Talk:Occupation of Istanbul

Comments

Untitled

Yet another fine work of Turkish propaganda, let down by being written in bad English (an unfortunate but inevitable side-effect of verbatim copying from Turkish books). Meowy 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Apart from the overal tone of the entry, which appears to me to be POV, a serious problem I have with this entry is its supposed sources. Many sources are listed, including original documents held in British Foreign Office records. However, I think it is highly improbable that the editors of this page have seen such original documents, and is more likely that a lot of the information in the entry is taken from a single, uncited, source and not from the multiple sources that are cited. This is against [[1]] which says that it is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. Meowy 00:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In October I asked ottomanreference to respond to my concerns. Using that editor's talk page I wrote "I have problems with the references you have cited in this page: Occupation_of_Istanbul. Basically, I have a suspicion that much of the information in the entry is taken from a uncited source and not from the multiple sources that are cited. I am particularly concerned about the F.O. documents you cited, since it would be unusual for an editor to have access to such material. Can you confirm that you have indeed consulted such materials, and, if you have, say why it would not be counted as original research. If however, there is actually an uncited source, you should mention it: it is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making it clear that you saw only that intermediate source. There has been no response. For this reason I have now added a disputed tag to the article. Meowy 16:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

An editor removed the disputed tag, without giving any explanation. I have now re-inserted it. It is justified, and it will remain justified until the points I have raised have been answered.

We see on another page on Wikipedia, Turkish_Courts-Martial_of_1919-20, again produced mostly by OttomanReference, a similar listing of British Foreign Office documents. However, this time they are correctly attributed to their original source - a book by Bilal Simsir. Simsir is a former Turkish diplomat who sits on the board of the "Institute for Armenian Research", an Ankara-based organisation that is financed by the Turkish State and exists to produce propagandistic tracts that seek to deny the Armenian Genocide. Simsir is, in other words, an author well-known for producing propagandistic works. It would appear to be a fair assumption that this article also makes extensive (uncredited) use of a work by Simsir. Meowy 17:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I read your response. It is your position that "Bilal Simsir" is Turkish. You claim "he is basied and propagandistic like the rest of the Turkish people." Consequently, you reject his position. The article have other citations as you personally argued in your first response. The Wikipedia demands citations as the source of the statements. POV based statements (gut feelings) are not accepted like "I have a suspicion that much of the information". Your personally position is your POV. I totally agree that you have the right to hate "Simsir" and consequently all Turkish people. That is another point, which is not relevant with the article.
POV from yours or consequently others (which you say Ottoman..something) are not credible. What is credible is cited information. The article is full of it. You can claim that the reported "fact" is wrong or misleading based on ....(author, publication, page). You have not brought any forward. You have to bring substantiated citations to establish your arguments. Currently only citation you brought is your gut feelings and statements like "I have raised".
Also, Wikipedia is not the place to build or destroy cited sources. That is applicable to "Bilal Simsir." You can not attack personalities. Your personal issues with Bilal Simsir, is irrelevant. As the statements are cited, the use of factual taq is invalid, until you brought citations proves otherwise. --Rateslines (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You had better learn how to behave properly on Wikipedia. I hope you do not make a habit of fabricating quotes in order to claim that editors have said things they have not actually said. I will not reply further to your above comments since there is no point in talking to a liar. Meowy 01:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how the fuck did this fascist asshole Meowy have his bullshit insults not removed by the admins?

I suspect neutrality of some works of Bilâl N. Şimşir, for example Kürtçülük, (1787-1923), Ermeni Meselesi, 1774-2005. Because even if he used official foreign documents, he wrote by his POV. But I don't find any drawbacks in his British Documents on .... series. Takabeg (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Syntax

Heavy corrections to syntax are needed; additionally, portions have discordant structure and poorly grouped fragments of thought.Mavigogun (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, indeed, its not really English, but I'm not sure enough of what they mean to change it more than I have.

IceDragon64 (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This page should be called "Occupation of Constantinople" - Istanbul has never been occupied because Istanbul did not exist until 1930. Constantinople was the name. Tourskin (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support. This was certainly the normal contemporary usage; although Istanbul goes back to before the Turkish conquest of 1453. In addition, the capital of the Ottoman Empire was not the present city of Istanbul, on both sides of the Bosphorus; it lay between the Golden Horn and the Sea of Marmora, so the present title is misleading. (What is this episode called now, in English? I await evidence.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair points. Surely there must be some objections? I expected a barrage of nationalistic "no's". By the way, I don't understad your argument that the capital was not constantinople and yet it was?Tourskin (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Per nominator.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - while Istanbul was used by some at the time, it was not widely adopted until the subsequent establishment of the Turkish republic. At the time of the occupation, the most common name would have been Constantinople; therefore, the current name is anachronistic. (There is the potential for some confusion with the various Sieges of Constantinople, but I think that can be avoided through a disambiguation link.) Terraxos (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

?

Unbelievable that they just abandoned the city and gave it up whit out a fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.73.104 (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone is believing the Turkish propaganda, I think. The stuff that goes along the lines of "the nasty expansionist European Powers, plotting and conniving for a century to grab control of Constantinople from the innocent and peaceful Ottoman Empire". The truth is that no European Power ever wanted it, and they were there only reluctantly and halfheartedly as a result of the Ottoman Empire's activities in WW1. That is why they gave it up "without a fight". Meowy 20:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No european power ever wanted it? That is really absurd.

The truth is meowy is a moron. Everyone wanted it for the strategic position at least.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

'No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Occupation of Constantinople → Occupation of Istanbul – per WP:COMMONNAME

1918?-2011:

• 1918 "Occupation of Constantinople" -Llc minimum 218
• 1918 "Occupation of Istanbul" -Llc minimum 144

1930–2011:

• 1918 "Occupation of Constantinople" -Llc minimum 131
• 1918 "Occupation of Istanbul" -Llc minimum 138

1960–2011:

• 1918 "Occupation of Constantinople" -Llc minimum 107
• 1918 "Occupation of Istanbul" -Llc minimum 131

1980-2011:

• 1918 "Occupation of Constantinople" -Llc minimum 73
• 1918 "Occupation of Istanbul" -Llc minimum 103

2000-2011:

• 1918 "Occupation of Constantinople" -Llc minimum 20
• 1918 "Occupation of Istanbul" -Llc minimum 49

It's clear that modern scholars prefer Occupation of Istanbul. Takabeg (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think searching for the exact phrase gives you a meaningful result. The issue should be, "In a WWI context, is this city more commonly referred to as "Istanbul" or "Constantinople"? Marshall's World War I (2001) uses "Constantinople" exclusively. A World Undone (2007) by G.J. Meyer uses "Constantinople" predominantly. This is the WWI book that popped up first for me on Amazon. Kauffner (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose See also A Peace to End All Peace, which discusses the occupation at some length; Google Books will show me this page. Contemporary usage was clearly Constantinople, and modern scholars will follow it. (As I see I said above, Istanbul is attested long before - but not as the normal usage; is it attested at all before this glossary of Ottoman terms from 1759? Istanbul is only significantly attested since the enlargement of the city in 1930; Constantinople is now essentially a historic term, but we should use it for that history.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I should also note that at least one of the "sources" for Occupation of Istanbul is a citation of this article, under its present title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't user Books Ngram Viewer. Because as you know, we can find many samples of "Occupation of Constantinople" before 1918. It peakes in 1870. Takabeg (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• The issue "since the enlargement of the city in 1930" is not related with this article. About this issue you can go to Talk:Istanbul#Istanbul/Constantinople. Takabeg (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is related; just as the title of Battle of Stalingrad is related to Stalin's reputation. Within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title, or a historic name when discussing a past period. Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around. Many towns, however, should keep the same name; it is a question of fact, of actual English usage, in all cases. For example, when discussing the city now called Istanbul, Wikipedia uses Byzantium in ancient Greece, and Constantinople for the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and also the Ottoman Empire. Similarly, use Stalingrad when discussing the city now called Volgograd in the context of World War II.
  • What is genuinely unrelated is the use of "occupation of Constantinople" as a potential consequence of the Russo-Turkish War.

  In short, what we want is what reliable sources, especially works of general reference, call the subject. Ngram is a vivid indication of that; but not infallible. 23:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Comparing with Battle of Stalingrad is nothing but sophistry. Not similar :) Modern scholars prefer Occupation of Istanbul. But modern scholars don't prefer Battle of Volgograd. See:

• 1942 "Battle of Stalingrad" -Llc 396
• 1942 "Battle of Volgograd" -Llc 8

Takabeg (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

An example when Ngrams are so one-sided as to be conclusive; that's because nobody used Volgograd in 1942; it hadn't been invented yet. Istanbul, a genuine linguistic development, has always been a Turkish name for the city, more common than Konstantiyeh; in 1918, however, it had scarcely been received into English. It has been now, of course.

But the authors cited, Marshall, Meyer, Fromkin, are modern scholars. Denying that on the basis of Ngram exaggerates its usefulness; it is a substitute when we are too busy or lazy to consult the sources, or there are too many of them for hope. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Primary topic of Occupation of Constantinople is the Fall of Constantinople (1453 + "Occupation of Constantinople" -Llc), and we can find some samples of Siege of Constantinople (1204) by Fourth Crusade. Google Ngram Viewer also indicates this fact. Takabeg (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Then the article title can be Occupation of Constantinople (1918-1920). This is getting pretty far afield from the Istanbul/Constantinople issue. Kauffner (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, these facts are mutually related. Ngram shows that the term "Occupation of Constantinople" have been used before 1800s. They are not this "Occupation" that took place in 1918. And, in Ngram, the frequency in use of this term doesn't increase even in modern days. I didn't say "Occupation of Constantinople" is wrong, but "Occupation of Istanbul" is widely accepted by modern scholarship.Takabeg (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This RM is just about replacing "Constantinople" with "Istanbul". The "Occupation of" aspect of the title isn't at issue. Kauffner (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Our aim should not be to find out and use how this event was called in the context of the WWI. This would be original research of Wikipedians and amounts to dictate which term should be used. Our aim should be which term is used currently about this event in the English language sources. Takabeg demonstrated that Occupation of Istanbul is the more than twice more common than Occupation of Constantinople. Filanca (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If there is even a single published account anywhere that calls this event "Occupation of Constantinople", then the current title isn't original, now is it? There are many original "descriptive titles" on Wiki, although obviously a title that can be sourced must be preferred. Kauffner (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If there is one publication calling this event as "Occupation of Constantinople" while many others call it "Occupation of Istanbul", we should use the commonly used one, right? According to WP:UCN "the most common name for a subject is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural" If we insist to seek and use names that have dropped out of use because we think they are more proper for some reason, that would be "original research". Filanca (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

An interesting counterfactual, but not the case. Consulting reliable sources, recently written, independent of their usage on this point, finds (unsurprisingly, to those of us with no agenda), that they follow the contemporary usage for this event. It has not dropped out of use. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it has not dropped out of usage yet, buy it is less common compared to another term. What do you think of Takabeg's argument and figures above? For example, "Occupation of Istanbul" being used more than two times more commonly than "Occupation of Constantinople" in English publications of 21st century? Meanwhile, this is not the proper place to speak of your suspicions about any of us here having an "agenda". Let us keep this discussion page about the article only. Filanca (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Methinks the gentleman doth protest a bit much; all are welcome to have no agenda.

The count Takabeg uses includes citations of very different worth, including one which is citing this very article; his method of counting them is flawed. Under those circumstances, consulting the actual usage of reliable sources is stronger evidence than these fairly even counts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of search engines, especially Google Books for finding a common name is a valid method suggested by Wikipedia (WP:UCN, WP:SET). I see nothing unusual how it is done in this case, but if you see something went wrong, you may tell us. When we set aside the book that cites this article, the counts are not 'fairly even', especially for those published in 21st century: 20 versus 48, Occupation of Istanbul being more than twice more popular. Filanca (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It is permissible, with severe restrictions, mentioned in the guidelines linked; using it to ignore what reliable sources actually use is not permissible.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you rephrase that please? I have a bit of difficulty to make sense out of what you wrote :) Filanca (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The city was commonly referred to as "Constantinople" by most of the world at least until the late 1920s. Even the Turkish post office still officially called it Constantinople. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

However we should consider how this event (not the city) is referred to in English texts today (not in 1920) Filanca (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No we shouldn't. That's politically correct revisionism and is frowned upon in serious works such as Wikipedia. That's why we refer, for instance, to the Defense of the Polish Post Office in Danzig and not the Defense of the Polish Post Office in Gdańsk. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Defense of the Polish Post Office in Danzig is more popular than Gdansk so name of the article is justified. We should use the same criteria here for this article, too. Filanca (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

De facto occupation

De facto occupation would be occupation by force of arms, like the Russian occupation of Trebizond in 1916. The occupation of Constantinople was subject to the provisions of an armistice, and is insofar de jure.

The sentence The occupation had two stages: the de facto stage from November 13, 1918 to March 16, 1920, and the de jure stage from March 16, 1920 to the days following the Treaty of Lausanne ( signed July 24, 1923 ). is therefore wrong (as well as mispunctuated). Citing it to the identical wording in this source is citing a Wikipedia mirror, an unreliable source. The authors are a team of three who make a practice of selling Wikipedia echoes; they appear to be the sole "outside" source for this imaginary distinction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This line of discussion also makes the parliament of 1920 look feckless, which is both POV and unsupported. Failing to recognize that a de facto occupation exists would be pretending that the Allied forces weren't present; failing to recognize an occupation is asserting that they had no right to be present, a different assertion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not think that I am acting dogmaticly insistant but this is not the only source speaking about a de facto occupation. See [2]. I did not understand how you found out that the Surhone et al are making a living by selling Wikipedia echoes. Filanca (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That isthe view of a polemicist who offers a new view of "reality" to oppose the standard notions; "in reality" is diagnostic. That such polemics exist may deserve notice (especially if they have been noticed by anybody outside some small circle of the like-minded); WP:UNDUE applies. However, WP:UNDUE also forbids us to express controversial views as though they were consensus of the sources.

I do not know that Surhone and his friends are making a living by reprinting Wikipedia; they may not be doing that well; but they are certainly reprinting Wikipedia. Their works are findable at Google Books and elsewhere, and visible in snippets; where I have been able to check, they cut and paste articles (such as this one) in forms that ar older than their publication. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That was exactly it, I was hoping that you may give an example, like from this article, where an older Wikipedia edit was used verbatim in a newer publication. Well, do not bother if you do not have it handy. About the other book, I do not think that use of the phrase "in reality" is enough to differentiate or even indicative of a polemical argument. However, as I said I am not insistant on this. Thanks. Filanca (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Consider first the cited source, as represented on Google Books here. The Occupation of Constantinople (present-day Istanbul) (November 13, 1918 - September 23, 1923) was the occupation of the capital of the Ottoman Empire, following the Armistice of Mudros by the Triple Entente of World War I That is precisely the first sentence of this article (although I shall be moving the misplaced by the Triple Entente shortly). Its publication is dated 2010; therefore this is Surhone's mirroring Wikipedia, not a Wikipedia copyright violation. Many of Surhone's booklets say they are largely from Wikipedia, including one from a talk page - titled accordingly. Many of them claim to be "High Quality Content" because they are from Wikipedia - which, as far as I am concerned, is consumer fraud. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. If Surhone's source was Wikipedia, what is the source of Wikipedia -- this did not look like an imaginary comment. Another book questioning the legal status of the occupation: [3] Filanca (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Muslim millet?

Is that really what Johnson says? It is conventional to describe the non-Islamic population of the Ottoman Empire as divided into millets. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. He does not use the word millet, and these figures are estimates from the 1911 Britannica - before the war; they are part of a passage which makes clear that estimates of the total range from 800,000 to 1,200,000 - and that none of those estimates allow for the floating and refugee population. False precision, all the way around. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Italy

Johnson does describe the Interallied Control Commission in some detail, pp. 113-120. The United States was not a member of it (the United States was not an Allied Power, and had not been at war with Turkey); Italy was. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I added some info about the Italian presence in the City, which was put on a par with that of France and Great Britain, but went completely forgotten in this article. Alex2006 (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong infobox

It's obvious that the infobox should change since the article isn't about a battle.Alexikoua (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

"The occupation was illegal until 16 February 1920" R U Serious?

Such a statement. Nations are fighting wars; issues like occupation are settled by force rather than by "legality." IMHO, this article has one major need: It needs to present the cause of the Turks giving up Istanbul for occupation. The Turks seem so proud of the Battle of Gallipoli when they beat the Brits earlier in the war, as if it made a bean of difference. Yet how did it come to pass that they didn't fight for Istanbul - or did they? There doesn't seem to have been anything like the A-bomb that made the Japanese give up. Was this a failure of nerve? What happened? (EnochBethany (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC))

The war was already over by the time the Allies arrived in Constantinople; the Ottomans had dropped out of the war by the Armistice of Mudros two weeks earlier. I think a more accurate word than "illegal" would be "extralegal"; the Armistice didn't forbid the occupation, but neither did it explicitly allow it. Binabik80 (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Under the Armistice of Mudros, Allied forces had the right to occupy any settlement in the Ottoman Empire if it felt there were minorities at risk of massacre or persecution. So there seems to be no basis on the surface for this "illegal" claim, and there is no explanation in the content about why it was illegal. For that reason I am going to delete that content. If it is to be returned in some other form, there needs to be some explanation as to why the two sources consider the occupation to be "illegal", and whether it is just the opinion of those sources or was the contemporary opinion. In other words, this content needs much more than a brisk and unelaborated assertion of illegality. NB; One of the cited sources, Eden to Armageddon, is a footnote saying that the de facto status of the occupation was altered on 16 feb, "giving it a legal basis". This does not mean that the occupation was "illegal" before that, and the footnote makes no such illegality claim or give any explanation about what exactly was altered. In short, there are insufficient sources, and insufficient clarity in the two sources presented, to support content with a sweeping claim of "illegality". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Second paragraph

The last sentence of the second paragraph is misplaced; it jerks the timeline back five years for no apparent reason. It (or at least some of the information in it) should probably be moved nearer the beginning of the paragraph, before the first reference to 1920. --Haruo (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Date of beginning

Why does it say The first French troops entered the city on 12 November 1918, but it is dated from 13 November? - Owain Knight (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Move

Can we move this article back to Occupation of Istanbul? Article titles are not supposed to be based on what was in use a century ago, but what the recognizable title is today. There are plenty of WP:RS that use Occupation of Istanbul (and some that use Constantinople) but I think this should be based on what is recognizable today. I stumbled on this article while looking for the Occupation of Constantinople (which we have called the Siege of Constantinople - Occupation of Constantinople should redirect there.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Proposal violates WP:COMMONNAME and is simply anachronistic revisionism. Dr. K. 06:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It's really not, but WP:COMMONNAME is the policy I was looking for. Constantinople is not the common name of the city, it is the common name only for the Byzantine city which fell in 1453:

• Brill
• Brill
• Tauris
• OUP

I understand the point that Constantinople was still in use until 1930, but scholars don't prefer it because it is confusing. As it was confusing for me because I was looking for this: [4] [5] [6] - the issue is that it's not in use today as a common name for the city after 1453, even though it may have been in use in previous centuries. These are two separate issues. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Please excuse me for tidying up your entry a bit for easier reading. Constantinople was still in use until 1930. Well, not only that, but actually official until that time, but the main point is common usage in English. As late as in 1953, The Four Lads could make a point of the name change with their Istanbul, not Constantinople. And Constantinople would be the preferred usage when describing events from before 1930. (Similarly, we do not talk about the Battle of Volgograd, but of Stalingrad.) A preliminary Google search indicates that even today "Occupation of Constantinople" is somewhat more used than "Occupation of Istanbul", but that may need some more exploration. In any case, if you really want to suggest a change of title for this article, you have to do it as a requested move, since there is a formal consensus for the current title, see above. --T*U (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dr. K. Khirurg (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Against replacing names of old historical events based to current names for these places. That a city has a different official name now, does not mean the past events have to be renamed. Period. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 19:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I would really prefer this title to redirect to the common usage in sources of the 13th century occupation. This would serve the interests of our readers better then imposed archaic language on them that is obviously guided by personal POV. There are far fewer WP:RS that use this term, and most of them are primary or dating to the 1970s, whereas the sources for "Occupation of Istanbul" are from the best academic publishers and were written between 1999-2014. Positions on a move discussion should be based on policy and common usage in sources not personalized. It is really an embarrassment to the encyclopedia to be using a 19th century term that is no longer used in academic publications. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Those unfamiliar with the topic may not notice it, but in several of our articles dealing with WWI and the Ottoman Empire the general tone and detectable POV of the articles is similar to turn of the century propaganda, including in this case calling the city by its Greek name and not the name used by the Muslim population. It is not called the "Occupation of Constantinople" anymore and this is deliberate. It is not for us to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or debate the mainstream position of current scholarship, which treats this subject carefully because of how sensitive it is for so many people. It does not make the articles better, it makes the articles unreliable. On Turkish Vikipedi, I am supporting changing "Greek Uprising" to "Greek War of Independence" - both terms are equivalently in use, but "Greek War of Independence" is a bit more modern, and more reflective of scholarship as a whole (including Western scholarship). There is nothing wrong with updating language to reflect current scholarship - in fact, we are supposed to under our policies. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) "Occupation of Constantinople" About 33,000 results (0.38 seconds), "Occupation of Istanbul" about 4,890 results (0.37 seconds). Google Ngrams: Ngrams not found: Occupation of Istanbul. Your arguments are bizarre. Dr. K. 05:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at the same search results the vast majority of which are not about the Occupation of Istanbul. Most are about the 13th century occupation I mentioned, others are 19th century deliberations of a possible occupation, there are a few sources from the 70s-80s, and one from 1929. Very few current sources are using this term, and none on the level of Brill, Tauris or OUP from what I have seen. You can't just rely on search results without actually looking at the sources. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Occupation of Constantinople. 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/20140506081256/http://www.carabinieri.it/Internet/Arma/Oggi/Missioni/1855+-+1935/1918+-+1923/ to http://www.carabinieri.it/Internet/Arma/Oggi/Missioni/1855+-+1935/1918+-+1923/

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) 01:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Birleşik Krallık Osmanlı koloni bayrağı.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't this artcicle be called "Occupation of Istambul"?

Istambul was the name of the city when it was first occupied by the Allies, since the Ottoman Empire conquered the city in 1453 and renamed the city. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 08:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz: In English and French, "Constantinople" was used as the name for the whole city, and "Stamboul" was only used for the historic core. French language Ottoman documents from the time period used "Constantinople." English and French sources switched to Istanbul circa 1928-1930, especially when the US State Department started using Istanbul. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)