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.

Population total

hello everyone .. the world bank says that in 2009 75 mio. ppl live in turkey (link: http://data.worldbank.org/country/turkey ) and the cia says that in 2010 77 mio. people live (link: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html ) okay bye. & and the turkish tv says 76 million in 2010 bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.99.249.10 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Armenian Genocide Claims

To this date pro Armenian Genocide supporters continue to add claims of genocide to this document. It has been continuously stated that the genocide is an accepted fact to say that the world accepts it as undeniable fact, however some 11 countries through political pressure have via the creation of policy accepted the Armenian genocide claims. This clearly does not present these disputed claims as "undeniable fact" as 11 countries from the some 150+ does not constitute a majority.

Claims have also been put forward accompanied by weasel words and weak premises, such as claims of the majority of historians accepting it as fact or that "any historian worth his salt" has accepted the genocide claims. This is biased and it is arrogant to assume that a historian who does not accept the claimed Armenian genocide as undeniable fact does not have the necessary academic credentials to be accepted as a historian, indeed the argument "any historian worth his salt" contains the hidden premise "only historians that accept my view point are historians". Not only is this wrong but it also carries emotional weight which can easily mis represent the facts and present something as proof when it is not, Wikipedia is not made for this.

Students of academia and accepted historians who contribute to Wikipedia are bound by ethics to present the unbiased truth, the truth in regards to the Armenian genocide claim is that it is not a universally accepted fact. Accepting publications from politically motivated groups such as the Genocide Scholars Association is not and will not be accepted by the greater academic community since it falls into the trap that a politically motivated group who contributes publications will not only mis represent information but will also represent selected information as the whole undeniable truth. Attempts have been made at showing historians who are not associated with some sort of political entity of accepting the Armenian genocide claims as conclusive proof (representations are focused on numbers and not in the expertise of area of the historian), with some lists containing individuals who are businessmen, bankers & politicians - these are not historians as they focus on modern mechanics of finance and running of a country and do not constitute authority of past events.

Until such a time when the majority of the world's nations unanimously accept these Genocide Claims and not through parliament but through academic institutions (which would constitute the unanimous acceptance by academia of these events) who's duty is to investigate such claims then I propose and implore those who have access to this semi protected article that the genocide reference be removed and the document to be permanently protected from further edits with further edit rights given to those who are known to be bias free. The people who edit this article should also be bias free or should have their edit rights removed. AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am shocked to see such blatant armenian propaganda exists here. Such a huge paragraph that accounts for almodt a third of the "History" part. This page illustrates why wikipedia will never ever replace the real thing. Any hatemongering turkophobe can comr on here and write all kinds of lies about Turkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortacyel (talk • contribs) 08:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. The handful of nation that hae recognized this "genocide" fairytale have done it mainly because of political pressure and lobbying. I say delete it completely from "History" because it is simply not that significant for the history of Turkey which spans several millenia. It maybe significant for Armenians since their identity is built on this fake narrative of self victimization and many of them are obsessed with hating anyone or anything Turkish. Of course wikipedia as an open source "encylopedia" which is editable by anyone is an ideal propaganda tool for their agenda. Armenian issues are much more appopriate in foreign relations on the subject of current relations with Armenia.

"Another source of tension is the deportation of Armenians during World War I that occurred when Armenian groups sided with the invading Russian Army to carve out an independent Armenian nation state. Armenia and Armenian groups want this to be recognized as a case of genocide" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortacyel (talk • contribs) 10:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

SONUÇ OLARAK SÖZDE BİLE OLSA ERMENİ SOYKIRIMINDAN BAHSEDİLEMEZ!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.153.148.161 (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Emblem

Turkish officials include embassies that represents Turkey abroad, use this emblem. But this emblem is not prescribed by law. So they said "unofficial". And this emblem is used only by President of the Republic of Turkey. Because of Historic states represented in Turkish presidential seal, some nationalists prefer it. But it is not national symbol but the symbol of presidency. In infobox of United States ee don't use this presidential seal. We don't use the presidential seal in the infobox of this article. Takabeg (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You cannot remove the official seal of state under such POV as "some nationalist prefer it". The emblem is listed at the official website of Turkish Presidential Administration [1]. Atabəy (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles needs become newer

NEW PICTURES BUST BE ADDED! ARTICLE HAS BECOME TOO OLD Worldglobal (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sonerin, 25 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The religion part is wrongly made. 90 percent of the Turkey believes in Islam, not 97.

Sonerin (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The CIA gives 99.8%, so I'm actually in doubt of the current 97. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The map picture

Why don't we use this map?

File:Turkey map.JPG

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DonLon (talk • contribs) 08:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is Azerbaijan highlighted in the inset? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I corrected it. DonLon (talk)

I agree, this map is more useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.134.47 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason for using this over the current one? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Countries which doesn't have any land in Europe (like Cyprus and Armenia) are shown in European map because they are politically considered as Europe. Most of Turkey's land is in Asia maybe but Turkey is mostly dependent on Europe in many social and political subjects. That's why Turkey should be shown in European map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.243.135.92 (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Armenian and Greek harrasment of the page

The Armenian and Greek vandalisms are getting tiresome. Please be objective and stop playing with the article according to your own beliefs. This is an encylopedia article, not your personal POV about Turkey. All the best, --Diren Yardimli (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What's tiresome is the apologetic Turkish government propaganda and attempts to equivocate the Armenian Genocide. Your additions are nothing more than the standard Turkish POV ("Many people on all sides were killed, it was a crazy time, and those ungrateful Armenians rebelled against the poor old Ottoman Empire which had been so nice to them, bla bla bla") and are highly tendentious. We've heard it all before, and no one's buying it. Athenean (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If editors can find reference for these claims you're making fun of, then they can add this. WP is unbiased, all views should be represented but if the view is minor, the article should be edited regarding the problem of WP:UNDUE. But, "We've heard it all before" is a personal view.

You biased position against Turkey has caused the article to include fictional, fabricated data: [2] 12,128? [3] Athenean, sorry but you don't understand Wikipedia. Maybe you understand WP and like playing it. Then, have fun! Kavas (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Athena, sadly your message just shows what your aim is. I did not state any of the things you said either. The truth is you're trying to make the Turkey article an Armenian propaganda article -which is really not what Wikipedia is about. I did not erase any of the claims that were put by people like you -even though some of them are disputable as well. I just added (with trust worthy references) the other dimension (and an important one) to the paragraph. Please don't play with it. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles must be neutral. I agree with my fellow citizens.F.Mehmet (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like I'm following the main stream here, but I have to point out the fact that when I saw the headline "Armenian and Greek harassment of the page" I knew Athenean would have something to say about it. I hate it when people turn everything into what they think and how they feel which makes it harder for me to write the following and not get personal: I have no personal grudges against Greeks, Armenians and Turks, but the way you've been occupying these lines for the last year (at least in my knowledge) Athenean makes me think that you do. As much as I like bantering about endless political and historical issues with a random someone whose knowledge of the aforementioned subjects is as extensive as his knowledge of basic human manners, I get the feeling that you're trying to turn this into something ugly, that all the other gentleman I've seen here in the last year (except the few) have been trying to avoid. I have so many times in the past have tried to appeal to your reason and tried to make you understand that Wikipedia is the wrong place for you to be shouting your racial slurs at. No sir, Wikipedia is a place of shared knowledge, which most people are trying to keep unbiased. So assuming that you will show your remarkable wit you have proven many times that you possess and we have come to expect, to write yet another response about how Turkish people are so out-of-touch with reality that they don't share your point of view, with your extensive knowledge of the subject, I will say two things and will hopefully manage to be civil at the same time; 1) Don't bother responding to this unless you have something to say which has at least "some kind" of productive and/or co-operational value. 2) It's never too late to start learning how to be productive and/or co-operational... or at least objective for that matter, but I understand that would be too much to ask... Aerodil (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Athenean, either come up with a proof that shows my contribution is referenced by a misleading source or a come up with a good reason why you think it should not be there, or STOP vandalising the article. There are plenty of sites and blogs where you can express your feelings about Turkey, but this is not one of them. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What references? All I see is a Levene 1998 cite, with no bibliographical info. Who is Levene? What is the title of the work? Publisher? The stuff about Yerevan and Azerbaijan is completely off-topic, this article is about Turkey, and last time I checked Yerevan and Azerbaijan are not Turkey (though they might be in the minds of some people). The rest of your additions are unsourced OR and standard Turkish government propaganda, which has no place here. Athenean (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

For Christ's sake...!Aerodil (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It is estimated^[who?] that over 500,000^{[[ciatation needed]} Turks also died during this period, as a result of the atrocities committed by the Armenian guerrilla bands. In Yerevan^{[why mention Yerevan? this is about Turkey]} and other parts of the Caucasus^[where?] under the control of the Armenian Republic, Turkish villages were destroyed and the inhabitants were forced to flee or die. Two thirds of the Muslims^{[Muslims? I thought this was about Turks]} who had lived in the province of Yerevan in 1914 were gone^{[due to what?]} at the war's end. A similar fate met the Armenians in Turkish Azerbaijan.^{[what does Azerbaijan have to do with this?]}([who is Levene? what is this writing - blog? op-ed? research? paper? report? speculation?]) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The source is Anatolia 1915: Turks Died, Too, Justin McCarthy (Published in the Boston Globe, April 25, 1998) Somewhere during all these updates it seems to have gotten lost -sorry about that. And if you state that McCarthy is not a reliable source, I really won't bother to answer you. Now about your other objection -which is finally something worth answering in this discussion. Yes, the article is about Turkey's history -hence the Ottoman history. As the Ottomans were Muslims and the Azeris were also Muslims and the Azeris happen to be Turks, and add to that that both Azerbaijan and Armenia were part of the Ottoman empire, then this suddenly becomes very relevant to the discussion. When you're talking about the Roman Empire you're not just talking about Italy. As for your objection^{[Muslims? I thought this was about Turks])}, you probably know perfectly well that "Muslims in Azerbaijan" does not refer to an African Muslim tribe, but about Turkish Muslims since there are only Muslim Turks in Azerbaijan. I hope this clears it up. Next time, before you delete something, don't do it because YOU think it's irrelevant, come up with a proof that says Azeris were not Turks or Azerbaijan or Armenia was NOT in the Ottoman empire. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, that's interesting, can you provide a link to the article? When I search the Boston Globe archives, I come up with a lot about the massacres of Armenians, but nothing about this supposed article [4]. Are you sure you're not making it up? Besides, all the stuff about Armenia and Azerbaijan is completely off-topic: This article is about Turkey, not the Ottoman Empire. By the way you are edit-warring, and if you continue, you will be blocked. Athenean (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I rest my case. Go and turn the entire article into an Armenian propaganda article if that shall make you feel better. Your manner and perspective is out of line, was out of line from the beginning, and I shall no longer waste my time on you. It's senseless talking with senseless arguments. But just so you know, the title of the topic in the article is "Turks and the Ottoman Empire" so don't bladder about this being about Turkey and not about the Ottoman empire. I hope someone else will have the stomach to deal with you. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Latest source additions by Namuslu

I looked at the sources recently added by Namuslu in the latest attempt equivocate over the Armenian Genocide. They do not back the claims made in the article. For example, this source here [5], in the page numbers provided (p. 234-254) makes no claim of "500,000 Turks and Muslims killed by Armenian atrocities". All the chapter discusses is famines in the coastal regions of Syria and Lebanon, in other words NOTHING to do with the claim made of "Armenian atrocities". Ditto the other sources. Second, the sentence "The deportation and extermination happened as a result of Armenian revolts and clashes with Turkish soldiers and civilians..." reads like a sickening attempt to justify the Genocide (i.e. the Armenians were slaughtered because they dared to rebel, i.e. they got what they deserved). Lastly, the words "what many historians call the Armenian Genocide" is a textbook example of weasel wording, for those of us that are new editors. The whole world recognizes the Armenian Genocide, our article here is called Armenian Genocide not What many historians call the Armenian Genocide. I am prepared to go to the highest levels on this. A handful of nationalists are NOT going to use wikipedia to inform the world that the Armenian Genocide was justified, or that there were two sides to it. No way. Athenean (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2011 (UT

It seems like you'll soon be justified to take some action. Some people apparently can't come to grips with the fact that the entity they so strongly identify with has done some terrible shit in the past and no comparisons or "yeah, but, but, they did it too" can change that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Bravo. You're working like an organized crime cell. Keep up the good work. Thumbs up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diren Yardimli (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)--Diren Yardimli (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad you like it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Do the sources back up the claim of revolts during the WWI campaign? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't. The issue is with the wording. The way it is phrased now: The deportation and extermination of Armenians happened as a result of revolts and clashes, mainly in eastern Turkey, during the Caucasus Campaign between the Ottoman and Russian empires. makes it seem like there is a causal link between the two, i.e. the Turks decided to exterminate the Armenians because the latter rebelled. As far as I know, NO neutral sources makes such a causal linkage, and for good reason: It is an attempt to insinuate that the deportations were somewhat justified, which I find odious. There were instances of Armenian resistance after the deportations had begun in 1915, but these were clearly instances of self-defense a la Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Athenean (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

Should these edits [6] be allowed to stand? I think not, based on the reasons I outline above. Note that they were originally added by a different user [7], with the latest sourcing done in an ad-hoc manner by User:Namuslu. Athenean (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your reasons are not enough to justify deleting the pages. They are well-documented and referenced. They should stay. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• No. First of all... "what many historians call the Armenian Genocide"? If we are going to use this kind of wording, we are going to have to change a lot of articles. "Many scientists believe that the Sun is at the center of the solar system, circled by what some call planets. A belief that our earth is accompanied by a moon has been held by some nocturnal observers." Give me a break. As to the rest, let's not blame the Armenians for the Armenian genocide, k? Look, my Turkish brethren: it was a hundred years ago. You guys screwed up. People do that. Time to move past denial to acceptance. Herostratus (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Yes It's bad English (better wording can be found), however, Armenian Genocide is rejected by many historians, including İnalcık, Shaw, etc. It's not a established fact. Kavas (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Yes Armenian Genocide is not universal fact and when studying the Armenian Genocide it can be clearly seen that there are many holes that are relevant negative facts against pro Armenian Genocide supporters. It is also a fact that nations adopting the Armenian Genocide are doing so through political lobbying as such no historical consensus of that nation is allowed to study the facts and do fact finding in the relevant archives of Turkey, Armenia (and by proxy Russia). There is also as large number of historians who do not call the questioned events as genocide, compare this with the Holocaust which does have universal consensus that it is a genocide. AussieSkeptic82 (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Religion In Turkey

"according to the KONDA Research and Consultancy survey carried out throughout Turkey on 2007[137]: 40.8% defined themselves as "a religious person who strives to fulfill religious obligations" (religious); 42.3 % defined themselves as "a believer who does not fulfill religious obligations" (not religious); 4.0% defined themselves as "a fully devout person fulfilling all religious obligations" (fully devout); 10.3% defined themselves as "someone who does not believe in religious obligations" (non-believer); and 4.09% defined themselves as "someone with no religious conviction" (atheist). Non-believers and atheists make up 15.2% of the population according to the KONDA Research and Consultancy survey"

those lines are not reflect the true picture of religion in Turkey. I've read the survey which has been carried by KONDA, and found nothing indicates 15.2% non-believer population. According to the survey, the correct rates must be like that;

Non-Believer: 3.2 Believer: 34.3 Religious: 52.8 Fully Devout: 9.7

Total: 100

Religion In Turkey article should be re-writted.

(ref. http://www.konda.com.tr/html/dosyalar/ghdl&t_en.pdf) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.42.87 (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Population

Why on earth does there seem to be a long-term edit war over the population of Turkey? Can this be discussed please? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just gonna post the same thing... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

ther is already a discussion about this search it on this page haha.lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.98.72.87 (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What is Armenian Genocide?

1.500.000 is exaggerated numbers. Please relating to this topic that you don't know properly, should't write in this called is Turkey's article. Please be objective and netrual. ,Because Armenian gonocide is a BİG LIE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.27.14.129 (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a live discussion (and voting) above. Can you see it? Kavas (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)