Talk:Turkish War of Independence/Archive 1

message: I've got this from the Treaty of Lausanne. This should be added into the article. If none does it, I'll do it.
Treaty of Lausanne, Article 59:
"Greece recognises her obligation to make reparation for the damage caused in Anatolia by the acts of the Greek army or administration which were contrary to the laws of war.
On the other hand, Turkey, in consideration of the financial situation of Greece resulting from the prolongation of the war and from its consequences, finally renounces all claims for reparation against the Greek Government."
Source: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918p/lausanne.html
Author's comment regarding Wikipedia's above advice (to move the page): This war was not only between Greece and Turkey. It was between the Allies and Turkey, as a consequence of the World War I. Greco-Turkish War constituted this war's western front, starting more than a year afterwards. Although the decisive battles were between Greece and Turkey, this page has more information than what can be put under the title "Greco-Turkish War". The current page of Greco-Turkish War includes an unrelated war from the previous century, therefore that page has more information than what can be placed under the title of "Turkish War of Independence". Given that neither page can possibly be a subset of the other, they can not be merged. - 18.58.1.180
:I disagree with the above (which I copied from the page). The Turkish Independence War, while very important to Turks and a main part of their history, is a term only used in Turkey. Other nations refer to it as World War I (up to the Treaty of Sèvres), and then the (Second) Greco-Turkish War (up to the Treaty of Lausanne). Since this is an English Wikipedia which takes a predominantly western POV, the events that eventually lead to the creation of modern Turkey should in my opinion be treated from this POV: thus split the info in WW1-in-Turkey and 2nd Greco-Turkish war. Of course a note that these events are by Turks seen as one single war for their independence from what they saw as invading and occupying nations is needed at both places. — Jor (Talk) 11:11, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This should be added

message: The article gives the recognition of Turkey as the result of the war. In my opinion, we should write "Decisive Turkish Victory" there because Turkish Army defeated Greeks a couple of times and also the army decisively defeated Armenian rebels and saved the eastern part of the Homeland. Deliogul 10:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHY! 

message: Links to World War I and Armenian Genocide are appropriate because those articles provides critical background for understanding The Turkish War of Independence/Anatolian War, which immediately followed those events. In fact, the Treaty of Lausanne not only effectively ended World War I in the East, but also put a final end to the independent Armenian Republic established under the Treaty of Sevres.
* Are you Armenian? The think you call the Treaty of Sevres was equal to the murder of the noble Turkish Nation. Additionally, it doens't mean that there was a genocide even if some countries accepted the existance of it. Historians have to discuss this issue, not the politicians. Deliogul 15:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with putting Armenian Genocide here because the independence war starts in 1919 - and its background is that the empire is basically disolved after the WWI ending treaty - the Treaty of Sevres. So 1915 events don't really have any major impact here. This is also evident when you look at the timeline section - shows nothing about Armenians Genocide. Kizilmaske 08:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: WWI & Armenian Genocide Link

message: The language and the events drescribed there reflect one POV only. I find some of the comments there offensive. Some claims are also baseless. More to come here but obviously this section needs quite some work before it can reflect a balanced view. Kizilmaske 08:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that there wasn't a slaughter or that the slaughter wasn't premeditated.  L Hamm 01:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  East-(Armenian & Georgia) section violates NPOV 

message: Considering that the name of the city was not offically changed to Istanbul until 1930, well after the era of this article, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use Constantinople along with an in-text reference that the city is now called Istanbul the first time the city is mentioned?  That is what is used in the article for Smyrna (Izmir). Caerwine Caerwhine 05:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Constantinople, not The City, was the name most prevailent at the tiem. Plus you could add your name, not signing dosen't give much weight to your words.--Dryzen 17:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Might as well cause confusion and in the prosees disrupt that myth.--Dryzen 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Istanbul (Not Constantinople)]]? 

message: My Turkish is rusty at best, but the English of the article's author is not much better and a great deal of the article is almost impossible to read. I would suggest that someone correct the worst grammatical atrocities and spelling genocides after the original author has finished his (or her) literary bloodbath. Theolein 00:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar and Spelling 

message: I would correct the first paragraph but I have no idea what it is trying to say. --Gbleem 20:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph 

message: The name of this war Kurtuluş Savaşı doesn't mean War of Independence.
Kurtuluş comes from Kurtulmak, meaning To be saved
It was a war that saved Turks from a dead sentence.
The article introduction section clearly belittles the importance of this war.
Clearly written by an anti-Turkish editor, with references to Sevres treaty etc.
I'll correct as soon as I have time.
--Gokhan 14:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this article definitly has some POV (some times flagrant other time poetic), but the problem compounded by the fact that it shifts from paragraph to paragrpah, making it a hard read. Even more so with the incorrect syntaxes... --Dryzen 15:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of the war and Tone of Voice 

message: I think that the animated map in the beginning of the article is not what it should be. It shows Ottoman attacking the Turkish nationals in central Anatolia-did this ever happen?-. Moreover, it shows the british forces in the straits, however, the straits were under international administration for a brief time, not under british. In addition, it shows the Greeks landing in Pontus, something that never happened. Lastly, i guess that under the name 'feudal powers' attacking c.Anatolia, the creator means Greece, France, Italy and Britain, who not only they were not 'feudal' at that time, but also, from them, only the Greeks got involved in war with Kemal... the other three withdrew after signing treaties with the turks of Kemal. Isn't that right? --Hectorian 13:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder is any of the editors will respond to you Hectorian, I haven't a reply in quite some time. The author(s) of the article categorises the British as the influential force within the International administration. The Ottoman are in the article forces that followed the International led puppet gorvernment in Constatinople, while the feudal forces are left overs of the aristocracy and Sipahis tempting there hands at influencing future policy or carving out there own territory. I'm no expert on the subject and I hope this helps.--Dryzen 15:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, i was not expecting a response, but i am glad u did. Thanks for the info, but i still believe that the map does not correspond to the historic facts. the greeks never landed in Pontus. Even if the british were much infuential, this does not justify in naming the international forces as 'british forces'. In addition it seems that all the 'alien' powers attacked central Anatolia, whereas, only the Greeks made it as deep as Sakarya. Moreover, the british did not attack from the south east, since the land they occupied was as north as Mosul, which is not a territory of Turkey (in fact, they never crossed the borders of modern turkey. lastly, the term 'minority' i think applies to the kurds and armenians, who, however, never attempted to march in central Anatolia. quite the contrary, the turkish nationals were those who marched to eastern Anatolia. not to mention that the Ottoman (sultan's) forces did attempted to reach Ankara... --Hectorian 15:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Your not going to get much argument from me, like much of the article the image seems to have cgreat content but poor delivery and some rather ambiguous terminology. If you take a moment to read you'll rapidly understand what I mean, there is a POV in thsi article but it shifts in tone and strength through out... I`m starting to thing hte Greeks in Puntus might have more to do with the local movements of the Ethnic Greeks and the Turkish reprisals, somewhat like the Minorities in the east.--Dryzen 15:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in fact this is how the Greeks of Pontus should be seen in the article. there was even a proposal for a Ponto-Armenian Federation back then, since Venizelos was not willing to send troops so far away from mainland Greece... Perhaps the author(s) of the article want to show the Greeks as an imperialistic power with no ethnological base in Anatolia... I read some of the article and it seems like trying to glorify Kemal's army who "defeated" 6-7 foreign armies, despite the fact that the victory was only over the Greeks and Armenians (who btw are shown as Great Powers' pions...), and i do not mean only 'armies' but also also perished civilians. Anyway, some day this article will be cleaned up from POV as well... --Hectorian 16:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Imperialist power does seem to preoccupy much of the author(s) thoughts. Lots of work ahead for this article I`m thinking of reducing it to a start article. I would be willing ot correct much of its syntax yet, due to translation errors and tone, am afraid to reduce much of the information or mangle the intents presentied within the article.--Dryzen 17:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt about it... I just checked the history of the article, the diffs between all his edits and the last edit that was not by him... It is full of POV and nationalism! maybe a tag would be appropriate at this stage, and then we could probably work on cleaning the article up. some users just don't get that wikipedia articles are noone's property nor are they "vehicles" of propaganda... --Hectorian 14:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And where is this French information from?--Dryzen 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: I can understand that the way Turks see this whole thing is clearly depicted in this article, but, to me, a Greek, this whole thing sounds at some times like a joke. Ankara, or the GNA, or Ataturk, you decide, had to face Greeks, Armenians, British, French, Italians, the Ottoman regime and others as it is shown on the map on the right. I guess that we should in the same way sum up the whole WWII, Italy, Germany, Japan vs the World, an endless list of countries and, of course, colourful arrows. Why? Because, like WWII, this war also had different phases and different enemies fighting at different times, so I think that this image is at least misleading. Now, about the title, "Turkish War of Independence", yes, I guess we could have Indian war of Independence, Pakistani war of Independence, and why not, "The Great French War of independence, NOT REVOLUTION". Why? Cause French in their revolution had to fight both the king's regime and foreign enemies, but sorry that was described as a revolution, sorry France. And, the final thing, in the map, I can clearly see "feudal powers" moving in the direction of the Greek army. I guess you don't imply, that the greek army acted as a feudal power. And what about "The Greeks were willing to give up Eastern Thrace as it's population was mostly Turks, Christian Bulgarians and Pomaks, and its only use served as a corridor to Constantinople, and it was now clear that the city would remain in Turkish hands"? Yes, we Greeks love to give territory to other nations, especially Turkey, when it only serves as a corridor to Constantinople. And, we also like big uncertain borders like Evros, instead of small areas of land borders. And, of course, don't forget Black Sea... This article needs clean-up. In the third paragraph we can read: "idea of using Bolshevism or the Mandates were first applied in the capital Istanbul (see also: Istanbul (etymology)) and then eventually transmitted into the interior of the country where the Turkish National Movement was forming." and much later on, "In response they received support and gold. For the promised resources nationalist had to wait until the Battle of Sakarya. Bolsheviks were expecting that the nationalist would not last long, and the agreements would be annulled by their defeat.". So, the Entente wanted to enforce Bolshevism (wtf-!?), a bad thing, like Mandates, I guess, but later on the bad Bolsheviks who wouldn't keep their promises helped Turkey, a good thing I guess. So, black is white. Long live Goebbels !!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.207.254.69 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 September 2006.
While I can understand some of what you are saying, other comments are unfair. This conflict is always known as the Turkish War of Independence; nobody looks up the Turkish Revolution because, perhaps or perhaps not illogically, that simply isn't its name. I think the point about East Thrace was that Greece was MORE willing to give up an area in which none of its own people were living (they didn't feel a moral responsibility to protect Bulgarians, for example) since it was at a profound military disadvantage by that point. The map at the beginning is a little confusing, but I don't think that the author was trying to decieve us into thinking that the Turks simultaneously overcame a horde of foes proving that they are thus superhumans; he/she may just have been unable to find a better map.  Phileosophian 11:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It sounds like a joke

message: From the comments I read here, I'm guessing no one will object to a "clean-up" tag, too.  :-) Mdotley 13:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.--Dryzen 13:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another tag 

message: Could we please get a better main picture than the current one. It looks like an animated gif with two slides. It is too small to convey any real information. It mostly gives off the impression that "everybody" tried to conquer Turkey, which is hardly NPOV. besides, it seems to lack a few things, for instance, I can't see any black arrows on the map so why have that in the legend?
At least create two maps so we can get rid of the "blip blop" effect of a continuous animation. Thank you. 195.24.29.51 08:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  better main pic/map 

message: This section is too pretty NPOV in my view. What it needs is editing. As it is now, groups and entities are referenced with no real organization or introduction, there are examples of repeated links, and generally a lack of structure. 195.24.29.51 08:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too POV, lacks organization 

message: :More comments on this topic are included in this archive.
Interallied comission and a neutral observer M. Gehri states that "Greek army of occupation have been employed in the extermination of musslim population" and taner akçam says that in the years 1919-1922 both turkish and greek national movemants massacred or expelled other groups under their control..--laertes d 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the word systematic used? I will revert as I have searched the page in question in the Akcam book and could not find it. If I am wrong please correct me. 70.225.166.166 22:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, this was me. Sorry, my computer has been signing me out for some reason.
AlexiusComnenus 22:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek/Turk Genocidal Claims

message: I am quickfailing this article due to a near complete lack of references. Make sure to have at least one reference per paragraph (and possibly more) before renominating this article. The article also needs expansion in the topics that simply direct the reader to another article. There needs to be at least a brief explanation of what is going on in these areas. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to leave them at my talk page. Zeus1234 21:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: This article needs quite a bit of editing and citations.  I'm willing to take it on as a project and have made edits to the precursor section to state what it seems the original author intended to say that is in keeping with what I know of the history, which is not inconsequential. However, additional edits are needed to make this section flow in a more sensical fashion.  I will add citations in due course, but the work needed on this is likely too much for one person.  Are there are others actively working on this page now?Pebblicious (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be willing to help how I can. Dont have much access to sources these days but can help with editing and prose. I shortened the precursor section to make the narrative easier to understand, a lot of material was repeated and some of it unnecessary. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a general named "Turkish Community" on the Commanders list. With all due respect to the community, it is not the name of a commander. I think we should remove it. --User:Cliobella  —Preceding comment was added at 23:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that.  The link provided goes no where; there is no such article on Wiki. Whatever the reason for putting that there, dead links are of no use and come across as errors in the article and should be removed.Pebblicious (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of Editing & Citations Needed... 

message: Soviets had nothing to do with Turkish war of independence. There are also not any reliable sources about that. Some Turkic people who lived in USSR, sent aid for Turkish war of independence. Besides, there were neither Soviet generals, nor Soviet army during this war.
Amount of aid from Soviets:
1920:
 516.800 Golden Ruble (304.912 TL)
1.000.000 Golden Ruble (590.000 TL)
1.500.000 Golden Ruble (885.000 TL)
50.000 Golden Ruble (29.500 TL)
100.000 Ottoman Gold (507.000 TL)
Total:   2.316.412 TL
1921:
4.000.000 Golden Ruble (2.360.000 TL)
4.000.000 Golden Ruble (2.360.000 TL)
1.160.000 Golden Ruble (900.000 TL)
240.000 Golden Ruble (241.000 TL)
400.000 Golden Ruble (236.000 TL)
Total:   5.997.000 TL
1922:
1.100.000 Golden Ruble (649.000 TL)
3.500.000 Golden Ruble (2.065.000 TL)
Total:   2.714.000 TL
Grand Total:   11.028.012 TL
Sorce: http://www.turkcebilgi.com/BilgiServisi/haberextra.asp?Bilgi=Kurtulu%FE+Sava%FE%FD'n%FDn+kaynaklar%FD
Considering Turkey's defense budget was 27,576,039 TL even in 1920, it was such a small amount for the war. So I really wonder what makes Soviets a combatant. Please refrain greek nationalist propaganda from this article. Thanks. Parscan 17:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree that the soviets were not a combatant could someone adjust those numbers for inflation? They are obviously not since before the transition to new turkish lira 21,000,000 lira war around 10-15 dollars tops  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanalp (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviets 

message: This article's grammatical content must be improved. 
And for the subverter people; to see what have occured as history in Anatolia, please live in there a while, talk with elders, talk with people of different ethnic groups. Search and study real archives. In the end, you might understand your ignorance and spare a few tears...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlinon (talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor grammar 

message: The "Time" magazine photo has been vandalized. Please keep your point of view neutral. ````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.104.6 (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: And the war didn't end in 1923. It has ended in 1922 in Mudanya Conferency.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.151.184 (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  War ended in 1922, not 1923

message: It is written that "Turkish national movement led to the end of the Ottoman millet system". I am not sure, if the Millet system is abonded by the Republic, why were the Christian Turkic Karamanli people sent to Greece? I think the Millet system continued after the establishment of the Republic, but this time all Muslims were called Turks, the only minority accepted was the Christian minority of Turkey. All Muslims except the Kurds accepted the Turkish identity. Kavas (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ottoman Millet sytem

message: What is Turkish national movement? In Turkish page of Turkish national movement, we see Kuvayı Milliye or Türk_Ulusal_Hareketi. They are not relevant to this topic or it seems that an unsourced claim is put forward. "Turkey (Turkish national movement)" should be replaced with BBM (Turkey), or GRAND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY (Turkey) in Belligerent's part of the info box. Kavas (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Takabeg (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Belligerent Turkey?

message: the article reads like edited by the TTK. this begins with the title, only in turkey this wars are summarized as "turkish war of independence"! --Severino 17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get that idea? I was able to find reference to the article's title in hundreds of non-Turkish sources. --Adoniscik(t, c) 20:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always called the Turkish War of Independence. You may find that name to be debatable, but it's been accepted by historians. The Turks won the war, they can call it what they wish.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.220.212 (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Winning the war lets you keep the land, not affect the terminology in a different language. But you're right that it does bizarrely seem to be the preferred academic nomenclature. -LlywelynII (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: To me it seems as if the majority of the article is about the creation of the nationalist movement in Turkey and less about the actual conflict itself. Perhaps we could move some of this information over to the Establishment of a Nationalist Movement in Turkey article instead and organize this article better.Lemniwinks (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  In spite of many efforts to subvert it and bloat it with ethnic hate propaganda, the article is a really decent summary of what took place during the War of Indepenendence.  Kudos to the numerous editors who put in their time and good faith.  I think with a little effort and some good will, this article can be elevated.  All this editing and writing deserves it.  Need more references!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.118.177 (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your disagreement. The article should be about the war. -LlywelynII (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing Article, needs to be rewritten

message: I think that the statement "Crushing Turkish Victory" in the results section is exaggerated and needs to be changed. Please site any resources about this statement. As far as I know, it has been a costly victory for Turkish people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.27.118.23 (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Could even be called pwnage since we won it 5v1. AlicanC (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving aside the issue of whose side Italy was really on (not for the first time, and not the last), the article could use as many ways to avoid bias and maintain neutrality as we can squeeze in. -LlywelynII (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Besides, isn't the proper, more commonly used term here at Wiki "decisive victory" anyway? -LlywelynII (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Crushing(?) Victory

message: Turkish version according should be updated on a :http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk_Kurtulu%C5%9F_Sava%C5%9F%C4%B1
U.S.A supported alliance :http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk_Kurtulu%C5%9F_Sava%C5%9F%C4%B1_ve_ABD
Needs To Be Updated Please  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warlordcry (talk • contribs) 02:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  more details (U.S.A) 

message: We should probably include the Ottoman Empire in belligerents list since they fought agains the Turkish Nationalists on the allied side ("kuvva-yi inzibatiyye" forces) 95.173.20.147 (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Kaygtr (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think so. Ottoman goverment was really to fight nationalists but most Grand National Assembly was made up by ex-Ottoman Assembly, there were many sympathizers in goverment, too. Collobator Ottoman goverment would be more appropriate i think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yetjanissary (talk • contribs) 02:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Divided government and fifth columnists doesn't mean the soldiers weren't shooting bullets at the other side. They were belligerents. -LlywelynII (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ottoman Empire was represented by de jure ottoman government and the sultan, they fought against nationalists and also used revolts. Collaborator is not the true term. In fact Ankara government was declared rebels.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.203.178 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ottoman Empire ''fought'' the Turkish Nationalists

message: No mention of Ethem bey or Rauf (orbay) Bey. Who were the fore bearers of Turkish defense long before M. Kemal set foot on Anatolia. Or is that because they have been labeled traitors once they have crossed with him?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.203.178 (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find anything about those two on wikipedia. Is there any mention of them elsewhere? Uhlan talk  21:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No joke. Please refer to Rauf Bey and Çerkes Ethem. By the way, it is claimed that Rauf Bey and Çerkes Ethem Bey joined the national resistance long before Atatürk. This is not true  Atatürk began his cruise on 16 May 1919 a day after the occupation of İzmir. Both Rauf Bey and Çerkes Ethem joined him after the occupation of İzmir. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think they should be added then to the infobox?Uhlan talk  07:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this article a joke? 

message: The Turkish nationalists were, after 1920, under control of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The Provisional government is an unofficial name of the GNA. But the official name is GNA. The GNA had control of the army during the war. "Turkey" at the time reffered to the Istanbul government. There fore, the name should stay as GNA, which is the OFFICIAL name of the government. (Central Data Bank (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand National Assembly or Provisional Government 

message: Where are endnotes [a] to [e], called from the infobox? --P64 (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endnotes [a] to [e] 

message: War of Independence? Independence from what? Can somebody explain that to me? I thought Turkey existed for a 1000 years...by the way, that fairy tale about Armenians living peacefully in the Ottoman Empire is an imperial LIE. --Vitilsky (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: With the statement "Turkey existed for a 1000 years" you already show a great degree of ignorance in history.  Even though Anatolia was often referred as Turkey since Byzantium, it is simply FALLACIOUS to call all the kingdoms that existed in Anatolia "Turkey".  What gained independence in this war is the Republic of Turkey.  It is called the Turkish war of independence, because the the people that fought against invaders such as Greeks, Brits, Italians, and French people were mostly Turkish.  Even if they were not Turkish by heritage, at the time they were called Turkish fallaciously in the same manners you called all the kingdoms that existed in Anatolia "Turkey".  For your question of "Independence from what?" the answer is independence from the ancient Ottoman Empire that used to exist in Anatolia, and the invaders that I mentioned previously.  I'm not going to comment on your statement of "Armenians living peacefully in the Ottoman Empire is an imperial LIE" because I have no idea of what you are talking about and the debt of your knowledge about the lifestyles of Armenians prior to the 19th century.  Clearly, they weren't living peacefully in the 20th and the second half of the 19th centuries but you have to document your statement for it to have any significance if you are going to argue about anything prior to that. DenizCc (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  "the answer is independence from the ancient Ottoman Empire that used to exist in Anatolia" Nice joke. I guess you meant Independence from Turks themselves? That begins to make sense (?). I meant, a country surely cannot become independent from itself, right? I cannot fathom these concepts. I guess it should be better called "The Great Turkish War of Freedom for Adopting Westernized Values Whilst Killing European and Greek People Amongst Some Poor Armenian Peasants"...or something along those lines. And sorry about the Armenian's peace article, I guess some troll entered that in the article, what a funny guy. P.S. Ok jokes aside, seriously I think the name of the war should be changed ASAP, maybe something like "Turkish War of the WWI" or "Great Turkish War" would suit better - I guess it comes with naming conventions applied unanimously. --Vitilsky (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excuse my bitterness 

message: Firstly - why are encyclopedias being used as citations? General encyclopedias like these should ideally not be used, and an introduction sections is meant to summarise content in the rest of the article so the sources should be the same as used in the body. There are plenty of specialised sources that could be used.
Secondly, the content and claims (and the tone of that content and claims). The best summing up I can give about the "Turkish War of Independence" is that it was a conflict waged by parties wanting to take the future history of parts of the former Ottoman Empire in a different direction than that which other parties wanted it to take.
However, we are told the war "was waged by Turkish nationalists against the Allies, after the country was occupied and partitioned following the Ottoman Empire's defeat in World War I". What "country" - it is still the Ottoman Empire, so call that "country" the Ottoman Empire, or don't call it a "country", call it a "territory". What "occupation" - the main zone of occupation was Constantinople and the Dardanelles - neither area took part in any war. Same for "partitioned" - a gross distortion of political and military reality. And what about the fighting that took place between Ottoman forces and nationalists, and even between rival Turkish nationalist groups. The additions made by Why should I have a User Name made the introduction even worse - one that is rather disgusting actually, if you know the history. 
I suggest making the introduction simply read:
The Turkish War of Independence (Turkish: İstiklâl Harbi, literally "Independence War" or Kurtuluş Savaşı, literally "Liberation War";) was waged by Turkish nationalists following the Ottoman Empire's defeat in World War I.
And make it without any citations. The body of the article can explore the complex issues better. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Gross distortions and falsehoods in the intro section

message: More appropriate location for mentioning this. Notability concerns with having it's own article, would be better in context. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If we don't have an article about the preceding 'fetva' we don't need this one either. So merge it. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is if it is notable enough for it's own article, or would it be better served as mentioned in a larger article with a redirect. I also highly think that there are likely to be many Fatwa's of Ankara given the generic nature of the name. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Fatwa of Ankara]] 

message: This picture obviously isn't from 1918. In 1918 just a few amounts of German type stahlhelms were in use in Turkey beside other hats like the Enveriye and kalpaks. In the first years of the republic the French Adrian helmet was introduced into the army. For pictures depicting this just google "Atatürk cenaze 1938". The British Brody helmet which you can see in this picture was introduced sometime around World War II. If you google "Atatürk anitkabir 1953" you can see some sample images. There is no evidence that this type of helmet was in use in 1918 in the Turkish army. Again the uniform in this picture is the type which was introduced together with the Brody helmet. Please remove this pic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.187.123.155 (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture "Soldiers on the way back." 

message: There is a clear misinterpretation, first of all if you yake o look to the Greek deaths' ref DEATH BY GOVERNMENT you'll see that the figures start from 1900 and lower than the stated. Secondly the ref for Armenian deaths is not available in web and i think that figure includes Hamidian Massacres in Eastern Turkey, which happened in 1910s. So i am removing them. And lastly, Turkish civilian death figure doesnt have a reference, i am removing that also.
:I've found Armenian deaths with ref.
:I've read about Rudolph J. Rummel's book and it sounds really dubious, without any other reference to supports his claim, i will oppose.   kazekagetr 10:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the civillian deaths. 

message: Istanbul Government should be on the Allied side. They co-operated with British and Greek forces and fought against nationalist. Unlike Italy they were an actual combatant and was a western puppet. Maybe we should also add Society for the Rise of Kurdistan to the Allies belligrents or a 3rd list. Also why is China and Japan on the list? --FPSTurkey (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Istanbul Government 

message: A couple of editors are removing the data on Muslim (Turkish?) casualties from the overview section. Although they have a point that the statistics are not for the years 1919-1922, but for the preceding ten years, I feel that removing the 'Muslim section' is too harsh. Now it seems as if there were no non-Greek/Armenian civilian casualties at all, because the two editors are simply removing the notation altogether. That is wrong. Any suggestions? 82.217.116.224 (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree that the Muslim casualties should be mentioned, but with accurate statistics. If you have sources to that effect, please replace the current section; if not, I really cannot see what we can do with what is there. We cannot make assertions as to what portion of this casualty tally comes from the 1919-22 period without sources. IMO it is better to have no information that to have wrong information. A question at WP:TURKEY might be in order. Constantine   ✍  18:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

text: They definitely belong in here. But you know, the Armenian and Greek lobby is powerful, telling everyone that no Muslim civilian died during their war. -- 194.166.119.136 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilian casualties 

message: It's very nice of you to mention all the Greek and Armenian civilians casualties but what about the Turkish civilian casualties? Burned down cities in the Aegean Region? City of Turgutlu? 80k Missing civilians? slaughters of Aydin? Zeve? Manisa?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.51.146 (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish Civilians? 

message: I would like to challenge the neutrality of this article on two grounds:
First, the description of the Turkish state as "modern" and "secular" is wildly inaccurate. Turkey's lack of modernity is at the crux of the European Union's refusal to admit it to their ranks. Recent elections have also undeniably reflected a high degree of religious involvement in government, with religion-based parties fighting elections at least partially on the strength of religious viewpoints. The relevant sentence therefore smacks of propaganda, and is far from being the Wikipedia neutral ideal.
 
-		 
-	
Second, the description of Turkish-Armenian relations. Any mention of genocide, ethnic cleansing, massacring, murdering, or any words to that effect is entirely skirted around. While this stance may be diplomatic, it is hardly empirical. Assuming that Wikipedia is not bound by Turkey's "Don't criticise Turkishness" law, there is no reason this genocide, widely accepted to have taken place by the vast majority of neutral modern historians, should be included. Its lack of mention only serves to damage the neutrality of the article. It does not need to use mention of the genocide to paint the turkish people or nation as evil, or with any other negative qualities, but in order to give a full picture of events surrounding this conflict, particularly the background setting for the Armenian-Turkish conflicts, it must be mentioned. Full understanding of the subtleties at play hinges on full and neutral description of the events, their causes, and consequences. 138.251.226.78 (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a lot of work has been done to make this article more NPOV, but the text is written a bit stiltedly - could do with some copyedit. 68.19.7.108 (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute