Talk:Turkish War of Independence/Archive 2

Biased template
The template is a Turanist's fantasy, not a historically accurate depiction. How can the Ottoman Empire be on the same side as Britain and France when they were occupying its territories? There were no Ottoman troops fighting alongside the allies. In fact, most were fighting on the side of the Kemalists as irregulars. The Ottomans and Kemalists were never fighting one another, they only killed Turkish citizens for supporting the opposite side. I gave a source by Taner Ackam for this. And how can Italy be listed on that side as well? They were no more allies of the Turks than the Greeks. The article acknowledges the French, British, and Italians hardly deployed any troops, and when they did it was against the Ottomans, not the Kemalists, which only France was briefly at war with, and I added sources that all came to side with the Turks afterward to have a buffer state with the Soviet Union. And the Soviet Union should be listed as a full belligerent, they invaded Armenian alongside the Turks and gave the Turks more support than any of the Allies gave. There is no source on the article, or even mention, for French Africa and British India. Even if they used colonial troops, that doesn't mean they were at war with them because it's just the French/British army. Again, just nationalist wishful thinking. United States should only be on the Kemalist side. I gave three sources that proved the naval forces under Bristol sided with the Kemalists. And why are Kurdish rebels listed? They had nothing to do with the Allies, it's a separate conflict. Under strength, there's a 50,000 number lists simply as "revolts". Were the Kemalists not revolting? --Oatitonimly (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes there were Ottoman troops. Even the source says so. All those rebelions duringn the war are a part of the war. Gala19000 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hardly deployed any troops what are you even talking about? There were thousands of British troops that occupied Ottoman lands during the war (also Constantinople) and even assisted the Greeks durinf their offensive. Gala19000 (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Its not a seperate conflict. It belongs to rhe same war as many revolts and rebelions happened during those times Gala19000 (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources for your claims? Oatitonimly (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with Gala19000 on this one. The sources provided are either unreliable or unrelated. And please provide sources in english, makes it easier to make your point instead of Cyrillic. (N0n3up (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC))
 * Oh? And how did you decide they are unreliable or unrelated? I'm not using any Cyrillic sources, they're all English. Not only did Soviet Russia give the Turks more aid than any of the Allies did to the Greeks, but they invaded Armenia alongside the Turks, making them a full belligerent. Taner Ackam goes into detail that both the Istanbul and Ankara governments fought the allies and that they never fought each other, the most they did was murder Turkish civilians who supported the other side. Both France and Britain supported the Turks later in the war to build a strong buffer state ally with the USSR. They never gave the Turks military support nor did they ever really fight the Ankara government, just the Istanbul one. The United States naval support is listed on the Allies side with no references but there are plenty of references that Bristol was a Turkish conspirator.  How were the Kurds involved with the Allies in any way? They weren't fighting together and shouldn't be listed together. --Oatitonimly (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Source #8 is in Cyrillic and if Bristol is considered a conspirator (which didn't show up in the sources) then that's a detail that should go on the body of the article but no reason to add the US as a belligerent in the infobox. Apart from facing opposition to the change and the need to gain consensus, this is going to take up some time to cover, so it's best to wait. I see Gala19000 reverted you multiple times. Please be careful to not edit war or you might risk being blocked. (N0n3up (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC))
 * That source is from a previous section, it's not mine. You must've not looked up the pages, so I'll link them. There have been no objective arguments in the past week, so I see no reason to wait any longer. WP:Consensus is assumed when no one objects. --Oatitonimly (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, what are you talking about? The Allies gave the Greeks much mire support then the Soviets ever did (especialy in the begin). The British even sended troops to support the Greeks during their offensive into Anatolia. Its those things you don't even seem to know. And the thinf is is that this is already sourced in the article self. Maybe you should look it up by yourself? Gala19000 (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All the British did was occupy Constantinople, from the Ottoman government not the Kemalist one, they never sent troops to fight with the Greeks, while the Soviets sent troops to help the Turks invade Armenia. --Oatitonimly (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you talking so much without even doing some research? Seqrch up the Greek summer offensive and the Greek landings at Izmir, Smyrna). The British did send some troops to support the Greeks and its clearly sourced as well. Gala19000 (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we solve this by making the infobox three party. One box contains Turkish nationalists and supporters. One contains pro-Greek forces. One contains pro-Ottoman forces. There is no reason why the Ottomans and the nationalists should be on the same side as they both fought each other in a small civil war. Also the UK did aid Greece militarily and supported Greece throughout the war so they should be in the Greek infobox. France and Italy did aid Turkey with guns following the end of the southern front but this should be shown as them under a "armed by" section as they never fought Greek forces and France should be in the same infobox as Armenia. Soviet Union you could argue was a belligrent as they invaded Armenia and Georgia with Turkish forces and so I support having them in the infobox. Also why were the additional factions removed from the infobox, if the Soviet Union is to be considered as a belligrent so must Georgia, Çerkes Ethem's rebels and Kurdish rebels. FPSTurkey (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's my proposal FPSTurkey (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. (N0n3up (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC))
 * I considered something like that but the problem is that the Istanbul and Ankara governments were never at "war" with each other and the Istanbul government was never an ally of the Allies. My reasoning for putting them on the same side is that according to Akcam they not only were not fighting each other but the Ottoman military forces were de facto controlled by the nationalists for most of that war. Not a perfect template but more accurate than the rest. I'm opposed to adding Ethem and the Kurds because they weren't affiliated with the Allies in any way, it's a separate conflict. And I'm really opposed to putting the US navy forces on the Greek-Allied side when I've given several sources that confirm Bristol supported the Turkish nationalists. --Oatitonimly (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The flaw on your proposition FPSTurkey is, well... Oatitonimly pretty much said it. And Oatitonimly, although your sources mentioned bristol in Turkey, your sources fail to mention the US as a belligerent. And even if it was a belligerent, it had played a very minor role in the war compared to the other belligerents, in that case it would be better to mention in the body paragraph rather than infobox. (N0n3up (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC))

this is complete nonsense. this part of the article is completely vandalized by multiple people. listing ussr there? 40000 ussr troops dead in turkish war of independence? And the reference there is ussr-georgia war or whatever. the version of that part around end of april / beginning of may was correct. this banned user came and stirred everything and vandalized a perfectly sound page. Please revert back to original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diskoerekto (talk • contribs) 14:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalising the Combatants list and artcile
The British and other alies support both the Ottoman sultanate and the Greeks. The Ottoman government of that time was against the Turkish nationalists and thus should be listed on the other side. Removing the total deaths from the list doesnmt make any sense at all. And removing the rebelions does not either. They were a part of the war and thus are included. Gala19000 (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

British, Italians and French had army in Turkey that fought against Turks - Where are their troop numbers?
Title says it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.132.195 (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They should appear in the casualties section in the infobox. (N0n3up (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC))

Taking away valuable info
Oatitonimly So you recently, or should I say, a while back you deleted some info regarding the British belligerents with this edit. They fought in the war thus should be mentioned in the infobox. And please refrain from reverting until we reach consensus.. (N0n3up (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC))
 * They were never full belligerents for either side. They were never at war with the Ankara government. It would make more sense to add the US as a Turkish belligerent than the UK as an allied one. This is old news from the discussion above, which you were present for. --Oatitonimly (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First I would like to thank you for using the talk page. In regards to what you are saying, I would have to disagree with that statement since the UK was certainly involved in the war. Whereas the US barely ever acted in the war, yes they were in Samsun but that's about it, like a quick poke in the war to simply withdraw. The UK was involved in the war and lost a number of men and we have sources of their involvement, casualties and participants. The question to whether how or whom they supported in the war is a different subject which I will have to look more into. But one thing is clear that Britain, as well as Greece, Armenia, France and others were highly involved in the war thus should be mentioned in the infobox including the casualties. I'm not sure of how you would like the format of the infobox laid out. I read some of your comments regarding issues with the infobox and one even suggested a three-column infobox. (N0n3up (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC))
 * Not to the degree of France, because the British didn't have a campaign, they were just briefly occupying the city. Even before I made changes there was no mention of British casualties (unlike French), which means they did very little fighting and their troops and commanders shouldn't be listed. --Oatitonimly (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing is that Britain was heavily tangled in the war. And we just can't delete significant information that is related to the subject. Yes, they all had a degree of contributions but they all played a part and lost casualties, and that's what counts. Not to mention that we have sources regarding the British casualties and that's more than enough to place it in the infobox. Britain, France, Armenia, Greece and others were involved in the war, and that's a fact, they weren't like the US who just happened to stop by and leave all the sudden, who's info is fit in the body paragraph but not the infobox. And yes, there there was mention of the British belligerents in the article for a long time. This is just an example going back from 2006, as you can see, the original belligerents were listed and other very minor details were added later but those are the belligerents that were concretely certain to have participated in the war thus need to be mentioned in the infobox. (N0n3up (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC))
 * It really didn't. The 40,000 were mostly for occupying Constantinople from the Sultanate and didn't fight the Turkish nationalists at all (unlike France), giving that figure is misleading. I said casualties, and there are none in your link. --Oatitonimly (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're right about the casualties, but the strength is also a factor to consider since the British were tangled in the conflict. It doesn't matter if the British didn't provide enough as the French, the point is that Britain was there to intervene. They weren't like the US who simply put it's feet on the water to simply decide to not get in the pool, Britain went ahead to get involved with military strength and all and that's what counts. (N0n3up (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC))

Errors with the list of belligerents
Bizzarely, the article lists France and the UK as only being a part of the war until 1920; France should be included in the direct list of belligerents (not the "supporters") until 20 October 1921, when it signed the Treaty of Ankara and made peace with the Ankara Government; and including it as a supporter of Ankara after that is a huge stretch. The UK, meanwhile, remained a part of the war until its end; you could even say it was the last foe for the Ankara Government, during the Chanak Crisis (though it didn't erupt into actual fighting, they were definitely a part of the war still). And it never actually supported Ankara, WTF is going on with that? The Ottoman Government also sided against the Ankara Government, not for.

As for the Soviet Union, it never actually took part in the war and should be included in the list "supporters", as it did provide material support, not direct belligerents. I can't seem to edit the article myself, to fix the list, but it's badly broken as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.202.114 (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking up a bit at the discussions, seems like a guy took a dump on the article. Ethem's rebels took part in the First Battle of İnönü (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_%C4%B0n%C3%B6n%C3%BC), so they should be a side. Ottoman Government, at this point, was a collaborator government that actively supported the Allied war effort; occupation of Istanbul took place because the Felah-ı Vatan group in the Ottoman Assembly, headed by Rauf (Orbay) an Ankara affiliate, refused to ratify the Treaty of Sevres, already signed by the Government. And I still can't wrap my head around France and the UK being shown as supporters of the Ankara Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.202.114 (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't understand either, why don't you ask Oatitonimly, he's the one who edited this edit in the first place. (N0n3up (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC))

Horribly wrong belligerents list
Italy is kind of right, but France and England was not with Turkey. They were with Greeks. You can look at other languages of this article, and it all are the same. Only English one is horribly wrong. Ottoman Empire should be on the other side too. Revolutioners and Ottoman Empire fought "against" not together. You can look at French or Turkish wikipedia pages for a sample. Tanriverdi.emre (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Until 1920
Hey, I'm glad someone finally took notice how utterly inaccurate the list of belligerents was; some inaccuracy persists, claiming France and the UK only supported the war until 1920. It should be 20 October 1921 for France (the date of the Treaty of Ankara), and until the end of the war for the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.123.194.179 (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of information about Greeks and Armenians getting massacred
I think sourced information such as the bit about Greeks and Armenians getting massacred should remain in the article since that has a lot to do with the Turkish War of Independence. We can't just have this material removed especially with edit-summaries such as these: and. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Not at all the part you added is propaganda. I wonder why you want to add Armenian and greek deaths only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.170.64 (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah so you are reverting because the greek and armenian deaths were removed. Ok, but still alot still need to be changed. First of all the Turkish civilan deaths must be readded. Secondly The Turkish belligerent side must be fixed.Needbrains (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The russians just gave weapons to the Turkish forces (Source says this). Brits never supported Turkey (In the end the treat of lausanne was made with them. Italy just left when the tide Turned against the Greeks. France also left after they were defeated (There is a whole Franco-Turkish war section). If no reaction i am removing those sides in 12 hours Needbrains (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Speculation
There are a lot of speculative comments, such as "in the certain knowledge that the British would prorogue the Chamber". This and other allegations were not certain, and such speculation ought to be removed.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2016
Veteran Geezer (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Can someone add "United States (only in Bombardment of Samsun" to combatant2 on the infobox?
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2016
Why isn't Soviet Union on the side of Turkey? They invaded Armenia along with Turkey which makes it a full belliregent, Turkey didn't won the war alone, they got supported by a lot of countries, this page is pure Turkish propaganda. Why isn't the Koçgiri rebels listed of the side of Armenia and Greece?

RE: This is an edit request, Soviet Russia was on Turkey's side, but it isn't on the list while it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veteran Geezer (talk • contribs) 22:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This was not initially phrased like an edit request, but more like a rant. I am more than happy to make the change you are requesting as long as you provide a reliable source to support it. Topher385 (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Veteran Geezer (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is not an edit request. Topher385 (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2016
Please change the belligerents section where it says The Ottoman Empire secretly helped Turkey and delete that part because the Ottoman Empire was against the Ankara government and opposed Turkey until the end of the war.

Zaaaaaaaa (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Where are the maps?
There is one single tiny map in this article and it doesn't even occur until halfway down. Somebody please rectify this. —  Scott  •  talk  12:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is a joke. Its pretty much full of edit war information from Greek and Turkish nationalists now. --FPSTurkey (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

kurds helped turks to win war and here is nothing about kurds!
kurdish people in anatolia and eastern helped turks to win thsi war ,ataturk said to kruds come on fight for kurdish and turish state after this war.

but here is nothing about kruds to read JOKE WIKI! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.191.43 (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can improve your English and find WP:RS, you can add it. Kavas (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You can find many Kurds in the list of the recipients of the Medal of Independence with Red-Green Ribbon. Takabeg (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC) What do you waiting?Europans nnever cared about Turks or Kurds.They just care about money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.166.177.239 (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Do not forget to mention how internal enemies tried to use Kurds against GNA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_the_Rise_of_Kurdistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.126.152 (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Kuva-i Milliye is not a ethnic union. It represents all people who found Turkish Republic which includes ethnic Kurd citizens of Turkish Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.111.183 (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

HORRİBLE DİSİNFORMATİON
Soviets only had financial and weapon support to the Turkish side, they never directly involved to the war with 40.000 infantry, complete disinformation. Shameful. --176.232.94.159 (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

3 column template ??
I think making a 3rd column for Georgia is undue weight. The war is basically twofold, Turkish nationalists versus allies. 3rd column is confusing.Kavas (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

N0n3up's accusation of me being a vandal.
He/she wanted me to open up a talk page with an offensive manner (which you can see in revertion summaries and in my talk page) and accused me of 'vandalizing'. I can't see any vandalizing in my edits, in fact one can clearly see that i'm improving the infobox. kazekagetr 13:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You made radical changes in the infobox and lead without sources and consensus that it's even hard to begin to show how these edits are not inproving the page. (N0n3up (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC))
 * Since you decided to get involved in this, why don't you start with providing sources for these rampant edits and provide good arguments and a consensus to why these edits should be made instead of the longstanding version? (N0n3up (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
 * I didn't add any content, I just reverted you. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  12:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, you did add. The original version was before user KazekageTR made radical unsources/unsupported edits to the page, so I reverted him. And you reverted me for reverting KazekageTR thus not keeping the article in its original version, all this before even talking about the contents of KazekageTR's edits here in the talk page. (N0n3up (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC))
 * You should instead discuss the content. Kavas (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * KazegageTR has added many changes to this article. I'm pretty sure he/she had good intentions but it should be at least be carefully analyzed but the fact that he/she continued on despite telling him/her to take it here before continuing their edits. Considering that the changes were anything but small, the user made radical changes in the article, which includes yet not excluding adding people and belligerents without any source in the infobox. Thus I think this article needs to be on the neutral version before we implement KazekageTR's changes. I've seen this similar edit in the past, assuming it might be the same person. Still waiting to hear from him/her. (N0n3up (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC))

I support reverting back to 4 February 2017 before these POV changes were made. The Ottomans weren't allied to the Armenians and Greeks in any way. The Ottoman government wasn't even really a belligerent at this point so much as a concept. Italy was no more an ally of the Greeks than with the Turks. The Kurds were on nobody's side. Also what is "Various Revolts"? Aren't the Turkish nationalists rebels? KazekageTR removed the source that showed the US was supportive of Turkey. He also removed all sources that the British and French later stopped supporting the Greeks and assisted the Turks instead as well. It's also curious why he hides the Soviets and other Turkish allies behind a drop down menu when the Soviets were more involved with helping the Turks than any of the Allies for the Greeks or Armenians. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * One key reason why I reverted KazekageTR was not only for his unsourced arbitrary edit but because it includes the US as a belligerent, which it wasn't or didn't play much of a role to be considered the least. Apparently there is much to talk about regarding the belligerents, but my opinion stands that the US shouldn't be included as a belligerent. BTW I plan on reverting the article back to its original form before KazekageRT's edits and wanted to know if User:KazekageTR wanted to say anything before I do so, considering it's bee a wile since he made any edits. (N0n3up (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC))
 * I just returned the page to the original version before KazekageRT's edit to keep the page to status quo regarding the question of his edits. Apparently KazekageRT simply lost interest, just goes to show the depth and knowledge of people who refuse to take it to the talk page. (N0n3up (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC))

Time order.
There is no chronological order in this article. It goes back and forth all the time. This is what I only wanted to say. In fact, it is a huge mess, at least in chronological terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.251.41.5 (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph marked "Decoding National Movement"

Can anybvody tell us what "decoding" means here. It does not seem right. What was the code or cipher? Wh was decoding it and by what means? Spinney Hill (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Very low-quality writing
Really basic gramatical and usage errors throughout here; it reads like something written in a foreign language and punched through google translate. Does not seem credible at all given basic errors. Some sort of concerted effort to clean this up might be useful. 70.127.17.241 (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Representational problem
What was the representatuional problem please? Was it a lack of elections or a skewed franchise,gerrymandering or what? Spinney Hill (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

General Milne
Seems to link to a General Milner who was dead some decades prior to these events. Gwladys24 (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Any idea if we can put "Green army" and "Kuvayi Seyyare" to the infobox
Opinions? Green army was a term for Muslims who came from Soviet Union. Kuvayi Seyyare are irregular troops of Çerkes Ethem. Beshogur (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021
Turkish War Of Independence has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing 95.10.191.253 (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not done. I suggest reading the many independent references that deal with the genocide and ethnic cleansing. FDW777 (talk) 07:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This statement needs to be deleted. It is not true. Because The war of Independence is not an ethnic cleansing or genocide, but a war of independence against the occupying forces. --Jelican9 (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I recommend reading the references found at Turkish War of Independence. FDW777 (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's shoccking that a nation's independence war against those forces occupying a country the after First World War is presented here in this wikipedia article as a military and political capmpagin against the occupying forces and some people of the land. I can recommend  some books to refer. Here are first two that comes to miy mind. The Emergence of Modern Turkey,  The Turkish War for Independence, 1918–1923.--Basak (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Books you cited are from mid 1900s. They are obselete as new studies exists.--Visnelma (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you claim that after the mid 1900s,  some new "facts" about the Turkish Independence War have been found out which require that this historical event be defined as  "a series of military and ethnic cleansing campaigns waged by the Turkish National Movement "? Therefore, do you say that the old books I referred to have outdated information and new books referred here have the correct definitions?  I am sorry that i don't have access to a library at the moment, so i can not work on suggesting books and articles but the issue here is not related with the date of the books. It's possible to find old books some of which define Turkish National Forces as heroes against imperialism, some of which define them as devils burning Greek villages. In the same way  newer books see and define the war  differently. This Wikipedia article is biased in its current form. The article has references, but it seems that different definitions and points of views are omitted. I am deeply concerned about the neutrality of the article. I am sorry that it's not possible for me to contribute more at the moment but i  just want to record my thoughts here.--Basak (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a template Template:Obsolete source. I can't make any further comments since you have not cited sources other than these.--Visnelma (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There is "template: Obsolete source"  template and it is very  useful.  The sources i suggested above are just two book names i've read years ago and they are first examples came to my mind.  Of course, there are many recent publications. Still, it is valid to suggest referring those books, because it can not be claim those sources "have been surpassed by a newer edition, a followup article, a widely accepted rebuttal, a retraction, or some other advance in knowledge." The reason of the such different definitions we find in books (calling the 1929-1923 war between Turkish national forces against British, France, Greek, Italian forces as "an ethnical cleansing by Turkish National forces" or as "a national war against imperial powers") is the different viewpoints of the authors. Those differences existed in the past as well.  Prefering  to define what happened between 19 May 1919 and 24 July 1923 in Anatolia as a  "ethnical cleansing by Turkish National Forces"  does not come from any kind of "advance in knowledge"  it can be easily found in old publications as well. And likewise the events between 19 May 1919 and 24 July 1923 were defined as  "a war against imperialist forces occupied Anatolia" in both old and new sources.  Therefore i am worried that by the way definition is made the article is showing a bias  and  would like to suggest, adding a template that would reflect the concerns about the definition being biased. Could you suggest any template for that?--Basak (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * From the lead of Stanford J. Shaw, Shaw's works have been criticized for their lack of factual accuracy as well as denial of the Armenian Genocide, and other pro-Turkish bias. I can see why he's an attractive reference for some people. FDW777 (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, this also can be disscussed elsewhere :) As i said i don't have access to library now. Dear , May i ask you to help adding sources which reflect other definitions as well ? What about definitions at printed encylopedias such as Ana Britannica, Grand Larousse? Maybe the definitions on such sources could be checked as well.  It's very important to ensure neutrality of the definition. Maybe alternative definitions could be moved to another subsection and a definiton aggreed upon could be written on the lead section.  Could you help on adding such sources? I assume that you are as sensitive as me about making this article  carrying neither anti-Turkish bias nor pro-Turkish bias. .--Basak (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BRITANNICA is not a reliable source.--Visnelma (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ok. Thank you. Any other suggestion? Do you have access to Bernard Lewis's book? Do you still think it is "obsolete source"? Do you agree that this article is now has anti-Tukish bias and you agree to work to fix this by adding reliable sources? --Basak (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't accept this article has "anti-Tukish bias" any more than, for example, The Holocaust has an "anti-German bias" or the Rwandan Genocide has an "anti-Rwandese bias". That some Turks are in denial about the genocide and ethnic cleansing perpretrated by by their fellow countrymen and women is the problem, not this article. FDW777 (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you refering to 1915 events explained in this article? I want to remind that this article is about 1919-1923 war where Turkish National Forces fought against occupying forces. I insist that this article creates a misconfusion. --Basak (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021
Kaanoysul (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC) As mentioned in the first sentence Independence war was started on May 19th 1919 after the resolution of Armenians’ forced migration in 1915. So there is a logical error in the paragraph which should be corrected.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2021
Vandalism. Change, under casualties: 15,000+ Turkish civilians killed in the Western Front and 20,000+ in all fronts

back to

–640,000 Turkish and other Muslim civilians killed in the Western Front DriedGrape (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ In order to use this template, there needs to be a clear consensus for this edit. As noted multiple editors have questioned the reliability of the cited source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And a consensus has not been reached yet. This edit by a user that didn't even contribute in the discussion is premature.DriedGrape (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:Edit requests states that you have to obtain consensus for controversial changes *before* using this template. Calling good-faith edits "vandalism" is not going to get you very far either. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the edit *itself* is controversial. A good faith edit would not have such a heavy handed description either. Also there has not been any concrete reason described to remove the source nor any productive discussion regarding it with a conclusion.DriedGrape (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I object to its restoration per WP:REDFLAG, compounded by the criticism of McCarthy's work in the subject area. FDW777 (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Non Notoable rebels.
Dear, Mavi Gözlü Kel Why you keep add Non Notable rebels? We already have Revolts during the Turkish War of Independence page. And most of them have no sources. Shadow4dark (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2021
I dont know what to change it to bu the Greeks should have higher death because The Great Offensive page says the Great Offensive killed 35,000 Greeks alone which suggests a much larger sum 24.115.12.153 (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Citing another Wikipedia article directly is generally not reliable; perhaps that page contains an external citation that can be used instead. Gaioa  (T C L) 10:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Citation needed tag should be added
Sources for ethnic cleansing in first definition statement seems to be discussed claim and there's lack of references to consider it as a fact. I don't appreciate protecting article for even editors contributions, could you please make protection semi-protect, i think "Citation needed" tag should be added there. Best regards. --Bermanya (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * So you're denying the citations at Turkish War of Independence exist? It is cited, by multiple high-quality references. Curious that this is your first edit to the English Wikipedia for almost four years, convenient timing isn't it? FDW777 (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see: No original research. There is no direct information about ethnic cleaning as well as regarding source does not show direct historical document/source about this issue. I think "Citayion needed" tag is fair enough.--Bermanya (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Please read the references provided, which conveniently include quotes.


 * Levon Marashlian, "Finishing the Genocide: Cleansing Turkey of Armenian Survivors, 1920-1923," in Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide, ed. Richard Hovannisian (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999), pp. 113-45: "Between 1920 and 1923, as Turkish and Western diplomats were negotiating the fate of the Armenian Question at peace conferences in London, Paris, and Lausanne, thousands of Armenians of the Ottoman Empire who had survived the massacres and deportations of World War I continued to face massacres, deportations, and persecutions across the length and breadth of Anatolia. Events on the ground, diplomatic correspondence, and news reports confirmed that it was the policy of the Turkish Nationalists in Angora, who eventually founded the Republic of Turkey, to eradicate the remnants of the empire's Armenian population and finalize the expropriation of their public and private properties."
 * The idea that it's uncited is simply denial of basics facts. FDW777 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Levon Marashlian, "Finishing the Genocide: Cleansing Turkey of Armenian Survivors, 1920-1923," in Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide, ed. Richard Hovannisian (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999), pp. 113-45: "Between 1920 and 1923, as Turkish and Western diplomats were negotiating the fate of the Armenian Question at peace conferences in London, Paris, and Lausanne, thousands of Armenians of the Ottoman Empire who had survived the massacres and deportations of World War I continued to face massacres, deportations, and persecutions across the length and breadth of Anatolia. Events on the ground, diplomatic correspondence, and news reports confirmed that it was the policy of the Turkish Nationalists in Angora, who eventually founded the Republic of Turkey, to eradicate the remnants of the empire's Armenian population and finalize the expropriation of their public and private properties."
 * The idea that it's uncited is simply denial of basics facts. FDW777 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Levon Marashlian, "Finishing the Genocide: Cleansing Turkey of Armenian Survivors, 1920-1923," in Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide, ed. Richard Hovannisian (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999), pp. 113-45: "Between 1920 and 1923, as Turkish and Western diplomats were negotiating the fate of the Armenian Question at peace conferences in London, Paris, and Lausanne, thousands of Armenians of the Ottoman Empire who had survived the massacres and deportations of World War I continued to face massacres, deportations, and persecutions across the length and breadth of Anatolia. Events on the ground, diplomatic correspondence, and news reports confirmed that it was the policy of the Turkish Nationalists in Angora, who eventually founded the Republic of Turkey, to eradicate the remnants of the empire's Armenian population and finalize the expropriation of their public and private properties."
 * The idea that it's uncited is simply denial of basics facts. FDW777 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Levon Marashlian, "Finishing the Genocide: Cleansing Turkey of Armenian Survivors, 1920-1923," in Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide, ed. Richard Hovannisian (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999), pp. 113-45: "Between 1920 and 1923, as Turkish and Western diplomats were negotiating the fate of the Armenian Question at peace conferences in London, Paris, and Lausanne, thousands of Armenians of the Ottoman Empire who had survived the massacres and deportations of World War I continued to face massacres, deportations, and persecutions across the length and breadth of Anatolia. Events on the ground, diplomatic correspondence, and news reports confirmed that it was the policy of the Turkish Nationalists in Angora, who eventually founded the Republic of Turkey, to eradicate the remnants of the empire's Armenian population and finalize the expropriation of their public and private properties."
 * The idea that it's uncited is simply denial of basics facts. FDW777 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that it's uncited is simply denial of basics facts. FDW777 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that it's uncited is simply denial of basics facts. FDW777 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that it's uncited is simply denial of basics facts. FDW777 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that it's uncited is simply denial of basics facts. FDW777 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that it's uncited is simply denial of basics facts. FDW777 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Discrepancy of dates
"Simultaneously, the Turkish nationalist movement carried out massacres and deportations in order to eliminate native Christian populations—a continuation of the Armenian Genocide and other ethnic cleansing operations during World War I."

For example this sentence sends you to citation 59 which sends you to book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Making_of_Modern_Turkey. Whole book talks about genocide between 1910-1917 done by Ottoman Empire. Turkish War of Independence generally accepted started as 1919 (while this is also partly true, actual resistance stated at 1920).

Also history has never seen a genocide and a successful independence war happening at the same time by the same group. Most of the independence wars are already fought against a superior force and no militia can afford to fight both the enemy and creating a civil war zone behind the lines at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.133.238.225 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You brought up some good points. Also I noticed all the citations in citation 59 are self quoting articles and books, Meaning they are all referring to each other. Thus creating illusion of academic consensus. When other people do challenge it with other sources, they are either dismissed by calling it denialist or being called old books. The Bad intent from users who still has edit privilege is there for us to see. Just have to scroll through the discussions. --Oyond (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Exactly! Very well said. Emre Dokur (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You mustn't accuse other users of having "bad intentions". That's a very serious accusation and violation of WP:NPA policy.--V. E. (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a general statement not directed to particular person. Call it observation of a trend. If one is not part of such trend then they have no reason to be offended. If they are then my observation holds true. I am not sure about your background but my M.A. is in Economics and Poli Sci. Identifying trend is my bread and butter. Thank you for letting me know about the policy though --Oyond (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks do not necessarily have to be directed against individual persons. They can also target a group of people. You must comment on contributions and not on authors. NPA policy is intended to create a suitable envirement to all editors.--V. E. (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds bit demagogy to be honest. I did comment on contributions. Anyway we all can start contributing once the edit lock is lifted. Hopefully Turkish side will not be blocked from editing a topic regarding their own independence war.--Oyond (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Accusing other users of personal attack is in itself a personal attack. Let's not disregard the very valid concerns raised regarding the *content* within the article. I also agree that the current article tries to play connect-the-dot with history to frame the war in a desired narrative.DriedGrape (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not. Because my accusation is justified reasonably. See WP:AVOIDYOU, third paragraph.--V. E. (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The book from Umit Üngör treats the time between 1913 and 1950 as is stated in the subtitle of the book. You see it if you click on the link. The Turkish War of Independence is also in this time frame. And I'd like to welcome the new editors who are getting to know Wikipedia shortcuts. There exists also WP:NOTAFORUM, which is about the reason of why we have article talk pages. It is for discussions which improve Wikipedia articles. If you have other issues to solve please take those to your own user talk pages or ask for help at the WP:TEAHOUSE if you do not know yet where you can find help. I found there often help myself, it is a good place.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And the books chapter on the genocide of Christians is titled "Genocide of Christians, 1915–16" which are NOT within the timeframe of the War of Independence. It also says "Üngör's central argument is "that from 1913 to 1950, the Young Turk regime subjected Eastern Turkey, an ethnically heterogeneous area, to various forms of nationalist population policies aimed at ethnically homogenizing the region and including it in the Turkish nation state"." which is factually incorrect as The Young Turks ceased to exist by 1914, let alone the war or even the 50s.DriedGrape (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you kindly add back the previous discussions you removed. Since someone made a complain about me I want admins to see how it developed and where I am coming from. But yes moving forward we can talk about material itself. I only wanted to make it fair for all sides. Edit: I did it for you. Lets keep it there and move on.--Oyond (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not mentioned in one of the discussions archived and the talk page is now really very long. It was just meant to navigate better through the talk page. But help yourself, if you like. (As you already did, apparently). Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no need to undo the archiving. You can look in the talk page history or in the archives.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 05:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Which Ahmet Muhtar?
Trying to figure out if we have an article for the right Ahmet Muhtar (as mentioned in the ethnic cleansing section as being a foriegn minister). There is Ahmet Muhtar Mollaoğlu, who seems likeliest, and also Ahmet Muhtar Pasha, but the Turkish government calls him Ahmet Muhtar Bey. AdmiralEek (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, and yes I checked the source and it was no more enlightening. AdmiralEek (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Found it at List of Ministers of Foreign Affairs (Turkey) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

About malicious edit
Although Kemalism had nothing to do with Nazism, on the Kemalism page, he went so far as to liken Kemalism to the Nazis. Someone realized that he could spread his political views here. The aim of the Turkish National Movement is not ethnic cleansing. "30,000+ buildings and 250+ villages burnt to the ground by the Greek military and Greek/Armenian rebels." To write unilaterally saying "the massacres continued" in a war where these were experienced is an indication of ulterior motives. A completely biased perspective. At that time, Mustafa Kemal was someone who sought a revolution in the state administration and became a member of other societies. However, later these societies united and the "Union and Progress" society emerged. "Remaining elements of the Committee of Union and Progress" sentence is a biased and malevolent point of view for Mustafa Kemal, who did not continue the ideas of the "Committee of Union and Progress" during the War of Independence. Sivas Congress is a proof of this. He tries to portray Mustafa Kemal as the source of the Committee of Union and Progress society. Persons should be prohibited from writing these pages according to their own political views.İnsanayıdomuz (talk) 10:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The article text should be edited to correct this as it cites a specific instance and otherwise should not be tolerated. Borab00 (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Calling this particular war as an series ethnic cleansing campaigns requires much more resource and citation (Currently cited sources does not reach conclutions even close to calling it series of etchnic cleaning campaigns) than an ethnocentric opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.30.247 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

One-sided "sources"
There really needs to be a proper cleanup and consensus made on some of the extremely questionable sources within this article. What strikes the eye the most currently is that the entire Historiography section, in which there are some quite heavy claims, such as calling the leaders of the movement war criminals, has only one source, Avedian Vahagn, an Armenian nationalist. A simple look into his past work reveals that he is in no status to be cited as an objective source. And, the rest of the article clearly completely disregards the Turkish POV. For the sake of neutrality, sources with an obvious bias should be removed, and until then, the page tagged as being unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DriedGrape (talk • contribs) 15:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources don't have to be neutral.Neutrality of sources--Visnelma (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe you misinterpreted that guideline. The extreme bias of the source completely demolishes its reliability and thats one of the problems here. "Wikipedian purposes are best served by clearly stating what each source reported without attempting to editorialize which of the conflicting presentations is intrinsically right." by only taking those sources into account when making the article and writing down what that source states as if it is the objective truth, the article *itself* becomes completely one sided and therefore unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DriedGrape (talk • contribs) 21:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"‘War of Independence’ was not against the occupying Allies – a myth invented by Kemalists – but rather a campaign to rid Turkey of remaining non-Turkish elements. In fact, Nationalists never clashed with Entente occupying forces until the French forces with Armenian contingents and Armenian deportees began to return to Cilicia in late 1919." This is not a reliable source :) İt's contradicts with reality. Meambokhe (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism on the article stays to this day as the article has been locked
You can compare the the two versions of the page, one before the vandalism (that was nearly the same for years) and the one after the vandalism (that stays to this day because Wikipedia locked the article). Edits lack citations and the citations given are mostly biased. There are wordplays to make false statements without citations to make them look authentic. There are single citations for entire paragraphs with multiple false claims. This version of the page nearly makes it look like Turks never fought a war against the occupying armies at all and instead massacred civilians. Clearly a product of an Anti-Turkish sentiment. One big change is in the introduction section. This clearly is to change the context falsely as the claims are never elaborated in the following sections.

Vandalism on a Wikipedia article is one thing, but trying to change the history by locking the vandalized article is another. One cannot change the history merely by vandalizing a Wikipedia article: Turkish War of Independence was a war fought against the military forces occupying Anatolia after World War I, not an "ethnic cleansing campaign" as claimed by people with Anti-Turkish sentiment that provide heavily opinionated articles as citations in the last couple of months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithrilr (talk • contribs) 11:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Edits lack citations and the citations given are mostly biased. Are they Schrödinger's citations? How can they not exist and be mostly biased at the same time? FDW777 (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There are claims without citation, whole paragraphs with multiple claims having a single citation (which do not cover all the claims), and citations that are heavily opinionated. The general structure of the page is mainly unchanged, as the false claims lack elaboration in the rest of the article: But with small changes, wordplays, and lack of citation on some claims, the general context of the article changes drastically: Shifting to the side that the TWoI was an ethnic cleansing campaign foremost, rather than a war of independence against the occupiers. —Mithrilr 11:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please point out exactly what sections are missing sources and which claims are false along with sources to support said statements. Grogudicae👽  12:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

About recent changes
Recent additions to this article are controversial. The consecutive additions of a limited number of users are an obvious example of vandalism. In accordance with the WP:NPOV, the last changes should be undone, the stable version should be returned WP:BRD. It is wrong to approve the changes and close the page for change without detailed research on such a controversial subject. Hundreds of sources can be found with opposing views on such a controversial topic. I see that the changes are accepted without any discussion on the discussion page. Is this how the English Wikipedia works? Recent changes can be seen when the article is written entirely within the scope of the original research. Wikipedia articles must not contain original research, but it's sad to see that it's allowed. As a patroller of another project, I have to express that we need to be more sensitive in our mother project. Let the historians write the history. Do not allow users to vandalise the articles.-Thecatcherintherye (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Thecatcherintherye I do not see "vandalism" here, and the page version was achieved by consensus. How did you happen to reach this discussion? You edit the English Wikipedia very infrequently. Could you please inform us how you got here?-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 11:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Let the historians write the history. We've done just that. Turkish nationalists object to that for some reason. FDW777 (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)




 * 1. Can you show where a consensus on final changes in matter has been achieved?
 * 2. As, WP:WEIGHT, I can see that the article is written out of a single brain/pen/mouth (I dont know how English speakers describe this) and this should be a answer to . I say, writing of different information is not allowed as a result of the substance being protected.
 * 3. You said, "You edit the English Wikipedia very infrequently." So? Does this prove that I cannot know the policies?
 * 4. You said, "Could you please inform us how you got here?" Ok! As being a patroller, I am trying to protect the articles in trwiki already. Since there are examples of vandalism in the Turkish Wikipedia of the relevant articles, I am following the articles. If your query is over, please, No personal attacks.-Thecatcherintherye (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I can see that the article is written out of a single brain/pen/mouth, except it isn't. Per the many citations in the article, conveniently listed at Talk:Turkish War of Independence/Archive 2 above complete with quotes. Multiple academics confirm the genocidal ethnic cleansing aspect of the Turkish War of Independence. FDW777 (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are numerous sources pointed out in several sections here and lengthy discussions. Scroll up and read them instead of accusing people of personal attacks for not bending to your narrative. Grogudicae👽  12:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I read the entire discussion. Would you be more careful about personal attacks, please? Here, I support all sources to be searched in detail, to examine the archives and to give enough coverage to every opinion. "...accusing people of personal attacks for not bending to your narrative." is an obvious personal attack.-Thecatcherintherye (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Thecatcherintherye if your statement above of ""...accusing people of personal attacks for not bending to your narrative." is an obvious personal attack" were correct, then your statement above would fall within the same category you define above.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 12:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , accusing people of personal attacks without substantiating it, is in itself a personal attack, as is accusing good faith editors of vandalism, who are simply accurately reflecting what sources say. Further, belaboring a discussion with a clear consensus is also disruptive.  Grogudicae👽  12:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wrote, "We accept so in trwiki, but, isn't it vandalism that the persistent violation of the Neutral point of view of one of the five pillars on which Wikipedia is built in enwiki? So, I'll be more careful from now on." in my talk page. I do repeat it here, again.-Thecatcherintherye (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The Article In General
First paragraph of the article in the French language Wikipedia:

"La guerre d’indépendance turque (en turc : Kurtuluş Savaşı, « guerre de libération ») est le nom donné aux conflits qui se déroulèrent en Turquie du 19 mai 1919 au 11 octobre 1922, date de la signature de l'armistice : guerre civile turque puis conflits franco-turc, arméno-turc et gréco-turc, qui opposèrent la résistance nationaliste turque menée par Mustafa Kemal aux puissances alliées victorieuses de l'Empire ottoman à la suite de la Première Guerre mondiale, et à l'armée du sultan ottoman."

Translated by Google as:

"The Turkish War of Independence (Turkish: Kurtuluş Savaşı, "war of liberation") is the name given to the conflicts that took place in Turkey from May 19, 1919 to October 11, 1922, the date of the signing of the armistice. Turkish civil war then Franco-Turkish, Armenian-Turkish and Greco-Turkish conflicts, which opposed the Turkish nationalist resistance led by Mustafa Kemal to the victorious allied powers of the Ottoman Empire following the First World War, and to the army of the Ottoman Sultan."

First paragraph of the article in the German language Wikipedia:

"Der Türkische Befreiungskrieg (türkisch Kurtuluş Savaşı oder älteres Türkisch İstiklâl Harbi) war der Unabhängigkeitskrieg der türkischen Nationalbewegung von 1919 bis 1923 unter der Führung Mustafa Kemal Paschas gegen die Besetzung und politische und wirtschaftliche Bevormundung durch fremde Mächte. Die Kampfhandlungen richteten sich u. a. gegen Armenien, Griechenland und die französische Besatzungsmacht in Anatolien, die von den Westmächten Großbritannien und Italien unterstützt wurden. Der Krieg war gegen die Vergrößerung eines projektierten armenischen und des griechischen Staates auf Kosten des Osmanischen Reiches sowie gegen o. g. Besatzungszonen nach dem Vertrag von Sèvres von 1920 gerichtet. Ziel war die Errichtung eines türkischen Nationalstaates innerhalb der beim Waffenstillstand von Mudros von 1918 mit der Entente vereinbarten Waffenstillstandslinien (entspricht in etwa den heutigen Grenzen). Des Weiteren sollte der türkische Staat frei von politischen und wirtschaftlichen Beschränkungen durch fremde Mächte sein. Die im Vertrag von Sèvres von 1920 verankerten alliierten Aufteilungspläne der Türkei waren von der Regierung unter Damat Ferid Pascha unterzeichnet worden, riefen aber den erfolgreichen Widerstand unter Mustafa Kemal hervor.[7][8] Den Truppen der Kuvayı Milliye unter der Führung Mustafa Kemals schlossen sich verschiedene Ethnien, wie z. B. Tscherkessen, Lasen und Kurden an. Die gängigen türkischen Bezeichnungen lauten Kurtuluş Savaşı (Befreiungskrieg), İstiklâl Harbi (Unabhängigkeitskrieg) oder Millî Mücadele (Nationaler Kampf)."

Translated by Google as:

"The Turkish War of Liberation (Turkish Kurtuluş Savaşı or older Turkish İstiklâl Harbi) was the war of independence of the Turkish national movement from 1919 to 1923 under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Pasha against the occupation and political and economic tutelage by foreign powers. The fighting was directed inter alia. against Armenia, Greece and the French occupying power in Anatolia, which were supported by the Western powers Great Britain and Italy. The war was against the enlargement of a projected Armenian and Greek state at the expense of the Ottoman Empire as well as against the above. Zones of occupation directed according to the Treaty of Sèvres of 1920. The aim was to establish a Turkish nation state within the ceasefire lines agreed with the Entente in the Mudros armistice of 1918 (roughly corresponds to today's borders). Furthermore, the Turkish state should be free from political and economic restrictions by foreign powers. The allied partition plans of Turkey anchored in the Treaty of Sèvres of 1920 had been signed by the government under Damat Ferid Pascha, but provoked the successful resistance under Mustafa Kemal. [7] [8] The troops of the Kuvayı Milliye under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal joined various ethnic groups, such as: B. Circassians, Lasen and Kurds. The common Turkish names are Kurtuluş Savaşı (War of Liberation), İstiklâl Harbi (War of Independence) or Millî Mücadele (National Struggle)."

First paragraph of the article in the English language Wikipedia:

"The Turkish War of Independence[note 3] (19 May 1919 – 24 July 1923) was a series of military campaigns waged by the Turkish National Movement after parts of the Ottoman Empire were occupied and partitioned following its defeat in World War I. The campaigns were directed against Greece in the west, Armenia in the east, France in the south, royalists and separatists in various cities, and Britain and Italy in Constantinople (now Istanbul).[56][57][58] Simultaneously, the Turkish nationalist movement carried out massacres and deportations in order to eliminate native Christian populations—a continuation of the Armenian Genocide and other ethnic cleansing operations during World War I.[59] These campaigns resulted in the creation of the Republic of Turkey."

Is there clearly not something wrong with this? And the page is protected. The page which had the same first paragraph for years got edited and then was put on protected. Is this not some kind of an "organised disinformation campaign"? I must also remind the Turkish government's policy of blocking internet sites it doesn't like. This might also be some kind of provocation by Turkophobes.

The sentence of: "Simultaneously, the Turkish nationalist movement carried out massacres and deportations in order to eliminate native Christian populations—a continuation of the Armenian Genocide and other ethnic cleansing operations during World War I."

The sources are:

"The Making of Modern Turkey: Nation and State in Eastern Anatolia, 1913–1950" by Uğur Ümit Üngör, published in 2011. Üngör's central argument is "that from 1913 to 1950, the Young Turk regime subjected Eastern Turkey, an ethnically heterogeneous area, to various forms of nationalist population policies aimed at ethnically homogenizing the region and including it in the Turkish nation state".

This has been addressed in the debate above, but let me re-address it:

"Upon the end of the war, with defeat imminent, the CUP cabinet resigned on October 9, 1918, less than a month before the Ottomans signed the Armistice of Mudros."

The book itself revolves entirely around a refusal of a non-controversial historical interpretion (There are no facts, only interpretations!), and that is the refusal of the ending of Young Turk regime at the end of the First World War.

The second source is (I am giving numeral values to them from top to bottom for better understanding.) "A Quest for Belonging: Anatolia Beyond Empire and Nation (19th-21st Centuries)" by Hans-Lukas Kieser, published in 2007. From the 497-page book, only the paragraph cited as a source includes the word "ethnic cleansing" as "...The Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 officially recognized the 'ethnic cleansing' that had gone on during the Turkish War of Independence ( 1919 - 1922 ) for the sake of undisputed Turkish rule in Asia Minor."

This is blatant cherry picking of the word from a 497-page work focused on Anatolia, not "ethnic cleansing during the Turkish War of Independence", which does not belong to this article anyway. Even if cherry picked, the sentence says that "...The Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 officially recognized the 'ethnic cleansing'...", which does have the meaning that the "Turkish nationalist movement carried out massacres and deportations in order to eliminate native Christian populations...".

The third source is "State Identity, Continuity, and Responsibility: The Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" by Vahagn Avedian, published in 2012.

The abstract finishes with: "Thus, the insurgent National Movement, which later became the Republic, made itself responsible for not only its own wrongful acts but also those of its predecessor, including the act of genocide committed in 1915–1916. The issue of possible liability has ever since the creation of the Republic formed the denialist policy which is Turkey’s to this day."

The fourth source is: "The Final Phase: The Cleansing of Armenian and Greek Survivors, 1919–1922" by Raymond Kévorkian, published in 2020. It says that in page 165, "The famous 'war of national liberation', prepared by the Unionists and waged by Kemal, was a vast operation, intended to complete the genocide by finally eradicating Armenian, Greek, and Syriac survivors."

Him calling Atatürk "Kemal" would prove all the Turkophobia he has! This source is not neutral. You might go and say WP:NEUTRALSOURCE. Yes, but that is "not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." And even if we apply that as a rule of thumb, it still would mean that "The appropriate Wikipedian solution is to include The New York Times (used as an example of a left-wing newspaper in the article-essay) and also to add other reliable sources that represent a different point of view.", which as far as I observed is not prevalent in this article but exactly the contrary that the Turkish history is being written by Armenian, Greek and other foreign sources of which are many actions of cherry picking from.

The fifth source is: "Fall of the Sultanate: The Great War and the End of the Ottoman Empire, 1908-1922" by Ryan Gingeras, published in 2016. In page 288, it says that "While the number of victims in Ankara’s deportations remains elusive, evidence from other locations suggest that the Nationalists were as equally disposed to collective punishment and population politics as their Young Turk antecedents... As in the First World War, the mass deportation of civilians was symptomatic of how precarious the Nationalists felt their prospects were."

A controversial interpretation with little to no ground. Almost all of these sources are like that, very novel and including groundless interpretations of what actually happened to go along with their political agenda of re-writing history.

The sixth source is: "Talaat Pasha: Father of Modern Turkey, Architect of Genocide" by Hans-Lukas Kieser again, published in 2018. "The book argues that Talaat and other Ottoman officials ordered and managed the Armenian Genocide."

What does this book about biography of Talaat Pasha have to do with the TWoI or the so called ethnic cleansing that the nationalists committed? The source cites the pages 319-320, "Thus, from spring 1919, Kemal Pasha resumed, with ex- CUP forces, domestic war against Greek and Armenian rivals. These were partly backed by victors of World War I who had, however, abstained from occupying Asia Minor. The war for Asia Minor— in national diction, again a war of salvation and independence, thus in- line with what had begun in 1913— accomplished Talaat’s demographic Turkification beginning on the eve of World War I. Resuming Talaat’s Pontus policy of 1916– 17, this again involved collective physical annihilation, this time of the Rûm of Pontus at the Black Sea." This can be argued that it may have happened (although unlikely in my opinion), but that was not the aim of the war by the nationalist side.

No. 7: Levene, Mark (2020). "Through a Glass Darkly: The Resurrection of Religious Fanaticism as First Cause of Ottoman Catastrophe: The thirty-year genocide. Turkey's destruction of its Christian minorities, 1894–1924, by Benny Morris and Dror Ze'evi, Cambridge, MA, and London, Harvard University Press, 2019, 672 pp., ISBN 9780674916456". Journal of Genocide Research. 22 (4): 553–560. doi:10.1080/14623528.2020.1735560. Ittihadist violence was as near as near could be optimal against the Armenians (and Syriacs) and in the final Kemalist phase was quantitively entirely the greater in an increasingly asymmetric conflict where, for instance, Kemal could deport “enemies” into a deep interior in a way that his adversaries could not..., it was the hard men, self-styled saviours of the Ottoman-Turkish state, and – culminating in Kemal – unapologetic génocidaires, who were able to wrest its absolute control.

Again, a non-neutral and a very novel interpretation of what actually happened.

This has been too long and I am ending this here. Maybe I will continue later, I don't know. But my conclusion is that:

This is an organised disinformation campaign and use of Wikipedia as a political tool for propaganda. "...a continuation of the Armenian Genocide and other ethnic cleansing operations during World War I..." part of the sentence removed, "These campaigns resulted in the creation of the Republic of Turkey." must also be removed (I added a section to the talk page on this subject, which went ignored but you can find it above.) and the lede must be shortened into "The Turkish War of Independence[note 3] (19 May 1919 – 24 July 1923) was a series of military campaigns waged by the Turkish National Movement after parts of the Ottoman Empire were occupied and partitioned following its defeat in World War I. The campaigns were directed against Greece in the west, Armenia in the east, France in the south, royalists and separatists in various cities, and Britain and Italy in Constantinople (now Istanbul).[56][57][58]".

The war did not occur to do ethnic cleansing. Nationalists did not have organised paramilitaries with chic uniforms, nor racial "theorists" nor an Atatürk who did speeches every day talking about "the elimination of Armenian and Greek races" or "sending them to Syria.". Saying that the war occured to commit "...massacres and deportations in order to eliminate native Christian populations..." in the first paragraph, and then concluding that "These campaigns resulted in the creation of the Republic of Turkey." is false, non-neutral, political and provocative.

Of course, in this "wall of text", the hoax of the "Kemalist Historiography" which has plagued the article in the second paragraph and the first section within the table of contents was not addressed. That won't be done by me, as I'm tired of this. However, people who have created that myth should understand that a 600 old theocratic backward empire has nothing to do with the modern, secular, Western nation-state that formally "succeeded" it in the Treaty of Lausanne to sort out the issue of Ottoman debt.

Kind regards, ed (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, Neutrality_of_sources Best regards. --V. E. (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response but I have already addressed WP:NEUTRALSOURCE, saying: "...This source is not neutral. You might go and say WP:NEUTRALSOURCE. Yes, but that is 'not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.' And even if we apply that as a rule of thumb, it still would mean that 'The appropriate Wikipedian solution is to include The New York Times (used as an example of a left-wing newspaper in the article-essay) and also to add other reliable sources that represent a different point of view.', which as far as I observed is not prevalent in this article but exactly the contrary that the Turkish history is being written by Armenian, Greek and other foreign sources of which are many actions of cherry picking from." And WP:JDL is not really the case here. Page is being used as a political tool of propaganda against Turks, transforming the narrative by creating a false scope of the subject. Most of the sources are as I tried to analyse in above are very novel publications, often with Armenian surnames in them (Nothing wrong with that, but reminding again that most of the Turkish sources are discredited because of them being Turkish only.) And even with good sources in there, NO BOOK says that the war was an ethnic cleansing campaign that was fought for a reason similar to the Nazi Germany's, which invaded the USSR to create a lebensraum in order to establish their racial socialism. Kind regards. ed (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's also in the content guidelines WP:BIASED. By the way, you may add other reliable and independent sources of course. I have no problem with that.--V. E. (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * --V. E. (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Emre Dokur, I am afraid editorial analysis of what constitutes source neutrality isn't anyone's concern. After all, roughly 80% of the sources worldwide, have some kind of a bias, depending how one sees them. Its impossible to avoid them. Wikipedia would be impossible to exist today had we been avoiding citing any biased sources. Like Visnelma has explained to you, sources may be non-neutral. However it is our duty as editors make sure that these non-neutral sources are attributed in a neutral way, and they are. The article is describing events that you may not be happy about but it is describing them in a neutral way. As for the Turkish sources, I must remind you that the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard has recently advised caution over the use of certain (but not all) sources originating from Turkey, where there has been a worrisome deterioration of the situation of freedom of press and freedom of speech, with independent writers, scholars, journalists, TV Channels and websites being either banned, fined, or arrested and imprisoned for not aligning their views with those of the Government. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 11:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Emre Doku. If you find RS which show there was no ethnic cleansing campaign during the TWOI you can bring those and we'll see where to include them. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Very good analysis on Emre's Part. We are finally getting somewhere. However there needs to be distinction here. The point should not be Article war( This author said ethnic cleansing, This author said its not). Point should be proving the Nature of the Turkish Independence War, which has strong indication of being war of self determination and anti-imperialism. If the nature of the Turkish War of Independence is proven to be such(Which wont be too difficult tbh, allied occupation...documents for partitioning ect.), then the lead needs to be removed. It can still be mentioned in the Ethnic Cleansing Section as Pro Post Modern or Armenian Point or Western of view of events. Fun fact: Did you know Iran and Turkey were the only non colonized country in Middle east :) --Oyond (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, Turkey was a colonizer and never colonized, though that seems beside the point. Other than that, this seems to be nothing more than another long tirade of WP:IDONTLIKEIT versus WP:RS. In that case we'll always side with the sources. If the comparison with French Wikipedia and German Wikipedia is a problem, I'd be happy to include the sources and their conclusions in French and German Wikipedia if you think it's important that different language versions match. Jeppiz (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not during War of Independence though or through out their republic era. Current Erdogan policies are different category and different topic by itself(not a big fan). But I can see why some people would like to avoid this outlook. That perspective puts Greek and Armenians into very different category in the course of events. Same as how this lead makes Turks seam like complete different category. That being said peoples main issue is lead. What it implies and why it doesn't belong there. The lead itself is a POV(allready stated by Emre), and that POV can be challenged with different POV. Then we have to include both perspectives in the article, organize it based on where it belongs. I would recommend putting it in the Ethnic Cleansing Section as Armenian POV. Anyway we can have all the discussions in the world but without ability to make changes nothing can be done. Once protection is lifted we can continue, I am with Emre it is tiring to argue without action. Lets talk again once the Protection is lifted --Oyond (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The sentence about ethnic cleansing is not propaganda, continuing ethnic cleansing of Christian minorities was an important aspect of the Turkish war of independence. That said ethnic cleansing was not the main focus of the conflict, it was an independence war after all, nor is it strictly part of the mainstream historiography of the conflict. Considering both of these things the best course of action would be to make the sentence a separate paragraph later in the introduction, with also some sentences about Greek atrocities. Benlittlewiki (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Like how it was discussed multiple times already and explained by User:Buidhe in earlier discussions on this very same talk page: any war crimes committed by Greece is outside the scope of this article and should not be included. Quoting Buidhe here for everyone's convenience:: First of all, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So you can't cite a wikipedia article for evidence. Second, we do not cite primary source documents usually, because it is easy for editors to cherry pick and/or misinterpret them. See WP:PRIMARY. It is always possible for a source to be wrong but when you find 10 sources from peer-reviewed scholarship that all say the same thing then this becomes much less likely. Third, the "Turkish War of Independence" only exists from the Turkish perspective; it is not the case that Greeks, Armenians etc. coordinated their efforts in order to prevent Turkish independence. Therefore, I believe the term is only correctly applied to the Turkish war effort, not the Greek one (that's the usage I've seen in reliable sources). Therefore, any war crimes committed by Greece would be in the article scope of Greco-Turkish War but not this article. Also, it is not the case that only Greeks were targeted as Armenians and Syriac Christians were also killed or driven out of various places.
 * I hope Buidhe's explanation makes things clear once and for all, that editors need to stick to WP:TOPIC which is the Turkish War of Independence. For the Greek crimes, the article: Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) is the place to go, and particularly the section: Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922). It is unhelpful to repeat the same discussions when they were made already above. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The Greco-Turkish War has its own article. War effort of Greeks is not included in the scope of this article, which only covers the Turkish war effort. A "war of independence" only exists from the Turkish perspective as it was not the war aim of other parties to prevent the independence of Turkey (compare with wars of independence such as American war of independence, Israeli war of independence where the opposing parties did seek to prevent the other country from becoming independent) nor did the various opponents coordinate with each other. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This confusion may be caused by the translation as the Turkish term used is "liberation war" (Kurtuluş Savaşı) instead of "war of independence" (Bağımsızlık Savaşı). The former is understood by a Turkish speaker like "liberating territories under enemy occupation", but I don't know if it really makes a significant difference in English.--V. E. (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it is an issue of translation really. For example, the Greek War of Independence isn't popularly known as such among the Greeks, its known as "Greek Revolution" instead, and had a similar connotation about liberating what they viewed as their homeland. Yet I don't see that kind of problem in its talk page.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that is true, but this is what I understand as a native speaker. Nevertheless, I haven't seen any sources about it. Maybe if I encounter one, I will share it.--V. E. (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like there is some sort of a logical mishap in the argument for not mentioning the Greek atrocities, specially the ones by the Greek army, in the article. From both historical and legal perspectives, Kingdom of Greece was occupying the Anatolian peninsula, since they were taking by force a part of land not belonging to their country before. One might call it liberation, I have no problem with that. Yet, it doesn't change the mere fact that Greece was trying to take control of a land by the use of their army. Treaty of Sèvres does not change this fact and one should also keep in mind that Greece was operating in part not left to Greece by Treaty of Sèvres. And TWoI, in part, was against this "liberating/occupying" army. And the Greek Army was trying to win the war against the organized "Turkish insurgency" (if you want to call it like that) and by this very simple fact, they were trying to prevent Turkish "independence". The article might focus on the Turkish war effort, but this not an argument for not bringing up the atrocities committed by the opposing army, i.e. Greek army. And, claiming it is not helpful to mention this issue again and again is also a questionable approach, since editors bringing this subject clearly want to challenge the valuable view provided by User:Buidhe. Since this view is contested, it is clear that there is no consensus on the subject. And finally, since the Greek War of Independence is mentioned in this discussion, I would like to note that not only Greek ones but also "massacres" by the Ottomans are mentioned in the relevant page (by this, I am not trying to justify my argument by citing another wiki page, I am just mentioning this since the Greek War of Independence was brought up).Regards.Megalomanda138 (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sections which need improvement
Sections on conflicts need massive improvement, with the most visibly poor section being the Franco-Turkish war. Also information on Venizelos, Allied motivations, King Constantine's coup, San Remo, legacy, pop culture, etc, are needed. A section on the Treaty of Sevre, one of the most significant documents that have to do with the war, is noticeably absent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benlittlewiki (talk • contribs) 22:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Civil war
Firstly you need to know demographic situation in anatolia 1918 Muslim peoples are a part of Ottoman people called "reay-a"and they forced to go wars for country.But christians are dont need to go wars.İn the end of the Ottoman empire Wars was every year. Muslim males are crushed in the wars.İn the War of indenpence females and child are fighted for their country. Christian peoples ; Pontus Greeks.They are not ethnically Greek and they dont speak a dialect of Greek.They are the parts of old anatolian nations(hitits,Frigans etc)They speak their own language "rumcha" "Rum" means anotolia in their language.They are real owners of Byzantium Empire.They lives in the Turkeys Black sea side. Armenians, Armenians are really looking like Turks.Byzantium was did pressure on them because Their gregorian.And their never revolted aganist Ottoman Empire.Ottomans are trusted them more than Turks.They said them "Millet-i sadık-a" means faithfull nation.All palace members are Armenian. Jews. Ottoman jews are people what escaped from Spanish Inquisition.They called "serenad".Turkish 2012 Eurovision singer "Can Bonomo" is seranad too. When the and of 1.World War.Ottoman army layed down arms.There is no armed force in anatolia to cover civilians against others.Justin McCarthy says, among the years of 1821 - 1922 %,5 million muslim was forced to migration and more 5 million muslim was killed.McCarthy 1995, 335-340.

Day of 14/15 May 1919 when the Smyrna's occupation by Greek forces,Greeks killed a part of cities Turkish people. On this genocide Rum soldiers are walking in the city.Shaw,Stanford J. & Shaw, Ezel Kural (2002), History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, pg. 342 Henry Ford says, Greek occupied area İzmir to Konya Greek soldiers are raping Turkish womans very frequently.Ford, Henry. Dearborn Independent Magazine January 1927-May 1927, Dearborn Publishing Company, pg. 24

İn 1929 George Seldes says,Greeks killing are so much bigger than Turks do. Seldes, George. You Can't Print That! the Truth Behind the News 1918 to 1928 (1929), Kessinger Publishing, pg. 395 İn French occupied terrority Armenians did genocide aganist Turks.Gary D. Solish (2010) The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, ISBN 9780521870887 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.166.177.239 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? Here is wikipedia, we need to be neutral. The fact there are some Kemalist books that mention that the Greeks and the Armenians killings are bigger than Turks do does not prove anything. Of course there are some cases that they killed or raped civilians. But this is not compared with the massacre that Mustafa Kemal and his army did. Smyrna was not occupated, it was liberated by the Greeks (in the city the Greeks were more than the Turks that era). Today the half of the Greeks say that they have at least one ancestor from the Asia Minor or Pontus. Entire nations killed or forced to live their homeland. We are talking about genocides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.9.193 (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Consensus has been made
User:SunDawn I understand the feel for the need of consensus, but I'm afraid the consensus has already been made on the Armenian Genocide Article already on the dates (1915-1917) for the genocide. I don't understand what else needs consensus. Borab00 (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For starters, there can be different local consensuses at different locations. Second, the Christian minorities that this appears to be referring to would not just be Armenians, but also Greeks and Syriacs. There seem to have been a sources that contained in the one very long reference list that was deleted in your edit that make explicit comments about these sorts of things, including comments on ethnic cleansing and genocide as well as the list of groups involved. To delete the number of sources there in favor of using a single source with a different POV doesn't seem warranted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you refer me to the consensus mentioned? Based on your addition, I have the following problems: 1) Massacres by Christians is given undue WP:WEIGHT as your sentence implies that Christian groups do it in equal measure, which I disagree. 2) You remove "elimination of native Christian population" as a goal by Turkish nationalist movement, which again, require another consensus. 3) That this campaigns (which one?) resulted in creation of Turkey. I have to also point out that consensus is not global, and consensus on other page may not be consensus on other page. SunDawn (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This article provides a list of massacres perpetuated by both sides. No side committed significantly more atrocities than the other. Ataturk's telegram for one describes the intention to protect the native Christians, and there is no evidence that the central government's intention was to do otherwise. I know this is hard to understand but sometimes sources can often contain baseless claims such as these ones. There is no evidence of the Turkish Nationalist Movement having centrally organized or intended for a genocide or ethnic cleansing. After all, I can't just use the notoriously pro-Turkish scholar Justin McCarthy's claims, many of which are baseless... Borab00 (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fair to say that there is no evidence of a Greek genocide or organized ethnic cleansing during the relevant time period here. There are plenty of sources in the current article that say so and it appears (I'm not an expert in this field, so I will defer to others who regularly edit this page) that there is a scholarly consensus that such events occurred. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Based on the article you gave, it is clear that the perpetrators are Turkish armies/gangs and Greek armies. Also Great fire of Smyrna have 100,000+ deaths, eclipsing most of the massacre on this list. Thus, it is undue WP:WEIGHT to blame the Christians and the Muslims as perpetrators for these massacres are either Turkish or Greek. I propose instead of using Christians/Muslims, we use Greeks/Turkish nationalists instead? SunDawn (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * After reading the arguments from I am convinced that any war crimes committed by Greece is outside the scope of this article and should not be included. SunDawn (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * First of all, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. So you can't cite a wikipedia article for evidence. Second, we do not cite primary source documents usually, because it is easy for editors to cherry pick and/or misinterpret them. See WP:PRIMARY. It is always possible for a source to be wrong but when you find 10 sources from peer-reviewed scholarship that all say the same thing then this becomes much less likely. Third, the "Turkish War of Independence" only exists from the Turkish perspective; it is not the case that Greeks, Armenians etc. coordinated their efforts in order to prevent Turkish independence. Therefore, I believe the term is only correctly applied to the Turkish war effort, not the Greek one (that's the usage I've seen in reliable sources). Therefore, any war crimes committed by Greece would be in the article scope of Greco-Turkish War but not this article. Also, it is not the case that only Greeks were targeted as Armenians and Syriac Christians were also killed or driven out of various places. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * According to MOS:LEAD, "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." As of April 2021 one third of the lead mentions the atroticies which occured during the Turkish War of Independence but there is not a section in the article covering these acts. So, this part should either be removed or be mentioned in the article itself. The same thing is also valid for the second paragraph which begins with "A phrase originating out of Kemalist historiography...". There is no section in the article covering terminology of this war.--Visnelma (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The solution for that would be copying and/or expanding on that information in the article, not removing it from the lead. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You or someone else can expand the information if you want but if not it needs to be removed.--Visnelma (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's just as easy for you to fix the identified issue yourself than removing content that we already got consensus to include in the lead. WP:SOFIXIT already. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't force me to make edits but you can fix the issues yourself if you want.WP:BOLDNOTOBLIGATORY--Visnelma (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I added information about ethnic cleansing that took place during TWoI in Turkish Wikipedia with sources and it was instantly reverted. I am planning to expand the information about terminology and atroticies on this article which it lacks. Maybe this can raise some awareness. I would like to colloborate with you if necessary.--Visnelma (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added historiography part what do you think?--Visnelma (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks! Looks like a good start. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Changes
I think that we must add to the article the dark side of this war. Because it seems like it is presented only by the Turkish side. It was not just a revoloution against the sultan and the allied powers. It was also a genocide. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk assasinated the whole peoples of foreign nations that lived in the area (except Kurds). Millions of civilians: Greeks, Armenians, Pontic Greeks and Assyrians were killed. Those those who survived were forced to abandon their homes. Maybe we need to add also these side of the war at the begining of the article. Also I think that the translation of the Turkish name is War of Salvation. Using a word like independence is wrong, because the people that the Turkish murdered and push out of the nowadays Turkey were not invaders but the natives of that region. Also I think that Soviet Union did not supported Turkey. It just sold weapons because of the profit. How could an atheist communist state support an ultranationalist muslim leader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.21.180 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

i dont think trustable knowledge source, Wikipedia, should be letting change of articles with the resources stating ' i think, i also thought ' but one should show some references. Turkish War of independence has nothing to do with ethnic cleansing of Armenians. actually there is no such thing as ethnic cleansing of Armenians. please, the responsible authorities of Wikipedia, fix this mistake and have the last editor of this article get the proper response because of this subjective and false editing Arslankoraytr (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

How come it is an ethnic cleansing campaign when you are only fighting against occupation of the great powers of the world? Independence and ethnic cleansing? Was the American Revolution ethnic cleansing? Was fighting against Hitler in WW2 ethnic cleansing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokonatliprens (talk • contribs) 09:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Kars, Ardahan and Batum were given to Russia as war compensation according to the Berlin agreement, which was re-arranged with the intervention of western states and the Ayastefanos signed after the Ottoman-Russian war of 1877-1888. With the failure of the 1915 Sarıkamış Operation in the First World War, the Russians advanced in 1916 and occupied the Eastern Anatolia and Eastern Black Sea Regions, including Erzincan. Thus, apart from Kars,Ardahan ve Batum, most of Eastern Anatolia was subjected to Russian occupation. However, the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 prevented the Russians from further advancing. The effects of the Bolshevik revolution extended to the Russian Caucasian Army and even to Erzincan; The Bolsheviks had to sign the Erzincan Treaty with the Ottoman State on December 18, 1917, in the face of the dissolved Russian armies. While the Russian armies withdrew, they confronted the Armenian gangs that they had armed under hand and wanted to revive the ideal of "Great Armenia" and the Turks who were not defenseless. Therefore, in Eastern Anatolia and (in Batum, Kars and Ardahan), a great Turkish massacre was started. Mass cemeteries are still on exhibited in these cities. The massacres committed by the Armenians had reached such a terrible proportions; In the face of this increasing savagery, the Turkish Army organized a military operation on February 12, 1918 to put an end to this savagery and massacre. (Kantarcı, 2005 ; Turan, 2018 and Dayı, 2004). The researchers clearly implifies that there was no any ethnic cleansing of Armenians. Thus, this statement should be removed from the article. The history cannot be rewritten according to government's benefit. If you are interest in about Turkish mass cemeteries by Armenian gangs, you can visit following web sites:

https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/pg/foto-galeri/bilimsel-kazilarla-ermeni-cetelerinin-katliamlari https://www.ankaramasasi.com/haber/732884/bilimsel-kazilarla-ermeni-cetelerinin-katliamlari

References 1) KANTARCI, Ş. (2005) Kars' ta Türklere Yönelik Ermeni Katliamı: Kalo/Derecik Köyü Toplu Mezar Kazısı The Armenian Atrocities to the Turks in Kars: The Mass Grave Excavation of Kalo/Derecik Village. 2) Turan, F. A. (2018) TOPLUMSAL HAFIZADA ANADOLU’DAN HOCALI’YA ERMENİ MEZALİMİ. 3) DAYI, E. (2004) ELVİYE-İ SELASE/ÜÇ SANCAK (KARS, ARDAHAN VE BATUM)'DA ERMENİLERİN TÜRKLERE YAPTIKLARI MEZALİM. Atatürk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(23). — Preceding unsigned comment added by HitPoint13ad (talk • contribs) 11:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Bad faith edits
"A phrase originating out of Kemalist historiography, the Turkish War of Independence began with remaining elements of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP)" This doesn't make any sense and has just been tacked onto the start of the paragraph in the lead. Also, "Kemalist Historiography" seems to be original research. I've only found one proper reference to this and it's a Wikipedia article that has been recently created. The 30/500 rule is evidently not working to protect this article as there are two users here who are making bad faith edits. The ethnic cleansing section in the lead also fails to mention the atrocities commited by the invading Greek article. If a section like this is added here, then it should also be added to the lead of the Greek revolution article and also the 1991 Aze-Arm conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertan92 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * seems to be original research everything is properly sourced in the body.The 30/500 rule is evidently not working to protect this article as there are two users here who are making bad faith edits. The semi-protection is put to prevent vandals and inexperienced users (such as yourself) from disruptive editing and is working perfectly as intended, the rest are experienced editors adding sourced concent (though from what I understand you guys don't like historic accuracy) it should also be added to the lead of the Greek revolution article and also the 1991 Aze-Arm conflict WP:OTHERSTUFF, please argue in their respect articles. - Kevo3 2 7 (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
The page claims that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk has led the CUP, this in addition to several other clearly politically motivated edits should be addressed. Notumengi (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please specify the other specific passages that are not summarizing independent reliable sources accurately. We cannot respond to a general grievance. I'm not sure how you know the motivation of other editors' edits, but that's not often relevant as long as sources are summarized accurately. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I take it you refer to the lead? It doesn't say that he lead the CUP, merely that he gathered the remaining elements after its dissolution. Seeing as the CUP included much of the government bureacracy and many prominent politicians, it makes sense that those elements would come under the control of Ataturk. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It does however claim in the lead, that he led the CUP, "the Turkish War of Independence began with remaining elements of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) forming a counter government in Anatolia, led by Mustafa Kemal." In reality, while he was part of the Young Turks (which is also questionable), the overarching movement of the CUP, for a time, he never actually led the CUP movement and has been in constant conflict with it, he created his own separate Turkish National Movement with different ideals than those of the CUP. following the dissolution of the CUP many of its members would go on to join Ataturk's faction which by then has become the main force fighting in the war, they would later go on form the modern Turkish republican party, while you could claim that having former CUP members within the party influenced its politics, it would be disingenuous to claim that he led the movement proper, especially considering that many of the CUP who joined Ataturk's faction did so because they believed in his ideals rather than the CUP. If this sentence is meant to say that Ataturk took on the lead of the war from the CUP by also inheriting some of its members then it should be clear that Ataturk founded his own separate movement from the CUP, not a successor remnant of it. Notumengi (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources consider the CHP a continuation of CUP in terms of its historical origins. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Apples and Oranges are being mixed here
The Tehcir Law deportations of the Armenians took place between 1915-1917 during World War I. The Turkish War of Independence began after the Occupation of Istanbul (1918) and the Occupation of Izmir (1919). The fight against Greece was in western Anatolia, the fight against Armenia was in eastern Anatolia, the fight against France was in southern and southeastern Anatolia, while Istanbul was jointly occupied by Britain and Italy (the latter also occupying the Mediterranean coast of Anatolia and central Anatolia). There were no "deportations" during the Turkish War of Independence (1919-1922). The Greeks of Anatolia left the country with the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey (1923) which was signed by both Greece and Turkey (the Greeks living in Turkey were transferred to Greece, while the Turks living in Greece were transferred to Turkey). Hoeppala (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The population "exchange" is described as ethnic cleansing by historians. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's called a divorce. The end of the multiethnic Ottoman Empire, replaced by independent nation-states. Hoeppala (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you call it a divorce. However, you are not a historian. Wikipedia cares about representing the opinion of historians and political scientists, not those of common people like you and me. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse &#124; fings wot i hav dun 10:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Resolution - Treaty of Alexandropol
It is claimed in the "Eastern Resolution" section that Treaty of Alexandropol was "illegitimate" without any references. A reference should be added for this claim. In the treaty's wiki page, there is a reference to Richard Hovannissian who claims that the treaty was invalid. This reference might be added to the relevant section. However, it should be noted that Hovannissian has no academic credentials at law, he is a historian. Since, there is legal continuity between First Republic of Armenia and Soviet Republic of Armenia, the mere fact that the power being transferred to Soviets (sovietization) does not in itself make the represantion powers granted to Alexander Khatisyan (signator on behalf of the Republic of Armenia) null and void. This reference might be added to the relevant section. However, since the author is not a legal scholar but a historian, further clarification and references are needed. Therefore, for the time being, maybe a [disputed – discuss] or [dubious – discuss] note might be added, if there are no further references that can be found. How should we proceed? Megalomanda138 (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Bad faith edits 2
User:GGT User:Sandstein User:DriedGrape I raised my concerns about certain edits that have been made by a clique of users in the past two days, specified above and was instead responded to with a personal attack by a Syrian nationalist user. Do you mind taking a another look. I know it was discussed before in the above section but they've gone about doing the exact same thing and have even added a "histriography" that is cited entirely from a single, hostile source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertan92 (talk • contribs)
 * You are more than welcome to propose other reliable sources that examine the historiography. But it is apparent there are very different views of events in Turkey and outside of Turkey, and that there is an orthodox Kemalist version of events that may not entirely capture the truth. AdmiralEek (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe putting in both POVs and rewording the section to better reflect that these are two views would be better. Also, the reference 94 within that section has no link or title or anything. Any able user should either fix that or remove the sentence.DriedGrape (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, but you need to suggest a reliable academic source that we can use. Also, we already discuss the Turkish perspective at great length, pointing out what it believes, and the flaws it has. AdmiralEek (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but currently the historiography section starts off okay then instantly reads like it is trying to deconstruct a POV that wasn't even presented. Maybe adding a few sentences or a summary of the related chapter from Atatürk's Great Speech would be better. This will probably require an overhaul of the section however, I will have to look into this. I think all major edits done within the duration of the article protection will have to be re-examined anyways after this blows over. DriedGrape (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The historiography section is in a bit of an odd place, most articles don't start with that. However, in this case the historiography greatly affects how the article is perceived. Thus in a sense the section is explaining why the article is written from the non-Kemalist perspective. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Non-Kemalist" doesn't mean it necessarily reflects the truth though, and the rest of the article, except for a few sections doesn't really hold any singular perspective. Even so, the way it is written at the moment devolves into that perspective too quickly, a negative without a positive per se. At least one paragraph for the so called "Kemalist perspective" is needed rather than just two sentences I would say. DriedGrape (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Well again, you are welcome to provide such a source for consideration, and I can take a look at it. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * DriedGrape The "histriography" section is based on a single source, one that claims the aim of the national movement was not to fight the invading militaries but rather to kill Christians. It's also telling the user what to think, which is why the it has been placed at the very top. It's also making sweeping statements about the entire body of work that's been made by historians so far, then further goes along to claim that there is an "unorthodox" school that has differing opinionsBertan92 (talk)
 * Yes, the way it currently is definitely unacceptable, read the discussion I had with CaptainEek above. Also, you're right, the wording itself definitely seems like it is trying to shift the viewer towards one perspective. Although I don't understand why you're pinging me. I lately don't have the time for a back and forth in order to edit the article. DriedGrape (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * also, I think you mean a nationalist Syrian editor, and not a Syrian nationalist editor as they are totally different. And thank you for the effort of calling me Syrian in the first place. - Kevo3 2 7 (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC) anyway isn't this canvassing? 21:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The first thing that's wrong with this section is the heading. There's no evidence for the existence of "a clique of users" making the edits you describe—so you should WP:AGF. Accusing other users of a personal attack which in no way occurred, is in itself a personal attack. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Casualities
I explained why I reverted your edits in edit history, best regards.--Visnelma (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The source you cited states about 600.000 Muslims died. But why did you label all them as Turks?--Visnelma (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You should quote the text. I couldn't find anything like that. Also, the sources I've provided don't imply military casualties. --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  20:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * They say Anatolian Muslims. Who else can they be? --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  20:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Including Kurds, maybe?--Visnelma (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, but it says Western front okay.--Visnelma (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm going offline atm. Before anything, about the Muslims. The sources imply the deaths in Greek-occupied Western Anatolia. I've quoted them there and they are verifiable. There are no other Muslim groups besides Turks in Western Anatolia. --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  20:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , since when the Kurds started living in the Aegean? Unless they changed their homeland for a brief moment, those stats don't include Kurds. --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  20:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why I said "Ah, but it says Western front okay."--Visnelma (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, didn't saw your previous comment. Well, if anything else worries you about the addition, make me aware. Good luck! --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  20:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * But there were also many Bosniak, Albanian, Circassian, and other non-Turkish muslims living in western Anatolia at the time. Labeling them all as "Turks" at this point is inappropriate. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * https://psi427.cankaya.edu.tr/uploads/files/Shaw,%20History_of_the%20Ott%20Empire.pdf pg. 342 claims specifically Turks were targeted in the attacks. Also, I'd suggest just putting both the numbers together as Solavirum said and labeling it "... Turkish and other Muslim Civilians killed in the Western Front" until we can establish a distinction. DriedGrape (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , ah yeah, that's right. I suggest labeling it "Turkish and other Muslim civilians", just because the undisputed fact that the region was mostly populated by Turkish people, with Muslim minorities being present as well. --► Sincerely:  Sola virum  23:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

One Issue with Recent Edits
Though the lede's wording has taken a turn for the better, appearing more neutral towards Turkish forces yet still mentioning genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc., there is one edit which stands out in peculiarity. The "640,000 Muslims dead" added in the infobox (the original source seems to be Justin McCarthy, a genocide denier) seems spurious. What is a Muslim in this context? Is it relevant in this article?; there is no "Christian deaths" section because there shouldn't be, the Armenians and Greeks and Assyrians were targeted because of their ethnicity, not their faith. If and when Turkish civilians were massacred and killed, it was because of their ethnicity, not faith. So "Muslim" deaths is deliberately inflammatory, and I sense its addition is to intentionally frame this war as an epic struggle between "Christians and Muslims" by certain users in order to adhere to a certain reactionary worldview. Besides, the number rings a bell, like the farcical claims from the Iğdır Genocide Memorial and Museum that more "Muslims" (here again we see the word used to inflame passions) died than physically possible. It seems that McCarthy is attempting the same feat with the figure of 640,000 dead, attempting to minimize the targeting of minority groups while exaggerating the (very real) suffering of the majority ethnic group. We should not use the scholarship of a genocide denier in this article, just as we do not use the scholarship of David Irving on the Holocaust page. I suggest removing that number from the infobox.2601:85:C101:C9D0:A588:7829:8E14:6ED6 (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the sources however, states otherwise. It also states 600.000 as its maximum *Muslim* death count in the East so targeting by religion was definitely real just as targeting by ethnicity on both sides. Also, Justin McCarthy and David Irving are nothing alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DriedGrape (talk • contribs) 01:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Rummel has exaggerated casualty lists for all conflicts (he's claimed that an astonishing 148 million people died to communism. Alone. In the 20th century. Not to mention saying that 400 million people were killed in massacres and wars in the 1900s. It's absurd.) He's hardly a reliable source in this matter. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:A588:7829:8E14:6ED6 (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Justin McCarthy and David Irving are nothing alike" - plenty would dispute that and say that they are, in the methodology and goals of their opinions and published works and stances, in many ways alike. Article figures regarding casualties must take regard of existing academic consensus, and caution needs to be taken before inserting extreme-end figures on the basis that one source claims them (especially if there are numerous other sources that have written that that one source has a well-known agenda that does not match academic consensus). 78.149.46.96 (talk) 01:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. If you were to check the cited source, you'd see that his methodologies are the same as the ones cited for other casualties, with that logic, we should remove all casualties due to their way of estimation. I am all for more sources for EVERY casualty but McCarthy is definitely reliable in this sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DriedGrape (talk • contribs) 23:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (Original IP) Still, his dubious background (genocide denier/minimizer) remains. Perhaps his methodology is the same, but his sources are probably skewed are falsified. I do not know this myself, but my point is his background is grounds for exclusion. Like I said, it's like having Irving on the Holocaust page. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:D59:4B9:2D0F:6032 (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good editorial work would be examining such sources with their backgrounds in mind of course, however if as you said their methodologies hold and a work of theirs can hold encyclopedic value, then it is only illogical to refuse them. His numbers should stay but like I said, I am all in for expansion of all casualties with more sources.DriedGrape (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (Original IP) Precisely, the number should be removed. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:D822:4D26:79AB:3FFB (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Turkish War of Independence was also a civil war
This news article here states that movements of other factions in the war should not be considered as a revolt but rather a civil war. You can read the article for detailed information.--V. E. (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing and the Holocaust Museum in Yerevan

 * per the Economist: "KEMAL ATATURK, father of modern Turkey, rescued hundreds of Armenian women and children from mass slaughter by Ottoman forces during and after the first world war. This untold story, which is sure to surprise many of today's Turks, is one of many collected by the Armenian genocide museum in Yerevan that “will soon be brought to light on our website,” promises Hayk Demoyan, its director." https://www.economist.com/europe/2008/09/25/friends-and-neighbours


 * "elimination of Christians" – if Christians were eliminated, who were the 100,000 Greeks in Istanbul? Erman Kuzu (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Multiple Meanings In The Lede
The first paragraph reads:

"The campaigns were directed against Greece in the west, Armenia in the east, France in the south, royalists and separatists in various cities, and Britain and Italy in Constantinople (now Istanbul).[56][57][58] Simultaneously, the Turkish nationalist movement carried out massacres and deportations in order to eliminate native Christian populations—a continuation of the Armenian Genocide and other ethnic cleansing operations during World War I.[59] These campaigns resulted in the creation of the Republic of Turkey."

It can be understood as such that it was the ethnic cleansing campaigns which resulted in creation of Turkey, not a revolution against the allied occupation. Therefore I think changing it as:

"The campaigns were directed against Greece in the west, Armenia in the east, France in the south, royalists and separatists in various cities, and Britain and Italy in Constantinople (now Istanbul).[56][57][58] These campaigns resulted in the creation of the Republic of Turkey.

Simultaneously, the Turkish nationalist movement carried out massacres and deportations in order to eliminate native Christian populations—a continuation of the Armenian Genocide and other ethnic cleansing operations during World War I."

to remove the wrong meaning which was probably written with a political agenda would be the correct action.

I must also address the sentence of "...in order to eliminate native Christian populations—a continuation of the Armenian Genocide..." it was agreed on the Armenian Genocide talk page with many debates that the dates were between 1915 and 1917. This sentence, in the lede, contradicts that. Emre Dokur (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)