Talk:Turkey

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2019

Bruhbasketball (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Turkey is in Europe

• Turkey is a transcontinental country. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

÷== first para detailing kurds as minority ==

Should we not include all minorities in the first para, or at least the major ones. just putting kurds is taking away the importance of zazas, bosniaks, cicarssians and other large minorities. this sentence, with any edits you respected editors would like to make, is a good start:

"Approximately four fifths of the country's citizens identify as Turks, while Kurds, Zazas, Circassians and Bosniaks make up most of the minoritiy population"

70-80% is such a vague thing to say. fractions make more sense. if only nationalistic tendencies did not get in the way of proper census'

GeorgePodros ^(talk) 13:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

If no one objects to this then I see no reason why we do not put this sentence instead. Thank you kind editors. GeorgePodros ^(talk) 15:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There has been several discussions about this, see Talk:Turkey/Archive 28#Minorities – again for the last one. The consensus is to mention the Kurds in the lede (since they are by far the largest ethnic minority, many times as many as any of the others), but not to mention any others (since that would be to put undue weight to the minorities). To change this, you would need to start a formal discussion through WP:RfC or similar, but I would not recommend it, since the consensus is very clear and also very recent. --T*U (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe I need to start a formal discussion. This is a requested change. This current sentence is largely the product of pro kurdish elements. You know it very well. I however believe in equal representation. How about we mention the kurds role in the armenian genocide which partially resulted in the large kurdish minority the Turkish State has today? Oh no that would be too much for some wouldnt it. You are a respected editor. There are minorities with populations larger than many European countries. And many countries have there minoritie-s listed in the lede. Have a look at afghanistan, and then look at almost ALL other countries, as they have little to no mention of any minorities in the lede. Why France actually mentions that one group of people inhabit the country, ignoring the large minorities that are not even the immigrant populations from Africa but peoples who have lived in present day France for centuries. No, no, this is just some attempt to dazzle a bit of kurdishness onto this page, which I am not against, but I want all major minorities like Zazas, bosniaks and Circassians to have a mention too, or whoever is stopping me is a hypocrite.GeorgePodros ^(talk) 18:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The sheer size of the Kurdiah minority and geopolitical significance merit special attention. And Tu-nor pointed out we recently discussed this.Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the proposed sentence. Rather more informative. Disagree that the Kurd minority "deserves" any "special attention." The only reason the Kurds are particularly prominent today is an accident of history. Did not largely emigrate, like the Jews, did not largely get evicted, like the Greeks, did not largely get pogrommed, like the Armenians. So, the proposed para is much more encyclopaedic. XavierItzm (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

No need to metion any group in the lead. And despite what was mentioned above the norm is not to list ethnicities in the lead .This is a country article not a ethnic linguistic article. Hopefully a GA reassessment will catch this and all the other problems. This poor article has been pillaged over the last few years. --Moxy (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with both Xavier and Moxy. Both extremely valid points. This whole Kurdish inclusion in the lede thing is an element of pro Kurdishness and perhaps Kurdish nationalism. We don’t have to mention any ethnic groups in the lede or we can mention all major ones and not give special attention to a group that is only so far strecthed in eastern Anatolia due to theirassistamcd in genocides. Either we remove it all or mention all major minorities please. Moxy is right, this article has beeen ruined because of political and nationalistic elements. So has Turkey over the last few decades.GeorgePodros ^(talk) 08:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree. The Kurdish minority (at least 12 percent per sources, perhaps much more per other sources) is by far larger than all other minorities combined, so it is not an "all or none"-situation. My main point, however, is still this: This was discussed as late as in September–October 2018 with a clear consensus to move the details of the long list of minorities from the lede to the "Demographics" section and to keep a short mention of the Kurds in the lede. Any change to that will have to be made through a WP:RfC or similar. --T*U (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

How would we proceed with a WP:RfC or something similar, what is similar? Thank you. I feel that we must take action on this because it does not seem right when most other countries dont have ethnic groups mentioned, and then the damned conflicts with Turks and Kurds? what is that in the lede for? Pointless, how about I move that to the history section? Its just an attempt to Kurdify the page. I dont care for this ethnic nationalism in this page. GeorgePodros ^(talk) 12:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I will start a GA reassessment next weekend and we can all go over the article as a group and trim the fluff. I see the last few RfC were dominated by a banned user..best get new input.--Moxy (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Georgepodros: You will find everything about how to start a "Request for comments" described here. By "similar", I meant that it might be possible to start the discussion by giving notification to all editors that participated in the earlier discussions, but that will probably be more complicated, and the result might be challenged as less binding. If you want to discuss both the mention of minorities and the mention of the Turkish–Kurdish conflict, it should be done in two different discussions, since it is quite possible that some will support one, but not the other. Whether you should start the two discussions a the same time or take one at the time, is up to you.

A word of advice: Both these questions were discussed recently with rather clear outcome, so some people may resent that you start the same discussions again so soon. Please take time to read the discussions at Talk:Turkey/Archive 28 before you start new discussions. Unless you come up with any new arguments, it will probably be a waste of time.

Moxy: Just FYI. The editor in question is not banned, but has been blocked by their own request. --T*U (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand. Well I would like to start with the conflict. This type of thing isnt mentioned in other country pages. one conflict with one terror org? this is clearly something that belongs to the history section. It seems unclear why we had to put this now after a decade and a half in the lede. It is so obvious that some pro kurdish elements want this in the most read part of the page. we dont need to mention any turkist or pro kurdish nationalistic things here. turkey is a country, a republic in eurasia, it has big cities like istanbul and ankara and izmir, it was once an empire and now a republic, it has a large economy, its developing, etc etc... like any other country. whats up with these kurdish and turkish things? you know very well there are people who just want to dazzle the page up with kurdish nationalistic things. GeorgePodros ^(talk) 16:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)