Turkish War of Independence was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 7, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Turkey C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Balkan / European / Middle East / Ottoman C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Ottoman military history task force Armenia C‑class High‑importance Turkish War of Independence is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. European history C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries: Ottoman Empire C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire (assessed as Top-importance).

	Other talk page banners
Template:Vital article

Should the following content be added to the article? 176.219.212.111 (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a) Yes. b) No.

Content

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 claims 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]

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.

Opinions

YES. It should be added to the article because the killings are mentioned by a lot of reliable sources and these events are omitted in the current version of this article.--176.219.212.111 (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not include as proposed. Some of this looks like it's about Greco-Turkish War and would be more appropriate for that article. The first paragraph seems entirely irrelevant; although it's undeniable that some Westerners had stereotypical negative views of Turkey it's not clear how it had any bearing on the subject of this article. (Besides, wasn't Hurst's view accurate?) (t · c) buidhe 00:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply.

Andrew Mango quotes Hurst specifically to reflect the perception of Turkish mobilization by the Western nations in his book. He also states that Christian minorities did their best to reinforce this perception to weaken the Turkish position. He concludes, "The fate of Muslim Turks did not figure in Allied concerns." I think this section is important it shows the reality that in the West, the death of Muslims was under-represented, while the death of Christians was somewhat over-represented so that they could gather support for the war effort. If you still object to include this paragraph, I would suggest trimming it to keep the relevant parts instead of completely removing it.

Regarding your objection whether some parts -albeit it is not specified which parts those are- should be transferred to Greek-Turkish War, Greek-Turkish War is sometimes used to simply refer to Turkish War of Independence probably because it was where the most intense fighting took place. Killings that took place during Greek-Turkish War is simply known as killings that took place in the Western Front from the other perspective. The best compromise I can offer is to keep the section you want to transfer in this article in a summarized way and put a link to access the other article.

Lastly if you ask my views on whether Hurst views are accurate, we should take into consideration whether those massacres where (a) an intentional campaign to destroy the population, or (b) an inevitable but terrible byproduct of the war. I think there are sources that fairly argue for either position. However, the bulk of the sources currently cited in this article support the former (a), whilst never balancing the content by mentioning counter positions against them. For example, P. Tacar and M. Gauin wrote a reply [1] to Avedian but their reply isn’t reflected in the article.

[1] Pulat Tacar, Maxime Gauin, State Identity, Continuity, and Responsibility: The Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide: A Reply to Vahagn Avedian, European Journal of International Law, Volume 23, Issue 3, August 2012, Pages 821–835 176.219.154.255 (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in the West, the death of Muslims was under-represented, while the death of Christians was somewhat over-represented Likely true if we're discussing contemporary depictions, but you need some reliable source that says it's the case for TWOI specifically, or else I'd say it's original research. I do think that this article should be about the entire TWOI and that content specifically about Greeks belongs on the Greek war page. You seem to be assuming that Gauin & Tacar's reply is considered as correct as Avedian's paper, which is verifiably false—Avedian's paper is cited more than twice as much. Gauin & Tacar also take the fringe position of denying the Armenian genocide (Yavuz also holds this position) which undermines their credibility. (t · c) buidhe 07:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn’t dig deeply but with a quick search here’s an instance for the depiction of massacres on Southern front in Western media, “The French vigorously protested the attacks on their soldiers, as did the Armenian delegation protest the massacres of Armenian civilians. The European newspapers bestowed the name Maras Massacre and covered the gory details using greatly inflated numbers, which were later revised downward.” [1, p. 161]

Regarding Greek-Turkish War vs. Turkish War of Independence issue, Greek-Turkish War is the Western frontier of the Turkish War of Independence, which is a war composed of multiple wars. Scholars who write on War of Independence consider massacres by the Greek army in the Western front to be an integral part of the former. If we were to go by the same logic, the death of Christians should also be transferred to their respective articles.

Lastly regarding Tacar & Gauin and Yavuz’s papers I disagree with your opinion. I don’t think we should deem them to be uncredible just because it refuses to describe events of 1915 as genocide. Do you hold the view that any such article is uncredible even if it is published in a reputable journal? I think it is not. Yes, Gauin and Tacar’s paper has a smaller citation count but isn’t that typical for the most response articles. And by the way if you compare Avedian’s position to other authors, none of them is as harshly critical as him perhaps except for Kevorkian. So, Avedian’s position is radical even compared to other scholars who have such an approach to killing of Christians. This strictly necessities a balance with the mention of counter position.

[1] E. J. Erickson, The Turkish War of Independence, ABC-CLIO, 2021. 176.219.154.97 (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not as proposed. The proposed text would violate WP:DUE. If the Fronts/Western Front section weren't empty, or if we had a section about civilian losses I would support adding a brief summary of the events. Regarding the discussion of the Western perception of these events, I'm not sure it passed WP:DUE. Alaexis_¿question? 06:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply.

There is indeed a section for civilian loses: it exists under the heading "ethnic cleansing". P. S. Jowett makes it very clear there was ethnic cleaning from both sides [1, p. 4]. B. Lieberman also covers the atrocities against Muslims Turks under his book titled "Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe." As we've clarified that an appropriate section exists, I'm sure you would now gladly support adding the proposed text to the article.

Best regards.

[1] P. S. Jowett, Armies of the Greek-Turkish War 1919-1922, Osprey Publishing, 2015.

[2] B. Lieberman, Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe, 2006. 176.219.214.110 (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think the proposed text should be added to the ethnic cleansing section. While there is one sentence which does mention ethnic cleansings by both sides, the rest of the content doesn't belong to it, not to mention WP:DUE issues. Alaexis_¿question? 06:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page you've linked ("WP:DUE") states that, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." The content I proposed (i.e., atrocities against Muslims Turks) is supported by a lot of sources which are written by subject experts. Besides, none of the existing sources present in the article seem to contradict that atrocities were committed against Muslim Turks during the war. Under these circumstances, I am unable to understand precisely why you oppose to the addition of this content. If you elaborate your concerns, I can fix the problems you've perceived.

Best regards. 176.219.212.205 (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you bring on sources for phrases in the several unsourced sections it would probably be accepted and you might get a successful wikipedia experience.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle, I believe all the references are available above the "Opinions" heading. Could you please provide specifics in case I am missing something? Which parts do you think are unsourced? 176.219.212.205 (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also says An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. In other words, the section on ethnic cleansing in the article about the Turkish War of Independence should discuss the atrocities committed by all sides proportionally to the weight they are given in reliable sources (in the hope that the said said weight reflects the importance and gravity of the events in question). Adding the text you propose in its entirety would make the section unbalanced. Alaexis_¿question? 08:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alaexis, I completely agree with you that atrocities from both sides should be covered. However, when I check the article right now, I can clearly see that atrocities against Christians are already well-covered, not just in ethnic cleansing section but also in the article abstract. That's why the content suggested by me only covers atrocities against Muslim Turks—because, the atrocities against the Christians is already present in the article. The content suggested by me aims to balance the article as the killings against Muslim Turks also have its treatment in reliable sources.

If you want to add more information regarding atrocities against Christians, more power to you; grab your sources and add them but this shouldn't be a reason to oppose the content I propose.

Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. 176.219.212.205 (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP how about suggesting sources for uncited text and creating an account? Then you can build up some reliability in your edits and at one point you will not need to make edit requests anymore and discuss through time consuming discussions and can just add the info you deem improving the article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The soruces were already present at the bottom of the content proposed. Nevertheless, I reworked the its heading in order to make it easier to notice. Best regards.--176.219.215.136 (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YES If article covers atrocities from one side, then it should cover the other sides to reflect neutral point of view. Considering RS provided, may be some polish on the wording, but in general YES. --Abrvagl (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with modifications to fit WP:DUE, but I think the phrasing and amount of detail to include can be adjusted eventually. Suggested content has reliable sources; inclusion of non-Western perspectives helps fight Wikipedia's systemic bias. My main concern is the weight created by the section header. However, there conveniently already exists an ethnic cleansing section mostly detailing atrocities done to Christians, so I think the content can go under there and actually help bring WP:BALANCE to that section as well, perhaps rename the section to be "Ethnic cleansing and atrocities". I believe this is a reasonable compromise for those who have concerns about weight. tofubird | ✉ 07:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It hardly helps our systemic bias to cite articles literally written in order to deny the Armenian genocide (Yavuz' piece) by claiming that accusations of genocide are the product of bias against Turkey; including this viewpoint does not help with systemic bias but actually helps perpetuate it. (t · c) buidhe 07:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I also agree on that point.

  That said, reliable sources aren't required to be neutral or objective. I believe given Yavuz's explicit denial of the Armenian genocide, in-text attribution of his position would be appropriate. For example "...Yavuz, Turkish academic and director of the Turkish Studies Project of the Turkish Coalition of America's, writes that..." or more explicitly, Yavuz, a historian and Armenian genocide denialist, writes that....", etc. Alternatively, I'm happy with excluding the Yavuz piece since the "Terrible Turk" article is also discussed by JMV Lippe article. I also do agree with your intuition that the paragraph on the war's contribution to Western stereotypical views on Turkey can be pared down to be more concise as per WP:DUE, but I don't think it's inappropriate to include some mention of it.

  Regardless, the bulk of the proposed section is about atrocities committed by Greek forces during the war, which as you mentioned, was part of the Greco-Turkish war. However, this itself was a significant part of the Turkish War of Independence. Modifications can be tweaked for balance and achieving due weight, but omission of the spirit of the suggested section (Turkish victims of the war) would be WP:BABY. tofubird | ✉ 21:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Tolubird, thank you for the detailed compromise offer, which I mostly concur for. I'd prefer to go with the former in-text attribution which is more neutral. Because, we shouldn't confuse 'disputing a genocide' with 'denying a genocide'. For example, there are a lot of academicians that dispute Holodomor constitutes a genocide in Holomodor genocide question article, where as its genocide denial aspects is discussed in Denial of the Holodomor article. Best regards. 176.219.154.144 (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tofubird, thank you for your careful evaluation of the content and your objective analysis. I have no objections to the compromise you've suggested. I'd like to address the concerns put forward by Buidhe with regards to Yavuz's article. According to Reliable Sources policy, "The reliability of a source depends on context." In the content I proposed, Yavuz's article discusses the "Terrible Turk" image in the Western world. Therefore, his position on AG is irrelevant in a non-AG related context. Best regards. 176.219.155.193 (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem though: Therefore, his position on AG is irrelevant in a non-AG related context. Armenian genocide hardly irrelevant though, since many RS see this war as a continuation of the genocide. Furthermore, whether the idea of "Terrible Turk" is "unfair" (your words) is exactly the kind of opinion that Wikipedia is not allowed to espouse. For a much more balanced discussion of Western attitudes, Bloxham's "The roots of American genocide denial: Near eastern geopolitics and the interwar Armenian question" is a good source to cite. (t · c) buidhe 22:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read this article by Robert Trask (The "Terrible Turk" and Turkish-American Relations in the Interwar Period). The Terrible Turk image was created as a war-time propaganda to sway the public opinion against the Turks. Unquestionably, killings occurred; however, these were intentionally exaggerated by Christian missionaries.

Also, the references in the abstract are cherry-picked. I don't have statistics but there are probably more sources that do not describe Turkish War of Independence "as a continuation of genocide". Because, (a) It is a fraction of scholars who extend the 'genocide' period from 1915/16 to 1923; (b) There are those who dispute that the events constitute a genocide based on UN Genocide definition (c) Most of the cited academicians in the article abstract are 'genocide scholars' (rather than 'military historians' for example), therefore probably giving excessive emphasis on humanitarian/war crime aspects of the war compared to military, economic, and diplomatic aspects.

I do not deny Christians suffered during this war. However, it is a both academic and moral mistake to pick a fraction of 'convenient' sources to describe the war as 'genocide' and then conclude that the 'Terrible Turk' stigmatization is not 'unfair'. 176.219.213.125 (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfair" is an opinion. Whether you think genocide is unfair or Turkish stereotypes are unfair, neither has a place in Wikipedia voice per WP:IMPARTIAL. Bloxham is a well-regarded scholar whose work helped complicate somewhat simplistic ideas about Turkey and the Armenian genocide.

As for stereotypes of "terrible Turk", these existed long before WWI. The reality is far more complex than your version suggests, given that Germany was pumping out pro-Turkish propaganda and Armenian genocide denial both during and after WWI (see both of Stefan Ihrig's books). In the UK and Ireland there was an opposite stereotype of "clean-fighting Turk" during and after WWI. A more nuanced view specifically about Western perceptions of the Nationalist faction can be found in Elusive forces in illusive eyes: British officialdom's perception of the Anatolian resistance movement whose author, Alp Yenen, can hardly be accused of anti-Turkish bias. I just cannot endorse your proposed version because it does not reflect the latest scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 04:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloxham article is great, that said the content on Turkish stereotypes as a result of the war might enter WP:COATRACK territory if the discussion is too extensive; so caution should be done here -- perhaps a one or two sentence summary of the views would be best.

Finally -- and I think this is the spirit of the RFC proposal -- there isn't even a summary of massacres on civilian Turks. It's especially bizarre given that there's a link to the main article on the massacres in the ethnic cleansing section, but there's no summary in this article at all. FWIW, an editor raised this issue in October 2021 but did not receive any attention. Inclusion of a summary is warranted -- if not necessary, and the proposed content can be modified fit WP:DUE.

I suggest that the proposed summary of massacres on Turkish civilians be three or four sentences, starting with The Greek government recognized the massacres of Muslim Turks in the Treaty of Lausanne... and going from there (e.g. mentioning Yenemen and Yalova Peninsula). tofubird | ✉ 08:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not include - much of it refers to unrelated earlier conflicts and is a WP:SOAPBOX for an undue Turkish victimhood narrative. At least two of the bibliography authors, Mango and Erickson, are genocide deniers. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Erickson does recognize the events as 'genocide'. 176.219.154.125 (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong he is a denialist. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Erickson were to be a denialist, he wouldn't let Konstantin Travlos write this in his book,

"I am a believer in the Greek national idea and accept the Greek argument of a genocide committed against Ottoman Greeks in the period 1914–1922. With that said, I am also cognizant of the devastation and atrocities committed by either the Greek army or groups protected by the Greek army during the prosecution of the war against the Turkish Nationalist movement, a responsibility taken officially by Greece in the Treaty of Lausanne." (Erickson, The Turkish War of Independence. in Appendix A by Konstantin Travlos) 176.219.155.234 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, on my comment at 10:09, I accidentally attributed Travlos's passage to Erickson, which resulted in my assumption that Erickson recognizes the 'genocide'. If I were to write that now, I would say that Erickson is neither a denier nor recognizer. In his book, he simply cites sources from both sides to give proportional view.--176.219.212.225 (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No, at least not as presented. Among the many gaping holes in the article is the empty section "Western Front". A WP:SUMMARYSTYLE section with content from Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) would likely include content about Greek atrocities. I would support a paragraph or two in the "Ethnic cleansing" section with content from or similar to Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)#Greek massacres of Turks, which is linked as a "main article" in the hatnote but not summarized at all. I am not sure how to rank addition of this content on the priority list of needed improvements to this article. Filling out the Western Front section seems like #1 to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Update, the Western Front section has been filled by Benlittlewiki. I'm sure you would now support the addition of the massacres against Turks by Greece to the article. 176.219.153.122 (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.This page is so one-sided.31.210.11.165 (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• There are some well-put arguments here that build on previously articulated concerns by demonstrating how this article's short description is an outlier when compared to similar events. I would support any of the proposed alternatives, "Armed conflicts in Turkey, 1919 to 1923" is particularly succinct. --GGT (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I support all options above because the current name has no consensus and is added sneaky. Shadow4dark (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Since we seem to have come to a consensus here, I will change the short description to: Post-World War I conflict in Turkey. —Central Data Bank (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We do seem to have a consensus to change the Short description, but as yet no consensus for what it should be changed to, so such a change is a bit too soon — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 12:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Meh, I'd say the general consensus is that anything shorter that doesn't include the undue reference to the massacres is better than one that does. We can discuss ad infinitum which precise formulation is the best but the edit is in line with the spirit of that. GGT (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep. NPOV and short is good, but technically, 2021 is also Post-World War I, so using actual dates is much clearer. You seemed to approve of Armed conflicts in Turkey, 1919 to 1923? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't mind adding in the years, but WWI should be included to state it was a result of the Great War. Perhaps Post-World War I conflict in Turkey, 1919-23? —Central Data Bank (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolute dates are clearer and simpler. Adding Post-World War I is just duplication — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Interwar conflict in Turkey, 1919-23 is better. Beshogur (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I like it. Simple, less than 40 characters, serves to indicate readers that they've found what they're looking for (or not). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• So Post-World War I conflict in Turkey, 1919-23 or Interwar conflict in Turkey, 1919-23? Both are fine but interwar perhaps is worded better. —Central Data Bank (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Central Data Bank: and @Firefangledfeathers: so you support Interwar conflict in Turkey, 1919-23? Are there any other comments? Beshogur (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ... 1919–1923 — full years with an n-dash (and, of course, interwar is redundant) — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Interwar conflict in Turkey, 1919-23 is reasonable for me. There is no point in writing the full years, so 1919-23 is sufficient as per the norm. - Central Data Bank (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Years in full with an n-dash is the norm, see MOS:YEARRANGE and WP:SDDATES — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me}

  Fair enough, I stand corrected. —Central Data Bank (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

• War of Independence is how it is known in English. The actual name used in Turkish is War of Liberation (Kurtuluş Savaşı). Central Data Bank (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey the legal successor of Devlet-i Aliye (Ottoman Empire) was never been colonised like European countries or neighbouring countries.

So it is incorrect to call National Resistance Movement against invasion as "independence". It was invaded by allies namely England, Russia, France, Italy, Armenia, Greece and fought back to "liberate" itself from the invasion.

My suggestion is to rename this page as "Turkish Liberation War"

PS: Arguments like "everyone says so" does not hold up any value. Please stay away from the common logical fallacies. 176.88.88.207 (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is not what we think it should be called, but what English language independent reliable sources commonly call it(WP:COMMONNAME). You will have to show that what you propose is the common English term for it(you aren't the first to propose this) 331dot (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at a few reliable English dictionaries:

independence: freedom from being governed or ruled by another country.

Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821.

Reference: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/independence

independence: (from somebody/something) (of a country) freedom from political control by other countries.

Cuba gained independence from Spain in 1898.

Reference:https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/independence_1

liberation:an occasion when something or someone is released or made free.

the liberation of France from Nazi occupation

Reference: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/liberation

liberation: (from something) the act or process of freeing a country or a person from the control of somebody else.

a war of liberation

Let's also check wikipedia articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence

The semantic differecence between these two words are quite clear.

Devlet-i Aliye or Turkey did "liberate" itself from the invasion and did not gained its independence. It was not a "depedent state", "colony" or "mandate" of another state.

Let's check Treaty of Lousanne which concluded WW1 in Turkey.

https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Treaty_of_Lausanne

"Independence" can only be seen in the opening sentence of the treaty.

"Being united in the desire to bring to a final close the state of war which has existed in the East since 1914, Being anxious to re-establish the relations of friendship and commerce which are essential to the mutual well-being of their respective peoples, And considering that these relations must be based on respect for the independence and sovereignty of States, Have decided to conclude a Treaty for this purpose..."

One may claim Turkey gained its independence from another country,then we should ask which country was it? Where is the declaration of independence? Is there any treaty on that?

If you (or any user) have any reliable sources that backs Turkey did not liberated itself but gained its independence from another state please feel free to share it and add it to the article.

"So many people says" is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Using logical fallacies is not the way for a reasonable argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.129.20 (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not "what so many people says". It is WP:COMMONNAME, a Wikipedia policy. None of what you have written here shows that your proposed term is the most commonly used term to describe this event, it is your interpretation of what it should be called. You may even be correct- but that doesn't matter because it is original research. Wikipedia summarizes independent reliable sources, not what us editors personally think. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to put this is that Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. You are certainly free to go out in the English speaking world and lead a global campaign to refer to this event by your proposed term, or to ask the Turkish government to do so(much as they do with the Armenian genocide). 331dot (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So there isn't even a section discussing that the name is incorrect? Wikipedia is just going to have a name that is clearly misinformation? 2601:18C:8081:B9B0:4CDE:1C6F:B9D9:34F0 (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not making a judgment that the name is correct or incorrect; the name is used because most English language sources use that name. There can certainly be a section of this article that discusses other names used by sources, or that used by other languages. As an example, there is an entire article called Names of the American Civil War. Probably a separate article is not needed here, just making a point that discussing other names is possible. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkish government? What in the fucking fuck is even going on here. "War of Independence" is fine. Reliable sources are not written by total hacks. They are unlikely to use a term as incorrectly as the ip editors are suggesting has happened here. (Reliable sources can disagree with each other and they probably should but they're not likely to be so incompetent that they don't know how to use the word "independence" correctly). The use of "War of Independence" as an English language construct is well established to describe violent armed conflicts respecting a claimed "right" to administer a territory independently of foreign colonial regimes. Some people say the language is still too Eurocentric biased but this is not a fully mainstream viewpoint. "American Revolution" is uncritical but in most other cases terms like "Revolution" and "Liberation" have not gained mainstream acceptance. And we won't be consulting the Turkish government. (I hope that was a joke.) Gwynhaas (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect that it would work, but it wasn't a joke. If people do not like what English language sources use for terminology to refer to this war, their only recourse is to ask those sources to use different terminology- that includes the Turkish government, which is free to adopt as a policy position lobbying countries to use its preferred terminology- just as they lobby countries to not recognize the Armenian Genocide. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on Turkish government lobbying but it would be very unusual if they were, in fact, lobbying "English language sources". I had previously thought their lobbying was restricted to Congressional resolutions of recognition but recent information has shown a broader scope exists to this campaign. Maybe I am still missing some key information. Lobbying Congress against genocide recognition is hardly commendable but far more ordinary than what I thought you meant. Thank you for explaining this. I misunderstood your statement that one option for editors who disagree is to ask the Turkish government to spearhead a "global campaign to refer to this event by your proposed term". I don't expect that it would work either but if it did, would they be independent sources that we could use in Wikipedia articles? I's assumed they would have to make disclosures if they were lobbies. Gwynhaas (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine if various English language sources say "we've heard why the Turks want us to use their preferred terminology and we agree". If enough sources did that, then it would be changed here too- certainly noting how that came about. It would be wrong for the Turkish government to demand Wikipedia do so on its own. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Now Armenian diaspora does same thing :)) 95.70.234.104 (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the point of using an Armenian sources when claiming Armenian civilian casualities. And it's not just with the Armenian; rather with all the civilian casualities, the references are books some that who knows what's written inside. Is something directly considered credible if it's a book? Shouldn't we be confirming how the author got the information that he/she has written?

Or do you guys really think that the outgunned and outnumbered Turks were able to kill at least 300k people without suffering any casualities? It says that only 15k Turkish civs got killed. So the Armenians and the Greeks just threw flowers i assume?

Even bullets were a luxury during these times. It's post WW1 and there was no industry output at all. How can they just fight fight with the occupiers and the militias and the rebels while butchering the civs 'en masse' with soo small resources? Are the Turks superhuman or what?

I do acknowledge the Armenian Genocide but this page has nothing to do with it and is clearly driven by propaganda. Where are the admins at? 31.210.11.165 (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't specifically an admin issue. Admins do not settle content disputes or issues. It's up to the reader to evaluate and judge the sources provided. Being biased does not in and of itself preclude the use of a source on Wikipedia, as all people and sources have biases. What matters is if a source makes things up out of whole cloth or fails to perform basic fact checking and editorial control(i.e. WP:DAILYMAIL). If you have other sources about casualty figures, please offer them(though this would not mean the other sources would be eliminated). 331dot (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that the lead section is written from an awkward point of view, particularly the second paragraph seems like an opinionated commentary that doesn't belong in the lead. Gazozlu (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This revision contains important information in the infobox. The result is a Turkish victory, but because of this war, important events happened in Turkey and outside of Turkey. I think that it is not enough to include territorial changes in the article and only "Turkish victory" for the result. It is also a mistake not to include the commanders. I have read the MILMOS rules, but the infobox in the World War I article has similar information to this infobox. Aybeg (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, a lot of infoboxes are over-filled with less important or unsourced info when they are supposed to contain only a very concise summary of the most important info in the article. That is like pointing to an article with unsourced content and then saying that verifiability should also be ignored in this article. Commanders can be included but only the most important ones on either side and only with appropriate referencing. (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: the info "partition of the Ottoman Empire" is misleading. This war was not the main reason of Ottoman partitioning. Some stuff you've put is not even covered here as well, thus wp:or. And all "ceded" places were not even controlled by the nationalists at the first place. So the only appropriate territorial change could be the establishment of Turkey. Beshogur (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aybeg was listing these territorial changes in the result section, where they should not go per MILMOS rules. I would support removing information about Ottoman Empire. However, I disagree that the only relevant territorial change is establishing republic of Turkey since you would also have to cover invading and annexing parts of Armenia and Georgia. (t · c) buidhe 05:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A complete list of cities, towns and villages destroyed by the Greek armies during the retreat. Kamyonas (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The names of Turkish cities are misspelled. The names of Turkish cities should be corrected and original names should be used. Kamyonas (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. It would be anachronistic. Beshogur (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The guy wanted me to explain why I did this so here. The sources cited for casualties are literal biased sources. Armenian sources are used for Armenian casualties, obviously gonna be biased. Second of all, it is nearly impossible to Turkish civilian casualties to be 15,000, then I can cite stuff as Çerkes Ethem's Anılarım and other turkish books to heavily increase Turkish civilian casualties, it was already done many times but got reverted for a bad reason. Patrockk (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the least reliable source currently in the casualties section? What's the best source that gives different numbers? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

BIG LOL 2A01:4B00:865F:C600:8940:8CC3:8B11:F477 (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the cited sources for Armenian casualties as an example, made by Armenian authors, that is least reliable way for civilian casualties. Patrockk (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher J. Walker, a British historian, also provides a similar estimate (250,000). I added a page number to that citation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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