Talk:Flag of Turkey

Comment

The legend that gives the design of the Turkish flag as being due to the events during the fall of Constantinople were related to me by user:Adam_Carr who heard that story while visiting Turkey

ThaGrind 01:38, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi. I have added an interlink to Turkish page. The page there is a stub but the flag there has correct ratio and has the white stripe which is in the definition of Turkish flag. The flag in English and other Wikipedias need to be fixed. ato 07:17, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Barjak

A name for the Croatian flag is also "barjak". Anybody an idea if that's somehow similar to bajrak or am I just wrong... --Neoneo13 00:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, "bayrak" is the general name for "flag" in Turkish, I guess this is the same in both languages. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, bayrak is a very old word that is even used by Uigurs, Turkic people who live in East China.

Zirowerdy 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"the" circle around the star

Under "construction" there are a couple refferences to "the circle around the star". There is no circle around the star in the flag, so describing an imaginary circle placed around the star isn't very accurate. Would it be better to substitute "A" for "the"?

with respect that you didnt have technical drawing education; A smooth star,(or anyother geometric shape) is drawn by a circular referance(in or out). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.175.192.132 (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Legend

The Flag of Byzantium

In 670 BC, the citizens of Byzantium claimed the crescent moon as their state symbol, after winning a battle, which they attributed to Artemis, the Greek goddess of the hunt, whose symbol was the crescent moon.[1] Other ancient cultures might have worshipped the sky, moon and stars but Byzantium was the first governing state to use it as their national symbol. In 330 AD Constantine I added the Virgin Mary's star to the flag. When the city fell to the Ottomans in 1453 they saw this flag with the Crescent all over Constantinople and took it as their own which the Turkish Flag and many other Muslim nations have inherited ever since.

The crescent moon and star were not completely abandoned by the Christian world after the fall of Constantinople. To date the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem official church flag is a lavarum of white with a church building with two towers and on either side of the arms, at the top, are the outline in black of a crescent moon facing center, and a star/stars with rays.[2]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantium]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantium[/url]

So why call this a theory? This is evidence and fact, not a dream of Attaturk's like the other 'stories' LOL. Reaper7 00:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What the?? Since when are the stars, the moon and other astronomical creations the property of one nation or empire??? Quote: "As far as I'm aware the crescent and star combination has a heritage directly linked to the Babylonian cult of Inana (who if I'm not mistaken was usually depicted as crowned with the crescent and star combination) - and with the numerous other equivalent female fertility cults of near eastern antiquity (e.g., the cult of Isis). Its subsequent adoption as an Islamic symbol is similar to the Christian appropriation of pagan symbolism elsewhere (e.g., the various European "Black Madonnas"), and is testament to the persistence of ancient systems of belief into late antiquity and early modern times." How about that for a theory?? So let's stop this effort to appropriate everything in Turkey to Greeks and Byzantines.. Now that you mentioned it, maybe I should go to the Byzantium article and mention this.. Baristarim 22:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

NO obviously you are confused severely, what I am saying, is that it is a little more than a coincidence to anyone with 20% of a brain the fact that the flag of byzantium at the time of its fall to the Turks was a moon and star, this should not be grouped in the theories section like Attaturk's dreams, LOL. But please - what I posted was obviously not for you, don't care if the Byzantiums got it off the Eygptians who got it off Martians - that is not the point, it was the flag of Byzantium and that is fact and that is where the Turks aquired it, and it is a little more than a 'theory' to a non Asiaitic Turk. Reaper7 22:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not neccessarily.. It didnt originate from the Byzantines [1], so it is quite possible that Turks got it from the other peoples of the Middle East and Persia before - please see this [2].. It explicitly states that this symbol has been assumed as being transferred via battles, but the true origin is the cultural movements of the Middle East.. Seljuq Turks and other Muslim Turkic tribes used this symbol on various occasions before the fall of Constantinople.. OTOH, I agree that there are certain legends mentioned in that page, and they should be clearly labelled as such.. Baristarim 23:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way I changed the title of that Chapter to "Another Legend" from "In Reality" since we all know that reality is quite a subjective topic... Isn't it my Greek Brothers? --Eae1983 (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

I noticed that the image on the right which shows the crescent moon and Jupiter lined up was from the Battle of Kosovo, not the battle of Manzikert, as the text in the body of the article suggests. Someone should clear up this ambiguity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oreo Priest (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

BYZANTIUM

Firstly the information in this section of the Article is not a legend, so listing it at the end of 3 legends with a bullet point is ridiculous. Secondly this section is about the highly plausible theory that like all the Byzantium titles and traditions Mehmed II adopted for his newly extended Empire, the flag flying over Byzantium that day the city fell was also adopted. Turkic migration has no bearing on this small section of the article as a counter-weight. What is not being claimed:

• Byzantiums invented the symbol.
• Byzantiums are the only ones to use the symbol.
• Mehmet II and the Ottomans definately copied the flag.

So there is no need to drown the small section in repeated attempts to show that a turk at some point passed through a nation that had used the symbol at some point as a hopeless counter.

What is being claimed:

• The flag of Byzantium, crescent moon and star was flying over Byzantium when as the Turks arrived to lay siege.
• Byzantium was the first state to use the symbols as national state symbols.

Turkic migration through any country that also happened to at some point use these symbols, (most of which Greeks also passed through in the 4th century BC and traded with before..) has no bearing on this theory and when it is included looks very much like a weak attempt at nationalism as is the repeated mention of the Babylonian and Eygptian use which is already mentioned at the top and repeated here seemingly just to reinforce the hope that the symbol is not 100% Byzantium or Ancient Greek. What is required is a seperate section, ie not under and completing a list of legends as it is now, ie properly sign posted and also the deletion of weak nationalistic counter such as Turkic migration after the sentance depicting that byzantium was the first state to adopt the symbols as national symbols.

The example of Baristarim trying to save so weird national pride when there is no need to be defensive is:

'Nevertheless, Byzantium was the first governing state to use the crescent moon as its national symbol, even though Turks passed Mesopotomia much before coming to Istanbul during their migration from Central Asia Reaper7 03:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We went over this before. I changed the section title to "theories and legends" - I know that those sleep theories are legends. Nevertheless, don't forget that Isis and Sumerians existed much before the Macedonian invasions, sorry!! The Byzantium theory is a theory, not saying the contrary - nevertheless, you are convinced that this is the case, which makes it POV, that's all.. The article needs a bit more work, I will give you that, but there is no reason to create a seperate section for the Byzantium theory.. Well, the Turkic migrations is definitely relevant, since it concerns the Flag of Turkey and symbols used by Turks. You might blame me for pushing a POV, but you also seem to be pushing a POV by saying that Macedonians invaded Sumeria and all, read the sources clearly - they say that the crescent and star was used as a fertility symbol thousands of years before. So your mention of the Macedonian invasions is also to reinforce the hope that the symbol must have been 100percent Ancient Greek/Byzantium. You see what I mean? :)) Baristarim 03:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please watch for WP:CIVIL, constantly accusing me of nationalism is not correct. What "saving national pride"? Are you joking?? :)) I know that the star and crescent was a pagan Mesopotamian symbol and that the Turks adopted it, I am not saying that it came through because of a dream!! Believe me, I am more scientific thatn you give me credit for. It has been long established that the star and crescent was a Ancient Egyptian and/or Mesopotamian symbol, and couldn't care less about "national symbol of a state" - religious symbols back in the day were much more important.. Baristarim 03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is about the Byzantium section, not the whole article, if you can get your mind around that idea, we are making progress. Again I repeat No one is claiming:

• Byzantiums invented the symbol.
• Byzantiums are the only ones to use the symbol.
• Mehmet II and the Ottomans definately copied the flag.

Not even the Byzantium Article claims it was not already an ancient symbol, do you understand these simple words?

So there is no need to drown the small section in repeated attempts to show that a turk at some point passed through a nation that had used the symbol at some point as a hopeless counter.

What is being claimed:

• The flag of Byzantium, crescent moon and star was flying over Byzantium when as the Turks arrived to lay siege.
• Byzantium was the first state to use the symbols as national state symbols.

The fact that symbol is old has nothing to do with the Byzantium theory. It is about how the Turks came to adopt the symbol, not who invented it. We already know the symbols are ancient at the top of the theories section, no matter how much you desire to drown out the Byzantium section with this. It is already stated above (please read this carefully, i will repeat) It is already stated that the symbol has ancient roots above the section on Byzantium. What this section is about is not how the Byzantiums got the symbol unfortunately for your arguement, but how the Byzantiums used this symbol and how it is highly plausible as THE ONLY STATE TO FIRST USE THE SYMBOLS AS NATIONAL SYMBOLS, the Turks borrowed the symbols. Whether the Turks traveled through Places Greeks also went through has no bearing as this section is clearly about how when Istanbul was sieged, the only side Flying these symbols on a flag were the Byzantiums. This however is obviously criptic to you and I am sure you will repeat your line about how Turks traveled through Babylon as some bizarre hope that it is relevant under this specific Byzantium section. The board of mediation will have to look at this I am afraid. Reaper7 03:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ohh "the Board of Meditation"!! Am I supposed to be afraid? It is a voluntary procedure, go read it please. Do not copy your statements that you had posted before. I made modifications to address some of your points. And if you call me a nationalist-POV pusher or use ridiculing statements again, than I will report you. I am done here, have fun.. And watch for WP:3RR along the way... Baristarim 03:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly there are no threats, all anyone should want is a good article on this important flag of Turkey for the neutral, not the Turkish nationalist and not the Greek. As the article stands with your last mod i think it is much improved and am far more happy with it as a wiki article. Reaper7 03:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries.. I agree with you, and you should have also believed me when I had told you that I hadn't written the article and I was trying to do my best with what was available, and that I wasn't pushing a nationalist agenda. I know that crescent and star is not a Turkic symbol.. I favor talking things over and trying to improve articles bit by bit until issues are addressed. I hope that the article will improve in the future and know that it still needs some improvements.. But just remember that I am not here to do blind reverts or anything. Cheers! Baristarim 04:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You talk about things like "Turks" "definately" (which you can't even write right) copied it and can't even come up with documents to prove your point. Please come with plausible documentation before you write "BYZANTIUM" (like a crying baby, might I add)trying to own the flag. Please participate in the debate academically instead of using useless nationalist comments. You should come up with an example at least AS PLAUSIBLE as the Kosovo battle, that we still qualify as a "legend" being Turks ourselves to have a better figure in the "Legends" section...

Cheers, Eae1983

I've got to agree with Reaper here, it sounds nothing more than a poor excuse for nationalism. The thing is, the Byzantines were teh only state using this symbol at the present time, historical migrations over areas which were inhabited by people who at one point or another may or may not have used the crescent moon belong on another page. Unless you can back up with evidence then the assertion that the Turks may have adopted the symbol from some kind of old ruin in Mesopotamia remains simply conjectural, nothing more. Also, I must add that I find Turkish denial of their appropriation of Greek culture quite hilarious in many respects, I mean, they always claim we 'steal' 'their' culture, yet when it is pointed out they have stolen culture of Byzantium they start inventing conjectural bullshit about 'old turks'. I've often found this quite funny, the whole 'well its just a coincidence the Ottomans and the Byzantine Greeks shared X cultural similarity because cultural point X was practicsed by old 'Turkic' tribes. --NeroDrusus 05:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK look, you can agree with whoever you want, but as long as you do not have proof, you can NOT write things as "in reality it is BYZANTINE", now can you? (please note the excessive fervor of the greek friends I am quoting when they write "Byzantium" in capitals). If I qualify the battle of Kosovo thingie as a LEGEND and not a fact, you cannot qualify something even older than that, for which you have no valid proof as a FACT. On the other hand, I totally accept positively any theory you will add as another "legend", as the Byzantine Empire is dead, and the Ottoman Empire is dead, so speaking today with "we"s and "you"s will never denote facts for me.

Cheers!--Eae1983 (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Everbody PLEASE LOOK AT THAT. Don't talk more about Byzantium... And please get out that very absurd information. Turk flag not interested with Byzantium...

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4803/parach7xa3.jpg

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=7782 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.229.232.162 (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Everbody can see and research this... This silver coin From Where!!!! This coin FROM GÖKTÜRKS! CAN YOU SEE CRESCENT AND STAR!!! FROM GÖKTÜRKS... (Kyrgyz Republic- Manas Üniversity TURK CİVİLİZATİONS CONGRESS YEAR:2004 "Gaybullah Dr. Babayar"

Um...that does not look quite like a bicephal eagle to me . AdrianCo (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with 1389 Theory

I came across the Battle of Kosovo/28th July theory on another page, and checking it it appears to be highly improbable. The Battle of Kosovo was fought on St Vitus' day, 15 June 1389, in the Julian Calendar. The 15th June 1389 Julian was 23rd June Proleptic Gregorian Calendar; St. Vitus' day is celebrated on the 28th June now because of the continuing shift between the calendars (15 June 2007 Julian is 28 June 2007 Gregorian). However, the close approach of Jupiter and the Moon was on 28th July (Gregorian calendar), a month after the battle no matter how you reckon it. That would appear to make the theory impossible, and there's no citation? Bazzargh (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see this legend has been 'fixed' since, but without reference to a source, so is still incorrect. Now it claims the date of the astronomical coincidence was 28 June 1389, when as the original author of that section wrote, it happens on 28 July 1389. Even with this fix, the legend still makes no sense (the death of Murad was still 2 weeks earlier), but now the astronomy doesn't back up this entry. I tried to find a source for this story when I first looked at it, and it only appears on recent forum posts. The confusion of the 28ths (of June and July) suggests someone thought this up fairly recently - St Vitus' day only became the 28th in the last century. I'm going to remove this as unsourced in a month or so unless someone can find a supporting reference that this isn't just a recent invention. Bazzargh (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The same story was added again recently, again with no references, except for an image by Hayton of Corycus. However, simply labelling this image '14th century' is misleading - it depicts the Second Battle of Homs not the Battle of Kosovo. Hayton died around 1307, so this image cannot argue for a 1389 origin. This time I deleted the story, last time I left it 'citation needed' for 2 years before removing it - no citation was found in support (just to be clear: it's not just that the story is unlikely, it's that the story appears to be a recent invention on the internet, hence the lack of any mention in print). The image, however, does seem apposite to the Osman I section so I moved it to there. Bazzargh (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Byzantine theory - A critical flaw

The Byzantine theory has no sources to back it up. The Byzantine theory doesn't add up, the flag when Mehmed II conquered was the Double Eagle not a crescent and star as is suggested in the article.

The use of the Crescent and Moon is attributed to BC, prior to contact with Turks.

The Turks meanwhile were also using the crescent and star in Central Asia and the Kayihan Kaganate flag and tamgha incorporated these symbols.

--Torke (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

REALITY - It Will Hurt The Turkish Nationalist, But Is Beautiful To The Turk Who Loves Reality And History Of His Diverse Nation

This whole article is terrible. The Byzantium Empire was the only known Empire to use the crescent moon and star together. Other cultures using a star or a moon separately is totally irrelevant as is Turks crossing through countries that used the star and moon separately. The City of Byzantium first used the star and crescent to represent Artemis, then the symbols took on Christian relevance. By the time the Turks arrived their is NO evidence of them EVER having the crescent and star together. However, the flags flying on Byzantium the day it fell to Islam - and even the coins in the pockets of the Greeks were these and had been for centuries:

http://imagedb.coinarchives.com/img/cng/076/big/76000205.jpg

http://imagedb.coinarchives.com/img/cng/072/big/721471.jpg

http://imagedb.coinarchives.com/img/baldwin/nyc9/00156p00.jpg

http://imagedb.coinarchives.com/img/gorny/130/thumb01799.jpg

Reaper7 (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "The Byzantium Empire was the only known Empire to use the crescent moon and star together".

Answer: No.

Thank you very much for your contribution!

what a stupid discussion, how many of the byzantine citizens became muslim after manzikert? where do their grandchildren live now? who owns byzantine more then? turkey or greece? greece is a shadow of byzantine empire turkey is successor , no matter what the language religion is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.175.192.132 (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

--Eae1983 (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(PS: Was Hadrianus a Byzantine Emperor? Any dates for these coins?)

Name the other Empire that used the crescent moon and star as the symbol of an empire?

Answer: PATHETIC.

Reaper7 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well not being even Turkish or Byzantine, the Arabs at the Time of the Mu'awwiya caliphate did use the crescent and the star.

now will you please stop those childish responses. --Eae1983 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sakarya Theory should be removed

Modern Turkish flag was adopted a century before the Battle of Sakarya. Please remove that theory from the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruist22 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

cool ness iz me!!!

Measurement flaws

There's the one minor error noted about measurement E, but measurement G must be 1, rather than 2, because a measurement of 2 would make the height of the flag greater than its width.--Atkinson (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Gokturks coin.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gokturks coin.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 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 To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Gokturks coin.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Nanobayrak.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nanobayrak.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. 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. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Nanobayrak.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Pagan gods, really?

The lede opens with "The flag of Turkey (Turkish: Türk bayrağı, meaning: Turkish flag) is a red flag including a crescent with a star moving centrally in front of the sun with reference to the meeting of the Turkic solar deity Gün Ana (Mother Sun) and the moon god Ay Ata (Father Moon) brought by the space god Khan Erkliğ."

This isn't presented as a possible origin but as the plain fact. It's presented in the lede with so reference or other supporting info, and is not referenced or discussed further in the article body. There is a reference to Osman's dream and that's it.

The article Flags of the Ottoman Empire, of interest because the flag of Turkey is quite similar to the Ottoman flag and which is more extensive and better referenced article, mentions nothing of pagan deities or space gods, but offer various theories, none apparently proven, that it was based on the Byzantine flag, on the sky during some important event in Turkish history, as well as Turcic tribal tradition (there's no mention of Gün Ana and so forth).

Let's not tell the reader that things are so when we don't know that they're so, people. Herostratus (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Similar flags

I removed the section "Similar flags" in January as subjective original research without sources. It was later reinserted without explanation. In accordance with the discussion and conclusion at Talk:Flag#RfC about section "Similar flags" it is quite clear that a section like this 1) has to be about flags where the similarities are not coincidental, but can be explained, and 2) has to be sourced. A recent edit has changed the title to "Flags influenced by the Turkish Flag", which is an improvement, since it moves the focus from similarity to relation. I would suggest that a better title would be simply "Related flags", as I think relatedness is more easily sourced than influence. The flag of the Ottoman Empire is clearly not influenced by the Turkish flag! The main thing is that the relationship has to be sourced. I will mark the section with an "original research" template. If the section remains unsourced, it will be removed. --T*U (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

86.22.206.214 has changed the title from "Related flags" to "Flags Under Direct or Partial Influence". I see the point of using the word "influence", since that indicates a causality. If such a cause-and-effect-relation can be sourced, it is stronger than just being "related". On the other hand, this is probably more difficult to source than just relatedness. The wording will need to be worked on. To say that a flag is "under influence" does not sound good. Also, the "direct or partial" bit makes the title somewhat heavy. I would suggest to simplify the title to something like "Flags influenced by the Turkish flag" or "Influences from the Turkish flag". The directness or partiality could better be elaborated on in the text below.

That brings me to the content of the section. It will have to contain more than just a gallery of flags. It will need a text that explains the influence for each flag mentioned, with sourcing. The edit summary mention "the sourced influences of each flag on their respective pages", but looking at the target pages I find very little. Most of the linked flag articles do not even mention the Turkish (or the Ottoman) flag.

• The most obvious connection, already mentioned in the article, is to the Ottoman flag. However, the Ottoman flag is not influenced by the Turkish, so if the title changes from "related" to "influenced", it must be removed.
• The flag of Northern Cyprus is obviously derived from the Turkish flag. The same probably goes for the flags of Cyrenaica, East Turkestan and the Hatay State. The Turkmeneli flag seems to be a further derivation from the East Turkestan flag. The connection to the Turkish flag is, however, not sourced in any of these cases.
• The flag of Tunisia is certainly not influenced by the Turkish flag, but by the Ottoman flag. It could be mentioned as "related", but not as "influenced".
• As for the rest of the flags, no connetion is mentioned, so they would have to go in any case unless a sourced connection can be established.

My main point from my last posting in June still stands, whatever the title: If the section remains unsourced, it will be removed. Soon. --T*U (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox september 2017

It is a bit difficult to understand what Georgepodros menas by "unclear colour specifications". Giving the colour as Pantone as well as RGB and Hex seems to make it very clear. The colour question is also presented further down in the section "Colour". Please explain what is unclear.

Also, the comment "the same flag was not adopted in 36" is difficult to understand. As stated in the lead, the flag was "standardized with the Turkish Flag Law on May 29, 1936". The year 1844 is significant for the flag of the Ottoman Empire; it may or may not be significant related to the flag of Turkey. But the year 1936 has to be mentioned, since that is the date for the formal adoption. The reference to the American flag "the american flag is not readopted every time a new star is added" is also strange, since the Flag of the United States article actually has two dates in the infobox, both the date of the first "Stars and stripes" flag and the date of the current 50 star version.

By the way, the link to the 1936 flag law was dead, so I have renewed it. --T*U (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Major changes

During the last months, this article has been heavily expanded, mostly by Georgepodros and JimPody. Many of those additions are highly problematic due to lack of sources, original research and synthesis, and the totality of the edits give undue weight to content concerning the flags of the Ottoman Empire. I have now found time to go through all the changes, removing or rewriting most of the added material. I will comment on my edits in a numbered list for easy reference.

!: Heading in infobox has been changed from "Turkey" to "Republic of Turkey" with edit summary "republic of turkey official name, like united states of america instead of just america on us flag page info box title". It is correct that the US flag infobox has the heading "United States of America", but that is clearly an exception. The usual presentation use the common English name: "Sweden", not "Kingdom of Sweden", "Luxembourg", not "Grand Duchy of Luxembourg", even "Macedonia", not "Republic of Macedonia". I have changed the heading back to just "Turkey".

2: Adoption date in infobox has been changed many times. The current flag was formally adopted in 1936. There has been attempts to change the year to 1844, which seems to be the accepted adoption year of the last Ottoman flag. A compromise solution was to mention both 1844 and 1936, but then the year was put to 1793. There is one source mentioning the year 1793, stating that it has not been possible to confirm that information. Anyway, this article is about the flag of the Republic of Turkey, not about the Ottoman flag. The year 1793 is unacceptable i the infobox. I could support something like "1844 (Ottoman flag) / 1936 (current flag)" if that would create a consensus, but I prefer the solution recently entered by an IP editor, "29 May 1936". Both "late 18th century" and 1844 are mentioned not only in the text, but also in the lede, which is fine.

3: The section "Military flags" is an exact copy of a section in the Ottoman flag article. Content about the precursors of the precursor has nothing to do in this article per WP:UNDUE.

4: The section "Ottoman era" is an expansion of the former "History" section, and again most of the addition is a direct copy from the Ottoman flag article, even including "explanation needed" templates! Again, most of it is undue. I have changed the title back to "History" and readded the "further" link to the Ottoman flag article.

5: Illustration of Ottoman flag has been added, which is fine. But there is no reason that this picture shall be larger than the one in the infobox. And the caption is weird. How can an empire that ceased to exist almost hundred years ago have a "current flag"?

6: The three illustrations of "historical flags" at the bottom of the "Ottoman era" section and the matching text at the start of the section is pure conjecture. All the three files in Commons have clear information that they are fictitious; it is even in their file names. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, so these speculations have no place.

7: The gallery at the bottom of the "Legendary origins" section is (again) just copied in from the Ottoman flag article. Misplaced and undue.

8: Picture galleries have been introduced both at the bottom of the "Legal basis" section and at the bottom of the new "Display and use". It is not customary to have so many pictures in flag articles. If they really are needed, they should be placed in one gallery at the bottom of the article. I have removed the Northern Cyprus flag as irrelevant.

9: The two sections "Turkish colonies" and "Flags under direct or partial influence" have been removed by me earlier, but the removals have been challenged. I will shortly start two RfCs for their removal.--T*U (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC about section "Turkish colonies"

The consensus is to delete the "Turkish colonies" section.

Cunard (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the section "Turkish colonies" be kept or deleted? --T*U (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Delete as WP:UNDUE and highly subjective original research. This is an article about the flag of Turkey. There is a separate article about the flags of the Ottoman Empire. The republic of Turkey has no colonies and never has had, while some of the areas covered (not all) could be seen as Ottoman colonies. Such a section might have a place in the Ottoman flag article, but it has no place here. It would, however, need to be sourced. The so-called "Flag of Turkish Greece and Cyprus" is a "Fictitious Ottoman flag" according to the file name, the so-called "Flag of Turkish Habesh" is just the Ottoman flag from 1844. --T*U (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete because this article is about the "Republic of Turkey", aka simply "Turkey", and specifically about its flag. Turkey may be the official successor of the Ottoman empire but lands colonised or conquered by the Ottomans have their own, separate history - and, hence, their own articles in Wikipedia. Modern, extant Turkey possesses no "colonies", nor did it possess any such since its inception. The section about colonies is entirely out of place and should be deleted - as should also, of course, the section titled "Flags under direct or partial influence", which is yet another result of original work. -The Gnome (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as off-topic and undue; just cross-reference the already extant Flags of the Ottoman Empire article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about section "Flags under direct or partial influence"

The consensus is to delete the "Flags under direct or partial influence" section.

Cunard (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the section "Flags under direct or partial influence" be kept or deleted? --T*U (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Delete as unsourced subjective original research. The section started out as "Similar flags", but has since changed title several times. It has been marked with OR template since June, with RS template since August, but the only thing that has been added to the section, is more flags plus an unsourced introductory text with little informative value. See also the section "Similar flags" above on this talk page, which has had no response. There may be room for a section about influence from the Turkish flag, but the influence has to be sourced. The Ottoman flag will, of course, have to be removed. How could that flag have been influenced by the Turkish flag? It certainly may be possible to find sources for influence from the Turkish flag to the flags of Hatay, Northern Cyprus, East Turkestan and perhaps also Cyrenaica and Turkmeneli, but that is probably all. For some of the other flags, it may be possible to find sources for influence from the Ottoman flag, but that will have to be presented in that article, not here. And as long as nothing is sourced, the whole section must be removed. --T*U (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete because it is entirely inappropriate and quite simply original research. A nation's flag having a similar motif, or colors, or design, with other flags is nothing exceptional nor worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Otherwise, we would include such a section in every other article about a nation's flag. For example, in the article about the flag of Denmark we would've added all the flags of a similar design, i.e. Norway's, Sweden's, Finland's, and so on. This evidently makes no sense and serves no educational purpose whatsoever. -The Gnome (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. There may be sources out there that draw historical connections (and they do in fact exist for Scandinavian flags, yet we still do not dwell on it at those flag articles); if there are sources for relationships between the Turkish and other flags, they seem to be missing here. If some of that material is sourceable, it might belong at Flags of the Ottoman Empire.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. It makes sense that former Ottoman possessions would adopt a similar flag, but without actual sources/encyclopedic sounding objective information, the section is misplaced. Suggestion to whoever added it: make a wikipedia page on flags including the crescent moon, if such a page does not already exist, and then simply link to the article on this page. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete/Change Agreed 100 percent that it's OR. Similar flags would be fine, but treading carefully there as well would be advised. South Nashua (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flag of Turkey. 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/20110607174704/http://www.ttk.org.tr/index.php?Page=Sayfa&No=81 to http://www.ttk.org.tr/index.php?Page=Sayfa&No=81

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) 04:56, 11 December 2017 (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:

• Flag of the President of Turkey.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by nominator Beshogur. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Flag of Turkey → Turkish flag – Presidency of Turkey: Turkish flag, MFA: Turkish flag. It's basically the official name. It is are more frequent name when you google it. Flag of Turkey has 6 pages on Google books, while Turkish flag has 31 pages on Google books. TLDR: it's the official name. Beshogur (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, WP:CONSISTENT with Category:National flags. BegbertBiggs (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@BegbertBiggs: Oh, didn't knew. Can I withdraw my request? Beshogur (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: According to the instruction page WP:Requested moves/Closing instructions, you may close it yourself: a move request proposer may close their own move request as withdrawn if no one has commented yet, or if opposition is unanimous. --T*U (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change article title to “Flag of Turkiye”

The official name of the country has been changed and we should respect that. Osnonymous (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Per WP:COMMONNAME. Beshogur (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the name change at the United Nations took effect earlier this month. It was done to differentiate the country from the bird by the same name and the negative connotations connected with the later. Blue Riband► 19:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Removal of mentions to the TRNC

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) is a separate entity from Turkey. Even though the flag of the TRNC is based on the Turkish one, I do not believe that it is appropriate to put the TRNC flag under this article. If the TRNC flag meets credibility criteria, it should have its own article.

Associating the flag of TRNC and Turkey hints to a perception of the first being a "puppet" of the latter, and this article is not the place to dwell into that discussion.

Therefore, I propose the removal of mentions to the TRNC flag, as well as its images from this article. Iago777 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Fine with me; counterarguments, anyone? —Tamfang (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Proceeding with the edit. Iago777 (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, Turkish flag is officially representation of Cypriot Turks, and TRNC always use the Turkish flag as kind of co-flag. For last, obviously TRNC flag is influenced by the Turkish flag. Beshogur (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

There already is a page for the Flag of TRNC. Please do not reverse edits without common consensus. Iago777 (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

And? This section talks the usage of Turkish flag in Cyprus, not the TRNC flag. Beshogur (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

And I also think its incomplete, also usage in Cyprus (as told in its constitution) itself should mentioned. Beshogur (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)