From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeTurkish 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
DateProcessResult
August 7, 2007 Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on May 19, 2008, May 19, 2009, and May 19, 2010.

Expelled populations

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.

Despicable falsification of literature by Wikipedia that utterly violates the principles of academic integity

In this article, Handbook of Ethnic Conflict is cited to suggest there was a supposed "ethnic cleansing" campaign by the Turks against the Greeks and Armenians. Wikipedia completely falsifies what the source actually states. On the contrary, it supports Turkish claims as seen in the following excerpt,

Hunderds of thousands of Armenians were relocated to territories that eventually fell outside of the borders of Republic of Turkey (...) The second decision was the enormous population exchange with Greece - Orthodox Greeks for Muslims - to eliminate any future threat of Greek nationalism (...) By the early years of the Republic, therefore, the multi-ethnic character of Turkey had been transformed dramatically. The large Christian populations of Anatolia were gone. Muslims went from being 80% of the population just before World War I to 98%.

If you read Lemkin on Genocide, the posthumously published manuscripts of the man who coined the word genocide, you will see the Greek invasion of Anatolia is designated as a "genocide by the Greeks against the Turks".

You have created yourselves fictional history and carelessly violated academic ethics with bogus citations to whitewash the brutal invasions and bloodthirsty war-crimes of Greeks and Armenians.

Change your memory. 81.214.104.244 ( talk) 08:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

It sounds to me like you have picked a single exerpt to support your opinion. Even if you are correct about this particular source, there are likely plenty of other sources that describe the general academic consensus(especially outside of Turkey where the Turkish government educates its citizens with its preferred narrative and criminalizes differing views) that can be found at Armenian genocide. 331dot ( talk) 08:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ 331dot There is no academic consensus. It is a highly debated subject. You can read those sources to familiarize yourself with the literature.
  1. Binark. İ. (1995). Arşiv Belgelerine Göre Kafkaslar’da ve Anadolu’da Ermeni Mezâlimi/Armenian Violence and Massacre in the Caucasus and Anatolia Based on Archives–Vol. I (1906-1918) and Vol. II (1919). Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, Ankara
  2. Çiçek, K. (2012). The Great War and the forced migration of Armenians. Athol Books.
  3. Çiçek, K. (2020). The Armenians of Musa Dagh, 1915–1939: A Story of Insurgency and Flight. Lexington Books.
  4. Çiçek, K. (2010). Relocation of Ottoman Armenians in 1915: A Reassesment. Review of Armenians Studies, 22, 115-134.
  5. Dyer, G. (1976). Turkish ‘falsifiers’ and Armenian ‘deceivers’: historiography and the Armenian massacres. Middle Eastern Studies, 12(1), 99-107.
  6. Erickson, E. J. (2013). Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency (p. 119). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  7. Erickson, E. J. (2008). The Armenians and Ottoman military policy, 1915. War in History, 15(2), 141-167.
  8. Gauin, M. (2015). “Proving” a “Crime against Humanity”?. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 35(1), 141-157.
  9. Göyünç, N. (1983). Osmanlı İdaresinde Ermeniler. Gültepe Yayınları.
  10. Güçlü, Y. (2012). A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire.
  11. Gürün, K. (1985). The Armenian file: The myth of innocence exposed. Rustem.
  12. Halaçoğlu, Y. (2002). Facts on the Relocation of Armenians (1914-1918) (No. 94). Turkish Historical Society Printing House.
  13. Halaçoğlu, Y. (2008). The story of 1915: what happened to the Ottoman Armenians? (No. 113). Turkish Historical Society.
  14. Halaçoğlu, Y. (2006). Die Armenierfrage. Wieser.
  15. Lewis, B. (1961). The emergence of modern Turkey (No. 135). Oxford University Press.
  16. Lewy, G. (2005). Revisiting the Armenian genocide. Insight Turkey, 89-99.
  17. Lewy, G. (2005). The Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A disputed genocide. University of Utah Press.
  18. Lewy, G. (2007). Can there be genocide without the intent to commit genocide?. Journal of Genocide Research, 9(4), 661-674.
  19. McCarthy, J., Arslan, E., & Taskiran, C. (2006). The Armenian Rebellion at Van (p. 282). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
  20. McCarthy, J. (2003). Missionaries and the American Image of the Turks. In Turkish-American Relations (pp. 49-71). Routledge.
  21. Palabıyık, M. S. (2015). Understanding the Turkish-Armenian Controversy Over 1915. Beta.
  22. Sarinay, Y. (2011). The Relocations (Tehcir) of Armenians and the Trials of 1915–16. Middle East Critique, 20(3), 299-315.
  23. Sarınay, Y. (2001). Ermeniler Tarafından Yapılan Katliam Belgeleri/Documents on the Massacre Perpetrated by # Armenians–Vol. I (1914-1919) and Vol. II (1919-1921). Ankara: Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
  24. Stone, N. (2004). Armenia and Turkey. TLS-The Times Literary Supplement, (5298), 17-17.
  25. Yavuz, M. H. (2011). Contours of scholarship on Armenian-Turkish relations. Middle East Critique, 20(3), 231-251.
81.214.104.244 ( talk) 08:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
The article Armenian genocide states "As of 2023, 34 countries have recognized the events as genocide, which is also the academic consensus." If the academic consensus part of that statement is in error, you will need to work to demonstrate that it isn't to get that statement removed- which I think will be very hard to do. "Consensus" doesn't mean that there is no debate or that everyone agrees, obviously not everyone agrees. 331dot ( talk) 08:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ 331dot There are 159 countries, which do not recognize the events as genocide including, United Kingdom, Israel, Spain, Norway and Finland. Yet you are citing parliamentary decisions, which are not legally applicable. Article V of the UN Convention on Genocide states that the charge of "genocide" can only be prosecuted by an international court or a local court. There is no court verdict for the Armenian and Greek cases. 81.214.104.244 ( talk) 08:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Most countries that haven't recognized it do so for geopolitical reasons, to avoid offending the Turkish government(especially Finland who needed Turkish support to enter NATO)- this is why the US federal government only recently recognized it. That statement does not say a legal determination was made. I know of no international legal body that makes such formal determinations(maybe the International Court of Justice but there would need to be a case and Turkey would need to agree for the ICJ to hear it). This isn't the place to debate that statement. 331dot ( talk) 08:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
@ 331dot Those 159 governments reached their conclusions with impartial research. The UK Parliament states that in the absence of unequivocal evidence to show that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at the time, British governments have not recognised the events of 1915 and 1916 as "genocide". [1]
On the contrary, there has been intense campaigning against Turkey by the Armenian lobbying groups and the Armenian government to push their views into the parliaments. The only reason the US recognized it as "genocide" was to curry favors with the Armenian lobby. [2] 81.214.104.244 ( talk) 09:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Most countries are not going to say "we're not recognizing it to avoid offending Turkey", they will find some reason to hang their hat on. Turkey lobbies, too. We're not going to solve this issue here, and I'm not attempting to do so. The focus must be on summarizing what sources say, and that's what this and the Armenian genocide article do currently. You aren't the first and won't be the last person to bring this up, but if you want these articles to say what you think that they should say, you need to do the work to obtain a consensus that the current statements are in error. As I said, no one has made a legal determination here and there doesn't need to be one. 331dot ( talk) 09:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Turkish civilians massacred by the Greek army, May 1919, painted by Italian artist Vittorio Pisani.
@ 331dot You have been citing me the article on the Armenian relocation of 1915, but it has no relevance to the Turkish War of Independence of 1919-22. They are separate topics. Furthermore, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. You may not cite a Wikipedia article to claim there is a consensus. Do not use a Wikipedia article as a source for another Wikipedia article. Consensus is determined by the reliable sources written by experts. I have cited 25 different academic works by 16 different scholars and also the manuscript of Raphael Lemkin. There is also visual evidence of the devastation caused by the Greek armies. You have not cited any sources. This makes me think that you are not working to build a consensus with me. 81.214.104.244 ( talk) 13:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I wasn't offering Wikipedia as a source to use in an article, only to show where I got that information. 331dot ( talk) 15:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
There should be "a legal determination" to call these events as "genocide" my friend.
And there are already two international documents point out that current statements that blame Ottoman Empire and Turkey cannot be regarded as "facts".
The first one:
"Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide"
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948.
"Article VI
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall
be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was
committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect
to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction."
"Article IX
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application
or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility
of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be
submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to
the dispute.”
Official full text:
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf
It says a court, a trial, a judgement is a must!
Second one:
European Court of Human Rights
CASE OF PERINCEK v. SWITZERLAND
(Application no. 27510/08)
Page 76:
3. Necessity of the interference in a democratic society
(a) The Chamber judgment
The Chamber, having examined the applicant’s statements in the context in which they had been made, and having regard to the applicant’s position, found that they had been of “a historical, legal and political nature” and related to a debate of public interest, and on this basis concluded that the Swiss authorities’ margin of appreciation in respect of them had been reduced. It found it problematic that the Swiss courts had relied on the notion of “general consensus” on the legal characterisation of the events of
1915 and the following years to justify the applicant’s conviction.
It went on to state that there was no indication that the applicant’s statements had been likely to stir up hatred or violence, and drew a distinction between them and statements denying the Holocaust on the basis that they did not carry the same implications and were not likely to have the same repercussions. The
Chamber also had regard to recent comparative-law developments and the position of the UN Human Rights Committee. On this basis, it expressed doubts that the applicant’s conviction had been required by a pressing social need.
It also took into account the severity of the penalty imposed on the applicant, and came to the conclusion that his criminal conviction and sentence had not been “necessary in a democratic society” for the protection of the honour and feelings of the descendants of the victims of the events of 1915 and the following years
official full text:
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/docx/pdf?library=ECHR&id=001-158235&filename=
TLDR:
- Court said a “general consensus” is not enough, "a pressing social need" is not enough
- You cannot convict someone even if he says "There is no genocide in 1915" (Why?)
Finally Turkish Liberation War is not related with 1915 events. This war was against invading allied forces. 79.123.129.20 ( talk) 15:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
There does not need to be a formal legal determination. As I said above, I know of no international legal body capable of doing so against the wishes of Turkey. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say. If you feel that those sources shouldn't make their claims without a formal legal determination, that's a matter for you to take up with the sources, not us. You are absolutely free to disregard any and all sources based on your personal criteria in deciding what you believe. Wikipedia will continue to summarize what independent sources say, and allow you and all readers to decide for themselves. 331dot ( talk) 15:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Again:
"Armenian relocation of 1915, but it has no relevance to the Turkish War of Independence of 1919-22. They are separate topics."
And more:
Article 4 of Gumru Agreement 1920:
"Due to Armenia's willingness to no longer allow situations and acts that undermine order and security as a result of the Imperialist Powers' provocations and incentives..."
It clearly says Armenia acted to undermine order and security in Anatolia. Fought with Turkey and signed this treaty.
Armenia invaded east of Turkey and pushed back not the other way around. History will not change as you like. 31.142.130.137 ( talk) 11:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Comparison

Can you please share your comments on the Handbook of Ethnic Conflict? The source clearly doesn't support the statement written in the article. Had a Turkish user falsified a source in such a way, it would be a scandal.

Original source
Hunderds of thousands of Armenians were relocated to territories that eventually fell outside of the borders of Republic of Turkey (...) The second decision was the enormous population exchange with Greece - Orthodox Greeks for Muslims - to eliminate any future threat of Greek nationalism (...) By the early years of the Republic, therefore, the multi-ethnic character of Turkey had been transformed dramatically. The large Christian populations of Anatolia were gone. Muslims went from being 80% of the population just before World War I to 98%.
Article text
The ethnic demographics of the modern Turkish Republic were significantly impacted by the earlier Armenian genocide and the deportations of Greek-speaking, Orthodox Christian Rum people. (...) Following these campaigns of ethnic cleansing the historic Christian presence in Anatolia was destroyed, in large part, and the Muslim demographic had increased from 80% to 98%.

-- 81.214.104.244 ( talk) 13:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Yup, this kind of nasty propaganda is unfortunately all over wiki. 88.230.168.76 ( talk) 19:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Iskandar323: @ Beshogur: @ Hudavendigar: @ Editorkamran: @ GGT: @ Nanahuatl: @ Basak: @ Vincent Vega: @ Wooze:-- 81.214.104.244 ( talk) 13:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

It is certainly true that the population exchange, while an odious piece of history, like the partition of India, was a two-way affair, and agreed with the Greek government - to sweep this up together with the more hotly contested Armenia forced marches certainly fails the smell test. The text on the right blends two separate historic moments into one, and equally making no mention of the Greek Muslims who were equally victimized by the political calculus. Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

There is a biased explanation

When we look at the English page of the War of Independence, it is written that Atatürk and his comrades and Turks massacred Armenians and Greeks, it is not written there that Armenian and Greek gangs massacred more than 350-700 thousand Turkish civilians. In addition, the French army was an invading army in Anatolia and the Armenian gangs gathered and gave weapons to their hands. Armenians killed Turkish people and raped Turkish women. In the same way, the first uprisings among the Turkish people started because of the massacre and rape in the Greek army. The French army did not collect the Armenian refugees and bring them home, there is a mistake. It is written as if the Turks occupied the lands of the Greeks and the allied states. The Greeks with the original Entente states occupied Turkish lands. 88.236.96.160 ( talk) 18:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This article summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not the official Turkish government position that they want and require their citizens to hear. If those sources are not accurately summarized, please detail the specific errors. If they are accurately summarized, but you disagree with them, we probably can't help you. Consider if you are content to believe what your government wants you to believe. 331dot ( talk) 22:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply
looks like only armenian sources are reliable right so that you can do your revanchism and distort history 78.175.238.164 ( talk) 17:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC) reply
As a matter of fact mosly foreign sources are used for the article. This conflict was happened in Anatolia original Turkish documents were rarely cited. Remember, Turkey was invaded, Turkey defeated invading armies and Turkey forced all of them to a peace treaty. So ignoring Turkish sources is just trying to rewrite the history.
For example you may find many sources that try to reduce this conflict a mere Greco-Turkish conflict. But Treaty of Lousanne cannot be ignored:
"Article 1
From the coming into force of the present Treaty, the state of peace will be definitely re-established between the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State of the one part, and Turkey of the other part, as well as between their respective nationals." 178.241.43.229 ( talk) 15:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Armenians

Only 250k Armenians killed and not 1.5m? RickyBlair668 ( talk) 12:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Also more than 1 million Turks and muslims were killed in this horrible civil conflict. Don't even count total losses due to the WW1 178.241.43.229 ( talk) 15:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply

There's an extra paragraph space somewhere before the lead section.

See title. Please remove, it's irking me. Alisperic ( talk) 13:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

 Fixed, thanks! Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Heading change

Turks did not gain their independence with this war. Examples for independence wars can be considered for Balkan countries such as Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia in this sense. But for the Turks, the war can be named "The Turkish War of National Liberation". After the Turkish lands were liberated from the occupying forces, Turks have changed the regime, but the state remained the same. Avriya ( talk) 01:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Source: McCarthy, Justin (1995), Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922

Please add the 640000 Turkish civilians that were killed according to for example Justin McCarthy. It is nothing but a joke to claim only 16000 Turkish civilian casualties. 217.19.31.93 ( talk) 20:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Section

@ Firefangledfeathers, 331dot, and Iskandar323: Can you guys keep a watch over disruptive removal on Khilafat movement section by Benlittlewiki? Thanks. Shankargb ( talk) 03:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't know that Benlittlewiki's removal was disruptive. They also suggested that the content might be fine if moved to a different section. I haven't looked into it enough to have an opinion. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 03:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I have the same replly as FFF. 331dot ( talk) 08:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Moved the section for now. Shankargb ( talk) 15:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Diplomatic support from League of Fiume

In Michael Ledeen's book 'The First Duce' on page 176 he talks about D'Annunzio's League of Fiume and it appears that it sought to find Turkish representatives for their Anti-Imperial League. saying that there was 'possible support' for the LoF among Turkish nationalists.

Is this enough to argue there was Diplomatic support from the League of Fiume/Italian Regency of Carnaro for Turkish Republicans? Genabab ( talk) 03:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

This is a good question! Unless there is concrete and significant diplomatic, military, and financial support to one side, something like this shouldn't go to the infobox. Did the author go deeper or was this something he threw out? Benlittlewiki ( talk) 04:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
It was the only mention of Turk in the book. I think it may be better off being mentioned in the article, instead of the infobo. Genabab ( talk) 15:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

No mention of the actual struggle in the Historiography and Impact sections

These two large 'conclusion' sections quite literally never talk about who the war was actually waged on, i.e. Allied powers, and what its actual impact was, i.e. Sevres being abandoned and Turkey keeping much more of its land without foreign influence.

I find it very odd that the summary sections of this article pretty much never talk about any of this and are focused on the minorities and the nationalist aspect of it. Sure, these are very important topics but ignoring everything else completely makes no sense.

This war has had enormous impact on a lot of things: it bore a new country with a completely new governing system and a new leader (who went on to change that country completely in the following 15 years, thus adding to the impact), and really changed all the power dynamics in the region. 107.15.245.109 ( talk) 15:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Turkish_War_of_Independence&oldid=1220041478"