Talk:Turkey

Too Many Photos, too many details?

I do not know why there needs to be a photo for Camlica Mosque or Armenian Genocide (which is unnecessarily graphic for the scope of this article). I do not think architecture part needs 4 photos for instance, as there is already a page for Turkish architecture.

Another thing is on the country box there are too many details that is not present at other countries' pages, for instance the spoken languages part seems unnecessary and distracting. Or at the very least it can simply list the three most common languages... It is misleading to list languages that are spoken by a couple thousand, if this was the standard for the article on USA we would have to list 100s of languages.

Overall someone really needs to tidy up this article. And also there really needs to be clear-cut standards about these country boxes, in every country there are different sections, some lists race, some lists ethnicity, some lists nothing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:8300:997:6CCA:8913:524F:66F7 (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Turkey De Facto emblem

I had previously made an edit that was undone. I added the emblem although it is not official for all intents and purposes it acts as one. Please let me know if you disagree and why. Flags200 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with it to be honest, it's the emblem used on the Turkish passport. Redman19 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The current consensus is not to mention the non-official emblem of Turkey, see Talk:Turkey/Archive 24#RfC: Should this article mention the "emblem of Turkey"?. If you want to add the emblem to the article, you will need to create a new consensus, preferably through a new Request for comments. --T*U (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Establishment section in the infobox

With this edit, Turkistan has added several dates to the "Establishment" list, dates not relating to the Republic of Turkey, but to the Ottoman Empire and even before. This has been discussed several times earlier, but has usually drowned in other discussions, so it has never been brought to a conclusion. See Talk:Turkey/Archive 26 for some of the latest discussions. I am not negative to adding "Ottoman Empire 1299" or similar to the section under certain conditions. However, in order to get sufficient input and a clear consensus, I think it needs to be formalized through a WP:RfC. --T*U (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

In October 2019, Turkey invaded the Kurdish-controlled regions of Syria.

This sentence is the last sentence of the Turkey#Republic of Turkey section. It is dubious because the invasion did not begin in 2019, but in 2016 and in 2018, it was against ISIS (mainly Arab) and SDF (Kurdish and Arab). Though the sentence says Turkey invaded in 2019, skipping the past 3 years. And says Kurdish Controlled regions, which is false and the citation given of it is a failed verification. There ought to be some changes into how this sentence is written. The 2019 operation was not aimed at the Kurds neither since SDF claims it is an Arab and Kurd 50-50 armed group, the area invaded on the other hand is Arab majority. KasimMejia (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Armenian Genocide image

EtienneDolet, Symmachus Auxiliarus. What are your arguments for inclusion of this image per your reverts. It sounds perfectly logical per, Buhedyar that it shouldn't be included since other countries much larger genocides, Germany Holocoast 6 million, is not included. Neither are British genocides, such as Irish Famine 2 million or those in India 100 million or Native Americans millions. Discuss. KasimMejia (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The standard response can be found at WP:OTHERCONTENT. William Avery (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm gonna go with WP:IGNORE in response to this. There may be a rule about WP:OTHERCONTENT yet there is a rule called WP:NPOV, the rules are cancelling out each other meaning they should be ignored. KasimMejia (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no point of that picture. No country page has "look at this sad picture of a person dying" photo. China doesn't, Germany doesn't, UK doesn't, Russia doesn't and why should Turkey have it? If you want to add Armenian genocide part? Go ahead even though I'm not in favor of that either. Considering the person who added the picture and the content is a greek/hellenized anatolian, I don't think he had good intentions concerned only about contributing to the page.Buhedyar (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. KasimMejia (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice ad hominem there. William Avery (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Contentious image must be removed to be consistent with other countries' articles. Khestwol (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

There's no agreement that articles have to be consistent in that way. And in any case, the answer might be to add content to other articles, rather than removing it from this one, might it not? William Avery (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If we start to add genocide/deportation pictures to every country's page, i'm especially thinking about Westerners, It will just create bloated talk pages. As I mentioned, the only purpose that the picture serves is to rile people up. And the picture isn't even too credible anyway (even if it is, not related to the discussion). And I don't think we should add every single very very sad very tragic not staged pictures to every country's wiki page, rather, create wiki pages for their atrocities or add the pictures to the existing ones Buhedyar (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)