Talk:Turkey/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Regarding the Halki Seminary (some background information for Dousis)

In 1971 the Turkish government issued a law which made it obligatory for all institutions of higher education in Turkey to become nationalized and operate under the supervision of the Ministry of Education.

The law was tailored almost exclusively for Robert College in Istanbul (the university section of which was nationalized and became the Boğaziçi University in 1971), but it affected another institution of higher education: The Halki Theological School at the Heybeliada Island in the Sea of Marmara, to the southeast of Istanbul (the Greeks still call the island with its historic name Halki.) In those days the Cyprus issue was tense and the Turkish authorities wanted the Heybeliada Theological School to likewise operate under the Turkish Ministry of Education. The Patriarchate refused, claiming that the Treaty of Lausanne gave them special minority rights which would allow such an institution to operate independently from the supervision of the Turkish government on its educational curricula.

But the main reason, of course, is that the Church sees itself as a "divine authority" that's responsible "only to God"; so any form of control or supervision over the Church's teachings by a "secular authority" such as the Turkish government is regarded as "blasphemous". To give an example, the Orthodox Church in Greece is largely independent from the Greek government's jurisdiction. Places like the Mount Athos monastic complex are almost totally independent from the control of the Greek government's authorities. The Patriarchate desires a similar form of independence in Turkey, hence the clash with the Turkish government. The fact that Turkey is a secular but "largely Muslim" country, governed by "Muslim Turks", makes such a "blasphemy" even more unacceptable for the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate.

Another important factor is a popular suspicion among the Turks that a largely independent Christian theological school of higher education will pave the way for similarly independent Islamic schools, which is perceived as a threat for the secular education system in Turkey. StanStun (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Church property such as the Halki Seminary have not been "expropriated" as User:Dousis claims, they still belong to the church. StanStun (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the role of the Patriarchate according to the Treaty of Lausanne

Even though the Patriarchate is historically and traditionally called the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Ankara government made sure during the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 that it should be recognized merely as the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Istanbul" and be responsible only for the affairs of the local Greek Orthodox community in Turkey. The treaty also implies that the Patriarch can only be a Turkish citizen (he should be chosen among the Turkish citizens, i.e. the local Greeks living in Turkey.) The Russians still don't recognize him as the "leader of the Orthodox Church", but merely as a smybolic primus inter pares, i.e. the spokesman during the synods. In short, he is not an Orthodox Pope, and therefore not the leader of the world's Orthodox Christians. StanStun (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to User:StanStun

StanStun, let me help you get your facts straight. In your own words, my edit supposedly contained "too many errors," so let's go through it sentence by sentence and analyze where my supposed "errors" are.

"The Orthodox Church has been headquartered in Istanbul since the fourth century AD."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure even you agree with this sentence. The reason this is worth mentioning in an article on Turkey is that Orthodoxy is a major world faith, and it has a long association with the part of the world that is now Turkey.

"However, the Turkish government does not recognize the Patriarch, Bartholomew I, as the primary bishop of Orthodox Christianity, and forces the Church to operate under significant restrictions."

State-sponsored discrimination against a religious organization is noteworthy and belongs in an article about a country; the articles on Saudi Arabia and the People's Republic of China mention their respective lacks of religious freedom. In your comments, you wrote, "in short, [Bartholomew] is not an Orthodox Pope, and therefore not the leader of the world's Orthodox Christians." Nowhere in my edit did I suggest that Bartholomew is an "Orthodox Pope." He is not. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are organized differently. As you correctly asserted, he is a primus inter pares among several Orthodox Patriarchs, including that of Russia. I even linked the words "primary bishop," the title that best describes his status, to the primus inter pares article. However, as Ecumenical Patriarch, he asserts direct leadership over Orthodox Christians in Turkey, the United States, Latin America, and other parts of the world not governed by autocephalous (independent) Orthodox churches. He is also widely looked to as the Church's main (hence primus) spiritual leader by Orthodox Christians worldwide. This explains the title "ecumenical," which means "universal." The fact that the Turkish government does not recognize him as such, and limits his successors to Turkish citizens, is part of a longstanding effort to discredit the Patriarch and the Orthodox Church. As an Orthodox Christian and a free American citizen, I will never allow any government, especially a hostile one, to tell me who the leader of my church is. Furthermore, I ask you, StanStun: if Bartholomew is not the leader of the world's Orthodox Christians, then who is? The fact that you will be unable to answer this question further validates my point.

"Most of the Church's properties and schools have been expropriated, while Christians remain widely persecuted in Turkey."

Your main objection seems to be with the fact that I linked the word "expropriated" to the article on the Halki Theological School. I'll ignore your scare quotes around "divine authority" and "blasphemous," which are intended to make the Orthodox argument look irrational. Since the 1920s, the Turkish government has progressively taken over (or as you put it, "nationalized") many schools, hospitals, and land owned by the Patriarchate. Though they have done this with ostensibly benevolent aims, the real motive for these actions is to deny the Orthodox Church a presence in Turkey. As you correctly point out, "In 1971 the Turkish government issued a law which made it obligatory for all institutions of higher education in Turkey to become nationalized and operate under the supervision of the Ministry of Education." But you imply that the Orthodox Church is still free to do as it pleases with Halki, since it "still belongs to the church." "Nationalization" is equivalent with "expropriation." When a government "nationalizes" something, be it a copper mine, an oil well, or a university, it takes its ownership away from its private owner and transfers it to the government. StanStun, I have been to Halki. The seminary has sat empty for forty years, not having trained a single new priest. The "nationalization" essentially shuttered the school. You claim that the Church still owns Halki--technically, they may still have title to the land. I'm honestly not sure if it does or doesn't. But whether or not they do doesn't matter, since the Turkish government has taken over the seminary, even if it did so unofficially. If the Patriarchate were still free to operate Halki, why haven't any new priests been trained there since 1971? Why would President Obama, in his speech to the Turkish parliament, ask that Halki be re-opened? To re-open something, it would have to be closed in the first place. The Turkish government closed Halki in order to deny the Patriarchate new clergy and bishops. This is the same motive behind the Turkish law requiring Patriarchs to be Turkish citizens. If the church can't train new Turkish bishops, eventually there will be no Turkish-born bishops to become Patriarch. Then, the Turkish government will succeed at its longstanding effort to force the Patriarchate out of Turkey forever. This is religious persecution, and if you would only watch the CBS 60 Minutes special that I linked to in my edit, you'd see it for yourself.

I bear no malice towards Turkey, its civilization, or its people. Although I strongly disagree with the actions of Turkey's government towards its Christian minority, I have defended my edit for the sake of accuracy and not to promote a political viewpoint. StanStun, all I ask is that you do not allow whatever personal beliefs you might hold about Greeks and Christians to bias your editing of the Turkey article.

Dousis (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How about improving the Economy section of the Greece article? I can personally give you a hand on that one. StanStun (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll get right on it after the Genocide section of the Turkey article. Oh wait, all the Armenians froze and starved to death, I forgot. Dousis (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 78.182.226.205, 24 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Istanbul is the most populated city but not the largest. Please change Turkey's largest city is Istanbul to Turkey's largest country is Konya. Thank you. (:

78.182.226.205 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done In the context of cities, "largest" means "most populous". Algebraist 20:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

successor to Ottoman

I think stating that Turkey is successor to Ottoman is incomplete. I wrote a summary of history of Turkey. I mentioned Seljuks first. See the 2nd paragraph in Germany page: A region named Germania, inhabited by several Germanic peoples, has been known and documented before AD 100. Beginning in the 10th century, German territories formed a central part of the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted until 1806. During the 16th century, northern Germany became the centre of the Protestant Reformation. As a modern nation-state, the country was first unified amidst the Franco-Prussian War in 1871. In 1949, after World War II, Germany was divided into two separate states—East Germany and West Germany— along the lines of Allied occupation.[7] Germany was reunified in 1990. West Germany was a founding member of the European Community (EC) in 1957, which became the European Union in 1993. It is part of the Schengen zone and adopted the European currency, the euro, in 1999.[8][9][10]Kavas (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Official names VS popular names

Dear editors,

Please do not forget that there are wiki rules for names. They clearly state, that the official names are less preferable to the popular English in the current period. In this case, the "conflict" of Halki and Heybeliada should be easy to solve. So if it is spoken about Istanbul vs Constantinople, it is not important for Wiki, that the official is Istanbul. It counts, that presently the popular name for the city is Istanbul. If it is spoken about that city in the historical sense, then Constantinople was the popular before the establishment of the Republic and for articles about the time before the establishment should be written with Constantinople. There are very reliable sources for the name-change date.

To those, who advocate "official" names I will remind that even if Turkey has changed, if it can be said so, the "official name" of the mountain Ararat, it doesn't mean the world has and it is ONLY that name used in Wiki. 1 only article can be mentioning that the Turkish version (as versions in other languages) of it is different.

I hope this will help solve this problem too. And once again, please don't mix several different edits in 1. Aregakn (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

While it is true that Heybeliada is the official name of the island, the theological seminary itself is always referred to in the literature as the "Halki Theological Seminary", never the "Heybeliada Theological Seminary". The island should of course be generally referred to as Heybeliada. The seminary, however, should be referred to the way it is referred to in the literature. Athenean (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? I am not really familiar with the subject seminary. Aregakn (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Respect for official names is one thing. The speed with which they are changed is another----Clive Sweeting

New sugesstions; barcode and callin number

Can we add the barcode code of Turkey, 868 and 869? And I would add + sign before the calling code 90. --144.122.124.100 (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Atheists of Türkiye

Please add Turan Dursun and İlhan Arsel as famous atheists. Also the number %99 (muslim) is lie. You can search some public surveys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.168.208 (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of religious minorities

The section on religion includes the following sentence: "Fewer than 100,000 religious minorities live in Turkey." That should be something like, "Fewer than 100,000 residents of Turkey belong to religious minorities." A "minority" is a group, not a person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.159.92 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,

I discovered that you say Turkey is a "founding member" of the European Union, which I think is a grammar mistake, this should be "pounding member" in my opinion.

Kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.114.228 (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

The Armenian, Greek, Assyrian Genocides and Turkey

I'd like to invite to the discussion those, that think, that these issues are either irrelevant to the article or do not constitute part of the country's current life and politics both, internal and external, and so by this do not worth to be mentioned in this article. Any comments? Aregakn (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Most Turks believe that the Armenian point of view is single-sided and doesn't include the Turks and Kurds who were killed by the Armenians and Russians in eastern Anatolia. The deportations are a reality, and it is also a reality that thousands of people died during the relocation from eastern Anatolia to Syria. But there was another side to that coin which should also be recognized. The Turks suffered similar tragedies between 1878 and 1922 but aren't making a lot of noise about it. Anatolia is full of Turks who had to leave the Balkans and the Caucasus (the lucky ones who managed to arrive) during the final decades of the Ottoman Empire. Also, the "genocides" that you mention do not rank high in terms of similar events in Spanish (The Americas), Belgian (Congo), British (South Africa), Japanese (China), German (Europe), Russia (Russia), etc, history. It is also a fact that the Armenians are inflating both the facts and the figures so that, if Turkey will become weak one day, they might attempt a revival of the Treaty of Sevres and the proposed Wilsonian Armenia. The whole "semi reality, semi myth" is for land, nothing else. Iceman rides your tail (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with Iceman rides your tail. Also, feel free to create a new "X Genocide" article page and write whatever you want, there. Don't destroy the 'Turkey' article. Oh, by the way, how about this? [1]. Real deal! Should we add that to 'Armenia'?

Dousis; Me? Sockpuppet? of who? Don't just throw stone and run away. If you claim something, prove it. We're all here & waiting for you. --Ozguroot (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Iceman, your above paragraph shows your anti-Armenian bias. "Deportations" and "relocation" are euphemisms for genocide. And about 1.5 million Armenians died, not "thousands." Holocaust deniers use the same tactics to downplay the monstrosity of the Nazi genocides. Saying that Turkey's neighbors treated Turks badly doesn't make the Armenian, Greek, or Assyrian genocides any less horrible or factual--two wrongs don't make a right. Furthermore, the Armenian/Greek/Assyrian genocides involved organized killings of minorities and ethnic cleansing in order to solidify Turkish claims to its present borders, while what you're talking about (1878, 1922) refers to Turks leaving countries that were once part of the Ottoman Empire but later achieved independence.

I think what's most abhorrent in your statement is the suggestion that, "Oh, the Armenian genocide wasn't that bad compared to other ones." Yes, more people died in the Nazi death camps and the Congo. No, that does not absolve the Ottoman government of wrongdoing and does not make it acceptable to deny historical fact today. Whether Armenians seek to recover lands that compose part of modern Turkey is immaterial. The Armenian genocide is a historical fact, it's worthy of a one-sentence mention in an article on Turkey. Let's all move on.

Oh, and while you're at it, don't put "genocide" in scare quotes. That's just insulting to the people who were the victims of organized mass killing at the hands of the Ottoman government--the technical definition of genocide.

Ozguroot, I was informed by User:Athenean that you're a sockpuppet of the banned User:StanStun and User:Shuppiluliuma. Your revisions and manner of speech are very much like those of the banned users, which leads me to believe Athenean.

Dousis (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So you mean 'Oh, you are a sockpuppet because my friend said!'? No, "My friend said" is not a valid reference/reason. Gimme some better reason. Do you always call "sockpuppet" the people you don't agree with, in here? What revisions are you talking about? It seems you didn't even have a look at my edits. I am here because i edit Passports/Visas articles and people appreciate that a lot. I usually contribute only to those articles but of course i couldn't stay and watch your unobjective comments/modifications on the articles about the country i live in. I focus on Passports articles from September 2008 till/inc. now May 2010. Next time, please do a little effort and have a look at users' contributions pages. Who are StanStun, Shuppiluliuma? I'd prefer getting called 'sockpuppet of Passportguy'. That would make sense, at least. --Ozguroot (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed Ozguroot ia a big fan of Grigori Perelman and User:Shuppiluliuma does not seem to be interested in math. I am also a fan of Perelman. (By the way, Sukru Elekdağ did not have an official duty in 2000, so I did not see the connection between the reference and the sentence in which the reference is used.) Kavas (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I read the article now, it mentions some academicians, but except for Halil Hoca, none of them are Turks. ITS has not an official status. The writer calls for academacians and TTK to start working on the topic. As you see Turkish academicians does not work on this topic, according to the writer since he calls them to start working on. Have you read the article, or just the title? Levon Maraşlıyan is also Armenian. In short, the article does not support "The denial of these genocides remains an essential part of Turkey's foreign and internal policies, including in the academic sphere"Kavas (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Concentrate on this talk and please leave those others to other pages. Now, What most turks believe in, as you claim it (though I don't know what independent sensus it is) or the Turkish government believes in is not what wikipedia is. WIkipedia is for facts proven by non-biased, 3rd party published reliable sources. Aregakn (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kavas, I hope you are not serious, as I will bring you 1000s of such examples including from the legistlation of Turkey. Are you serious, that the denial is not an essential part of it's current politics? Aregakn (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The death toll of "1.5 million" is impossible, given the fact that the total pre-WWI Armenian population in the entire Ottoman Empire (including the Balkan provinces that were lost in 1912) was close to that figure. As I said before, "solid facts" have been mixed with "myths" and "exaggerations" in this issue. Everything is for "land", with the hope that Turkey will become weak one day and it will be possible to revive the Treaty of Sevres and Wilsonian Armenia. Iceman rides your tail (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up your concerns about why you don't want this issue to be mentioned. Although understandable, but you're probably mixing an encyclopedia with some other type of websites. The OR you make and estimations etc ar only your views. I don't make ORs. I state RS. If you don't agree with them being an RS. Otherwise your actions are disruptive editing. Aregakn (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What Mr. Iceman considers possible or impossible is entirely irrelevant. Especially considering that I am certain he is a sock of the banned User:Shuppiluliuma. Athenean (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You are suffering from paranoia, I'm afraid. Iceman rides your tail (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Judging from your above comments about "Wilsonian Armenia", it seems that it is you who suffers from paranoia. Athenean (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Says the person who fervently denies any accusations against Greece in the Massacre of Kodra and other similar articles. Iceman rides your tail (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Says the now-blocked sock of a user banned for ultranationalist disruption. Athenean (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Iceman, personal attacks will not help bring the information to wiki. Anything constructive to be said about why you delete the info? Aregakn (talk) 05:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Kavas, I did not say that the academia were turkish nationals. The phrase is telling about a state policy among academia and isn't speaking about Turkish academia only (otherwise there'd me many more). As for the politician reference and the reason why you did not include it, I understand your reasons. But the thing is, that it was said about politics of/in Turkey (remember? internal and external) and that reference was to show the political arena of Turkey. Is this enough? Aregakn (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Iceman and Ozguroot, wake up and stop deluding yourself. I don't know what they teach in Turkish schools, but you need to accept that the Armenian/Greek/Assyrian genocides are a historical fact and not an excuse to restore "Wilsonian Armenia." Denying historical fact, a policy that goes from the Turkish prime minister's office down, is completely unacceptable. Most countries in the world have shameful episodes in their history, but people like you bring greater shame onto Turkey by denying historical fact and refusing to move on. Imagine how odious it would be if somebody tried to scrub the article on Germany to remove any reference to the Holocaust; what you are attempting to do is more or less the same thing. Stop trying to use Wikipedia as a forum to expound your racist, hypernationalist views.

Dousis (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Turkey/Turkish-people-hater Greek friend Dousis, I guess, getting called a "sockpuppet" TOTALLY without any serious reason (Other than "Hey! My friend said that!") is completely unacceptable, too. (If you'd appreciate that, though.) It hurts me. Could you please read my last message in here? There are questions you should answer before we go further. You claimed something. So, prove it. Oh, by the way, how about this one? [2] It seems you're already violated Wikipedia Policies. Section: 'Userspace vandalism' @ Wikipedia:Vandalism also Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. Wonder if someone would say that's acceptable. Best wishes. Take care. Have a nice day and good luck on filling Wikipedia articles with Anti-Turk&Turkey comments. --Ozguroot (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ozguroot, you are repeating the same mistake as Iceman; do not make personal attacks on editors, it is not constructive for the content. Calling one a sock-pupp isn't an attack, but calling names is! And if you, guys, have notes of personal violations, the article talks are not for it. There are personal talk-pages for it.

Now for the content. Let us not mix the names and the genocide issues. For the names I'll open an other discussion here. This one is about the genocides. WHatever edits I made I based on very many references to reliable sources. They CANNOT be deleted just lke that. Tell me Ozguroot, Iceman or whoever, what are the reasons you think that these issues should not be here. Please try to keep it about the very subjects and not bring other issues. Aregakn (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see Iceman was blocked. So he really was a Sock-puppet. Well, whoever wishes to comment, pls do. Aregakn (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really have time or energy to read all of your comments so I will just comment on the request of "genocides". The request is ridiculous because those things are claimed to be happened before 1923. Done, the so-said genocides are irrelevant--Lonewolf94 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What you do is telling you don't care what and how these issues were discussed. Wikipedia is not for this type of partisan goals. it is a community of editors discussing and informing. Wither read and comment accordingly, or leave it be. Aregakn (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Banned user Shuppiluliuma struck again using one of his innumerable socks [3]. I have reverted him, and made some other edits, adding a bit to the history section and tightening the lead. Athenean (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for watching the page(s) for Socks. Aregakn (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I made an easy solution offer, don't you like that sir. In 1915 Turkey was not founded so so-said Armenain Genocide is not related. Basic, simple... But of course you can keep on telling the imaginary things in the Armenian Genocide page which you are already doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonewolf94 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Read what's written about it and, if you will, comment that and come to a compromise. before that deleting information with references is not acceptable and are disruptive and tendentious. Aregakn (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In this discussion one important fact is ignored. 1915 was the second year of the First World War and most of eastern Turkey was occupied by Russians between 1915-1917. What happens when a territorry is occupied by a foreing invader ? I hope nobody lives it. But, we can get an idea watching Hollywood films about the occupied France or Poland in the Second World War; No civilian administration, draft-dodgers, anarchy, etc etc. For the 1915-1920 east Turkey you can also add lack of food, lack of medical help and (later) Spanish flu to the list. Of course deported Armenians suffered heavily. But same is true for the other citizens of the empire also.

The only accusation the Ottoman Empire government must face is the large scale deportation. I agree this was unnecessary and the accommodation facilities were much beyond the capacity of Ottoman Empire. Besides the target of deportation was too far away. OK, you call it impotence. But this is not genocide. (And let's remember it was a common war practice in 1900s in all countries.)

If somebody is to be condemned for the loss of humans why don't we condemn colonial empires of pre 1914 which stareted the war ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are making a nice WP:Original Research but the article talk-pages are not for opinions about events or self-created theories. These can be made on personal blogs and can be deleted from the talk-pages. Aregakn (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The removal of the ethnic info from the lead is not ok, especially without any explanation whatsoever. The fact that Turks form the majority, with a large Kurdish minority is important, and it is sufficiently important that it be mentioned in the lead. This has been the consensus for a while now. Athenean (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr.Aregakn, you might think that everything that is disagreeing wth you is a POV but they are not. You are so blind with the hatred of Turks whom (supposedly) slaughtered your nation that you don't really try to understand others arguements. I would reccomend you to not mark everything as a POV. Best regards--Lonewolf94 (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way Athenean I see that you just made a common mistake, Kurds are majority of Turkey because according to Lozan Treaty all muslims in Turkey are majority--Lonewolf94 (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Resources of so-said Armenian Genocide and Edit Request

How much I corrected the "Armenian Genocide" thing, nobody accepted it and people marked me as a vandal. So now politely I am telling you that your resources for so-said Armenian Genocide are uselless. Firt of all, all those letters to our prime minister are not academic researches, so they prove nothing besides of the fact that such letters are written. Also I didn't see any kind of academic and cited research in the IAGS. The last one is really academic but if you open the link you just face the names of a bunch of so-said Armenian Genocide related books written by people who have "-ian"s at the end of their names. So should I conclude that all of them are resources or just one of them. Besides these resources are not well-cited. So they mean nothing and all of these proofs are not exactly proofs. I would say that they are western propaganda. Still if you want to really deal with this subject, use Turkish references to understand what exactly is a proof.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I suggest a better resource [[4]]. And here is my MLA citation for it: "Introduction." Ermeni Sorunu. 24 June 2010 <http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html>.
With this reference I suggest the sentence starting with the "During the war..." and about the Armenian Genocide to be changed into: "During the war, mutual ethnic fights between Armenians and Turks started with the Western provocation. During these ethnic fights both Armenian and Turkish people were violently massacred." --Lonewolf94 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a better paragraph for the last paragraph of "Turks and the Ottoman Empire": "After nearly a century of decline, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers and was ultimately defeated. During the war, mutual ethnic fights between Armenians and Turks started with the foreign provocation and during these ethnic fights both Armenian and Turkish people were violently massacred." --Lonewolf94 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I really do not understand why you are undoing my edits and calling me vandal or propagandist. I gave you my reasons why that paragraph and its resources are unacceptable and invalid. I did my edit with showing references, and I told that there would be an edit three days ago. So what did I do wrong!? I am doing this job with my best manner so if you want me to find more references or discuss it more, I would understand and respect but I also want to be understand and respected.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is my all references, they are cited in MLA:

"Introduction." Ermeni Sorunu. 24 June 2010 <http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html>.

"DID THE TURKS UNDERTAKE A PLANNNED AND SYSTEMATIC MASSACRE OF THE ARMENIANS IN 1915?" The Armenian Issue in Nine Questions and Answers. 27 june 2010 <http://www.foreignpolicy.org.tr/documents/books/the_armenian_issue.pdf>.

"The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide." Tall Armenian Tale. 28 June 2010 <http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/index.htm>.

"Radical Views." The Armenian Genocide by the Ottomans…the Big Lie. 28 June 2010 <http://www.radicalviews.org/index.php/analysis/politics/118-the-armenian-genocide-by-the-ottomansthe-big-lie.html>.

Katchaznouni, Hovhannes. Dashnagtzoutiun Has Nothing To Do Anymore. Istanbul: Kaynak Publishing, 2007.

McCarthy, Justin. Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922. New Jersey: Darwin Press, 1995.

Fein, Bruce. “Lies, Damn Lies, and Armenian Deaths.” The Huffington Post. 29 june 2010 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/lies-damn-lies-and-armeni_b_211408.html>

I hope these are acceptable.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

URL encoding incorrect... on a dead link

{{edit protected}}

A URL used in this article is improperly encoded, using Turkish characters that properly should be encoded in hex. In technical terms, they are 'malformed'.

cite [130], in the section "Sports"

• http://www.halter.gov.tr/DÜNYA-OLİMPİYAT%20REKORLARI.XLS

should be:

• http://www.halter.gov.tr/D%C3%9CNYA-OL%C4%B0MP%C4%B0YAT%20REKORLARI.XLS

However, this link is dead; 404, so it should be removed, tagged as dead, or found in the wayback machine. Or it should be {{fact}}-tagged. Cite [129], just 3 words prior and on the same server is also dead, but does not have any encoding issue. Targets are spreadsheet files in a proprietary format, which is rather less than ideal; not sure what our linking policy has to say about this. It should frown on this ;)

Further, this pages badly needs WP:Reflinks run on it to fix the raw URLs that are not fitting in the multi-column scheme. See cites [22] and [23].

Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done It's a dead link. It's not on wayback (since it's an xls file, I'm not surprised), so I've added a "dead link" template to the link.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

Hi. If the link remains then the encoding should be updated; also cite [129] is should ten be dead-tagged. User:HJ Mitchell suggested that I do a lot of edit protected request a few weeks ago, so I am... At the moment I'm looking into an issue with the adminbars tool on your user page; it's not in anything you've done, but deeper in the suite of core stuff. Hairy, in there. Pleased to meet you, and thanks again. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Changed link address, and dead linked no 129. Links should remain - see WP:LINKROT.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. See you next time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Economic Values

Could you update the values?

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/01/weodata/download.aspx

GDP PPP 1,094.02 GDP Nominal 710.737 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.60.68 (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur - there's one part in the economy section where it predicts what the inflation rate in 2008 will be. It was 8.7 - http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=tu&v=71

Also - it's been a while since I last edite on the Wikipedia, and I was shocked - SHOCKED - to discover that the admins are slowly taking over. One of the best things about this project was the way it forced people with disparate views to build consensus - ultimately, that was the best guarantor of Wikipedia's quality and neutrality. But now that decisions can be arbitrarily imposed by a self-selected group of elites, a lot of that collaborative spirit of the project is in jeopardy. The Disco King (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request by Lonewolf94

I request this sentence(After nearly a century of decline, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers and was ultimately defeated.) in the last paragraph of Turks and the Ottoman Empire section to be changed into "After nearly a century of decline, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers and was ultimately defeated and was partioned by the Entente powers."--Lonewolf94 (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it'd be better if we said; "... and was ultimately defeated and partitioned by the Entente powers." Enemy just doesn't sound right... My two cents. Aerodil (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, it seems better so I am changing it.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Be warned that anyone believed to be edit warring, irregardless of if they violated WP:3RR or not will be blocked for disruption. Discuss the issues here. Tiptoety ^talk 22:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The IPs 88.251 and 78.176 are the banned User:Shuppiluliuma, and I think an exception should be made for reverting them. Athenean (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning

At the History part of this article I have seen that coups and PKK was mentioned. How about mentioning ASALA and Deniz Gezmiş and such things. They are important for Turkey.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

They are not that important considering how little space you need to use in frontpage and a lot happened in the Republic era. They definitely need to be in subpage, but i say nay on writing them on main page.--Cerian (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

The etymology of the word "Türk" is listed as "Türk, which means 'strong' or 'mighty' in Old Turkic", based on the American Heritage Dictionary.

However, it's fairly well accepted now (at least by those with a less nationalistic bent) that this is a politically encoded definition. See, for example, Sevan Nişanyan's etymological dictionary of Turkish, which lists the etymology of "Türk" as follows:

"It can be thought that [the word 'Türk'] is derived either from the Old Turkic word tür, meaning 'of a specific lineage' or 'descended from a common (mythical) ancestor, or from the Old Turkic verb tür[mek], meaning 'to gather, assemble'. The meaning of the word as 'strong, mighty', used since the 8th century, is doubtless a politically motivated fabrication." [5]

In the Orkhon inscriptions, the word türk is often paired with the word bodun: the latter means roughly "the common people", with the former being used to indicate "the rulers" or "the upper class" (a pairing similar to, for example, the Persian خاص و عام, meaning "noble and plebeian, high and low"); this is clearly in line with Nişanyan's explanation.

I wonder if it would be possible to incorporate this sort of information into the article's etymology section. I'm not, of course, proposing that the etymology as "strong, mighty" be entirely removed, as that is a very old use of the word; rather, I'm proposing adding information to take the etymology of "Türk" back to an earlier stratum. Any thoughts? Saposcat (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Armenophilism in wikipedia

From 300,000 to 1.5 million Armenians were killed during WW1; yes it has added but about 517,000 Turks-Kurds were massacreed by Armenian volunteers and Tashnaks.If we write Armenians' mass killings what will happen the Turks ??? Especially User:Kansas_Bear is a Armeno-phili user everytime delete Turkish civilians' ethnic cleansing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.111.71 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This wiki is a toy for Armenophilists and barbarian Tashnaks.Looks like a ofisboy's diary.1,5 million story... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.111.71 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that you are one of the banned users coming back under another IP - whatever - your claims need unbiased, recognized by the consensus of historians, valid sources for such to be added to the encyclopedia. A rant accomplishes nothing. This will always be a hot-button issue to Turkish nationalists. The Armenian genocide happened. FACT. That Armenians and others killed Turks in self-defense or for revenge is also FACT. But numbers killed and motivations need documenting by 3rd-person objective scholars. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

You're not looking to the events from the right angle. The only problem of Turkey was not Armenians. Turkey was at wars with many countries, and after losing the war the Muslim population in the Empire was massacred. Were Arabs in Libya killed because they first killed Italian settlers there? It is a process ongoing in the whole Empire, not only at Eastern Anatolia, see the big picture. Kavas (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Lake Tuz, the "turkey" in the middle of "Turkey"

I've added information and images of Lake Tuz insofar as it looks like a "turkey" and is macroscopically visible in the middle of Turkey, which is obviously culturally significant. This involves both this article and the Lake Tuz article. I think it's a great addition! --Wykypydya (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's utter rubbish... What does that "POV" statement try to imply, that the name "Turkey" comes from the shape of Lake Tuz? I personally could not see any resemblance with a turkey (the bird) at all (it's totally your personal opinion.) So un-encyclopedic, so cheesy, so childish, so irrelevant and absurd... Obviously the work of a troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.125.65 (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Turkey has parliamentary democracy

Parliamentary Republic is wrong. All republics have a parliment. You should write as " Parliamentary Democracy " or " Democratic Republic."

and Why is there no topics about " Education in Turkey " ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cengiz ergun1987 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Founder

Is it really required to mention a quite controversial title like "founder" into the box for "the current government members' informations?" And the person mentioned there is dead for a long time. It doesn't make sense to write that name there as it is not informative about any current position of the government. His name is better mentioned in the parts related to history of the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.168.189 (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

EDITING REQUEST: Coat of Arms

Turkey DOAS NOT HAVE A COAT OF ARMS. The coat of arms present currently in the article is pure fantasy. Read our own article on the emblems of Turkey, all unofficial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Turkey Also anyone can read the Turkish Constitution and see that there's no mention of any coat of arms. There is also no law pertaining to a coat of arms. Now I'm not really sure how I can source that but the Cosntitution can be read online on any number of sites and anyone can see there's no mention of a Coat of Arms. Now about the Laws, should we really now provide the entire Turkish code to prove sth.'s missing? Or should the one that made the fantasy edit provide his own source for this imaginary coat of arms? I wonder. By the way, the Escutcheon of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zartus, 20 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Could you please let me edit the article?

Zartus (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Make 10 edits and wait 4 days Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zartus, 20 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The Lake Tuz picture and its annotation look so inappropriate and ridiculous as I believe the person who added this picture attempted to degrade the name of the country by associating it with the bird. It's a very well known fact that the English for Turkey is derived from Türkiye through the Medieval Latin Turchia. For this reason, I request the deletion of the picture and its annotation.

Zartus (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I see nothing wrong with this picture or its accociation with the country Turkey. The picture looks remarkably like a bird and should be noted in the image caption. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed, but if a NASA image exist it will be re-added per the comment above. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Human rights

I find it extraordinary that this article makes no mention of human rights, given that Turkey's dubious human rights record is so widely reported. It is also an important issue in relation to its possible EU membership. (Try googling 'turkey human rights eu membership' and huge numbers of articles about this come up.) The absence of any mention in this article looks like a whitewash. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

We do have an article Human rights in Turkey, covering this in detail, which is linked from one of the boxes at the end of the article but I agree that we need to link to it in a more visible way. We should have a short subsection with paragraph or two summarising the subject and a link to Human rights in Turkey as its main article. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(Now logged in.) OK - while you were writing that I added a few lines about this to the article. In particular a link to a press release from the European Parliament Human Rights committee dated this very morning, entitled 'Human rights in Turkey: still a long way to go to meet [EU] accession criteria'. Ben Finn (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You can summarize that link and add the summary to here. But you should cover this in detail in Human rights in Turkey. We cannot include eveything about Turkey in this page. Kavas (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Anatolia

There is a contradiction in the use of "Anatolia" in that at one point the article implies that the whole of Asian Turkey is in Anatolia and at another point it implies only most of Asian Turkey is in Anatolia. (I was going to mark this with the "contradiction" marker but not being a frequent editor I was not sure how to use it properly). Rather than getting into nit-picking could we delegate this point down to the "Geography of Turkey" article and just assume in this article that all of Asian Turkey is in Anatolia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzlcdh (talk • contribs) 15:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Economy

I am not an economist but I think the "Economy" section should be shorter (that is more of a summary and less history) and some details should be moved to the "Economy of Turkey" and "Economic History of Turkey" articles. Also adding a few graphics would help readers understand the most important economic statistics (not sure which are most important).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzlcdh (talk • contribs) 16:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 

Military

What is the main purpose of the Turkish military? Surely to fight the PKK? So I think there should be a little in this section about how they are performing in that conflict. In order to make space for that the paragraph about their international missions could be shortened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzlcdh (talk • contribs) 17:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Echohago, 3 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} "...The actual commander of the armed forces is the Chief of the General Staff General Işık Koşaner since August 30, 2008..." It should be: "2010" not 2008. General Ilker Basbug retired from the Chief of the General Staff in 2010.

Echohago (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The current source for that statement says Işık Koşaner was Chief since 2008. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

His NATO biography states 2010. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-66E790CA-0E723386/natolive/who_is_who_65978.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderMcBragg (talk • contribs) 02:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, Stickee is incorrect above. Kavas (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Who writes such bullshit and locks the article??? What the hell???

Someone has written that Turkey is a "bad" eurasian country and borders with Greece, the "best country"! What bullshit is this?? And why is the article locked such??? It's a shame! Please correct the article as soon as possible and don't allow every stupid person to write whatever they like! And personally, I am greek and I do protest about that! Greeks and Turks have common roots and everybody who knows real history can easily understand that! And nowadays, after some stupid awful conflicts in the past, we are friends once again and we live in peace! Unfortunately, it seems that there are still some big idiots out there who try to tease each other's homeland! Please don't allow such shameful things be written in wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.172.26 (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you be more explicit about that POV? Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 07:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Next time you delete others' comments, I'll just archive the entire post, how about it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"showing both sides"

I have undone this edit [6] on the grounds that, while well-intentioned, is not neutral, but rather consists of weasel wording. Language such as "these claims have been questioned" is precisely WP:WEASEL, which we should avoid. The Armenian Genocide is an incontrovertible fact. It happened. Any historian worth his salt agrees. The only ones who have questioned it are the Government of the Republic of Turkey, the legal successor state to the state that orchestrated it, and historians in its pay. However, the wording I removed, by omitting to say exactly who has questioned the occurence of the Genocide, lends legitimacy to Genocide denial. The only wording that would be correct would be "The Government of the Republic of Turkey, the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, denies that these events constituted Genocide.". Even so however, it is not the place of the History section of this article to go into who denies and who accepts what. In this section, we present historical facts in WP:SS fashion. The Genocide is a fact, while the denials of the Turkish government are moreover not even history, as they continue to the present day. Perhaps inserting this wording somewhere else in the article might work. In the history section, however, a link to Armenian Genocide, whose lede includes the denial efforts by Turkey, is sufficient. Athenean (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I should say that I also don't like weasel language, altough as an unnative speaker I might use it too, so thank you for bringing that up. However you called your section showing both sides but my problem is the fact that so-said Armenian Genocide is one sided biased issue. That's why if you check my section you would see that my references bring up well reasonable doubts about the Armenian Genocide. Though they don't have the most formal language they provide advanced academic research about the issue unlike the references "supporting" the Armenian Genocide. So I would say think again! Best regards--Lonewolf94 (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Genocide is a fact" (Athenean (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)) According to what solid proof ? There are only articles around which doesn't prove anything and by reverting that edit you are making Wikipedia is a biased source for information. I'm not asking for complete removal of Armenian genocide and all the talk that's been around but a user has the right to know that there has been a debate going on. The sentence on the page is strictly biased. Please read Wikipedia:POV before editing and stay unbiased. Best regards, --Orcunbaslak (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Depending on who you ask, there's also a "debate" about the validity of the Holocaust. Of course, those who deny the existence and scope of the Holocaust are racist, delusional morons, since they are denying a well-known fact in order to promote their loathsome, bigoted beliefs. Similarly, the Armenian Genocide is a well-established fact. Those who deny it typically have an ugly, ethno-nationalist agenda that has no place in what purports to be a factual article. Therefore, there is no need to equivocate on the Armenian Genocide; it was a factual event that merits being mentioned in an article on Turkey. Dousis (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Dousis mate. If your way of thinking of an objective article is to source only one point of view, than you have no right to criticize other people of being biased. To you, Wikipedia may seem like a tool through which you think you can dictate other people what to believe, yet what it is, is a free encyclopedia that "has to" stay objective and not propagate on highly sensitive matters such as accusing a whole nation or making suggestions that may put a group or organization under unnecessary bias or prejudice, without a definitive scholarly work supported by hard unquestionable evidence, that neither party can deny. After all this is where people come to read about things they may have no idea about and they deserve and need to hear both sides, without prejudice. So next time you decide to edit something off, either first read about the issue and don't write something you blindly think is to be true or better still try to rid yourself of your bias and prejudice.

Nobody here is denying the fact that a matter of such importance should be left out from the article about Turkey. They merely suggest that it be given the benefit of the doubt and be objective. I suggest everybody who happens to read this know and/or research their subject and don't mix emotion into something what millions of people come to read expecting it to be a fair article.

I also think this is no place to discuss such a matter even if you have the necessary qualifications. So please, if you want to discuss the legitimacy of the claims about the Genocide or any other subject for that matter, either create a new talk page dedicated to that or write on one that already exists. Also please read the talk page guidelines before you write anything on a talk page. Aerodil (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose that the section "After nearly a century of decline, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers and was ultimately defeated. During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated in the Armenian Genocide." is changed with the "After nearly a century of decline, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers and was ultimately defeated. Although some countries have politically accepted it as a genocide, the cause of an estimated 1.5 million Armenian deaths during the WWI is still an ongoing debate among historians. Some believing it to be a tragic catastrophe caused by one of the bloodiest wars in human history, others believing it was a systematic and planned extermination of the Armenian people." or with something else that is as objective as possible, and the reference changed to http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/ Aerodil (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is my comment on this issue (since Seb az86556 would like to hear it): I understand what Dousis means, but it's not a matter of what people think... it's a matter of what individual nations think, what the United Nations think. Nations control what is being taught in educational institutes, therefore Dousis' claim starting with "Depending on who you ask, there's also a 'debate' about the validity of the Holocaust. [...]" is not valid at all. The Holocaust is not denied by any present nation. Currently, only the death of Armenians, not an extermination, is a fact! If it was a fact, his sentence, "During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated in the Armenian Genocide." would be acceptable, but it isn't! It is an ongoing debate. Here is my contribution I believe I've written in an objective matter: " After the defeat, the Ottoman Empire was being partitioned by the Allied Powers. On March 1918, the Democratic Republic of Armenia has been established, which is the present Republic of Armenia. The Armenians, who are now a nation, have recognized together with other nations that during this war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated in an Armenian Genocide. Although the deaths of Armenians may have been confirmed by investigation, the Republic of Turkey defends that Turkish people have died during this time as well. The Republic of Turkey claims that the Armenian deaths were not caused by exterminations and denies the Armenian Genocide by strongly condemning the use of the word Genocide. The most common hypothesis for the high amount of deaths of Armenian people is the ones blaming either the Turkish authorities or the Armenians, however there is also the hypothesis that foreign powers have provoked and arranged a war between the Turkish People and Armenian People or even took part in this event. Nevertheless, not enough factual evidence has been provided to this time in order to support any of these propositions, which is why there is a huge controversy throughout the world. ". Please let me know what is wrong with my paragraph and why Dousis' sentence is preferred over mine. Thanks! -EthemD (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

EthemD, I don't think anybody deliberately removed yours to put the other one in there. I think when the administrator did a reset, it automatically reverted to the latest accepted revision, which in this case was Dousis' auto-accepted entry. I don't think anything's wrong with your revision there, but I do think that it's too long and detailed to be put under a short "Turks and the Ottoman Empire" section. It may need it's own section to be put under, but I do not think it's the right page. You can consider putting that under Armenian Genocide page, since it needs more objectivity. Even the Germany and Israel doesn't mention the holocaust more than five lines int their own pages. I will quote the "Armenian Genocide" section from the "Armenia" page: "When World War I broke out leading to confrontation of the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire in the Caucasus and Persian Campaigns, the new government in Constantinople began to look on the Armenians with distrust and suspicion. This was due to the fact that the Russian army contained a contingent of Armenian volunteers. On April 24, 1915, Armenian intellectuals were arrested by Ottoman authorities and, with the Tehcir Law (29 May 1915), eventually a large proportion of Armenians living in Anatolia perished in what has become known as the Armenian Genocide.

There was local Armenian resistance in the region, developed against the activities of the Ottoman Empire. The events of 1915 to 1917 are regarded by Armenians and the vast majority of Western historians to have been state-sponsored mass killings, or genocide. Turkish authorities, however, maintain that the deaths were the result of a civil war coupled with disease and famine, with casualties incurred by both sides. According to the research conducted by Arnold J. Toynbee an estimated 600,000 Armenians died during the Armenian Genocide in 1915–16.

According to the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the death toll was "more than a million". Armenia and the Armenian diaspora have been campaigning for official recognition of the events as genocide for over 30 years. These events are traditionally commemorated yearly on April 24, the Armenian Martyr Day, or the Day of the Armenian Genocide."

Even the Armenia page is being as objective as it can and gives the situation as it is... I can't understand why some are so insistent on being biased.Aerodil (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the message was actually for Seb az86556, who reverted my version to Dousis' version. He wanted me to give my input in this discussion. I know you didn't remove anything, Dousis did, and you made his writing more objective, which I am happy of but it was still missing essential parts to become fully unbiased. Yes, thank you,v I agree! The actual Holocaust doesn't even have this many lines in the Germany article - so I would also keep it short. I don't think it should have its own section though - that would be too long. I think it should be reverted to my version and we can make it shorter. -EthemD (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That section in the Armenia article, you quoted, is much more unbiased than the current sentence in the Turkey article, but I still don't think we need a separate section also in the Turkey article. If we just mentioned the consequences of the 1st World War and the things that nations and people think about what happened, it should be enough for that section. Well, looking at this discussion now, there is not much to add. I'm not able to edit the article, so how would we be able to change that part of the article? -EthemD (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

So the mention of the Holocaust in the Germany article should contain an equivocation saying that some people think that the Holocaust never happened? Wikipedia should not bend over backwards to accommodate extreme Turkish nationalists who insist on denying a fact. The section on Ottoman history in this article should have a single sentence mentioning that the Armenian genocide occurred during World War I--there is no need to "show both sides" and be "objective" when the other "side" is an outright lie. Dousis (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with the above. There is will be absolutely no equivocating so as to appease the ethno-nationalist agenda of some users. As far the rest of the world is concerned, the Genocide is a fact, and that's that. The only "debate" is within denialist Turkish nationalist circles. That the Turkish government denies the genocide is also a fact, however, the history section is not the place to mention it. Like Dousis says, one sentence mentioning the Genocide and the number of victims, and that's it. Athenean (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I never said that... read my paragraph again. I said that if you want to state something like a fact, it needs to be accepted by nations worldwide and the united nations. If it's something that is under discussion between nations, it shouldn't be stated like a fact, otherwise it is considered biased and unacceptable in Wikipedia. Topics that are under discussion between nations should be written in an unbiased way, giving propositions from both sides of the discussion, with continuous referencing. The Holocaust is recognized by all nations, so there should not be anything denying this on the Germany article of Wikipedia. This is NOT the case with what you call "the Armenian Genocide". It is not accepted worldwide by nations, therefore it should not be treated like a fact! -EthemD (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree with your statement EthemD. If something is not accepted worldwide such as jew holocaust it cannot be treated as a fact and thus needs to be removed from Wikipedia's pages. Users seek unbiased information in Wikipedia and therefor we must supply their needs. A case of ongoing debate DOES NOT MEAN that it is a fact. --88.241.151.157 (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Iran's president has publicly questioned the Holocaust, so I guess by your standard it's not a fact since it's not accepted by all "nations worldwide." To follow your logic further, I guess it's debatable who the inventor of the toaster is, since North Korea's government would tell you that the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il invented it. The only reason that the veracity of the Armenian Genocide is "under discussion between nations" is that the Turkish government stubbornly denies its guilt. The opinion of the Turkish government, or any government, is irrelevant; if PM Erdogan proclaimed tomorrow that the sky was chartreuse and not blue, would the color of the sky seriously be up for discussion? The point of a Wikipedia article is to display facts from a NPOV, not to promote the Turkish government's view of historical events. Like it or not, the Armenian genocide is a factual event because it was well-documented by multiple eyewitnesses at the time it occurred, and well established by modern historians with neutral perspectives on the issue. This, not the opinion of third-rate, tin-pot dictators, is what defines a fact. Dousis (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I can see that no one here is taking their time to read any proper book about the subject or even the talk page guidelines. See that's where you're wrong; it's still an on going debate, because there has never been a proper research with both sides contributing and benefiting not just from the Armenian or American archives, but from the Ottoman and Russian archives as well. That's why they're putting so much effort in propagating about it in the first place! You may think that it's a "fact" because you believe in it so much, you've grown to deny anything or anyone who may suggest the other way. It's no different than all the religions really. What they did is talk about it so much that it's true, everybody started to believe that it was true. They literally burned the ones who would dare suggest another point of view, and all they showed as an evidence was a book told to be sent by a god. While at the time everybody unquestionably accepted it, in time they've grown too intelligent not to take it all in without some solid proof... Well at least some did. So I know, that no matter what anyone says, no one will be able to convince you or people thinking like you to the contrary about the subject. I actually think that if all the Armenian people shouted all at once that it never happened, you would think it's been planned and forced by the Turkish government. Because let's face it, you don't like them. And it wouldn't be a problem, if it weren't for this instance. You just CANNOT say it's a fact, unless there's solid, unquestionable proof... and I mean the kind that made us believe the Earth was rotating on its own axis, not the kind that God exists. Until then, it will continue to be a debate, and that's why it deserves to be mentioned in Turkey's own page objectively and without bias and prejudice.Aerodil (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Flat Earth Society Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Kudos to you Aerodil!! Very well put! Can I suggest an admin to at least remove that sentence "During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated in the Armenian Genocide."? We're not able to edit the article, and supposed to come to a solution of this "Armenian Genocide" problem via this discussion. It's not really clear when the administrators will recognize the verdict of this discussion. Keeping that sentence in the article during this time is not fair and would just give a reason for the biased participants to go on with this discussion. -EthemD (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Appearently how much I show well references, say that there are reasonable doubts about Armenian Genocide and if there are reasonable doubts there is no crime and people are innocent until their guilt is proven it means bullsh*t to some people. And I also figured out that people like that Armenian Genocide paragraph, and if you change it with well reasons you are a propagandist vandal. So how much I would like to tell the plain truth, I need to be politic and make others happy so that some true history can be told. So how about this:
"After nearly a century of decline, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers and was ultimately defeated. During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated in the Armenian Genocide. However there are reasonable doubts that in fact the issue was mutual ethnic fights between Armenians and Turks which were provocated by foreign powers and that both Armenian and Turkish people were violently massacred."

Or, as EthemD suggested, we can delete the sentence about so-said Armenian Genocide.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I started to believe that Wikipedia is being polluted by racist actions from others members in such subjects. One thing for sure, that paragraphy is not going to stay like that. It will either be removed or it will show the both sides. This version of the page is damaging the reputation of the country with no proven facts and Wikipedia doesn't need racist editors that think the genocide is a fact while there is a such page Armenian_genocide_denial --Orcunbaslak (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Or, maybe it'll stay the way it is, because it's stating a fact. The page Armenian genocide denial exists to discuss denial of the Armenian genocide, not to lend credence to it. There's also a Holocaust denial page and a geocentric model page, but they too summarize beliefs that are factually untrue. And as for "proven facts," there's a pile of them linked to the paragraph. Seems to me you'd have to be a "racist editor" yourself not to accept that the Armenian genocide happened. 74.108.128.111 (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read "showing both sides". --Orcunbaslak (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted Seb az86556 (since he primarily wanted me to write in here) and he told me he isn't an English Wikipedia Administrator when I asked him to check my version of the paragraph, which is totally unbiased compared to the previous one. It is possible now to edit the paragraph, so I gave it a go and changed the paragraph to this: "After nearly a century of decline, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers and was ultimately defeated. Following the Armistice of Mudros on October 30, 1918, the victorious Allied Powers sought the dismemberment of the Ottoman state through the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920. The Ottoman Empire's casualties were enormous during the war and included the deaths of several different ottomans. There has also been a lot of population movement during and after this time, which was due to migration of refugees, asylumseekers and forced migration. According to many historians, the Republic of Armenia and many other nations, an estimated 1 to 1.5 million Armenians have died due to an Armenian Genocide, however this proposition has been denied by the Republic of Turkey and many other historians. Up to this date, there is not sufficient evidence to prove or disprove either proposition, which is the main reason why there is a worldwide controversy.". Now I see him removing my paragraph, because of "deliberate misuse of sources". I find this a bit awkward... might be because I'm new to Wikipedia, could someone maybe elaborate? and maybe also comment on my paragraph? Thanks in advance! -EthemD (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

All sources support the fact that there was a genocide. You didn't change them at all. This is close to vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This [7] is arguablythe worst, most inane attempt at genocide denial I have seen so far. Unacceptable. I will seek arbitration enforcement if this continues. Athenean (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Athenean. This paragraph just says that there is a part (a nation) of the world who doesn't think in an extreme way like you and denies the Armenian Genocide. If you haven't noticed, I also mention that there is part of the world that thinks there was an Armenian genocide. This is called objective writing. I didn't 'erase' the Armenian Genocide part, like you all do with my part - I mentioned both sides of the story. Secondly, all the information I used are from the Wikipedia pages, I didn't think it was necessary to use references to external websites in this case. If you really insist (non-English Administrator Seb az86556), I can take the references from those Wikipedia articles, but my paragraph will remain the same, since it is correct! You are just using it as a reason to delete my paragraph. My version of the article is internationally accepted - and I am not going to stop editing this article until all the extremist content is removed. -EthemD (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an ongoing dispute. Until Turkey accepts the notion of genocide, it's not WP:NPOV to not include other thinkings surrounding this debate. Wikipedia is a place where we insert the information to pages from reliable sources. This place is not for judgmentalism nor a propoganda of beliefs. Reporting facts is the job of wiki editors, whether you like it or not, you need to include stories of other side aswell.--Cerian (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it not an established fact that at no time there were 1.5M Armenians ever in the Ottoman Empire? These very Wikipedia pages attest to that, even those that are heavily edited and patrolled by ultranationalist Armenians. Check the relevant article(s). So, how about keeping only verified and undisputed, in the true sense of the word, be included in these pages? Holocaust is a verifiable fact, no matter what a politician says for domestic consumption. UFOs are not a verfifiable fact though so many claim to have been abducted by them. There is no proof of an Armenian genocide, no plan or act or proof of extermination as evidenced by so many Armenians who trace their origins there. How about just sticking to verifiable facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.248.90 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree, I mean just read through the article... it says that the Ottoman Empire simply exterminated foreigners at that time - without stating anything else. How can this be accepted? Let's get the facts straight: people died... A LOT of people from different ethnic groups died including Turkish Ottomans. This is the only fact and it was proven by archaeological research in that area. No one 'knows' if they died due to the war in general or due to planned exterminations... the only way to establish this fact is by having the United Nations agree on it. It's not that I do or don't believe in an Armenian Genocide. I just think that this is a highly disputed and sensitive topic and should be mentioned carefully and objectively on a nation's page (especially one that is considered the successor of the Ottoman Empire.) - EthemD (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The user Aethean in his defense of the Armenian genocide by stating the claim (in the first comment of this section) that weasel words cannot be used in a historical proven fact however in his defense of including the so called Armenian genocide he also falls to the fallacy of using weasel words. In the 150+ number of countries only 11 of which recognize the Armenian genocide and recognition is done through diplomatic pressure and not by consensus of historians. The Armenian genocide is not a fact and one needs only to look at the Armenian genocide articles on Wikipedia to find many contradictions (despite it being created by pro genocide advocates the contradictions are carried over by the sources they use).

To date many of the Armenian genocide sources are using the Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia, a politically motivated source of information at a time (circa: 1965) when the Soviet Union's hostility towards Turkey (a key NATO member and southern flank against Soviet Expansion or through it's Arab League proxy) was at it's highest. The equivalent to modern standards would be the acceptance of Iranian state policy in that they are both politically motivated, a weapon to be used against the source's diplomatic enemies. The usage of Iran is an example and not fact however the preceding belief is that Iranian state announcements are factually incorrect and are aimed to weaken her political rivals. AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Article is semi-protected

{{Edit semi-protected}} I want to make some changes on the article. But i can't do that because of the lock. How can i be able to edit? I created a vectoral version of the presidential seal, and i want to change the seal image in this article with my vectoral image(svg). --Feravoon (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Done I've replaced File:Presidential Seal of the Republic of Turkey.png with File:Presidential Seal of the Republic of Turkey.svg, which I presume is what you wanted. This page lists all articles that still link the old .png file; you could replace those with the file you uploaded if you like. You're only four edits away from becoming autoconfirmed, which will mean you can edit semi-protected pages like this one yourself. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Emblem

Turkish officials include embassies that represents Turkey abroad, use this emblem. But this emblem is not prescribed by law. So they said "unofficial". And this emblem is used only by President of the Republic of Turkey. Because of Historic states represented in Turkish presidential seal, some nationalists prefer it. But it is not national symbol but the symbol of presidency. In infobox of United States ee don't use this presidential seal. We don't use the presidential seal in the infobox of this article. Takabeg (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You cannot remove the official seal of state under such POV as "some nationalist prefer it". The emblem is listed at the official website of Turkish Presidential Administration [8]. Atabəy (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles needs become newer

NEW PICTURES BUST BE ADDED! ARTICLE HAS BECOME TOO OLD Worldglobal (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide Claims

To this date pro Armenian Genocide supporters continue to add claims of genocide to this document. It has been continuously stated that the genocide is an accepted fact to say that the world accepts it as undeniable fact, however some 11 countries through political pressure have via the creation of policy accepted the Armenian genocide claims. This clearly does not present these disputed claims as "undeniable fact" as 11 countries from the some 150+ does not constitute a majority.

Claims have also been put forward accompanied by weasel words and weak premises, such as claims of the majority of historians accepting it as fact or that "any historian worth his salt" has accepted the genocide claims. This is biased and it is arrogant to assume that a historian who does not accept the claimed Armenian genocide as undeniable fact does not have the necessary academic credentials to be accepted as a historian, indeed the argument "any historian worth his salt" contains the hidden premise "only historians that accept my view point are historians". Not only is this wrong but it also carries emotional weight which can easily mis represent the facts and present something as proof when it is not, Wikipedia is not made for this.

Students of academia and accepted historians who contribute to Wikipedia are bound by ethics to present the unbiased truth, the truth in regards to the Armenian genocide claim is that it is not a universally accepted fact. Accepting publications from politically motivated groups such as the Genocide Scholars Association is not and will not be accepted by the greater academic community since it falls into the trap that a politically motivated group who contributes publications will not only mis represent information but will also represent selected information as the whole undeniable truth. Attempts have been made at showing historians who are not associated with some sort of political entity of accepting the Armenian genocide claims as conclusive proof (representations are focused on numbers and not in the expertise of area of the historian), with some lists containing individuals who are businessmen, bankers & politicians - these are not historians as they focus on modern mechanics of finance and running of a country and do not constitute authority of past events.

Until such a time when the majority of the world's nations unanimously accept these Genocide Claims and not through parliament but through academic institutions (which would constitute the unanimous acceptance by academia of these events) who's duty is to investigate such claims then I propose and implore those who have access to this semi protected article that the genocide reference be removed and the document to be permanently protected from further edits with further edit rights given to those who are known to be bias free. The people who edit this article should also be bias free or should have their edit rights removed. AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am shocked to see such blatant armenian propaganda exists here. Such a huge paragraph that accounts for almodt a third of the "History" part. This page illustrates why wikipedia will never ever replace the real thing. Any hatemongering turkophobe can comr on here and write all kinds of lies about Turkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortacyel (talk • contribs) 08:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. The handful of nation that hae recognized this "genocide" fairytale have done it mainly because of political pressure and lobbying. I say delete it completely from "History" because it is simply not that significant for the history of Turkey which spans several millenia. It maybe significant for Armenians since their identity is built on this fake narrative of self victimization and many of them are obsessed with hating anyone or anything Turkish. Of course wikipedia as an open source "encylopedia" which is editable by anyone is an ideal propaganda tool for their agenda. Armenian issues are much more appopriate in foreign relations on the subject of current relations with Armenia.

"Another source of tension is the deportation of Armenians during World War I that occurred when Armenian groups sided with the invading Russian Army to carve out an independent Armenian nation state. Armenia and Armenian groups want this to be recognized as a case of genocide" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortacyel (talk • contribs) 10:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

SONUÇ OLARAK SÖZDE BİLE OLSA ERMENİ SOYKIRIMINDAN BAHSEDİLEMEZ!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.153.148.161 (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sonerin, 25 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The religion part is wrongly made. 90 percent of the Turkey believes in Islam, not 97.

Sonerin (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The CIA gives 99.8%, so I'm actually in doubt of the current 97. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Population total

hello everyone .. the world bank says that in 2009 75 mio. ppl live in turkey (link: http://data.worldbank.org/country/turkey ) and the cia says that in 2010 77 mio. people live (link: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html ) okay bye. & and the turkish tv says 76 million in 2010 bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.99.249.10 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Armenian and Greek harrasment of the page

The Armenian and Greek vandalisms are getting tiresome. Please be objective and stop playing with the article according to your own beliefs. This is an encylopedia article, not your personal POV about Turkey. All the best, --Diren Yardimli (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What's tiresome is the apologetic Turkish government propaganda and attempts to equivocate the Armenian Genocide. Your additions are nothing more than the standard Turkish POV ("Many people on all sides were killed, it was a crazy time, and those ungrateful Armenians rebelled against the poor old Ottoman Empire which had been so nice to them, bla bla bla") and are highly tendentious. We've heard it all before, and no one's buying it. Athenean (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If editors can find reference for these claims you're making fun of, then they can add this. WP is unbiased, all views should be represented but if the view is minor, the article should be edited regarding the problem of WP:UNDUE. But, "We've heard it all before" is a personal view.

You biased position against Turkey has caused the article to include fictional, fabricated data: [9] 12,128? [10] Athenean, sorry but you don't understand Wikipedia. Maybe you understand WP and like playing it. Then, have fun! Kavas (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Athena, sadly your message just shows what your aim is. I did not state any of the things you said either. The truth is you're trying to make the Turkey article an Armenian propaganda article -which is really not what Wikipedia is about. I did not erase any of the claims that were put by people like you -even though some of them are disputable as well. I just added (with trust worthy references) the other dimension (and an important one) to the paragraph. Please don't play with it. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles must be neutral. I agree with my fellow citizens.F.Mehmet (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like I'm following the main stream here, but I have to point out the fact that when I saw the headline "Armenian and Greek harassment of the page" I knew Athenean would have something to say about it. I hate it when people turn everything into what they think and how they feel which makes it harder for me to write the following and not get personal: I have no personal grudges against Greeks, Armenians and Turks, but the way you've been occupying these lines for the last year (at least in my knowledge) Athenean makes me think that you do. As much as I like bantering about endless political and historical issues with a random someone whose knowledge of the aforementioned subjects is as extensive as his knowledge of basic human manners, I get the feeling that you're trying to turn this into something ugly, that all the other gentleman I've seen here in the last year (except the few) have been trying to avoid. I have so many times in the past have tried to appeal to your reason and tried to make you understand that Wikipedia is the wrong place for you to be shouting your racial slurs at. No sir, Wikipedia is a place of shared knowledge, which most people are trying to keep unbiased. So assuming that you will show your remarkable wit you have proven many times that you possess and we have come to expect, to write yet another response about how Turkish people are so out-of-touch with reality that they don't share your point of view, with your extensive knowledge of the subject, I will say two things and will hopefully manage to be civil at the same time; 1) Don't bother responding to this unless you have something to say which has at least "some kind" of productive and/or co-operational value. 2) It's never too late to start learning how to be productive and/or co-operational... or at least objective for that matter, but I understand that would be too much to ask... Aerodil (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Athenean, either come up with a proof that shows my contribution is referenced by a misleading source or a come up with a good reason why you think it should not be there, or STOP vandalising the article. There are plenty of sites and blogs where you can express your feelings about Turkey, but this is not one of them. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What references? All I see is a Levene 1998 cite, with no bibliographical info. Who is Levene? What is the title of the work? Publisher? The stuff about Yerevan and Azerbaijan is completely off-topic, this article is about Turkey, and last time I checked Yerevan and Azerbaijan are not Turkey (though they might be in the minds of some people). The rest of your additions are unsourced OR and standard Turkish government propaganda, which has no place here. Athenean (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

For Christ's sake...!Aerodil (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It is estimated^[who?] that over 500,000^{[[ciatation needed]} Turks also died during this period, as a result of the atrocities committed by the Armenian guerrilla bands. In Yerevan^{[why mention Yerevan? this is about Turkey]} and other parts of the Caucasus^[where?] under the control of the Armenian Republic, Turkish villages were destroyed and the inhabitants were forced to flee or die. Two thirds of the Muslims^{[Muslims? I thought this was about Turks]} who had lived in the province of Yerevan in 1914 were gone^{[due to what?]} at the war's end. A similar fate met the Armenians in Turkish Azerbaijan.^{[what does Azerbaijan have to do with this?]}([who is Levene? what is this writing - blog? op-ed? research? paper? report? speculation?]) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The source is Anatolia 1915: Turks Died, Too, Justin McCarthy (Published in the Boston Globe, April 25, 1998) Somewhere during all these updates it seems to have gotten lost -sorry about that. And if you state that McCarthy is not a reliable source, I really won't bother to answer you. Now about your other objection -which is finally something worth answering in this discussion. Yes, the article is about Turkey's history -hence the Ottoman history. As the Ottomans were Muslims and the Azeris were also Muslims and the Azeris happen to be Turks, and add to that that both Azerbaijan and Armenia were part of the Ottoman empire, then this suddenly becomes very relevant to the discussion. When you're talking about the Roman Empire you're not just talking about Italy. As for your objection^{[Muslims? I thought this was about Turks])}, you probably know perfectly well that "Muslims in Azerbaijan" does not refer to an African Muslim tribe, but about Turkish Muslims since there are only Muslim Turks in Azerbaijan. I hope this clears it up. Next time, before you delete something, don't do it because YOU think it's irrelevant, come up with a proof that says Azeris were not Turks or Azerbaijan or Armenia was NOT in the Ottoman empire. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, that's interesting, can you provide a link to the article? When I search the Boston Globe archives, I come up with a lot about the massacres of Armenians, but nothing about this supposed article [11]. Are you sure you're not making it up? Besides, all the stuff about Armenia and Azerbaijan is completely off-topic: This article is about Turkey, not the Ottoman Empire. By the way you are edit-warring, and if you continue, you will be blocked. Athenean (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I rest my case. Go and turn the entire article into an Armenian propaganda article if that shall make you feel better. Your manner and perspective is out of line, was out of line from the beginning, and I shall no longer waste my time on you. It's senseless talking with senseless arguments. But just so you know, the title of the topic in the article is "Turks and the Ottoman Empire" so don't bladder about this being about Turkey and not about the Ottoman empire. I hope someone else will have the stomach to deal with you. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The map picture

Why don't we use this map?

File:Turkey map.JPG

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DonLon (talk • contribs) 08:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is Azerbaijan highlighted in the inset? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I corrected it. DonLon (talk)

I agree, this map is more useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.134.47 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason for using this over the current one? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Countries which doesn't have any land in Europe (like Cyprus and Armenia) are shown in European map because they are politically considered as Europe. Most of Turkey's land is in Asia maybe but Turkey is mostly dependent on Europe in many social and political subjects. That's why Turkey should be shown in European map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.243.135.92 (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Latest source additions by Namuslu

I looked at the sources recently added by Namuslu in the latest attempt equivocate over the Armenian Genocide. They do not back the claims made in the article. For example, this source here [12], in the page numbers provided (p. 234-254) makes no claim of "500,000 Turks and Muslims killed by Armenian atrocities". All the chapter discusses is famines in the coastal regions of Syria and Lebanon, in other words NOTHING to do with the claim made of "Armenian atrocities". Ditto the other sources. Second, the sentence "The deportation and extermination happened as a result of Armenian revolts and clashes with Turkish soldiers and civilians..." reads like a sickening attempt to justify the Genocide (i.e. the Armenians were slaughtered because they dared to rebel, i.e. they got what they deserved). Lastly, the words "what many historians call the Armenian Genocide" is a textbook example of weasel wording, for those of us that are new editors. The whole world recognizes the Armenian Genocide, our article here is called Armenian Genocide not What many historians call the Armenian Genocide. I am prepared to go to the highest levels on this. A handful of nationalists are NOT going to use wikipedia to inform the world that the Armenian Genocide was justified, or that there were two sides to it. No way. Athenean (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2011 (UT

It seems like you'll soon be justified to take some action. Some people apparently can't come to grips with the fact that the entity they so strongly identify with has done some terrible shit in the past and no comparisons or "yeah, but, but, they did it too" can change that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Bravo. You're working like an organized crime cell. Keep up the good work. Thumbs up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diren Yardimli (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)--Diren Yardimli (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad you like it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Do the sources back up the claim of revolts during the WWI campaign? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't. The issue is with the wording. The way it is phrased now: The deportation and extermination of Armenians happened as a result of revolts and clashes, mainly in eastern Turkey, during the Caucasus Campaign between the Ottoman and Russian empires. makes it seem like there is a causal link between the two, i.e. the Turks decided to exterminate the Armenians because the latter rebelled. As far as I know, NO neutral sources makes such a causal linkage, and for good reason: It is an attempt to insinuate that the deportations were somewhat justified, which I find odious. There were instances of Armenian resistance after the deportations had begun in 1915, but these were clearly instances of self-defense a la Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Athenean (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Religion In Turkey

"according to the KONDA Research and Consultancy survey carried out throughout Turkey on 2007[137]: 40.8% defined themselves as "a religious person who strives to fulfill religious obligations" (religious); 42.3 % defined themselves as "a believer who does not fulfill religious obligations" (not religious); 4.0% defined themselves as "a fully devout person fulfilling all religious obligations" (fully devout); 10.3% defined themselves as "someone who does not believe in religious obligations" (non-believer); and 4.09% defined themselves as "someone with no religious conviction" (atheist). Non-believers and atheists make up 15.2% of the population according to the KONDA Research and Consultancy survey"

those lines are not reflect the true picture of religion in Turkey. I've read the survey which has been carried by KONDA, and found nothing indicates 15.2% non-believer population. According to the survey, the correct rates must be like that;

Non-Believer: 3.2 Believer: 34.3 Religious: 52.8 Fully Devout: 9.7

Total: 100

Religion In Turkey article should be re-writted.

(ref. http://www.konda.com.tr/html/dosyalar/ghdl&t_en.pdf) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.42.87 (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

What is Armenian Genocide?

1.500.000 is exaggerated numbers. Please relating to this topic that you don't know properly, should't write in this called is Turkey's article. Please be objective and netrual. ,Because Armenian gonocide is a BİG LIE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.27.14.129 (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a live discussion (and voting) above. Can you see it? Kavas (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Population

Why on earth does there seem to be a long-term edit war over the population of Turkey? Can this be discussed please? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just gonna post the same thing... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

ther is already a discussion about this search it on this page haha.lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.98.72.87 (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, what on earth. Pick one and stay with it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Leaving the actual edit war alone for a moment (obviously edit warring is wrong, discussion is the key), I personally think that the CIA World Fact Book figure is the one we should be using, for the following reasons:

1. It is a consistent standard figure that we can apply across all countries, thereby ensuring their population figures are comparing like for like.
2. The alternative source at [13] is in Turkish, which goes against WP:CITE#Non-English sources. Also I have no idea on what "Vergi Portalı" is, so as a non-Turk it's hard to verify the reliability of the source.
3. The World Bank has Turkey's populations figures for 2005-2009 as: 71,169,037 · 72,087,928 · 73,003,736 · 73,914,260 · 74,815,703. Hence if it's going up by around a million a year then one would expect the 2011 figure to be around 77m rather than 73m. (This is obviously WP:OR, but I can mention it on the talk page as it is an extra factor weighing on my own decision ). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

2010 population is no more than 71-73 million. This information is cant be true.Population is cant growth like that so fast.This is not Democratic Republic of Congo.

Demonym

Since we're talking about a polity here, how appropriate is it to link the "Demonym"-line to the article about the majority ethnic group (which constitutes only 80% of the population). I tend to think that a link to the citizenship-article is more appropriate here. I'll leave this thread open for a few days. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC) : Since we can't link to a non-existing article. If you do it without first writing that citizenship-article, I'll revert. Kavas (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have found a better alternative from Afghanistan page. Kavas (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right Seb az86556 but the only thing we have to do is to create Turkish people (nation) article and split it from Anatolian Turks or Anatolian Turkmens. Just like British people and English people. According to Turkish citizenship law, anybody who holds Turkish citizenship is considered Turkish, so the demonym is Turkish. So, for example, a Kurd in Turkey is Turkish or a Circassian is Turkish. Ethnic Turkic people in Anatolia must be called Anatolian Turkmens because all Turkics who speak Turkish language in Turkey are of Turkmen descendants. F.Mehmet (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Anatolian Turkmens is a small part of Turkish ethnic group, because for example, some Albanians, Bosniaks, etc. are sometimes classified as part of this ethnic group. Otherwise, we would not have 80% Turkish population. Kavas (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly why a link to the legal definition is needed; the question "Do you hold Turkish citizenship" can be answered objectively, anything else gets into murky arguments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Kavas Thanks for your opinion, my friend. Actually, Turkic people is more than we thought. For example, everybody thinks that Diyarbakır is mostly populated by Kurds but actually more than 60% of Diyarbakır are of Karakeçili Turkmen descendants who speak Kurdish and they consider themselves Kurds. I don't want to mention the reason of "Kurdification" of this area, it's not what we ought to talk about.

Also, All of the Turkic people (I mean the people currently shown on Turkish people page and claimed to be 55 million) of Anatolia are Turkmens because all of them are of Seljuq descendants and, as you know, there are 24 Turkmen-Oghuz tribes and Anatolian Turks' ancestors formed these tribes. If you think that the phrase "Anatolian Turkmens" is old-fashioned we can use simply Anatolian Turks or Turkic people of Anatolia.

Turkish population consists 98%-99% (Because Kurds, Circassians, Bosniaks and others are not minorities according to the Treaty of Lausanne) of Turkey's total population (more than 75-76 million must be considered Turkish) if minorities (Greeks and Armenians) and tourists who have property here are not considered Turkish. Because "Turkish" is the name of the nation. This is why we've got to create Turkish people (nation) article or change the population number on the Turkish people article to 75 000 000+ in and 80 000 000+ citizens or ethnic Turkish all around the world.

By the way I did not understand why the classification shows that Bosnians or Albanians are Turkish but Kurds are not. Have a nice day and greetings. :) - F.Mehmet (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to use "Anatolian Turkmens" phrase in Oghuz people article, but people objected to it. I'll search for it in English sources to see if it is indeed used in English. Kavas (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide edits

Should these edits [14] be allowed to stand? I think not, based on the reasons I outline above. Note that they were originally added by a different user [15], with the latest sourcing done in an ad-hoc manner by User:Namuslu. Athenean (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes.Your reasons are not enough to justify deleting the pages. They are well-documented and referenced. They should stay. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• No. First of all... "what many historians call the Armenian Genocide"? If we are going to use this kind of wording, we are going to have to change a lot of articles. "Many scientists believe that the Sun is at the center of the solar system, circled by what some call planets. A belief that our earth is accompanied by a moon has been held by some nocturnal observers." Give me a break. As to the rest, let's not blame the Armenians for the Armenian genocide, k? Look, my Turkish brethren: it was a hundred years ago. You guys screwed up. People do that. Time to move past denial to acceptance. Herostratus (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• CommentHistory differs from positive sciences(Physcics,Chemistry,etc.). Nothing is absoulte in it, everything can be questioned and each event has its own dimension. So your analogy is pointless.--193.140.194.102 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• No. I agree with Herostratus. "what many historians call the Armenian Genocide" is WP:WEASEL wording and WP:OR. This editor also has a tendency for personal attacks. This is POV pushing accompanied by edit-warring and personal attacks. The same editor called Seb_az86556's edits vandalism. Clearly unacceptable behaviour. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment What's we call as unacceptable behaviour in Wikipedia is to comment on editors. "This editor also has a tendency for personal attacks." So what? If you want, go to ANI, but don't post these here.Kavas (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes It's bad English (better wording can be found), however, Armenian Genocide is rejected by many historians, including İnalcık, Shaw, etc. It's not a established fact. Kavas (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Yes Armenian Genocide is not universal fact and when studying the Armenian Genocide it can be clearly seen that there are many holes that are relevant negative facts against pro Armenian Genocide supporters. It is also a fact that nations adopting the Armenian Genocide are doing so through political lobbying as such no historical consensus is reached that can be considered academic quality as historians of that nation are not allowed to study the facts or do fact finding missions in the relevant archives of Turkey, Armenia and Russia. There is also as large number of historians who do not call the questioned events as genocide now compare this with the Holocaust which does have universal consensus that it is a genocide. AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• The mentioned sections in the article keeps being vandalised by a user named Seb az86556, even though the majority here have stated that it should stay that way. I have (once again) put it back in order. Pleaser refer to this topic before deleting any further information. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote; we don't let Nazis say that the greedy Jews deserved the Holocaust, either. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Please never compare "the Armenian Genocide" to the Holocaust. The Holocaust is not denied except Iran leader, but Armenian Genocide is not a established fact, and only recognized by 21+ countries not including U.S.A. Kavas (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
    • And that's definitly not an answer worth replying.--Diren Yardimli (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes(provided that the new wording isn't set in stone) Genocide has a very narrow meaning. It is mass murder of an ethnic group because they are members of that ethnic group. Conducting repression that leads to mass civilian deaths is a war crime but not genocide.Dejvid (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe you should take that to the United Nations. This section is not about whether or not there was a genocide; it's about whether or not apologetics and excuses, including blaming Armenians for their own extermination, have any place here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There are more than two possible points of view. It is not a choice between treating the deaths as genocide and "blaming Armenians for their own extermination"Dejvid (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I know; and the only acceptable sentence for that "other" point of view is "to this day, the Republic of Turkey denies these historic events." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That the Armenian Genocide is a genocide with the narrow meaning, is well attested. These people were specifically targeted because of their Armenian ethnicity. In fact, the word genocide was coined with the Armenian Genocide specifically in mind. Feel free to consult the sources in Armenian Genocide to see what I mean. Athenean (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"well attested" is not the same as proved.Dejvid (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why we don't "prove" things here; we attest. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is that both Athenean and Seb az86556 have decided that Wikipedia is a platform for pure and simple propaganda concerning the Armenian genocide. They have absolutely no tolerance whatsoever if you try to explain why Armenians were mass-deported and/or killed. They just want to put into peoples head a simple statement that goes like this: "Turks exterminated Armenians." It doesn't matter why it happened, what led to the tragedy, etc. I tried to add these facts, but in vain. They delete it and then they have you banned. You should all remember that if you push it too far, these guys have a well-organized diaspora here and have no problem in getting you banned. Most probably the best proof is what happens to this comment or my user name now. This is not just annoying anymore but openly frightening what these guys are up to and what limits they will push to have their propaganda online. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, per AussieSkeptic82. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• No per Athenean and Herostratus. We should not be pussyfooting around this issue and should not be treating the denial of the Armenian Genocide as a valid scholarly opinion, as it clearly is not one. The marginal position of a handful of individuals, including some scholars who have put their academic profession to shame by their actions (e.g. Stanford Shaw), is not enough to warrant inclusion.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, per AussieSkeptic82, "there is also as large number of historians who do not call the questioned events as genocide now compare this with the Holocaust which does have universal consensus that it is a genocide.", one can find more scholars, not only Stanford Shaw. Dizikaygisiz (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Population

Why on earth does there seem to be a long-term edit war over the population of Turkey? Can this be discussed please? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just gonna post the same thing... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

ther is already a discussion about this search it on this page haha.lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.98.72.87 (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, what on earth. Pick one and stay with it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Leaving the actual edit war alone for a moment (obviously edit warring is wrong, discussion is the key), I personally think that the CIA World Fact Book figure is the one we should be using, for the following reasons:

1. It is a consistent standard figure that we can apply across all countries, thereby ensuring their population figures are comparing like for like.
2. The alternative source at [16] is in Turkish, which goes against WP:CITE#Non-English sources. Also I have no idea on what "Vergi Portalı" is, so as a non-Turk it's hard to verify the reliability of the source.
3. The World Bank has Turkey's populations figures for 2005-2009 as: 71,169,037 · 72,087,928 · 73,003,736 · 73,914,260 · 74,815,703. Hence if it's going up by around a million a year then one would expect the 2011 figure to be around 77m rather than 73m. (This is obviously WP:OR, but I can mention it on the talk page as it is an extra factor weighing on my own decision ). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

2010 population is no more than 71-73 million. This information is cant be true.Population is cant growth like that so fast.This is not Democratic Republic of Congo.

Hello everyone, please answer here your arguments. Thanks.

Latest Vote of Turkey

There aren't latest Vote of Turkey results. --Sehinsah (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Turkish culture and folklore

• Atlas dergisi Sarıkeçili yörükleri

• Ege bölgesi Zeybek

• Ankaralı Seğmenler

• Yaren Kültürü Çankırı

• Şanlıurfa Sıra Gecesi

• Çayda Çıra Elazığ

• Karadeniz Horon

• Kırşehir abdalları

• Harmandalı Zeybeği

• Barak Türkmenleri

Where is the Turkey's map in this article??Please add it.User:Uber-Star005 04:32 9 June 2009 (UTC)