Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Proposed decision

Proposed Remedy #2 incidentally rules on content
This remedy incidentally touches on content by using "Turkish" instead of "Turkish or Ottoman" referring to a time before the foundation of the Turkish Republic: "2) RoslynSKP is indefinitely prohibited from editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I."  The wording should be adjusted to avoid making an implicit content ruling. Jd2718 (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I really don't think it does rule on content. I use British English in my draft proposals, but by adopting them that doesn't mean the committee is ruling on content or saying EN-GB should be used by everybody. AGK  [•] 07:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The dispute relates to use of the names "Turkish" and "Ottoman" in military history articles. I think it reasonable that the Findings of Fact and Remedies should use "Turkish or Ottoman" when referring to the area of dispute. It's an easy fix: "2) RoslynSKP is indefinitely prohibited from editing any article relating to Ottoman or Turkish military history in and predating World War I." Jd2718 (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate findings of fact

 * Moved from the main page, since only arbitrators are entitled to comment there. — ΛΧΣ  21  01:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

As the evidence has not yet been analysed how can there be any findings of facts? --Rskp (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You already asked this and received multiple answers from people at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire%E2%80%93Turkey naming dispute/Workshop — Ma&reg;&copy; usBriti sh  {chat} 00:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge. The link provided does not mention the analysis of the evidence. --Rskp (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's your question. There are your responses. Another case of WP:IDHT. Ma&reg;&copy; usBriti sh  {chat} 07:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * MarcusBritish you are not helping clarify anything. Please stop. --Rskp (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The two links above clarify that you are bleating the same question, to which you have already received a number of answers. If you are having trouble recognising that you are engaging in yet a another tiresome, childish and pedantic argument, perhaps ArbCom should seek to question your WP:COMPETENCE as an editor. Pretty much nothing someone like you can say against me will ever phase me, so I suggest you lower your guns and walk away, really fast.. you lost this case before it even started, and you're certainly not going to take others down with you, though it does seem in your embittered nature to try. Ma&reg;&copy; usBriti sh  {chat} 12:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
The "extended period" begins on 24 November with diff 1 an edit which does not change Ottoman/Turkey. All the rest of the first 13 diffs are to do with edits which took place between 26 and 30 November 2013, hardly an extended period.

01:Charge at Huj starts on 24.11.13 with diff 1 which does not show any change to Ottoman/Turkey. Diff 2 on 26.11.13 before MILHIST consensus reverts Jim Sweeney's changing a direct link to a redirect link, diff 3 also before MILHIST consensus diff 4 undoing Jim Sweeney's changing Ottoman to Turkey on limited consensus on 27.11.13 at 00:34 before the MILHIST consensus. In between these edits Jim Sweeney was equally edit warring. The two edits in 02 were trying to argue per the Administrators' noticeboard "status quo".

Of the seven diffs in 03 three are edits by Jim Sweeney. These are diffs 7, 8, and 13 and one is an edit by Anotherclown, diff 11, while diffs 9 and 10 are to the same edit by me. So only two diffs in this section relate to supposed edit waring by me.

The next series of diffs which claim "inaccurate or inadequate" descriptions of these previous diffs, have nothing to do with the previous diffs. Diff 14 is an extensive edit on 6.11.13 when two dubious tags were added, syntax corrected, a place was identified as a village, added the full name of light horse units, and links. All this work is described as "Clean up." Diff 15 "fix link" undid redirect link back to a direct link on 26.11.13 is an accurate description of the edit. Diff 16 undid a link to a redirect claiming "fix link the discussion regarding the colloquial form of Ottoman related only to one article" on 27.11.13 00:34 before MILHIST consensus. Diff 17 inserted full names of light horse units, fixed syntax and name of place, was described as "Clean up" on 6.11.13. Diff 18 added full names of light horse and mounted rifles units, fixed syntax, expanded article, was also adequately described as Expanding article Clean up on 6.11.13 --Rskp (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

These diffs do not support the allegation of edit warring. --Rskp (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Remember that the diffs are representative of your wider participation in the dispute. The 'misleading edit summaries' batch highlights that you have not correctly labelled your edits. AGK  [•] 07:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There are diffs which are not to edits by me. The "Clean up" descriptions of edits that appear to be a problem in the second series of edits were not edits referred to in the first series, so the introductory sentences are not supported by the diffs. --Rskp (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What is misleading about "Clean up" when such diverse issues such as syntax, unit names and expanding the article were all cleaned up? It is after all a common edit summary. --Rskp (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How it is misleading ought to be obvious. The diffs to edits not by you were a writing error on my part (apologies!) and have been fixed. AGK  [•] 17:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring consensus
The MILHIST consensus says "continuing use of "Turkish" where context is clearly in favor of the term." It does not say Turkish should be used "in all articles" when describing the Ottoman troops, as claimed.

Diff 19 edit is described by me as "reinstate POV which relates to the reliance on one source when many are available and to the confusing names of Australian and New Zealand army units)" This does not cite the older ANI thread. Diff 20 links to a edit made at 00:46 on 26.11.13 before the MILHIST consensus, as does diff 21 an edit made at 00:34 on 27.11.13. ONLY diff 22 at 03:33 30.11.13 (Undid revision 583858477 by Anotherclown (talk)the consensus ONLY mentions the Anzac Mounted Division there is no remit to apply that odd agreement to any other articles) 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade sort to limit the use of "Turkey" when it was in fact the Ottoman Empire at the time. Rskp (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of these diffs do not support the allegation of ignoring consensus. Only one tries to keep to the MILHIST consensus which clearly does not extend to all articles to do with the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. --Rskp (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is clear to me that the consensus does extend to all relevant articles, which means the diffs do constitute "ignoring consensus". AGK  [•] 07:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The MILHIST consensus changes the name of an empire on the basis of a dubious footnote and applying the common name element of the guide to naming articles. This decision by MILHIST needs to be investigated by Wikipedia because changing the name of an empire is a seriously big step to take. Despite the gravity of the consensus decision, AGK goes further to interpret "clearly in favor" as all articles. If that is the standard of scholarship to be adopted in Wikipedia, what is to stop someone coming along and substituting English for the British Empire, in the future? --Rskp (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing at all. Under WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, they can do just exactly that. Not that there wouldn't necessarily be reverts and discussions for consensus on any such change, but the whole point of having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is to allow for this kind of editing. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Surely common sense should direct editors to the correct name of the empire, which was in power at the time, rather than to the current name of the country, which formed only part of the empire. --Rskp (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Common sense" isn't a reliable source. The only reason someone might change British Empire to English is if they have an attitude like yours and don't research their history properly. You lost your content argument long ago, that's why we're here. Ever noticed how it's called the "Roman Empire" and not the "Italian Empire", or the "Holy Roman Empire" despite there being no capital, which itself came from the "Frankish Empire" named after the Germanic "Franks" tribes, much Turks tribes. "Ottoman" was a dynasty, their ethnicity being Turkish. So by your argument, since 1917 we should be the "Windsor Empire", from 1901 "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Empire", before that the "Wettin Empire" for hundreds of years, and so forth, after our royal dynasties, rather than British or English anything. The point being, empire names don't follow a strict form of naming, and no evidence you've ever presented, including your strawman arguments, proves otherwise. Ma&reg;&copy; usBriti sh  {chat} 07:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is another circular argument that has been discussed several times on several talk pages. Nobody has changed the name of an empire. See Ottoman Empire....sometimes referred to as the Turkish Empire or simply Turkey. You really need to move on, especially here.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Only made circular by my raising problems with the so called 'findings of facts,' which have not been answered. --Rskp (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Made circular by your snotty mentality which treats everyone as wrong but yourself and acts like everything has to revolve around what you want. As has been said, there some content issues here which ArbCom will not resolve, they will only restrict your ability to pursue the matter disruptively – and if you don't comply you'll be blocked. In due course the matter will probably revert back to MilHist where any issues on the Ottoman Turkish Empire can be discussed by historians, which is not ArbCom's job. Given the current mood, the clear consensus and the sources presented I don't see most opinions changing any time soon. Regardless, an old saying springs to mind, he who laughs last, laughs loudest – I cannot wait to see your irreverent behaviour towards MilHist quashed once the case remedies are passed. Ma&reg;&copy; usBriti sh  {chat} 23:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * MarcusBritish loosing decorum won't help clear up this problem. --Rskp (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, maybe you'd like to spam a few of your {rpa} tags, afterall, you do appear to have made huge efforts throughout this case to apologise for your past behaviour and offer to change your attitudes. I cannot provide diffs to support this, because it's actually not true.. you've done nothing but maintain the same engaging attitude. I think "decorum" is far from ArbCom's mind just now, and should be yours.. you have more pressing concerns to focus on as I expect your ability to live up to the proposed remedies will be most fleeting. Ma<font color="#B40000">&reg;&copy; usBr<font color="#B40000">iti sh  {chat} 12:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * RSKP and MB: Kindly discontinue this discussion. AGK  [•] 17:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Tenacious editing
Only diff 23 relates to changing Turkey to Ottoman on the talk page of the Battle of Beersheba, the rest relate to personal attacks, which I should have ignored and will most certainly ignore in the future.

Diff 24 collapsed a personal attack, diff 25 reinstated a personal attack tag, while diff 26 replaced "The claim is rubbish" with an rpa tag.

Diff diff 27 added a dubious tag "dubious|Six centuries of the Ottoman Empire, from 1299 to 1923 is not synonymous with the Republic of Turkey"  on 16 November well before the MILHIST consensus.

Both the Anzac Mounted Division and the Desert Mounted Corps service histories rely on one 1921 source published before all the official histories. This gives both these articles a very narrow unbalanced account of the units' campaigns as it fails to use the scholarship which has been published since 1921. Diff 29 on 26.11.13 Anzac MD Over reliance on Preston makes article unbalanced see Talk page described "(Undid revision 583064022 by Jim Sweeney (talk)reinstate POV tag one source is not NPOV which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all views ...)." Diff 30 26.11.13 "(Undid revision 583313537 by Jim Sweeney (talk)reinstate POV tag as reliance on one source not NPOV)" and diff 31 Desert Mounted Corps over reliance on Preston see Talk page. Jim Sweeney could equally be accused of "tenacious editing" here. --Rskp (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree or find anything compelling in that rebuttal. AGK  [•] 07:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One diff supports the claims here, the rest are to do with my attempts to remove personal attacks. Perhaps the evidence should be analysed so that at least another pair of eyes can have a disinterested evaluation. --Rskp (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been analysed eight other people: the arbitrators voting on it. AGK  [•] 07:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Where did this analysis take place? Certainly not openly in Section 1.4 of the Workshop page. --Rskp (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * To clarify what I meant, since the meaning of my comment appears to still elude you, the "analysis" was by each arbitrator, individually, while deciding whether to support the findings and remedies against you. Section 4.1 was not used in this case, and tends only to see use in specialised arbitration cases (which this one is not). AGK  [•] 17:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Locus of dispute too narrowly defined
I think that the current finding on the locus of dispute is too narrow: the issues with RoslynSKP's editing have run across multiple topics associated with the fighting between the British Empire and the Ottoman Empire in World War I (principally the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of this war), and isn't really specific to the most recent dispute. The main result of the excessively narrow focus is that proposed remedy 2 isn't well calibrated: it would be better to institute a suspended topic ban on the British Empire-Ottoman Empire conflict during World War I (broadly construed if need be) than on all of Turkish military history prior to 1919 (which is a huge field given that Turkish military history dates back to before the birth of the Ottoman Empire in the medieval era). The proposed remedy 3 is appropriate though. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't get too hung up on the locus. Except in cases where the locus actually isn't unclear and needs clarified for the benefit of arbitrators and parties, loci are just very quick ways of contextualising the dispute – basically for the benefit of AE admins and other future readers. Are there any pages which Remedy 2 might not catch when it ought to? Is your concern that the remedy may include other pages not strictly related to this dispute (which would be too broad a locus, not a too narrow one)? Also, do you have any thoughts on Remedy 1? Thanks for your patience and assistance with framing these remedies. None of us are experts in this field, so assistance with the technical aspects of the case has been very helpful. AGK  [•] 10:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Remedy 2 will certainly cover the locus as I see it as it's so broad, but if it's ever activated it would prohibit RoslynSKP from working on a wide range of articles on topics completely outside the World War I era, which is where their problematic behaviour has been centred (for instance, if read literally it would apply to articles concerning the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 in which Turkish forces destroyed the remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire). As RoslynSKP's problematic behaviour is largely centred around promoting relatively "old-fashioned" British historiographical concepts and terminology in the World War I era, there's also a real risk that she would move onto articles on the Western Front in France or similar if the ban was Turkish-specific. If the committee's preference is for a broad (and hence difficult to wikilawyer) remedy, I'd suggest that this be something like "RoslynSKP is indefinitely prohibited from editing any article relating to World War I" (my preference as it's clear and covers the general problematic area), or at least "RoslynSKP is indefinitely prohibited from editing any article relating to Turkish military history in the World War I era" (which is clearer, and I suspect is what you were actually getting at with this remedy).


 * In regards to Remedy 1, it ends the dispute here and sends a clear message, but is also overly specific given that RoslynSKP has engaged in similar - but not as severe - behaviour over "ANZAC"/"Anzac" and a few article titles (Battle of Abu Tellul/Affair of Abu Tellul for instance). I actually don't think that this remedy is necessary given that the combination of remedy 3 and findings of fact 2 and 3 should prevent the edit warring over names and give admins who respond to any further problematic behaviour some clear guidance. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The committee's thinking seems to favour being too broad, rather than too narrow and thus allowing future misconduct in some areas to slip through the cracks. This actually applies to basically every arbitration case: excessive leniency has always been avoided, because arbitration is supposed to be the final stage of dispute resolution. We'll see how it goes, I suppose. Remedies can always be narrowed in a few months, by amendment request. AGK  [•] 11:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments
I don't know if it's relevant now, but could someone tell me whether RoslynSKP's use of "status quo ante bellum" in various edit summaries was actually based on anything legitimate or just a pretentious use of words used to ignore consensus, as I never quite determined where that term originated? I think it came from the ANI thread once TomStar81 got involved with his "white peace" effort, and was taken to the extreme by RoslynSKP. Would like to clarify whether it was just another part of the tendentious behaviour exhibited. <font color="#001C56">Ma<font color="#B40000">&reg;&copy; usBr<font color="#B40000">iti sh  {chat} 14:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The term "status quo" is standard and I don't have a real problem with that wording. "Status quo ante bellum" (literally, "the situation as it existed before the war") is a bit aggressive&mdash;"WP:BATTLEGROUND" in almost a literal sense&mdash;and I'd prefer that that wording not be used. The wars and battles studied and edited about by our military history editors should not include wars and battles fought on Wikipedia itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's possible to read so much into the term. What seems more likely to me is that RSKP just preferred the full phrase, or thought it sounded better. As I recall, it was actually another editor who first used the phrase in this dispute (it may have been @TomStar, but I can't be sure), and RSKP just adopted it from there. The most pressing problem in her use of the term, in my view, is that the ANI thread honouring the status quo was clearly superseded a few weeks later (see also the "Ignoring consensus" proposed finding). AGK  [•] 09:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was I who first used used the term during the ANI thread, and it was intended to get both editors off each others throats and seated and the peace table so we could move forward with discussions without having the editorial issue undermine the whole process. At the time, what the edit war and all, it seemed appropriate to use it. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for explaining. Used once or twice, it was a good combination of apt and ironic. Used over and over again as I read through the evidence in this case, it made a different impression. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, in proposed remedies, I do not see anything to remedy RolsynSKP's long history of abuse of maintenance tags. Personally, I think there should be a strict restriction on these, even if it means banning her from using any tags for X months if that keeps things simple. I think it would be unwise to ignore the fact that tags played a major part in her war edits and should be sanctioned for a period of time so that during her "suspended topic ban" she can learn to edit without being tempted by any tags whatsoever, which will help promote more focus on her editing than her disagreements. <font color="#001C56">Ma<font color="#B40000">&reg;&copy; usBr<font color="#B40000">iti sh  {chat} 14:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Misuse of tags would fall under "disruptive editing", which is typically prevented with a simple block. Under another proposed remedy, a block for disruption to the topic would also trigger a full topic ban, so I think an additional remedy is redundant. AGK  [•] 22:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually just posted a proposal on this before I saw this subthread. I've now read AGK's response; we'll see what the other arbitrators think. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

re: "Better for Jim to have asked for assistance." – Jim's contrib history is packed with examples of him approaching project talk pages for advice on various matters (simply search for "new section" under his contrib history with "Wikipedia talk" namespace fitered, to see that he is undeniably collaborative). In terms of inviting people to assist with content disputes, relating to this case or past incidents involving RolsynSKP, I've pulled a few OP examples from MilHist: which often lead to article talk pages. As I stated in my evidence, in many cases the response to Jim's concerns were either very weak from MilHist, no admin responses have ever resulted, or many discussions resulted in RoslynSKP assailing third-party MilHist members with accusations of bias for Jim's opinions (i.e. her "lock step trio" remark is one example). As a result, many who entered disputes in good faith often withdrew because RoslynSKP was too tiresome to deal with due to her aggressive filibuster techniques. One can only sympathise with Jim's position, in that many requests for support have fallen on deaf ears leaving him vulnerable to being provoked by RoslynSKP's actions (i.e. the dozens of arbitrary reverts I listed would piss even the meekest editor off). <font color="#001C56">Ma<font color="#B40000">&reg;&copy; usBr<font color="#B40000">iti sh  {chat} 15:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with Arbcom wording, but any reasonable person would read "Jim ... is reminded to ... use dispute resolution" to mean that Arbcom is finding that he was remiss in using dispute resolution, which doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence. I'm not sure that's what you meant to say, Silk. (I'm not saying anything one way or the other on the edit warring, only the dispute resolution.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to say that when I was going through the history of this matter as part of the process of putting my evidence together I was surprised at how little use had been made of the formal dispute resolution processes. There was a lot of arguing the same points on article talk pages only, relatively little use of central noticeboards and much too little use of various mechanisms for asking admins to step in. I don't think that this is Jim-specific though: a general reminder to all the involved editors that they should seek external views when debate becomes bogged down would be in order IMO. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Other formal dispute resolution processes would have been absolutely no use.. it is clear from her history that once RoslynSKP sets her mind on something, nothing this side of hell will change her mind, DR requires cooperation and understanding, it is a collaborative process which needs open-minds to create a resolution. Even after seeing this case develop, through the initial case request, evidence presentation and workshop discussions, she's still on the warpath but now moving against AGK, suggesting he's prejudiced towards her despite the over-whelming evidence. She is utterly selfish, single-minded and full of contempt for everyone on this site; I'm starting to feel that an outright site ban would have been more prudent.. I see no future for her beyond the spite she continues to show everyone and I think MilHist is going to have a lot of resentment to put up with after this case. Regardless of how good a content editor RoslynSKP may be, she lacks social skills and cares about no one but herself, which may prove harmful in the long-run because any ruling of Arbcom can only state Wiki's position, it can't change her mind of force her to change her perceptions of history and accept ours. <font color="#001C56">Ma<font color="#B40000">&reg;&copy; usBr<font color="#B40000">iti sh  {chat} 00:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am supremely unbothered by attacks of that nature on my work as an arbitrator, as is everybody else, so the safest thing would be to ignore them. AGK  [•] 06:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dank: I see why you interpreted the remedy that way, but it is not quite criticising Jim in that way. It's basically criticising him for not calling in the cavalry earlier. AGK  [•] 06:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Workshop subsection 1.4
At the subsection 1.4 "Analysis of evidence" has been left blank. Why? --Rskp (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the arbitrators' option how best to work through the material befyoore us and reach our decision in any given case. The issues raised by your behavior have been examined by nine arbitrators and every one of us has concluded that you need to change your behavior and attitude significantly if you want to remain a part of Wikipedia. I have to say that I have a well-earned reputation as perhaps the most lenient arbitrator and even I am running out of patience with your inability or refusal to grasp this. If you want to grasp the crux of this case than it is time for you to stop looking for missing pieces of the workshop and start looking in the mirror. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Error in FoF2
I'm recused in this case, but I'm leaving a brief note here to point out what looks like a couple of minor errors in FoF2: RoslynSKP: Edit warring. While most of the edits cited are by RoslynSKP, some are by Jim Sweeney (this may confuse some of those looking through the diffs). Current wording: "Over an extended period, RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) has edit warred in order to change “Ottoman Turkey empire” to “Ottoman empire” or 'Ottoman' to 'Turkish'." This should be: "Over an extended period, RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) has edit warred in order to change “Ottoman Turkish Empire” to “Ottoman Empire” or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman'." i.e. replace 'Turkey' with 'Turkish' and swap 'Turkish' and 'Ottoman' in the second example. I also capitalised 'empire' - that is verging on pedantry, but I think getting 'Turkish' and 'Ottoman' the right way round in a finding like this is important. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Good points; I'll fix these. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Carcharoth. AGK  [•] 06:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you concur with AGK that the wording of Remedy 2 is fine as is, and would not be better as

any article relating to Turkish or Ottoman military history in and predating World War I

(rather than the current any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I)?

I was concerned that there might be an implicit content ruling in applying "Turkish" to that time period. Jd2718 (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)