Talk:Caucasus campaign

Whole page

Having read this page I'm firmly of the opinion that it doesn't meet the wikipedia rules regarding neutral point of view and should be scheduled for cleanup. Also the quality of the writing is often poor throughout; I often couldn't understand which side was attacking what owing to the garbled state of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecrm87 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree in that the quality of writing is poor throughout. I know which side is attacking which, but if I did not, I'd have a hard time knowing what was going on. I also think that the article has a very Armenian point of view. That is not to say the Armenians did not play a significant role, but the article makes them appear as if they were the main actors. My primary sources are a book written from the Turkish POV by an American, and one from the Russian POV by a Brit and a Russian, so I realize they are not necessarily inclined to spend much time talking about the Armenian contributions or actions. Still, the article needs more about other nations and groups.

DanielCar67 (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Middle Eastern theatre of World War I

Please see Talk:Middle Eastern theatre of World War I#Rename? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

1917 - All is Quiet - (General Yudenich)

"The new government removed the Grand Duke from his command and reassigned General Yudenich to a meaningless position in central Asia (he then retired from the army)."

Excuse me, could you name that "meaningless position in central Asia"? As I know, Yudenich refused to start new offensive in the Caucasus and was fired by the Provisional Govenrment. RamBow 22:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack??

I do not get what is going on with this page.. The editorials are become personal and one user makes editorial changes based on "I am switiching to this version by Khoikoi because Ottoman Reference did not provide sources and wrote up god knows what" Could someone help me to understand the logic behind these??? Thanks. --OttomanReference 03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way; I was just wondering the deleted section. The sections deleted do not even belong to me. If you look at the history of the article you can recognize that the text was in the article before my first edit... this version. I wish I was the guy who wrote those sentences than I could claim "god knows what" Wierd... --OttomanReference 03:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

This article is faulty in that the Iranian frontier consisted of basically western and northern Iran, not only up to Tabriz. See: Persian Campaign.Hajji Piruz 14:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The total redesign by a banned user

Hajji Piruz pointed out a problem that is reflected through out the article and its subsets. User user:Hetoum I is the banned user user:Hetoum. Either not really knowing the military terms and military history, s/he tries to turn this campaign into a front. Front is composed of campaigns and turning a battle and its military operations (sub-conflicts or coordinated battles into a military campaign) see her/his beginning edits move the century old battle into a campaign against a city.. He renames the articles using Russian terminology and not wikipedia naming rules. It is also true that he does not really understand why there is a Persian Campaign and tries to turn this campaign and its military operations part of "Caucasus Campaign". Most of the changes s/he performs are basic historical revisionism. I have had many problems with this user in the past. He does not listen, and he does not accept other views. he gets his resources from political propaganda sources, and tries to back them with citations from websites. What he is doing is wrong, but I do not see anyway to deal with him. Thanks. --OttomanReference 17:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hetoum is not banned. Hetoum I is on vacation. OttomanReference you're in violation of WP:NPA, comment on the article not the contributor. --VartanM 17:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I did not personally attach the user in line of WP:NPA. AS stated redefining "Caucasus Campaign" is the argument here, not him/her and it is a major issue. It is just not one article but all the battles are redefined. I was simply stating a fact that historically established facts are constantly modified by this user, such as presenting an operation against a city into a Campaign. And hope you as a user who claim that you have an WP:NPA, would understand the size of the problem. I personalty quit trying to present citations to this user. Thanks--OttomanReference 18:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As I stated with the first message; I personally not going to take on this issue because of the given reasons. I wanted to remind you that ""there is no dialog between him/her and me"" and I'm not trying to establish one :-)). For the other argument I was simply pointing to check this. Thanks --OttomanReference 18:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling him banned user while he was never blocked,[1] [2] questioning his knowledge about military history, calling his edits historical revisionism, their all personal attacks. I'm not saying these to defend him, I just want you to understand the wikipedia rules. --VartanM 03:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Russianeda.JPG

Image:Russianeda.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgian involvement on the Russian side???

I recall a few months prior, Georgia was listed as being on Russia's side...Did they give any troops to help the Russians and Armenians?

Now they are listed as being on Germany's side. That's because the German Expedition helped them become independent. But that was later.

Can someone please clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.131.220 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

inconsistency

There are inconsistency in the article: “Erivan assigned 1th Division under General Christophor Araratov” 1th is not the truth. It may be 1st or it may be 4th, 5th ... It is possible that the number is wrong, or the “th” is wrong. I do not know what of that is wrong or true. It may be a typo of the th or a typo of the number, or it may be vandalism. Please check it. --Diwas (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Same text is at Christophor Araratov#First World War --Diwas (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

removal destruction & effect on Ottoman side by Armenian nationalists

The article is constantly sanitized by Armenians. It is based on Armenian views. It is an obscure claim that there was not Ottoman deaths and destruction on their cities. It is not just Armenian property and life is lost during the conflict, claiming so is rewriting the history!!! --Ahmet1992 (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to what? Denying that they ever took place and laying the blame on the victims themselves? The massacres that took place in the Caucasus were vritually one-sided and carried out by the Ottoman authorities against a second-class population that didn't even weapons to defend themselves, let alone carry out any retaliation. Turkish state revisionism is unacceptable and foisting its propaganda here isn't going to work either. Those images are not backed by any reliable sources and will be promptly deleted. And do mind WP:AGF. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying removal of references regarding destruction & death on one the Ottoman side is wrong. Claiming there is no death and destruction on Ottoman cities and civilians is not factually correct. The remarks such as "another imagge for a turkish propoganda" does not fall into WP:AGF. --Ahmet1992 (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no viable reason to remove Armenian Genocide or Russo-Turkish Wars from the See also heading. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Soviet destruction of the Democratic Republic of Georgia; Tiflis

The phrase "the soviet destruction of the Democratic Republic of Georgia" should be completely reworded. Not only is the neutrality of such phrasing questionable, but it is also misleading as it seems to convey the message that the Red Army completely destroyed the country, instead of what actually happened, which was a standard invasion and toppling of government. Also, next to it is a photo of soviet troops in Tiflis and the caption reads "The 11th Red Army destroyed Tiflis". Again, what kind of wording is that? Either someone demonstrates that Tiflis ceased to physically exist due to the "11th Red Army"'s actions or the caption is reworded. In the article of the Battle for Tiflis the same image has a much better, accurate and objective caption, something along the lines "The Red Army ocupies Tiflis". 189.181.69.42 (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)ZK

Changes

There has been an increasing number of changes to this article to portray some kind of "Muslim Turkish Genocide" based on unreliable sources.

"Rudolph Rummel cites a figure of 500,000 Central Asian Turks being massacred by the Russian Army from Arnold Toynbee." Toynbee died in 1883, this statistic has nothing to do with WW1. In addition, a primary source this old on its own is no longer reliable.

Next, Rummel does not state "that 150,000 muslims were killed by Russian troops and Armenian irregulars during the period between 1914–1915" nor did he "further states a further 40,000 Muslims were killed by Armenian troops in the region occupied by Russian troops between 1917 and 1918". He just repeats the figures from "the Turkish statistician" Ahmed Emin, whom has no apparent credibility, and Rummel says Emin "was hardly sympathetic to the Armenians" meaning he's just another genocide denier that Rummel wasn't even stating was a credible source.

I tried to see if there were any other figures from reliable sources claiming ~150,000 Ottoman Muslims were "massacred". Stefan Ihrig's "Justifying Genocide: Germany and the Armenians from Bismark to Hitler" explains this hoax, where from pages 168 to 170 he reveals that this figures comes from German newspapers that were covering up the Armenian Genocide and tried to portray it was a rebellion being put down; it's just the standard genocide denial.

This needs to be removed. Neither Muslims nor Turks were victims of organized ethnic cleansing like the Armenians and the only people who claim such are revisionist genocide deniers. A similar thing is done by Holocaust deniers. As Taner Akcam said best, "The reason for this call is not only the scale of the Armenian genocide, which was in no way comparable to the individual acts of revenge carried out against Muslims." Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Arnold J. Toynbee.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I self-reverted only to tell you that the article links to his uncle. Regardless, Arnold J. was referring to "500,000 Turkish-speaking Central Asian Nomads of the Kirghiz Qazaq Confederacy". What does Kyrgyzstan have to do with the Caucasus? This is a huge distortion of a source that was probably done intentionally. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This was published in 1946, the book cited by Rummel was published in 1922. They maybe the same book, they may not.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Please check the citation of the 1946 source I provided. It is cited to the 1922 publication (see: The Western Question in Greece and Turkey, pp. 339-42). At any rate, this discussion is moot. Central Asia and the Kirgiz people have nothing to do with the Caucasus so it shouldn't even be on this article. 18:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This is the original [[3]], and does refer to events in Turkmenistan, not the Caucasus. But please do not block delete, just undo this one passage and lets discus the rest.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup, this is an article on the Caucasus, not Central Asia Turkestan. I'm glad I stepped in to fix this mess. I also can't believe this kind of misleading and off-topic material has been in this article for this long. And I've already discussed the rest in my initial comment on the TP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but you need to get agreement to remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

For example your second suggestion is about ignoring what the RS says, "Which enables me to calculate the massacre's total (line 101), which I get as 128,000 Muslims killed. In consolidating this with the 600,000 figure I very conservatively raise it to only 150,000 ". So yes Rummel, explicitly, says the 150,00 figure is his "conservative" estimate.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

First off, see WP:BURDEN: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." I am removing material that fails verification. Please, do not add unverified material. For example, we should not have material about Turkestan in this article until we look into the sources that verify the claim before allowing the readership to read up on it. Otherwise, we will be guilty of adding false and misleading information wherein which this article has been doing for quite some time now. The same can be said for the 150,000 estimates. So again, you did not respond to Ahmed Emin's concerns of bias. He was not a "sympathetic" person towards the Armenians, hence why his figures are not reliable. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ahmed Emin "was not a "sympathetic" person towards the Armenians". Isn't the criteria for adding information based mainly on if the source meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary, not whether someone is sympathetic or not to a people or causes. You need to provide more sufficient information about this as to what you mean. Otherwise it is more on the wp:idontlikeit side.Resnjari (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, these aren't Rummel's estimates but the estimates of a Turkish nationalist named Ahmet Emin. As Rummel says: "Still, only one possibly good source and one very questionable one underlies this estimate". Which is a problem with this figure as a whole. There are barely any sources for it, and of those few sources they are all almost a hundred years old and many are made by Armenian Genocide deniers. Ahmet Emin was one such denialist and a staunch Turkish nationalist who went even further to say that the massacres of Armenians were initiated by the Armenians themselves (page 18). He is hardly a reliable source. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, understood.Resnjari (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

And as i pointed out that is not true, he says he used Emin's figures to come to his own "conservative" estimate. Also it does not matter, if an RS gives a figure we repeat it, we do not analyse or second guess sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caucasus Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070424044332/http://www.amsi.ge/istoria/sab/yarsi.html to http://www.amsi.ge/istoria/sab/yarsi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Campaña del Caucaso.png
• Ofensiva Bergman.png
• Ofensiva turca de 1918 en el Caucaso.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Commanders

The list of commanders are those who commanded large formations or national contingents. It is not a list of every officer who served.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Rafael de Nogales Méndez

Rafael de Nogales Méndez was a mayor who was really important since he is one of the soldier who witnessed the armenian genocide. Also he is a interesting historical character because he fought in many different conflicts, but he is ignored because he nation was neutral. Dr. Castillo Paez (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

That does not mean he should go in the infox box, which is reserved for those who commanded large formations or national contingents. Generally generals do not count.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

1915

This section refers to "resulting naval operations in the Black Sea." Russia asked for help from the Western Allies but no operations in the Black Sea could come from the British or French because Constantinp[le and the Bosporus were in the way. Italy and USA were not yet in the war but would face the same problem. Romania was not in the War. Turkey could attack the Russian fleet uusing the ships lent by the Germans as well as their own but these would not result from the Russiajn requests to their Allies-quite the reverse.Spinney Hill (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The Armenian volunteer units could not definitely (?!) be a factor in the defeat of the Ottomans at Sarikamish, because Russian forces were supported by only four combat Armenian volunteer druzhinas, or squads, each numbering a few hundred Russian (not Ottoman) Armenians. How could such a small contingent be a "factor" in the Ottoman defeats? This sentence needs to be rephrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.173.64.115 (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Infobox "Result"

Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Change the the "Result" to "Ottoman victory"

It has been extremely clear that the Caucasus campaign was an Ottoman victory and not a "Transcaucasian victory" reasons why.

1.Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic had dissolved in 1918 26th of May as a result of the Ottoman counter offensive deep into the southern Caucasus reaching the Caspian Sea (Battle of Baku).

2.The original Caucasus campaign had started as a result of the Russian invasion from the Caucasus into Ottoman Anatolia which it's invasion had been halted and a subsequent Ottoman counter offensive had completely repelled the Russian Army, with the Russian Civil War raging on the Ottomans had another offensive with the Islamic Army of the Caucasus led by Enver Pasha.

Source: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/the-ottoman-islamic-army.html Humbler21 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Any thing stated in the infobox or the lead must be supported by the body of the article and particularly by the Aftermath section in this case. I am not seeing that the aftermath section supports describing this as a victory for any body. The aftermath section clearly needs further development. It also seems clear that there will be nuance to any claim that somebody won, in which case, the result in the infobox should probably be See Aftermath section. War History Online has been discussed as a reliable source here. It would appear to be a questionable source - not one I would hang my hat on for describing this as an Ottoman victory. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

  I understand, but I would like to know the reason as too why it was accepted to be a "Transcaucasian victory" in the first place when 1st this is not backed up anywhere in the article and 2nd using common sense anyone would know that they had not won as they dissolved months before the war ended as a result of the Ottoman invasion Humbler21 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Scope of article and result parameter

This article nominally covers a period from October 1914 (when the Ottoman Empire entered WWI) until 30 October 1918, marked by the Armistice of Mudros that ended hostilities in the Middle Eastern theatre between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies of World War I. However, the campaign between the Ottomans and the Russians terminated with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk of 4 June 1918, which was a consequence of the Russian revolution and is generally seen as a victory for the Central Powers over Russia.

In respect to the result parameter, there are views that the campaign was an Ottoman victory with the Aftermath stating: The Ottomans Empire during the Caucasus Campaign were able to successfully halt the Russian invasion into Eastern Anatolia and led a successful counter-offensive against the Russians forcing them to withdraw. With the subsequent Russian Civil War this allowed for the Ottoman's (Islamic Army of the Caucasus) led by Enver Pasha to advance deep into South Caucasus causing the dissolution of the Transcaucasian DFR in which the Islamic Army of the Caucasus had reached the Caspian Sea and won a decisive victory at Battle of Baku effectively ending the war [this campaign]. The Battle of Baku ended on 14 September 1918. Yet this campaign is reported to have ended on 30 October 1918.

The Operations section of the article would also state: In October, Ottoman troops pursued General Andranik's Armenian forces into mountainous Karabagh and Zangezur. The conflict was fierce, but indecisive. The Armenian militia under Andranik's command decimated an Ottoman unit trying to advance to the Varanda River. The armed conflicts between these units continued until the Armistice of Mudros was signed on October 30. By then the Ottomans had re-captured all the territory which they lost to the Russians in Eastern Anatolia. The Armistice enabled General Andranik to create a base for further advancing eastward and to form a strategic corridor extending into Nakhichevan. Clearly, the fighting has continued after the Battle of Baku.

Other editors would claim this to be a Transcaucasian victory (see this edit) The citation lacks a page and I cannot access a copy to confirm the citation. The reason for such an assertion are unclear. It may be the view that because the Transcaucuses opposed the Ottoman Empire, the Armistice of Mudros signals a Transcaucasian victory. However, there was no Transcaucasian polity by 30 October 1918. The Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic had dissolved into the three separate republics of the Democratic Republic of Georgia, the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and the Republic of Armenia by 28 May 1918.

There arises a question of scope of the article which, in all probability is a Wiki construct rather than one defined by sources. While fighting in the region was contiguous until at least 30 October 1918, the fighting until 4 June 1918 was against Russia. There then arises the question as to whether what followed 4 June 1918 is the same conflict. If not, these events could be divided from the Operations section as Subsequent events. There is also a question as to whether 30 October 1918 marked a clear disengagement of Ottoman Turkey from the military activities that continued in this area. Armenian–Azerbaijani war (1918–1920) would report Ottoman involvement in July 1919?

For further comment. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the citation, the preface is signed 19 May 1917. Not sure how this would be usable. Mellk (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Casualties in infobox

Dushnilkin, where in the body of the article and the text you quoted does it report a figure of 170,000 Turkish deaths from disease attributed to Erikson?. Where on page 241 of Erikson does it report 170,000 Turkish deaths by disease in the Caucasus? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I returned the old source specified before the edits, I specified my data in the "losses" section Dushnilkin (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

If one had bothered to address the two questions posed, the answer to both is no. Erikson, p. 241 is the citation reinstated to the infobox for the figure of 170,000 casualties by disease. It is not given by Erikson. If one had followed the edits to the casualties section in the body of the article, one would have observed that a previous inclusion of the figure of 170,000 was removed in this edit with the summary: Remove OR not verified by Erikson. Erikson, p. 241 gives total Turkish casualties across WW1 by year, not campaign. This had been used to calculate a ratio of combat death to disease deaths, which, in turn, was used to estimate disease deaths in the Caucasus campaign. That is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. The 170,000 figure has no place in the article (including the infobox). The range 300,000-405,733 in the infobox is attributed to Allen and Muratoff. Only the first figure is attributable to these authors. Adding the second figure to create the range misrepresents the source. Where this figure came from when it was not attributable to those authors was why I reverted your edit that first added the second figure. Reinstating the figure is without defence. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, given your edit just now to reinstate figures to the infobox, you might consider the verifiability of sources used for the Turkish and Russian casualties (see section #Russian casualties in infobox immediately below). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Russian casualties in infobox

Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, what appears in the infobox should be supported by the body of the article. The casualties section in the article states: There were 50,000 irrecoverable losses in the period of June–September 1916 alone, mostly from non-combat causes. This is attributed to Allen and Muratoff. The section does not report a figure of 140,000 reported in the infobox. The second note against this figure in the infobox would indicate additional casualtied from particular battles, using Wiki links to those battles as some sort of Quasi source. WP is not a WP:RS. This figure cannot stand. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Cinderella157, feel free to revert my changes. I noticed unexplained changes by a particular editor that has been disruptively editing over multiple articles. If you need further input just let me know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The ability to change the total in the infbox

From a purely technical point of view, a rather strange result in the article, the campaign ended with the Armistice of Mudros and the Sevres treaty. Subsequently, looking at the discussions above, the military successes of the Ottomans in 1918 could not fully cover the defeats before that, besides, the offensive into Armenia was repulsed. So I think it is more logical to put the victory of the Entente.

@Kansas Bear, @Rxsxuis, @Cinderella157 I want to hear your opinion on this matter. Dushnilkin (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it is fair to state the outcome as a victory for the Entente, since he made quite convincing arguments. Rxsxuis (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

What happened following the Russian revolution is significant nuance and is explained in the section for 1918. It also adds significant nuance to the result. The Armistice of Mudros was not forced because of the result in the Caucasus nor a general Ottoman collapse but a realisation that the war was unwinnable. While the war against the Ottomans can be described as an Entente victory, it does not follow that this campaign, with all the nuance that occurred in the final year was also an Entente victory. The rational by the OP is inherently WP:OR - it is not based on how RSs ascribe the result. This is inherently why we have the advice at WP:RESULT and why the see Aftermath is most appropriate here - to present the nuance in prose for which the infobox is unsuited. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that all the fronts of this war are connected (which is well described in the book by Muratov and Allen) if in the case of the eastern front, both countries that participated in the fighting were forced to sign a separate peace, then in this case Armenia inflicted a very convincing defeat on the Ottomans and continued to attract the forces of the central powers here, with further By the collapse of the Turks, they were forced to cede lands in Anatolia to the Armenians.

I do not think that the fact of the nonsurrender of the Ottomans here deprives us of the opportunity to state the victory of the Entente. Dushnilkin (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, this is a rationalisation to support a conclusion (WP:OR) and not a verifiable statement from sources explicitly stating the campaign to be an Entente victory. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Do any RS say they won, this campaign? Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to search it, if I find it, I'll point it out right away, no problem? Dushnilkin (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No, in fact it is the minimum we would expect. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Slatersteven, we need WP:RS to support this change.--Kansas Bear (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Dushnilkin (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

In general, there was a little time and I will quote Allen: p. 497: Under the terms of the armistice of Mudros (30 October 1918) the Turkish army was obliged ot withdraw to the west of the 1914 frontier. Evacuating Azerbaijan and lal eastern Transcaucasia, the Turks reached the 187 frontier at the Arpa-çay on 4 December.

However, these are not the final changes, because by 1919 the Turks were within the borders of 1916 (without eastern Anatolia; p. 498)

Given all this, I don't see any point in arguing about the outcome of the campaign.

The victory over the Ottomans is also mentioned here [4] Dushnilkin (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Can Armenia and the other remains of the Russian Empire be described as "Entente Powers? " They did receive encouragement in the form of money. I am not sure if there was a formal alliance (I prefer "Allies" to "Entente" but maybe I'm old fashioned) The only Entente Powers that seem to have been involved were Russia, Britain, the Commonwealth countries and to a very limited extent Japan. Russia of course withdrew before the end of the campaign and so it can hardly be called a Russian victory. Although France took part in the war against the Turks they were confined to the west of the Ottoman Empire, not the Caucasus.. If Italy and Serbia were involved the same applies to them. Belgium, Portugal and US were not involved in the War against Turkey at all. If we include Armenia etc as part of the entente I think they would have to be shown to co-ordinate their efforts with Britain and the Commonwealth and vice-versa. . Spinney Hill (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Spinney Hill (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The Armenians accepted Russian citizenship and entered the war on its side, de jure and de facto becoming members of the entente, they fought with the British and were invited to sign the Sevres Treaty, so the Armenians can be attributed to the Entente with full confidence.

It is for this reason that I want to write in the end "The Victory of the Entente", and not some separate side, after the fall of Russia, the countries coordinated and repelled the Ottoman offensive. Dushnilkin (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear, @Cinderella157 I am still waiting for your answers on this topic Dushnilkin (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

My life does not revolve around answering you and Wiki editors come from around the world which has over 24 time zones. However, I see that arguments are still being made in a way that would attempt to rationalise the result and this still falls to WP:OR. In my OP, I referred to how RSs ascribe the result [note the use of the plural form]. You have indicated one source, the content of which, I cannot see. I cannot determine if it is actually saying X victory or the content is being interpreted to mean that in a similar way to the arguments above that would rationalise this as an Entente victory. But with anything, the fuller context is also important. More importantly, I cannot see anything on the web site that would indicate it to be a reliable source. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

What you've quoted doesn't state victory for Entente powers, which could be seen as original research by other editors.

I have no idea who runs that website and their sources have no page numbers.--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The Turks lost territories and agreed to the terms of the Armenian side, at the expense of the site. If we can't change the result by referring to this, then it all exactly needs to be indicated in the article. Dushnilkin (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)