From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Former featured article Turkey is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Turkey has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2007.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Turkey:
Guidelines for editing the Turkey article
  • Units in metric Manual of Style.
  • Only external links pertaining to Turkey as a whole, or official government of Turkey links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles. For further information, please see Wikipedia guidelines on External links and Conflict of interest.
  • All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits.
  • Please provide references when adding new information.
  • Please use the correct citation format when adding references. If you are not sure which one is appropriate, please see WP:CITE for a list of available citation templates.

Since I'm a wiki noob, I didn't know how or where to put this: There's a verbless sentence under the Demographics subheading. Hope someone can fix it :) Sorry for my ignorance of the Wikipedia rules, you may delete this once the grammatical error is fixed. Minorities other than the three officially recognized ones do not any minority rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic groups on the infobox[edit]

kazekagetr insists on reverting my edits on the infobox and adding CIA's estimates to the infobox. Turkey does not have official figures on ethnic mix, the article itself states: "Reliable data on the ethnic mix of the population is not available, because Turkish census figures do not include statistics on ethnicity." There are various estimates of course, one of which is CIA's. The infobox is for official, non-dubious information, like capital, official languages, government, area, population, GDP, Gini, HDI, currency, time zone etc, for all of which we have official figures. We have official figures about CIA's estimate of Turkey's ethnic mix too, so if we had a section like "CIA's estimate of ethnic mix", the figures would certainly belong there. Currently, since official and reliable data is not available, it is best to refer to the Demogrophics section.

This time, while reverting my edit, kazekagetr claimed that "CIA is one of the most widely used references in wikipedia and in nearly all countries' infoboxes, ethnic groups section is referenced by CIA". I do not know what countries he is referring to. In United States France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Switzerland, India, Iran and most of the countries I have checked, ethnic mix is not mentioned in the infobox. Even in Belgium, an ethnically divided country where we have abundant information about the ethnic mix, the section in the infobox refers to the demographics section without containing any figures. In Sweden, it states "no official statistics". In the United Kingdom, the numbers are given because they have official figures from the United Kingdom Census 2011. Same with Canada and Canada 2011 Census, China and 2010 China census, Russia and Russian Census (2010).

In Turkey's case, the last official figures about ethnicity date to the 1965 census, and even then the languages, not ethnicity was queried. So we do not have any official and certain data about the ethnic mix. The demographics section will contain estimates, naturally; but in the infobox, we have three options: omit it like United States France, Germany, Italy, Greece, link to the demographics section like Belgium, or write "no official statistics" like Sweden. One can discuss which of them to use, but please stop adding CIA's estimate in the infobox like it is official, kazekagetr, it does not belong there, just like the "Religion" estimates doesn't.--Cfsenel (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I have just noticed that kazekagetr claims that my arguments are based on Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT in the revert summary. I do not know what I am accused of not liking, CIA or the figures themselves; but I am pretty sure that I did nothing that would imply that. I imagine I am most likely being accused of either being a Turkish nationalist who thinks the Turkish percentage is too low, or a Kurdish nationalist who thinks the Kurdish percentage is too low. How about making an actual argument instead of making personal attacks and presuming to know my intentions?--Cfsenel (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Mate chill out im not gonna call you a nationalist by any means. You should've checked all Euro countries like, Austria, Andorra, Armenia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina etc. etc. they all have that ethnic group thing... kazekagetr 17:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I was offended when I was accused of Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT without basis. Looking at your examples, they are all based on official figures: Austria: Kommission für Migrations und Integrationsforschung der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Andorra: Ministerio de Justicia e Interior de Andorra, Belarus: Population census 2009. Bosnia and Herzegovina also officially keeps record of ethnicity, final ethnic census results are to be published at 2013 population census in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Only in Armenia's case I am not sure if the results belonged to an official census, because the link is dead. Even if it is not, it is the exception here, and it is the one that should be changed, not all the other countries. Do you see the distinction here? When and if the Turkish government begins the inquire about the ethnicity in censuses, (and does so in an orderly manner, without the findings being dismissed by most as fraud) the results should be published here, as it is the case with all countries. Right now, no official results are available, so none should be mentioned in the infobox, as it is the case with all countries. Doing otherwise would correspond to an important policy change: We would have to add CIA's figures to all countries, like France and Germany (e.g. "German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4%, other 6.1%"); and we would probably need to add the religion info from the CIA to all countries as well, which in Turkey's case gives the figures as "Muslim: 99.8%, other: 0.2%". You can suggest such a policy change if you like, but Turkey's talk page is not the place to do it.--Cfsenel (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Cfsenel, your whole argument is based on the flawed premise that "the infobox is for official, non-dubious information" and never estimated data. That is simply, flatly just wrong. We routinely use estimated figures in almost every type of infobox, including Country Infoboxes. Furthermore, the CIA is oftentimes the source for those estimates. We estimate things such as GDP, population, and, yes, even ethnic groups, when no "official" or "authoritative" source exists. See Laos, North Korea, Burma, Vietnam, Syria, Tajikistan, El Salvador, etc. There are examples from every region of the world and all are sourced to estimates either in the CIA fact book, or Ethnologue and other encyclopedias, which, in most cases are themselves citing the CIA factbook. It has long been considered a reliable source for information here on WP, where better sources don't exist. In fact, estimated data probably outnumbers "official" data in country infoboxes simply because many countries, such as Turkey in this case, don't supply figures. I will be reverting your edits and restoring the CIA estimates unless you can come up with a more reliable source that says they're wrong. We have a source that says X, you claim that source is not sufficient, we can't take your word for need to supply a more reliable source that says this source is wrong or your argument is a non-starter.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear William Thweatt, your claim that "We routinely use estimated figures ... (for) ethnic groups, when no "official" or "authoritative" source exists" is clearly wrong, as I think I have already demonstrated. I won't list the countries again. I will not come up with a "more reliable source that says they're wrong", as I never claimed they were right or wrong, that was not my point. I could name various sources which gives different figures (e.g. Ali Tayyar Önder's Türkiye'nin Etnik Yapısı in 2006; 2005 Eurobarometer: Europeans and their languages survey, Ethnologue quoting McCarus 2009, tr:Tarhan Erdem's KONDA survey in 2006, etc), but I wouldn't necessarily argue that one source is better than the other. What I said was they should be all mentioned in the article, and we cannot just pick one and put it in the infobox which purports to be the 'real' figures.
It is a false equivalence to say that "we are using estimates for other data like GDP". Almost every number in every infobox is an estimate, even figures like population and GDP. Population and GDP are well defined concepts, there exists a correct number and different sources estimate the same thing within a margin of error. Who is an ethnic Turk? Should people who say in surveys they are ethnically Turk but their native language is Arabic considered ethnically Turk, or did they just misunderstand the concept of ethnicity? What about people who say they are ethnically Kurd but their native language is Turkish? Each survey above takes a different stance on such issues while making their estimates. Some Zazas are offended when they are included in Kurds, some Kurds are offended when Zazas are not included in Kurds. Is Zinedine Zidane ethnically French? French government would insist that he is, and (mostly French) Wikipedians insist on featuring him in French people, in contrast with the practice other ethnic group pages, whereas CIA might have a different definition. Some countries have officially defined their understanding of ethnicity and publish figures accordingly. Turkey is not one of them. Nor are many other European countries, and that is why they do not have ethnicity figures in their infoboxes. You are talking about a better source, I am saying that cannot exist. There is no right or wrong estimate. There are different estimates, each correct (within a margin of error) using their definition. It is completely different from estimates of things like population. Everybody agrees on what population means, they just differ in methodology and precision.
You are arbitrarily adding CIA's estimates to the infobox, against the accepted practice in most of the countries in Europe. If you intend to persevere, may I suggest that you try to do the same thing in other countries? I would be surprised if you manage to get it through and change the consensus, convincing people that CIA's way of calculating ethnic group populations is the only way to go if no official data is available, and that the infobox should unambigously take sides on whether an ethnic group is actually an ethnic group because CIA deems so.--Cfsenel (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Also (again, not essentially my point, I never claimed that CIA's estimates are right or wrong), CIA's demographics data are in a great conflict with Turkey's official figures. In late 2012, early 2013, Turkish Statistical Institute estimated the population of Turkey to be 75,627,384, whereas CIA estimated the population to be 80,694,485. [1][2] There is a huge difference of over 5 million people. Turkish Statistical Institute's president accused CIA of giving very inaccurate figures. It is expected that any figure on ethnicity will be disputable, given the disagreements around definitions of ethnicity and the difficulty of making such an estimate; but how come the two figures are so off when it comes to population, something much more well-defined, is beyond me.--Cfsenel (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Motto of Turkey[edit]

The reference given for the mentioned motto, "Egemenlik, kayıtsız şartsız Milletindir" is titled "motto", but nowhere in the title or in the page the word motto is actually mentioned, it only states that the sentence is expressed in the article 6 of the constitution. Is there any basis for the claim that it is the motto of Turkey? It is obvious that it is not the motto de jure, but any reason why we should consider it de facto the motto of Turkey? True, it is written in the parliament building, the legislative branch, but that doesn't make it the motto. e.g. the judicial branch uses the motto "Adalet mülkün temelidir" and virtually every government body, police etc. has a quote from Atatürk that it considers its motto. The choice of "Egemenlik, kayıtsız şartsız Milletindir" seems arbitrary to me.

On the other hand, National emblem of Turkey is quite well established. True, it doesn't have legal status, but nor does National emblem of France, and no one seems to question whether France's emblem exists. The current emblem is used in passports and diplomatic missions of Turkey, and that is quite sufficient to be considered the emblem. When and if the Turkish government officially makes a new emblem and change the passports etc. accordingly, we can change it, but at the moment de facto logo of Turkey is the star and crescent.--Cfsenel (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that in France's case, emblem should be removed also cause infobox contains legal infos. But i think you are quite right about the motto. kazekagetr 16:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The infobox isn't meant for 'legal infos', but key facts. Is the emblem a key fact? I think not. Is the anthem audio file a key fact? Are the coordinates of Istanbul and Ankara key facts? Is the rule of the road a key fact? The infobox is littered with trivia. Alakzi (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It is actually, if it wasn't, you would have the right to write whatever you want. Oh and BTW, 'coordinates' are solid just like 'legal' or 'official' facts. kazekagetr 17:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Read WP:IBX. Alakzi (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with User:KazekageTR that we should put 'solid', 'official' facts. However, I would argue that Turkey's emblem is a 'solid', 'official' fact, and so is France's emblem. True, Turkey and France does not have a law that officially defines an emblem, however, we cannot base what is official solely on laws. All countries have different legal traditions, it is not just with Turkey and France. For example, United Kingdom does not officially an anthem, not even an authorized version of lyrics, it's just a tradition. This does not prevent us from listing "God Save the Queen" on the page United Kingdom. While there are no laws, United Kingdom officially condones its use where other nations use their anthems. Or the United States does not officially have a national language, but the government of United States uses English in all official documents and legal proceedings, so we list English in the page United States as the national language. Similarly, Turkey and France do not have laws that define national emblems, but they officially use their respective emblems where other nations use theirs, i.e. on passports and diplomatic missions. That is official by any standard. We may consider adding a note to the pages of France and Turkey, like there is in United Kingdom and United States, saying the emblems do not have legal status. It certainly makes more sense to add a note only to the emblem, instead of adding notes to everything else affirming that they are legally defined, at least from a visual point of view. I will go ahead and add the note.--Cfsenel (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I have added the note "as appears on the Turkish passports and diplomatic missions of Turkey". You can change it if you have a better idea, e.g. want to emphasize that it does not have legal basis; but I am not sure an extensive discussion on its legal status and history is warranted here, anybody can click to National emblem of Turkey and read about it.--Cfsenel (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
A footnote should suffice §  Infestor  TC 18:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there still a strategic alliance with the USA?[edit]

There was a discussion of this last year which has presumably been archived. Since then relations have been described as

"transactional" at

and "dischordant" at

and "strained" at

and "divergent"

I have asked for a citation to show the alliance (with the USA not NATO) is still strategic NOW as opposed to the early years of the AK Party government. So I think the citation should be from this decade.

If no convicing citation can be provided I will change "is" to "was".

  • I refuse. As you know these things can happen in politics. Lets take a look at the relation between Israel and US. Nearly the same thing has been going on lately, right? These things have a very limited impact on 'macro' relations. I'm sure that being a member of NATO alone states that Turkey is still an ally of US. kazekagetr 15:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field.png to appear as POTD[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field.png will be appearing as picture of the day on April 24, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD caption at Template:POTD/2015-04-24.

The same announcement was made at Armenian Genocide, but I think this forum ought equally to know what is planned. c1cada (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Armenian Genocide

An Armenian woman kneeling beside a dead child in a field during the Armenian Genocide, conducted by the government of the Ottoman Empire. The genocide is conventionally held to have begun on 24 April 1915, when Ottoman authorities arrested and later executed some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders. Much of the remaining Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria, where most died from starvation, exhaustion, and systematic massacres. The total number of people killed has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. Though the events are widely recognized as a genocide by historians, the Turkish government rejects such a description.

Photograph: American Committee for Relief in the Near East; restoration: MjolnirPants
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

  • You should post it to Portal of Turkey, not here mate. kazekagetr 16:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, KazekageTR. I have now done that. c1cada (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The views of "all sides" (Armenian, Turkish, neutral) must be given[edit]

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must concisely cite "all views and estimates" (Armenian, Turkish, neutral) so that the readers can understand what's the dispute, including estimates by neutral historians regarding the casualties during the Tehcir Law deportations of 1915-1916. Superfluous man (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The Tehcir Law deportations took place between 1915 and 1916. From a legal point of view, the Armenian civilians who died during the Tehcir Law deportations can count as "genocide victims" (or "ethnic cleansing" victims.) The Armenian soldiers of the Armenian volunteer units in the Russian Army, and the French Armenian Legion in the French Army, or the armed local Armenian militia who died while fighting the Ottoman Army during WWI don't count as "genocide" victims, but as "war" victims. Superfluous man (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The 600,000 figure is Toynbee's figure for the first year of the genocide. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an accurate count of all Armenians that have died during the Armenian Genocide. By the way, the genocide lasted until 1923, and not 1916. Saying that the genocide ended when the Tehcir law is to misrepresent what the majority of sources say regarding the event. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Legally, only the Armenian civilians who died during the Tehcir Law deportations of 1915-1916 (which was under the responsibility of the Ottoman government) can count as "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" victims. The Armenian soldiers of the Armenian volunteer units in the Russian Army, and the French Armenian Legion in the French Army, or the armed local Armenian militia who died while fighting the Ottoman Army during WWI don't count as "genocide" victims, but as "war" victims. The deaths which occurred during the inter-ethnic clashes between local Armenians and local Muslims (Turks and Kurds) in eastern Anatolia during WWI also don't count as "genocide" casualties, but as "civil war" casualties. Superfluous man (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Your edit contains the phrase lost their lives due to massacres, starvation and diseases, according to Armenians and a number of international sources which downplays the acceptance of the AG by the mainstream scholarship and is heavily POV. Your arguments seem to relitigate known facts about the AG and are also POV. You are also edit-warring to keep your preferred version. Please stop your edit-warring until an NPOV version of your edit is found. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You have purposefully taken the latter part of the sentence, and not all of it. Here's the complete paragraph:

The Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers and was ultimately defeated. During the war, the empire's Armenians were deported from Eastern Anatolia to Syria as part of the Armenian Genocide. As a result, up to 1,500,000 Armenians lost their lives due to massacres, starvation and diseases, according to Armenians and a number of international sources.[1][2][3] Turkey maintains the view that approximately 300,000 Armenians died during the Tehcir Law deportations between 1915 and 1916, while Encyclopædia Britannica cites Toynbee's and McCarthy's estimates of circa 600,000 deaths.[4] The Turkish government refuses to acknowledge the events as genocide and claims that Armenians were only relocated from the eastern war zone.[5] Large-scale massacres were also committed against the empire's other minority groups such as the Greeks and Assyrians.[6][7][8] Following the Armistice of Mudros on 30 October 1918, the victorious Allied Powers sought to partition the Ottoman state through the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres.[9]

Superfluous man (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You have purposefully taken the latter part of the sentence, and not all of it. Your WP:AGF-defying reply still does not address my concern. Your sentence according to Armenians and a number of international sources seeks to downplay the vast majority of academic sources which call this a genocide and you make it appear as if the Armenians and some unnamed sources agree that it is a genocide. This is misinformation. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You are using sources that are considered unreliable in Wikipedia because they go against the general consensus which this project has instilled towards the Armenian Genocide. McCarthy has minimized the suffering of Christian minorities during their respective genocides, while exaggerating the deaths of Muslims to make it appear as though it was a civil conflict. That's not neutral, and hardly reliable. Also, you still haven't addressed the issue regarding Toynbee. His report on the number of deaths was in 1916, no more than a year into the Genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you disagree with the fact that the deportees died because of massacres, starvation and diseases? This is a widely accepted fact. Also, the definition Armenian Genocide is made in the previous sentence. There are conflicting estimates on the death toll (see the Britannica link.) Superfluous man (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Mates, current intro is fine i think. Numbers should be stated in History section. In order to satisfy both sides, number should be represented as 600.00--1.500.000 or sth like that. There is no need for heartbreaking... kazekagetr 19:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your philosophical approach Kazekage but I think you know better than most that Lord of Rivendell and his socks do not seem to have a very high regard for the 3RR rule. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The 600,000 estimate has been widely discredited; see WP:UNDUE. Alakzi (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Fact Sheet: Armenian Genocide". University of Michigan. Retrieved 15 July 2010. 
  2. ^ Freedman, Jeri (2009). The Armenian genocide (1st ed.). New York: Rosen Pub. Group. ISBN 1-4042-1825-4. 
  3. ^ Totten, Samuel, Paul Robert Bartrop, Steven L. Jacobs (eds.) Dictionary of Genocide. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008, p. 19. ISBN 0-313-34642-9.
  4. ^ "Death toll from the Armenian Genocide". Encyclopædia Britannica. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 24 April 2015. 
  5. ^ Patrick J. Roelle, Sr. (27 September 2010). Islam's Mandate- a Tribute to Jihad: The Mosque at Ground Zero. AuthorHouse. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-4520-8018-5. Retrieved 9 February 2013. 
  6. ^ Donald Bloxham (2005). The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, And the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians. Oxford University Press. p. 150. ISBN 978-0-19-927356-0. Retrieved 9 February 2013. 
  7. ^ Levene, Mark (Winter 1998). "Creating a Modern 'Zone of Genocide': The Impact of Nation- and State-Formation on Eastern Anatolia, 1878–1923". Holocaust and Genocide Studies 12 (3): 393–433. doi:10.1093/hgs/12.3.393. 
  8. ^ Ferguson, Niall (2007). The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West. Penguin Group (USA) Incorporated. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-14-311239-6. 
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ottomans was invoked but never defined (see the help page).