Talk:Great Offensive

Untitled
hi. im from turkey. title is not true. true> Great Offensive and Battle of Supreme Command

pls see me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.14.144.224 (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Name
The name of this article should be changed. In Turkish this engagement is called 'Büyük Taarruz' (engl.: Great Offensive). The current name "Izmir Offensive" has only 2 results on google and they are not even related to this event. 'Izmir Offensive 1922' 0 results. "Turkish Offensive 1922" 462 results on google related to this event. 'Turkish Great Offensive 1922' 555 results. Therefore this article should be renamed to 'Turkish Offensive 1922' or 'Turkish Great Offensive 1922'.200.165.200.108 (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. The present title does not fulfil the recognizability criterion of the Article titles policy. "Great Offensive" is recognizable and natural, but there is some concern that it might not be precise. If a disambiguated title is still felt necessary, please open a new requested move. DrKiernan (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Great Smyrna Offensive → Great Offensive – I believe User:Central Data Bank's move was in violation of WP:TITLE policy: "do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising". "Great Smyrna Offensive" seems to be a made-up phrase that is not used elsewhere at all. Many authors use "the Great Offensive", as a Google search indicates: shows Stanford J. Shaw, Edward Erickson, George Gawrych, Gérard Chaliand, as well as literally every Turkish historian writing in English use the term. I propose to move back to "Great Offensive". Cfsenel (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been many big offensives in the history of men's wars. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but that doesn't justify making up a name per Wikipedia policy. There have been many Auspicious Incidents in men's history as well. I am sure there have been many Glorious Revolutions too. Should we make up a name and call it the Glorious English Revolution? If there is another offensive commonly known as the Great Offensive without further descriptives, then perhaps we should create a disambiguation page, but this doesn't appear to be the case, and Great Offensive redirects to here. Simply "the Great Offensive" is the name used in English sources.--Cfsenel (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The current title may not be ideal, maybe we should find another one, but "Great Offensive" is far too general a term to give it to one campaign. It might be worth examining whether the current titles "Auspicious Incident" and "Glorious Revolution" are ideal either, but let's judge them on their own merits. PatGallacher (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And on what policy are you basing your vote? "Great Offensive" is the most common name of the event, and it is not used as the name of any other campaign on Wikipedia. But you don't want this article to be called that, because maybe because that is not what comes to your mind. The only alternative would be moving to a page like Great Offensive (Turkish War of Independence), and redirect Great Offensive to there. But it really seems to pointless to make the title needlessly longer, and I believe the addition of redundant parentheses would not be in accordance with WP:TITLE. Still, if the consensus leans towards that, that is what we are going to have to do.--Cfsenel (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, countless Wikipedia articles are based on "far too general" terms, because, well, that is Wikipedia policy, that is what you do if that is their common name and no other article uses it. It is not just Auspicious Incident or Glorious Revolution. Spring Offensive is far too general, is it the only offensive done at Spring? Fourteen Points is too general, any statement can consist of fourteen points. Or, The Troubles, far too general. Or Treaty of Union or The Protectorate, again too general. Or June Rebellion and July Revolution. There are many other rebellions that happened in June (e.g. June Democratic Uprising), and many other revolutions that happened in July (e.g. Egyptian Revolution of 1952), but they are also known with different names, so these far too general names stay with the specific events. Or Hundred Days. Or Oath crisis. There have been so many Oath crises in history, but they are not known simply as "the oath crisis", hence the naming stays. The list could go on and on.
 * If a different event comes to be known as "the Great Offensive" in the future, then we will need to move this page and Great Offensive will be a disambiguation page. That is not the case now. There are of course, so many offensives that are great in history, just as there are many rebellions that happened in June, but that is immaterial.--Cfsenel (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, as nominator: "Great Smyrna Offensive" is used by 0 authors, whereas "Great Offensive" is used by many prominent authors, as listed above. The fact that there happens to be other offensives in history that are also great is immaterial, as they are known by other names and "the Great Offensive" refers to this event (it already redirects to here, and it was the name of this article before a user decided to move it). There are innumerable other articles named this way, as listed above, like the Spring Offensive, because Wikipedia policies dictate so.--Cfsenel (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Perhaps "Great Offensive" needs to be disambiguated (or perhaps not), but this is not the right way to do it. We can't just make stuff up. Srnec (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - basically per Srnec. Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, also per Srnec. The Greek historiography on the conflict (unsurprisingly) does not use the term, but then again does not use any other alternative general term to describe the Turkish advance after Dumlupinar either. Constantine  ✍  17:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Decisive Victory
I think it should be called 'Decisive Victory'. Its written like this in Turkish version of the page. Also it's clearly visible in the part of 'casualties'. 13.000 and 50.000. Güntuğ Akgün (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No. See WP:MILMOS. FDW777 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)