Talk:Occupation of Istanbul

message: Yet another fine work of Turkish propaganda, let down by being written in bad English (an unfortunate but inevitable side-effect of verbatim copying from Turkish books). Meowy 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Heavy corrections to syntax are needed; additionally, portions have discordant structure and poorly grouped fragments of thought.Mavigogun (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syntax 

message: Is that really what Johnson says? It is conventional to describe the non-Islamic population of the Ottoman Empire as divided into millets. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't. He does not use the word millet, and these figures are estimates from the 1911 Britannica - before the war; they are part of a passage which makes clear that estimates of the total range from 800,000 to 1,200,000 - and that none of those estimates allow for the floating and refugee population. False precision, all the way around.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim millet?

message: Johnson does describe the Interallied Control Commission in some detail, pp. 113-120. The United States was not a member of it (the United States was not an Allied Power, and had not been at war with Turkey); Italy was. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some info about the Italian presence in the  City, which was put on a par with that of France and Great Britain, but went completely forgotten in this article. Alex2006 (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Italy

message: It's obvious that the infobox should change since the article isn't about a battle.Alexikoua (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong infobox

message: Such a statement.  Nations are fighting wars; issues like occupation are settled by force rather than by "legality."  IMHO, this article has one major need: It needs to present the cause of the Turks giving up Istanbul for occupation.  The Turks seem so proud of the Battle of Gallipoli when they beat the Brits earlier in the war, as if it made a bean of difference.  Yet how did it come to pass that they didn't fight for Istanbul - or did they?  There doesn't seem to have been anything like the A-bomb that made the Japanese give up.  Was this a failure of nerve?  What happened?  (EnochBethany (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The war was already over by the time the Allies arrived in Constantinople; the Ottomans had dropped out of the war by the Armistice of Mudros two weeks earlier.  I think a more accurate word than "illegal" would be "extralegal"; the Armistice didn't forbid the occupation, but neither did it explicitly allow it. Binabik80 (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Under the Armistice of Mudros, Allied forces had the right to occupy any settlement in the Ottoman Empire if it felt there were minorities at risk of massacre or persecution. So there seems to be no basis on the surface for this "illegal" claim, and there is no explanation in the content about why it was illegal. For that reason I am going to delete that content. If it is to be returned in some other form, there needs to be some explanation as to why the two sources consider the occupation to be "illegal", and whether it is just the opinion of those sources or was the contemporary opinion. In other words, this content needs much more than a brisk and unelaborated assertion of illegality. NB; One of the cited sources, Eden to Armageddon, is a footnote saying that the de facto status of the occupation was altered on 16 feb, "giving it a legal basis". This does not mean that the occupation was "illegal" before that, and the footnote makes no such illegality claim or give any explanation about what exactly was altered. In short, there are insufficient sources, and insufficient clarity in the two sources presented, to support content with a sweeping claim of "illegality". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:   "The occupation was illegal until 16 February 1920" R U Serious? 

message: The last sentence of the second paragraph is misplaced; it jerks the timeline back five years for no apparent reason. It (or at least some of the information in it) should probably be moved nearer the beginning of the paragraph, before the first reference to 1920. --Haruo (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph 

message: Why does it say The first French troops entered the city on 12 November 1918, but it is dated from 13 November? - Owain Knight (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of beginning 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Occupation of Constantinople. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140506081256/http://www.carabinieri.it/Internet/Arma/Oggi/Missioni/1855+-+1935/1918+-+1923/ to http://www.carabinieri.it/Internet/Arma/Oggi/Missioni/1855+-+1935/1918+-+1923/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Istambul was the name of the city when it was first occupied by the Allies, since the Ottoman Empire conquered the city in 1453 and renamed the city. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 08:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In English and French, "Constantinople" was used as the name for the whole city, and "Stamboul" was only used for the historic core. French language Ottoman documents from the time period used "Constantinople." English and French sources switched to Istanbul circa 1928-1930, especially when the US State Department started using Istanbul. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't this artcicle be called "Occupation of Istambul"?