Talk: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.

Where is the map?

Where is the Turkey's map in this article??Please add it.User:Uber-Star005 04:32 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Geographic location 8 way template

This template was not designed for countries, it was made to be placed onto cities or towns articles, the use here is not recommended

"showing both sides"

I have undone this edit [1] on the grounds that, while well-intentioned, is not neutral, but rather consists of weasel wording. Language such as "these claims have been questioned" is precisely WP:WEASEL, which we should avoid. The Armenian Genocide is an incontrovertible fact. It happened. Any historian worth his salt agrees. The only ones who have questioned it are the Government of the Republic of Turkey, the legal successor state to the state that orchestrated it, and historians in its pay. However, the wording I removed, by omitting to say exactly who has questioned the occurence of the Genocide, lends legitimacy to Genocide denial. The only wording that would be correct would be "The Government of the Republic of Turkey, the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, denies that these events constituted Genocide.". Even so however, it is not the place of the History section of this article to go into who denies and who accepts what. In this section, we present historical facts in WP:SS fashion. The Genocide is a fact, while the denials of the Turkish government are moreover not even history, as they continue to the present day. Perhaps inserting this wording somewhere else in the article might work. In the history section, however, a link to Armenian Genocide, whose lede includes the denial efforts by Turkey, is sufficient. Athenean (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I should say that I also don't like weasel language, altough as an unnative speaker I might use it too, so thank you for bringing that up. However you called your section showing both sides but my problem is the fact that so-said Armenian Genocide is one sided biased issue. That's why if you check my section you would see that my references bring up well reasonable doubts about the Armenian Genocide. Though they don't have the most formal language they provide advanced academic research about the issue unlike the references "supporting" the Armenian Genocide. So I would say think again! Best regards--Lonewolf94 (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Genocide is a fact" (Athenean (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)) According to what solid proof ? There are only articles around which doesn't prove anything and by reverting that edit you are making Wikipedia is a biased source for information. I'm not asking for complete removal of Armenian genocide and all the talk that's been around but a user has the right to know that there has been a debate going on. The sentence on the page is strictly biased. Please read Wikipedia:POV before editing and stay unbiased. Best regards, --Orcunbaslak (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Depending on who you ask, there's also a "debate" about the validity of the Holocaust. Of course, those who deny the existence and scope of the Holocaust are racist, delusional morons, since they are denying a well-known fact in order to promote their loathsome, bigoted beliefs. Similarly, the Armenian Genocide is a well-established fact. Those who deny it typically have an ugly, ethno-nationalist agenda that has no place in what purports to be a factual article. Therefore, there is no need to equivocate on the Armenian Genocide; it was a factual event that merits being mentioned in an article on Turkey. Dousis (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Dousis mate. If your way of thinking of an objective article is to source only one point of view, than you have no right to criticize other people of being biased. To you, Wikipedia may seem like a tool through which you think you can dictate other people what to believe, yet what it is, is a free encyclopedia that "has to" stay objective and not propagate on highly sensitive matters such as accusing a whole nation or making suggestions that may put a group or organization under unnecessary bias or prejudice, without a definitive scholarly work supported by hard unquestionable evidence, that neither party can deny. After all this is where people come to read about things they may have no idea about and they deserve and need to hear both sides, without prejudice. So next time you decide to edit something off, either first read about the issue and don't write something you blindly think is to be true or better still try to rid yourself of your bias and prejudice.

Nobody here is denying the fact that a matter of such importance should be left out from the article about Turkey. They merely suggest that it be given the benefit of the doubt and be objective. I suggest everybody who happens to read this know and/or research their subject and don't mix emotion into something what millions of people come to read expecting it to be a fair article.

I also think this is no place to discuss such a matter even if you have the necessary qualifications. So please, if you want to discuss the legitimacy of the claims about the Genocide or any other subject for that matter, either create a new talk page dedicated to that or write on one that already exists. Also please read the talk page guidelines before you write anything on a talk page. Aerodil (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose that the section "After nearly a century of decline, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers and was ultimately defeated. During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated in the Armenian Genocide." is changed with the "After nearly a century of decline, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers and was ultimately defeated. Although some countries have politically accepted it as a genocide, the cause of an estimated 1.5 million Armenian deaths during the WWI is still an ongoing debate among historians. Some believing it to be a tragic catastrophe caused by one of the bloodiest wars in human history, others believing it was a systematic and planned extermination of the Armenian people." or with something else that is as objective as possible, and the reference changed to http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/ Aerodil (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is my comment on this issue (since Seb az86556 would like to hear it): I understand what Dousis means, but it's not a matter of what people think... it's a matter of what individual nations think, what the United Nations think. Nations control what is being taught in educational institutes, therefore Dousis' claim starting with "Depending on who you ask, there's also a 'debate' about the validity of the Holocaust. [...]" is not valid at all. The Holocaust is not denied by any present nation. Currently, only the death of Armenians, not an extermination, is a fact! If it was a fact, his sentence, "During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated in the Armenian Genocide." would be acceptable, but it isn't! It is an ongoing debate. Here is my contribution I believe I've written in an objective matter: " After the defeat, the Ottoman Empire was being partitioned by the Allied Powers. On March 1918, the Democratic Republic of Armenia has been established, which is the present Republic of Armenia. The Armenians, who are now a nation, have recognized together with other nations that during this war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated in an Armenian Genocide. Although the deaths of Armenians may have been confirmed by investigation, the Republic of Turkey defends that Turkish people have died during this time as well. The Republic of Turkey claims that the Armenian deaths were not caused by exterminations and denies the Armenian Genocide by strongly condemning the use of the word Genocide. The most common hypothesis for the high amount of deaths of Armenian people is the ones blaming either the Turkish authorities or the Armenians, however there is also the hypothesis that foreign powers have provoked and arranged a war between the Turkish People and Armenian People or even took part in this event. Nevertheless, not enough factual evidence has been provided to this time in order to support any of these propositions, which is why there is a huge controversy throughout the world. ". Please let me know what is wrong with my paragraph and why Dousis' sentence is preferred over mine. Thanks! -EthemD (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

EthemD, I don't think anybody deliberately removed yours to put the other one in there. I think when the administrator did a reset, it automatically reverted to the latest accepted revision, which in this case was Dousis' auto-accepted entry. I don't think anything's wrong with your revision there, but I do think that it's too long and detailed to be put under a short "Turks and the Ottoman Empire" section. It may need it's own section to be put under, but I do not think it's the right page. You can consider putting that under Armenian Genocide page, since it needs more objectivity. Even the Germany and Israel doesn't mention the holocaust more than five lines int their own pages. I will quote the "Armenian Genocide" section from the "Armenia" page: "When World War I broke out leading to confrontation of the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire in the Caucasus and Persian Campaigns, the new government in Constantinople began to look on the Armenians with distrust and suspicion. This was due to the fact that the Russian army contained a contingent of Armenian volunteers. On April 24, 1915, Armenian intellectuals were arrested by Ottoman authorities and, with the Tehcir Law (29 May 1915), eventually a large proportion of Armenians living in Anatolia perished in what has become known as the Armenian Genocide.

There was local Armenian resistance in the region, developed against the activities of the Ottoman Empire. The events of 1915 to 1917 are regarded by Armenians and the vast majority of Western historians to have been state-sponsored mass killings, or genocide. Turkish authorities, however, maintain that the deaths were the result of a civil war coupled with disease and famine, with casualties incurred by both sides. According to the research conducted by Arnold J. Toynbee an estimated 600,000 Armenians died during the Armenian Genocide in 1915–16.

According to the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the death toll was "more than a million". Armenia and the Armenian diaspora have been campaigning for official recognition of the events as genocide for over 30 years. These events are traditionally commemorated yearly on April 24, the Armenian Martyr Day, or the Day of the Armenian Genocide."

Even the Armenia page is being as objective as it can and gives the situation as it is... I can't understand why some are so insistent on being biased.Aerodil (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the message was actually for Seb az86556, who reverted my version to Dousis' version. He wanted me to give my input in this discussion. I know you didn't remove anything, Dousis did, and you made his writing more objective, which I am happy of but it was still missing essential parts to become fully unbiased. Yes, thank you,v I agree! The actual Holocaust doesn't even have this many lines in the Germany article - so I would also keep it short. I don't think it should have its own section though - that would be too long. I think it should be reverted to my version and we can make it shorter. -EthemD (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That section in the Armenia article, you quoted, is much more unbiased than the current sentence in the Turkey article, but I still don't think we need a separate section also in the Turkey article. If we just mentioned the consequences of the 1st World War and the things that nations and people think about what happened, it should be enough for that section. Well, looking at this discussion now, there is not much to add. I'm not able to edit the article, so how would we be able to change that part of the article? -EthemD (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

So the mention of the Holocaust in the Germany article should contain an equivocation saying that some people think that the Holocaust never happened? Wikipedia should not bend over backwards to accommodate extreme Turkish nationalists who insist on denying a fact. The section on Ottoman history in this article should have a single sentence mentioning that the Armenian genocide occurred during World War I--there is no need to "show both sides" and be "objective" when the other "side" is an outright lie. Dousis (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with the above. There is will be absolutely no equivocating so as to appease the ethno-nationalist agenda of some users. As far the rest of the world is concerned, the Genocide is a fact, and that's that. The only "debate" is within denialist Turkish nationalist circles. That the Turkish government denies the genocide is also a fact, however, the history section is not the place to mention it. Like Dousis says, one sentence mentioning the Genocide and the number of victims, and that's it. Athenean (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I never said that... read my paragraph again. I said that if you want to state something like a fact, it needs to be accepted by nations worldwide and the united nations. If it's something that is under discussion between nations, it shouldn't be stated like a fact, otherwise it is considered biased and unacceptable in Wikipedia. Topics that are under discussion between nations should be written in an unbiased way, giving propositions from both sides of the discussion, with continuous referencing. The Holocaust is recognized by all nations, so there should not be anything denying this on the Germany article of Wikipedia. This is NOT the case with what you call "the Armenian Genocide". It is not accepted worldwide by nations, therefore it should not be treated like a fact! -EthemD (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree with your statement EthemD. If something is not accepted worldwide such as jew holocaust it cannot be treated as a fact and thus needs to be removed from Wikipedia's pages. Users seek unbiased information in Wikipedia and therefor we must supply their needs. A case of ongoing debate DOES NOT MEAN that it is a fact. --88.241.151.157 (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Iran's president has publicly questioned the Holocaust, so I guess by your standard it's not a fact since it's not accepted by all "nations worldwide." To follow your logic further, I guess it's debatable who the inventor of the toaster is, since North Korea's government would tell you that the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il invented it. The only reason that the veracity of the Armenian Genocide is "under discussion between nations" is that the Turkish government stubbornly denies its guilt. The opinion of the Turkish government, or any government, is irrelevant; if PM Erdogan proclaimed tomorrow that the sky was chartreuse and not blue, would the color of the sky seriously be up for discussion? The point of a Wikipedia article is to display facts from a NPOV, not to promote the Turkish government's view of historical events. Like it or not, the Armenian genocide is a factual event because it was well-documented by multiple eyewitnesses at the time it occurred, and well established by modern historians with neutral perspectives on the issue. This, not the opinion of third-rate, tin-pot dictators, is what defines a fact. Dousis (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I can see that no one here is taking their time to read any proper book about the subject or even the talk page guidelines. See that's where you're wrong; it's still an on going debate, because there has never been a proper research with both sides contributing and benefiting not just from the Armenian or American archives, but from the Ottoman and Russian archives as well. That's why they're putting so much effort in propagating about it in the first place! You may think that it's a "fact" because you believe in it so much, you've grown to deny anything or anyone who may suggest the other way. It's no different than all the religions really. What they did is talk about it so much that it's true, everybody started to believe that it was true. They literally burned the ones who would dare suggest another point of view, and all they showed as an evidence was a book told to be sent by a god. While at the time everybody unquestionably accepted it, in time they've grown too intelligent not to take it all in without some solid proof... Well at least some did. So I know, that no matter what anyone says, no one will be able to convince you or people thinking like you to the contrary about the subject. I actually think that if all the Armenian people shouted all at once that it never happened, you would think it's been planned and forced by the Turkish government. Because let's face it, you don't like them. And it wouldn't be a problem, if it weren't for this instance. You just CANNOT say it's a fact, unless there's solid, unquestionable proof... and I mean the kind that made us believe the Earth was rotating on its own axis, not the kind that God exists. Until then, it will continue to be a debate, and that's why it deserves to be mentioned in Turkey's own page objectively and without bias and prejudice.Aerodil (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Flat Earth Society Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Kudos to you Aerodil!! Very well put! Can I suggest an admin to at least remove that sentence "During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated in the Armenian Genocide."? We're not able to edit the article, and supposed to come to a solution of this "Armenian Genocide" problem via this discussion. It's not really clear when the administrators will recognize the verdict of this discussion. Keeping that sentence in the article during this time is not fair and would just give a reason for the biased participants to go on with this discussion. -EthemD (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Appearently how much I show well references, say that there are reasonable doubts about Armenian Genocide and if there are reasonable doubts there is no crime and people are innocent until their guilt is proven it means bullsh*t to some people. And I also figured out that people like that Armenian Genocide paragraph, and if you change it with well reasons you are a propagandist vandal. So how much I would like to tell the plain truth, I need to be politic and make others happy so that some true history can be told. So how about this:
"After nearly a century of decline, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers and was ultimately defeated. During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated in the Armenian Genocide. However there are reasonable doubts that in fact the issue was mutual ethnic fights between Armenians and Turks which were provocated by foreign powers and that both Armenian and Turkish people were violently massacred."

Or, as EthemD suggested, we can delete the sentence about so-said Armenian Genocide.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I started to believe that Wikipedia is being polluted by racist actions from others members in such subjects. One thing for sure, that paragraphy is not going to stay like that. It will either be removed or it will show the both sides. This version of the page is damaging the reputation of the country with no proven facts and Wikipedia doesn't need racist editors that think the genocide is a fact while there is a such page Armenian_genocide_denial --Orcunbaslak (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Or, maybe it'll stay the way it is, because it's stating a fact. The page Armenian genocide denial exists to discuss denial of the Armenian genocide, not to lend credence to it. There's also a Holocaust denial page and a geocentric model page, but they too summarize beliefs that are factually untrue. And as for "proven facts," there's a pile of them linked to the paragraph. Seems to me you'd have to be a "racist editor" yourself not to accept that the Armenian genocide happened. 74.108.128.111 (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read "showing both sides". --Orcunbaslak (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted Seb az86556 (since he primarily wanted me to write in here) and he told me he isn't an English Wikipedia Administrator when I asked him to check my version of the paragraph, which is totally unbiased compared to the previous one. It is possible now to edit the paragraph, so I gave it a go and changed the paragraph to this: "After nearly a century of decline, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers and was ultimately defeated. Following the Armistice of Mudros on October 30, 1918, the victorious Allied Powers sought the dismemberment of the Ottoman state through the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920. The Ottoman Empire's casualties were enormous during the war and included the deaths of several different ottomans. There has also been a lot of population movement during and after this time, which was due to migration of refugees, asylumseekers and forced migration. According to many historians, the Republic of Armenia and many other nations, an estimated 1 to 1.5 million Armenians have died due to an Armenian Genocide, however this proposition has been denied by the Republic of Turkey and many other historians. Up to this date, there is not sufficient evidence to prove or disprove either proposition, which is the main reason why there is a worldwide controversy.". Now I see him removing my paragraph, because of "deliberate misuse of sources". I find this a bit awkward... might be because I'm new to Wikipedia, could someone maybe elaborate? and maybe also comment on my paragraph? Thanks in advance! -EthemD (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

All sources support the fact that there was a genocide. You didn't change them at all. This is close to vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This [2] is arguablythe worst, most inane attempt at genocide denial I have seen so far. Unacceptable. I will seek arbitration enforcement if this continues. Athenean (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Athenean. This paragraph just says that there is a part (a nation) of the world who doesn't think in an extreme way like you and denies the Armenian Genocide. If you haven't noticed, I also mention that there is part of the world that thinks there was an Armenian genocide. This is called objective writing. I didn't 'erase' the Armenian Genocide part, like you all do with my part - I mentioned both sides of the story. Secondly, all the information I used are from the Wikipedia pages, I didn't think it was necessary to use references to external websites in this case. If you really insist (non-English Administrator Seb az86556), I can take the references from those Wikipedia articles, but my paragraph will remain the same, since it is correct! You are just using it as a reason to delete my paragraph. My version of the article is internationally accepted - and I am not going to stop editing this article until all the extremist content is removed. -EthemD (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an ongoing dispute. Until Turkey accepts the notion of genocide, it's not WP:NPOV to not include other thinkings surrounding this debate. Wikipedia is a place where we insert the information to pages from reliable sources. This place is not for judgmentalism nor a propoganda of beliefs. Reporting facts is the job of wiki editors, whether you like it or not, you need to include stories of other side aswell.--Cerian (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it not an established fact that at no time there were 1.5M Armenians ever in the Ottoman Empire? These very Wikipedia pages attest to that, even those that are heavily edited and patrolled by ultranationalist Armenians. Check the relevant article(s). So, how about keeping only verified and undisputed, in the true sense of the word, be included in these pages? Holocaust is a verifiable fact, no matter what a politician says for domestic consumption. UFOs are not a verfifiable fact though so many claim to have been abducted by them. There is no proof of an Armenian genocide, no plan or act or proof of extermination as evidenced by so many Armenians who trace their origins there. How about just sticking to verifiable facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.248.90 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree, I mean just read through the article... it says that the Ottoman Empire simply exterminated foreigners at that time - without stating anything else. How can this be accepted? Let's get the facts straight: people died... A LOT of people from different ethnic groups died including Turkish Ottomans. This is the only fact and it was proven by archaeological research in that area. No one 'knows' if they died due to the war in general or due to planned exterminations... the only way to establish this fact is by having the United Nations agree on it. It's not that I do or don't believe in an Armenian Genocide. I just think that this is a highly disputed and sensitive topic and should be mentioned carefully and objectively on a nation's page (especially one that is considered the successor of the Ottoman Empire.) - EthemD (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The user Aethean in his defense of the Armenian genocide by stating the claim (in the first comment of this section) that weasel words cannot be used in a historical proven fact however in his defense of including the so called Armenian genocide he also falls to the fallacy of using weasel words. In the 150+ number of countries only 11 of which recognize the Armenian genocide and recognition is done through diplomatic pressure and not by consensus of historians. The Armenian genocide is not a fact and one needs only to look at the Armenian genocide articles on Wikipedia to find many contradictions (despite it being created by pro genocide advocates the contradictions are carried over by the sources they use).

To date many of the Armenian genocide sources are using the Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia, a politically motivated source of information at a time (circa: 1965) when the Soviet Union's hostility towards Turkey (a key NATO member and southern flank against Soviet Expansion or through it's Arab League proxy) was at it's highest. The equivalent to modern standards would be the acceptance of Iranian state policy in that they are both politically motivated, a weapon to be used against the source's diplomatic enemies. The usage of Iran is an example and not fact however the preceding belief is that Iranian state announcements are factually incorrect and are aimed to weaken her political rivals. AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Founder

Is it really required to mention a quite controversial title like "founder" into the box for "the current government members' informations?" And the person mentioned there is dead for a long time. It doesn't make sense to write that name there as it is not informative about any current position of the government. His name is better mentioned in the parts related to history of the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.168.189 (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Echohago, 3 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} "...The actual commander of the armed forces is the Chief of the General Staff General Işık Koşaner since August 30, 2008..." It should be: "2010" not 2008. General Ilker Basbug retired from the Chief of the General Staff in 2010.

Echohago (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The current source for that statement says Işık Koşaner was Chief since 2008. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

His NATO biography states 2010. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-66E790CA-0E723386/natolive/who_is_who_65978.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderMcBragg (talk • contribs) 02:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, Stickee is incorrect above. Kavas (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

EDITING REQUEST: Coat of Arms

Turkey DOAS NOT HAVE A COAT OF ARMS. The coat of arms present currently in the article is pure fantasy. Read our own article on the emblems of Turkey, all unofficial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Turkey Also anyone can read the Turkish Constitution and see that there's no mention of any coat of arms. There is also no law pertaining to a coat of arms. Now I'm not really sure how I can source that but the Cosntitution can be read online on any number of sites and anyone can see there's no mention of a Coat of Arms. Now about the Laws, should we really now provide the entire Turkish code to prove sth.'s missing? Or should the one that made the fantasy edit provide his own source for this imaginary coat of arms? I wonder. By the way, the Escutcheon of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talk • contribs) 22:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zartus, 20 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Could you please let me edit the article?

Zartus (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Make 10 edits and wait 4 days Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zartus, 20 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The Lake Tuz picture and its annotation look so inappropriate and ridiculous as I believe the person who added this picture attempted to degrade the name of the country by associating it with the bird. It's a very well known fact that the English for Turkey is derived from Türkiye through the Medieval Latin Turchia. For this reason, I request the deletion of the picture and its annotation.

Zartus (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: I see nothing wrong with this picture or its accociation with the country Turkey. The picture looks remarkably like a bird and should be noted in the image caption. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed, but if a NASA image exist it will be re-added per the comment above. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Human rights

I find it extraordinary that this article makes no mention of human rights, given that Turkey's dubious human rights record is so widely reported. It is also an important issue in relation to its possible EU membership. (Try googling 'turkey human rights eu membership' and huge numbers of articles about this come up.) The absence of any mention in this article looks like a whitewash. 93.96.236.8 (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

We do have an article Human rights in Turkey, covering this in detail, which is linked from one of the boxes at the end of the article but I agree that we need to link to it in a more visible way. We should have a short subsection with paragraph or two summarising the subject and a link to Human rights in Turkey as its main article. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(Now logged in.) OK - while you were writing that I added a few lines about this to the article. In particular a link to a press release from the European Parliament Human Rights committee dated this very morning, entitled 'Human rights in Turkey: still a long way to go to meet [EU] accession criteria'. Ben Finn (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You can summarize that link and add the summary to here. But you should cover this in detail in Human rights in Turkey. We cannot include eveything about Turkey in this page. Kavas (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Anatolia

There is a contradiction in the use of "Anatolia" in that at one point the article implies that the whole of Asian Turkey is in Anatolia and at another point it implies only most of Asian Turkey is in Anatolia. (I was going to mark this with the "contradiction" marker but not being a frequent editor I was not sure how to use it properly). Rather than getting into nit-picking could we delegate this point down to the "Geography of Turkey" article and just assume in this article that all of Asian Turkey is in Anatolia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzlcdh (talk • contribs) 15:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Economy

I am not an economist but I think the "Economy" section should be shorter (that is more of a summary and less history) and some details should be moved to the "Economy of Turkey" and "Economic History of Turkey" articles. Also adding a few graphics would help readers understand the most important economic statistics (not sure which are most important).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzlcdh (talk • contribs) 16:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 

Military

What is the main purpose of the Turkish military? Surely to fight the PKK? So I think there should be a little in this section about how they are performing in that conflict. In order to make space for that the paragraph about their international missions could be shortened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzlcdh (talk • contribs) 17:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Who writes such bullshit and locks the article??? What the hell???

Someone has written that Turkey is a "bad" eurasian country and borders with Greece, the "best country"! What bullshit is this?? And why is the article locked such??? It's a shame! Please correct the article as soon as possible and don't allow every stupid person to write whatever they like! And personally, I am greek and I do protest about that! Greeks and Turks have common roots and everybody who knows real history can easily understand that! And nowadays, after some stupid awful conflicts in the past, we are friends once again and we live in peace! Unfortunately, it seems that there are still some big idiots out there who try to tease each other's homeland! Please don't allow such shameful things be written in wikipedia. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.172.26 (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you be more explicit about that POV? Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 07:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Next time you delete others' comments, I'll just archive the entire post, how about it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Article is semi-protected

I want to make some changes on the article. But i can't do that because of the lock. How can i be able to edit? I created a vectoral version of the presidential seal, and i want to change the seal image in this article with my vectoral image(svg). --Feravoon (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)