Talk:Turkey

The increasing functional failure of political/legal/economic institutions must be in the article

The increasing functional failure of political, legal and economic institutions in Turkey has been the topic of numerous international organisations, academic works and media reports. In this and other Turkey-related articles, I see an otherwise unknown vigor by some editors to either outright delete such information or burry it in a "Human Rights" section, which is not appropriate for the topic of functional failure of institutions. I will see if I find time over the weekend to get some of the published stuff on the topic together for more legthy paragraphs in the "Politics", "Law" and "Economics" sections. However, if I find time or not, the topic should definitely be clearly present in those sections. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Burry it? Balki Chalkidiki (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

As for the aforementioned organizations, the EU will collapse before Turkey, don't worry. Balki Chalkidiki (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The AKP-Erdogan-government narrative in Turkey for the past years has been "we make Turkey great, at the cost of some human rights, which we happily pay for making Turkey great". This narrative in my impression is the POV editorial concept of some of the most active editors on this article (and some other Turkey-related articles). There is no lack in discussion of the human rights aspect of issues in articles and sections of articles dedicated to this perspective, presenting it as an isolated concern. However, there is a deliberate lack of reference for the numerous and often even highly publicised works and media concerning the increasing functional failure of political, legal and economic institutions in Turkey. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I never heard Erdo say such a thing. Balki Chalkidiki (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is some examples for the numerous international organisations, academic works and media reports on the increasing functional failure of political, legal and economic institutions in Turkey.

Freedom House Special Report: Democracy in Crisis: Corruption, Media, and Power in Turkey (2014)

Freedom House, Freedom in the World report 2016 (Turkey Section)

2016 Washington Post article: Turkey’s Erdogan must reform or resign (Mort Abramowitz and Eric Edelman)

EU European Commission: Turkey 2015 report

European Parliament resolution of 14 April 2016 on the 2015 report on Turkey

Transparency International report: Turkey’s institutions are failing to comply with good governance principles and combat corruption (2016)

Transparency International, 2016 National Integrity System Assessment Turkey

Anticorrp: Public Procurement in Infrastructure: The Case of Turkey (2015)

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Resolution 2121 (2016): The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey

2016 Article by Sedat Laciner: Opponent or Terrorist? The dramatically changing nature of Turkish democracy

2012 Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication article: Media and Democracy in Turkey: Toward a Model of Neoliberal Media Autocracy

2016 Hürriyet Daily News article: Turkey bar union issues stern warning against controversial judicial draft bill

Brookings, 2016: Turkey’s downward spiral and the scuffles at Erdoğan’s Brookings speech

2015 Mediterranean Quarterly article: Turkey’s Failed Policy toward the Arab Spring, Three Levels of Analysis (Ahmet T. Kuru)

2016 Foreign Affairs article: Ankara's Failure, How Turkey Lost the Arab Spring (Jonathan Schanzer and Merve Tahiroglu)

2016 Article by Graham E. Fuller: How Can Turkey Overcome Its Foreign Policy Mess?

The topic(s) and the references in my opinion must find a place in the sections concerning the institutions and issue areas themselves in this article, not be buried in one section with the rather less appropriate headline "human rights", which should be reserved for information focused on human rights issues in Turkey as a topic (which there are enough of). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I think "Human Rights" is a very important and broad topic, covering many problems such as the freedom of expression, freedom of the media, and the rule of law. It is sadly true that, especially under the AKP rule of RTE, the "rule of law" has been severely eroded in Turkey. Balki Chalkidiki (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We could add them with one or two centences in relative sections. kazekagetr 14:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news

Could I remind everybody of WP:NOTNEWS. We do not report on breaking stories. We cover events after they have happened, based on reliable sources. Jeppiz (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Especially when the news reports mention the Turkish Armed Forces, when it is clear that only a faction of the Turkish army is involved in the coup against Erdogan. We cannot allow these factions to be making announcements in Wikipedia's voice, especially when the news reports are inconclusive and even contradictory. Dr. K. 22:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Now an edit has been made changing the type of government in the infobox. I don't think this is clear from the news reports. I also think this edit should be reverted until a clearer picture emerges. Dr. K. 23:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• People come to Wikipedia to get reliably sourced and neutral point of view information, even about ongoing events. It is inappropriate to not mention an ongoing coup attempt. We have covered other coups in recent years without waiting until everything is finally settled. We can base the coverage on what major news sources are saying. Wikipedia is not censored. Edison (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not censorship to avoid recentism. This page hardly even mentions the other coups in Turkish history, so why should it make a big deal out of this one? clpo13_(talk) 23:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It is not recentism to provide due coverage to a coup. If the others are not covered perhaps that reflects censorship. Edison (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's totally recentism to devote an entire section to an event mere hours old that may not even affect the country in the long-run (notably, none of the other coups were anything more than a blip in the political history of Turkey). Readers can be directed to 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt if they're foolish enough to turn to Wikipedia for news. clpo13_(talk) 23:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Three recent coups and a plot are covered in Multi-party period of the Republic of Turkey. I agree that unless this one succeeds and there is a change in the governmental structure, it is adequate to cover this coup there, as well as in the standalone article. It is not "foolish" to go to Wikipedia for coverage of events of world importance such as a large-scale coup attempt in a NATO country. The coverage here of such events is generally more thorough than the snips in individual news stories.Edison (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Just in case there is any misunderstanding of my edits, I am in no way opposed to covering the coup in a reasonable way. What I am opposed to, however, is to change the government type of Turkey in the infobox without solid sourcing and also make declarations on behalf of the "Turkish Armed Forces" while there are clear indications that the Turkish Army is anything but united in this. Dr. K. 00:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

[redacted comments per forum] BTW, in no case should government types be changed in infoboxes based on such flimsy sourcing when a coup or any similar incident is still unfoldingGiorgos Tzimas (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

mamluks

Someone add to mamluks on etymology because they were usinged-Devletü't-Türkiyye. NoScopeRage (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Changing of governmental System

Given the current political status of Turkey, the status of Turkeys government should be changed from "democratic, secular, unitary, constitutional republic with a diverse cultural heritage" to "Dictatorship" as this is a signifficantly more fitting term for how the country is being run and the term democracy is strongly outdated for Turkey. Perhaps since the country is officially classified a democracy a more fitting term would be "apparent democracy", "pretend democracy" or "pseudo-democracy", however simply referring to it as a "democracy" would be disrespectful to the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxzap98 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Several newsoutlets, academics and the public through twitter and reddit are accusing Turkey of becoming more and more authoritarian

I mean I could source it but I am sure anyone involved will find it. At what point do we begin to call the republic an authoritarian and or/despotic one? The ban of travel for academics seems to go further than most countries in the world except for perhaps North Korea. And nobody can source who enacted what law or decree...109.200.36.132 (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Democracy? 2016 is not 2013

The introduction claims that Turkey is a "democracy", which seems outlandish to say the least given Erdogan's authoritarian regime. The source for this claim dates from 2013, and in 2013 Turkey certainly was much more democratic. Since then, in 2016 a large number of newspapers have been taken our, journalists jailed, thousands of independent judges fired, thousands of academics fired and all academics banned from travelling, social media blocked and a civil war raging. I see no reason why Wikipedia should claim that this regime is a "democracy" and move it be removed. Jeppiz (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That's not a problem. Find the “reliable sources” that mark this transition, and use them. Ideological problems are void here, it's only the technical problem of using the right sources. I would also suggest to move the report on the failed coup in Turkey from the special paragraph into the sentence that lists all the coups. History-wise, this is a minor event, so far: it was not even successful, and its consequences are not yet clear. This fact is not even yet mentioned in books of history.

Maybe it is a wiser idea to look for sources that are not affiliated with governments, since any government has diplomatic interests and therefore is interested to skew the world picture. On the other hand, the similar argument is applicable to most kinds of “reliable sources”. And it's weird to become worried about it right now… - 91.122.1.70 (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2016

Coat of arms or emblem is missing

Someonewhoknows3 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Turkey no more a parliamentary republic after 2016 Turkish purges

Turkey is NO longer a parliamentary republic after 2016 Turkish purges. It`s now a presidial dictatorship

• Spiegel.de: Folgen des Putsches: "Faktisch ist die Türkei eine Diktatur" (German)

178.11.185.185 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Decline period

An editor reverted my edit on the decline of the Ottoman Empire noting that the battle of Pruth and some regains prove that the 18th century was not a decline period of the Ottoman Empire. The editor futhermore claims that the decline period begins in 1830 . Well in the 18th century Ottoman Empire lost vast areas to Russia and more important than that Russia gained the custodian status of the Ottoman Christians which eventually led to the dissolution of the empire. (see Eastern Question) But the important thing here is not our opinions or personal researches. (see Wikipedia:No original research) The claims should be backed by serious sources. There are many sources about the Ottoman Empire which state that the Decline period begins by 1683 (Battle of Vienna) or 1699 (treaty of Karlowitz following the battle of Vienna). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The Russo-Turkish War (1768–74) (second half of the 18th century) marks the earliest signs of the decline of the Ottoman Empire. "Early 18th century" is not correct. Balki Chalkidiki (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It's in a way similar to the exaggeration in the West about the results of the Battle of Lepanto (1571), suggesting that the "Ottoman Navy disappeared from the Mediterranean after 1571", which was not true. In reality, the Ottomans quickly rebuilt their navy and retook Cyprus from Venice in 1573 and retook Tunisia from Spain in 1574. The loss of the Great Turkish War (1683-1699) and the Treaty of Karlowitz (1699) were indeed severe blows to "Ottoman supremacy in land warfare", but the "Ottoman military power" didn't fully "collapse" as a result. Actually, in the early 18th century, the Ottomans won several important victories and recovered a portion of their lost territories, such as the successful Pruth River Campaign (1710-1711) against Russia; the Ottoman–Venetian War (1714–18) and the recovery of Morea (with the Treaty of Passarowitz in 1718); the Austro-Russian–Turkish War (1735–39) after which the Ottomans retook Belgrade, Serbia, Bosnia, Oltenia and the southern part of the Banat of Temeswar from Austria (with the Treaty of Niš (1739) and Treaty of Belgrade (1739), which marked a major victory for the Ottomans.) The definitive decline of Ottoman military power began with the defeat at the Russo-Turkish War (1768–74) in the second half of the 18th century, and became unstoppable (despite the Tanzimat reforms in the 19th century) after the loss of Greece and Algeria in 1830. Balki Chalkidiki (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Terror attacks

Recent large-scale terror attacks should be included in the history section. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Full protection

I have fully protected this page for three days because of the edit war that's taken place of the past 24 hours. I have no side in this dispute; I protected the current version only because it's the current version - not because I support anyone's changes. Please discuss your edits rather than keep reverting each other. Acalamari 16:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 September 2016

The word "era" needs to be added in the second paragraph after the word "paleolithic"

Regushee (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Time Zone is +3. There is more summer time.

Time Zone is +3. There is more summer time. --Kirov Airship (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)