Talk:Turkish–Armenian War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other Conflicts[edit]

This article is biased and not reliable During the period of this war, Armenian army also fought against Georgian and Azerbeycan armies. Article has no reference to them. user:Ilpars

Georgian and Azerbeycan conflicts should have their own Campaign pages. There is one for Georgian. If someone wants these articles can be connected on Armenia page (such as Turkish War of Independence callects its own campaigns). Summary: this is a Turkis-Armenian campaign not Armenian wars page. Thanks.--OttomanReference 12:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Treaty of Kars" Date[edit]

I was looking at the article on the "Treaty of Kars" and in that article it says this treaty was signed on October 23, 1921, but inside the "Turkish-Armenian War" article under the Treaty of Kars it gives another date which is October 13, 1921, so which one is correct? ROOB323 18:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Homeland[edit]

This article is about a war, in which we do not need to include sentences such as "Armenians forced out of their historical homeland" or so, nor "the Armenian Traitors" on the other side, thus I am reverting both... --Eae1983 (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rules in Wikipedia[edit]

@85.102.61.240 from Istanbul, you have to discuss your changes on the discussion page! And try to find sources for your changes! The footnotes are from Ter-Minassian, so it doesn't make sense to change the figures and leaving the footnotes untouched. That looks odd or falsified because Ter-Minassian says there were about the same figure of fighting troops. Ok? Apocolocynthosis (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging controversial topics[edit]

The enormous geopolitical problems in the region of present day Turkey and Armenia are noted.

The Armenian Diaspora and The Republic of Turkey hold firmly to their claims in the region.

The topic is highly politicised, and historical references are skewed depending on which side you take. Independent historians are not able to be identified readily.

This topic is extremely likely to be biased and facts flawed, and should be flagged as such, right at the beginning of the topic, in the introductory sentence. 60.242.22.49 (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This conflict was not a combat heavy one. Turkish army used numerical and cavalry superiority to outflank every Armenian defense line. Turkish active soldiers was more likely 30000. And Turkish casualties are highly over-estimated. It was in fact low. When Armenia surrendered, surviving units sent to western front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.108.113 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On name change[edit]

Following my first attempt to move this article to the title "Turkish invasion of Armenia", I was almost immediately reverted by User:Mttll, who told me in a rather glib manner that this article wasn't my "playground." Nowhere in my reasoning for the move did I indicate that I was doing this on a personal whim nor for the sake of gratifying my own sentiments on the topic. The fact of the matter is that the event in question involved the invasion of one country by another. That it resulted in a brief, uneven war is certainly true but we must not characterize such an event as simply a war. Other articles present excellent precedents, including the Red Army invasion of Georgia and the Invasion of Poland articles. And since other sources do not mince words and all concur that this was an invasion, there should be even greater incentive to support this name change. User Mtll did not provide any justification for his revert and I ask that if any editor opposes my move, they present their views here, rather than revert once more.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Marshall Bagramyan
you are incorrect, because Kars, Iğdır and the other cities in the western Armenia were part of Ottoman Empire until Russo-Turkish War. Armenians captured eastern Anatolia, and Turkish Army fought for its towns. It is NOT an invasion, but liberation. The article should be named as Turkish-Armenian War. You present your anti-Turk, fascist view here, rather than being objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerli (talk • contribs) 17:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The provinces of Kars and Ardahan were awarded to the Russian Empire after the 1877-8 war, it is true. In March 1918, the Bolsheviks and the Young Turks concluded a secret agreement in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which returned the two provinces, as well as awarded the province of Batum, to the Ottomans. But when the war ended that year, the Turks were forced to withdraw to the pre-war boundary, that is, relinquish their gains and forfeit Kars and Ardahan. In March 1919, the British formally assigned Kars to the Armenian government and Armenia's territorial gains were confirmed in the Treaty of Sevres, which extended Armenia's borders to the western reaches of Lake Van. Karabekir's forces invaded the internationally recognized borders of Armenia in 1920 and the his acquisitions were in turn confirmed in the treaties signed with the Bolsheviks the next year. That's all there is to it. Also, please adhere to the guidelines found on this page and refrain from characterizing others users' views as "anti-Turk" or "fascist".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Treaty of Sevres is not a confirmation of anything. It's not ratified by Ottomans and Greeks and it was replaced by Lousanne agreement by the same signatory countries. Russian Empire wasn't a part of this agreement. After 3 months of this agreement, Armenia was already a part of Soviet Republics.147.147.136.5 (talk)

What is the name for the events used by the English sources? --Quantum666 (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC) As I see GoogleBooks gives 42 for invasion and 102 for war for exact phrases. --Quantum666 (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Turks invaded Armenia, without announcing war. So I think the name of the article is right. Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aram van, naming articles in WP is based on usage in English sources not on your opinion. See WP:NAME--Quantum666 (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Quantum666, and Marshall Bagramyan your analaogy is totally wrong. accourding to your position: first Armenia occupied eastern Anatolia then Turks. Remember before war eastern vilayets were Ottoman lands.--Abbatai 11:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs)

The eastern vilayets ("eastern Anatolia") were never occupied by the armies belonging to the Republic of Armenia (1918-20). Kars and Ardahan belonged to the Russian Empire prior to the beginning of World War I and Armenia assumed control of those lands in 1919 - they never crossed the pre-1914 boundary. Those provinces were given to the Ottomans after Brest-Litovsk but the Turks were forced to withdraw to the pre-war border after signing the agreement at Mudros in October 1918. If anything, the Turkish Nationalists were operating illegally within Armenia's borders long before the Turkish invasion, fomenting rebellion among its Muslim population and actively working to destabilize the Armenian government. And Aram-van is not stating his opinion - he's simply calling the Turkish military operations what they were.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naming articles must be based on usage in sources, not on your vision of the events. --Quantum666 (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the discussion is over! Aram-van--Aram-van (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is you who should wait the discussion to be finished. The consensus version is "war", the new one is "invasion". So don't move the name until the discussion is over. --Quantum666 (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never saw you build a consensus here for usage of the word "war" and, if anything, each time you have returned to this article you have arrogated yourself with the duty to change it to the version which is much closer to your own liking. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is so easy to claim your opponent doesn't build a consensus and it is so easy not to see your opponents comments when you are sure you are right. But it is more difficult to answer your opponent's comment. This is not a playground, Marshal Bagramyan. --Quantum666 (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How odd that this is the second time another editor is using that curious phrasing to describe edits on this article. For the record, I'm not playing around. There were two distinct engagements between the Armenians and Turks during 1918 and 1920. A cursory search through Google Books shows that that phrase is used to refer to both events and a search through Google is as equally inconclusive. For lack of clear results, it only makes sense that we simply called this military engagement what it really was and what historians themselves term it. Richard G. Hovannisian, the authority on the Republic of Armenia, himself gives the title of the fourth chapter in his fourth volume of the Republic of Armenia "The Turkish Invasion and Soviet Diplomacy" (p. 180).--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how you make all those academic sources "inconclusive". Please see the sources:they use "Turkish–Armenian War" for 1920 events. By the way in "The Armenian genocide in perspective" Richard G. Hovannisian calls them war as well. --Quantum666 (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16 < 18 + 26 = 44

Takabeg (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Şu Çılgın Türkler[edit]

Turgut Özakman's Şu Çılgın Türkler is a historical novel (tarihi roman).[1][2]. Probably Mareşal should have known this fact. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

  1. ^ Aynı savaş farklı kurgular", Star, March, 7 2009.
  2. ^ "Popüler tarih tarihin neresinde", Yeni Şafak, March 7, 2007.

File:The First Armenian Republic 1918-1920.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:The First Armenian Republic 1918-1920.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russian invasion(s) of Armenia[edit]

When you write "Turkish invasion of Armenia" in WP search, you are directed here. If you write "Russian invasion of Armenia" you find no articles. Surprising, knowing the fact that the Russians have invaded "Armenia" not once but several times. (Armenia is still, after two decades of "independence" the only ex-Soviet country whose borders are protected by the Russian Army.) Or should I write "First, Second, Third etc Russian invasion of Armenia" to reach the correct pages? Please do not remind me (I already know) that the discussion pages are intended to develop the relative articles. I wonder if my curiosity could help to develop the neutrality and reliability of some WP articles. I also wonder if articles are intended to defame certain nations (which have made similar acts to those of other nations, whose deeds are not turned into articles in WP...) --E4024 (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noone came here to discuss in 3 months, I am adding an RfC tag. --E4024 (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Losses[edit]

Civilian and military deaths should be seperated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.188.148 (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Sources[edit]

I see that pretty much all the sources that talk about the forces seem to be all Turkish. I know for a fact that the DRA at the time was in a bad condition, fighting the USSR, Azerbaijan, Georgia and the Turks at the same time, and they were extremely short in ammunition and weapons, most DRA "troops" weren't even armed, and the majority of the DRA was made up of ethnic Turks. These so called academic sources make these absurd claims of the DRA having a large army and being well equipped are nothing more than works of Turkish nationalistic propaganda. Unless some more reliable sources are given, and not those written by nationalists in an autocratic state, this article should not be trusted. In the mean time, I shall make the appropriate changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.251.53 (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by Turalhemidli and KazekageTR[edit]

Turalhemidli added a claim of "10,000 civilians killed" as casualties [1]. I removed the claim as unsourced. KazekageTR then restored that content without giving any supporting source [2]. I will again remove this unreferenced content unless sources are presented. Under wp:v, any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. As explained in my edit summary, the figure is unsourced because the source that was cited does not actually support the figure it is being cited to support. The 10,000 figure mentioned in that source refers to alleged events in Erzincan and Erzurum that happened over 2 years before the subject of this article. Ottoman forces captured Erzincan in February 1918 and Erzurum in March 1918 (massacring any Armenians they found). They did not withdraw from these places after Turkey's surrender at the end of WW1. The war detailed in this article took place at the end of 1920. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have waited 3 days for a response, so I have now deleted the tagged unreferenced 10,000 figure under wp:v. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Armenian nationalists[edit]

I see that Wikipedia has lost its neutrality. This war started on September 20 and ended on December 2, how can the war continue until December 23? Very funny another thing, the war is not even 3 months continued and civilians killed 250 000. Even the Turks all day and night would have killed Armenians could never create one such, and the photograph is that Armenians runs from Kars. Turalhemidli 03:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 May 2016[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move (non-admin closure). SSTflyer 02:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Turkish–Armenian War → Turkish Invasion of Armenia –

On September 23,1920, a 60,000 man strong Turkish army attacked Armenia without adeclaration of war.[3]

openly write about the previously planned invasion of Armenia but also acknowledge the fact that Kemalist forces started the military operations. This is what Professor Enver Ziya Karal, for instance, says in The New Turkey, published recently: "Our invasion movement of September 24, 1920, against Armenia ended in our decisive victory."[4]

Then, Biyiklioglu, in the same fraudulent vein, "justifies" the Kemalist invasion of Armenia in the Fall of 1920 by[5]

until September 1920 when the Turkish invasion forced Armenia Georgian-Armenian Relations in 1918-20[6]

and to withstand the carefully planned invasion by the Turkish Nationalist armies.[7]

The second stage coincided with the second invasion of Armenia in the fall of 1920, entailing[8] (by Vahakn N. Dadrian and ‎Taner Akcam, the most reliable Armenian and Turkish historians on this subject, respectively)

after having invaded Armenia without any declaration of war[9]

An event where the civilians of one side massacred are several times larger than the soldiers on both sides is not most best accurately described as a war. The Turks never declared war. This is similar to the Red Army invasion of Georgia and Red Army invasion of Azerbaijan for Armenia. Oatitonimly (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Wikipedia's definition of war as a state of armed conflict between societies isn't accurate naming in this case because the massacre of civilians by far overshadows any of the little armed conflict that took place. On the other hand, Wikipedia's definition of invasion as a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof is applicable to this situation. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or, as a line in X-Men: First Class goes "I wouldn't call it a war, exactly. That suggests both sides stand an equal chance of winning." Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Just because the proposal is posed as a proper name with "Invasion" capitalized, which suggest that nom knows little of WP:TITLE. So, let's look into what this thing is called, and see if just downcasing the proposal makes a plausible title. Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Beyond the obvious NPOV issues raised by Dicklyon, there is no WP:COMMONNAME demonstration in the request. In my review I see "Turkish-Armenian War" receives 318 hits[10] and mentions to "Turkish Invasion of Armenia" are either embedded in text of the listed hits to describe the start of the war or relate to the 11th century Byzantine–Seljuq wars.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Less words will always yield more results. You also have to consider how many of these are Wikipedia WP:FORK. There is no official name, but even Turkish sources call it an invasion. --Oatitonimly (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I focus rather on the fact that "Turkish Invasion of Armenia" is rather ambiguous. In readily available sources the title Turkish Invasion of Armenia applies to a 14th century invasion (Oghuz Turks vs Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia) an 11th century invasion (Byzantine–Seljuq wars) or this event. The sources, as I noted below, are not exclusively linked to the 1920 event and may in fact be in the minority. I saw far more mention amongst English sources for the 11th century and 14th century events.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Majority of the sources discuss it as Turkish–Armenian War. Also, Invasion is not applicable per the article lede, the land was disputed and recently lost by the Ottoman Empire, it would not be possible to discern who invaded whom. I think no one would suggest to name it "Liberation of invaded Ottoman territory from Armenia"Darwinian Ape talk 03:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You're forgetting the most well known article with invasion in the title: Invasion of Poland. The disputed territory had just been given to Poland and recently lost to Germany. So what right would there be to decide whom invaded whom for this article? Oatitonimly (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because invasion of Poland constituted the entirety of Poland and not just some disputed territory? Also the time gap is much shorter here, it's basically the remaining skirmishes of the WWI. But all that aside, this event is most commonly referred to as "Turkish–Armenian War" and not as "Turkish invasion of Armenia." Darwinian Ape talk 04:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of Poland was invaded by Germans and Soviets and split between them, all of Armenia was invaded by Turks and Soviets and split between them. No disrespect, but you should really learn the history of something you're going to make bold claims about. This land hadn't been under Turkish control since 1878 when it was taken by Russia. There had been no previous dispute on the land between Turks and Armenians. Also, while the Turks may consider it a "liberation", both sides have academics that call it an invasion, as I pointed out. Oatitonimly (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim to be a Historian expert, but I really don't think equating this event to the invasion of Poland is accurate. But my opinion has no bearing on the matter.(see my answer below.) Darwinian Ape talk 18:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE - Something important that I just realized is that "Turkish-Armenian War" isn't proper English. It would have to be "Turco-Armenian War" or "Armeno-Turkish War".

Turco-Armenina War, 55 results
Armeno-Turkish War, 163 results
Turkish Invasion of Armenia, 305 results
@Darwinian Ape:@Dicklyon:@Labattblueboy: Please revise your answers with this given knowledge. --Oatitonimly (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this is very much shifting the goal post. Whether it's proper english or not "Turkish-Armenian War" yields more(and relevant) results. Turkish invasion of Armenia on the other hand, mostly refers to a 11th century Turkish invasion,(just look at the first page of the google search) Per WP:COMMONNAME we should avoid ambiguous names and use the most commonly used name which is the current title. Darwinian Ape talk 18:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This information doesn't change my position at all. If the title "Turkish-Armenian War" is employed in scholarly reviewed books and journals I'm not seeing it as an issue. I am also mildly amused how terrible this source list (Turkish Invasion of Armenia) is at making a common name argument. Let's pick apart page 1 of the hits:
  1. "Armenia Country Study Guide Volume 1 Strategic Information and Developments" the section title is "Turkish-Armenian War (1920)", Turkish Invasion of Armenia is descriptive text.
  2. "Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia 2003" is single mention descriptive text in a biography of Dr. Edmund Herzig
  3. "War Scare: Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink" actual text is "No invasion of Armenia occurred" in reference to 1991 tensions
  4. "THE VIABILITY OF A WORLDWIDE ARMENIAN ORGANIZATION" descriptive text of a 14th century invasion
  5. "History of the World Christian Movement: Volume 1" descriptive text of a 11th century invasion
  6. "The Crusades: A Reader, Second Edition" descriptive text of a 11th century invasion
  7. "The Crusades and the Christian World of the East" descriptive text of a 11th century invasion
You get the idea, even of the first page hits aren't really related to the 1920 events. I note that ""Turkish Invasion of Armenia" 1920" only gets 97 hits[11].--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on the wording used in sources, and the titles used on Wikipedia for similar events such as Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the already mentioned Red Army invasion of Georgia and Red Army invasion of Azerbaijan, but perhaps make it "1920 Turkish invasion of Armenia", which is already a redirect to this article, and keep the current title as a redirect. The Soviet invasion of Georgia and Soviet invasion of Azerbaijan articles are crucial for me in deciding what title to decide on. There is currently no "Red Army invasion of Armenia" article, but there should be one, and it would obviously be titled in the same way as those for Azerbaijan and Georgia. Since the subject of that yet to be written article is closely related to the subject of this article (all the sources suggest there was co-ordination between Kemalist Turkey and Soviet Russia in the invasion, and co-ordination in the rearrangement of the final border between Turkey and what was to become Soviet Armenia) this article needs to follow the title format found in the existing Azerbaijan and Georgia Soviet invasions article titles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources from Google Scholar:
The text "...promoting a Turkish invasion of Armenia while he was Acting Foreign Minister in 1920" is in Harris, George S. "Repairing Turkish-American Relations After The First World War: Ahmet Muhtar In Washington." Studies in Atatürk's Turkey. Brill, 2009. 145-176. A glance at the wording of the text that is viewable shows this source to be an AG denialist (or, at the very least, minimalist) text, so it is certainly not pro-Armenian.
Shamsey, John. "80 Years Too Late: The International Criminal Court and the 20th Century's First Genocide." in Journal of Transnational Law & Policy 11 (2001) [12], footnote 35 has "The Kemalist Turkish invasion of Armenia and ensuing Armeno-Turkish “war” by many is considered to be (although by a different government) the final Turkish attempt at the annihilation of the Armenian race.". Note the inverted commas around "war", signifying that the author does not seriously consider the term "war" to be appropriate for this event.
"The ink was scarcely dry on the August 10th, 1920 Treaty of Sevres, confirming Armenia's sovereignty and boundaries, when, on September 20th, with Soviet collusion, Kemal Ataturk ordered a Turkish invasion of Armenia." is how the event is described in Bakshian, Aram. "Andranik of Armenia." History Today 43 (1993).
In a book review of Vol. IV of Hovannisian's "Republic of Armenia", in The American Historical Review 102.4 (1997), the events covered in this article are described as "The Soviet-Turkish agreement and invasion of Armenia" [13]. I note that the book being reviews is being used extensively as a source for this article, so the terminology used by Hovannisian should be important in deciding this issue being discussed here. I do not have access to vol 4, but Hovannisian, in the introduction to "Armenian Kars and Ani", 2011, p6 writes "This period of optimism was cut short in the fall of 1921 by another Turkish invasion, this time by Mustafa Kemal's Nationalist armies". However, in the chapter written by Hovannisian titled "The Contest for Kars, 1914-1921", there is a section titled "The Armenian-Turkish war".
Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The original proponent and Tiptoe make convincing cases for a move. Jackal 03:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The Turkish invasion of Armenia (1920) is the most correct naming for the events. Wholly suits to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Lkahd (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it wholly suits to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA? See the Labattblueboy's analysis of the source list above. It's clearly not consistent with Precision as it can be referred to a number of other events(more so than our article), whereas the current title yields the most results both in relevance and quantity. Darwinian Ape talk 19:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But you keep neglecting that "Turkish-Armenian War" isn't proper English. It would have to be Turco-Armenian or Armeno-Turkish, and neither have as much results as Turkish Invasion. You put to much weight on the number of results when it's more important that the title applicable. For example, war of 1920 has more results than any proposed title because it's so vague, and it's for that same reason we cannot use it. --Oatitonimly (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not neglecting it, it's the choice of the most of the scholarly sources and should be used per commonname wether it's proper english or not. Your argument for "War of 1920" is only applicable for "Turkish invasion of Armenia" as it is shown above, the proposed title is vague and creates unnecessary ambiguity. The current title yields the most relevant results. Darwinian Ape talk 21:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is consistent with precision - it accurately defines the event being covered in the article - and it is also consistent with the naming conventions used for dozens of other Wikipedia articles (2003 invasion of Iraq, Invasion of France, Invasion of Poland, Invasion of Yugoslavia, German invasion of Luxembourg, to mention but a few). A particular point about the naming constituency is the importance of the title being consistent with titles used for closely related events, which is why the Soviet invasion of Georgia and Red Army invasion of Azerbaijan titles are important models to follow here. 13:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)
I'm sorry, but you gonna have to prove that the title "Turkish invasion of Armenia" refer mainly to this event and is better known than the current title, there are some sources that do refer it as an invasion but as you pointed out in your review of Hovannisian it's used descriptively and not as a title. There is also clear evidence that the suggested title refers to other events such as an 11th century invasion and some remarks about a more recent tension. As I looked at the "similarly named articles" argument I've come across Greek landing at Smyrna which the "Greek invasion of Smyrna" was a redirect of. In it's talk page, there is a similar question and you can see the exact reason why it was named that way, it simply yields more relevant results. Also there is Greco-Turkish War which is a larger campaign ensued after the aforementioned event. You may call it, by same logic, "Greek invasion of Ottoman Empire" but it's simply not a viable option because the events are generally called as Greco-Turkish War. Darwinian Ape talk 14:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Finally remembered the English rule being broken here: Classical compound. For this reason, "Turkish-Armenian is simply unacceptable. It would have to be Turco-Armenian or Armeno-Turkish, and both have less results. Not to mention, as the article and sources point out, war was never officially declared, and it's more of a massacre than a war (200,000 civilians killed and some ~10,000 soldiers killed). Oatitonimly (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay you have said this several times, and saying it again and again does not make it more convincing. Titles are for helping the reader find what they want and we have leeway to break the rules of english if that's what's common.(From wp:title : the Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. ) For your latter statement I would like to see some citations, the first citation in our article clearly states the war was officially declared [14] which is at odds with what you just said. Darwinian Ape talk 04:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not the first source and certainly a dubious one. Searched Andersen and it seems he had a Wikipedia article briefly before it was deleted due to him not being notable. Oatitonimly (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is the first citation of our article.(at the lede) Lack of WP notability of the author does not exclude scholarly work. There are tons of respected scholars without WP grade notability to have an article. I will not comment on wether the source is reliable or not, which I simply do not know. But you probably should provide your own sources before trying to discredit the sources in the article. Darwinian Ape talk 04:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Titles are for helping the reader find what they want" - anything that is not the article title could still be used as redirects. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well we may also name the article Some sort of war invasion thingy somewhere cold and use all other titles as redirects. I don't see why this is an issue, we have an objective standard to name articles and that's the quantity of its usage. Turkish-Armenian War yields most results. In fact, if anything "Armenian-Turkish war" and Armeno-Turkish/Turco-Armenian war titles should be added to the headcount for "Turkish Armenian war" because they are basically the same titles, which would increase the usage even more. Darwinian Ape talk 22:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those examples are not particularly good examples: they are almost all amedieval or earlier wars, before the concept of a nation state with fixed borders emerged. Polish-Ukrainian War and Polish–Lithuanian War were conflicts over control of territory that had no defined borders and that was part-controlled by both parties at the outset of the war, so "invasion" would not be appropriate terminology. The western border of Armenia was a defined border that exactly followed the pre-WW1 border and that was internationally recognized (the Ottoman Empire had been required to withdraw to that border after its surrender during WW1). If an invading army crosses a defined border and enters into another country's territory, it is appropriate to call it an invasion. Also, as I've already said, for this discussion I think matching the naming found in the closely related articles (Red Army invasion of Georgia and Red Army invasion of Azerbaijan) is important. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear. Those are not examples of articles called "war" instead of "invasion"; they are examples of articles which have compounds describing international relations formed in a what which Oatitonimly claims is incorrect. I take no position on whether the article should be called "Turkish-Armenian War" or "Turkish invasion of Armenia"; I am simply pointing out that wikipedia does allow titles of the form "Turkish-Armenian war" rather than "Turko-Armenian war". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had though when you had mentioned "red herring" about the compound wording issue (an assessment I agree with), that meant you were not then making further comments about that and instead were making an additional and different point about what the title should be. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changes[edit]

The article clearly acknowledges: On November 29, the Soviet Eleventh Army invaded Armenia at Karavansarai (present-day Ijevan).[1]

This is a neutral source. The Soviets must be included in the template, as they are for the Invasion of Poland page despite invading later.

The source claiming the Turks had 18,500 men is a Turkish source. I presented a Russian, American, Italian, and French sources, all putting the number range in 50[2][3]-60,000.[4][5] The Russian source, in particular, is from 1960 and most of the most first secondary sources available on this subject.

Also, Gala19000 insists on putting "Light" as the Turkish casualty, despite having no sources. --Oatitonimly (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you dumb or what? The Soviets invaded Armenia after this war. What you are adding had nothing to do with this. They didn't send any troops as part of the Turkish Armenian warz please infrom yourself with some better sourcea if you have any. Gala19000 (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"On November 29, the Soviet Eleventh Army invaded Armenia at Karavansarai" --Oatitonimly (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviets had only sended armament support to the Kemalists during the whole war. Gala19000 (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That invasion is not a part of the 

Turkish armenian war wich ended with the treaty of alexandropol. Gala19000 (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need sources to verify your claims. Oatitonimly (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My claim is the article self. Why are you trying so hard to prove somethingg that doesn't even make sence? The Soviets supported the Kemalists during the war with armament and the Allies supported the Armenians (on the easterns front). Read the article by yourself and you will see. If you want, you could make a article on the Soviet invasion of Armenia. You seem to be prety intrested on that part. Gala19000 (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkish invasion ended on December 2 and the Soviet invasion began on November 29. The Invasion of Poland typically refers to the Germans and the Soviets came in late, but they are both still listed none the less. You can't site the article, and even so it counters your claims. I will restore my cited version if you cannot provide a source that November 29 comes after December 2. --Oatitonimly (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to have a separate article. If that article had existed, with the invasion title to match the two related articles for Georgian and Azerbaijan, there would have been an better case to be made for this article also having a similar title. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you dumb or what? Go make a different aartocle about the Soviet invasion. This war is made up with the treaty of Alexandropol with doesn't include the Soviet take over of Armenia. The two invasions are not the same nor do they belong to each other. The Soviets took over all of Armenia after this war and that one had a different treaty as well. Gala19000 (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Invasion was only for a smal part of Armenia. They took all of it after this war. What are you even trying to prove with your statements? Gala19000 (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hewsen-237 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Kadishev, A.B. (1960), Интервенция и гражданская война в Закавказье [Intervention and civil war in the South Caucasus], Moscow, p. 324{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  3. ^ Andersen, Andrew. "TURKEY AFTER WORLD WAR I: LOSSES AND GAINS". Centre for Military and Strategic Studies.
  4. ^ Guaita, Giovanni (2001), 1700 Years of Faithfulness: History of Armenia and its Churches, Moscow: FAM, ISBN 5-89831-013-4
  5. ^ On the right of self-determination of the Armenian people of Nagorno-Karabakh

Deleted infobox and article content[edit]

I have deleted the infobox claim that "Turkey retakes land lost to Armenia in the Treaty of Sèvres" [15]. The territory of the Republic of Armenia entirely comprised territory that had formed part of the Russian Empire's pre-WW1 territory. None of this territory belonged to Turkey, so a claim that Turkey retook territory lost to Armenia is false. The citing of the Treaty of Sèvres is also false. That treaty did not give any territory to Armenia. In its article 89 [16] it stated that the future border between Turkey and Armenia would be decided by "the arbitration of the President of the United States of America", and whatever that arbitration decided, both Armenia and Turkey will agree to abide with that decision. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have also deleted the "Armenian offensive towards Olti and Bardiz areas" section in the article as pov synthesis [17]. This content contained the false claim that "There were Armenian raids into Turkish territory already in May 1920". Olti and Bardiz were both within the Russian Empire's pre-WW1 territory, and after the Ottoman Empire's surrender it was required to withdraw to its pre-WW1 borders, so any claim that they were "Turkish territory" is unjustified and whatever is left of the content is off topic (I suspect that it had been placed in the article to provide a false casus belli excuse for the Turkish invasion). If any editors wish to dispute these two edits, would they first give their reasons for disagreement here rather than reverting - the article has only recently been unprotected after being protected because of numerous reverting. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am rather disappointed that all the propaganda and lies that I removed have been reinserted. Reinserted without discussion, without any rebuttal of the reasoning I have given in the above. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soviets[edit]

The Soviets never ever took a part in this Turkish Armenian war. The treaty wich ended this war was only signed between the Turks and Armenians. After the end of this war, all of armenia was sovietized. The soviets never sided eith the Kemalists to invade armenia together. Please stop adding wrong content. Make a different article for the Soviet invasion. Gala19000 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you re-read some of the works on this subject, including Hovannisian's fourth volume. The Soviets invaded from the east, virtually around the same time as the Turkish invasion. Armenia was hemmed in from both sides, like a hammer against the anvil.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They indeed invaded at the same time. But still, their invasion was not a part of this war as included in the treaty. As I said, if they want to, then they should make a different article for the Soviet invasion wich was much more complicated then what it says in this article. The Soviets gave only armament support during the Turkish war of indpendence (including this one) and the Armenians got limited support from the alies Gala19000 (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And invading at the same time doesn't mean that it belongs to the same war. Gala19000 (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gala19000. The Bolshevik forces took advantage of the situation, a situation they partly engineered (or, at the least, encouraged and which they could have probably prevented if they had wanted to), but that is not the same as being a co-belligerent in this war. The war was an invasion of Armenia by Turkish forces, the battles were all between Turkish and Armenian armed units. 01:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)
They were both still allied though, and their role must be mentioned. I'm fine with removal of leaders and troops because it could be for its own page, but Soviet Russia should still be listed. As you pointed out, it Hovannisian considered it a joint Turkish and Soviet invasion. --Oatitonimly (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was going into a conflict infobox, and there are rules as to what can be included there. Article content is fine, but I think there is not a justification for including Soviet forces and leaders in the infobox as belligerents. I did not (as far as I recall) point out that Hovannisian considered it a joint Turkish and Soviet invasion. I do not know if he does or does not, but I think to consider it a joint military endeavor would be overstating it and oversimplifying it. What actual fighting occurred between the ROA and Bolshevik forces? 02:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)
You said:
In a book review of Vol. IV of Hovannisian's "Republic of Armenia", in The American Historical Review 102.4 (1997), the events covered in this article are described as "The Soviet-Turkish agreement and invasion of Armenia". I note that the book being reviews is being used extensively as a source for this article, so the terminology used by Hovannisian should be important in deciding this issue being discussed here.
There was little fighting by the Soviets in the invasion of Poland but they are still listed. --Oatitonimly (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This war is mentioned in The Promise (2016) movie.[edit]

Please mention that this Turkish–Armenian War plays major role in The Promise (2016) movie in this article. Ram nareshji (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move request[edit]

I requests to move the Page to Turkish–Armenian War (1920) لهثسن (talk) 08:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Telegram on "eliminate Armenia physically and politically"[edit]

I cannot verify the order "eliminate Armenia physically and politically" that is included in the beginning of the 2nd paragraph in the article. I have access to both books cited in this sentence, but these books cite another book which is basically a memoir of the Turkish army commander including most the telegrams he sent/received during the war (istiklal harbimiz from Kazim Karabekir). I also have access to this memoir, but I could not found the respective telegram or any other content resembling the quoted order. The two cited books in the article cite pages 564-565 of this memoir as the source for the telegram with the order with a date of 8 November 1920. However, the memoirs do not include any telegrams with such content or date.

Please update the article accordingly if the specific telegram that originates the statement of "eliminate Armenia physically and politically" is actually found to let the readers (and me) know. Thanks. 136.159.213.83 (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kévorkian is citing pp. 844–45 of the Karabekir memoir, the pages 564-565 are for the Dadrian book. Have you checked pages 844–45? Revolution Saga (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish–Armenian_War&oldid=1210194838"