Talk:Geography of Turkey

Deleted the position that Alexandropol Treaty delimitate the current borders of the republic of Armenia

First, the Treaty of Alexandropol was not really signed by the republic of Armenia, but rather, Soviet Armenia, and was one of the conditions imposed by the Bolshevics during the fall of Armenia, which became part of the Soviet Union the same day, and an official new Bolshevic government. Second of, the second year, the Bolshevics and Turkey agreed to change the borders, with the Treaty of Kars, which settled the thing, by returning Alexandropol to the republic of Armenia. Fadix 19:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Local place name disambiguation by province

Started discussion at Talk:Provinces of Turkey. William Allen Simpson 13:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Kurdistan

According to TheFreeDictionary.com, Kurdistan is:

an extensive geographical region in the Middle East south of the Caucacus

Khoikhoi 21:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Which has no place in this article. Kurdistan is more of a political term than geographic. I do not see why it is even mentioned here. --Cat out 22:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I just proved that it's not just a political term. According to the reference it's a "geographical region", hence making it notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Khoikhoi 22:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It is most definitely a political term for the Kurdish independence struggle. Had it not be a political term, why would I be objecting? Thats like calling parts of France a part of Germanistan and then claiming it is just a random geographic region. --Cat out 22:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's both a political and geographic term. Just because something has two meanings doesn't mean we should exclude it because of one of them. Khoikhoi 22:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Kurdistan is a controversial cultural region which really has nothing to do with geography. You can say kurds live at the place, but summerising them as a region is problematic. --Cat out 23:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:V, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". I provided a source that says Kurdistan is a geographical region, now you need to provide a source that says Kurdistan is a "controversial cultural region" (and not geographic). Khoikhoi 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, play it that way. Don't ever ask my help in anything again. You completely lost my trust. --Cat out 23:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

All I asked for were sources... Khoikhoi 23:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So, you are saying a region that countries do not recognize isn't controversial? You will never see any country declaring that they do not recognize a place. It is recognition otherwise. --Cat out 23:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What other countries don't recognize it besides Turkey and Syria? Besides those two, you will see "Kurdistan" on any map, including National Geographic. Khoikhoi 06:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

134.245.224.141 (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC) No countries recognize this name. You may look it up also from the CIA web site. under www.cia.gov/ Just look it up in the world fact book. Sorry to butt in, but saying that it is known as Kurdistan gives the wrong political overtone. I suppose that it could be said that "an undefined section of southeastern anatolia has been also referred to as Kurdistan" or something of the sort. The undefined border situation is also important, since it can easily confuse the reader. It is true that "Kurdistan" has been used, however it is more commonly referred to as southeastern anatolia. Most maps do not include "Kurdistan" + the possible confusion with the Iraqi Kurdistan. All I am saying is that it should be rewritten to convey its undefined nature + its referral by some geographers + political overtones associated with the name + referral to its part in "Kurdistan" itself. Saying that it is known as Kurdistan also gives the wrong impression, since there is also a Kurdistan in Iraq + other possible referrals to other sections in Iran and Syria.Baristarim 00:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• If the most common name for Kurdistan really is "southeastern anatolia", please cite sources.
• The most common meaning of "Kurdistan" is the geographic region that includes "large parts of what are now eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran and smaller parts of northern Syria and Armenia". (source) Therefore, I'm not sure if most people will confuse it with Iraqi Kurdistan.
• I'm not sure what geographers "refuse" to have it on their maps. I have a National Geogrpahic Atlas, and it has Kurdistan there. I'm sure other atlases do as well.

Khoikhoi 00:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I see your points. I will try to make some research.Baristarim 00:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Kurdistan is an unofficial region in Turkey and other nations. I agree totally with User:Baristarim- this sentence needs to be defined in an NPOV way as to reflect its true nature, caveats and all. Kurdistan unofficially does exist as a geographic region and must be recognized, however, to write it off in a simple fashion such as this is just not correct.

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.

NPOV Types of bias include:

• Ethnic or racial: racism, nationalism, regionalism and tribalism;
• Geographical: describing a dispute as it is conducted in one country, when the dispute is framed differently elsewhere;

Monsieurdl 12:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no country in the south-east anatolia called" Kürdistan". There are no cuntry, which name kürdistan. Jusst a terriorty in north-ıraq, but it belongs to ıraq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.57.210 (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference notes lacking

This is a great article but it needs to follow WP:CITE. There are many interesting statements in it, but without following WP:V, it difficult for another editor to help on the article. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

English vs. Turkish names

Makalp, you have replaced this text:

the Cilician Gates (Gülek Boğazı)

with this text:

the Gülek Pass(Gülek Boğazı)(was known as (Cilician Gates) in antiquity)

and the edit comment:

Yes Eng.encylopedia not mitological dictionary. What does Gate mean? All international geographical sources and maps use Gülek Pass.)

Mythology has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia policy says that we use the common, modern English name. Thus we use "Bavarian Alps" (not Bayerische Voralpen), "Euphrates River" (not Fırat, Al-Furāt, etc.), "Albania" (not Shqipëria), "Greece" (not Hellas), "Corfu" (not Corcyra (the classicists' name), Kerkyra (transliteration) or Kerkira (phonetic transcription)), and the "Dardanelles" (not Çanakkale Boğazı or Çanakkale straits).

For some names, there may be a question about what that is, as the traditional English name is superceded by the local name in English usage: is it Lyon or Lyons? Turin or Torino? But it is quite clear that the English-language name of this pass is the Cilician Gates. On English-language Web pages, Google finds 16,000 instances of Cilician Gates, 56 for Gülek Boğazı, and 18 for Gülek Pass. In English-language Google Books (arguably more authoritative), there are 683 for Cilician Gates and 4 for Gülek Boğazı (and 3 of the 4 also mention the Cilician Gates).

Maps and other geographic references often have a policy of using local names, not English names. That is a fine policy--and certainly makes sense if you're trying to find something on the ground--, but it is not Wikipedia's policy. --Macrakis 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Macracis,

• Firstly there is no any bad faith with my edits, I keep all names together,no deletion.
• (for this case)I think at least reasonable to keep original/official names in articles that reflects present day like as geography,maps, current places and cities also.

We have a general-cultural- handicap, and this handicap feeds/growts himself. With the colonial/imperial motivatons in the past, all cultures were accepted as nonexist, in this concept; all the names in other cultures were accepted as nonexist, used antiq names, or original names were used with generally englisified(is it correct word?), like as Yoghurt, Ghulek etc. To continue in this manner we cannot give any chance to non-eurepean cultures, and the final conclusion is a cultural assimilation-one culture in the world.But every culture (independently from the number of person in that culture) is an additional reachness to the humanity.

Rule is rule. But, we are constructing the rules and we can apply some modifications( with some consensus) on these rules. There is a Turkish saying; "Kurallar bozmak için vardır."; it may translated to English as "rules are exists to demolish them" :)

sorry my english level, I hope it is understandable for you.Happy editing.Regards.Must.^{T C} 17:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I never accused you of bad faith. I simply said that your edits weren't consistent with Wikipedia policy. I understand your point about the colonial/imperial legacy, but remember that Wikipedia is not here to change things, but to report on them. We have the same saying in English, "rules are made to be broken", but that hardly constitutes an argument to break them in any particular case....

If the issue is that "gate" seems too poetic, keep in mind that many other geographical features have poetic or non-standard names. This does not necessarily come from some mythological episode. Examples: the Iron Gate or Demirkapı (a gorge); the Golden Gate (a strait); the Appian Way (a road); Pamukkale 'cotton castle' (not a castle but a mineral formation); Half Dome and Devils Tower (mountains); etc. etc.

Oh, and by the way, that whole section (most of the article, in fact) was lifted bodily (and legally) from a Library of Congress publication which uses the name "Cilician Gates".

Note, too, that the full article on the Cilician Gates mentions the current, local Turkish name in the first paragraph, as it should. The style English Name (Turkish Name) is followed in the rest of this article, so why not here? --Macrakis 17:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No response? I guess I will put back the Cilician Gates name, with of course a mention of the modern Turkish name. --Macrakis 15:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The coordinates have been given as 39 N and 35 E. What is this ? This designation is for a point and not for a country. In fact Turkey spans more than 1500 km from east to west and more than 600 km from north to south. Such an area can't be shown by a single coordinate figure. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geography of Turkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425125903/http://www.ecogeodb.com/ECO_Detail.asp?P=Climate&CN=Turkey&C=TUR to http://www.ecogeodb.com/ECO_Detail.asp?P=Climate&CN=Turkey&C=TUR

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Typical plant communities in the Mount Kaçkar National Park is this old-growth Buxus forest.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)