Talk:Turkish War of Independence/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

This should be added

I've got this from the Treaty of Lausanne. This should be added into the article. If none does it, I'll do it. Treaty of Lausanne, Article 59: "Greece recognises her obligation to make reparation for the damage caused in Anatolia by the acts of the Greek army or administration which were contrary to the laws of war.

On the other hand, Turkey, in consideration of the financial situation of Greece resulting from the prolongation of the war and from its consequences, finally renounces all claims for reparation against the Greek Government." Source: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918p/lausanne.html

Author's comment regarding Wikipedia's above advice (to move the page): This war was not only between Greece and Turkey. It was between the Allies and Turkey, as a consequence of the World War I. Greco-Turkish War constituted this war's western front, starting more than a year afterwards. Although the decisive battles were between Greece and Turkey, this page has more information than what can be put under the title "Greco-Turkish War". The current page of Greco-Turkish War includes an unrelated war from the previous century, therefore that page has more information than what can be placed under the title of "Turkish War of Independence". Given that neither page can possibly be a subset of the other, they can not be merged. - 18.58.1.180

I disagree with the above (which I copied from the page). The Turkish Independence War, while very important to Turks and a main part of their history, is a term only used in Turkey. Other nations refer to it as World War I (up to the Treaty of Sèvres), and then the (Second) Greco-Turkish War (up to the Treaty of Lausanne). Since this is an English Wikipedia which takes a predominantly western POV, the events that eventually lead to the creation of modern Turkey should in my opinion be treated from this POV: thus split the info in WW1-in-Turkey and 2nd Greco-Turkish war. Of course a note that these events are by Turks seen as one single war for their independence from what they saw as invading and occupying nations is needed at both places. — Jor (Talk) 11:11, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Author:

  • First, there were many other wars between Greeks and Turks, so I don't see the point of naming only two as such.
  • Second, the events that are included in this page are strictly limited to 1919-1922, therefore there is nothing to be split in the page to be included in WW1. The events that Turks name as their Independence War do not include WW1 as wrongly mentioned in the coment above. That's why the pre-war politics section begins by saying "WW1 ended..."
  • Third, until mid-1920, Greeks weren`t even the primary enemy. As I will detail in the "western front" section, Greek troops were only in Izmir and its surroundings until that time. Even then, the Greek offensive started coordinated with an Armenian offensive in the East. The Eastern Turkish Army could not reinforce the western front until after Battle of Sakarya. As in this example, the war needs to be studied in all fronts for a proper analysis. That is why I avoided the title "Greco-Turkish War".
  • just to clarify things, I don't have an aversion to that title or contents of the page, in fact, I was the one to add details to the second war in that page last week.
  • Finally, they could be merged with the second one if the Greco-Turkish Wars had separate entries, but even then, the name underrepresents the number of participating countries. It is like saying Israel-Egypt War instead of Arab-Israeli War; as in that case Israel's main opponent was Egypt but they fought against their other Arab neighbors as well.
  • This has nothing to do with what Turks call this war, I am trying to be accurate here. The western POV was a product/propaganda of the British, who gave this war a convenient name as an attempt to clear their name. They were ashamed of their war-mongering in the face of other nations of the world in 1922. Why do you think Lausanne Treaty was between Turkey and Allies, instead of Turkey and Greece? Because the preceding war was between Turkey and Allies too. I wouldn't object "War in Asia Minor", or "Anatolian War", or something like those, a title without reducing the entire war to one front.

The name of this article is totally incorrect. It's just a translation error. Turks call this war "Kurtuluş Savaşı" or "İstiklâl Savaşı" both of which have nothing to do with independence. Possible correct translations could be "Turkish War of Liberation" or "Turkish War of Freedom". Turkey was already a recognized independent state before the war. Zfr 21:17, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   Translation is totally correct. İstiklal(Bağımsızlık) means independence in Turkish.

Not knowing Turkish, I can't comment on the literal translation, but this conflict is not one that I, a native speaker of English, would call a "war of independence", for exactly the reasons that Zfr put forth above. Both of Zfr's translations seem plausible as would calling it the "Turkish Revolution", tho I doubt that would be a literal translation. Caerwine 06:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

There was a title called "El Cezire". This doesn't even sound Turkish. I removed it do anyone know why it was there? 26 Jan 2006

Contrary to what is mentioned above, Turkey was NOT a recognized state before the War of Independence. Republic of Turkey was recognized by majority of countries on 1923. The few countries that recognized Turkey before 1923 are USSR, Azerbayjan and India - I am not sure about the last one, and I am not sure if the list is complete. Nevertheless, the Western World recognized Republic of Turkey on 1923. What was recognized before was the Ottoman Empire, a multicultural political entity, not a nation-state. Furthermore, at the end of the WWI, 1914-18, Ottoman Empire was reduced a territoty that is about one eigth of modern Turkey.

WHY!

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

WWI & Armenian Genocide Link

Links to World War I and Armenian Genocide are appropriate because those articles provides critical background for understanding The Turkish War of Independence/Anatolian War, which immediately followed those events. In fact, the Treaty of Lausanne not only effectively ended World War I in the East, but also put a final end to the independent Armenian Republic established under the Treaty of Sevres.

  • Are you Armenian? The think you call the Treaty of Sevres was equal to the murder of the noble Turkish Nation. Additionally, it doens't mean that there was a genocide even if some countries accepted the existance of it. Historians have to discuss this issue, not the politicians. Deliogul 15:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


???? ^^^^^^^ What is this piece of 'drivel' doing here? Which 'Greece' did 'Thrace' belong to - there was no 'greece' pre 1821 - So called 'Greece' was set-up by Russians/British/French? from a Former Region of Ottomon Empire.

Hellenic/Byzantium empire was dissolved in 1453 - they lost out not because they were too nice/civilised or anything - but too weak. 15th century technology put an end to their rule.

Hellenic empire/city-'states' - just like all empires - depended on slavery; don't glorify its achievements without pinning down its costs to non-hellenes.

I disagree with putting Armenian Genocide here because the independence war starts in 1919 - and its background is that the empire is basically disolved after the WWI ending treaty - the Treaty of Sevres. So 1915 events don't really have any major impact here. This is also evident when you look at the timeline section - shows nothing about Armenians Genocide. Kizilmaske 08:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think he is right.The bastard İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti who ordered the evacuation of every living Armenian in the Eastern zones was gone by the time this war started.Its head was dwelling in Moscow.Later I learned he died in battle.Correct if I'm wrong.--Turkish Legacy 21:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  • If you are talking about Enver Pasha, you are completely wrong. After the Balkan Wars, the Ottoman Army was in a big chaos but Enver Pasha reorganized the army in a very short time. Actually the Ottoman forces could stay in active war position for one more year if Germans wouldn't surrender. Then Enver Pasha went to Middle- Asia(this trip has no connection with Soviets) where the first Turkish warriors came from, in a sense, he went to his homeland and tried to form a Pan-Turkist army there to save Turkish people from Soviet pressure but of course this was nearly an impossible dream, just like his dreams about forming a powerful Ottoman State. In many situations, Enver Pasha couldn't be logical but still it doesn't make him a bad person or a bad soldier. He was the Liberty Hero of the Ottoman Parliment(Hürriyet Kahramanı in Turkish). With respect, the noble member of the Kayı Tribe, Deliogul 16:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

East-(Armenian & Georgia) section violates NPOV

The language and the events drescribed there reflect one POV only. I find some of the comments there offensive. Some claims are also baseless. More to come here but obviously this section needs quite some work before it can reflect a balanced view. Kizilmaske 08:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What claims are baseless? Most of the things I see are historically accurate. Before the last edit the whole article violated the NPOV, as it was basically a laundry list of Turkish nationalist accomplishments and bragging about "crushing" Armenia.- Kwsty

Hmm, I am pretty sure the East war was against the Russians. Russian soldiers exclusively fought against Gen. Karabekir. Correct me if I am wrong. So why is the Armenian and Georgians mentioned here? I think this is incorrect. Will dig up some historical info when I get the chance. 26 Jan 2006

That is also in the Combatants side box as well. We need to add Russia there. Also really don't think there was a war againt Armenia. 26 Jan 2006

Are you being sarcastic? There surely was war against Armenia and Georgia, but I can't recall if there had been any major battles against RSFSR.

No dude wtf are you talking about? The war against Armenia is a stupid myth made up by Jews, the actual Turkish war of Independence was fought against Chinese forces under Chiang Kai-Sheck, aided by his warlord generals and receiveng help from Japanese emperor Hitohito. You have to remember that it was primarily due to the Turkish-Greek alliance that asian armies were eventually defeated. But Turkey must also be thankful to the governments of Texas and South Africa, both of which supplied the Turkish army with much needed oil, supplies, and raw materials.

I agree that this article is not neutral in its point of view, is simplistically anti-British or at least anti-European, the Armenian genocide should of course be linked from it. The First World War was of course dreadful and its aftermath appalling but one side to it was the resurgence of National identities that saw the demise not only of the Ottoman Empire but sowed the seed for the eventual dismantling of the British Empire.

There would be a link if there was a genocide, you do not have the right to bend historical facts according to your point of view. There is not a single official document anyone can provide supporting your views and yet mysteriously there was a so called genocide. My advice would be investigate the subject objectively, do not act on myths and lies. Documents from that era are open to public and read the views of well respected historians all over the world.Srhlg

Are you saying that there wasn't a slaughter or that the slaughter wasn't premeditated. L Hamm 01:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Istanbul (Not Constantinople)?

Considering that the name of the city was not offically changed to Istanbul until 1930, well after the era of this article, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use Constantinople along with an in-text reference that the city is now called Istanbul the first time the city is mentioned? That is what is used in the article for Smyrna (Izmir). Caerwine Caerwhine 05:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a user from Turkey...U said İstanbul isn't the name of Constantinapole until 1930...it is not true. When the Ottomans took this city, it changed İstanbul. Because, İslamic rules said this. Non-İslamic areas must be named in Turkish or Arabic. And İstanbul was İstanbul in the Turkish Independence War (İstiklal/Bağımsızlık Savaşı). ---İm not a member of English Wikipedia. İf u want to ask me anything, my e-mail adress is bkuddas@yahoo.com. And I want to say something about this war. İt's very important for Turkey. We changed our government system and our religion system. You know, only Turkey is a laic country of all İslamic countries. Tomorrow is (April 23) our democracy holiday...Our assembly was opened in April 23th 1920. And we know, if there wasn't a war of indepence and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, we still have a Sultan and haven't freedom. I'm not good at English and i cant tell how important that war for Turkish people. But must say, this holiday for all of the children. And a present from Turkey to children. --88.226.58.231 22:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I said that it wasn't changed officially until 1930, not that it wasn't called that by people at all until then. See Istanbul#Etymology for the details of how Konstantiniye became İstanbul. Wikipedia has a built in bias towards offical names. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not true about the name being changed in 1453, it is a Turkish myth-- I have an Ottoman Turkish coin from the early 20th Century, which writes in Arabic script (I speak Arabic)-- "Kustantiniyye" which is Arabic for Constantinople. The city was no officially Constantinople until 1930, so I think the name Constantinople should be used.-- Kwstis Giannelis


this city named İSTANBUL since 1453! U accept or not accept the truth is that!..

Constantinople, not The City, was the name most prevailent at the tiem. Plus you could add your name, not signing dosen't give much weight to your words.--Dryzen 17:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I really am very new to Wiki, so don't kill me for getting some protocol or something wrong, but from what I understand Istanbul was called "The City" (from the Greek, ista polis) even during the Byzantine period by the common people throughout the Balkans, but that the official name was not changed until 1930. I'm no expert, as I've said, but I suppose the debate comes down to whether we use official language or the colloquial, and as Caerwine says that Wikipedia has a bias towards official names, I'd probably go along with Constantinople. On the other hand, since we can all agree that many people believe the myth that Istanbul was renamed in 1453, calling it Constantinople might cause confusion. ¬¬¬¬

Might as well cause confusion and in the prosees disrupt that myth.--Dryzen 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Grammar and Spelling

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

I would need some help to accomplish that, as some sentences are exceedingly hard to comprehend and I would not want to change some information or events due to rewritting a better syntax. This can bee readily seen in short disjoined sentences and some doubling of informaiton... What ever the case this article needs some serious attention.--Dryzen 15:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Independence/Liberation

I was doing some brainstorming about the use of Independece and Liberation words for the war. Basically, the Turkish War of 1919-1922 was fought against the occupying forces of Ottoman Empire. I assume nobody argues that Ottoman Empire was the sovereign state since 1299. My point is: "independence" word itself refers to gaining control of your soil after being a part of another state [1],[2]. If you look at the Liberation Day article, you can also find the description of liberation as "...a revolution, as in Cuba, or the end of an occupation by another state, thereby differing from independence in the meaning of secession from another state...". Finally, "Turkish War of 1919-1922" can be analysed in the perspective of secession from "Ottoman Empire" and it can also be analysed as being a war against the occupying forces. Since the lands of Ottoman Empire never actually changed hands, if we draw a spectrum at one end being "a war against occupying forces" and at the other end "a war of independence", my vote will tend towards the "war against occupying forces", which then results in calling the war as "Turkish War of Liberation". Therefore I suggest changing the name of the article to "Turkish War of Liberation" and directing the current name to the article. Cansın 5 May 2006


I agree, no one outside of Turkey refers to it as the War of Independence. I think we should change the name to "Foundation of Modern Turkey" or something of the sort.--Kwstis

See Also Section

Dear Karl Meier, please do not add "Armenian Genocide" link under the See Also section. The 1915 events in Ottoman Empire have nothing to do with Turkish War of Independence/Liberation which started in 1919. --Cansın 7 May 2006

I disgaree completely-- they set the stage for the Eastern front of the conflict, the Turkish-Armenian War, and thus the Armenian Genocide is completely relevant to the issue. --Kwstis Giannelis

"genocide" is the term used by armenia and its european supporters. it should be recognized that since the armenians had combined forces with the russians on the eastern front, a RELOCATİON was necessary to prevent the loss of chunks of the country.

No, Genocide is the term used by pretty much everyone outside of Turkey. "Relocation" is just a ridiculous term that the Turks use to try and soften past crimes. For example, the US Holocaust Museum has an exhibit on the Armenian Genocide, the UN recognizes it as does the European Parlaiment and the International Association of Genocide scholars... read almost any non-Turkish history and you will find the word Genocide used, or at the very least ethnic cleansing. --Kwstis

First Paragraph

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

Naming of the war and Tone of Voice

The name of this war Kurtuluş Savaşı doesn't mean War of Independence. Kurtuluş comes from Kurtulmak, meaning To be saved It was a war that saved Turks from a dead sentence.

The article introduction section clearly belittles the importance of this war. Clearly written by an anti-Turkish editor, with references to Sevres treaty etc.

I'll correct as soon as I have time. --Gokhan 14:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is mentioning the Sevres Treaty anti-Turkish? Was not the Sevres Treaty (and Ataturk's rejection of it) what started the war? Thus it very much needs to be mentioned in the introduction.

This article should not be turned into a Grey Wolf Turkish triumphalist propaganda account. Please don't write anything in the article which is obviously POV (and improper English to boot) like "Turks were saved from dead sentence." --Kwstis

Looks like this article definitly has some POV (some times flagrant other time poetic), but the problem compounded by the fact that it shifts from paragraph to paragrpah, making it a hard read. Even more so with the incorrect syntaxes... --Dryzen 15:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Map

I think that the animated map in the beginning of the article is not what it should be. It shows Ottoman attacking the Turkish nationals in central Anatolia-did this ever happen?-. Moreover, it shows the british forces in the straits, however, the straits were under international administration for a brief time, not under british. In addition, it shows the Greeks landing in Pontus, something that never happened. Lastly, i guess that under the name 'feudal powers' attacking c.Anatolia, the creator means Greece, France, Italy and Britain, who not only they were not 'feudal' at that time, but also, from them, only the Greeks got involved in war with Kemal... the other three withdrew after signing treaties with the turks of Kemal. Isn't that right? --Hectorian 13:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder is any of the editors will respond to you Hectorian, I haven't a reply in quite some time. The author(s) of the article categorises the British as the influential force within the International administration. The Ottoman are in the article forces that followed the International led puppet gorvernment in Constatinople, while the feudal forces are left overs of the aristocracy and Sipahis tempting there hands at influencing future policy or carving out there own territory. I'm no expert on the subject and I hope this helps.--Dryzen 15:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, i was not expecting a response, but i am glad u did. Thanks for the info, but i still believe that the map does not correspond to the historic facts. the greeks never landed in Pontus. Even if the british were much infuential, this does not justify in naming the international forces as 'british forces'. In addition it seems that all the 'alien' powers attacked central Anatolia, whereas, only the Greeks made it as deep as Sakarya. Moreover, the british did not attack from the south east, since the land they occupied was as north as Mosul, which is not a territory of Turkey (in fact, they never crossed the borders of modern turkey. lastly, the term 'minority' i think applies to the kurds and armenians, who, however, never attempted to march in central Anatolia. quite the contrary, the turkish nationals were those who marched to eastern Anatolia. not to mention that the Ottoman (sultan's) forces did attempted to reach Ankara... --Hectorian 15:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Your not going to get much argument from me, like much of the article the image seems to have cgreat content but poor delivery and some rather ambiguous terminology. If you take a moment to read you'll rapidly understand what I mean, there is a POV in thsi article but it shifts in tone and strength through out... I`m starting to thing hte Greeks in Puntus might have more to do with the local movements of the Ethnic Greeks and the Turkish reprisals, somewhat like the Minorities in the east.--Dryzen 15:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, in fact this is how the Greeks of Pontus should be seen in the article. there was even a proposal for a Ponto-Armenian Federation back then, since Venizelos was not willing to send troops so far away from mainland Greece... Perhaps the author(s) of the article want to show the Greeks as an imperialistic power with no ethnological base in Anatolia... I read some of the article and it seems like trying to glorify Kemal's army who "defeated" 6-7 foreign armies, despite the fact that the victory was only over the Greeks and Armenians (who btw are shown as Great Powers' pions...), and i do not mean only 'armies' but also also perished civilians. Anyway, some day this article will be cleaned up from POV as well... --Hectorian 16:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Imperialist power does seem to preoccupy much of the author(s) thoughts. Lots of work ahead for this article I`m thinking of reducing it to a start article. I would be willing ot correct much of its syntax yet, due to translation errors and tone, am afraid to reduce much of the information or mangle the intents presentied within the article.--Dryzen 17:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like user:TarikAkin has taken the article by storm. Although his own english seems to be no better than the original article. Should we be able to discuss with him we could pobobly get some work done on cleanign up this article.--Dryzen 14:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Good points, lets tag it up and see what comes out of it.--Dryzen 14:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Actually, Ottoman Sultan recruited an untrained army under UK's permission, named it "Caliphate Army", and sent it at Ankara. It was destroyed in battle. Therefore Ottoman government was a combatant enemy. There was a lot of resistance in the south, against French occupation, and a lot of combat between legionnaires and Turkish militia. Actually, the only three cities that were given honors for heroism in war all in the southern front, against the French (They are "Veteran"Antep, "Glorious"Urfa and "Heroic"Maras). Therefore France was a combatant enemy. (But, they withdrew at some point). Throughout the war UK supplied resources to Greeks. Moreover, they had troops occupying territory. After the final battle, British government gave orders to fight for Dardanelles, but the British general commanding the troops in Anatolia disobeyed the order, let Turkish troops pass through the front, and signed a ceasefire treaty. Therefore British were among the occupying enemies, but their troops did not see action. Just my two cents - Kartal

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

I'd like to suggest that a photo or artwork might be useful in place of the animation.L Hamm 02:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a joke

I can understand that the way Turks see this whole thing is clearly depicted in this article, but, to me, a Greek, this whole thing sounds at some times like a joke. Ankara, or the GNA, or Ataturk, you decide, had to face Greeks, Armenians, British, French, Italians, the Ottoman regime and others as it is shown on the map on the right. I guess that we should in the same way sum up the whole WWII, Italy, Germany, Japan vs the World, an endless list of countries and, of course, colourful arrows. Why? Because, like WWII, this war also had different phases and different enemies fighting at different times, so I think that this image is at least misleading. Now, about the title, "Turkish War of Independence", yes, I guess we could have Indian war of Independence, Pakistani war of Independence, and why not, "The Great French War of independence, NOT REVOLUTION". Why? Cause French in their revolution had to fight both the king's regime and foreign enemies, but sorry that was described as a revolution, sorry France. And, the final thing, in the map, I can clearly see "feudal powers" moving in the direction of the Greek army. I guess you don't imply, that the greek army acted as a feudal power. And what about "The Greeks were willing to give up Eastern Thrace as it's population was mostly Turks, Christian Bulgarians and Pomaks, and its only use served as a corridor to Constantinople, and it was now clear that the city would remain in Turkish hands"? Yes, we Greeks love to give territory to other nations, especially Turkey, when it only serves as a corridor to Constantinople. And, we also like big uncertain borders like Evros, instead of small areas of land borders. And, of course, don't forget Black Sea... This article needs clean-up. In the third paragraph we can read: "idea of using Bolshevism or the Mandates were first applied in the capital Istanbul (see also: Istanbul (etymology)) and then eventually transmitted into the interior of the country where the Turkish National Movement was forming." and much later on, "In response they received support and gold. For the promised resources nationalist had to wait until the Battle of Sakarya. Bolsheviks were expecting that the nationalist would not last long, and the agreements would be annulled by their defeat.". So, the Entente wanted to enforce Bolshevism (wtf-!?), a bad thing, like Mandates, I guess, but later on the bad Bolsheviks who wouldn't keep their promises helped Turkey, a good thing I guess. So, black is white. Long live Goebbels !!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.207.254.69 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 September 2006.

While I can understand some of what you are saying, other comments are unfair. This conflict is always known as the Turkish War of Independence; nobody looks up the Turkish Revolution because, perhaps or perhaps not illogically, that simply isn't its name. I think the point about East Thrace was that Greece was MORE willing to give up an area in which none of its own people were living (they didn't feel a moral responsibility to protect Bulgarians, for example) since it was at a profound military disadvantage by that point. The map at the beginning is a little confusing, but I don't think that the author was trying to decieve us into thinking that the Turks simultaneously overcame a horde of foes proving that they are thus superhumans; he/she may just have been unable to find a better map. Phileosophian 11:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Another tag

From the comments I read here, I'm guessing no one will object to a "clean-up" tag, too.  :-) Mdotley 13:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all.--Dryzen 13:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Remake the map!

Can someone PLEASE remake the map of conflict? It's annoying and not very accurate. And it just has to stop blinking. How about using this map instead? http://www.atlas-of-conflicts.com/areas/armenia-and-karabakh/maps/armenia-and-turkey2-sm.jpg

Genocide?

Why aren't the Armenian Genocide, Pontic Greek Genocide etc mentioned in this article?? --AW 21:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


I live in the states and i got used to saying the phrase "jesus christ". Now what i have seen in the discussions here made me say that phrase so many times that i probably have converted to christianity. wtf? what genocide? there is no armenian nor greek genocide first of all! second of all even if it existed this isnt about neither the armeians nor the greeks. this is republic of turkey's independence war!!!!!!!!!

y dont u check and c if all the articles in wikipedia that talks about events between 1900 and 1920 and include the words turk/turkey or ottman empire and make sure that they include the terms armenian and genocide? since the timeline and the relateness to turks, makes u ppl think it is related to your so called "genocide"!! and maybe i should go to (was tryin to come up sometin famous about armenians or armenia besides armenian genocide but funnily armenian genocide is the only thing i could relate to armenia) armenia page and start discussing about adding a paragraph about how armenians killed turks during those times and how they joined the russian army? how does that sound? or go to gyros (a famous greek cuisine, similar to doner kebap) page and add how greeks murdered turkish villagers when they invaded izmir? makes sense? cuz thats what u r doin!! ProudTurk—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.69.86.39 (talk • contribs).

First off, sign your posts, i'm getting tired of doing it for you. Secondly, there are so many valid sources for the genocides. --AW 11:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
AW, why do you believe the Armenian genocide should be included in this article? For what reason and in what context do you believe the evidence supports its inclusion? --A.Garnet 16:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
AW why dont you also tell us where are those "valid sources" I think you should report those sources to the British goverment. During Malta trials British freed every ottoman on trial and declared there was no genocide. Aaah if only they knew your "valid sources" they wouldnt have to search 2.5 years for any evidence supporting so called genocide.. Srhlg
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/u/r/Talk%7ETurkish_War_of_Independence_Archive_1_a50b.html"