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.

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 [1], 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)

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)

I'm still not sure I understand specifically what you're referring to. If you could copy/paste the particular the particular line you're concerned about, or identify the specific section, it will be useful to discuss it specifically. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"Turkey (..) is a Eurasian country, located mostly on Anatolia in Western Asia"

• Turkey is not a Eurasian country, because it is part of Council of Europe.
• Turkey is not located in Western Asia, but mostly in Anatolian plateau.
• Eurasian is a political slogan to depicting an oriental imagined Turk. 95.114.118.28 (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

What happened to "Turkey belongs more to the Eurasian Steppe"? Eurasian is not a political slogan, whether or not Turkey is "oriental" there's nothing bad or good about being oriental, and Anatolia is known as Asia Minor. CMD (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

What "prejudices and delusions"? You mean geography? Anatolian plateau is -of course- in Western Asia. Cavann (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

  The Arabian plate, splits Turkey from Asia.

• Turkey is European. And Turkey belongs more to Eurasian Steppe then to Middle East.
• And Turkey is oriental (Byzantine). Then the words East and Western World comes from West Roman Empire and East Roman Empire. In this sense also Greece and Cyprus are oriental or did they belong to West Roman Empire? Well, I don't think so.
• Also when the ancient world knows Anatolia as Asia Minor. The formation of this landmass is split from Asia by the Arabian Plate. The real borders of Europe includes Anatolia. 95.114.118.28 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"

• The Anatolian Plate is a continental tectonic plate consisting primarily of the country of Turkey.
• In some references, the Anatolian Plate is referred to as a "block" of continental crust still coupled to the Eurasian Plate. But studies of the North Anatolian Fault indicate that Anatolia is de-coupled from the Eurasian Plate. 95.114.118.28 (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a completely political argument, having little to do with cultural or physical geography, much less plate tectonics. It seems to matter very much to some Turks whether they are considered European or Asian (because Kemalist vs. Islamicist policies are at stake, as well as EU membership), but both the Ottoman Empire and Turkey are historically considered Asian. So was Anatolia (aka "Asia Minor") before the Turks or Islam arrived, and definitely afterward. To argue that European civilization arose in Anatolia is both highly questionable and also irrelevant: Mesopotamia and the Holy Land contributed mightily to the roots of Western Civilization, but that doesn't make their modern equivalents part of Europe. What's especially interesting about this Anatolia-is-Europe argument is that it is a boast of Turkish tourism that Turkey is a cosmopolitan country bestriding two continents--except when politics enters the stage. But even in the ancient world the Thracian and Anatolian peoples (although both predominantly Indo-European speakers) were considered separate peoples, and even Greek mythology drew the line between Europe and Asia at the Bosphorus. (I myself would argue the very concept of Europe as a completely separate (cultural) continent from Asia is a Eurocentric invention, regardless of plate tectonics, and that there is really only Eurasia, just as there is one African continent, however culturally diverse. But a general encyclopedia is not the place to promulgate that view.) Winter Maiden (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

To put it more briefly, however much some of us might want to reconfigure Europe and Asia as Eurasia, or others might wish to redefine which parts of Europe or Asia actually belong to the other, the conventional long-established understanding of world geography says that Anatolia is in Asia and Thrace is in Europe, and this encyclopedia isn't the place to try to change that through example. Winter Maiden (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It is completely political argument when paranoid people tries to put Anatolia into Asia. This is one of the biggest lie in history. And paranoid human neither I am Kemalist nor Islamicist. And the ottoman Empire was founded in the Marmara Region - the most european part of Turkey. When there is a scientific hypothese that the Europeans were Anatolians then it's totally clear that the anatolian Turks were European. Originally the Bosphorus didn't exist. How can you then argue that it splits two continents? It is also needless when Anatolia is counted to Asia. Why? Because the borders of Europe has in history changed. That's why it is important to understanding our perception. But unhappily people tries with such pseudoscientific arguments to prevent Turkeys Eu-Membership. Your turcophobic statements show us that the christian europe must recondition his deep historically rooted Anti-Turkism. And that's the reason of the Apartheid between Europeans and European Muslims (Balkan Muslims, Albanians, Bosniaks, Macedonian and Russian Muslims). 77.3.103.210 (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  

Do you know how unhuman is it to treat us like second class europeans? This were the roughly borders of Anatolia and they belong into Europe. And Europe is a Subcontinent in Eurasia. But unnecessarily many land masses of Russia gets counted into Europe, but not the Anatolian peninsula. That is not only strange, but rather politically motivated. 77.3.103.210 (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Many people have morbid perception about us Turks. The idea that Anatolia belongs to Asia -an often used pseudo argument against Turkey's Eu membership- is like the Geocentric model an ancient imagination. I tempt in interest to educational work to Wikipedia to validity the truth. So yea everyone with common sense distribute professional knowledge not ancient imaginations. 95.114.51.228 (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Economic predictions in the lead

The economic predictions should be removed from the lead. I can't find a single FA country article where economic predictions are included in the lead. Yesterday, at Talk:Istanbul#Economic_predictions, there was a solid consensus to keep economic predictions out of the lead of that article. I don't see why this article should be treated any differently. Athenean (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree totally with Athenean, except for the fact that this are not even predictions, but mere extrapolations. While a prediction can be based on underlying economic models, an extrapolation is a purely mathematical operation, whose significance in the economic field is - for the time scales here adopted - zero. Moreover, none of the sources used as reference is - to use an euphemism - reliable (and no RS in the galaxy would dare to make a prediction until 2060). This falls 100% under WP:CRYSTAL. Alex2006 (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus reached regarding the removal of economic predictions in the TP of Istanbul. Therefore, I find it accepting to remove economic predictions from this article as well. Projections in the end of the day are second hand observations and nothing but opinions which are often times contradictory. It is misleading to add such information because noone, including CNBC, can predict what a future of a country looks like. Wikipedia should not provide any sort of information that can end up utterly wrong. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I removed the predictions. WP:CRYSTAL allows the recording of notable future events such as a major sporting event, but opinions on economic outlook are not worth much (particularly when two of the refs are just reporting what a politician said). The OECD report has some substance, but no organization predicted the GFC, so while economic predictions might be better than nothing for someone planning their investments, such predictions are not useful for encyclopedic information. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with removing the speculation from the lead. Since the ANI thread is closed I want to set the record straight that Athenean's edit-summary invoking the consensus at Istanbul in reverting the WP:CRYSTAL from Turkey yesterday was not done under false pretenses as claimed yesterday at ANI but that in fact it was based on the consensus reached at Istanbul. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is not genuine. Referenced information citing OECD report was completely deleted, not even moved into the economy section, even though many countries do have such info in their economy sections (e.g., Brazil#Economy, China#Economy). And not all projections are necessarily extrapolations. I have no interest in discussions that does not try to improve the article. Cavann (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Where's the argument about not including this info in economy section?Cavann (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Read what people have written just above. Athenean (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have. Have you? The economic predictions also stayed in economy section in Istanbul, since you referred to discussion there earlier. Cavann (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The arguments against your additions apply in general (that these are just extrapolations, etc...), regardless of where they are located in the article. Athenean (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Those are not extrapolations. Linear regression is not extrapolation. Cavann (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what extrapolation is? Athenean (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, do you know what Linear regression is? Cavann (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears you do not understand what extrapolation is. Athenean (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious that I'm talking within the context of this discussion. The projections are not "mere extrapolations" in the sense that they just extrapolated based on current gdp growth rates. The projections are based on economic models, if you go to the actual paper.[2] Cavann (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't make a difference, they are still extrapolations and as such worthless. Athenean (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC

Should reliably sourced economic predictions [3] be included in the economy section and/or lead in Turkey. Many countries do have such info in their economy sections (e.g., Brazil#Economy, China#Economy).Cavann (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the actual reliable source that some editors are blocking its inclusion: [4] Cavann (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see above, where there is a clear consensus to keep economic extrapolations out of the article based on the nature of the material itself and the sources used (e.g. a Turkish government site that claims Turkey will be the fastest growing economy in the world through 2060). Athenean (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• An RFC like this is highly disruptive as there is a grand total of one editor (Cavann (talk · contribs)) who imagines that economic predictions for years into the future provide some form of encyclopedic information. This matter has been discussed more than enough, and consensus is clear. Johnuniq (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Given what could be considered canvassing [5], there is no such clear consensus and other articles do have such information. Cavann (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Asking neutral editors to contribute to a discussion is not "canvassing". And yes, there is a clear consensus, you're just refusing to accept it. Your understanding of canvassing and consensus appear to be as flawed as your understanding of extrapolation. Athenean (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that he was neutral. This is why I made the RFC. Hopefully we can get input from non-involved editors. Cavann (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Any forecast half a century into the future, to 2060, is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL and I agree with John that this RFC is highly disruptive and unnecessary. But it has happened before. See also the RFCs on Istanbul and on this page just above. They are generated at such speed and numbers they now have subscripts: RFC, RFC2. See the mess above. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Apparently not everyone shares invest.gov.tr's rosy predictions that Turkey will be the fastest growing economy through 2060 [6].Athenean (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Original source is not invest.gov.tr. It is OECD.[7] Cavann (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Cavann, why did not you say that the source was OECD? I just gave a read to the paper, and this is not an extrapolation, but the output of an economic model. Anyway, this does not change much the final outcome: each prediction 50 years in the future, for whatever country, is worthless. It is a mere "Gedankenexperiment", an intellectual exercise which is useful to see how existing patterns evolve, but nothing more. Only Allah knows what will happen to Turkey (and the whole world) fifty years from now. I advise you to read "The black Swan" of Nassim Taleb or "The misbehavior of the Market" of Mandelbrot to understand how all these long term economic prediction stuff is worthless. Or just compare the world economic outlook of 2006 published by UBS (the bank with the best research department) with what actually happened worldwide during the last 7 years...
::::Moreover, on pg. 96 of the OECD paper is clearly stated the following caveat about the model: "The BLT model is in an early stage of development and could be expanded in many directions...". The authors themselves state that the adopted model needs further work in many directions. Other pearls from this paper: pg. 14 " If past trends continue..." pg. 14 " If the age composition of immigrants were to remain the same in the future..." page 19: "Under these assumptions,..." If, if, if... Pg. 85 "Turkey:Government finances are not represented due to data availability." I could continue for a couple of pages. After reading the paper, I warmly advise the starter of this RFC to read the whole paper (as I did), and then to understand under which assumptions and hypotheses this model runs. If other articles uses this model, my opinion is that the model conclusions should be removed there too. Alex2006 (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

2060 is a bit much, but 2025-2030 may not be as WP:CRYSTAL as people realize. If a population is demograpically very young, its economy will grow through simple rise in numbers. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Per editor page request, I repeat Turkey is not a First World developed country. Whether US economy will go up 2% or down 1% next year is entirely unpredictable, but a demographically young country will expand. Young people have children. Children's spending goes up from when they are two to when they are nine. That is mathematics. it is not WP:CRYSTAL.-WikiSkeptic (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is not the place to put our own thoughts. And 2025 is also WP:CRYSTAL so please do not add this stuff into the article. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This is not a forum for our personal opinions about the viability or usefulness of economic models. My own opinion about that is so unimportant, I'm not even going to tell you about it. Read and report what reliable sources say. It is possible that a paragraph summarizing one or two of the most notable predictions might have a place in this article. A paragraph like that should end with a sentence about the usefulness of such predictions. That closing sentence should directly rely on at least one reliable source, which summarizes a consensus of expert opinions about the usefulness of economic predictions. Every sentence in such a paragraph should be followed by at least one footnote citing a good, reliable source. It might take some real schoolwork to write such a paragraph, but this editor Cavann should have an opportunity to do the work. Look at how many hoops he would have to jump through to get consensus for that paragraph. If all of you will actively participate in a review of a paragraph like that, and make him work for what he wants, it'll be a good one by the time you're done. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 April 2013

Please add "founder of the republic" to infobox, because it is the reason of the government. History cannot be denied.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk Jpn zhr (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is mentioned prominently in the article, and the infobox lists the current government of Turkey. Listing him as Turkey's founder without a directly accompanying explanation of his role is imprecise and unencyclopedic, even if it is commonly considered to be true. If there is consensus to list him in the infobox as the first President of Turkey I would make that change, but I will leave that to someone more directly involved with the article to determine. --ElHef (Meep?) 18:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

IMF and WB

Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) valuation of country GDP (Current international dollar) These data form the basis for the country weights used to generate the World Economic Outlook country group composites for the domestic economy.

The IMF is not a primary source for purchasing power parity (PPP) data. WEO weights have been created from primary sources and are used solely for purposes of generating country group composites. For primary source information, please refer to one of the following sources: the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Bank, or the Penn World Tables.

For further information see Box A2 in the April 2004 World Economic Outlook, Box 1.2 in the September 2003 World Economic Outlook for a discussion on the measurement of global growth and Box A.1 in the May 2000 World Economic Outlook for a summary of the revised PPP-based weights, and Annex IV of the May 1993 World Economic Outlook. See also Anne Marie Gulde and Marianne Schulze-Ghattas, Purchasing Power Parity Based Weights for the World Economic Outlook, in Staff Studies for the World Economic Outlook (Washington: IMF, December 1993), pp. 106-23.

Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) per capita GDP (Current international dollar) Expressed in GDP in PPP dollars per person. Data are derived by dividing GDP in PPP dollars by total population. These data form the basis for the country weights used to generate the World Economic Outlook country group composites for the domestic economy.

The IMF is not a primary source for purchasing power parity (PPP) data. WEO weights have been created from primary sources and are used solely for purposes of generating country group composites. For primary source information, please refer to one of the following sources: the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Bank, or the Penn World Tables.

For further information see Box A2 in the April 2004 World Economic Outlook, Box 1.2 in the September 2003 World Economic Outlook for a discussion on the measurement of global growth and Box A.1 in the May 2000 World Economic Outlook for a summary of the revised PPP-based weights, and Annex IV of the May 1993 World Economic Outlook. See also Anne Marie Gulde and Marianne Schulze-Ghattas, Purchasing Power Parity Based Weights for the World Economic Outlook, in Staff Studies for the World Economic Outlook (Washington: IMF, December 1993), pp. 106-23.

Link: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/weoselser.aspx?c=512%2c666%2c914%2c668%2c612%2c672%2c614%2c946%2c311%2c137%2c213%2c962%2c911%2c674%2c193%2c676%2c122%2c548%2c912%2c556%2c313%2c678%2c419%2c181%2c513%2c867%2c316%2c682%2c913%2c684%2c124%2c273%2c339%2c868%2c638%2c921%2c514%2c948%2c218%2c943%2c963%2c686%2c616%2c688%2c223%2c518%2c516%2c728%2c918%2c558%2c748%2c138%2c618%2c196%2c522%2c278%2c622%2c692%2c156%2c694%2c624%2c142%2c626%2c449%2c628%2c564%2c228%2c283%2c924%2c853%2c233%2c288%2c632%2c293%2c636%2c566%2c634%2c964%2c238%2c182%2c662%2c453%2c960%2c968%2c423%2c922%2c935%2c714%2c128%2c862%2c611%2c135%2c321%2c716%2c243%2c456%2c248%2c722%2c469%2c942%2c253%2c718%2c642%2c724%2c643%2c576%2c939%2c936%2c644%2c961%2c819%2c813%2c172%2c199%2c132%2c733%2c646%2c184%2c648%2c524%2c915%2c361%2c134%2c362%2c652%2c364%2c174%2c732%2c328%2c366%2c258%2c734%2c656%2c144%2c654%2c146%2c336%2c463%2c263%2c528%2c268%2c923%2c532%2c738%2c944%2c578%2c176%2c537%2c534%2c742%2c536%2c866%2c429%2c369%2c433%2c744%2c178%2c186%2c436%2c925%2c136%2c869%2c343%2c746%2c158%2c926%2c439%2c466%2c916%2c112%2c664%2c111%2c826%2c298%2c542%2c927%2c967%2c846%2c443%2c299%2c917%2c582%2c544%2c474%2c941%2c754%2c446%2c698&t=188 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokturkk (talk • contribs) 06:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

GNP data in lead

One source uses IMF data, the other uses World Bank data. This looks inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxr033 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The IMF is not a primary source for purchasing power parity (PPP) data. Read! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkey#IMF_and_WB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokturkk (talk • contribs) 16:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)