Talk:1920 Turkish Grand National Assembly election

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

Claims this election did not happen[edit]

I have reverted the effective deletion of this article (by redirecting it elsewhere), alongside the claim that the elections didn't happen.

As well as the source already mentioned in the article, numerous others state the election occured:

There are several others, but I'm about to go to bed, and don't have time to list them all. Number 57 22:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for pointing out the source. I don't know if I'd call these 1920 elections a "Ottoman general election", since the Ottoman parliament was closed after the 1919 elections, which were the actual last elections (per the same source you pointed out, "The 1919 election was the last election to the Ottoman Chamber of Deputies"). But I guess you're right, since I don't know if there's a name for the half-Ottoman, half-Turkish status of these technically "unofficial" 1920 elections at that point. We might want to make that more obvious in the article itself though, since these were something completely different from all the other previous Ottoman elections. Ithinkicahn (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "Ottoman Grand National Assembly election, 1920" might be better, to set it apart from the others. Number 57 09:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 November 2015[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: Moved to Turkish Grand National Assembly election, 1920. This target was acceptable to everyone involved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Ottoman general election, 1920 → Grand National Assembly election, 1920 – Our article Ottoman general election, 1919 calls it (rightly) the last Ottoman election (with two citations). The election of 1920 was not for an Ottoman parliament, so although it took place in what was still the Ottoman Empire, it was not an "Ottoman general election". It was an extra-legal election for a Grand National Assembly with plenary powers—nominally acting to uphold the Ottoman state, but not itself a creation of it or a part of its constitution. The proposed title is clear, unambiguous and not at all misleading. Nor does it imply anything about the status of the Ottoman Empire or Turkey. --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
It's not just "general election". "Ottoman" is also misleading, since this election was not in any way part of the Ottoman political order. It just took place in what was still recognised as the Ottoman Empire. One of the sources in the article says: "A hostage of the Entente powers, the sultan dissolved the last Ottoman Parliament on 11 April 1920. The immediate reconstitution of Parliament in Ankara as the Turkish Grand National Assembly belongs to the Kemalist period." I think both Ottoman and Turkish are problematic. These weren't regular elections, though, so we shouldn't expect them to neatly fit a demonym. Srnec (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it took place in an entity called the Ottoman Empire, then "Ottoman" is appropriate, regardless of the political order. Number 57 10:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Confederate States presidential election, 1861 took place in what was universally regarded as the United States. Srnec (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the Abkhazian presidential election, 2004 took place in what was universally recognised as Georgia. I'm not sure what the point you're making is though. Number 57 16:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That Ottoman might not be appropriate just because it took place in the Ottoman Empire. Srnec (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense if this was a breakaway part of the Empire, but it wasn't, it was the rump. Number 57 19:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Grand National Assembly was explicitly denounced by the sultan. It had no more constitutional or legal validity in 1920 than the Confederate Congress. A military force was formed by the sultan to oppose it. The GNA did "break away" from the Ottoman state, even though its stated goal was to preserve it. Srnec (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it was legitimate or not is irrelevant – the demonym describes which country the election took place in. Number 57 22:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This not what "Ottoman" signifies in the phrases under discussion. That's why you wouldn't call the Abkhazian presidential election "Georgian" juts because it took place in Georgia. Srnec (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abkhazia is a breakaway region, so of course you wouldn't call it Georgian (and that line of argument is just a straw man); this is a completely different situation, as the area under discussion is what was left of the Ottoman Empire after the rest of it had broken away/been taken from it. If you don't think it's Ottoman, then it should be "Turkish". Number 57 23:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with geography. It has to do with "Ottoman" referring to the Istanbul gov't and not the Ankara one opposed by and to it. The problem with "Turkish" is that the Kemalist movement had not yet settled on the nation's Turkish identity. It hadn't even settled on ditching the Ottoman dynasty. Given that we already recognise a primary topic for Grand National Assembly, I don't know why we need to force a demonym on an unusual interim situation. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums. Number 57 08:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I read it when you linked it the first time. It should be ignored. Srnec (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Turkish GNA election, 1920. I see what you're saying about the Kemalists and the national identity, but regardless of that, the country has always been known as "Turkey" in 20th-century English, including when it was the Ottoman Empire (you'll find plenty of present-tense uses of "Turkey" in pre-WWI documents, for example), and using "Turkey" avoids confusing readers with the current title (I would assume that the current name referred to something for the Ottoman government, not something significantly different) and avoids confusing readers looking for other Grand National Assemblies, e.g. the Romanian one. Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be ok with this, if GNA is spelt out (e.g. Turkish Grand National Assembly election, 1920). Number 57 14:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was just saving space, not suggesting that we abbreviate it; I agree with your suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting note - Nyttend and Number 57 are both happy with Turkish Grand National Assembly election, 1920. @Srnec: how do you feel about that?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Turkish Grand National Assembly election, 1920" is an improvement on the current title, so acceptable to me. Srnec (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1920_Turkish_Grand_National_Assembly_election&oldid=1195921172"