Talk:Turkey

GDP (PPP) per capita

The GDP (PPP) per capita is stated as $19,080. However, the reference documents states that it is $18,551 and dates back to 2012. IMF puts that number as $15,352.610 for 2013.

References

Countries in the world through the eyes of Turkey Türklerin gözünden dünya ülkeleri

Time to update the lead to reflect the current situation?

I'm wondering if it's time to update the lead to reflect the developments of the last 2-3 years, which have been pretty significant. The last sentence of the lead reads "Turkey's growing economy and diplomatic initiatives have led to its recognition as a regional power.". This was written in the heady days of 2009-2011, when Turkey was at the peak of its popularity in the Middle East, and its economy growing. Now, the economy is not-so-growing anymore, and "zero problems with neighbors" has turned into "zero friends among neighbors". Turkey is completely isolated in the region, its only friends left being Hamas and Qatar. When Turkey recently ran for a seat at the UN security council, it humiliatingly lost to Spain 132-60 (not one country from the region voted in favor of Turkey). It is not hard to find sources to back this [1] [2] [3]. I'm wondering if its time for "growing economy" and "diplomatic initiatives" to be removed. Athenean (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

lead has to be a general info about country like summarizing al things and that you are saying is kinda detail, because turkey is still considered as a regional power and it has a growing economy. its like greece and quality of life thing. greece's economy is one of the worlds worst right now but still it is consideded as a high income has a good credit rating etc etc. what you are stating is already written in foreign relations section mate. kazekagetr 08:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

ethnic groups

hi there mates User:Alessandro57 wanted me to open up a discussion about my recent edits. First of all my intention isnt a product some kind of nationalism as i am a Georgian not Turkish. I suggest that we should trim the minorities per population basis, we cant just write down every single minority in Turkey to Demographics section as there are more than 30 ethnic groups. Most of them covered in Demographics of Turkey and Minorities in Turkey articles btw. So i suggest that minorities 500,000+ pops should be represented and a sentence that indicates/states the multiplicity of the ethnic groups must be added. kazekagetr 16:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, and thanks for going to the talk page! I understand the need of simplifying the article, but on the other side many minorities - although very small - have a high historical significance (I am thinking among others to the Greeks and the Armenians). Others, like the Assiro-Caldean, live in Turkey since thousands of years and in the last times have been heavily persecuted. I believe in your good faith, but I don`t know if it is a good idea to get read of all of them. To make an example, in the article about Italy, the Italian ethnic minorities, which are almost as many as the Turkish ones, are not named as ethnic groups, but as languages, anyway they are mentioned all without exception. Alex2006 (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course every single culture matters but as you said mate, simplifying matters. Nearly all of these ethnic groups are covered in minorities and demographics article so if a reader wants to take a detailed look, he/she will find info. Also the recognized minorities a.k.a Greeks Armenians and Jews are already mentioned so there is a general info about poly religious culture and community. And I say it again mate I'm no nationalist, I belong to Georgian minority. kazekagetr 20:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A Paragraph for Armenian Genocide ?

There are a few paragraph of 2 thousand years' Turkish history. And Armenian Genocide covers it. This article has nothing to do with it. Turkey didn't exist that time. I think somebody is sliding in the historical hostilities. It's not necessary for this article, besides described excessively. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I found the first mention of the Armenian Genocide under the section, The Seljuks and the Ottoman Empire. There are 3 sentences pertaining to that genocide. While there is one sentence pertaining to the Hamidian massacres. Neither constitues a paragraph. This sounds like you simply don't like what is stated. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Kansas Bear How is this related to Turkish Republic? I think it sounds like WP:DISRUPTPOINT. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

How is it related to Turkey? For starters, Turkey is famous for denying it. That's how. I can't believe we are having this conversation. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Δρ.Κ., It's exactly WP:GAMING. One can express self hatred in related articles but Turkey is irrelevant. Will you add this paragraph whoever deny it? There should be brief info about history, not details of a controversial subject.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

How is he gaming the system when he's not even cited any policy or guideline? I see no sign of hatred. Please refrain from ad hominems and argue your case civilly. How is this related to Turkish Republic? It relates to the history of the Turkish Republic. It's common for country articles to outline the history of the territory a modern state occupies and of its peoples. You're gonna have to explain why it'd be appropriate for the Armenian Genocide to be excluded. Alakzi (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"There should be brief info about history, not details of a controversial subject." Sounds like you just don't like it. And in response to your question, "How is this related to Turkish Republic?, since the Republic of Turkey draws on Seljuk and Ottoman eras as its past, therefore, anything that occurs during those eras should be related. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Δρ.Κ., stop cencoring my words. Your manners are disruptive, i answered you. Why are you attacking me? I don't know how the word "hatred" is personal attack, while it's not intended personal. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well Kafkasmurat, I'm inclined to believe that the murder of two million Turkish citizens by their own government has to do with Turkey in some shape or form. It would actually be a disservice to our readership to exclude the disappearances of two million Turkish citizens, would it not?

Kafkasmurat, I have sent you to WP:AE before for personal attacks and you're continuing to do so here. So please refrain from personal attacks towards other users, or we may just have to handle it at the AE board again. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Étienne Dolet, it's not fare. There's no attack. Can you tell me what is the attack? I said one can't "express hatred" here. I leave this favoritism to community. There is no chance to bring forth new ideas. Hope, Wikipedia will not serve conflicts of interest. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Kafkasmurat, you did not say "one can't express hatred", you said "You can express your hatred" to Dr.K. even after you pinged him. Remember, telling someone that he is "expressing hatred" towards a certain article is a personal attack, especially when it's an unfounded accusation. Such statements do not help the discussion. So I advise you to remain WP:CIVIL in your conduct and adhere to the WP:FIVEPILLARS of the project. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Mate it is mentioned in 'history' and since Turkey considers itself as the succesor of the Ottoman Empire, it is relevant to mention these massacres in history section. But you might say that why are these massacres are mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of the summary as they arent milestones in Turkey's history. kazekagetr 18:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This paragraph is so offensive and placed so irrelevant that it looks like a total hatred speech. Should we use wikipedia for political racist attacks or true information? Ali tr (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Armenian revolts, the massacre of the Armenian gangs, Turkey and massacre of Muslims. Persecution of Ottoman Muslims,Armenian resistance during the Armenian Genocide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added sentences to relevant positions. You can improve the Ottoman Emprie sub-section in History section, with references. kazekagetr 23:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Kafkasmurat, we shouldn't be comforting the grievances of users who claim to be personally "offended" or that "Armenian gangs" were responsible for wholesale massacre of Muslims, that's just incoherent denialist jargon that has been refuted too many times before. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. As for McCarthy, his work has been proven to be an unreliable source over and over again at the WP:RSN and various other discussions pertaining to the mass murders of Armenians and Greeks (See sample discussions here and here). His work is denialist in nature and limits the sufferings of Armenians and Greeks at the hands of the Ottoman government. This means his work is far from neutral and using such a source will greatly depreciated the neutral tone of this article. Above all, his stance goes against the general consensus here on Wikipedia which accepts the Armenian Genocide as fact. Using such a source challenges that notion, yet at the same time unequally expounds the 'persecution of Muslims', should be excluded in this article at all costs. Moreover, equating a few massacres of Turks in 1821, which is all what the sources say, is not the same as persecution of Ottoman Muslims at large. The Ethnic cleansing in twentieth-century Europe, which is the only source that is borderline reliable, doesn't even mention that Ottoman Muslims were persecuted. That turned out to be complete WP:OR on your part. Even if persecution of Ottoman Muslims were the case, it would be more probable to say that such persecutions may have occurred during brief intervals of time and as a result of some war beyond the border of today's republic. So I advise that this POV editing be removed from this article if we still want to have its GA status retained. Otherwise, the GA status of this article will have to be revised. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Persecution of Ottoman Muslims" by their victims is a myth based on misinterpretation of the sources. There was never systematic campaign of persecution against Ottoman muslims by their Christian subjects. There were reprisal attacks against the perpetrators of genocide, but that is not persecution, any more than the Warsaw Uprising was "persecution of Nazis". Athenean (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright then mates i've found some other references, how about you check them too. kazekagetr 15:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

How about you post a draft here and wait a bit rather than drag people into an edit war. Alakzi (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

its only a sentence mate, literally, just a sentence with new and more neutral-looking references. I am not gonna write a paragraph for this sensivitive issue cause i know that Armenians burned down our Muslim-Georgian village back in 1900s and my relatives fought in Caucasus Campaign and Eastern Front (Turkey). Because of that, writing a paragraph would be non-neutral therefore non-ethical for me. kazekagetr 16:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

...And in light of your previous comment, I am now convinced that your recent edits in this article are (mis)guided by a personal POV. You can keep your sensitivities towards the issue to yourself, but editing in a manner that emits those sensitivities is highly discouraged in Wikipedia. Your recent edits, for example, were in complete violation of OR; since you evoked the idea that a few deaths of Turks surmounts to persecution, even when the sources don't use such language. Even if such language in sources were to be used, placing that information in the context you are here to defend would be a deluded attempt to give equal validity to systematic genocide with random acts of violence. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

hahahah if my edits were a product of a POV as you said, i would have done this edits over and over and over. you know how acitve i am on wikipedia. i was just trying to neutralize the articles as other users stated that above. please dont be 'that' funny and make this a big issue. btw your POV accusation is total crap, i've defended that mionority persecutions should be mentioned under the history section and i've clarified myself above that i am not guided on this sentence but i would if i had written a paragraph. kazekagetr 07:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Perincek vs Switzerland , europe free thought , human rights, not just their insanına me , Turks and Muslims are second-class citizens Does everything the Turks or Muslims asked to be removed unjustly , We do not accept , and we say we do genocide no , do not be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ottomans butchered Armenians, there are very good proofs and persons who lived through it, stop denying and start reading. Drop that nationalist sentiment. kazekagetr 18:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)