article and incorporate certain point of views. Murat (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Causalities

The western front causalities of Turkey is not all turkish there is other muslim minorities killed. it discussed and changed in the past that you can find sources and discussion in the discussions. Also 15,000 is seem wrong to my knowlage the supporting resource is from University of Hawaii and not an historian he is an political scientist and his writings are historical comments more than scientific history if there is any historical resources supports these numbers we can discuss about it but in these moment it looks like a bit malicious to me. Deniz Mirik (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Casualities* forgive me. Deniz Mirik (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Definition

"a continuation of the Armenian genocide and other ethnic cleansing operations during World War I." Is it an impartial and scientific definition. Deniz Mirik (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Some will argue that point, but regardless, not relevant enough to be included in the lead paragraph. This article is not about WWI. Also people who make these claim have failed to give specifics to support the claim that systematic ethic cleansing or massacres were committed during the War of Independence. Dates, places, numbers, documents, orders, mass graves etc.. what part of this is hard to grasp I fail to see. There is or should be a section below that deals with atrocities committed by all, but including it in the first paragraph is clearly wrong. Murat (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Impact - atrocities

The sub-sectioned named "ethnic cleansing" should be modified to "war-time atrocities" or something similar. There certainly were atrocities committed by all sides and such details should be placed here instead of randomly dispersing throughout the article by pov editors. Would like to hear inputs. Murat (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Problem with the leading paragraph persists

It seems to me that though there has never been consensus, the problematic insertions in the first paragraph persist and not removed. Not only it tries to add irrelevant and wrong information, the supporting references do not even support the assertions made:

- Turkish War of Independence is really about four major battles, I. and II. Inonu Battles, Sakarya Battle and Dumplupinar. All fought against Greek Army, and all major and large scale battles. Some skirmishes with French in the south and Armenians in the east should be included of course. - There are no systematic ethnic cleansings or massacres documented through 1919-1922 in Anatolia. No such events are mentioned in any major and classic books or literature on this piece of history. No such documents, orders, records, no places, dates, mass graves, numbers etc. exist but the statement in question is still in the lead. - Naturally any war involves atrocities, but in this case nothing systematic has taken place as far as we know. No such record. Those events should be dealt with in another section in the body of the article, and naturally should be balanced. - Also naturally, people on all sides have moved and migrated away from war zones, mostly to avoid retributions. There was an outflow of people, no numbers are available, and also an inflow, Muslims escaping invaders and atrocities. Major population exchanges with Greece took place years after the war, and should be noted, per the wish of the Greek government at the time. - There is no record of Turkish government at the time deporting any group anywhere. They did not have the means to begin with, and by that time the country has shrunk to where the Turks were overwhelming majority anyway. - None of the references offered in this regard offer dates, places, documents, orders, independent witness statements and it seems some general statements have been taken out of context. In the end, no specifics. Crimes of that nature and scale should have specifics. Especially if trying to convince other editors who are doubtful.

These are verifiable facts. I wanted to air them here before removing the misleading statement from the leading paragraph. Thank you. Murat (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

That would be original research. Your 6 unsourced points do not override the 12 sources meticulously cited for the 3rd sentence of the leading paragraph. See the big red highlighted notice at the top of this talk page. Lightspecs (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
What original research? I would be curious to find out, please do tell. All the facts I have listed are common knowledge that can be gleamed from wiki pages. I can add references if necessary. It is clear that the issue is not resolved and there is no consensus. The very length of this talk page is proof. Meticulous references mentioned in fact do not support the claims made. I wonder if you can point to specific dates, places, documents, orders, pictures, mass graves, perpetrators mentioned in these references? I did not see any. Murat (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Original research is saying that we shouldn't include what 12 sources are stating. Wikipedia isn't based on opinions, but on reliable sources. References in fact DO mention massacres, there are even quotes from the sources directly (not sure how you didn't notice). I'll put them here just in case:
  • "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." – Üngör, Uğur Ümit, Oxford University Press
  • " from spring 1919, Kemal Pasha resumed, with ex- CUP forces, domestic war against Greek and Armenian rivals. These were partly backed by victors of World War I who had, however, abstained from occupying Asia Minor. The war for Asia Minor— in national diction, again a war of salvation and independence, thus in- line with what had begun in 1913— accomplished Talaat's demographic Turkification beginning on the eve of World War I. Resuming Talaat's Pontus policy of 1916– 17, this again involved collective physical annihilation, this time of the Rûm of Pontus at the Black Sea." – Kieser, Hans-Lukas, Princeton University Press
  • ''The Greek seizure of Smyrna and the repeated pushes inland— almost to the outskirts of Ankara, the Nationalist capital—coupled with the largely imagined threat of a Pontine breakaway, triggered a widespread, systematic four- year campaign of ethnic cleansing in which hundreds of thousands of Ottoman Greeks were massacred and more than a million deported to Greece... throughout 1914–1924, the overarching aim was to achieve a Turkey free of Greeks." – Morris, Benny; Ze'evi, Dror (2019). The Thirty-Year Genocide: Turkey's Destruction of Its Christian Minorities, 1894–1924. Harvard University Press
Among others [12]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Not satisfactory at all. None of the major classic books and references make mention of these systematic atrocities you seem to be stuck on. Most of these referenes you bring up seem to hark back to periods before the War of Independence, none of them are actual documentaries, so it seems you are trying include irrelevant material here for some reason. Why in the lead paragraph? Clearly not the main topic and seems mostly unrelated. Most significantly, if such large scale atrocities did occur (only one that actually occurred and fully documented was the rape and pillage of Western Turkey by the Greek Army in retreat) then why not mention specifics, dates, places, perpetrators, mass graves, numbers etc. None offer it but you still insist on them. I am at a loss. This is not resolved at all. Murat (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Once again, all of the 12 sources cited and quoted for the sentence and for the section on ethnic cleansing clearly note the fact that these atrocities took place, the time period (during the Turkish War of Independence, not during earlier years), and the perpetrators (the Turkish National Movement). The claim that there's "no source" is blatantly false. Lightspecs (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Once again, there are no dates, places, casualties, numbers, mass graves, documents, orders, etc. your sources not ommit all these, they cover a different period of history. Murat (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
There are all of these. Within these 12 sources and the relevant parts are already quoted. ZaniGiovanni already listed 3 of them for you. Please don't remove it without forming a consensus here. You alone don't determine what's satisfactory or not. Lightspecs (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Greek massacres of Turks & Greek scorched-earth policy

I see that there's an entire section about this on Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922), skipping the article, even the lead makes makes zero mention about atrocities commited by the Hellenic army.

  • M. Gehri stated in his report that "... The Greek army of occupation have been employed in the extermination of the Muslim population of the Yalova-Gemlik peninsula."[1]

References

  1. ^ Toynbee 1922, p. 285

What's the reason for this? Beshogur (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyone actually going to comment something? I don't see any reason why these shouldn't be included as well. Beshogur (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Naturally there should be a section in such a lengthy article and on a major conflict that involved different ethnicities and religions pitched against each other, on atrocities committed on all sides. Most of the events are well documented, including especially the destruction and pillage of the retreating Greek Army. Their atrocities were specifically mentioned in Lausanne. But all such events should be included of course. I still maintain that these events were not the main topic and should not have been included in the lead paragraph (it seems with a specific agenda), especially expanding the events to all the way 1911. Murat (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I see the new short description blames all massacres to the Turks. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that and the lead paragraph still needs to be addressed. Murat (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C:, @Buidhe:, @Visnelma:, @ZaniGiovanni:, @Deji Olajide1999:, @Kevo327:, wanna hear your opinions as well. I didn't even notice nothing was told about those atrocities in the article. Beshogur (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I just looked through the section Greco-Turkish_War_(1919–1922)#Greek_massacres_of_Turks briefly, most of it seems to be covered only by one source (Toynbee), and at the end, it has fringe claims by a known genocide denier and Turkish shill Justin McCarthy. Overall from the first glance, I'd say that it doesn't have the same WP:WEIGHT as the massacres of Christian populations, and including it in the lead especially would be WP:FALSEBALANCE considering how many reliable sources we have supporting Christian massacres and the lack of such (compared to the first) in regard to Turk population massacres. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The Greek scorched earth policy during the retreat is very well-documented, there is nothing fringe about it. The content in the Greco-Turkish article could be better sourced. The reason why it's not covered in the article is because it was never added, indeed it was only very recently that the anti-Christian campaigns were added. Let's get it right this time around though, the focus should initially be on adding the content to the body of the article, and then the lead. --GGT (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@ZaniGiovanni: fringe? So what if there's mainly Arnold J. Toynbee's works on the article? Is his works unreliable? And how did you decide those are "fringe claims" made by Justin McCarthy. For example Bernard Lewis is used everywhere throughout Wikipedia as well. Sydney Nettleton Fisher wrote that: The Greek army in retreat pursued a burned-earth policy and committed every known outrage against defenceless Turkish villagers in its path. so Sydney Nettleton Fisher is another Turkish shill? There are pretty much various sources and it is well documented. Today's lead is simply one sided. Beshogur (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Regarding McCarthy and Lewis:
• "McCarthy's work has faced harsh criticism by many scholars who have characterized McCarthy's views defending Turkish atrocities against Armenians as genocide denial. Hans-Lukas Kieser considers that McCarthy has "an indefensible bias toward the Turkish official position"." [1]
• "However, McCarthy's work has faced harsh criticism by scholars who have characterized McCarthy's views as indefensibly biased towards Turkey and the Turkish official position as well as engaging in genocide denial." [2]
• "Lewis notoriously denied the Armenian genocide. He argued that the deaths of the mass killings resulted from a struggle between two nationalistic movements, claiming that there is no proof of intent by the Ottoman government to exterminate the Armenian nation." [3]
I'd say anything McCarthy and Lewis say close to Armenians and Turks, especially regarding massacres, genocide, etc. shouldn't be considered WP:RS. They're both open denialists, and their apparent bias towards Turkey has been criticized/shown by historians and experts alike.
Regarding Toynbee: His book is from 1922 [13], and in cases like this, WP:AGEMATTERS applies. Moreover, he changed his viewpoints quite radically, going from supporting Greece to supporting Turkey. That's quite the jump, and I'd be taking anything contentious he says regarding Greece/Turkey with a grain of salt, even if not considering the WP:AGEMATTERS as is the case here, quote:
• "His support for Greece and hostility to the Turks during World War I had gained him an appointment to the Koraes Chair of Modern Greek and Byzantine History at King's College, University of London. However, after the war he changed to a pro-Turkish position, accusing Greece's military government in occupied Turkish territory of atrocities and massacres." [14].
Comparing this to the amount of sources we have supporting Armenian/Greek/Christian minority cleansing/massacres, most of them from reliable and solid publications (not just 100yr old book or two denialist authors), this is a clear case of WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE, especially the suggestion to include it in the lead along with the overwhelmingly supported Christian minorities' massacres. Simply put, it doesn't have the same WP:WEIGHT as the massacres of minorities. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
@ZaniGiovanni: I don't see anything at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about them. Do I miss something? How did you decide they're not a RS? Also those are two different topics. Beshogur (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Don't ping me. I showed my rationale as to why they aren't reliable, and it's not just my opinion, they have been criticized by historians/experts for having apparent pro Turkish position and for making fringe denialist claims. You're saying that those are two topics, but the topics are closely intertwined, as both are a continuation of the genocide/cleansing and involved massacres, and both of the authors take the Turkish position, completely neglecting what multiple RS sources say regarding minority massacres. You're the one suggesting adding info to the article. If you feel like Lewis or McCarthy are reliable here, please go ahead in that same noticeboard and ask 3rd party editors for their opinions. Actually I'd love to see the replies. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, just because someone hasn't brought McCarthy and Lewis in RSN, doesn't make McCarthy and Lewis suddenly reliable. Especially in areas where they have shown to have major conflict of interest and bias, and especially in cases of WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE, when in contrary, we have multiple WP:INDEPENDENT high quality RS sources. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: huh, it doesn't work like this. Perhaps take your concerns to the noticeboard if those are unreliable. Also denying massacres of Turks and burned Turkish villages isn't a good attitude, doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. I could put dozens of British sources from that period confirming Hellenic army atrocities: Inter-Allied Commission of Enquiry into Atrocities in Yalova and Guemlek, ‎Great Britain. Foreign Office · 1921: The commission visited Gedelek, a village which had been entirely destroyed, but was unable to find any trace of the twenty - seven people reported to have been massacred. and The Nation and Athenaeum, vol. 29: In the Kara Mursal Peninsula, between Yalova and Guemlek, on the Marmora coast, a wholesale massacre of Moslems by Greeks has been going on during the last two months. These massacres equal in ferocity and intention the massacres of Armenians by the C.U.P. in 1915. There is nothing that violates WP:FALSEBALANCE here. Beshogur (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur:, actually it works exactly like that. ZaniGiovanni has compiled a rather convincing body of rational sourced evidence, whereas your own argumentation comes across as rather emotional rather than rational. I say this as someone who thinks you're right; I also think we should include Greek atrocities in this article, so we're in perfect agreement. That should be done based on reliable sources, and ZaniGiovanni has shown why McCarthy and Lewis aren't reliable. That doesn't mean the information shouldn't be included in the body of the article, it just means better sources are needed. Jeppiz (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
What part of "don't ping me" you didn't understand? Are you having struggles reading basic english? I clearly asked you to stop pinging me. The WP:ONUS isn't one me to do anything, I demonstrated why McCarthy and Lewis aren't reliable and have been criticized by historians and experts as well. You are the one suggesting adding info to the article, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. If you think McCarthy and Lewis are reliable here and in this context especially, that's entirely your opinion. If you wish to get broader consensus on them, take it to the RSN. Other than that, I still remain of the view that they are noway near RS when it comes anything close to Armenian genocide/cleansing/massacres or claiming the opposite for Turks, because of their blatant pro-Turkish bias and fringe claims about the Armenian genocide (again same denialist Turkish position).
Also denying massacres of Turks and burned Turkish villages isn't a good attitude – I don't think you understand what WP:WEIGHT means. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
This is what happens when pov and uninformed editors make these articles their playground. Even well documented large scale events are dismissed with a whim. Greek scorched earth tactics, especially when retreating are well documented by foreign observers at the time and recorded. It was at such scale and so embarrassing to the Allies that at Lausanne Greeks were forced to pay reparations. During their initial occupation massacres were committed in Izmir also. Not to mention what happened in the East and Black Sea region. I will detail them all in the new section I proposed, or rather new titled, "war-time atrocities" where all this belongs.Murat (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
This is what happens when pov and uninformed editors make these articles their playground – last and only warning of WP:NPA. You arent being helpful. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@ZaniGiovanni: What part of "don't ping me" you didn't understand? Are you having struggles reading basic english? It's obvious that I don't have struggles with "reading basic english". You're talking about personal attacks, but this is no less than that. Also I am using the basic reply function. Beshogur (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Dror Ze'evi and Benny Morris

Dror Ze'evi and Benny Morris, both 3rd party historians, both already cited in the article,

Both have been published by authoritative and reliable publications such as Harvard University Press. I can't see why the recent edits by François Robere shouldn't remain in the article. Noteworthy comment, POV requires that all major viewpoints are represented. Dror Ze'evi and Benny Morris are highly notable historians. Their book, The Thirty-Year Genocide (2019) has 34 citations on GS, and is already cited in the article lead. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: That text has one sentence about Ataturk. If we remove the rest, what's left other than: These horrendous acts were committed by ... the nationalist-secular post-war regime of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.". Also I don't get what you're trying to point out with Dror Ze'evi and Benny Morris, authors of The Thirty-Year Genocide, + the source; pointing out that they're notable historians? Beshogur (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Dror Ze'evi and Benny Morris, authors of The Thirty-Year Genocide, write that "the story about what happened in Turkey is much broader and deeper [than just the Armenian genocide]. It's deeper because it isn't just about World War I, but about a series of homicidal ethno-religious cleansings that took place from the late 1890's to the 1920's and beyond.
WW1 is mentioned in the article as well, and beyond. And their much more comprehensive book; The thirty-year genocide. Turkey's destruction of its Christian minorities, 1894–1924, by Benny Morris and Dror Ze'evi, Cambridge, MA, and London, Harvard University Press, is already cited in the lead. So it's not just "one sentence", the article is elaborating deeper about what they already have published. And last time I checked, this page isn't solely about Ataturk, but the Turkish war as a whole and the massacres that came with it ought to me be mentioned if reliable authors/publications state them in books (a lot more extensively) and in articles. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
That text has one sentence about Ataturk I'm not sure what's your point. François Robere (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The problem is not that Ze'evi and Morris are unreliable. There are several problems with this addition. The first and the most basic one is that such long quotes are very seldom acceptable and do in fact pose copyright problems. If that even is a question, it needs to go. The second problem is that their hypothesis of a 30-year genocidal campaign (one that is more extensive than the late Ottoman genocides theory), which is essentially embodied by this long quote, is one that does not have a lot of traction amongst scholars, see the critique of their work in the article and please do read the actual reviews for more details. It is therefore very much WP:UNDUE. The third problem is that this quote is only tangentially related to the War of Independence. It lumps together all sorts of atrocities from a 30 year-long period into one big list and is thus misleading. For instance, it talks about girls being sold as sex slaves, but nowhere in the book do they actually demonstrate evidence of such acts during the War of Independence. If it didn't happen during this war, there is no reason for it to be mentioned in this article. Please establish consensus before reinstating it. --GGT (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
The problem is not that Ze'evi and Morris are unreliable – No they're not, and you haven't provided any evidence for that. They're notable historians, published by reliable publications and their book, The Thirty-Year Genocide (2019) has 34 citations on GS.
Every reliable major book/website has criticism, and this book isn't an exception. It doesn't make it "WP:UNDUE", is New York Times suddenly "undue" because it has been subject to criticism? What kind of logic is this?
It doesn't lump anything, it explicitly mentions that these acts were a result of 3 regimes: These horrendous acts were committed by three entirely different regimes:
I see no reason why the edit was reverted, when all the atrocities and massacres described in it are not only supported by Dror Ze'evi and Benny Morris book, but by dozen other reliable sources. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I see no reason why the edit was reverted. Uh, it’s a copyvio in the first place? There is nothing to indicate that such a lengthy quote constitutes fair use.
Just for clarification, The problem is not that Ze'evi and Morris are unreliable means that I’m not claiming that the book is not RS.
A book can be RS in terms of the factual information it’s reporting and yet its main thesis can be a minority viewpoint. Being RS does not automatically mean that its viewpoint merits inclusion. This is the case for this book, as evidenced by the critique, hence it’s undue. And heck, the quote is not even from the book, it’s from a random commentary in Haaretz. That doesn’t count as a scholarly work. Just because these two academics published a reliable book, it doesn’t mean that every word out of their mouths has encyclopaedic quality.
If there were no sex slaves during the War of Independence, there cannot be a discussion of sex slaves in this article. Sorry, but anything else is just purely misleading and irrelevant. Not every sensationalistic commentary that you find on the internet needs to be here, that’s just not good encyclopedia building. That involves doing a comprehensive literature search and avoiding commentaries where academic research is available.
I really think I’ve laboured the point here and failure to get why it has been removed would be disruptive in the first place.
—GGT (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@GGT: the problem here, they cite a book to show that they're reliable. That's not how it's work. I already explained how the text was problematic, that's another issue. Beshogur (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Short description

The short description is horribly long again.
A Short description should be short – see WP:SDSHORT.
A Short description should not attempt to define the article's subject – see WP:SDNOTDEF.
A Short description exists to clarify which article has been found by a search. As such, dates do help and details of what happened do not. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a shorter short description (this article is in Category: Articles with long short description, a maintenance category I've been slowly working my way through). Reading through what happened in the previous discussion, it looked like it was going to come close to a consensus for a shorter short description until El_C used his admin privileges to insist that a longer version be maintained. I don't have any strong opinions on which of the proposed short descriptions should be used right now, as long as the description is shortened (ideally in the range of 30-60 characters). Iffy★Chat -- 20:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Iffy I believe when a person is being discussed, it's only appropriate to ping them. El C suggested restoring the longstanding version, and later discuss or RfC if there are proposals, quote: Otherwise, figure out among yourselves the top two competing short desc versions and conduct an RfC about it. So saying they "insisted for the longer version be maintained" is inaccurate, they suggested restoring the longstanding version until/if other proposals are made. But since all the other editors (like previously) haven't provided a rationale for not including massacres or reverting with no sufficient reason, I guess that's why the longstanding version still stands (no pun intended).
Btw, the OP of this discussion was one of the blindly reverting people, providing no valid revert reason for even removing massacres from alot shorter desc, see diff. And yet GhostInTheMachine is still here, opening a discussion about an issue that led to their tban from this article. And I find it odd that according to them, the shortdesc issue is "oh it's just too long now". What was the issue with this shortdesc that you reverted? It's short, lot shorter than the current one, and had no issues you claim now. Yet you still reverted it, removing massacres from it, without providing any valid reason. Forgive me, but after that, I'm a bit skeptical that your only concern is the length of the shortdesc. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
ZaniGiovanni, please stop pinging me to this talk page for non-urgent matters. Just run the RfC and be done with it. I'm not particularly interested in holding everyone's hands here. El_C 14:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2022

Delete the part where it says "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." SarpBakırsoy123 (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done no consensus for this edit (t · c) buidhe 10:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021

"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.[59] These campaigns resulted in the creation of the Republic of Turkey." gives the reader the illusion that the Republic of Turkey was created because of the massacres. Furthermore, this part should have a part that shows that this part of the text is at the very least contested.

"[...] These campaigns resulted in the creation of the Republic of Turkey. Simultaneously, the Turkish nationalist movement carried out deportation and assimilation campaigns in order to create a more homogenous population—a continuation of the alleged Armenian genocide and other ethnic cleansing operations during World War I." can be used as a better edit. 176.55.110.144 (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Short description 2

Another month and the short description is still far too long.
A Short description should be short – see WP:SDSHORT.
Also, a Short description should not attempt to define the article's subject – see WP:SDNOTDEF.
A Short description exists to clarify which article has been found by a search.
As such, dates do help and details of what happened do not — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 16:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:SDCONTENT, The short description is part of the article content, and is subject to the normal rules on content, including Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. FDW777 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Short description 4

The short description is still far too long. Please deal with the problem — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 17:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You are tbanned from this article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Short description proposals

Current short description consists of 97 characters (114 spaces included). This is more than the double of max. limit set by WP:SDSHORT. Therefore, I am proposing new SDs to choose from with character numbers noted on the right-hand side. I hope that we can create a consensus to choose the most appropriate one.

Current: Series of wars and massacres by the Turkish National Movement, culminating in the creation of the Turkish republic (97/114)

  1. Series of wars and massacres by the Turkish National Movement (52/61)
  2. Series of wars by the Turkish National Movement (40/47)
  3. Wars and massacres by the Turkish National Movement (44/51)
  4. Wars and massacres in Anatolia (26/30)
  5. Series of wars in Anatolia (22/26)
  6. Series of wars in Anatolia in 1919-1923 (33/39)

Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Support 1 and 3 equally both still convey the basics of the article accurately while still being brief. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I should echo my comment dated 4 May. "I also note that a proper consensus was never really established for the definition of this event as an ethnic cleansing campaign." For further details, please see that comment. Just because there is content about ethnic cleansing in the article, it doesn't mean that the war itself can be summed up as a series of massacres. The short description cannot be a way to get around the lack of consensus. Hence the current one as well as proposals 1, 3, 4 and 6 are all unacceptable. 5 would be my preferred option, partly for brevity, partly because "wars by the Turkish National Movement" doesn't really make sense. --GGT (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    Just because there is content about ethnic cleansing in the article, it doesn't mean that the war itself can be summed up as a series of massacres. – By article you meant over 12 sources cited for massacres that happened during the war? We write what sources tell and not our own interpretations. If multiple WP:RS state massacres, then it's more than appropriate to be included in the short description. Massacres by far have the most sources cited for.
    For these reasons, Support 1 and 3 equally as well. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
    Oh please, spare me the patronising comments, will you? Read my comments above - I am well aware of the sources in the article and beyond. No one is trying to deny that there were massacres during the war. Per WP:SHORTDESC, the short description is meant to be a "very brief indication of the field covered by the article". It is also bound by general policies, including WP:UNDUE. Do you see how the "ethnic cleansing" section is a subheading within the impact section? It's not even a top-level heading in the article! It is at the same level as, say, "abolition of the Sultanate", so why are we not saying "Series of wars and massacres in Anatolia and the abolition of the Sultanate"? After all, there are loads of sources that say that the War of Independence was accompanied by the abolition of the sultanate, right? I could definitely produce a list on demand.
    Also note that it is one thing to state in the article that there were massacres during the war, and something entirely different to say that the war was a series of massacres. I have explained at great length above that this interpretation is NOT supported by all of those 12 sources (which I'm not sure anyone actually bothers reading around here...), let alone the wider literature. It's a fine distinction, but a very important one. So yes, exactly, We write what sources tell and not our own interpretations. - the only problem is that the current short description is not what the sources tell.
    --GGT (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Oh please, spare me the patronising comments, will you?
    Not sure what exactly "patronizing" was said. I'd highly suggest you stop these WP:ASPERSIONS as baseless accusations qualify as personal attacks.
    • Per WP:SHORTDESC, the short description is meant to be a "very brief indication of the field covered by the article". It is also bound by general policies, including WP:UNDUE.
    PER WP:SDFORMAT - "be short – no more than about 40 characters (but this can be slightly exceeded if necessary)". The versions I Supported fall exactly in this definition, specifically the 3rd version which I'm fine with. When it comes to "Undue", I'd ask you to read what the guideline actually stands for. IF something is supported by multiple reliable sources, by definition it's WP:DUE. Massacres that happened during the war are a significant majority viewpoint, "Undue" has nothing to do here.
    • I have explained at great length above that this interpretation is NOT supported by all of those 12 sources
      • "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." – Üngör, Uğur Ümit, Oxford University Press
      • " from spring 1919, Kemal Pasha resumed, with ex- CUP forces, domestic war against Greek and Armenian rivals. These were partly backed by victors of World War I who had, however, abstained from occupying Asia Minor. The war for Asia Minor— in national diction, again a war of salvation and independence, thus in- line with what had begun in 1913— accomplished Talaat's demographic Turkification beginning on the eve of World War I. Resuming Talaat's Pontus policy of 1916– 17, this again involved collective physical annihilation, this time of the Rûm of Pontus at the Black Sea." – Kieser, Hans-Lukas, Princeton University Press
      • ''The Greek seizure of Smyrna and the repeated pushes inland— almost to the outskirts of Ankara, the Nationalist capital—coupled with the largely imagined threat of a Pontine breakaway, triggered a widespread, systematic four- year campaign of ethnic cleansing in which hundreds of thousands of Ottoman Greeks were massacred and more than a million deported to Greece... throughout 1914–1924, the overarching aim was to achieve a Turkey free of Greeks." – Morris, Benny; Ze'evi, Dror (2019). The Thirty-Year Genocide: Turkey's Destruction of Its Christian Minorities, 1894–1924. Harvard University Press
      • ...
    This is all that's needed. Your comment is irrelevant, as massacres / ethnic cleansing during the war is a clear viewpoint held by multiple reliable and high quality sources. And that's not even all the ones I listed. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    "massacres / ethnic cleansing during the war is a clear viewpoint" - No; that massacres/ethnic cleansing happened during the war is not merely a viewpoint, it's a well-documented fact. But that still doesn't necessitate its inclusion in the shortdesc. This article’s focus is the war, the massacres are part of the impact of that war. Other impacts include the abolition of the sultanate, the establishment of the Republic etc. Choosing only one aspect of that impact for the shortdesc is definitely undue. There is a new viewpoint that states that the war in itself was a process of ethnic cleansing but this is not accepted by the bulk of academic literature (it's unsurprisingly shared by some from the field of genocide studies but not further afield, see my comments above), and puzzlingly, is being persistently cherrypicked from sources in this discussion. The fact that you're capable of quoting and highlighting them doesn't help your case at all - I'm commenting with the full knowledge of not just the quotes but of the whole works and also other books covering the same period. For instance, this quote from Kieser is found in 319-320 after very limited discussion of the military aspects of the war. Kieser here is not claiming to give an overview of the war, he is clearly approaching it in the broader context of his work - Talaat Pasha's biography. And again it's pretty clear that no one is really reading the comments above, because I've already said multiple times that other sources e.g. the Cambridge History of Turkey, The Ottoman Endgame by Sean McMeekin or Eternal dawn: Turkey in the age of Atatürk by Ryan Gingeras don't share this sort of definition by any means. And no I won't provide any quotes - I think it should be clear enough that out-of-context quotes are not a healthy way to address this. --GGT (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    I think you're starting to talk with your opinions too much at this point. As I already said, I see no problem with massacres being included in the short description as they're covered and stated by multiple high quality sources. The rest of your comment doesn't make sense to me, especially the "out of context" part. If multiple high quality sources state ethnic cleansing / massacres happened during the war and were part of the war, it is by definition IN context of it. I'm not wasting more time in this discussion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 6 includes dates, which generally help. It is also below 40 characters and is suitably neutral — assuming Anatolia is preferred to Turkey — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 11:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

1 ATROCITIES AGAINST MUSLIM TURKS DURING THE TURKISH WAR OF INDEPENDENCE

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

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

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

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

2 BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

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

FOREWORD

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

1 CONTENTS

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

2 REQUEST AND EXPLANATION

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

3 ATROCITIES AGAINST MUSLIM TURKS DURING THE TURKISH WAR OF INDEPENDENCE

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

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

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

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

4 BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This large a change will need discussion before implementation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Seems like some of this content may be more appropriate for Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922). The first paragraph strikes me as not the mainstream view in overall scholarship. For example, "During the War of Independence, any effort to rally the nationalist movement to defend the Turkish rights was perceived as an intent to massacre the Christian population." -> the phrasing is biased, since it assumes that "Turkish rights" are valid, and besides other sources would argue that there is plenty of evidence for such intent. (t · c) buidhe 14:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Reply to abstention from mentioning the atrocities against Muslim Turks

CONTENTS

1 Foreword

2 The Question of Turkish Rights

3 Turkish war of Independence v. Greek-Turkish war

4 Bibliography

5 Afterword

1 FOREWORD

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

2 THE QUESTION OF TURKISH RIGHTS

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

3 TURKISH WAR OF INDEPENDENCE V. GREEK-TURKISH WAR

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

4 BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

5 AFTERWORD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say, and most of them say that the genocide was an integral part of the creation of Turkey as a nation. If those sources are not being summarized accurately, please describe the specific errors. If the sources are being summarized accurately but you disagree with what they say, you will have to take that up with the sources. Remember that the Turkish government promotes and educates its citizens with a certain narrative. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
see WP:UNDUE Göktuğ Canik (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I strongly suggest you don't copy arguments you don't understand from the talk page of a totally different article. FDW777 (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
It is at best laughable the reliable sources are from Armenian State Founded Academics and thought leaders supported by the diaspora. There is hundred of sources in Turkish and English explaining the events that Misak-i Milliye Movement encountered when they were established the Republic, it is very convenient for you to deem all of the arguments that academics of one nation makes delving into Archives of Ottoman, American, English states as "promotion of a certain idea" where as more then half of the attribution under [57] is literally and openly connected to the other sides government. If you are making a claim about intellectual honestly, it can with full confidence be said that you are not exhibiting it in the slightest. AdaletAdam (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and many of them state that the term genocide applies to what occurred to the Armenians. The article Armenian genocide denial covers the opposing viewpoint- which is an integral part of the founding of the Turkish nation, taught in their schools, and as such is likely difficult to accept for citizens of Turkey. You are free to believe what you wish, but that does not change what sources state. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Again you are missing the point. What you are doing with this article is literally giving the opposing idea a spotlight at the very beginning of the other one. This is the same as going to Armenian Republic's page and writing in the first paragraph the Genocide narrative installed by Soviet Russia is the fundamental reason Armenian state exists and ASALA a French backed terrorist organisation gave the nation their entry to euro-centricity. Your sources are not reliable at the least, they do not cover any academic actively contesting this idea Turkish or otherwise. This line of argument is not about petty patriotism of people, it is the lack of intellectual honestly you are displaying, just to exhibit a stance in alignment to main stream opinion. This is the laziest form of contributing to an intellectual discussion. AdaletAdam (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:TLDR. That sentence is the best referenced part of the whole article. FDW777 (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
By best referenced, I mean you are indicating the most thought that was put in it, since it is literal engineered propaganda. Kuvay-i Milliye didn't interact with Armenians in any form between 1915-1917 nor showed military action towards ethnic civilians. If you are so up to debate about this, we can go name by name of each attribution and document these individuals' relations with Armenian diaspora and the government. [57] is clear violation of propaganda statement. AdaletAdam (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore your behaviour "wp:tldr" shows a disgusting tendency of cutting of arguments when they are not suiting you. AdaletAdam (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC) — AdaletAdam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I choose not to waste my team time reading argyments that have no basis in Wikipedia policy. FDW777 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I see so Wikipedia policy became to act like you are better then people for no reason and denying factual chronology, based on state propaganda. If your attitude is anything to go on we can right now go name by name of the attribution list, as you are so confident in dismissing any form of countering argument to your viewpoint. Racism doesn't go away when you try to wrap it around intellectualism. AdaletAdam (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)— AdaletAdam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hi AdaletAdam, FDW777 is right and I actually checked if the Kuvay i-Millyie was mentioned in the phrase in question but it wasn't. I suggest you begin to edit an article on which you can work on to start with.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I will. However, still from an objective position an observer can see there is intellectual dishonesty here, stemming from euro-centric orientalism. I am going to format this chronology as necessary and include the first hand account of the Armenian Head of State present in 2nd Assembly, with all the "relaible attributions" actual sources and connections with state propaganda. However as much I believe the value of having Wikipedia as it is, just because there is a diplomatic and political push is present no matter how much attribution and contesting is done in the end very regrettably it is not possible to display there is a wider grey area in this topic particularly in Anatolia as all the intellectual effort is tagged in some form of denial or the similar. Whilst the opposite is the aim. All parts of this chronology is widely available and will be attributed suitably in this talk page if that what it takes to dismiss undeserved guilt put on to Anatolian civilians who picked up arms from ages 13 to 70, donating their last possessions to push down illegal occupation wrecking their existence caused by an Illegal government which later tried to assassinate Mustafa Kemal in Izmir after the second assembly was formed. I will in essence attribute the undoubtable facts similar to how gravitational pull exists in Newtonian physics. But I know in some form this effort how sound and clear it is will not taken in good faith claiming I am biased or it is some kind of propaganda, or maybe breaching NPOV in this specific case. At least thank you for your more civilised input. AdaletAdam (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I am still contesting that part of the passage, the sources listed breach NPOV, clearly. CUP and CHP has distinct temporal difference and cannot be categorised as the same group. The resources presented is clearly written from an Anti-Turkish perspective. Just because there is intellectual sophistication here doesn't mean that this is a literal hate crime against Turkish people and their history. AdaletAdam (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
CUP and CHP has distinct temporal difference and cannot be categorised as the same group The majority of RS do consider them closely related that the latter a successor/continuation of the former. Wikipedia is based on what the RS says. I'm also curious on what basis the occupation of Turkey can be deemed "illegal"? This area of international law was not conclusively developed until after WWII. (t · c) buidhe 12:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Armenian genocide is a real hate crime, stop being so melodramatic. FDW777 (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

How about a shorter archive term?

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

Paradise Chronicle, I couldn't agree more, even 180 seems too long compared to other articles, I've set it to 60 days for now (which is the norm in most article archives I've seen), we can change it if we need to. - Kevo327 (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
It didn't see, that you have changed it to 60, how did you do it? It didn't show beside the auto archiving period a 60 days and a blue i. I have changed it to 180 for now. Let's see, if it helps.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
after checking it again I hadn't noticed that the header had a different day count, I think the top one is just for display and the bot settings is the one that should be changed for it to work (the lowercase sigma bot template "MiszaBot"). I went ahead and set that to 180 days as well. - Kevo327 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
It worked!Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Short description is slightly POV

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

Maybe 1919-1923 series of wars in Turkey or Series of wars in Turkey, 1919 to 1923? Using dates are clearer — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 20:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The short description is indeed problematic. Short descriptions on wars usually don't mention war crimes, for instance the shortdescs for Eritrean War of Independence and the Bosnian War (keep in mind acts of mass murder was one of the defining features of both conflicts) don't mention massacres. It's not the norm. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 02:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
For comparison, the Greco-Turkish War is described as:Part of the Turkish War of Independence, when it could also be described as Military offensive and massacres by Greece. The second description, takes the situation out of context, which is why the current description for this page is problematic and should be changed. —Central Data Bank (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Support changing short description to Post-World War I conflict in Anatolia or similar variants. It is much more clear and neutral compared to the current sd. 176.219.153.122 (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Result: Victory vs. Decisive Victory

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2022

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

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

Biased

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

Article title

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

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_War_of_Independence/Archive_4&oldid=1135658855"