Talk:Turkey/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2015

The Wikipedia page on 'Turkey' includes an audio of Turkey's national anthem as the anthem's lyrics scan. This is where I came across a problem. Listening to the anthem's audio as my eyes scanned the song's words, a vulgar word (f******) is included! Thank you for your time amending this! Have a very good day. God bless

AnnaPrayed (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for spotting this. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Map caption

All right, now that the sock that was causing disruption has been blocked it's time to thresh out the issue of the map caption. I have added a source in the body text that fully supports the sentence "Kurds make up a majority in the provinces of Tunceli, Bingöl, Muş, Ağrı, Iğdır, Elazığ, Diyarbakır, Batman, Şırnak, Bitlis, Van, Mardin, Siirt and Hakkari, a near majority in Şanlıurfa province (47%), and a large minority in Kars province (20%).". The source is of high quality, and the information is highly relevant to this article, particularly in light of the recent developments in the region. I also believe a map is useful to our readers to help visualize this. So I used the CIA-based map, as I find it to be quite accurate based on my knowledge of the issue. The problem is, even though these areas clearly have a Kurdish majority, the source doesn't explicitly say so, simply stating these are "Kurdish-inhabited" areas, which is vague. Now, I could make a map showing the above-mentioned provinces in a different color, and that would fully in accordance with the source I have added, but I feel that would be less accurate than the current map (e.g. it is well known that southern Erzurum province has a Kurdish majority, while southern Sanliurfa province does not). If anything, the current map with the descriptor "Kurdish majority areas" is more stringent and conservative, and also more accurate, than a map showing the entirety of the above-mentioned provinces in a different color. Athenean (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Athenean, I looked into the source and found it compatible with the map. The source appears to be a RS and it can easily be verifiable with other sources as well. Excluding provinces like Urfa and Kars makes it more convincing. The whole 'inhabited' wording needs to go since its simply too vague. Moreover, my only issue with this map is that it's too old (1992). A lot has changed in Turkey over two decades and if we're going to provide a more accurate picture of the current demographic situation, we'll have to search for something else. As of now, I have found this map by the Kurdish Institute which depicts Kurdish majority provinces. What do you think? Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I also have another update regarding the current map. This source on page xv says the following: "The outlines of the map of Kurdistan were taken from two sources: first, a map produced by the CIA in 1992 depicting areas with a Kurdish majority". We can find more sources that directly state that the CIA map depicts not just lands 'inhabited' by Kurds, but a majority as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Good find. I can't view the source myself, but I'll take your word for it. Athenean (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But I'd rather the current map be replaced with a newer one. The demographics in the southeast provinces has changed so much, especially after decades of conflict. Let me see what I can figure out here. I'll work on a new map and I'll lay out the options soon. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That's unlikely to be a reliable source though, is it? Hardly a source that we'd trust to know better what a CIA map represents than the CIA itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise As of this point, we don't know what the CIA says because the original publication by the CIA of the map cannot be found. I think it's been handed over to the depositories of the University of Texas. You can find it here [1]. That link is also the source of the image at commons, so it appears that the uploader was in the same situation I'm in now. Many sources also refer to the Texas University map collection as their reference point (for example: [2][3]). As you can see from the link provided, the map itself is referred to as "Kurdish lands". And as discussed before, inhabited seems to be a bit vague. There's no doubt that cities like Istanbul, which is nearly 1/4th Kurdish, is inhabited by Kurds. So this leads me to believe that only Kurdish majority areas were highlighted in that map.

As for the source, it was written and published by researcher Edgecomb. But the "Introduction: A Brief History of the Kurdish People" section was written by Mohammed Ahmed (pages xxiii-xxx). The map is found in that section. His biography can be summed up as follows:

MOHAMMED M.A. AHMED served the United Nations in various capacities for many years, first as a resident expert in Jordan, Syria, Bahrain and Sri Lanka and then as Senior Social Affairs officer at the UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia. Upon leaving, he founded the Ahmed Foundation for Kurdish Studies, a non-partisan organization. Dr. Ahmed has organized numerous conferences on Kurdish issues and has published, as editor, in cooperation with Professor Michael Gunter several books on Kurdish topics including The Kurdish Question and the 2003 Iraqi War and The Evolution of Kurdish Nationalism.

So it is Ahmed's inference of the map we are looking at here. And based on his biography, I don't see how he can be considered unreliable.

But more importantly, the map is too old. I'd like it to be replaced. I'm working on making a newer map as we speak. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the demographics have changed that much. It's not like there has been an influx of Turks in those areas in the last 20 years, if anything the opposite. If we look at the map of the recent elections, the areas where the HDP won correspond almost exactly with the areas the CIA map shows are Kurdish. This includes the areas in eastern Kars province and southern Erzurum province that the CIA map shows as Kurdish. Also note how south-central Sanliurfa province went to the AKP, right in the area where the CIA map shows no Kurdish majority. The only deviation from this are Elazig, Adiyaman, and southern Bingol provinces, which though Kurdish, went to the AK because they are dominated by Kurdish clans that hate the PKK and HDP [4]. Since it is extremely unlikely that many Turks voted for the HDP in those areas, and many Kurds don't vote for the HDP, I find it extremely unlikely that those areas that went to the HDP don't have a Kurdish majority. I know we can't use this information in the article, but we do have a relatively recent and high quality source I added in the article (Nicole Watts) that we can use to make a map. However, she doesn't go to a finer resolution than the province level (i.e. leaves out southern Erzurum, eastern Kars, and so forth). Athenean (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Just one thing: Those election results maps show plurality, not majority. For example, HDP won the city of Ardahan, but only with 39%. So even with the assumption that all who voted for HDP are Kurds (which, I will admit, is not a particularly bad assumption as far as eastern Turkey is concerned), one can't conclude that Kurds are a majority (>50%) there. --Mttll (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Very true, though in other places like Agri, HDP got well over 70%. But note how southern Ardahan is shown as Kurdish in the CIA map, and how the HDP won the two southern districts of that province, right where the CIA map shows Kurds. In any case, we can't use the electoral map, I'm just using it to point out that the ethnic demographics can't have changed that much in the last 20 years. It's very hard to find quality sources on this issue. Frankly, the best one I've found so far is the one I added to the article (Nicole Watts). Athenean (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In any case, all of this is OR speculation and not a path we should follow further. Fact is, we don't know what criteria the CIA authors were using for determining what places are or aren't "Kurdish-inhabited". We also don't know what kinds of data any other source might have for any claims about "majority" status in any given locality – given the lack of official demographic data, how would anybody go about finding out whether one particular town has 55% of Kurdish inhabitants or only 45%? The authority Watts is implicitly citing here is Servet Mutlu (1996), 'Ethnic Kurds in Turkey: A Demographic Study', International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 28: 517—541. Maybe somebody can dig that one up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A related publication would seem to be: Servet Mutlu (1995), "Population of Turkey by ethnic groups and provinces", New Perspectives on Turkey 12: 33–60. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

This [5] might also be worth consulting. It seems to imply that Mutlu's study was an estimation extrapolating from 1965 census data (which was apparently the last census that explicitly recorded ethnicity.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Map 3 on page 157 is from Mutlu 1996 and seems to match the description in Watts. That seems like something we can use. I see two possibilities here: 1) We make a map similar to that in Mutlu 1996, and use that, or 2) leave everything as it currently is, with the CIA map and "Kurdish inhabited areas" in the caption. Athenean (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to lay a couple of options soon. I'm personally quite fond of the Britannica map I found here: [6]. I'll have to transcribe the data on the Brittanica map over to the blank province map of Turkey. I hope that'll be successful since the Britannica map doesn't have provinces. But then again, neither does the CIA map, and yet the data was still placed onto the blank Turkey province map. So that's why I'm also working with Goran tek-en on a draft here: [7]. The source is here: [8]. And now Nyttend made a map here: [9] which is nicely map. Nyttend's map is a great start. We can perhaps place his map into the article for now and see if its would be best to keep it as time goes on and different choices will be available to us. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Two issues. (1) I apologise for messing up everything; as I've said elsewhere, I failed to see that there indeed was sourcing about the CIA map itself that says that it depicts Kurdish-majority areas. Had I seen this, I wouldn't have done anything. (2) Since we have the CIA map and know that it shows Kurdish-majority areas, I don't think my map ought to be used to depict that topic. It's good for a rough approximation, but given the large areas of Kurdish majorities in provinces that are overall majority non-Kurdish, it's likely to cause confusion for many people. It's not meant for anything except province-level analysis, such as the demographics of each province, or electoral matters by province, or Kurdish nationalism by province. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree that it'll be great for electoral matters. I like the map, it's very useful. Let's see what other users here have to say about it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

PS, let me use some US examples to expand my reason for opposing this as a depiction of the distribution of Kurds. Look at [10] and [11], a couple maps from the last US presidential election: the first by state, and the second by localities. You can see that several US states are blue on the overall, despite having largely red localities, and the opposite is true for at least one state; in most of these states, the bigger cities are different from the rural areas, and the city voters outnumber the rural voters. The first is good for depicting final results and would work to depict the distribution of "red" and "blue" voters if we didn't have another map, while the second is much better for depicting the actual distribution but not for depicting final results. In the same way, Kurds are the majority in most parts of certain provinces in which they're not the overall majority (perhaps they're predominately rural and non-Kurds are in the cities?), and regardless of the reasons for this being the case, the province-level map is much better than the CIA map for depicting "final results" and much worse for depicting actual distribution. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

New map

Hello everyone. Check out this new map. Let me know what you guys think. In my opinion, it's much more detailed and much more new. Pinging: Nyttend, Athenean, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good from a graphics standpoint, but do we know why the two maps are so radically different? When two reliable sources yield such different results, I'd suggest that the best course would be to present both, being neutral between the two, although my ignorance of the sources may mean that I'm missing something significant. Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I have my own opinions about that. For one, the new map is more recent. The conflict had been well into its second decade by then. There's no doubt that this created an influx of refugees towards the west of Turkey and into the interior provinces. It's also no secret that many Kurds were forcefully relocated by the Turkish government itself (See: Kurdish villages depopulated by Turkey). Secondly, the CIA map focused on the middle east (i.e. Syria, Iraq, Iran). The Kurdish population of southeast Turkey appears to be a continuum of the middle east Kurdish population. Also, if you didn't notice already, there's a box on the map which centers its focus on a specific area. On the bottom of that box it says: "Area of block diagram". I can't seem to figure out what that means but I'm sure it's to emphasize in some way that the Kurds that live in that specific area for some purpose. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there had been major population movements comparatively recently in Turkey; I knew that there had been conflict between the government and Kurdish separatists, but I had no idea that it would have affected the distribution of population to a significant degree. Nyttend (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's not confuse two different things. That map doesn't show Kurds who moved to western Turkey in recent decades. Those Kurds wouldn't show up in 'Kurdish-majority' maps anyway, because while their numbers are in millions, they live in very high and densely populated metropolises and do not make up the majority in any single district. You will notice how Istanbul, the city with the highest Kurdish population in the world, doesn't have any green on that map. What that map shows are the Kurdish exclaves in Central Anatolia, which date back to the Ottoman era, with some massive exaggarations. --Mttll (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. And the map on the Kurds of Central Anatolia article does reflect the new map. I'm glad to see it's quite accurate in that regard as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I said, it's not exactly accurate. I think it is too maximalist to be featured in the article Turkey as the best overall map of Kurdish-majority areas. Maybe it can be used in Turkish Kurdistan and/or Kurds in Turkey articles among many other maps with the caption that it's from the Kurdish Institute of Paris. --Mttll (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with that assessment. The "green" map, while showing the Kurds of Central Anatolia, seems to exaggerate. For example it shows Corum province and Ardahan provinces to be almost entirely Kurdish, which we know is not the case. Mttll is also right that recent Kurdish population movements have been to big cities, and not the countryside. Frankly, it seems like so far the CIA-based map is our best bet, other that it doesn't show the Kurds of Central Anatolia. Athenean (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

We can keep the current map for now then, assuming good faith with the sources as provided. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Percentage of Kurdish population in Turkey by region

The article "Minorities in Turkey" contains a very detailed and up-to-date map, covering the percentage of Kurds in all of Turkey's provinces, including Istanbul, according to a research by KONDA. 88.251.88.161 (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not think Turkey is a democracy

The reference to Turkey being a democratic state is very hard to maintain in current times: every month there are news of arrests and intimidation to people for expressing thoughts in Turkey in a way contrary to the head of state. I request this reference be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.32.232.185 (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A democracy is a country where politicians are elected by the common citizens to become MPs (Members of Parliament) for a certain period (in most cases, for a period of 4 or 5 years), among whom the Cabinet of Ministers (including the Prime Minister) are selected; and the Cabinet has to be approved by the President or the "Head of State" (such as the Monarch (King/Queen) in constitutional (parliamentarian) monarchies like the United Kingdom). This, of course, is the model in countries without an executive presidency (the President has more executive power in countries like the United States, Russia and France, but in countries with the parliamentarian system – such as Turkey – the role of the President is largely ceremonial.) Turkey is a country with numerous political parties and free, multi-party elections. Yes, the level of human rights (freedom of expression, freedom of the media, minority rights, etc.) in Turkey is low compared to the developed countries in Western Europe, but Turkey still qualifies as a democracy. Another problematic area in Turkey's democracy is the rule of law (the laws on paper and decisions by the courts are often disobeyed by those who hold political or economic power.) In this world, there is no such thing as a "flawless, perfect democracy" by the way (there isn't a single country which can claim to have a perfect, flawless democracy – simply because humans are not flawless. But some countries have succeeded in getting closer to it than others.) Heimdallr of Æsir (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree.:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.158.236 (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

the forword of Turkey should have something about the state´s current war on Kurds and terrorism bombings on HDP

Political part of this article is very small in comparison with Turkeys current activity. Its like non-existent here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.158.236 (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Persians in the lead

Persian invasion was for a relatively small period of time. Why is it in the lead? Maybe you should mention it was occupied by Brits during WW1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.179.195 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Recep Tayyip Erdogan should not be shown as President

Recep Tayyip Erdogan should not be shown as President in government section. Officially he is not part of the government. He should be the president of the republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esenkaya (talk • contribs) 19:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Alewite population isn't high

Alewite population is 5% (4.5 million) according to this research (and Shia is 0.71%). Do not only provide us European research. Different questionnaires (eg. TESEV 6% and KONDA 5%) in Turkey show us Alewites are lower than mentioned in this article. Even the Alewite friendly party, CHP, whom Alewites commonly vote for, mentioned lower numbers than described in this article (12.5 million). It could be that TUIK said that Alewites numbered at 7 million. I have never seen higher than 12.5 million from Turkish explanations, except from Alewites. (Coriff (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coriff (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC) (Coriff (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)) Coriff (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Coriff (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Coriff (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)78.178.137.233 (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Coriff (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Coriff (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Armenian issue

There seems to be a common agreement between some Wikipedists on removing facts about the Armenian issue. Why are my additions removed several times? I gave references from trustable sites that there are historians and scholars who do not agree with the narrative of a genocide.

Please note that there are two sides to any issue. If Wikipedia is to remain a neutral online encyclopedia, both sides of the story needs to be represented. Stop showing the "POV card" at facts you do not agree with. It is not convincing and reeks of bias. -Dominator1453 (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The side you would like to present is a minority opinion. In other words, very few academics and scholars, along with just one government (i.e. Turkey), deny the Armenian Genocide. On the other hand, most academics and scholars, along with about 30 countries, acknowledge the fact that the Ottoman government wanted to annihilate its Armenian subjects. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the political clout some Armenians have, the fact remains there are people who deny it ever happened and THIS needs to be mentioned. On a side note, it will never be acknowledged because it lacks archival evidence. The majority opinion is just that: a hypothetical opinion. -Dominator1453 (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The current version is very badly worded. I have just deleted the claim that Armenians were deported from Eastern Anatolia Region. No such region existed in 1915, and Armenians were deported from all parts of the Empire, including areas well outside that modern regional definition. The remaining wording "During the war, the empire's Armenians were deported to Syria as part of the Armenian Genocide" is not adequate and risks being weasel since it could suggest that the genocide resulted from deportations alone. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Still, the other narrative, the idea that many scholars and historians deny a genocide was ever committed, needs to be mentioned with the inclusion of reliable sources, that I had previously provided. -Dominator1453 (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Official evidence that no genocide was ordered, intended, or committed on the part of the Ottoman State during the events of 1915: Turkey opens Ottoman archives over 1915 incidents on 100th anniversary Plus, an article in a journal that encourages the need for researchers to examine Ottoman archives, if they are truely impartial and are interested in discovering the truth: Will Untapped Ottoman Archives Reshape the Armenian Debate? -Dominator1453 (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello all, unless an objection with logical reasoning isn't made within three days from my previous posting, I will add the fact that some scholars and historains object to the one-sided account of the massacres. -Dominator1453 (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There is not a "one sided account", and fringe or material derived from Turkish embassies is not suitable for sources. The text "The Turkish government denies that there was an Armenian Genocide" is already in the article and is wikilinked to the main article on that subject - that seems sufficient for a general article, especially since (excluding that sentence) the content on the Armenian Genocide is only two sentences long. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This coming from a user who does not respect Wikipedia rules and has been warned and banned numerous times regarding improper editing. Thanks but no thanks for your opinion. I disagree with you and still do not see credible evidence (accusing Turkish embassies does not count) not to mention this.-Dominator1453 (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Avoid personal comments please. Let's keep this discussion WP:CIVIL. I agree with Tiptoethrutheminefield. The Armenian Genocide is a well-accepted fact. Having a short sentence about it in this article is WP:DUEWEIGHT and it is ok. The small minority of denialist scholars is dealt with in a separate article. No need to add minority denialist claims in this article. Dr. K. 16:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, that's quite enough with the denialism. The Armenian Genocide is a major historical event, and as such should definitely be mentioned in the article, and denialist literature is WP:FRINGE, so it has no business in the article. It's as simple as that. Athenean (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Does that make you on the right? All your above comments are beside the fact that there are deniers out there. Please do not try and portray me as making personal comments or being in the fringe, as I am not. I will go ahead and add it. Feel free to take it up to the judges. -Dominator1453 (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If this is a declaration of edit-warring on your part I strongly advise you against it. Dr. K. 07:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Dr.K. Rest assured it is merely a declaration that I will provide the necessary missing info in this article with relaible references in accordance with the unbiased and imparital views of Wikipedia. Hope you support what is right. -Dominator1453 (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I see a lot of Armenians and Greeks here. Is this a coincidence? :) -Dominator1453 (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it's a coincidence I did not speculate about your country of origin? Dr. K. 17:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

No speculation needed really. Dominator1453's sig makes his origin quite clear, as does his Erdoganesque everyone who opposes me is an "Armenian" or a "Greek". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

That was exactly my point buddy. I am a Turkish-American just like many people on this discussion are Armenian-Americans or Greek-Americans. Your talk pages give it out. I come with facts and references while you deny facts and get edgy when faced with an opposing view. "Erdoganesque"? I like that. Yes, I love Erdoğan but it does not affect my ethics for being just. This counts as a WP:NPA by the way. But let's not get off topic please. -Dominator1453 (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dr.K., Athenean and Tiptoethrutheminefield, and take the opportunity to warn Dominator1453 that any further WP:NPA violations will be swiftly reported, as will edit warring. Jeppiz (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jeppiz, what exactly do you agree with? Which point? Have you even read my argument? -Dominator1453 (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, please be informed that I have opened a dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. -Dominator1453 (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The proposal that a WP:FRINGE idea that there was no events called the Armenian Genocide is a non-starter. All mainstream historians agree. Fringe materials don't belong in an encyclopedia article. Capitalismojo (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Most people here are those who objected the Syrian Turkmens map stating that the numbers are too high and Turkish sources are unacceptable. These people think that resources conducted by Turkish scientists, even though some studied at schools like Yale, Princeton, Duke, etc, are "fruitless" just because they are Turks. When I first signed up to Wikipeda in 2009, we always mentioned the both sides of a discussion, cause that is what actual encyclopedias do. But recently, these guys only use Wikipedia for anti-Turkic purposes and delete/vandalise/object everything positive about Turks, putting forth some generalized Wikipedia articles as their reasons, however forgetting that Wikipedia is simply an encylopedia. Therefore, controversial and important topics like these should include both sides' views, sources and arguments. Besides, Armenian genocide is not only rejected by Turkey, it is not accepted by majority of the countries on the Planet Earth. So if there are 2 sentences about the claims that the incidents are a genocide, there has to be another 2, stating that they are not considered as a genocide by some parties. Keep anti-Turkicism for Reddit forums, not for Wikipedia, and most importantly, do not lecture about neutrality, while you only use Wikipedia for disreputing Turks and all of the articles related to Turkic subjects. Just for the record to those who keeps insulting and tagging people with phrases like "Erdoganist" and stuff, I am an opposer to Erdogan in Turkey but that doesn't make me hate my country like you people do. I can evaluate both sides' claims and I think you should too by putting aside your hatred against Turks at least for a minute. Thanks. Berkaysnklf (talk), 14:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-recognition doesn't mean denial. Just because Burundi, for example, hasn't acknowledged the Armenian Genocide, doesn't mean they deny it as well. I suggest you stop pushing your POV into this article. Please be aware of WP:AA2 and WP:CONSENSUS. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

So Wikipedia started to pen articles out of assumptions such as "Even the country didn't accept it officialy, that still means they accept that"? You read that I haven't stated something like "Armenian Genocide is a lie", right? You really can not use this POV card on me since I'm not even talking on a certain point of view. I am saying that, both the consideration of the incidents as a "genocide" and consideration of the incidents as "bilateral violence" should be mentioned. This is not POV, not nationalism, not hatred, this is just simple encyclopedical behavior. However, your assumptions on that "everyone except Turks accept the incidents as a genocide", even when countries like China, Norway, Finland, Denmark, India, Portugal, Federal U.S. along with 7 individual states, and numerous more, do not recognize it, are in fact "POV statements". The article should have something to say about both the recognition as a "genocide" and the reference as "bilateral violence". Thanks. Berkaysnklf (talk), 20:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"Bilateral violence" are fringe neologistic euphemisms. As it has been explained multiple times by now, it would be WP:UNDUE to give them equal coverage with the actual event. I think it is time you dropped this point and the heavy-handed accusations that people hate Turkey if they recognise the Genocide and don't support your fringe theories. Dr. K. 21:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

To return to the original theme, it probably is reasonable to mention Armenian Genocide denialism, but as a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. The view is not prevalent, but it's notable in connection with both pro-Turkey nationalism and propganda, and anti-Armenian sentiment. Readers deserve to know that the controversy exists, and that it isn't much of a controversy, but more a political snow-job. We have an entire article on Holocaust denial for the same reason. A large amount of all WP:ARBAA2-related strife ultimately comes down to AG denialists engaging in what appears to be an inverse of WP:GREATWRONGS (they're not trying to right a great wrong, but deny one, and claim that accusations of the great wrong themselves constitute some kind of minor wrong). I'm skeptical that much will curtail this other than increased exposure of the AG-denialism platform as fraudulent. The more it can be spun that "WP is trying to hide the truth that some question whether the AG happened", the more inspiration this gives to the AG denialism crowd, both on and off WP. Time to just expose it to the cleaning effects of the bright light and fresh air of reliable sourcing; nasty things tend to fester in dark holes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning every empire in the lede

I disagree with this addition [12] and reverted it per WP:BRD. Per WP:LEDE, the purpose of the lede is to provide a brief summary of the main points of the article, not to list every state that ruled the territory of the country in question. Anatolia has been ruled by dozens of states over the millennia, are we to list each and every single one of them in the lede? A mention of the Achaemenids is of course important, but it is sufficient to do so in the body of the article (which is itself subject to WP:SS, but Achaemenid rule is important). Moreover, the lede is already very long and contains a lot of history. Let's keep it reasonable. Athenean (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The Achaemenid Empire is not just one of the "dozens of states" that ruled Anatolia. It ruled virtually all of modern-day Turkey for over 200 years. Are there any other states that did so, or even close to it, that are not mentioned one way or another? Then I'd be much reluctant to agree with Athenean's rationale. The area played an extremely pivotal role in the growth, development, decline, stagnation, and overthrow of the empire. Even after the fall of the empire, descendants of the Achaemenids had an important role in the history of this area through the (partly culturally Hellenized) Kingdom of Pontus. Per these reasons, I don't see why it would be an issue having one line regarding the Achaemenids in the lede. I believe the issue regarding the long lede (I agree its long) can be solved without much issues. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the lede is to provide a summary of the entire article, not just the country's history. Currently, more than 50% of the lede is about history, which already way too much, and the lede is already very long. If anything, we need less history, not more. Second, giving a whole sentence to the Achaemenid empire is WP:UNDUE. The Achaemenid Empire did not have a major impact on Turkey. Turkey, and the area it comprises, was never predominantly Persian-speaking or Zoroastrian. From 300 BC to 1100 AD it was predominantly Greek-speaking and Christian, and after that it was predominantly Turkish-speaking and Muslim. Consider that for the whole Hellenistic period, there is only one sentence, and for the whole 1500 years of Roman/Byzantine rule there is only one sentence. Thus giving a whole sentence to the Achaemnids would put them on par with these two periods, which were arguably far more important. The argument that the area was important to the history of the Achaemenid empire is irrelevant. This article is about Turkey, not the Achaemenid Empire. The Kingdom of Pontus was a minor state. In no way is that enough to warrant a mention in the lede. Athenean (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

National Emblem

Hello

I was wandering if the national emblem is really appropriate to use as this is not official an is only used in passports, not as the emblem but as the Crescent Moon and Star of the Turkish Flag, just like Canada, I move that the Wikipedia community remove this as it is not in any way official and should not be used on this page.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavakdere (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Provided evidence of the support of the Turkish military forces (for artillery fire large caliber) and the purchase oil off the terrorists.

Sabri: All of these sources are from Russian newspapers, and also proven wrong by the KRG and Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavakdere (talk • contribs) 10:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Provided evidence of the support of the Turkish military forces (for artillery fire large caliber) and the purchase oil off the terrorists.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2016

In this article Link the Kurdish percentage in Turkey is 17,7%. It relates to a survey made by Konda and is the most reliable source for the kurdish percentage in Turkey in my opinion. Jabba31 (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done we cite the World Factbook (which is generally considered a reliable source) for the percentages in the lead, and also in the demographics section lower down, which gives 18% - I am not sure about the reliability of your source, especially as your article discusses the disagreement about the figures, but 17.7% is extremely close to 18% - Arjayay (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2016

Please remove this sentence "During the war, major atrocities were committed by the Ottoman government against its Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek citizens." Because although you indicated your reference actually there isn't any evident about that the Ottomans committed a genocide. There is no official record about any genocide committed by the Ottomans. Lazarow 61 (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There's plenty of evidence to support the historicity of the Armenian genocide. GAB^Hello! 23:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Well then for neutrality this page should also include the atrocities committed against Ottoman Turks by Greeks and Armenians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ottoman_Muslims Patetez (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both of my preceedors. This article is not neutral if it only contains the point of view of Armenians. It is already a topic of debate whether the Turks committed a genocide or not - even under well-known historians. And to quote Google as a source of proof is not only unprofessional, it makes me laugh at you. And to make it clear: It's not proven that this genocide has ever taken place. Greets from Germany --93.215.150.222 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not a Genocide happened. It doesn't belong on the page of a nation. Move it to the "Decline and modernization of the Ottoman Empire" and/or "History of the Republic of Turkey"

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2016

Dimetoka is not a city in Turkey, it is a city in Greece..

166.172.63.132 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done I can see no mention of Dimetoka or Didymoteicho in this article and it hasn't been edited for 11 days - Arjayay (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

lol true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baytuş (talk • contribs) 14:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2016

Originally turkey was founded in 1911 by mustafa Kemal 2.97.219.44 (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. clpo13_(talk) 16:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2016

Turkey was founded in 10 June 1844 - The reduction in the number of star points was made about 1844. That flag design was reconfirmed as the Turkish national banner on June 5, 1936, following the revolution led by Atatürk, who had established a republic in 1923 after the collapse of the Ottoman dynasty. Jivebop (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2016

Turkey was founded in 1844 Master4468 (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done. The founding of a country and the adoption of a flag are not the same; several countries have changed flags several times. Jeppiz (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016

There is no 'motto' in this page currently! Turkey's motto is 'The Independence or Death!'. Can you please fix it. Tayko~enwiki (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done it seems the motto is "Egemenlik, kayıtsız şartsız milletindir!" which translates somrthing like "Sovereignty unconditionally belongs to the Nation!" - not what you are suggesting - if you still think you are right, please provide a reliable, official, source - Arjayay (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2016

Turkey's motto should be added, just like United States or Canada has theirs, Turkey's motto is "Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyene" which roughly translates in to: "How happy is the one who says I am Turkish" 78.189.16.210 (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not cited a reliable source, moreover your claimed motto is different from the one I found when researching the reply above "Egemenlik, kayıtsız şartsız milletindir!" - With such contradictory information, we need an official source as to which is correct, and what the translation is. - Arjayay (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Turkey was founded in June 1844

The flag of Turkey (Turkish: Türk bayrağı, meaning "Turkish flag") is a red flag featuring a white star and crescent. The flag is often called al bayrak (the red flag) and referred to as al sancak (the red banner) in the Turkish national anthem.

The current design of the Turkish flag is directly derived from the late Ottoman flag, which had been adopted in the late 18th century and acquired its final form in 1844.

The measures, geometric proportions, and exact tone of red of the flag of Turkey were legally standardized with the Turkish Flag Law on May 29, 1936.[2] — Preceding Tom Cook comment added by Master4468 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Who is Tom Cook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.196.166.211 (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

IPs - 2 questions

Whay can't IPs edit this article? Is "IP" an abbreviation for Intelligent People? --141.196.166.211 (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Boundaries

According to the introduction: "The Bosphorus, the Sea of Marmara, and the Dardanelles (which together form the Turkish Straits) demarcate the boundary between Thrace and Anatolia; they also separate Europe and Asia." (ref.) The source doesn't mention any "boundary between Thrace and Anatolia"; which is very normal, cause no serious academic publication does that. The structure of this sentence looks more like the product of an unnecessary effort to give links to Thrace and Anatolia, from the very beginning. The correct attitude should be to link Thrace and Anatolia further down in the text, when mentioning the country's geopolitical position, not here. This way you will also have respected the source which only refers to continents. By the way why should there be a "border" between to parts of Turkey, Anadolu and Trakya, eh? (In my personal opinion, the Turkish Straits should be mentioned more as a waterway between Asia and Europe. Indeed the straits don't separate but join the two continents. They have done so since many centuries...) --141.196.166.211 (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The increasing functional failure of political/legal/economic institutions must be in the article

The increasing functional failure of political, legal and economic institutions in Turkey has been the topic of numerous international organisations, academic works and media reports. In this and other Turkey-related articles, I see an otherwise unknown vigor by some editors to either outright delete such information or burry it in a "Human Rights" section, which is not appropriate for the topic of functional failure of institutions. I will see if I find time over the weekend to get some of the published stuff on the topic together for more legthy paragraphs in the "Politics", "Law" and "Economics" sections. However, if I find time or not, the topic should definitely be clearly present in those sections. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Burry it? Balki Chalkidiki (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

As for the aforementioned organizations, the EU will collapse before Turkey, don't worry. Balki Chalkidiki (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The AKP-Erdogan-government narrative in Turkey for the past years has been "we make Turkey great, at the cost of some human rights, which we happily pay for making Turkey great". This narrative in my impression is the POV editorial concept of some of the most active editors on this article (and some other Turkey-related articles). There is no lack in discussion of the human rights aspect of issues in articles and sections of articles dedicated to this perspective, presenting it as an isolated concern. However, there is a deliberate lack of reference for the numerous and often even highly publicised works and media concerning the increasing functional failure of political, legal and economic institutions in Turkey. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I never heard Erdo say such a thing. Balki Chalkidiki (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is some examples for the numerous international organisations, academic works and media reports on the increasing functional failure of political, legal and economic institutions in Turkey.

Freedom House Special Report: Democracy in Crisis: Corruption, Media, and Power in Turkey (2014)

Freedom House, Freedom in the World report 2016 (Turkey Section)

2016 Washington Post article: Turkey’s Erdogan must reform or resign (Mort Abramowitz and Eric Edelman)

EU European Commission: Turkey 2015 report

European Parliament resolution of 14 April 2016 on the 2015 report on Turkey

Transparency International report: Turkey’s institutions are failing to comply with good governance principles and combat corruption (2016)

Transparency International, 2016 National Integrity System Assessment Turkey

Anticorrp: Public Procurement in Infrastructure: The Case of Turkey (2015)

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 2121 (2016): The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey

2016 Article by Sedat Laciner: Opponent or Terrorist? The dramatically changing nature of Turkish democracy

2012 Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication article: Media and Democracy in Turkey: Toward a Model of Neoliberal Media Autocracy

2016 Hürriyet Daily News article: Turkey bar union issues stern warning against controversial judicial draft bill

Brookings, 2016: Turkey’s downward spiral and the scuffles at Erdoğan’s Brookings speech

2015 Mediterranean Quarterly article: Turkey’s Failed Policy toward the Arab Spring, Three Levels of Analysis (Ahmet T. Kuru)

2016 Foreign Affairs article: Ankara's Failure, How Turkey Lost the Arab Spring (Jonathan Schanzer and Merve Tahiroglu)

2016 Article by Graham E. Fuller: How Can Turkey Overcome Its Foreign Policy Mess?

The topic(s) and the references in my opinion must find a place in the sections concerning the institutions and issue areas themselves in this article, not be buried in one section with the rather less appropriate headline "human rights", which should be reserved for information focused on human rights issues in Turkey as a topic (which there are enough of). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I think "Human Rights" is a very important and broad topic, covering many problems such as the freedom of expression, freedom of the media, and the rule of law. It is sadly true that, especially under the AKP rule of RTE, the "rule of law" has been severely eroded in Turkey. Balki Chalkidiki (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We could add them with one or two centences in relative sections. kazekagetr 14:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news

Could I remind everybody of WP:NOTNEWS. We do not report on breaking stories. We cover events after they have happened, based on reliable sources. Jeppiz (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Especially when the news reports mention the Turkish Armed Forces, when it is clear that only a faction of the Turkish army is involved in the coup against Erdogan. We cannot allow these factions to be making announcements in Wikipedia's voice, especially when the news reports are inconclusive and even contradictory. Dr. K. 22:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Now an edit has been made changing the type of government in the infobox. I don't think this is clear from the news reports. I also think this edit should be reverted until a clearer picture emerges. Dr. K. 23:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• People come to Wikipedia to get reliably sourced and neutral point of view information, even about ongoing events. It is inappropriate to not mention an ongoing coup attempt. We have covered other coups in recent years without waiting until everything is finally settled. We can base the coverage on what major news sources are saying. Wikipedia is not censored. Edison (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not censorship to avoid recentism. This page hardly even mentions the other coups in Turkish history, so why should it make a big deal out of this one? clpo13_(talk) 23:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not recentism to provide due coverage to a coup. If the others are not covered perhaps that reflects censorship. Edison (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's totally recentism to devote an entire section to an event mere hours old that may not even affect the country in the long-run (notably, none of the other coups were anything more than a blip in the political history of Turkey). Readers can be directed to 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt if they're foolish enough to turn to Wikipedia for news. clpo13_(talk) 23:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Three recent coups and a plot are covered in Multi-party period of the Republic of Turkey. I agree that unless this one succeeds and there is a change in the governmental structure, it is adequate to cover this coup there, as well as in the standalone article. It is not "foolish" to go to Wikipedia for coverage of events of world importance such as a large-scale coup attempt in a NATO country. The coverage here of such events is generally more thorough than the snips in individual news stories.Edison (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Just in case there is any misunderstanding of my edits, I am in no way opposed to covering the coup in a reasonable way. What I am opposed to, however, is to change the government type of Turkey in the infobox without solid sourcing and also make declarations on behalf of the "Turkish Armed Forces" while there are clear indications that the Turkish Army is anything but united in this. Dr. K. 00:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

[redacted comments per forum] BTW, in no case should government types be changed in infoboxes based on such flimsy sourcing when a coup or any similar incident is still unfoldingGiorgos Tzimas (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

mamluks

Someone add to mamluks on etymology because they were usinged-Devletü't-Türkiyye. NoScopeRage (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Changing of governmental System

Given the current political status of Turkey, the status of Turkeys government should be changed from "democratic, secular, unitary, constitutional republic with a diverse cultural heritage" to "Dictatorship" as this is a signifficantly more fitting term for how the country is being run and the term democracy is strongly outdated for Turkey. Perhaps since the country is officially classified a democracy a more fitting term would be "apparent democracy", "pretend democracy" or "pseudo-democracy", however simply referring to it as a "democracy" would be disrespectful to the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxzap98 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Several newsoutlets, academics and the public through twitter and reddit are accusing Turkey of becoming more and more authoritarian

I mean I could source it but I am sure anyone involved will find it. At what point do we begin to call the republic an authoritarian and or/despotic one? The ban of travel for academics seems to go further than most countries in the world except for perhaps North Korea. And nobody can source who enacted what law or decree...109.200.36.132 (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Democracy? 2016 is not 2013

The introduction claims that Turkey is a "democracy", which seems outlandish to say the least given Erdogan's authoritarian regime. The source for this claim dates from 2013, and in 2013 Turkey certainly was much more democratic. Since then, in 2016 a large number of newspapers have been taken our, journalists jailed, thousands of independent judges fired, thousands of academics fired and all academics banned from travelling, social media blocked and a civil war raging. I see no reason why Wikipedia should claim that this regime is a "democracy" and move it be removed. Jeppiz (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not a problem. Find the “reliable sources” that mark this transition, and use them. Ideological problems are void here, it's only the technical problem of using the right sources. I would also suggest to move the report on the failed coup in Turkey from the special paragraph into the sentence that lists all the coups. History-wise, this is a minor event, so far: it was not even successful, and its consequences are not yet clear. This fact is not even yet mentioned in books of history.

Maybe it is a wiser idea to look for sources that are not affiliated with governments, since any government has diplomatic interests and therefore is interested to skew the world picture. On the other hand, the similar argument is applicable to most kinds of “reliable sources”. And it's weird to become worried about it right now… - 91.122.1.70 (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Turkey no more a parliamentary republic after 2016 Turkish purges

Turkey is NO longer a parliamentary republic after 2016 Turkish purges. It`s now a presidial dictatorship

• Spiegel.de: Folgen des Putsches: "Faktisch ist die Türkei eine Diktatur" (German)

178.11.185.185 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2016

Coat of arms or emblem is missing

Someonewhoknows3 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Terror attacks

Recent large-scale terror attacks should be included in the history section. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Full protection

I have fully protected this page for three days because of the edit war that's taken place of the past 24 hours. I have no side in this dispute; I protected the current version only because it's the current version - not because I support anyone's changes. Please discuss your edits rather than keep reverting each other. Acalamari 16:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Time Zone is +3. There is more sadly summer time.

Time Zone is +3. There is more summer time. --Kirov Airship (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Timezone change to UTC+3

On September 8, 2016 it is published on Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkey that Turkey will be using DST always and clocks will not be set back. This means, the official timezone of the Republic of Turkey is now UTC+3.

http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2016/09/20160908-2.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErkanYILDIZ (talk • contribs) 06:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 September 2016

The word "era" needs to be added in the second paragraph after the word "paleolithic"

Regushee (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The emblem

Should it be added or not? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see my AIV report on longterm disruption by socks adding the unsourced emblem. See also the past discussions. Dr. K. 04:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dr.K.. I understand. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

2 argument why need add a emblem
1. This emblem have in most language version Wikipedia
2. Every country in Wikipedia has a emblem, but Turkey no have
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl dili (talk • contribs) 05:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Gl dili, please understand that there is clear consensus against having the emblem. Please do not restore it. Also, it is almost certainly not worth raising the issue here to get agreement. It is very unlikely that you will get consensus. Please read the past discussions before arguing in favour of the emblem. That will save all of us time. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank. I understand that you are wasting your time, sorry. Unfortunately I am new user and do not know how to look, can show where this was discussed, or tell me how to find it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl dili (talk • contribs) 05:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem at all. It is not a waste of my time. It is a use of my time. :) Please click here. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you so much, hope it will not take long. Wikipedia does not take into account the personal opinions of users, only links and proofs, right? Russian version of Wikipedia says (automatic translation Google) "In the Republic of Turkey is not officially approved by the State coat of arms. Instead of the emblem by many government agencies in Turkey used semi-official emblem - the red oval, which depicts a vertically oriented crescent and star, similar to those shown on the national flag of the country, and located at the upper edge of the oval of the official name of the country in the Turkish language.". https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B_%D0%A2%D1%83%D1%80%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8 and on request in a search engine Google "official emblem of turkey" showing results from sites in different countries with this emblem, example - https://www.spreadshirt.co.uk/national+emblem+of+turkey+hoodies-A102629896 (United Kingdom), http://platine.pl/herby/panstwo,turcja,1300.html (Poland) etc Gl dili (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, Dr.K.: you refer to a "clear consensus", but instead of linking to one, you link to a Google search which shows many short discussions, none of them conclusive. It seems to me that there is a National emblem of Turkey, which is officially not "official", but is used by national organisations. Maybe there should be a Request for Comment so that the matter can be discussed properly? Maproom (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You are right. I should say "clear lack of consensus" rather than "clear consensus against" having an emblem. Maybe we should setting this once and for all in this thread. Scanning those past threads, it appears that nobody can quite agree on which emblem is official. Is that the problem? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Canada also does not have an official national emblem and its infobox does not include one. In addition, the emblem field in the infobox is optional. I don't see why an RfC has to be opened to include an unofficial emblem which is not supported by reliable sources. In this case calling an RfC would be an attempt to bypass WP:RS, because there are no reliable sources supporting its inclusion. This type of use looks strongly POV to me and also would be misleading to the readers because they would mistake it for an official emblem. Dr. K. 13:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dr.K.. I also do not think an RfC is necessary. I was merely suggesting that a simple discussion may end with an official emblem being dug up and consensus for inclusion. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Anna: Hi Anna. No need to clarify. I knew that all along. I was addressing the original point made regarding holding an RfC. I agree with your point completely. Dr. K. 17:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dr.K.. Ah, okay. It was your extra indent that confused me. I took it as a response to me rather than maproom. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anyone claiming that there's an "official emblem"; and some sources make it clear that there isn't one. But there is a widely recognised unofficial emblem. My view (and I think that of Gl dili, though his English can be hard to understand) that this unofficial emblem should be included in the article, preferably with a statement that it is unofficial. Maproom (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you can put an unofficial emblem in the infobox even with a disclaimer that it is not official. The practice on Wikipedia is to put the official country emblem in the infobox, not any other. The field is also optional, so using an optional field to put in an unofficial emblem sounds like UNDUE, POV to me. Dr. K. 19:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. If it is official and we can prove it with good sources, fine, but otherwise, no. I mean, how unofficial is unofficial. Where did it come from? Maybe Bob made it in his shed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't tell you who made it. But it's used by the Turkish goverment, e.g. here. Maproom (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Where you see "many short discussions"? You brazenly lie)
1) Popular official UK shop souvenirs (https://www.spreadshirt.co.uk/national+emblem+of+turkey+hoodies-A102629896) with "National emblem of Turkey" the very same that I added to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey
2) Many sites explaining that this emblem of Turkey, another shop http://www.redbubble.com/people/artpolitic/works/20525910-national-emblem-of-turkey?grid_pos=23&p=iphone-case and many sites, they are in different languages, and all this emblem is taken as an emblem of Turkey
3) Other language Wikipedia pages taking this as an emblem of Turkey, example https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D1%83%D1%80%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F and a lot more languages
Wikipedia itself says that it is taken as an emblem of Turkey, or Wikipedia for you are not a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl dili (talk • contribs) 09:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, according to Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Maproom (talk) 10:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Funny. But you ignore the previous 3 points! But ok, I added national emblem of Turkey from this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_emblem_of_Turkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl dili (talk • contribs) 23:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Turkey's continent

This article says 3% of Turkey is European. But the Continent article has a table defining figures for the continents according to a rule that the totality of Turkey (including the above mentioned 3%) is Asian. Any thoughts on this?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a well-known fact that the Bosphorus is part of the divide between Europe and Asia, and since Turkey is on both sides of the Bosphorus, it must logically be in both continents. Continent makes other oversimplifications - for instance, it puts all of Egypt in Africa, whereas the part east of Suez is actually in Asia. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Any reason it defines the continents that way?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess because it's easier? But it is not our job to define continents, it is our job to describe how others have defined them. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

And who defines Asia as including the totality of Turkey?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The whole european thing has plagued geographics for a long time, anything across the bosphorus should be considered europe in the opinion of most experts ive heard. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The table in the Continent article has a footnote explaining that it includes Eastern Thrace in Asia. I take this as an admission that Eastern Thrace is really in Europe but they have included it in Asia for conevenience. Maproom (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

And why is it more convenient to consider it in Asia for that purpose?? Georgia guy (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Whoever compiled the table could answer that. But my guess would be, they calculated the population figures by adding up those for the individual countries. Maproom (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

To find whoever compiled the table, all you have to do is study the history of the Continent article. Georgia guy (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

So why are you asking here, and not at Talk:Continent? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This is where the discussion began, and it's easiest to keep all the discussion on one talk page. Georgia guy (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Any info about this statement

I put this information in the article:

For the purpose of cultural regions, however, the totality of Turkey is considered Asian.

However, I keep getting reverted because some Wikipedians doubt this. Any thoughts on the accuracy of this statement?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It keeps getting reverted because it is nonsense. What is a "cultural region"? Are you actually asserting Turkey is in the same "cultural region" as India or Korea? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The totality of Turkey is considered part of the cultural region of Southwest Asia, which is one of the divisions of Asia. Georgia guy (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Decline period

An editor reverted my edit on the decline of the Ottoman Empire noting that the battle of Pruth and some regains prove that the 18th century was not a decline period of the Ottoman Empire. The editor futhermore claims that the decline period begins in 1830 . Well in the 18th century Ottoman Empire lost vast areas to Russia and more important than that Russia gained the custodian status of the Ottoman Christians which eventually led to the dissolution of the empire. (see Eastern Question) But the important thing here is not our opinions or personal researches. (see Wikipedia:No original research) The claims should be backed by serious sources. There are many sources about the Ottoman Empire which state that the Decline period begins by 1683 (Battle of Vienna) or 1699 (treaty of Karlowitz following the battle of Vienna). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The Russo-Turkish War (1768–74) (second half of the 18th century) marks the earliest signs of the decline of the Ottoman Empire. "Early 18th century" is not correct. Balki Chalkidiki (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It's in a way similar to the exaggeration in the West about the results of the Battle of Lepanto (1571), suggesting that the "Ottoman Navy disappeared from the Mediterranean after 1571", which was not true. In reality, the Ottomans quickly rebuilt their navy and retook Cyprus from Venice in 1573 and retook Tunisia from Spain in 1574. The loss of the Great Turkish War (1683-1699) and the Treaty of Karlowitz (1699) were indeed severe blows to "Ottoman supremacy in land warfare", but the "Ottoman military power" didn't fully "collapse" as a result. Actually, in the early 18th century, the Ottomans won several important victories and recovered a portion of their lost territories, such as the successful Pruth River Campaign (1710-1711) against Russia; the Ottoman–Venetian War (1714–18) and the recovery of Morea (with the Treaty of Passarowitz in 1718); the Austro-Russian–Turkish War (1735–39) after which the Ottomans retook Belgrade, Serbia, Bosnia, Oltenia and the southern part of the Banat of Temeswar from Austria (with the Treaty of Niš (1739) and Treaty of Belgrade (1739), which marked a major victory for the Ottomans.) The definitive decline of Ottoman military power began with the defeat at the Russo-Turkish War (1768–74) in the second half of the 18th century, and became unstoppable (despite the Tanzimat reforms in the 19th century) after the loss of Greece and Algeria in 1830. Balki Chalkidiki (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Modern historians no longer even believe that the empire declined. See Ottoman Decline Thesis. They recognize a loss of military effectiveness beginning from the period 1740-68, culminating in the Russian victories in the 1768-74 war, but this is not the same as the 'decline' of the entire empire in all of its various manifestations. And neither was the military decline "unstoppable". Historians tend to emphasize the successes of the Tanzimat in creating a modernized military. The empire became stronger over the course of the 19th century, not weaker, even as it lost territory. Chamboz (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The number of historians who have written in opposition to the Decline Thesis with regard to the seventeenth century is absolutely immense, so I won't bother listing them here, you can find them in the citations on the page Ottoman Decline Thesis. But of those who have written on the eighteenth century, you can look to the works of Jane Hathaway, Ariel Salzmann, Rifaat Ali Abou-El-Haj, and Virginia Aksan, off the top of my head. Chamboz (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You're also going to want to see the article by Donald Quataert, "Ottoman History Writing and Changing Attitudes towards the Notion of 'Decline,'" History Compass 1 (2003) Chamboz (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Big Turk History

Where are Göktürks, Huns ? Why you not add this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.3.194 (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Silk Road trade

Sorry user:Balki Chalkidiki, but the idea of the discovery of the maritime route to India causing severe disruption to the Silk Road is little more than a historical stereotype, especially for the Ottomans. Most Ottoman silk came from the Gilan region in Iran, passing overland from there to ports on the Mediterranean. This region was not impacted at all by the European discovery of the route to India. The only trade which you can say was impacted was the actual Indian Ocean trade, which for the Ottomans passed largely through Egypt. However,

"European observers of the sixteenth century, but also twentieth-century researchers until the time of Frederic Lane and Fernand Braudel, had assumed that Cairo's role as an international entrepôt came to an end with the Portuguese opening-up of the ocean route to India. Braudel argued that the transit trade in Indian and Indonesian spices revived after the 1530s and continued until the end of the century. Thus, Cairo's role as an emporium of international trade also should have continued until that time. But we now know that the trade in coffee, drugs, dyestuffs and Indian textiles flourished throughout the seventeenth century. Only after 1750 did the competition of Antilles coffee and the unstable political situation significantly weaken the role of the city in international exchanges. Cairo's international trade continued over a period of several centuries, and outlasted that of its trade partner Venice."

- Faroqhi, Suraiya. "Crisis and Change, 1590–1699." In Halil İnalcık with Donald Quataert eds., An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1914, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 507.

But that's what happens when people rely on websites to write history articles: stereotypes get presented as if they were accurate. Chamboz (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

+1. Hint: there is an article (imo a stub) The Portuguese discovery of the sea route to India ("This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it." --Neun-x (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"a democratic, secular [...] republic" ?

2nd sentence of the introduction:

Turkey is a democratic, secular, unitary, constitutional republic ...

Is it ? Imo, it was. See (2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt) , Recep_Tayyip_Erdoğan#Prime Minister (2003–14), Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War , Erdogan's attacks against the freedom of press (i.e. Cumhuriyet) yada-yada-yada . Pro's ? Con's ? thanks in advance for your feedback --Neun-x (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the democratic part should be removed.