Talk:Turkish War of Independence/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Request for Comment on addition of atrocities against Muslim Turks during the Turkish War of Independence

Should the following content be added to the article? 176.219.212.111 (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

a) Yes. b) No.

Content

ATROCITIES AGAINST MUSLIM TURKS DURING THE TURKISH WAR OF INDEPENDENCE

In the early 20th century, both Christians and Muslims under the Ottoman rule had their own recollection of massacres. In the eyes of the West, it was the Muslim Turks who had massacred Christian Greeks, Bulgarian, and Serbs. However British historian David Nicolle states that Muslims suffered as much as Christians during this period. [1, p. 154] Turkish people were unfairly stigmatized as “Terrible Turk” or “Unspeakable Turk” in Europe. As the nationalist movement emerged, the memory of “Terrible Turk” passed down from Ottomans to Turkish nationalists. [2, pp. 46-47] During the War of Independence, any effort to rally the nationalist movement to defend the Turkish claims was perceived as an intent to massacre the Christian population. For example, on 6 June 1919, British relief officer Captain L. H. Hurst British High Commissioner in Istanbul stated that Mustafa Kemal was “organizing a movement which is only too likely to find an outlet for its energies in massacre.” [3, p. 246] Turkish academician Hakan Yavuz called such narratives “racist” and “orientalist”. [4]

As a result of the Balkan Wars and World War I, the relationship between Christian and Muslim population in Anatolia was strained in the post-war period. When the Greek forces landed in Smyrna, Muslims in Anatolia joined guerilla forces to fight against them, while most Greek and Armenian minorities fought alongside the Greek army; this further increased ethnic tensions in the region. As a result of this, the Anatolian population was fractured into religious groups which eventually led to ethnic cleansing by both sides. [5, p. 4]

After the occupation of Smyrna and its surroundings, the Greek forces massacred Muslim Turks in Western Anatolia and plundered their goods. Local Muslim leaders who did not leave their homes in the face of Greek invasion were commonly persecuted. According to British historian Arnold Toynbee, regular Greek soldiers and guerillas routinely performed “murder of rich men and subsequent seizure of their property.” The conclusions of a Commission of Enquiry for the Ismid Peninsula matched with Toynbee’s findings which stated that Greek forces “raped women, and robberies and acts of violence have been committed.” [6, pp. 124-125] A detailed account of the atrocities in Bilecik province is provided by Turkish academician Ali Sarıkoyuncu. [7] Another Turkish academician Emir Bostancı has an article that documents the Greek atrocities in İzmir and Aydın provinces. [8]

After the Greek defeat at Battle of Dumlupınar, the Greek forces started retreating from Anatolia. The Greek army adopted a scorched earth policy thereby plundering the region as it retreated. Even though Turkish forces conducted a swift tactical pursuit to limit the damage, the Greek army killed thousands of Muslims Turks and burned down that many as houses. [3, p. 368] After the war, Greek government recognized the massacres of Muslim Turks in the Treaty of Lausanne. [9, p. 351]

Bibliography

[1] D. Nicolle, The Ottoman Empire of Faith, 2008. [2] J. M. V. Lippe, "The “Terrible Turk”: The Formulation and Perpetuation of a Stereotype in American Foreign Policy," New Perspectives on Turkey, pp. 39-57, 1997. [3] A. Mango, Atatürk, John Murray, 1999. [4] M. H. Yavuz, "Orientalism, the ‘Terrible Turk’ and Genocide," Middle East Critique, pp. 111-126, 2014. [5] P. S. Jowett, Armies of the Greek-Turkish War 1919-1922, Osprey Publishing, 2015. [6] B. Lieberman, Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe, 2006. [7] A. Sarıkoyuncu, "Bilecik ve Çevresinde Yunan Mezalimi [Greek Atrocities in Bilecik and Surrounding Region]," Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi Dergisi, pp. 19-48, 1994. [8] E. Bostancı, "Osmanlı Arşiv Belgelerine Göre İzmir ve Aydın’da Yunan İşgali ve Mezalimi Üzerine İtilaf Devletleri Nezdinde Yapılan Siyasi Teşebbüsler," Oltu Beşeri ve Sosyal Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi , pp. 52-81, 2021. [9] E. J. Erickson, The Turkish War of Independence, ABC-CLIO, 2021.

Opinions

YES. It should be added to the article because the killings are mentioned by a lot of reliable sources and these events are omitted in the current version of this article.--176.219.212.111 (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Do not include as proposed. Some of this looks like it's about Greco-Turkish War and would be more appropriate for that article. The first paragraph seems entirely irrelevant; although it's undeniable that some Westerners had stereotypical negative views of Turkey it's not clear how it had any bearing on the subject of this article. (Besides, wasn't Hurst's view accurate?) (t · c) buidhe 00:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

Andrew Mango quotes Hurst specifically to reflect the perception of Turkish mobilization by the Western nations in his book. He also states that Christian minorities did their best to reinforce this perception to weaken the Turkish position. He concludes, "The fate of Muslim Turks did not figure in Allied concerns." I think this section is important it shows the reality that in the West, the death of Muslims was under-represented, while the death of Christians was somewhat over-represented so that they could gather support for the war effort. If you still object to include this paragraph, I would suggest trimming it to keep the relevant parts instead of completely removing it.

Regarding your objection whether some parts -albeit it is not specified which parts those are- should be transferred to Greek-Turkish War, Greek-Turkish War is sometimes used to simply refer to Turkish War of Independence probably because it was where the most intense fighting took place. Killings that took place during Greek-Turkish War is simply known as killings that took place in the Western Front from the other perspective. The best compromise I can offer is to keep the section you want to transfer in this article in a summarized way and put a link to access the other article.

Lastly if you ask my views on whether Hurst views are accurate, we should take into consideration whether those massacres where (a) an intentional campaign to destroy the population, or (b) an inevitable but terrible byproduct of the war. I think there are sources that fairly argue for either position. However, the bulk of the sources currently cited in this article support the former (a), whilst never balancing the content by mentioning counter positions against them. For example, P. Tacar and M. Gauin wrote a reply [1] to Avedian but their reply isn’t reflected in the article.

[1] Pulat Tacar, Maxime Gauin, State Identity, Continuity, and Responsibility: The Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide: A Reply to Vahagn Avedian, European Journal of International Law, Volume 23, Issue 3, August 2012, Pages 821–835 176.219.154.255 (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

in the West, the death of Muslims was under-represented, while the death of Christians was somewhat over-represented Likely true if we're discussing contemporary depictions, but you need some reliable source that says it's the case for TWOI specifically, or else I'd say it's original research. I do think that this article should be about the entire TWOI and that content specifically about Greeks belongs on the Greek war page. You seem to be assuming that Gauin & Tacar's reply is considered as correct as Avedian's paper, which is verifiably false—Avedian's paper is cited more than twice as much. Gauin & Tacar also take the fringe position of denying the Armenian genocide (Yavuz also holds this position) which undermines their credibility. (t · c) buidhe 07:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I didn’t dig deeply but with a quick search here’s an instance for the depiction of massacres on Southern front in Western media, “The French vigorously protested the attacks on their soldiers, as did the Armenian delegation protest the massacres of Armenian civilians. The European newspapers bestowed the name Maras Massacre and covered the gory details using greatly inflated numbers, which were later revised downward.” [1, p. 161]

Regarding Greek-Turkish War vs. Turkish War of Independence issue, Greek-Turkish War is the Western frontier of the Turkish War of Independence, which is a war composed of multiple wars. Scholars who write on War of Independence consider massacres by the Greek army in the Western front to be an integral part of the former. If we were to go by the same logic, the death of Christians should also be transferred to their respective articles.

Lastly regarding Tacar & Gauin and Yavuz’s papers I disagree with your opinion. I don’t think we should deem them to be uncredible just because it refuses to describe events of 1915 as genocide. Do you hold the view that any such article is uncredible even if it is published in a reputable journal? I think it is not. Yes, Gauin and Tacar’s paper has a smaller citation count but isn’t that typical for the most response articles. And by the way if you compare Avedian’s position to other authors, none of them is as harshly critical as him perhaps except for Kevorkian. So, Avedian’s position is radical even compared to other scholars who have such an approach to killing of Christians. This strictly necessities a balance with the mention of counter position.

[1] E. J. Erickson, The Turkish War of Independence, ABC-CLIO, 2021. 176.219.154.97 (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Not as proposed. The proposed text would violate WP:DUE. If the Fronts/Western Front section weren't empty, or if we had a section about civilian losses I would support adding a brief summary of the events. Regarding the discussion of the Western perception of these events, I'm not sure it passed WP:DUE. Alaexis_¿question? 06:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

There is indeed a section for civilian loses: it exists under the heading "ethnic cleansing". P. S. Jowett makes it very clear there was ethnic cleaning from both sides [1, p. 4]. B. Lieberman also covers the atrocities against Muslims Turks under his book titled "Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe." As we've clarified that an appropriate section exists, I'm sure you would now gladly support adding the proposed text to the article.

Best regards.

[1] P. S. Jowett, Armies of the Greek-Turkish War 1919-1922, Osprey Publishing, 2015.

[2] B. Lieberman, Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe, 2006. 176.219.214.110 (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think the proposed text should be added to the ethnic cleansing section. While there is one sentence which does mention ethnic cleansings by both sides, the rest of the content doesn't belong to it, not to mention WP:DUE issues. Alaexis_¿question? 06:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The page you've linked ("WP:DUE") states that, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." The content I proposed (i.e., atrocities against Muslims Turks) is supported by a lot of sources which are written by subject experts. Besides, none of the existing sources present in the article seem to contradict that atrocities were committed against Muslim Turks during the war. Under these circumstances, I am unable to understand precisely why you oppose to the addition of this content. If you elaborate your concerns, I can fix the problems you've perceived.

Best regards. 176.219.212.205 (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

If you bring on sources for phrases in the several unsourced sections it would probably be accepted and you might get a successful wikipedia experience.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle, I believe all the references are available above the "Opinions" heading. Could you please provide specifics in case I am missing something? Which parts do you think are unsourced? 176.219.212.205 (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It also says An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. In other words, the section on ethnic cleansing in the article about the Turkish War of Independence should discuss the atrocities committed by all sides proportionally to the weight they are given in reliable sources (in the hope that the said said weight reflects the importance and gravity of the events in question). Adding the text you propose in its entirety would make the section unbalanced. Alaexis_¿question? 08:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Alaexis, I completely agree with you that atrocities from both sides should be covered. However, when I check the article right now, I can clearly see that atrocities against Christians are already well-covered, not just in ethnic cleansing section but also in the article abstract. That's why the content suggested by me only covers atrocities against Muslim Turks—because, the atrocities against the Christians is already present in the article. The content suggested by me aims to balance the article as the killings against Muslim Turks also have its treatment in reliable sources.

If you want to add more information regarding atrocities against Christians, more power to you; grab your sources and add them but this shouldn't be a reason to oppose the content I propose.

Thank you for your understanding. Best regards. 176.219.212.205 (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP how about suggesting sources for uncited text and creating an account? Then you can build up some reliability in your edits and at one point you will not need to make edit requests anymore and discuss through time consuming discussions and can just add the info you deem improving the article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The soruces were already present at the bottom of the content proposed. Nevertheless, I reworked the its heading in order to make it easier to notice. Best regards.--176.219.215.136 (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

YES If article covers atrocities from one side, then it should cover the other sides to reflect neutral point of view. Considering RS provided, may be some polish on the wording, but in general YES. --Abrvagl (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, with modifications to fit WP:DUE, but I think the phrasing and amount of detail to include can be adjusted eventually. Suggested content has reliable sources; inclusion of non-Western perspectives helps fight Wikipedia's systemic bias. My main concern is the weight created by the section header. However, there conveniently already exists an ethnic cleansing section mostly detailing atrocities done to Christians, so I think the content can go under there and actually help bring WP:BALANCE to that section as well, perhaps rename the section to be "Ethnic cleansing and atrocities". I believe this is a reasonable compromise for those who have concerns about weight. tofubird | ✉ 07:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• It hardly helps our systemic bias to cite articles literally written in order to deny the Armenian genocide (Yavuz' piece) by claiming that accusations of genocide are the product of bias against Turkey; including this viewpoint does not help with systemic bias but actually helps perpetuate it. (t · c) buidhe 07:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  I also agree on that point.

  That said, reliable sources aren't required to be neutral or objective. I believe given Yavuz's explicit denial of the Armenian genocide, in-text attribution of his position would be appropriate. For example "...Yavuz, Turkish academic and director of the Turkish Studies Project of the Turkish Coalition of America's, writes that..." or more explicitly, Yavuz, a historian and Armenian genocide denialist, writes that....", etc. Alternatively, I'm happy with excluding the Yavuz piece since the "Terrible Turk" article is also discussed by JMV Lippe article. I also do agree with your intuition that the paragraph on the war's contribution to Western stereotypical views on Turkey can be pared down to be more concise as per WP:DUE, but I don't think it's inappropriate to include some mention of it.

  Regardless, the bulk of the proposed section is about atrocities committed by Greek forces during the war, which as you mentioned, was part of the Greco-Turkish war. However, this itself was a significant part of the Turkish War of Independence. Modifications can be tweaked for balance and achieving due weight, but omission of the spirit of the suggested section (Turkish victims of the war) would be WP:BABY. tofubird | ✉ 21:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Tolubird, thank you for the detailed compromise offer, which I mostly concur for. I'd prefer to go with the former in-text attribution which is more neutral. Because, we shouldn't confuse 'disputing a genocide' with 'denying a genocide'. For example, there are a lot of academicians that dispute Holodomor constitutes a genocide in Holomodor genocide question article, where as its genocide denial aspects is discussed in Denial of the Holodomor article. Best regards. 176.219.154.144 (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Tofubird, thank you for your careful evaluation of the content and your objective analysis. I have no objections to the compromise you've suggested. I'd like to address the concerns put forward by Buidhe with regards to Yavuz's article. According to Reliable Sources policy, "The reliability of a source depends on context." In the content I proposed, Yavuz's article discusses the "Terrible Turk" image in the Western world. Therefore, his position on AG is irrelevant in a non-AG related context. Best regards. 176.219.155.193 (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's the problem though: Therefore, his position on AG is irrelevant in a non-AG related context. Armenian genocide hardly irrelevant though, since many RS see this war as a continuation of the genocide. Furthermore, whether the idea of "Terrible Turk" is "unfair" (your words) is exactly the kind of opinion that Wikipedia is not allowed to espouse. For a much more balanced discussion of Western attitudes, Bloxham's "The roots of American genocide denial: Near eastern geopolitics and the interwar Armenian question" is a good source to cite. (t · c) buidhe 22:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Read this article by Robert Trask (The "Terrible Turk" and Turkish-American Relations in the Interwar Period). The Terrible Turk image was created as a war-time propaganda to sway the public opinion against the Turks. Unquestionably, killings occurred; however, these were intentionally exaggerated by Christian missionaries.

Also, the references in the abstract are cherry-picked. I don't have statistics but there are probably more sources that do not describe Turkish War of Independence "as a continuation of genocide". Because, (a) It is a fraction of scholars who extend the 'genocide' period from 1915/16 to 1923; (b) There are those who dispute that the events constitute a genocide based on UN Genocide definition (c) Most of the cited academicians in the article abstract are 'genocide scholars' (rather than 'military historians' for example), therefore probably giving excessive emphasis on humanitarian/war crime aspects of the war compared to military, economic, and diplomatic aspects.

I do not deny Christians suffered during this war. However, it is a both academic and moral mistake to pick a fraction of 'convenient' sources to describe the war as 'genocide' and then conclude that the 'Terrible Turk' stigmatization is not 'unfair'. 176.219.213.125 (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"Unfair" is an opinion. Whether you think genocide is unfair or Turkish stereotypes are unfair, neither has a place in Wikipedia voice per WP:IMPARTIAL. Bloxham is a well-regarded scholar whose work helped complicate somewhat simplistic ideas about Turkey and the Armenian genocide.

As for stereotypes of "terrible Turk", these existed long before WWI. The reality is far more complex than your version suggests, given that Germany was pumping out pro-Turkish propaganda and Armenian genocide denial both during and after WWI (see both of Stefan Ihrig's books). In the UK and Ireland there was an opposite stereotype of "clean-fighting Turk" during and after WWI. A more nuanced view specifically about Western perceptions of the Nationalist faction can be found in Elusive forces in illusive eyes: British officialdom's perception of the Anatolian resistance movement whose author, Alp Yenen, can hardly be accused of anti-Turkish bias. I just cannot endorse your proposed version because it does not reflect the latest scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 04:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bloxham article is great, that said the content on Turkish stereotypes as a result of the war might enter WP:COATRACK territory if the discussion is too extensive; so caution should be done here -- perhaps a one or two sentence summary of the views would be best.

Finally -- and I think this is the spirit of the RFC proposal -- there isn't even a summary of massacres on civilian Turks. It's especially bizarre given that there's a link to the main article on the massacres in the ethnic cleansing section, but there's no summary in this article at all. FWIW, an editor raised this issue in October 2021 but did not receive any attention. Inclusion of a summary is warranted -- if not necessary, and the proposed content can be modified fit WP:DUE.

I suggest that the proposed summary of massacres on Turkish civilians be three or four sentences, starting with The Greek government recognized the massacres of Muslim Turks in the Treaty of Lausanne... and going from there (e.g. mentioning Yenemen and Yalova Peninsula). tofubird | ✉ 08:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Do not include - much of it refers to unrelated earlier conflicts and is a WP:SOAPBOX for an undue Turkish victimhood narrative. At least two of the bibliography authors, Mango and Erickson, are genocide deniers. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. Erickson does recognize the events as 'genocide'. 176.219.154.125 (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrong he is a denialist. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

If Erickson were to be a denialist, he wouldn't let Konstantin Travlos write this in his book,

"I am a believer in the Greek national idea and accept the Greek argument of a genocide committed against Ottoman Greeks in the period 1914–1922. With that said, I am also cognizant of the devastation and atrocities committed by either the Greek army or groups protected by the Greek army during the prosecution of the war against the Turkish Nationalist movement, a responsibility taken officially by Greece in the Treaty of Lausanne." (Erickson, The Turkish War of Independence. in Appendix A by Konstantin Travlos) 176.219.155.234 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

That being said, on my comment at 10:09, I accidentally attributed Travlos's passage to Erickson, which resulted in my assumption that Erickson recognizes the 'genocide'. If I were to write that now, I would say that Erickson is neither a denier nor recognizer. In his book, he simply cites sources from both sides to give proportional view.--176.219.212.225 (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• No, at least not as presented. Among the many gaping holes in the article is the empty section "Western Front". A WP:SUMMARYSTYLE section with content from Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) would likely include content about Greek atrocities. I would support a paragraph or two in the "Ethnic cleansing" section with content from or similar to Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)#Greek massacres of Turks, which is linked as a "main article" in the hatnote but not summarized at all. I am not sure how to rank addition of this content on the priority list of needed improvements to this article. Filling out the Western Front section seems like #1 to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  Update, the Western Front section has been filled by Benlittlewiki. I'm sure you would now support the addition of the massacres against Turks by Greece to the article. 176.219.153.122 (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes.This page is so one-sided.31.210.11.165 (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This page should be renamed as "Turkish Liberation War"

Turkey the legal successor of Devlet-i Aliye (Ottoman Empire) was never been colonised like European countries or neighbouring countries.

So it is incorrect to call National Resistance Movement against invasion as "independence". It was invaded by allies namely England, Russia, France, Italy, Armenia, Greece and fought back to "liberate" itself from the invasion.

My suggestion is to rename this page as "Turkish Liberation War"

PS: Arguments like "everyone says so" does not hold up any value. Please stay away from the common logical fallacies. 176.88.88.207 (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

What matters is not what we think it should be called, but what English language independent reliable sources commonly call it(WP:COMMONNAME). You will have to show that what you propose is the common English term for it(you aren't the first to propose this) 331dot (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's look at a few reliable English dictionaries:

independence: freedom from being governed or ruled by another country.

Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821.

Reference: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/independence

independence: (from somebody/something) (of a country) freedom from political control by other countries.

Cuba gained independence from Spain in 1898.

Reference:https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/independence_1

liberation:an occasion when something or someone is released or made free.

the liberation of France from Nazi occupation

Reference: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/liberation

liberation: (from something) the act or process of freeing a country or a person from the control of somebody else.

a war of liberation

Let's also check wikipedia articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence

The semantic differecence between these two words are quite clear.

Devlet-i Aliye or Turkey did "liberate" itself from the invasion and did not gained its independence. It was not a "depedent state", "colony" or "mandate" of another state.

Let's check Treaty of Lousanne which concluded WW1 in Turkey.

https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Treaty_of_Lausanne

"Independence" can only be seen in the opening sentence of the treaty.

"Being united in the desire to bring to a final close the state of war which has existed in the East since 1914, Being anxious to re-establish the relations of friendship and commerce which are essential to the mutual well-being of their respective peoples, And considering that these relations must be based on respect for the independence and sovereignty of States, Have decided to conclude a Treaty for this purpose..."

One may claim Turkey gained its independence from another country,then we should ask which country was it? Where is the declaration of independence? Is there any treaty on that?

If you (or any user) have any reliable sources that backs Turkey did not liberated itself but gained its independence from another state please feel free to share it and add it to the article.

"So many people says" is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Using logical fallacies is not the way for a reasonable argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.129.20 (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The argument is not "what so many people says". It is WP:COMMONNAME, a Wikipedia policy. None of what you have written here shows that your proposed term is the most commonly used term to describe this event, it is your interpretation of what it should be called. You may even be correct- but that doesn't matter because it is original research. Wikipedia summarizes independent reliable sources, not what us editors personally think. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Another way to put this is that Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. You are certainly free to go out in the English speaking world and lead a global campaign to refer to this event by your proposed term, or to ask the Turkish government to do so(much as they do with the Armenian genocide). 331dot (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

So there isn't even a section discussing that the name is incorrect? Wikipedia is just going to have a name that is clearly misinformation? 2601:18C:8081:B9B0:4CDE:1C6F:B9D9:34F0 (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not making a judgment that the name is correct or incorrect; the name is used because most English language sources use that name. There can certainly be a section of this article that discusses other names used by sources, or that used by other languages. As an example, there is an entire article called Names of the American Civil War. Probably a separate article is not needed here, just making a point that discussing other names is possible. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The Turkish government? What in the fucking fuck is even going on here. "War of Independence" is fine. Reliable sources are not written by total hacks. They are unlikely to use a term as incorrectly as the ip editors are suggesting has happened here. (Reliable sources can disagree with each other and they probably should but they're not likely to be so incompetent that they don't know how to use the word "independence" correctly). The use of "War of Independence" as an English language construct is well established to describe violent armed conflicts respecting a claimed "right" to administer a territory independently of foreign colonial regimes. Some people say the language is still too Eurocentric biased but this is not a fully mainstream viewpoint. "American Revolution" is uncritical but in most other cases terms like "Revolution" and "Liberation" have not gained mainstream acceptance. And we won't be consulting the Turkish government. (I hope that was a joke.) Gwynhaas (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't expect that it would work, but it wasn't a joke. If people do not like what English language sources use for terminology to refer to this war, their only recourse is to ask those sources to use different terminology- that includes the Turkish government, which is free to adopt as a policy position lobbying countries to use its preferred terminology- just as they lobby countries to not recognize the Armenian Genocide. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Turkish government lobbying but it would be very unusual if they were, in fact, lobbying "English language sources". I had previously thought their lobbying was restricted to Congressional resolutions of recognition but recent information has shown a broader scope exists to this campaign. Maybe I am still missing some key information. Lobbying Congress against genocide recognition is hardly commendable but far more ordinary than what I thought you meant. Thank you for explaining this. I misunderstood your statement that one option for editors who disagree is to ask the Turkish government to spearhead a "global campaign to refer to this event by your proposed term". I don't expect that it would work either but if it did, would they be independent sources that we could use in Wikipedia articles? I's assumed they would have to make disclosures if they were lobbies. Gwynhaas (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It's fine if various English language sources say "we've heard why the Turks want us to use their preferred terminology and we agree". If enough sources did that, then it would be changed here too- certainly noting how that came about. It would be wrong for the Turkish government to demand Wikipedia do so on its own. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

(Now Armenian diaspora does same thing :)) 95.70.234.104 (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Results and commanders

This revision contains important information in the infobox. The result is a Turkish victory, but because of this war, important events happened in Turkey and outside of Turkey. I think that it is not enough to include territorial changes in the article and only "Turkish victory" for the result. It is also a mistake not to include the commanders. I have read the MILMOS rules, but the infobox in the World War I article has similar information to this infobox. Aybeg (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, a lot of infoboxes are over-filled with less important or unsourced info when they are supposed to contain only a very concise summary of the most important info in the article. That is like pointing to an article with unsourced content and then saying that verifiability should also be ignored in this article. Commanders can be included but only the most important ones on either side and only with appropriate referencing. (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: the info "partition of the Ottoman Empire" is misleading. This war was not the main reason of Ottoman partitioning. Some stuff you've put is not even covered here as well, thus wp:or. And all "ceded" places were not even controlled by the nationalists at the first place. So the only appropriate territorial change could be the establishment of Turkey. Beshogur (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Aybeg was listing these territorial changes in the result section, where they should not go per MILMOS rules. I would support removing information about Ottoman Empire. However, I disagree that the only relevant territorial change is establishing republic of Turkey since you would also have to cover invading and annexing parts of Armenia and Georgia. (t · c) buidhe 05:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Request for opinion on the addition of cities and villages burned by Greek soldiers.

A complete list of cities, towns and villages destroyed by the Greek armies during the retreat. Kamyonas (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Using "Istanbul" instead of Constantinople and "Izmir" instead of Smyrna.

The names of Turkish cities are misspelled. The names of Turkish cities should be corrected and original names should be used. Kamyonas (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. It would be anachronistic. Beshogur (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Clearly biased

I don't get the point of using an Armenian sources when claiming Armenian civilian casualities. And it's not just with the Armenian; rather with all the civilian casualities, the references are books some that who knows what's written inside. Is something directly considered credible if it's a book? Shouldn't we be confirming how the author got the information that he/she has written?

Or do you guys really think that the outgunned and outnumbered Turks were able to kill at least 300k people without suffering any casualities? It says that only 15k Turkish civs got killed. So the Armenians and the Greeks just threw flowers i assume?

Even bullets were a luxury during these times. It's post WW1 and there was no industry output at all. How can they just fight fight with the occupiers and the militias and the rebels while butchering the civs 'en masse' with soo small resources? Are the Turks superhuman or what?

I do acknowledge the Armenian Genocide but this page has nothing to do with it and is clearly driven by propaganda. Where are the admins at? 31.210.11.165 (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This isn't specifically an admin issue. Admins do not settle content disputes or issues. It's up to the reader to evaluate and judge the sources provided. Being biased does not in and of itself preclude the use of a source on Wikipedia, as all people and sources have biases. What matters is if a source makes things up out of whole cloth or fails to perform basic fact checking and editorial control(i.e. WP:DAILYMAIL). If you have other sources about casualty figures, please offer them(though this would not mean the other sources would be eliminated). 331dot (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed that the lead section is written from an awkward point of view, particularly the second paragraph seems like an opinionated commentary that doesn't belong in the lead. Gazozlu (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The casualties part is a literal insult to history and this website

The guy wanted me to explain why I did this so here. The sources cited for casualties are literal biased sources. Armenian sources are used for Armenian casualties, obviously gonna be biased. Second of all, it is nearly impossible to Turkish civilian casualties to be 15,000, then I can cite stuff as Çerkes Ethem's Anılarım and other turkish books to heavily increase Turkish civilian casualties, it was already done many times but got reverted for a bad reason. Patrockk (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

What's the least reliable source currently in the casualties section? What's the best source that gives different numbers? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

BIG LOL 2A01:4B00:865F:C600:8940:8CC3:8B11:F477 (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Look at the cited sources for Armenian casualties as an example, made by Armenian authors, that is least reliable way for civilian casualties. Patrockk (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Christopher J. Walker, a British historian, also provides a similar estimate (250,000). I added a page number to that citation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Atrocities against Muslims and Turks - 2

Block evasion by User:Ungitow through the IP range Special:Contributions/176.219.128.0/17 which has been blocked four times.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The previous discussion about the massacres committed against the Turks has mostly died out over the period of last eight months due to inactivity, and we failed to reach a consensus. But I am very positive that we can find a common ground by reviewing the proposed text. Therefore, I am pinging editors who participated in the previous discussion. @Tofubird @Buidhe @Abrvagl @Firefangledfeathers @Alaexis @Paradise Chronicle Firstly, I would like to address the main points made by Buidhe. They remarked that some of the statements were subjective such as the statement, which included the word "unfairly". How about rewording the text by removing that bit? After that, we can go on to discuss the finer details on which parts should be transferred to the Greco-Turkish War article and which parts should be kept. 176.219.154.63 (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Honestly I don't remember what the issue was and I'm not sure I understand what you propose now (I don't see the word "unfairly" in the article). Can you explain it please? Alaexis¿question? 07:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC) The previous RfC to add the content describing massacres against the Turks during the war failed to reach a consensus. Therefore, I am inviting editors to find a common ground on how we can add this information to the article by revising the earlier text. 176.219.213.77 (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Hi IP. I suggest you create an account and work them into the article yourself. As for me, I am not really in the mood in looking for sources for massacres against Turks. The former RfC didn't seem to have success for having suggested some weird sources. Work with serious scholarship (Authors should be widely acclaimed, and one of their books or the authors received internationally recognized prizes) when dealing with massacres on Turks. Then I guess you are on a good way.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC) We should not be even entertaining a false balance of Turkish-Muslim casualties - 15k Turks Vs. A quarter of a million Greeks, which was a much much higher % of the total population in each respective nation. And these were Ethnic Greeks within the former Ottoman Empire - it was Turks butchering their countrymen and women in effect. And equating/conflating “Muslim” with “Turk” is erroneous, surely? 2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:7CD8:DA33:1831:D5F0 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC) The Greek army killed more than half a million Turks. They indiscriminately looted villages, raped women, and killed elderly. According to one document Greek troops mass murdered pregnant women and their children with machine gun fire. Of course there were some revenge killings in retaliation by Turks, who were resisting against an illegal invasion against their homeland. During the war, Greek government denied that their forces committed massacres, but international investigations proved them false. (It was a little bit like what happened in Bucha.) But they admitted their responsibility for the war crimes in the Treaty of Lausanne. In fact, the war goal of the Greek government was to subjugate Western Anatolia by force and forcibly remove the Muslim population. I suggest everyone to read Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims by the esteemed scholar Justin McCarthy whose works remain unchallenged ever since. 176.219.155.123 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The top section is not organized logically

The second paragraph in the top section refers to the impact and the aftermath of the Turkish War of Independence before summarizing events leading up to the topic or summarizing the topic.

This article is pointed out as part of the Revolutions of 1917-1923 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1917%E2%80%931923 ), and compared to other articles in this group (In no particular order, I just looked up the first 4 in the Revolutions article) such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%931919 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence which follow "Summary -> leading events -> events -> aftermath" flow in their top section, the Turkish War of Independence article's top section follows "Definition -> impact on demographics -> leading events -> events -> aftermath". The impact on ethnic demographics is not logically placed, it should have been in the aftermath and results section.

The information covered in the second paragraph is already repeated towards the end of the top section. It can be included in the last paragraph in a more neutral tone while referring to the same articles. Putting aftermath closer to the top doesn't sound neutral (makes the article sound like it's more about the demographics than the war itself) and doesn't flow logically. Kemiyun (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Major differences in the account of history between the Turkish and English versions of this page

Not only is there a refusal to account for Turkish civilian casualties which as on the Turkish page stand at 600,000+ but there is also an exaggerated amount of greek and civilian casualties due to the (as other commentators have noted) utilisation of greek and Armenian sources which are lacking in legitimacy. Furthermore crimes committed against the Turkish population such as the mass rape of Turkish women by greek soldiers or massacres against the turkish population or the discrimination which they faced on a daily basis goes either unmentioned or understated. For a website which has an article of thousands upon thousands of words about the fire of Izmir or articles about random officers of different militaries such a presentation of history is truly appalling and is in urgent need of repair as it goes against Wikipedia's purpose of being an objective source. 81.105.26.166 (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Lacking account of demographic changes

The second paragraph is mainly centered around demographic changes in anatolia. Although it is important to note such changes. The paragraph is lacking. It fails to mention the expulsion of Balkan Muslims by Balkan countries who were either killed by their country men, died due to rough conditions or made it to modern day western turkey which increased the Muslim demographics of the area. Furthermore it fails to note the attempted ethnic cleansing of the Greek occupation zone by greek forces who burnt down numerous villages and towns and committed mass rape and massacres in an attempt to alter the occupation zones population into one that is Christian. Furthermore these massacres mainly affected Muslim populations of Balkan decent rather than those of Turkic decent which laid deeper in anatolia. 81.105.26.166 (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree. Second paragraph has little to do with Turkish War of Independence, as well as not taking into account massive influx of dispossessed Muslims from all around the region. It should suffice to to say, demographics were impacted. Seems like an unnecessary distraction from the main topic, especially in the first paragraph. Needs to be remedied. Murat (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox leaders and edits by Benlittlewiki

@Benlittlewiki: half of your additions do not even appear in the article. "Commanders" like Yörük Ali, Çerkes Ethem are nothing more than some bandit leaders. I don't get the relevance of those. This is pure wp:soapbox. And your sneaky reverts aren't unnoticed. Beshogur (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Wrong & misleading information available

The English translation does not overlap to the information in the original Turkish source.There was not any official and known kurdish state in this times, even if so, then we would also need to add arabs and iranians since the region had mixed culture. It's a known fact that the Turks never wanted such an organisation that could threaten them, and why would such an organisation support Turkey's intervention for independence?

If we can reference false information in any book [Gingeras 2022, pp. 204–206], then we can add more misleading information. Serkanjo (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I strongly agree wıth Beshogur's and an another user's(20:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)) statements.

I suggest wikipedia to be objective and selective in such matters, isn't this already one of the main purposes of wikipedia?

Lead too long

The article's lead is grossly overlength, per MOS:LEAD, both in terms of overall word length and paragraph structure. The recommended length is no more than three or four paragraphs. Most featured articles have 300 words; here it's 650 words. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added the section sizes template to the top of the talk page, which is instructive on the relative size of different sections in the page. The lead is expected to broadly reflect the same emphasis on different subjects as in the page's body. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Violation of neutral point of view

This article seems to be more about the Armenian genocide than the Turkish war of liberation. WP:NPOW The article's introduction mentions the Armenian genocide, I think it is intended for vandalism. WP:VD "Young Turk Revolution" at the beginning of the article. But this has nothing to do with the Turkish War of Independence. Tiginbeg (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources provided seem to disagree with you. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If those sources are not being accurately summarized, please detail the specific errors. If you have additional sources with other points of view not currently present, please offer them. Please understand that the Turkish government educates its citizens with its preferred narrative. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep your absurd theories to yourself, such as "Please understand that the Turkish government educates its citizens in its preferred discourse". WP:NOPA Tiginbeg (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I have made no personal attack. That the Turkish government educates its citizens in its preferred version of history is not my theory, it's what we state at Armenian genocide denial; "denial has been the policy of every government of the Republic of Turkey, as of 2022", "One of the most important reasons for this denial is that the genocide enabled the establishment of a Turkish nation-state. Recognition would contradict Turkey's founding myths. Since the 1920s, Turkey has worked to prevent official recognition or even mention of the genocide in other countries; these efforts have included millions of dollars spent on lobbying, the creation of research institutes, and intimidation and threats. Denial also affects Turkey's domestic policies and is taught in Turkish schools". 331dot (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The article "Armenian genocide denial" does not even have a source for this claim. Tiginbeg (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I copied the lead of the article, the main text of the article contains the sources. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I checked the article again, there are no sources. Tiginbeg (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That is demonstrably incorrect, there are literally hundreds, so I'm not sure what you are looking at. In any event, this is drifting from discussing this article. I've said how you can proceed. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know, and don't need to know, if you are Turkish or not, but if you are, consider if you are content to believe what your government wants you to believe. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

History is a science, so it is no matter what the governments say about historical events. Armenian affairs (some calls genocide, or some calls deportation in the scientific areas) should be mentioned with an objective attitude in this article. In wikipedia, unfortunately some people behave as nonobjective about that, and dogmatise this topic. We must say Armenian affairs with archive documents, historical sources etc, otherwise it is unfair, nonscientific.

Best regards.

-Historianengineer (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)-

Seems irrelevant, and not sure if you understood the above statement. Topic of such deep interest to you has been covered numerous places already in countless articles. Not closely related to the main topic of this article, but given a whole paragraph at the top. Needs to be remedied. Not to mention, it is incomplete information as it ignores the masses of dispossessed Muslims making their way to Asia Minor. Murat (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Do Armenians also mention about 2.5 Turkish civilians that were genocided by Armenians ? Violet.blues12 (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That is a talking point of the Turkish government that is discussed at Armenian genocide denial. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, in some statements (for exp: -a continuation of the Armenian genocide and other ethnic cleansing operations during World War I.), the same sources were cited more than once to overestimate the sources. Since the page is under protection, I have no chance to delete the extra added sources. Kyzagan (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2023

My request is that you need to add United States of america to the enemy Side of the turkish belligerents (sorry for my English, its not my first language) because United States of america bombed Samsun while the turkish War Of Independence happened. You can find it in the Wikipedia, just write: bombardement of samsun Efe urluca (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Khilafat movement

@Benlittlewiki: Gandhi played a major role in Khilafat Movement. It was because of Gandhi that the movement became this significant and popular all over Indian subcontinent.

• "Khilafat Committee was formed at Lucknow in September 1919. Gandhi's public support had a dramatic effect on the Khilafat cause. Hitherto it had been an amorphous campaign within the Muslim League, but now it emerged to all-India significance. The timing of Gandhi's decision to take up the Muslim cause is significant." Locality, Province and Nation: Essays on Indian Politics 1870 to 1940, John Gallagher, Gordon Johnson, Anil Seal, Cambridge University Press, p. 130.
• "Gandhi became the leader of both the nationalist and the Khilafat struggles . He toured the country with the Ali Brothers and Hindu-Muslim cordiality touched a high tide. Gandhi was heard with reverence by Hindus as well as Muslims." Mahatma Gandhi: A Biography, B.R. Nanda, Oxford University Press, p. 185-186.

Therefore, my edits should be restored. Thanks Editorkamran (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2023

There are lines that are implying Turkish War of Independence was an continuation or related to Armenian Genocide,which is definitely incorrect.I would like to change those lines. Atasarpkaya (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done The edit request process is for proposing specific changes, in the format of "change X text to Y text". If the sources provided are inaccurately summarized, please detail the specific errors, or offer independent reliable sources that support your claims. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents section is confused

I feel like belligerents section is quite confusing.

How is it possible that France is purported to have supported both sides? I understand that there was an agreement between Turkey and France towards the end of the war, in late 1921. Does this mean France were essentially out of the war, or does the agreement mean that they then supported Turkey? If so, then Turkey must also be listed in the "supporters" section of their opponents, right after signing the final peace treaty. With a little note beside: "From 1923".

How is that Italy is in the supporters section? Italian expedition/occupation army landed in Antalya during the war. (Goes by Adalia in contexts)

How did Soviets support Turkish nationalists while war had pretty much ended by the time Soviet Union was established? Still, if that is correct, isn't it better and more tidy to write "Soviet Union"? Or if it indeed hadn't been established, simply "Russia"?

It just seems from an outside point of view, there's just a "war" to put as many belligerents as possible to one side make it look better for the other side. 78.174.116.81 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2023

"Otlu Council Government" in the article Should be "Oltu Council Government" "Otlu" is an obvious typo and means "Grassy" or "Weedy", "Oltu" instead is name of a geographical location. Cactus Ronin (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents

that's typed "Indian nationalist" that's wrong, we should change that to "Indian Muslims" LeUnOis (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a biased explanation

When we look at the English page of the War of Independence, it is written that Atatürk and his comrades and Turks massacred Armenians and Greeks, it is not written there that Armenian and Greek gangs massacred more than 350-700 thousand Turkish civilians. In addition, the French army was an invading army in Anatolia and the Armenian gangs gathered and gave weapons to their hands. Armenians killed Turkish people and raped Turkish women. In the same way, the first uprisings among the Turkish people started because of the massacre and rape in the Greek army. The French army did not collect the Armenian refugees and bring them home, there is a mistake. It is written as if the Turks occupied the lands of the Greeks and the allied states. The Greeks with the original Entente states occupied Turkish lands. 88.236.96.160 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This article summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not the official Turkish government position that they want and require their citizens to hear. If those sources are not accurately summarized, please detail the specific errors. If they are accurately summarized, but you disagree with them, we probably can't help you. Consider if you are content to believe what your government wants you to believe. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

looks like only armenian sources are reliable right so that you can do your revanchism and distort history 78.175.238.164 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

As a matter of fact mosly foreign sources are used for the article. This conflict was happened in Anatolia original Turkish documents were rarely cited. Remember, Turkey was invaded, Turkey defeated invading armies and Turkey forced all of them to a peace treaty. So ignoring Turkish sources is just trying to rewrite the history.

For example you may find many sources that try to reduce this conflict a mere Greco-Turkish conflict. But Treaty of Lousanne cannot be ignored:

"Article 1

From the coming into force of the present Treaty, the state of peace will be definitely re-established between the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State of the one part, and Turkey of the other part, as well as between their respective nationals." 178.241.43.229 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Armenians

Only 250k Armenians killed and not 1.5m? RickyBlair668 (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Also more than 1 million Turks and muslims were killed in this horrible civil conflict. Don't even count total losses due to the WW1 178.241.43.229 (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

There's an extra paragraph space somewhere before the lead section.

See title. Please remove, it's irking me. Alisperic (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Heading change

Turks did not gain their independence with this war. Examples for independence wars can be considered for Balkan countries such as Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia in this sense. But for the Turks, the war can be named "The Turkish War of National Liberation". After the Turkish lands were liberated from the occupying forces, Turks have changed the regime, but the state remained the same. Avriya (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Source: McCarthy, Justin (1995), Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922

Please add the 640000 Turkish civilians that were killed according to for example Justin McCarthy. It is nothing but a joke to claim only 16000 Turkish civilian casualties. 217.19.31.93 (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)