Talk:Turkey

Edit reguest regarding GINI-index

According to the figures by The World Bank, the actual Gini Coefficient rate in Turkey was 39 for 2008, not 40. Please change, no need for it to be higher than it is.

Ethnic population

2007 Konda research 70,500,000 population of Turkey [[1]]

55.484.000 Turkish , 11,445.000 kurdish-zazas , 3.000.000 other groups

Turkish % 81.33 , kurdish-zazas % 15.6, other (...)

I think you touched some button unexpectedly and your edit is unfinished. Let me calculate for you: According to the above data, "other ethnic groups" would be 4 % of the population (by 2007). However, we prefer the CIA's World Factbook which says 7-12 %. In other words, the latter "guess" of the CIA is almost double the former. Still we have preferred this source, who knows why; and of course I do not agree with such volatile "facts" and this choice of source. --E4024 (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

CIA's World Factbook cannot be accepted as a "trusted source" since it has been provided by a very political agency and it would be absurd to expect objectiveness from such an agency.

According to the "Türkiye'nin Etnik Yapısı" (Ethnic Structure in Turkey Ali Tayyar Önder, Fark Yayınları 2006 ISBN:9756424044) Kurdish population is about %5-6 of the population. Noting that you cannot fully seperate these people from Turks and define them as completely different nation.

It is very normal to see many ancestries in Anadolu because it was the maninland of Ottoman Empire which helt many nations, groups etc. But exagratting the Kurdish population serves to who or what? What do they want to do with these people on these lands? (Reminders: Greece, Armenia, World War One...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.128.177 (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Turkey consensus ethnic research 2011-2012 [2]

Turkish population : 57,089,942 people , Kurdish-zazas population : 8,693,000 people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.125.211 (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic structure of Turkey are incorrect.

Rate of 78-81% of Turkish,

Kurdish and Zaza rate of 13-15%,

5-7% in the other groups

Native Turkish speakers at the level of 85%.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.10.202 (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Main article notes

Regarding this revert, by "per talk page" I meant per my expiation on the talk page. In the six days that edit request was up no one objected to the change so there is consensus, and this is just a simple edit to update the main article notes to reflect the current scope of the articles. History of Turkey is not about the whole history, it's about the 11th century to present, correct article is History of Anatolia. History of Anatolia is not about Antiquity, it's about the whole history, prehistory-present. Correct articles are Classical Anatolia and Byzantine Anatolia. History of Turkey doesn't quite match up with "Seljuk Turks and the Ottoman Empire" because the article includes a section about the republic, but it's close enough. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of any reason given as to why the notes shouldn't be updated, or evidence of a lack of consensus I'm restoring my edit. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this revert how is showing the correct main articles "not appropriate an image for the article", as I pointed out the main article notes in their current state do not reflect the scopes of the target articles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of any expiation as to how linking to the correct main articles is "not appropriate an image for the article" I'm reverting. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many civilizations that have existed in Anatolia. Roman Empire, Lydia, Kingdom of Armenia, Karamanids and many more .. Why just Byzantine Anatolia articles? and about picture: can not be negotiated cartoonish. Meaningless to the section of history.For this section, there are dozens of media files.See: Wikipedia Commons Maurice (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I ment to get back to you sooner. The Byzantine Anatolia article is part three in our main Turkish/Anatolian history seares. Prehistory of Anatolia --> Classical Anatolia --> Byzantine Anatolia --> History of Turkey. Without it we're missing everything from the creation of the Eastern Roman Empire to the Turkish migration. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I dont think 98% of Turkish people are Muslims. They are Muslims in the background but there is a lot of atheism in Turkey as well and the main reason people of non-Muslim backgrounds are not living in Turkey is the hate created pre-WW1 and the population exchanges between countries. There were also emigration of Turks from the Balkans and Aegean Islands and of non-Muslims out of modern day Turkey, due to pressures by the society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.75 (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This page not objective

In Turkey %70 of all people votes to right partys but this page entirely writen by left people, they did very partisan job in this page and as an avarge Turkis person this is offends me. First Kemal Dervis accomplished notting all succes belongs AKP you can search it Second They talk about jornalist been arrested but they doesnt talk about military coup(s) which sapported by some jornalist and in this coups manny people (mostly from right wing religious people) sufferd inculuding me, i watch my muslims teachers fired from schools just becouse they use scarf for cover their hair, in turkey forbiden thing isn't only hijap it is simple scarf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.161.109.177 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

are you objective?--Qwl (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Turkey ranks "High" in the HDI Index, not "Medium"

Check out the article list of countries by Human Development Index and then please correct your mistake in the infobox of the Turkey article. 88.251.85.34 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Correction of the HDI level

I would like to inform you that HDI level of Turkey is set as 'medium' and in fact it is on 'high' level according to all HDI reports. The organisation will not be seen objective and trustable information source by Turkish public as long as current information remains. It is known that this is done deliberatly before tourism season.

Human development level of Turkey is calculated by UN development programme and can be seen below.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/map

http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/TUR.html --Msimsak (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Population genetics in the lede

The mention of the population genetics of the Turkish people does not belong in the lede, for the following reasons

1) This article is about a country, not an ethnic group. Such information may be appropriate for the Turkish people article, but it does not belong here, especially in the lede

2) Not everyone in Turkey is a Turk (only 70-75% are in fact)

3) We do not include population genetics in the lede of country articles. I can't find a single country article where we say "The inhabitants of X primarily descend from ancient X-ians", and there are many countries where we could do that, e.g. Greece, Iran, India, etc...

That the information is sourced is irrelevant. All kinds of things can be sourced. Does that mean we should add them to lede of an article? Athenean (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The current text does not accurately and completely represents what the sources are saying: "Although Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since ancient times, the Seljuk Turks began migrating into the area now called Turkey (derived from the Medieval Latin Turchia, i.e. "Land of the Turks") in the 11th century" suggests that Turks replaced native populations, similar to what happened in USA with respect to Native Americans. This is incorrect, not sourced, and misinforms the readers. You, yourself, said mention of pre-Seljuk area is justified. This mention should not violate Wiki policies.

Also, contrary to what you claimed, ethnic/ancestral origins is included in various leads. Eg: Denmark, "Originally the home of the Vikings, Norse seafaring explorers who invaded and settled in many parts of Europe and Russia, Denmark emerged as a unified kingdom in the Middle Ages.";Germany, "A region named Germania, inhabited by several Germanic peoples, was documented before AD 100.";Russia, "The nation's history began with that of the East Slavs, who emerged as a recognizable group in Europe between the 3rd and 8th centuries AD".

So, how about this. "Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since Stone Age, with Ancient Anatolians compromising the primary component in Turkish population today, despite waves of immigration and conquests." Cavann (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here. This article is about a state not an ethnic group. The examples you mention (Denmark, Russia) actually support my point. Notice they don't say that "the Vikings or East Slavs comprise the main component of the Danish or Russian people", rather they say that the Danish and Russian states have their roots in those tribes. We have separate articles for Danish people and Russian people where the issue of ancestry is discussed. Similarly, the roots of the Turkish state lie with the Seljuk Turks, not with the Hittites and Lydians. As such, I've actually changed my mind, I think it's fine to only mention the Seljuk Turks in the lede. We can mention that the Turkic tribes imposed their language and culture and did not replace the previous population, however that should be in the history section, not the lede. The lede is only meant to present a brief summary of the article's content. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the information you are presenting or the sources you are using, I am perfectly fine with it being included in Turkish people, it's just that this article is not about the Turkish people, it's about the Turkish state. Not all Turks live in this state, and not everyone in this state is Turkish. Athenean (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your response perfectly exemplifies why we need that information in the lead. The roots of the Turkish state does NOT lie with the Seljuk Turks. It's like saying roots of Mexican state lies with Spanish settlers, just because Mexicans speak Spanish. It's also like excluding following text from the Mexico article: "In pre-Columbian Mexico many cultures matured into advanced civilizations such as the Olmec, the Toltec, the Teotihuacan, the Zapotec, the Maya and the Aztec before first contact with Europeans."

Modern Turkey was founded in 1923 by Ataturk, and he -himself- emphasized Ancient Anatolian. Eg: Establishment of Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Another example: [3]. As such, not only your claim that modern Turkey has nothing to do with these ancient civilizations is incorrect, it also misinforms the readers. Cavann (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You're not listening. This article is about a country, not an ethnic group. Regarding Mexico, again notice how the lede says that culture X and Y were located in Mexico, not that the Mexican people descend primarily from the pre-columbian population. Again, because that article is about a country, not a people. At this point I think I'd like to seek a third opinion via the wikipedia community. Athenean (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Btw I never "claimed" that modern Turkey has "nothing do to with these ancient civilizations", just that the claim that the Turkish people descend from the ancient Anatolian populations does not belong in the lede of the article. That's all, and nothing more. I don't even dispute the claim itself. You appear to not be hearing what I'm saying. Athenean (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

And entire paragraph is devoted to ethnicity stats and percentages, so your claims about ethnic information not belonging in the lead is ridiculous, especially when Ancient Anatolians and their connection is relevant when it comes to establishment of modern Turkey. I guess we'll have to go through dispute resolution. Cavann (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The information about the ethnic percentages in Turkey applies to the country as a whole, not to a single ethnic group. How exactly are ancient Anatolians "relevant" to the establishment of modern Turkey? Did they found it? Was Ataturk an "ancient Anatolian"? In case you haven't noticed, only 70-75% of Turkey's population are Turks. The remaining 25-30% are not, that's a pretty significant percentage. Not to mention that Turks have other ancestries in addition to Anatolian and Turkic (Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, Circassian, Arab, Georgian, Laz, Albanian, Slavic, etc...). The ancestry of the modern Turkish population is a complicated point - the lede is not the place to discuss complicated points. It is only meant to present a summary of the article. Athenean (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Learn to read. Primary component =/= Only component. Saying X compromises the primary component does not necessarily exclude A, B, C backgrounds. The point that there are other ethnicities in Turkey is already made in the lead, with an entire paragraph. Cavann (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Should the claim that the ethnic Turks of Turkey primarily descend from the ancient Anatolians be included in the lede of the article? Athenean (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not an accurate description of the dispute. This is the suggested text in the lead:

“ Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since Stone Age, with Ancient Anatolians compromising the primary component in Turkish population today, despite waves of immigration and conquests. ”

Modern Turkey was founded in 1923 by Ataturk, and he -himself- emphasized Ancient Anatolians in the context of roots of Turkey. Eg: Establishment of Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Another example: [4]. Plus Ancient Anatolians do not only concern Turks, but may also concern other ethnic groups such as Kurds (eg: shared ancestry despite linguistic differences).

Finally, the current text is misrepresentative: "Although Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since ancient times, the Seljuk Turks began migrating into the area now called Turkey (derived from the Medieval Latin Turchia, i.e. "Land of the Turks") in the 11th century" suggests that Turks replaced native populations, similar to what happened in USA with respect to Native Americans. This is incorrect, not sourced, and misinforms the readers.Cavann (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, the lead of country articles is definitely no the place to include various supposed ideas of ethnicity. There has, as noted in the quote, been extensive waves of immigration and conquest, as well as emigration, war, disease, and everything you could think of that affects the lives of people. In no area in this part of the world has demographics remained constant since the classical period. Ancient Anatolians actually make up none of the Turkish population today, as they're all dead. The proposed text is not an improvement. However, it may be worth changing the sentence currently in the text, perhaps to something like "Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since ancient times. The Seljuk Turks, after which Turkey (derived from the Medieval Latin Turchia, i.e. "Land of the Turks") was named, began migrating into the area in the 11th century." I personally see no indication that the Seljuks killed/displaced the pre-existing population. Migration is generally not an aggressive word. CMD (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I adopted this wording, with a slight tweak. Dropped "population genetics" (!).Cavann (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No you didn't adopt that wording, and your "tweak" was neither a "tweak", nor "slight". I have implemented the suggested wording. Athenean (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

So now you are opposed to mentioning Ancient Anatolians in the lead? Cavann (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am, and I'm not the only one. Look around. 5 editors are in agreement with the wording proposed by CMD, not yours. That's called consensus. If you continue to edit-war against conesnsus, you will be reported and blocked.

What? They are against the original wording, not necessarily against the newer one. The newer one is completely different, and ignores the descent aspect. Cavann (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Read the wording CMD proposed above. What does it say? That is the wording agreed upon by the other editors. Everyone except you is against mentioning the descent aspect. Athenean (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you an idiot? Read what the newer version says: "Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since stone age, including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations. The Seljuk Turks began migrating into the area now called Turkey (derived from the Medieval Latin Turchia, i.e. "Land of the Turks") in the 11th century."

There is nothing about descent. Just that Ancient Anatolians used to live there. Cavann (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. What does CMD's wording say? Does it mention the ancient Anatolians? How many editors support that wording? Answer me please, instead of name calling. Why is is it so important to mention the ancient antolians in the lede? If we mention them, we should also mention the Ionian Greeks, Armenians, Hellenistic kingdoms, Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, etc...Athenean (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per CMD. I also agree with his proposed alternative phrasing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The popular idea that language indicates genetic history is very annoying, but this is a general interest encyclopedia, rather than Polemipedia. Any absolutist stance, like "Turkey's people are primarily Central Asian" or "Turkey's people are primarily Ancient Anatolian" should be quoted and quarantined as part of Turkey's internal nationalist power struggles over history, rather than presented as fact. Support CMD's wording. Shrigley (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons I have explained above, and agree with CMD's proposed wording. Athenean (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per CMD. I was watching this from the sidelines. The article of Turkey is not a place to talk about the genetics of Turkish people. CMD's wording is compatible because it gives a separate emphasis on "ancient" and "Anatolians" and displays the "migrating" patterns of Seljuks. I might also want to add that migrating is a term to say the least of what the Seljuks have done in Anatolia. I am sure that is compromising enough in and of itself. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC2

The leads in articles for many countries mention historical inhabitants/cultures in their territories. Should Ancient Anatolians be mentioned in Turkey? Cavann (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. What does CMD's wording say? Does it mention the ancient Anatolians. Five editors (CMD, Dr. K., Shrigley, myself and Proudbolsahye) support CMD's proposed wording, which does not mention the ancient Anatolians. Filing Rfc after Rfc (while edit-warring) until you get the result you want is disruptive editing. Athenean (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The previous RfC was about descent of inhabitants of Turkey. There was a consensus and I accepted that. This RfC is specifically about changing the lead from

“ Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since ancient times. ”

to

“ Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since stone age, including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations. ”

Cavann (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You still didn't answer my question. What is CMD's proposed wording? How many editors are in agreement with it? Answer me instead of evading, please. Athenean (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You are acting in a bizarrely irrational manner. CMD's proposed wording and their agreement preceded my newer edit, so -of course- no one could have agreed to the newer version, since they have no time machines. The previous issue was about descent; the current issues has nothing to do with it. Cavann (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

What's bizarre and irrational is your insistence on mentioning the highly diverse collection peoples (which you refer to collectively as if they were a single people, the "ancient Anatolians") in the lede of an article about a country where their languages and culture no longer exist. What is so incredibly important about them that they should be mentioned in the lede? Anatolia has been inhabited by countless peoples since antiquity: Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, Laz, Georgians, Arabs, Romans, Byzantines, the list goes on. Should all of these be mentioned in the lede too? Athenean (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

1) They were there for the longest period of time (much longer than Greeks).

2) For the same reason why these articles mention historic people, eg: Denmark, "Originally the home of the Vikings, Norse seafaring explorers who invaded and settled in many parts of Europe and Russia, Denmark emerged as a unified kingdom in the Middle Ages.";Germany, "A region named Germania, inhabited by several Germanic peoples, was documented before AD 100.";Russia, "The nation's history began with that of the East Slavs, who emerged as a recognizable group in Europe between the 3rd and 8th centuries AD".

3) Kurds are mentioned in the ethnicity paragraph. Greeks/Byzantines also mentioned.

4) I also note that you may be pursing a POV that some may consider Hellenistic-nationalistic from your edit history. Note that wikipedia is not a place to impose your POV, violating WP:NPOV. Given their thousands of years of history, my suggestion makes perfect sense. Your omission, however, is irrational.Cavann (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Greeks have been living there from 1200 BC since 1923. Armenians probably even longer. Byzantines and Romans are not mentioned in the lede, even though Anatolia was part of the Roman/Byzantine Empires from ~ 100 BC to 1453 AD. The ancient Anatolians are moreover a hetergeneous group of peoples, not a single people. Furthermore, they were completely Hellenized by the time of the arrival of the Seljuks. As such, current Turkish culture contains nothing Anatolian, and the Turkish language similarly does not contain any "Anatolian" words. Zero, to be precise. I should also warn you to stop making personal attacks. Your observations about my editing history are a personal attack and best kept to yourself. You have also called men "idiot" and told me to "learn to read". One more such attack and I will report you, clear? My patience has its limits. Athenean (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Byzantines are mentioned: "The process was greatly accelerated by the Seljuk victory over the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071."

I am not opposed to mentioning the Hellenization after Alexander the Great conquest.

As for the time periods, learn what Neolithic means. Cavann (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The Byzantines are only mentioned in passing, which is not adequate. Stop pretending not to hear, nothing of Anatolian cultures or languages survives to the modern day. As for the Neolithic, what about? Should we mention that in the lede as well? There are no written records from the neolithic, thus there is no way of knowing who lived in Anatolia then and what languages were spoken. And anyway, recorded history should be given more weight than prehistory. I don't see any other country articles mentioning prehistory in the lede (although many do so in the history section, which is fine). I've also reported you for your continuing incivility, it's time you learned how to be polite. Athenean (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you just say "there are no records from the neolithic"? LOL, I'm not wasting any more time with you. I will disengage and let others comment. If you do not know what you are talking about, you should stop trying to influence the process. This is an encyclopedia, not an avenue for you to rant. Cavann (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia is definitely not a soapbox for you to push your primordialist "We-Turks-have-been-living-in-Anatolia-since-the-beginning-of-time" kookery. So long. What written records are there from the Neolithic btw? I'm very curious. Athenean (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Unlike you, I do not have petty nationalistic agendas. That is why I said the following previously: "I am not opposed to mentioning the Hellenization after Alexander the Great conquest".

To be more specific, we can mention Hellenic period, Roman, and Byzantine periods, before the sentence with Seljuk Turks start. Cavann (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no agenda whatsoever. On the other hand, it is you who seems to be pushing a primordialist "We-Turks-have-been-living-in-Anatolia-since-the-beginning-of-time" POV all over wikipedia. Hence your obsession with mentioning the "ancient Anatolians" in the lede of this article, even though the Anatolian cultures and languages have been extinct for millennia and do not form part of modern Turkish culture. Athenean (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead provides an historical overview such as the Mexico article: "In pre-Columbian Mexico many cultures matured into advanced civilizations such as the Olmec, the Toltec, the Teotihuacan, the Zapotec, the Maya and the Aztec before first contact with Europeans." This is despite the fact that Mexico speaks Spanish. Cavann (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"Mexico speaks Spanish". In fact many indigenous languages (62 I think) continue to be spoken in Mexico. And many elements of pre-Columbian culture survive in modern Mexico. This is in contrast to Turkey, where nothing remains of the Anatolian cultures. In the words of historian John van Antwerp Fine, "It is culture, not bloodlines that matter". Athenean (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Many Mesoamerican languages are actually extinct. But that is not a criteria when writing an overview in the lead. The history is. As for the rest, they are your own POV, and hence irrelevant. Wikipedia is NPOV. We seem to be stuck, so I suggest moving along WP:Dispute Resolution next week. Cavann (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok this is my suggestion:

“ Anatolia has been inhabited since Paleolithic, including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations starting from the earliest Neolithic. After Alexander the Great's conquest, it was Hellenized until Roman acquisition and the subsequent Romanization, which transitioned into the Byzantine era. ”

Added into the paragraph containing info starting with Seljuk Turks, it will provide a more comprehensive and correct overview of the history section compared to the current sentence "Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since ancient times." Cavann (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. I just think it is too much detail for the lede, especially the mention of the Paleolithic and the Neolithic. Most countries have been inhabited since the Paleolithic, and many have had Neolithic civilizations. None of their respective articles mention the Paleolithic and Neolithic in the lede. Athenean (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't make up stuff you do not know. Eg: Iraq article mentions various Neolithic civilization. England mentions Paleolithic settlements. Also, the entire addition is 2 sentences. So your claim about too much detail is bizarre. Cavann (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Again with the rudeness. This is getting tiresome. Why do you always make things personal? Those two articles are the exceptions to the trend, and I disagree with the mention of the Paleolithic and Neolithic there as well. Point is, the vast majority of country articles do not mention the Paleolithic or Neolithic in the lede, even though a) most countries have been inhabited since the Paleolithic, and b) many have had Neolithic civilizations. At this point, I think your intransigence combined with your rudeness make it pointless to engage in further debate with you. You can't even agree to disagree, instead trying to "prove" to me that I'm "wrong" to disagree with you (by cherry-picking), and making things personal. I'm also tired of repeating myself. I've said all I've had to say on the subject: I disagree with your additions, they are too much detail for the lede, particularly the mention of the neolithic and paleolithic. Period. Athenean (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, don't make up stuff you do not know. Many countries do mention those periods, especially Neolithic. Many Latin American countries mention ancient civilization in their territories. Or countries like Greece, China, Egypt, etc mention those periods in the lead. I have little tolerance for irrational and uninformed obstruction, and baseless claims. I reckon we will continue with WP:Mediation Cavann (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's true that Iran, Iraq, Egypt etc... mention the Neolithic in the lede, so I'm not going to insist on that. Regarding the Paleolithic, well, just about every country in Eurasia has been inhabited since the Paleolithic. I don't see that it's particularly notable. Would you be ok if we mentioned the Neolithic only? Athenean (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

For Paleolithic research, Turkey is an important area [5], so the mention should stay in lead. It's very short anyway. Cavann (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I was summoned by the RfC bot and it looks like there is still some discussion to take place before the proper RfC channels are explored. As of now it seems that there isn't a clear question that is agreed upon. Dreambeaver(talk) 18:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Demographical statistics for 1914

The demographical statistics for 1914 also include Ottoman Empire citizens living in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Hejaz, Asir and Yemen, which do not belong to Turkey today (the Republic of Turkey was founded in 1923.)

It is like including the statistics of Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Trentino-Alto Adige (South Tyrol), Friuli, Trieste, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Transylvania and Galicia into the Austria article, not taking into account the difference between pre-1914 Austria-Hungary and post-1918 Republic of Austria. Herr Bundespanzer (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• If that were the case, then there would be a dramatic drop in the Muslim population of the 1927 census. As you can see, quite the opposite happened...the Muslim population actually grew. The Ottoman census only regarded the following provinces as stated by the Turkish Armed Forces in its Ermeni Faaliyetleri publication (see page 609) which I will add shortly as a source. According to the census, the following provinces of the Ottoman Empire were taken into account:

İstanbul, Sivas, Edirne, Niğde, Karesi, Antalya, İzmit, Canik, Çatalca, Menteşe, Kale-i sultaniye, Aydın , Hüdavendigâr, Bolu, Kütahya and Eskişehir, Kastamonu, Karahisarısahib, Trabzon, Konya, Erzurum, Ankara, Suriye, Adana, Beyrut, Harput, Kayseri, Haleb, Van, Jerusalem, Bitlis, Zor, Urfa. Total : 1.219.323

Almost all of these provinces fall into today's Turkish Republic. The authors have taken into account that Suriye, Jersualem (Kudus), Beyrut are outside of the Republic of Turkey today. When taking this into consideration and by subtracting 3.245, 3.043 and 5.233 respectively from 1.219.323, you'll receive 1,207,802 which is give or take the same amount as stated in the table. I want to once again reiterate that the source is a completely reliable peer-reviewed source based off of data from the Armed Forces of the Republic of Turkey. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Europe or Asia

Turkey is a south-east european country and its capital is Anycra. But because we are Muslims there are often used pseudo-arguments to detain Turkey's European membership. But there also pan-asian movements to put anatolia into Asia but such as claims are just propaganda. Anatolia neither belongs geological nor cultural into Asia. Anatolia is birthplace of european civilization so biologically anatolian Turks were part of european familiy of peoples. As well archaeogenetics show us that turkic people were eurasian nomads so that Turkey belongs more to the Eurasian Steppe then to Middle East. So stop making propaganda for Orientalism. 95.114.31.7 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a particular section or line in the article that you take issue with? The lede describes Turkey as a "Eurasian country", which I think is the most geographically accurate (if somewhat imprecise) way to describe its location, as "Europe" and "Asia" are defined somewhat arbitrarily, geologically speaking. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

And when you argue with the eurocentric logic that Anatolia is not considered to Europe so that makes our Anatolian border not automatically part of Asia. The most geographically accurate way to describe its truthful location is the term Minor Europe. The particular section in the article what me take this issue is that it's still propagate ancient perceptions. It's like supporting the Geocentric model... 95.114.31.7 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there any mechanisms for Wikipedia to correct predominant prejudices and delusions? Because this model placed the anatolian plateau to Asia to serves the geological system of many ancient civilizations such as ancient Greece. 95.114.31.7 (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)