From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Turkey is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Turkey has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2007.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for 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.

RFC regarding a sentence in the lead[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
  • Summary:--There is a very weak consensus to remove the entire line.
  • Rationale:--I thought for long whether the RFC merited a No consensus for certain words, for the procedural reasons raised and that many of the arguments were based on own research and synthesis.But, on the account(s) of :--1) The status quo is only(??) definitively supported by some rel. sources which have not been recently updated.See why age of source matters and the next point. 2) Rel. newer sources have been brought in the support of the change, which without directly contravening, opposes Turkey as a secular / democratic state 3) supervoting shall be avoided and 4) common sense trumps the rule(s) ; the opinion(s) of the majority is found to matter and reflects in the outcome/result of this discussion.And KazekageTR, despite your excellent contributions and somewhat personal-involvement with certain aspects of the topic, you are strongly cautioned to maintain civility.
  • Way forward:--An RFC should be re-launched by the discussant(s), each side necessarily mentioning the sources for and against mentioning each particular word and asking the editorial community to instate their opinion on the topic w.r.t to a proper evaluation of the sources on both side of the table.The close of that RFC will supercede this closure and the closer of the subsequent RFC may wish to resume the status-quo before this RFC i.e. let the statement be included per his/her discretion.This non-typical scope is devised to address the many shortcomings of this disc. where sources played a minimal part.Unless such an RFC is closed, re-addition of any info pertaining to the particular words in the lead, that were removed as a result of this RFC, shall be rejected lest they regain a local consensus at this talk-page.(irrespective of the grammatical formatting of the sentence and whether that is uni-sourced/multi-sourced/un-sourced.) Slightly edited the prev. close and added this sub-part. Winged Blades of GodricOn leave at 08:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 12:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Turkey is a democratic, secular, unitary, parliamentary republic with a diverse cultural heritage.

Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


  • Remove. Was mostly true up until the 90s. Secular is quite definitely out of the window (as many of the bans regarding religious affiliation were cancelled, and the continuing control of the Islamist Justice and Development Party (Turkey) and democratic questions further raise questions here), whereas the democratic status is increasingly being questioned (Wikipedia itself was recently blocked, but this is wider than that). Diverse cultural heritage - is puffery to begin with, and while absolutely true until 1920 (Ethnic Turks, Greeks, Assyrians, etc.)- following the large population transfers and genocide - it is questionable - particularly since the Turk identity of Turkey has been given ascendant status (the same can be said for other post-Ottoman areas which favored the culture of the locals).Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove. It does not reflect the nuances of reality. Turkey's ever-renewing current "state of emergency" alone would question the democratic / parliamentary tags, the "unitary" label is vague and has aspects of which are anything but democratic and parliamentary, and Turkey, based on its current government, is not secular in practice or principle anymore. "Diverse cultural heritage" as the above editor says, is really just PR puffery. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I will examine this bit by bit:
    • "democratic": Boils down to the question "is Turkey still a democracy?". Quite a lot of commentary going on about this, with many opining that Turkish democracy has fallen, especially following the referendum. As such, this part of the statement can be rightly removed.
    • "secular": This links to secular state - and herein lies the rub. Turkey most definitely does not have a secular society, it has never had one, but we must not confuse this with whether the state is secular. The AKP has pursued an agenda of the Islamisation of the state and a further Islamisation of the society, and many provisions of strict laicité have been revoked or eroded. The Presidency of Religious Affairs has assumed a prominent role and those running the state make frequent allusions to religion. Atatürk's vision of "removal of religion from all aspects of public life" has definitely been overturned. Nonetheless, the Turkish republic remains secular, which is independent of the stance of the current government unless they make further far-reaching legal reforms - there is no official state religion and sharia law is not practised (or recognised by the state). I can contrast this with the UK, which has a secular society but a non-secular state. As the word "secular" here qualifies the republic, it is correct and I think it would be a mistake to remove it.
    • "unitary": Links to unitary state and refers to the organisation of governance - Turkey is a unitary state, as opposed to a federation. The unitary nature of the state has been enhanced by the strongly pro-centralisation policies of the AKP. Factually correct and crucial information for the lead.
    • "parliamentary": Again, strictly about the mode of governance; "a republic that operates under a parliamentary system of government", as defined in the article. Though still technically under a parliamentary system until the transition takes place in 2019, the parliament has been effectively bypassed under the state of emergency and this has been made official with the referendum. This is obsolete, and hence must be removed.
    • "diverse cultural heritage": Indeed sounds like puffery, but I do see some encyclopaedic merit to this sort of statement. In the first glance, the author seems to me to have wished to emphasise the diversity of heritage sites in Turkey as well as the variation of the culture amongst the different regions. However, this links to Multiculturalism, which is just plainly wrong; as other users rightly pointed out, Turkey is far from multicultural, and this aspect of diversity is not emphasised even for nations with a much more multicultural fabric. As expanded in the "culture" section, however, the statement makes sense: the whole section is devoted to how Turkish culture fuses various cultural influences from the east and the west and thus exhibits a "diverse" nature. Indeed, this aspect of the country's culture is rather unique and encyclopaedically noteworthy. This implies that the sentence can be worded better, which I shall attempt to do now.
  • As such, I propose replacing this with the following:
    • "Turkey is a secular and unitary state with a cultural heritage incorporating elements from a diverse range of influences."
  • --GGT (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The fact of a wikilink to secular state is a red herring since Wikipedia is not a source - if the "secular state" claim goes, the wikilink goes with it. Same for the "unitary" and "parliamentary" wikilinks. What is required are sources that say Turkey is currently those things, or, more correctly since the lead is just there to summarize important content, a good amount content in the body of the article that says those things about the state of Turkey as it is currently. But if you look at recent sources, what they say is the opposite, that Turkey is no longer a secular democracy. "Diverse cultural heritage" is just unnecessary puffery because almost every country has a diverse cultural heritage and would incorporate "elements from a diverse range of influences". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
A note: Given that there does not seem to be appetite for my proposal, if I need to make a choice between "keep" or "remove", I opt for remove. Statements that is questionable at best ("democratic", "parliamentary") should by no means be presented in the lead as definitive facts. --GGT (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This discussion seems to be based on editorial opinions and not WP:RS - I think this statement is still widely supported by WP:RS. Erdogan and AKP did win the elections, and though the country is polarized, he is considered the democratically elected president. This is evident from all the press coverage surrounding the coup attempt. The above comments about cultural identity demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the subject. Even in an RfC, the consensus must be based on WP:RS. Yes, there were forcible population transfers, and there is a very serious issue with the Kurds in particular that is ongoing, but there are many other ethnic groups (Muslims are not all the same ethnicity.) There are Turkish Americans, French Turks, German Turks as well, and they are multicultural (though it is correct that Turkish identity is very strong.) I really recommend closing this RfC and consulting some sources before proposing an RfC like this. An RfC is not an excuse to make edits in violation of WP:NPOV based on a whole range of unsourced (and quite ignorant) assertions. I would suggest that comments that are not based on WP:RS should not be counted towards consensus (and that is all the comments that have been made so far.) I don't think this statement is difficult to source. Any proposed changes should be based on sources It doesn't seem like this RfC is going anywhere. Seraphim System (talk)
  • Also, regarding democracy, the very recent press coverage (last three months or so) presents a WP:CRYSTAL issue and WP:RECENT. I dont think we should rush into this, because it's not how Wikipedia articles are written. In a case like this, if you consult a source like Britannica, Turkey is still identified this way. Is there discussion? Yes. But at this point it is mostly predictions and that is not something we can use. I think we should wait for more serious academic sources before changing the long term widely avcepted view currently reflected in our article. Seraphim System (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove Just because the constitution claims the country to be democratic and secular does not make it one. The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is not democratic, it doesn't belong to the people, and is not a republic. Therefore, we in the Wikipedia community should not voice it as such. The cultural diversity stuff is so untrue it's laughable. "Incorporating" diversity has never been set in motion in Turkey. Quite the opposite, Turkey's (Republican, 1923-) history consists of a wide range of violations, forced assimilation practices, ethnic cleansing and repressions, towards all non-Turkish minorities. Incorporating means Turkey respects cultural diversity and considers it a valuable asset. That's not the case. Most Armenian churches, for instance, have been destroyed deliberately since the genocide. The large Armenian and Greek minorities that existed up to the 1920s are nowhere to be found today. That's not incorporation, but a systematic government policy of Turkification. The ban of Kurdish language for decades, is another recent example. The unitary part may be kept, but it doesn't have to be place in the first or second sentence of the lead. It can be placed in another part of the lead. --Երևանցի talk 07:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove Especially after last year's political developments it's better to be careful about this kind lede expressions.Alexikoua (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove as nominator. Reminds me of Voltaire's whole Holy Roman Empire saying: it wasn't Holy, wasn't Roman, and wasn't an Empire. To say Turkey is democratic, secular, and culturally diverse would be highly misleading for our readership since there's practically very little sources to back up such a statement. In fact, it's hard to say if Turkey ever was a democracy. I know the West is loving Ataturk right now since they constantly compare him to Erdogan, but Ataturk ruled with an iron fist under single-party rule. During his time, you couldn't even publicly speak any other language other than Turkish (see: Citizen, speak Turkish!). Could you imagine that? And after his death, the pattern of coups are self-evident to that end. Turkey, under its Republican leadership, was largely ruled by a minority of Kemalist bureaucrats up until AKP took power. And with the AKP, there's been another level of anti-democratic measures that we are all familiar with. So no, this has to go. I'm surprised it was there in the first place. Wikipedia should never voice such falsehoods. Considering how articles like The Netherlands, Belgium, and other much more democratic countries don't even have any sort of mention of democracy or secularism makes this particular sentence in this article rather alarming, a WP:REDFLAG if you will. Last but not least, the cultural diversity stuff is rather obvious. A country filled with long and extensive record of human rights violations against non-Turks, forced assimilation, forced deportations, denial of ones racial identity, the banning of languages, and then outright genocide should not be viewed as accepting of cultural diversity. That's rather obvious to me. As is the secular stuff. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove as per nominator. There was a time when this was true, but the very extensive purges of the last few years have removed any democratic credential. Turkey was definitely a democracy both prior to AKP rule and under many years of AKP rule, but that is no longer the case. Jeppiz (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove This is a biased, WP:POV sentence that cannot be supported by reliable sources. Democratic is highly questionable and contentious and secular is literally an untruth. Our readers deserve better than Turkish government spin. AusLondonder (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose This RfC was proposed without any attempt at discussion on the talk page by the nominator. The discussion section includes comments from myself and the editor who contributed to raise this article to GA. Clearly discussion prior to this RfC would have been beneficial, because the sentence has multiple parts (Democracy, secular, multicultural) and many of the editors who have commented may not be following the full discussion. An RfC should have been formulated based on a discussion of WP:RS between editors on talk. I don't think there is any way to judge what the outcome would have been if editors had been provided appropriate context and WP:RS based discussion prior to commenting. Seraphim System (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove per other commenters. At this point only the "unitary" still rings true. Khirurg (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


  • @GGT: De jure Turkey is still a secular state - that particular bit was not removed (yet?). De facto - it is not after the long running rule of the AKP - both in internal issues and in terms of external affairs supporting the cause of Islamists (in Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Qatar, Egypt, etc.). This is really a situation in which the provision in the law is a dead letter. (Frankly - I would think that this is even more clear than the current questioned democratic status) Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I think we should follow the encyclopedic (Britannica) version for now. This is an expert opinion:

The question can be rephrased from a more global perspective: Does Western liberal democracy still hold its power as a model for freedom and equality? Illiberal values and populist movements are gaining ground not only among emerging countries and in authoritarian regimes but also among Western democracies. Turkey, an interface country between Islam and the West, finds itself at the epicenter of this...we were both committed to the ideals of the republic, individual freedom, women’s rights and the rule of law. But now we are witnessing a profound feeling of loss — secular intellectuals no longer command the future of Turkey.[1]

Keyword here is "Undergoing" and this type of predictive language is used in source after source. I would not recommend changing this at this time. This is not a WP:FORUM - I do not see any prior discussion of this proposal on the talk page. This RfC is inappropriate and it should be closed. Seraphim System (talk) 06:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Just a side note to say that the quoted Huffington Post opinion on "populism" being in any way connected to Erdogan in Turkey is a particularly vile distortion of reality, doubtlessly arising from its own political biases. Populism in Europe and the US arose from disgust among voters against establishment politicians and elites and their perceived or real corruption. In other words, it is grounded on a core believe that politics and democracy are important things for every citizen and they should not be corrupted or be in the hands of dynastic elites who think they can do whatever they want. However, in Turkey everyone, including AK voters, knows Erdogan and the AKP is profoundly corrupt and lies regularly about everything - but AK supporters don't care about any of that and have no particular concerns about how it affects democracy or politics or the rule of law in Turkey because they do not feel such things are important. What we see in Turkey is not populism, it is a form of tribalism based on a group adherence to a particular religious outlook. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
It is more of a case of undergone (under 15 years of AKP/Erdogan) with some processes on-going. Some sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there has been a tremendous amount of work on this in recent years, all of it speculative. "Undergoing" is what the source says, it doesn't say "undergone." Here is another example from the first OUP source you posted:

Within the last two decades, under Erdoğan's leadership it has become clear that a western model of ‘liberal democracy’ will probably not be the final destination of Turkey's path, but just one of many possible exits.

For the lead paragraph I think we should follow the encyclopedic source (Britannica). There are many sources questioning American democracy (Is Trump the End?), and Jewish democracy (for univeral sufferage?), and democracy in general. It is fashionable now, and for the most part, it is WP:CRYSTAL. There is absolutely nothing wrong with waiting on this. A lot of sources will also say laicism was authoritarian, for example...For something like this in a general overview article's lede paragraph, tertiary encyclopedic sources are appropriate to judge due weight. We don't have to cover every angle of the debate in the lede. Turkish democracy has never had a smooth trajectory, and all of the sources about its future are speculative. These are poorly informed comments and the sources you posted (like "Does Erdogan Want His Own Islamic State?") only support what I have said about WP:CRYSTAL. There was speculation 10 years ago, and there is speculation today, and that is all it is. This is not suitable for inclusion at this time. There is nothing even remotely resembling Islamic law in Turkey, it is still a civil law system. Seraphim System (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Turkish democracy has indeed been troubled to begin with, as might be seen by [[9]] - Describing Turkey as a democracy in the 1960s-1990s (with a periodic military coup) was problematic. It is also problematic under the current AKP regime. The cultural diversity, beyond being problematic given Turkification, is really just puffery. And secular (and yes - there were issues regarding whether veil (and other religious) banning was democratic back in the day) - is quite clearly disputed nowadays. We simply shouldn't be saying this in Wikipedia's voice - as they are all in dispute (and the cultural bit is puffery). We could say "according to Turkey's constitution" Turkey is X,Y,Z and then note criticism. Or just leave it out of the lead.Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I know you don't mean it this way, but what you are saying about cultural diversity is really a very backwards and anachronistic position. Turkification has nothing to do with this. The issue in the southeast is ongoing and very serious, I would not claim otherwise, but it is a strawman here. Students in Turkey study in French, German, English (Where all classes are in a foreign language.) Bosphorous University the entire curriculum is in English. They favor foreign clothes, and foreign films and music. Many have lived abroad. If you speak English or French that is considered very good. The issue is deeper, as this is still exclusive and out of reach for many. But it is completely bizarre to say that Turkey is not multicultural, that is what it is known for, being where the east and west meet. That is not puffery, it is two different worlds in Konya and Istanbul. I don't know where you got this idea but it is completely baseless. Anyway there is nothing wrong with saying it in Wikipedia's voice if it can be sourced directly to Britannica. Not even the sources you posted support your position - Did you actually read this source before you posted it? [2]Seraphim System (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Ottoman Turkey (and the empire outside of Turkey) was deeply multi-cultural - not in the sense that the elite in Istanbul embrace foreign language and culture - but in the sense society itself was deeply multicultural. Turks, Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, Jews, and a large number of other groups and sects all lived side by side - all with their own culture and language. This changed in the events of the empire's dissolution. Turk and Turkish became ascendant and dominant in Turkey. The historic past and culture was to a degree erased and purged. So yes - some Turks (to a large extent in elite Istanbul) embrace foreign culture and language - this does not make Turkey a multi-cultural society (I'll note that Erdogan is perhaps extending the ethnic bounds of the previous Atatürk cultural regime - in that he is embracing pan-Islamism and not just Turkishness). Turkey even denies that an Armenian genocide took place. In any event - "diverse cultural heritage" in Wiki's voice is really just puffery - even if it were true.Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Once again this is not a forum and the RfC is out of order. It should be withdrawn NB or i will request formal closure. Where is the source that Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide is related to its cultural diversity? Again, this is not a WP:FORUM and it is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Ok, it's not the Ottoman Empire, that is not in dispute, so what? This is not only POV, it is unsourced POV - I have already asked you politely to stop. Seraphim System (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the sentence could be modified and that "heritage" is a poor choice of words. This is why an RfC should not be proposed without any talk page discussion. The things you are describing happebed but you have to be realistic about how relevant things that happened 100 years ago are today. The fact that Turkey is a multicultural society is extremely easy to source and not seriously in dispute. This RfC should be withdrawn, and the revision should be discussed on talk first. Seraphim System (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Turkey is not multicultural in any established sense. The main element that provides a second culture - the Kurds - are actively suppressed. Other than that - very small minorities. Ignoring Kurds - a single native language, single ethnic group, single religion - with small minorities. See ranking in well cited paper here (which includes Kurds): Fearon, James D. "Ethnic and cultural diversity by country." Journal of economic growth 8.2 (2003): 195-222..Icewhiz (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Seems there is actually a wiki article with Fearon's ranking as well as Alesina's ranking - List of countries ranked by ethnic and cultural diversity level - Turkey ranks low on diversity (and in both cases - the suppressed Kurds are the major contributors to Turkey's diversity - and even with them counted - it is low).Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

On the "secular" issue. That word or variations on it, appears 13 times in the article, two of those being in the lede. In the early days of Ataturk's government, there was definitely a pro-secular anti-religion program to remove religion (or rather, to remove those with religious influences) from politics, from the military, and from the ruling elites (but not from society in general, there was nothing like what happened in Bolshevik Russia). However, surely "secular" has to mean something more than just "a state not ruled by sharia law". It has to be a strict separation of state apparatus from religious institutions. How can that apply to Turkey when, for example, all mosques in Turkey are state controlled, the state pays for new mosques (which are going up everywhere), pays for all the wages of those who preach from those mosques, runs the religious institutions that trains those employees, and the state sets the general guidelines as to what can and cannot be said in sermons in those mosques. See Directorate of Religious Affairs. Nowhere in the text is it explained in what way Turkey counts as a "secular" state. In Turkey, Islam is a department of the state - Ataturk, in effect, "nationalised" Islam. Countries which are far more secular than Turkey are not described as "secular" in their ledes. In fact, I cannot find a single example, not France, not Germany, not Britain, not even the United States. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

My main opposition to this RfC is that it was proposed without any prior discussion. Prior discussion on the talk page would have allowed a properly worded RfC with a couple of alternate proposals based on WP:RS, instead of simply proposing a removal of a major line that can still be sourced to major encyclopedias (including Britannica) - there may be consensus to modify the sentence, but I can't support the proposal as it is current phrased. It should first be discussed and then based on that discussion an RfC may be proposed if one is necessary to reach consensus. The justifications to remove are also largely based on WP:OR even where numerous sources exist that explicitly support use of the word "multicultural" for example. There are so many sources for this available from just a google search that it is preposterous to simply try to push a removal through via RfC without basing it on prior attempts to reach consensus on talk. Seraphim System (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
No, there has been discussion but it kept dying without anyone participating in it (discussed one, two, three times at least). So our best bet is to start an RfC to bring some formality into this discussion and encourage more users to participate in it. In fact, I think that sentence should've been removed outright since the sentence is entirely unsourced (the cited source makes no mention of Turkey being a democracy, culturally accepting, or whatever). With that said, this RfC is not even necessary, but I'm always willing to initiate discussion before making any such drastic changes to long standing content in the lead of a highly visited Wikipedia article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
If the issue is sources I can post sources for it, most of it can be sourced to Britannica and there are a ton of sources for multicultural. I've posted sources within this discussion itself, so at this point it can't just be removed for lack of sourcing. There isn't much participation in this RfC either, and what participation there has been has mostly ignored the fact that this statement can be sourced and has been based on personal opinions. Sources are here: "Turkey | Location, Geography, People, Economy, Culture, & History". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2017-08-04.  and the World Factbook. The comments here are not supported by the majority of currently available sources. It doesn't seem like even a minimal effort was made to source the statement before proposing removal. I checked the article for the United States and it is called a Federal Republic, there are sources to make this more precise here (I think World Facebook uses Parliamentary Republic) but I don't want to make the changes mid-RfC. Israel has been receiving similar treatment in the press btw, so if we change one article I think we need to change to maintain neutrality (I have previously discussed issues on the Israel article with some of the editors involved in this discussion, and wonder if they would support changing both articles.) Seraphim System (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Apologies for the rather late response. Unfortunately, as Seraphim System rightly pointed out, I see a lot of personal opinions and not enough sources here. I had attempted to produce a compromise with my proposal, and specific concerns have been raised with regards to the correctness of the "secular" designation and "cultural heritage incorporating elements from a diverse range of influences".
  • Regarding "secular": Tiptoethrutheminefield, your points regarding this are no doubt well-informed and well thought out. Unfortunately, they seem to be unsupported original research that contradicts the bulk of independent scholarship about Turkish secularism. Your point about Atatürk's "nationalisation" of Islam is more or less in line with Hanioğlu's position in his book Atatürk: an Intellectual Biography, where he argues that Atatürk sought out a reformation of Islam guided by the state to reinforce republican principles. Having made this point, Hanioğlu has no trouble calling the state Atatürk built "secular". It would be interesting to debate at length what I believe to be flaws in your point - but this is not a forum, and a simple search would support the fact that the state Atatürk built has been called "secular" almost universally in academia (although Axiarlis' Political Islam and the secular state in Turkey does contain an interesting argument on this and a questioning of the meaning of "secularism" in the Turkish case). The fact that the other countries do not have an indication of their secular nature in their articles is simply a manifestation of the fact that the secular identity of the state is of uniquely key importance in understanding Turkey, given that it has been one of the pillars of the Turkish republic. France does approach Turkey in this sense with its laicité, and perhaps it is an important omission from the lead, and the article does refer to the secular nature of the French state. Perhaps we should expand a bit on it the way it is expanded on there though. Icewhiz, on the other hand, argues that with the growing Islamisation of the Turkey, the "secular" bit is "dead letter". Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, I would expect copious sourcing then that de facto, the Turkish state has ceased to be secular in nature. There is talk of threats to it, and there is definitely a lot of Islamist rhetoric going on - but the notion that the Turkish state is no longer secular is simply not supported by the sources out there. Axiarlis notes a "reinterpretation" of secularism in Turkey (regarding the sense of the word used in Turkish politics) by the AKP, but not a destruction of it. As we are writing for the very uninitiated here, simply using the word "secular" in the lead (and perhaps dropping a footnote?) would suffice.
  • On "cultural heritage incorporating elements from a diverse range of influences": I find Icewhiz's argument on multiculturalism and especially the quantitative sources he/she has presented convincing. With regards to my proposal, Yerevantsi has used the straw man argument that the influences referred to must be the cultures extinguished in Turkish territory in the last century or so. That is not the meaning of the statement and a brief reading of the "Culture" section could have sufficed to understand that what I am referring to is expanded upon in this sentence: "Turkey has a very diverse culture that is a blend of various elements of the Turkic, Anatolian, Ottoman (which was itself a continuation of both Greco-Roman and Islamic cultures) and Western culture and traditions". For further substantiation, I present this (especially the quote from The Times: "a complex palimpsest of Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Muslim influences"). This source also clarifies the unique position of Turkey as a borderland in an attempt to resolve the question of Turkish identity. This demonstrates how these diverse influences are key to understanding Turkey and must in some shape or form be referred to in the lead for completion - the argument put forward by Tiptoethrutheminefield that every culture incorporates a diverse range of influences seems to be sophistry. I am open to suggestions regarding the phrasing of the statement. This source can also be examined for information on the various influences on various aspects of Turkish culture. --GGT (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Removing democratic is also unsupported. The issue remains that the proposal to remove democratic is based on recent press stories most of which we can not use as WP:RS because they are WP:CRYSTAL. The encyclopedic sources, and the World Factbook still support the use of democracy. If you compare this to Israel, the same language is used in that country article and no mention is made of numerous recent press stories questioning whether or not Israel is democratic (raising questions particularly about universal suffrage or censorship of the press) - The discussion about Turkey in news sources is largely based on the comments from the opposition and concerns about the rule of law. Of course, serious academic studies note that Turkey's democracy has not been a stable one throughout its history. Per WP:RS, if we are discussing opinions about the future direction, they have to be expert/specialist opinions and it should be clear that this is an opinion. Based on our policies, we should not use press sources for something like this, and I don't understand why it is only an issue on this article.Seraphim System (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
For example editors support removal of "democratic" here (sourced to Britannica) based on unsourced POV arguments, oppose removal on the Israel page (where similar sources exist disputing whether Israel is a democracy) [10] and also for unsourced POV reasons like "universal suffrage is not a requirement for democracy" - this whole thing belongs on NPOV/n noticeboard, given the ongoing and persistent problems with politically motivated edits on Turkey related articles, where WP:RS and policy based reasons have taken a backseat to political POV in consensus discussions (there are numerous past examples of this that I can dig up if necessary, where many other editors have explicitly noted and stated the political POV and bias in this subject area, so my opinion here is based on previous community discussions) Seraphim System (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I did not make a POV stmt - one is not connected to the other. You cited future warning of "Jewish" or "Democratic" which are given in the context of the future annexation of the West Bank (and maybe Gaza) - however we do not see those territories as part of Israel in the current article - this is a future warning, not a current description of the situation. Furthermore, the well referenced sentenced you removed (it would seem mainly to make a point on this article - Turkey) was - "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state." This is not a statement in wiki's voice that Israel is a democracy (though we could argue on whether this should be made) - but rather an attributed self-definition - Israel defines itself in its Basic Laws. So no - there is no equivalence between a statement (in the lead no less!) that Turkey is democratic in wike's voice - and a statement that Israel defines itself as democratic. Regarding this article - it wouldn't be a problem to state in the article itself that Turkey defines itself as X,Y,Z.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to get into it here, but since it is clear from your comment that you did not read what you reverted, I will partially revert (The second line) tomorrow. It is not only Kerry's quote, there are numerous press articles, that have very little difference from the articles you are supporting here. Since the statement that Turkey is democratic CAN be sourced to Britannica, removal has to based on something more then WP:OR and POV. If the consensus is to use press sources like "Is Turkey's Democracy Over?" to remove a statement that can be cited to Britannica, the community consensus should not be wildly different on another country's article, the analysis of WP:RS and application of policies should not radically differ based on nothing more then the article topic. I am fine with abiding by consensus, but it seems here that opinions are being guided by POV and not according to our core policies. Seraphim System (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I indeed mainly responded to your removal of the first line - which was clearly out of line. Regarding Kerry and the rest of the Israel will have to choose between "Jewish" or "Democratic" IF the occupation is not resolved with 2 states chorus (and this is quite a wide chorus by 2-staters) - these are future statements (and clearly framed as future statements) regarding a 1 state solution (or lack of solution) - they can not be used to source your change as they do not refer to the present situation. In any event - I would appreciate if you stick to discussing my actions on my talk page, relevant article pages (e.g. Israel), or relevant forums - and not on unrelated articles (Turkey).Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I am waiting for the close here, because of the policy issues that are raised by this RfC. Policies have to be applied consistently across articles, whatever the consensus is, though I think the RfC was improperly worded because it did not discuss any source-based or policy-based removals and so the majority of comments have not addressed source or policy based reasons to remove information that can be sourced to major, mainstream encyclopedias. Seraphim System (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Also given the reasons for support by the nominator (entirely unsourced POV) that are not supported by WP:RS (sources support the current wording, with minor changes) - I think this RfC should be closed for being an improper use of the RfC process. Other issues here are systemic bias (full disclosure, I do edit Vikipedi, and I am probably one of the few editors here who does) and the uneven application of policies to articles regarding Turkey. I think the content of the article must follow our policies and be based on WP:RS, not on my personal political POV, which is what I find most inappropriate about the reasons given by editors who are supporting this proposal. Seraphim System (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
In regards to some of these labels (Cultural diversity should go due to it being puffery to begin with and contradicted by sources (both Fearon and Alesina et, as can be seen here: (and in the sources therein) List of countries ranked by ethnic and cultural diversity level (and this is when we include the Kurds (which are suppressed in the south-east) as fully part of the Turkish system)) - the problem is that this is a changing situation - so the question is whether sources in 2017 (or 2014, 2015, 2016) still refer to Turkey as a democracy. Citing Britannica which looking at the article history there hasn't updated its lead in ages - is not a proper source for this (and might even be a circular situation - e.g. they look at us and we look at them in order to determine when this tag should be removed in the encyclopedia's voice). While there were questions on the strength of democracy in Turkey in the past, in light of the frequent coups, it was typically referred to as a democracy. The question raised in this RfC is whether this label is still relevant - and for that you would need to show current sources that still refer to Turkey as a democracy. In regards to procedure (whether a discussion should have preceded the RfC) - there has been an extensive discussion as part of the RfC - I doubt that if we re-open a new RfC (following the alleged technicality of process in regards to the RfC) we will reach a different conclusion as an overwhelming amount of editors support removal - a single objection by my (perhaps flawed) count (7-1).Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
That is an absolute misstatement of policy and closing admins must take this into consideration. Britannica has not been superseded Given the non-source based and non-policy based reasons for support by the nominator (entirely unsourced POV) and given that WP:RS support the current wording - I think this RfC should be closed for being an improper and prejudiced abuse of the RfC process. The content of the article must follow our policies and be based on WP:RS For example, editors repeated WP:OR conclusion that human rights violations in Turkey, or in the early Republic, are somehow connected to multiculturalism - This is completely unsourced POV WP:OR. Given the obvious prejudice/unsourced POV of the nom's stated justifications for removal and some of the other comments here (I could provide diffs, but I refer to the above comments which are plain to see) I strongly recommend closing this RfC, and recommending that editors follow WP:RS when proposing modifications Obviously, closers have a responsibility to prevent abuse of the RfC process and review whether comments and support for a proposal is based on policy. Seraphim System (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, what we need to take into consideration is WP:CONSENSUS. Sure, there are RSs that might say Turkey is a de jure democracy (the Britannica source doesn't even say that by the way), much like how there are RSs that say North Korea is a Republic, but if it doesn't jive with reality, then it should not be presented as such. Why? Well, it would be highly misleading for our readers and would ultimately undermine the project's credibility. So the way we come to that conclusion is through consensus based off of reliable sourcing, but more specifically for the lead and in this particular case, it should be based off of the reliably sourced content already found within the article. You can't possibly deny the fact that there's a plethora of sources out there, many of which that are found within this article itself, that show Turkey getting an F in democracy, security, freedom of the press, and basic human rights. The cultural diversity stuff is also a no brainer. Sitting on top of lost civilizations doesn't make you culturally embracing either, especially when you've annihilated both culturally and physically those civilizations themselves. Last but not least, this constant back and forth, the stonewalling, along with a !vote of "Strong Keep" is strongly reminiscent of WP:JDLI. I advise you to take into consideration the overwhelming consensus being formulated here because it may look like you're trying to override the good faith efforts of these users who have done nothing but express their honest and informed opinion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What I don't like is the suggestion that we should make edits based on what seems "obvious" to you (to quote your above unsourced justification for the removal) for a statement vthat is widely accepted by WP:RS. I am not saying it is a de jure democracy, I am saying Britannica says the following:

The modern Turkish republic, founded in 1923 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, is a nationalist, secular, parliamentary democracy. After a period of one-party rule under its founder, Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk), and his successor, Turkish governments since the 1950s have been produced by multiparty elections based on universal adult suffrage.

and that the argument you are making that Turkey was never a democracy, because of Ataturk's policies etc. creates a strong appearance that this proposal is motivated by WP:OR and unsourced POV. Yes we do need to follow WP:CONSENSUS and consensus is not determined by votes - this is actually a critical feature of the WP:CONSENSUS policy The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. I would not invoke this policy but for the extraordinary circumstances in this RfC (supported by GGT who says above Unfortunately, as Seraphim System rightly pointed out, I see a lot of personal opinions and not enough sources here.) - I would highlight the above statement above by the nom that the WP:RS dont "jive with reality" - Citing WP:JDLI for policy and source based arguments is casting WP:ASPERSIONS, especially when the sum total of the argument made to support this proposal is itself ipse dixit. Consensus is not determined by votes. Oxford World Encyclopedia calls it a "Multiparty republic" - what are you proposing replacing the system of government with? Based on what WP:RS? The entire proposal was hasty, poorly thought out and not based on WP:RS. Seraphim System (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources have been cited here by several. You keep on citing Britannica which may not be up to date (just as Wikipedia is not in this case per the consensus here). Removal of the sentence, and specifically democracy, is an easier decision than a replacement sentence. It is quite clear, at this point, what Turkey currently IS NOT. It isn't totally clear what it IS NOW - as this is an evolving situation and requires and understanding of the inner workings of the current regime that hasn't reached consensus in RS (e.g. the degree of power of Erdogan vs. the wider AKP).Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Any discussion of whether Britannica is WP:RS for this statement would have to properly be raised at RS/n, which is another reason why this RfC should not have been proposed without recent discussion on the talk page. The edit should have been made, and if it was contested, then the issue could have been raised in the proper forum (in this case RS/n because of the issues with WP:CRYSTAL or whether Britannica has been superseded. RfC is for dispute resolution (per WP:RFC) , and since there was no dispute on this page, there should not have been an RfC. In the event that a dispute arises, there might be other dispute resolution processes that would be more appropriate to resolve a dispute (in this case RS/n would be one option). Seraphim System (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems pretty clear that there is a clear consensus for removal. While one single pro-Erdogan user is indeed very active in the discussion, that's not really of any consequence. If I could offer one piece of friendly advice to Seraphim System for future discussions, it would be to make shorter, fewer, better and more coherent arguments. Its the strength, not the length, of the argument that carries weight. There is very little point to bring up older sources in a discussion on a situation that all involved agree is recent. There is also very little point to keep bringing up Israel all over the place regardless of topic. The insistence by Seraphim System that the RfC should be closed in the favour of the one single voice differing from the consensus also comes across as surprising. Given the level of discussion, though, I do agree that the RfC could be closed as a clear census has emerged. Jeppiz (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to GGT's points. The lead sentence that is being discussed describes Turkey as it is now, today, not what it was in the 1920s or 1930s. So, even if the concept of what makes a “secular state” has remained unchanged since the 1920s (which it has not), whatever Ataturk in the 1920s and 1930s intended Turkey to be is irrelevant to deciding on the accuracy of that sentence. Also irrelevant are claims that Turkey makes for itself at an official level. Nor can some unique meaning of the word “secular” be coined to apply to Turkey alone. In the early years of Ataturk’s dictatorship, all mosques, Islamic schools, Islamic initiations and Islamic foundations were brought under state control and henceforth run by state institutions. See, for example, Directorate of Religious Affairs and Directorate General of Foundations. Then, selected areas within that nationalized entity that the state did not wish to continue existing were closed down, and the rest was maintained but operated within a framework of policies and ideologies determined by the state. A state where a single religion is governed and operated as a department of that state, whose entire apparatus – from its buildings to its employees - is paid for by that state, and with the state guaranteeing and promoting the continued existence of that one religion (while at the same time either not supporting or actively oppressing all other religions), cannot easily be described as a secular state. There are many sources that have always disputed Turkey’s claim to be "secular" for those very reasons – that alone should have made the inclusion of “secular” in the lead very questionable and certainly untenable without some qualifiers. But now we have the addition of Erdogan’s pro-Islam and re-Islamisation policies and rhetoric, backed by his parliamentary majority and state of emergency laws to carry them out. GCT claims that arguments that the “Turkish state is no longer secular is simply not supported by the sources out there”. But, setting aside the fact that there are dozens of recent sources questioning the assertion that Turkey is still a secular state, where are the sources supporting this “secular” claim? Turkey just claiming it is a secular state is not justification enough for that claim being in the lead – sources that are neutral and recent are required - and they are currently absent. The constitution of Turkey is not a suitable or a neutral source for claims about Turkey. The only other source is a dead link to a pdf publication. A working link to it is [11]. This publication, on page 4, takes the extreme viewpoint that Islamic societies (which it defines simply as a society whose population adheres to Islam, allowing no nuances as to what branch of Islam or degree of fundamentalism) can exist in only two forms: an “Islamic state” and a “secular state”, and that these forms are determined solely by what is said in a country’s constitution. It claims that any "Islamic society" whose CONSTITUTION does not say Islam is the state religion is automatically a “secular state”. There is no way such an extreme and absolutist viewpoint can be allowed into the article on the basis of a single source. A country’s constitution is not a neutral or credible source for the reality of that country. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Unless I have said I am "pro-Erdogan" which I have not, you also should not say that I am, as it is a personal content. The guidelines for RfC are clear, the nominator should attempt discussion before proposing, that did not happen here. There is no consensus here, only a lot of personal opinions that can not used to justify edits of any kind. Seraphim System (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The statement in the article CAN be sourced, but since there was no discussion before the RfC was proposed, that was not reflected in the proposal. Britannica is not an "old source" and neither is OUP, there are multiple encyclopedic sources that support this. It is a poor understanding of democracy (which is not about the judiciary, the judiciary is non-democratic this is the point) and the source of the problem is that editors are not following WP:RS Seraphim System (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Democracy, by the way, is nothing more then majority rule. What editors are confusing here, based on laymen opinions and without following sources, are constitutional limits on democratic government. Turkey has universal sufferage, and Erdogan was elected (with a significant percentage of voters supporting CP). There is no country in the world that has exactly the US system of government. This includes Britain, France, Germany, Israel and Turkey. Israel is especially problematic, because its claim of universal sufferage is disputed. The reality is that Turkey does not have this problem - the problem is that there is no limit on the majority rule (as in the US) - this is pretty basic American Politics 101 level stuff. Our encyclopedia should not be based on this kind of inexpert and unsourced reasoning. Seraphim System (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Where is the word "secular" sourced? I recently deleted [12] the supposed source, "CIA factbook", for the statement's words "secular", "unitary", and "diverse". Those words were not used in that source. Encyclopedias are never going to be the best sources for recent changes in countries. Seraphim System, why are you wanting to single out Turkey as the sole recipient of the "democratic" medal. You mentioned Britain, France, Germany, and America - but none of them are described as being "democratic" in their leads, despite their status as democracies being unquestionable. Are only countries with an arguable democratic status to be labeled "democratic" on Wikipedia? It suggests to me that this whole lead sentence is nothing more than an exercise in PR puffery, and so should be gone. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

America is correctly identified as a Federal Republic. Its system of government is not fully democratic. Many of the countries we refer to as "democracies" are actually multiparty republics. This would more encyclopedic then using an imprecise and widely misunderstood term like democracy. I would support changing it both here and on any other article that uses it. Your argument for secularism raises a WP:RECENT issue. We use sources like encyclopedias to judge WP:DUE for complex issues like this, and it is appropriate here. Seraphim System (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Göle, Nilüfer (2017-07-21). "Turkey Is Undergoing A Radical Shift, From Pluralism To Islamic Populism". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2017-07-27. 
  2. ^ "Does Erdogan want his own Islamic state?". Retrieved 2017-07-27. 

Funny definition of democracy[edit]

not appropriate per TPG this RfC is not a platform for personal views, editors with questions about this should consult a dictionary or other WP:RS and open a discussion based on those sources
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could anyone in favour of keeping the current wording, which sounds suspiciously like something from the Ministry of Truth, name any other "democracy" in which at least 152 journalist are in prison? Or any other democracy where 173 media outlets have been forcibly closed by the government and 800 other journalists have had their press accreditation revoked? The "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (North Korea) maybe but we don't parrot their bullshit about being a democracy. AusLondonder (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, they've all been charged with serious crimes, no? To be tried, no doubt, by the loyal and law-abiding judiciary and prosecution Turkey says purge of judiciary over after sacking 4,000. Freedom of press doesn't allow the press to commit crimes. In terms of parallels, I don't believe it reached this level in the democratic Russian Federation, but that may be due to an "understanding" of the "situation" by the players involved there. You might find parallels in terms of purge levels to Lustration in the Eastern Bloc following the demise of the communist regimes (though I'm not sure if they bothered lustrating the local Pravdas - it made more economic sense to open new outlets).Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can I have your attention please[edit]

Heading de-shouted per WP:TPO and WP:SHOUT. ―Mandruss  15:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

For all those who don't know me, i'm the guy who implemented major changes and elevated this shitty country's wp article status to 'GA'. Oh and i also wrote that sentence that you guys are currently trying to remove/improve/edit etc.

After reading your shitstorm, i can easily say that some of you have no single fucking idea about the Turkish society, history, culture or even the constitution. I'll throw out some dots for you to connect.

SECULARISM: This is one of the most delicate issues about the Turkish society. I'm saying society, not state, since the state of Turkey is secular by constitituon and civil code also there are no Islam-related laws (Part I, Article II). So officially or legally-speaking, the 'state' of Turkey is as secular as, lets say Germany.

Let's get to the 'society' part. Fristly you should read the 'Religion' section of this article. There is a note that i've added (not wrote though).

The existing religion information written on every citizen's national id card, that is automatically passed on from the parents to every newborn, and do not necessarily represent individual choice. Furthermore, anyone who was not officially registered as Christian or Jewish by the time of the foundation of the republic, was automatically recorded as Muslim, and this label has been passed down to new generations. Therefore, the official number of Muslims also include people with no religion; converted from Islam to a different religion than Islam; and anyone who is of a different religion than their parents, but hasn't applied for a change of their individual records.

My id card is an example of this illogical 'religipn-information-system'. Although both are my parents are atheists, they had automatically registered as 'Islam' since no one bothered to ask them about their religion. And you guessed it, i had 'Islam' also on my card's religion section. So i went to the population department requested a change, grind thru some paperwork and handled it.

But i have lots of friends who are simply scared to make this change because of the 'what if' scenarios suc as; 'What if my grandparents see it', 'What if they (gov't) are making a list of atheists and after a sharia revolution, they decide to kill us' etc. or simply don't give a fuck about what writes there.

Since there are shit-tons of research about secularism among the Turkish people. I'm not going to explain it all day long, just take a look at the Cultural Muslim article and refer to google. Majority of women doesn't wear veil and majority of the people doesn't follow Islamic rules like praying 5 times a day. You should take a look at Turkish TV shows. 1 out of 10 series 'might' include a veiled woman but i can guarantee that 5 out of 10 will strike you as a fashion show rather than a tv-drama.

Directorate of Religious Affairs was founded by the orders of Atatürk. He was trying to establish control over Islam (imo all governments should control how Islam is practiced since some fucked-up-shit like ISIS and Child_marriage#Middle_East can pop up). He also supported Autocephalous Turkish Orthodox Patriarchate. But to criticize these actions we must take a look at Zeitgeist of the 19th and 20st century. Every 'nation' was gathering or trying to gather under one flag and one religion. Leaders of these nations were frequently using religion as a tool and defining their religion as the core of their nation. For instance there are no genetically or linguistically difference between Bosnians and Serbians. But you guessed it, religiously different as fuck. So this ministry wasn't an act of low level Islamization of the state rather a strategic move.

Lastly, we should take a fact into account. The supporters of Erdoğan doesn't constitute the majority as general media thinks. They got the 40% of the parliamentary elections' vote. The remaining 60% voted for CHP,MHP,HDP (which all are secular by their regulations) and some communist parties. Even if we think that all the supporters of AKP are anti-secularists and the turnout is 100%, 60% of the population is secular (THAT WAS SOME QUANTUM LOGIC RIGHT THERE).

THAT CULTURAL HERITAGE THING: I'm gonna cut it short my friends are waiting.

Before we jump in:

Turkish language is a Turkic language but Turks doesn't look like the other Turks (namely Kazakhs, Turkmens, Uzbeks etc.). OH HOW COME? CUZ THEY (they includes 'me'. i'm 25% Georgian, 15% Azeri, 5% Armenian, 5% Persian, 50% unknown) ARE ONLY LINGUISTICALLY TURKS NOT CULTURALLY.

Ottoman Empire was a huge empire and consisted many peoples. As you may've or will read the article of 'Turkification', many ethnics assimilated willingly or unwillingly cause of some reasons like taxes, battles, sieges, boredom etc and they all contributed to the modern Turkish people. Even Atatürk, who tried to assimilate all the minorities, was of Albanian descent, like Enver Pasha.

Anyways those who assimilated, brought their culture with them, like customs, food, music and clothing. My GF for instance, she is of Bulgarian descent. Loves eating wafer as all Bulgarians do i assume. All those who claim to have Bulgarian descent seem to love wafers. I'm more of a cake-eater though, wafers taste like plain paper.

Oh and btw gov't of Erdoğan gave up on assimilating minorities and gave them permission to publish books, set up tv channels and get language education in state schools. Of course the churches or any non-sunni islamic instutuion doesn't get to get funding from the state treasury.

I just wanted to make some clarifications and state my thoughts. You guys are right about one thing though. Turkey isn't a democracy anymore. It wasn't before either but at least it resembled like one. kazekagetr 13:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Got a VPN running? Shouting for attention is a bad start, so is describing everything before your opinion as a "shitstorm". The point about the lead sentence that we are discussing is that is is there to describe Turkey as it is now. It is not there to describe the Turkey of the 1920s and 1930s, or the Turkey Ataturk in the 1920s and 1930s desired to create; or even what the Turkish State claims itself to be or what the Turkish State is according to the Turkish constitution. The lead is also meant to be just an accurate summary of the article's content and this sentence simply doesn't accurately sum up that content because it allows for no nuances as to the differences between Turkey in reality and Turkey on paper. An additional problem is that no other country article has such glowing lead text. You miss the point of the Directorate of Religious Affairs issue. What it was intended to do when established is not relevant to discussion about the lead sentence - its function has changed since then (it is now under the direction of the very people it was intended to make obsolete) and it is just what it is doing in Turkey nowadays that is relevant to this discussion. Erdogan supporters probably are the majority. MHP politicians may delude themselves int thinking they are a proper political party with voters who vote for them for legitimate reasons, but the average MHP voter will vote for whoever looks like killing the most Kurds, and that currently is Erdogan. The moment MHP distances itself from Erdogan, most of its supporters will just desert to AKP. Have you actually looked at the TV in Turkey available to the average person in the provinces. TRT spreads everywhere with its multiple channels. Many independent stations have been closed down, more have gone thanks to the economic downturn, the rest are mostly cowed, reduced to talk shows mouthing the Erdogan-line, or cliched family dramas, or 1970s Turkish movies peddling blatantly anti-Christian themes and racist stereotypes, or endless repeats of Kemal Sunal movies since they are for some reason considered uncontroversial (despite being delightfully full of small man usurping the puffed-up tyrant themes). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
On a constructive note User:KazekageTR - could you summarize what you think about this sentence currently in brief? It seems you support striking democracy. If secularism is "delicate" - should it be in the lead unqualified (and not explained at length in body)? Regarding "diverse cultural heritage" - I wholeheartedly agree the Ottoman empire (and the Turkish part of it) was highly diverse - and that modern Turks aren't like other Turkic people - but should we state this in the present tense - some 100 years after various assimilation programs? Isn't this a little more complicated than what could be boiled down to 3 words (If we're looking at a 20 year old - then these are his great-grandparents or earlier)?Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield, dude firstly you should pay attention to my last sentence (I just wanted to make some clarifications and state my thoughts). IMO, that tea-talk you had there was a shitstorm, my eyes were burning after reading all of yous sentences (don't take it personally you guys didin't do anything wrong it wasn't a shitstorm in a bad way, just as in 'complicated'). and my comment about the Ministry of Religion-shit isn't a criticism of what you guys said, rather a statement of my own. Secondly i dont watch TV since my Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh days but i can guess that the situation there is really bad. With those marriage shows and poor girl rich boy dramas and some nationalistic talk shows and pop singers with shitty lyrics, oh man like i said i don't use my TV except for my X360. But im not talking nor denying these things. I'm just comparing Turkish TV to lets say more conservative or Islamist Pakistani or Jordanian or idk Syrian etc etc. My auntie was watching one of those boring-ask-fuck tv shows and the plot was just like that; a girl is pregnant but gets an abortion but she didin't know who was her father but then she digs deep and finds the guy, turns out that they were drunk af and had sex etc. anyways what im trying to say is that you can't find a fuckdup plot like that in a country with an islami(st)c mindset. im not arguing about the 'quality' just the content. lastyly, yes, of course i have a running vpn. those fuckers can't keep me away from reading just cuz they want the purge page removed.

@Icewhiz, shalom. whe could wipe out the whole sentence but we should mention secularism and multikulti in lede. america had the same assimilation programs (german-americans or irish-americans for example) but one can still say that america is a melting pot right? languages and religion is vastly affected but clothing, food, musical instruments and names of the local places are still on the use both in turkey and usa. cya. kazekagetr 15:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the comments here about multiculturalism would be intensely offensive to many Turks who consider themselves both Turkish and also having a mutlicultural identity. This is immensely important to many Turks. I don't think editors realize that these types of comments are not wanted or considered helpful by the Armenians, or Jews, or many of the Kurds who these editors are trying to speak for. I have read, for example, İshak Alaton's comments about this at length, and I would recommend it. The article is not only about Turkey's past, which is imperfect (but no state in history has been perfect). Turkey is multicultural, and this is widely supported by WP:RS. Saying Turkey is not multicultural is saying that everyone there is Muslim-Turkish, this simply is not true. The fact that there are some people in Turkey who want it to be true does not change this and should not be what the content of our lede is based on (as it gives undue weight to a minority opinion, and it is not an accurate statement of fact). Seraphim System (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
We are not here to placate the delicate feelings of Turks or Armenians, or Jews, or Kurds, or anyone. We are here discussing how to make a lead sentence accurately reflect article content, and what that article content should contain in order for it to accurately reflect the Turkey of today. The words multicultural or multiculturalism does not appear even once in the article, so why should there be a piped Wikilink to multiculturalism in the lead? I have removed that Wikilink. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
What should have happened is that there should have been discussion prior to the RfC proposal where editors such as myself, GGT and kazekagetr could have made alternate proposals and tweaked the wording based on discussion. There are some problems with the current wording that should not be resolved through outright removal. If a dispute arose during the discussions then an RfC could have been proposed with two or three options, that was clear about the lines of the dispute (we have separate discussions in this proposal for each part of the sentence - the main ones are democracy, secular and multicultural). The sentence should probably be modified, but not removed entirely. Now what is going to happen is most likely a dispute will arise over the modified version that is going to be added after this sentence is removed, and this RfC will have been a complete waste of community time. Seraphim System (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2017[edit]

Remove Category:Internet censorship by organisation Turkey is not an organisation. 2A02:C7F:7027:E900:B5BF:715E:A12B:4EA6 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Added colon to Internet censorship by organization above, so that the category would only be linked to and not include this page. Trivialist (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Parliamentary Democracy[edit]

I want to post an explanation of my reasoning here to gauge whether a second, more precise RfC will be necessary to resolve this. My hope is that reasonable editors can reach a consensus here.

  1. One issue is that the discussion followed the above RfC, and there was no prior discussion, Many who commented did not read the full discussion. My feeling is that we should have a discussion before an RfC, so those who comment on the RfC can benefit from it.
  2. Moving on, I have tried to revise the content of the article based on my understanding of the RfC, and more specifically the concerns that were raised by the editors.
  3. I should add that I do have some degree of specialized knowledge on the subject of constitutions and political theory.
  4. I am proposing adding "Parliamentary democracy" because this is the precise wording used by Britannica and other sources.
  5. Parliamentary democracy is more specific then what we colloquially understand as "democracy" - editors are not wrong to be concerned that using the term "democracy" would be misleading, as it generally includes features that are not currently well developed in Turkish government - but we have not yet had any discussion on what to replace it with.
  6. I think for an encyclopedic tone, it is best to be more precise, not less.
  7. For these reasons, based on the above RfC, I have also removed "Constitutional Republic" from the infobox. Many (all) of the concerns that were raised by editors involved issues such as free press, rights of minorities and rule of law. While this is a technical point that does not need to be discussed in the article, these rights are generally protected by courts and/or constitutions (which are non-democratic).
  8. I think the term "Parliamentary democracy" side steps the technical aspects of this discussion, and it is supported by WP:RS.

Seraphim System (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

We just had a protracted RfC. Support for democracy was limited, IIRC, to a single editor. While Britannica is a RS, it is a trietary source and not a secondary one, and may not yet reflect the changes to the Turkish system of gvmt - just as Wikipedia did not until recently. The existence of a parliament does not a "Parliamentary democracy" make if conditions necessary for a democracy do not exist.Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
It is a hybrid regime per Democracy Index 2016 (Wikipedia cliff note version, actual report - [13]). Freedom house agrees as well [14].Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Updated link.Icewhiz (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
And per recent coverage in RS - [15] [[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] - it is unlikely to improve in EIU democracy index (where it has dropped 0.7 points (in a 1-10 scale) from 2012 to 2016.Icewhiz (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


This is a reminder that the Lede follows the body. The content of the body should be determined before any major revisions to the LEDE. Both the proposer of the above RfC and the Closer should familiarize themselves with our basic policies before proposing/closing any further RfC's. I have reworked the lede to reflect the article content (the article content in turn reflects the content of several "main" articles on the various specific topics involved.) This is basically destructive to the encyclopedia and in violation of all of our policies. I very much recommend that the closer take some time off from closing RfCs. Seraphim System (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

And I recommend you approach AN and only AN (Venue is important! ), challenging the close of the RFC held above and prob. with a secondary proposal asking me to stay off from closing further RFCs.Further it may be prudential to note that a closure remains valid unless overturned, despite concerns of a heavily involved participant about it's validity.Also, this message was better suited for my t/p.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 10:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
That is your recommendation? AN/I and a proposal that you not be allowed to close RfCs? Because if that is your recommendation I certainly think AN/I should accommodate you. The closure does not even make sense. The content that is now in the lede is directly sourced in the article. It is, at best, messy incompetence. If MAJOR changes need to be made in this topic area that effect MULTIPLE articles it is pretty clear that a hasty RfC starting with the LEDE of the TOP LEVEL article is the wrong way to go about it. I don't know if you are an admin but unilaterally imposing major changes that effect multiple articles starting with the lede based on "common sense" and ZERO source based discussion seems like a pretty solid reason for editors to be irritated (and while in the minority the several editors who were upset by this were very seriously upset at this abuse, so please don't try to make it sound like it was just me voicing concerns.) Seraphim System (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! You are free to voice your concerns.As I said, I am not backing down from my close and if you are willing to overturn my close, approach AN.Cheers:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
That line is out, it is not the issue. You can not in your closing dictate the future content of the article or what topics may be discussed on talk in the future, you may not "judge" a dispute about a source between two editors in the extended discussion, say that one editors "Huffington Post" source trumps Britannica, and claim that you've done it all in the interests of not supervoting. This RfC was about removal of one line - and that is the ENTIRETY of what I intend to honor. That is the ONLY thing there is consensus for. Most people who commented on removal were not even peripherally involved in the extended discussion. For example, there were issues raised for example that "multicultural" was not in the article and so it should be removed from the lede. I also want to be clear up front for my reasons, because I have opened a discussion about this (that of course anyone is welcome to participate in.) Seraphim System (talk)" 11:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, what you are doing is bypassing the RFC closure on grounds of fine technicalities.That is not allowed.And thus, before you re-add any info pertaining to the part. words in the lead, that were removed as a result of the prev. RFC, regain consensus at this talk-page irrespective of the grammatical formatting of the sentence (you plan to add) and whether that is uni-sourced/multi-sourced/un-sourced.This statement may be viewed as an extension of the prev. RFC close.Thank you!Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
The closure was only for removal of that line. (For example some voted for remival because the line as it was written included content that was not discussed in the article. The only thing I've added is the most basic encyclopedic information that is already sourced and discussed in the article. If it is necessary to hahs this out to *clarify* the scope of your closing in AN/I then we can do that (or I will at least have to post there for discussion before RS/N or other boards because of the WP:FORUMSHOP rule) Seraphim System (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the venue of the disc. (about my initial closure and/or scope of it) shall take place at AN/ANI.No other board (RSN et al) are suited for the purpose.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 17:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Well let us see where the talk discussion I opened goes. If indeed a dispute arises about Britannica and WP:AGEMATTERS or the meaning of parliamentary democracy vs "democracy" ("parliamentary democracy" was not discussed at all the RfC) the closing will HAVR to be discussed first on AN/I before being posted to RS/n or any other other forum. I also also obliged to first attempt to discuss this with you (the closer), in the event that you voluntarily agree to clarify and limit your closing to question that was proposed in the RfC Seraphim System (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


Per the discussion and close in Talk:Turkey#RFC regarding a sentence in the lead and a subsequent mini-discussion in Talk:Turkey#Parliamentary Democracy, this RFC broadly reflects on:

Should we state in Wikipedia's voice that:--Turkey is a democratic, secular, unitary, parliamentary republic with a diverse cultural heritage or something alike in the lead?

There are 4 sections, corresponding to each of the 4 describers, with individual poser(s).

Thank you! Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Please indicate yes/no (and/or with short alternative wordings etc.) in each section, followed by any detailed elaborations under the corresponding section sub-headers.
  • Also, please try to refrain from any original research.Please discuss the best outcome in accordance to the sources, already present at the article or that you may have newly brought.
  • Pinging participants in previous RfC (semi-automated grep - if I missed anyone, please add): @Alexikoua: @AusLondonder: @EtienneDolet: @GGT: @Jeppiz: @KazekageTR: @Khirurg: @Mandruss: @Seraphim System: @Tiptoethrutheminefield: @Yerevantsi:Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Layout and wording of the RFC extensively added and reformatted/re-factored by Winged Blades of GodricOn leave at 08:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC).

Democratic and Parliamentary republic[edit]

  • Specific Poser--
    • With reference to the Turkey#Politics section, can Turkey be stated just as democratic and parliamentary republic or parliamentary democracy" in the lead in WP's voice?
    • If not, do we omit any information rel. to the concept from the lead or shall we specifically mention and differentiate between the de-juro and it's current de-facto condition (w.r.t to concerns about democracy in the state, shift to presidential system after the referendum et al.)?
    • If, it is the second choice, how do we frame the sentence?
    • Can parliamentary democracy" and/or constitutional republic be used in the government type field at the infobox in the lead?Also see another parameter proposal for the same field at the Unitary sub-section

Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Survey (Discussants, please just !vote, with desired phrasings(if any) under this header.For discussions, approach the discussion sub-header(s).
    • Omit Democracy (in any form in lead or body, sole exception being de-jure or self-declared status not in wiki's voice). While de-jure a democracy, the de-facto status is presently not supported by current RS. While it is relatively easy to pin down what Turkey IS NOT, it is complex (with possibly differing opinions) to state what it IS. If De-jure status is stated, we should also state the accepted current de-facto state of democracy in Trukey. Turkey is a hybrid regime per Democracy Index 2016 (Wikipedia cliff note version, actual report EIU democracy index (where it dropped substantially in its score in the past 5 years - some 0.7 points)). Freedom house agrees as well [22]. Trajectory per recent coverage in RS shows this is unlikely to improve (and quite possibly will decline) in the next yearly reports - [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28][29].12:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Discussion


  • Specific Poser--
    • In reference to the Turkey#Religion section, can Turkey be stated as secular in the lead in WP's voice?

Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Survey (Discussants, please just !vote under this header.For discussions, approach the discussion sub-header(s).)
    • No, or at the very least this needs to be qualified. To begin with the original concept is not quite aligned with other uses of secular state in that the gvmt always contained a Directorate of Religious Affairs (so it was not a separation of church and state, but rather a state of "active neutrality"). De-jure, it still is. However Erdoğan and the AKP are pursuing Islamization, as may be seen here (and the sources therein): Secularism in Turkey#AKP political agenda of Islamization. In addition the strict policy of Laïcité, which included civil servants, public university students, etc. not displaying Islamic affiliations, has been modified (as may be seen here and the sources therein - Headscarf rights in Turkey). When we add to this the Directorate of Religious Affairs (see sources in lead there) ballooning to 150,000 employees, a 24-Hr TV station, Quranic education, and on-request Fatwa issuance... And of course the ruling Justice and Development Party (Turkey) (in a non-democratic system - (see democracy section)) openly pursuing an 'Islamic-oriented,' 'Islamic-based' (and per some - Islamist) agenda... The 2016–17 purges in Turkey of Gülen movement supporters and others... Describing Turkey as secular requires some qualification or explanation.Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion


  • Specific Poser--
    • Can Turkey be stated as unitary in the lead in WP's voice?
    • Can unitary" be used in the government type parameter at the infobox in the lead?Also see another parameter proposal for the same field at the Democratic and Parliamentary republic sub-section
    • It may be noted that in the prev. RFC that out of all the words, this garnered maximum support for it's inclusion.

Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Survey (Discussants, please just !vote under this header.For discussions, approach the discussion sub-header(s).)
    • Yes. Turkey is described as unitary in sources I see (and Erdoğan is in favor of this presently (e.g. [30] [31]). So it can be stated as such, the sole question is phrasing/editorial.Icewhiz (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes I think this is the only one of these four adjectives that would work at this time thanks to developments over the past few years. The only question really would be regarding Turkish Kurdistan. South Nashua (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion

Diverse cultural heritage[edit]

  • Specific Poser--
    • In reference to the Turkey#Culture section, can WP's voice state Turkey to have a diverse cultural heritage, in the lead ?
    • If not, do we omit any information rel. to the concept from the lead or alter the wording to some other expression?

Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Survey (Discussants, please just !vote with desired phrasings(if any) under this header.For discussions, approach the discussion sub-header(s).)
    • Omit. There are two problems with the statement - for starters the "heritage" qualifier is puffery (which may be applied to many cultures) and is not quantifiable - the original sentence in the lead further compounded this by pipelinking "Diverse cultural heritage" to Multiculturalism. If we leave the history of culture on the side (since most non-isolated cultures claim various historical influences), in the quantifiable sense - Turkey is not presently (self-perception aside) multicultural or diverse culturally. This may be seen in this source - Fearon, James D. "Ethnic and cultural diversity by country." Journal of economic growth 8.2 (2003): 195-222. or in the wiki-version (that also contains Alesina's ranking) - List of countries ranked by ethnic and cultural diversity level - where Turkey ranks low in diversity. - and this fully includes the Kurds (who are suppressed/in-conflict with the gvmt to various degrees - and per the metric in the cited paper contribute most of the existing diversity). The text in the body may need to be updated to reflect the discussion here regarding the lead.Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Struck aside comment, which is mostly irrelevant to the !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion

General Discussion[edit]

Comment I'm not partcipating, but as my input was invited I will leave a comment here, hopefully this will be useful to those who are participating:

  1. Democracy - Britannica is current. If an update were appropriate, I think Britannica would have updated. This is the online edition, and I don't think we should be "ahead" of them on an issue like this. I have read the new Constitution. The discussion right now is whether Turkey is a parliamentary democracy. Maybe it isn't, but the current sources still support it. It could be a Presidential democracy, but that is an update that had not been made in any legitimate WP:RS yet. BTW, our article on Iraq still calls it a "Federal parliamentary republic" and our article on Syria still calls it a "Presidential republic", anti-Erdogan WP:ADVOCACY is really not an excuse to make a change like this and then misrepresent the sources as "not current" - I suppose no source is "Current" unless is supports the editorial changes being pushed here, including Britannica. "Hybrid government" is not actually a thing, we don't write our articles based on one primary source study, and there is a clear and bolded request to avoid WP:OR in the proposal.
  2. Secularism again following the WP:RS Turkey's government is considered secular. General comments about inconsistent features like religious education, or state funding of religious institutions Directorate of Religious Affairs is all WP:OR. Once again, editors pushing these changes are not following WP:RS and are making things up. Despite the clear and unambiguous request to avoid WP:OR, I see the same WP:OR from the previous RfC being repeated here. The editor who first made this arguments has been indeff'd as a sockpuppet, but his argument is still being repeated here, and it is still unsourced WP:OR. (Problems like this are why I have stopped editing. That is all I have time for.) Seraphim System (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

ADD also this comment from Icewhiz The text in the body may need to be updated to reflect the discussion here regarding the lead - This is not how we write articles. After all he has said here and on other articles, he should be topic banned for repeated WP:OR like pushing Fearon to support his thesis on multiculturalism ("per the metric in the cited paper"). Obviously the article does not need to be "updated" to reflect one editors WP:OR. If the article needs to be updated, Icewhiz should wait until scholarship is published that supports the theories he has been trying to push here. Seraphim System (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please cease WP:NPA. Regarding "The text in the body may need to be updated to reflect the discussion here regarding the lead" - this was said in regards to the RfC, and was qualified with a may. Regarding "per the metric in the cited paper" - This was an aside, in parenthesis, noting that Fearon's low multicultural score includes the suppressed ethnic groups, and is if at all generous. My comment on Turkey's multicultural status is based directly on the ranking by Fearon, without any OR.Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It is in fact WP:OR. It is a primary source "metric" that you are using to support your own analysis, there is no secondary analysis in the paper. The fact that do not understand that it is WP:OR and that this is now an ongoing issue on multiple critical articles and seems to be connected to a identifiable POV is why you should be topic banned. There is nothing ad hominem about it. Seraphim System (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
You are cherry picking and misquoting me, however I struck this aside comment as over-verbose and not relevant to the actual !vote. Fearon is a widely cited source ([32]).Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Where did I misquote you? Fearon may be widely cited, but the way you are using it is still WP:OR - a secondary source is based on analysis of primary sources, Fearon is a primary source for his own study. Once again, all I am seeing from your comment is that you still do not understand this. This is not the first time I have taken the time to explain this, and I think that I have been patient. It has not helped. Even assuming good faith, it is starting to be a problem. These articles are not supposed to be ahead of the current scholarship. I think that is enough back and forth, it makes it hard for other editors to follow the discussion.Seraphim System (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment about above (stayed) Rfc[edit]

I oppose this putative RfC on procedural grounds. The previous RfC was very thorough and was properly closed, we absolutely do not need another RfC, especially something as convoluted as this. Just because one user did not like the results of the previous RfC, doesn't mean we should waste the community's time with another RfC. Khirurg (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Regretably, the community has unanimously endorsed my closure with calls for a future RFC as correct.So, the RFC needs to be done.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Democracy vs. Neocolonialism[edit]

I am not the one who suggested taking Democracy out of the lede, nor am I the one who suggested closing the RfC against Britannica. I made every effort to resolve this in the simplest way possible by continuing to call Turkey a democracy, the way we continue to call many non-democratic countries democracies. However the alternate argument for what Turkey IS is a neocolonial government, one of many in the region, whose foreign policy/military/economy is not independent of Western interests. (This, incidentally, is why no one is rushing to update.) This has been published, BUT I am not going to directly engage with one editor User:IceWhiz and go back and forth I want other editors to have a chance to discuss this. I feel I have interacted with this one editor enough in the last little while, and I want some input from other editors who use WP:RS instead of a WP:FORUM like discussion. I rely heavily on WP:RS in my editing and if there continue to be problems with one editor who pushes me to have non-source based discussions I am going to have to ask for help from dispute resolution, because this is really ruining my editing experience. I hope other editors will get involved, thanks. It seems pretty clear that we need to agree on something to put in the "Government type" box, and neocolonialism has been floating around for a while, and is a fairly credible and well-regarded academic argument. Thank you, Seraphim System (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources are clearly lacking for Neocolonialism.Icewhiz (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
If no other editors want to offer input or suggest helpful WP:RS I will add the sources directly to the article. (I can provide translated quotes for foreign language sources upon request.) Seraphim System (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
This is completely insane. You are not making any sense. You should be topic banned for wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. Khirurg (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Seraphim System:--The ANI thread is going to be closed anytime from now-onwards and once it's closed, I will soon launch the above-drafted RFC.You are thus requested to specifically post any other option for the two infobox parameters, that you would like to see and I will add them as options (though the onus to source them, will be obviously on you, which you may provide after the RFC is opened).You may also post any general feedback about the draft-RFC but keep them concise and to the point.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm not participating in this RfC and I don't even have a proposal. I don't think a 5 part RfC that just went through a long dispute needs to have more things added to it right now. I just wanted some ideas from other editors and am still working on a proposal for this, but it is going to take months. I am still doing research to see if there are sufficient sources to justify a proposal/edit, and wanted to see if any editors wanted to discuss/help/make alternate suggestions based on WP:RS. I also think someone other then you should close the second RfC, if other editors still want to have one. I will propose when I am ready, Thanks, Seraphim System (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I also don't support proposing RfC's before an issue has been discussed on talk, and this has never been discussed. Seraphim System (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I will make one comment regarding the infobox. Removing democracy from the lede is one thing, but I don't know why that RfC was ever construed to cover the infobox in the edit warring that ensued. Why would you remove from the infobox something that is already in the article? Anyone is free to propose any RfC they want, but if I propose, it will be in my own RfC with my preferred format (fully sourced, written out in option 1,you option 2 format - I find this format to be the clearest and most helpful). Most likely I will work on creating a separate article first, to prepare. Seraphim System (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Full protection in place. Less reverting, more discussing.18:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


these new languages are not recgonised legally nor other than kurdish are they spoken widely. maybe if you put the languages in the respected Regions and not here it would make sense. Also a change like that SHOULD require a consensus. I make one tiny change on an NON RELEVANT photo and everyone goes mad

Well sourced to Ethnologue. Each of the mentioned languages are used by more than 1 million people. For the many other, the link to Languages of Turkey gives more detailed info. I see no problem. --T*U (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Then go to that page. this is the page for the country so I dont want to see these languages. You dont see this on Americas or Frances page

What you want to see is not of interest to Wikipedia. When there are so many languages spoken by more than 1 million people each, plus so many other languages, that is of interest. --T*U (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Establishment of the state[edit]

The empire was founded in 1299, many events transpired, the important ones worthy of the infobox are really just the empire foundation, the dissolution of the empire (1919) and the declaration of the republic (1923). lets do that. Turkey has signed dozens of treaties over centuries so these two kars/lausanne are not for the infobox but the history section

I agree that 1299 should be mentioned, but it has to be named as "Ottoman Empire", not only "Empire". The Republic of Turkey has never been an empire, and there is no continuation from OE to Turkey. Turkey is a successor state, but not the same state. --T*U (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I did change to Ottoman Empire and also linked in the lede Seraphim System (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


Altough Turkey has no official emblem, the star and crescent is being used on passports, ID cards, driving licences, embassy signs, seal of the presidential office, seal of the TBMM and the seal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We can discuss here if it's suitable to add the emblem. Redman19 (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Do NOT add the emblem. Why do you exactly want to do that? What does an unofficial emblem have to do with encyclopedic content? Canada uses the maple leaf in the very same manner, but no conversation over there about this? It is not even classified as an emblem, it is a national symbol and a simplification of the flag.

De Jure democracy?[edit]

I am confused. What makes Turkey a "de jure" democracy. its the only par. system in europe with general and presidential elections. an authoritarian government does not make it a "de jure" democracy. and the government may take the press issue too far, but many arrests are for propoganda for the pkk. so I dont care if you think the pkk is some freedom fighting army, your country calls it a terror org. I wonder if anybpdy would care if britain started shutting down IRA media or if iraq did the same for ISIS. this is the same thing

I've replaced the phrase, as it's the constitution I believe that was meant to refer to [[33]]. Therefore, it says that now. Hope that's acceptable. --Calthinus (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that "de jure" should not be used unless there is a very good reason to use it over plain English. Seraphim System (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

highly disruptive recent edits[edit]

a couple people have made some really disruptive edits just now, changing up the introduction and even insulting Turkey in the summary. I am not going to engage in an edit war so please will one of you professional edits fix back the article? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talkcontribs) 20:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent disputes[edit]

As these don't appear to be discussed on the talk page, I will start sections to discuss them.

Should Ottoman Empire be included in the infobox as an "established event"?[edit]

Discuss. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No, because it's a separate state. Khirurg (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be included. Seraphim System (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

PLEASE go ahead and delete UK, Germany, France, and all european countries previous states from the info box. cause they all have empire this and republic that on there. Hypocrites! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talkcontribs)

At Succession_of_states#Ottoman_Empire.2FTurkey, it says "There is some debate over whether the modern Republic of Turkey is a continuing state to the Ottoman Empire or a successor." power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I checked United Kingdom and I don't see any previous states listed but I checked Italy and it does have a formation section, which could be appropriate here instead of "established event" - with the caveat that putting this section together is unlikely to be straightforward, as the history is varied and long. Seraphim System (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Seraphim System. Ottoman Empire should be in the infobox - but not as an "established event".Icewhiz (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Looking at other countries, I've added a header field; the inclusion of pre-20th century dates should make more sense with the right header text. I think that something for the Ottomans should be included; the other question is whether any dates for the Byzantine Empire or Sultanate of Rum should be listed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
In the start I had a weak support for including "Ottoman Empire 1299", but with the heading "Formation" I would change that to a strong support. If we accept it as a continuing state (which I disagree with), it has to be mentioned. But even as a successor state, it is quite natural to include the state it succeeds. As for the Rum Sultanate, I am more doubtful. Certainly not continuing, and not really a successor, just another state in parts of the same area. As for the Byzantine Empire, no way! --T*U (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
None of these states should be included in the infobox imo. Too controversial, wikipedia's voice shouldn't say anything on the matter let alone in an infobox.--Calthinus (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It should be there. why? Because It Is So On Every State On Wikipedia. Italy has the year 894 or something. You are all trying to belittle Turkey and make it look unhistoric. I request you remove the previous states on ALL country articles. or you are all hypocrites. no insult. thats the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talkcontribs) 17:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
If Italy has the year 894, that might be a candidate for removal. But at least there was a medieval kingdom, ruled by Goths, called Italy, that people like Dante and Garibaldi drew inspiration from. The same is not really true of Turkey, and whether Turkey has continuity from the Ottoman Empire is a debate among historians, with many Turkish historians passionately disagreeing with you, so aside from civility issues, it makes no sense for you to accuse everyone else of "trying to belittle Turkey". Indeed Kemalism has always prided itself as being a forward looking ideology which disregarded the past. --Calthinus (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I am truly amazed that you claim historians have been debating the succession. Most, if not all Turks see the Ottoman as the State of Turkey? Where have you been? Many historians disagreeing with me? Who! Half of Turkey today has actually become neo ottoman under that fool erdogan. You just do not want Turkey to look like it is a historic state, just some country founded last century. I am a Kemalist and I see Ottoman as the past state. pretty much 99% of Turkey does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talkcontribs) 12:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I am truly amazed that you claim I have some agenda to make Turkey not "look like it is a historic state". Yes whether Turkey is the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, or if it is instead one of many nations that declared independence and fought against the remnant of that empire (as well as Western powers) in the Turkish War of Independence is debated between historians and political scientists, including Turkish ones. Here's Emre Öktem: [[34]]. --Calthinus (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I am afraid you do. how is it that MKA fought a war of independence, against Turks? The ottoman empire was called Turkey from the 1800s onwards? The "turkish genocide against the armenians"? it wasnt called ottoman genocide? The armenians are not against the ottoman empire, they hate Turks? It is almost ridiculous to claim that Turkey fought a national campaign against Turkey. It is the Empire of Turkey for christs sake. We have the same flag?! Damn it I am putting it on the info box. Italy, France, Germany, they all have the same, even though these loser countries have had about 25 different republics and monarchies and whatnot over the last 5 centuries, when Turkey has had just one empire and one republic over 700 years

Should Kurds be discussed in the lead?[edit]

There are still some disagreements here, but none of them appear to involve the phrasing in the lead of this article. Closing this before it goes too far on a WP:FORUM tangent. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A pre-edit war version (Special:PermanentLink/785179050) includes the sentence "Kurds are the largest ethnic minority group, making up approximately 20% of the population." power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Considering Kurds are the largest minority (when they are recognized), and are involved in an on-going internal armed conflict against Turkey as well as cross-border conflicts (notably Syria (recently), Iraq (on-going), and Iran (less in the news at the moment).20:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talkcontribs)
That's a no brainer, considering they make up 20% of the pop. What we have here are some POV-pushers trying to use various gimmicks to hide or minimize their mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khirurg (talkcontribs)

I've re-added this to the lead; it was removed in the latest revert. I'm not sure why it was removed initially. If anyone objects they should discuss their reasons here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, I think the CIA is not a WP:RS for this or anything else in which they have political involvement and interests. They are fine for some things, like who the current President is, but the consensus at RS/n where this is discussed is that editors need to show good judgment in using this as a source. Other sources have been added for this which I have not yet checked to verify. As long as it is sourced in a way that is credible, it's not a huge problem - I think we would have to look at whether it is WP:DUE, not whether it should be featured in the WP:LEDE per WP:NPOV Seraphim System (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not certain the 20% number is accurate (and agree that the CIA World Factbook is not the best source here), but I believe it is non-controversial that the Kurds are the largest minority, and I feel it is WP:DUE to mention that in the lead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Pody removed two additional references for the 20% figure, which I had provided yesterday. I have readded them. Dr. K. 21:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Separately, I don't think being "legally recognized" in the 1921 Treaty of Lausanne is relevant or WP:DUE for the lead. Currently, it reads: Kurds are the largest ethnic minority group. Legally recognised ethnic groups include the Armenian, Greek and Jewish minorities. Unrecognised ethnic groups include the Kurdish, Circassian, Albanian, Arabic, Bosniak and Georgian minorities. I'd like to reduce this to one sentence that makes clear what the largest current ethnic groups are. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The figure of 20% is in fact quite reasonable and well sourced. There are even reliable sources that say they are 25% of the population [35]. Khirurg (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The distinction between "legally recognised" and "unrecognised" is not relevant for the current situation. The well-sourced number of 20% should be in, since Kurds are a much larger group than any others. Or if other sources have other numbers, make it 17-22% or 20-25% or whatever the sources say. --T*U (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Of course Kurds should be in the lede, and despite apparent attempts to delete it the 20% figure seems exceedingly well-sourced so I don't understand (?) why there is a dispute here. Also, why are the Laz people, indigenous to the eastern Pontic region, not mentioned at all?--Calthinus (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Calthinus: The explanation would be that the only languages mentioned are the ones that have more than 1M users according to the Ethnologue source. All others are covered by the link from "various others" to Languages of Turkey. It would be possible to add other languages that have more than 1M users according to other sources, but it might easily be a problem of WP:SYNTH. --T*U (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
TU-nor that's not what I meant, but thanks for fixing that sentence so that it excludes Bulgarian which has less than 1M speakers, I was about to mention that. There's no way Laz has over 1M speakers, they are quite assimilated and the language is endangered. I have my doubts about Circassian (Kabardin wtv) having over 1M in 2017 and Ethnologue says the source for that is a Circassian activist organization in 2005... Ethnologue also says Pontic and Armenian (Hemshin) are "non-indigenous" so at this point I wonder if we should be looking for other sources to replace it with.
I meant this sentence : Ethnic minorities include Armenians, Greeks and Jews, Kurds, Circassians, Albanians, Arabs, Bosniaks and Georgians-- surely the Laz deserve mention there, as there are more of them there than some of these, and unlike five of the nine, they are indigenous. Every other indigenous group (except marginal Assyrians and debatable Bulgarians) is mentioned. Anyways WP:NOTSYNTH#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition.--Calthinus (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The Minorities in Turkey page needs significant improvements and gives no guidance. Demographics of Turkey suggests the absolute number of Laz is low enough that it shouldn't be in the lead, but (as noted above) that's purely a linguistic measurement, not an ethnic one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
power~enwiki For measuring ethnicity not language (thanks to Turkification policies by the Republic of Turkey many Laz no longer speak their language, as is the case with Irish people), we have 0.3 million to 1.6 million. That's taken from Laz people. That's larger than some of the groups currently listed. Actually it's the same rough scale as most of them except Kurds (who are much more). --Calthinus (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Do you have a specific proposal to replace Ethnic minorities include Armenians, Greeks and Jews, Kurds, Circassians, Albanians, Arabs, Bosniaks and Georgians.? I don't like the current version, but just adding Laz to the end doesn't fix it. Without some table of the most-populous minorities, I don't know what else should be included. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring the first three (which are largely historical in nature and possibly should be removed), the list appears to be the largest five groups, note [36] and [37] which say that (after Kurds) Circassian, Bosniak, Albanian, Georgian and Arab are the five largest minorities. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well I got rid of the unnecessary "and" that I think formerly separated the recognized minorities from the (larger but Muslim) unrecognized ones. As for the sentence I don't really like it either but I know better than to open that Pandora's box on a page like this. All I propose is adding the Laz, because I think it's wrong to exclude Turkey's currently second largest indigenous minority (I'm considering Zazas to be Kurds) from a basic list. Fix what you can. --Calthinus (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Re the newer comment: as I understand it, the reason Greeks, Armenians and Jews were included was because they were officially recognized as minorities, and that the former two are indigenous. Personally I am also of the opinion that indigenous status should also be a consideration, not just size, and that the margin of inclusion should be lower for indigenous minorities because their homelands lie at least in part within Turkey, so obviously their presence is more significant. --Calthinus (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be minimal objection to the current version of Approximately 70-80% of the country's citizens identify themselves as ethnic Turks. Kurds are the largest minority at about 20% of the population, and other ethnic minorities include Circassians, Albanians, Arabs, Bosniaks and Georgians. As far as Laz are concerned, Wikipedia has a bunch of conflicting information; Template:Demographics of Turkey suggests that Laz are a subset of Georgians. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If we've excluded the other native minorities save Kurds, and are going solely by (poorly estimated) size, then I'd rather leave the page as it is then risk reopening a touchy issue. I think it is important to open the Laz but not at any cost. Yes wiki has conflicting information. Laz in Turkey do not identify as a subset of Georgian, Muslim or otherwise (but do recognize Georgians as kindred); those in Georgia do identify as Georgians just like Svans and Mingrelians, if that clears things up a bit. --Calthinus (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I am reminding editors to consider their comments here carefully - "thanks to Turkification" makes it sound like someone other then our editors is complaining. I think the insight that is missing here is that many Turks of different origins love the Turkish language, and self-identify as Turkish. In fact, if you read primary sources and testimonies you will find that the complaints center around not being accepted as Turkish for religious reasons, not denial of Turkishness. I am once again, in good faith, urging you to exercise some restraint in making these kinds of comments on behalf of other peoples. Seraphim System (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I know someone is going to say "Well what about the Kurds, they don't love Turkish language" - let me address this. The Kurds are a special case, and I see in the comments a tendency to generalize from this and make broad sweeping generalizations. This is poor reasoning. That said, it is an important case and deserves consideration. Significant work that has been done on this subject has looked into whether or not Kurds were assimilated as other groups were - in other words whether they were given the same access to education and why the "Turkification" policies in the Reform era failed in this one instance (where they were tremendously successful everywhere else.) Second, Kurdish language was not banned until after the 1980 coup. This was generally a product of the Cold War politics of the 1970s. The brief version is that the way that it is being represented in the comments here is not in accordance with the views of serious scholarship on this topic. Seraphim System (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System this is devolving into WP:FORUM but please quit attributing behavior to me against my will. I am not trying to "speak on behalf" of any people -- actually if I was that would make me an WP:ADVOCATE and would not be good editing practice. I am speaking only for myself and what I view as good policy. --Calthinus (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How should World War I genocides be discussed in the lead?[edit]

Please discuss in the open RfC instead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A pre-edit war version (Special:PermanentLink/785179050) includes the sentence "During the war, the Ottoman government committed genocides[III] against its Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek citizens." power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes - at least as long as consensus in Assyrian genocide, Armenian Genocide, and Greek genocide doesn't change - these were major events in forming the Turkish nation state out of the Ottoman empire.Icewhiz (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
A clear consensus formed in favor this in an earlier discussion (maybe 1-2 years ago.Khirurg (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
What is the problem with the version in the text now? It is more neutral and encyclopedic. The fact that Turkey has denied the genocide has been added, because it was previously in a footnote. The Pontic Genocide is disputed by a significant number of scholars,including recognized experts on the Armenian genocide, so it can't be stated this way. I wasn't involved in any previous consensus discussions. Seraphim System (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree with Seraphim — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talkcontribs) 20:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The current version (as of Special:PermanentLink/808256516 is: It is widely accepted by scholars, the international community and legal experts that the Turkish government committed genocide against the Armenians during the war. The government of Turkey denies there was an act of ethnic cleansing. Significant scholarship has been published discussing genocide against the Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek citizens of Ottoman Turkey. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The text highlighted in green was in fact sneakily added by Serpahim System using a deceitful edit summary [38]. There is no consensus to include it and in fact it is undue for the lede. Also, would people proeprlu indent their comments? Khirurg (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The genocides are undue for the lede? Seraphim System (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Sigh*. No, the way you turned the original sentence into three sentences is undue. One sentence is all that's due, period. Not three. Khirurg (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Turkification be discussed in the lede?[edit]

Removed by Seraphim System, re-instated by Icewhiz. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, this is a major topic for Turkey. How the former Greco-Roman civilization came to identify as Turkish, and of course subsequent Turkification in later eras had a major impact on Turkey and Turkish society.Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree it is a major topic, but this isn't a sandbox, and I checked the sources - they fail verification. It is WP:OR. You need to find sources for this specific analysis and jargon, and all the other things you want to add. We just talked about this. The main Turkification article itself is in extremely poor shape. It said that Turkification and Islamification were the same thing ("becoming Turk" and "becoming Muslim")- it further said this was the etymology. It's fairly clear that this is preposterous. Is Turkification a major article? Like Hellenization, and Latinization, yes it is, and I am trying to work on it. This is not helping improve the articles. It's easy to want to add things, it's harder to do the work to add them. Seraphim System (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Your personal opinions aside, Turkification amply meets notability guidelines and there is no lack of sources. Turkification and Islamization overlapped (and conversely - being a Greek Orthodox, etc.) to a large degree (with the exception of Muslim areas (mainly Arab)) and the two are used interchangeably in some sources. Your opinion on the state of Turkification is not grounds for removal here.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Icewhiz. This is just WP:JDL disruption. Khirurg (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It is unsourced and as long as it is unsourced it can not be in the article. End of discussion. Seraphim System (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Do you know what Turkification is? Khirurg (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems incredibly odd that Hellenization would be mentioned but Turkification would not. That said, I don't know what the term means, and thus I'm not certain that the attribution to the 11th century is accurate. The Seljuk Turks began migrating into the area in the 11th century, starting the process of Turkification, which was accelerated by the Seljuk victory over the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Turkification describes exactly the process by which Anatolia went from predominantly Greek-speaking and Christian to Turkish-speaking and Muslim over the course of several centuries. The process had already started in the 11th century, before Manzikert, and greatly accelerated afterwards. Khirurg (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree, and most likely Turkification should be mentioned but I could not verify that it began in the 11th century or was accelerated at the Battle of Manzikert in the sources that were cited. It is an academic jargon term and like Hellenization, it requires a serious amount to work to improve this content. When does it start, when does it end? It is a complex phenomenon that spans regions and centuries, and unless there is a source that says "X marks in the beginning of the Turkification in Region Y" adding it to the article is WP:OR - I reviewed the citations and could not find such a source. But the article is not written according to the Authoritative Khirurg. The next step is to post some sources on this page. Seraphim System (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
We do not have to marry Turkification to the 11th century in the lead. While the exact start may be debatable, the end result is not and the process itself is quite important for the article.Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Where is the source that connects Turkification to Islam? I thought it was linguistic (as Hellenization in Israel for example) ... and more complex then the Greeks are Christian and the Turks are Muslim. Unfortunately this strong POV-based editing is disruptive to editors trying to do constructive work in this area. Seraphim System (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It is pervasive, and some choose to look via A, some via B, and some via A+B. Note that Hellenization in the Judean context was also similar in that it was a (often)Lingustic+(often)Religious shift. Prior to the age of nations, these often went in lockstep.... For Orthodox populations this often went together, see for instance Greek Muslims and the sources there.Icewhiz (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
There are also Crypto-jews, and Crypto-christians and Bektashi who "don't believe in the trinity" - in Israel there was a schism, as there was with Latinization. These things are complex, and discussing them is fascinating, but without sources, it is not helping us add it back into the article. Seraphim System (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Support inclusion The demographic transition process from Byzantine Greek to Ottoman Turkish had repercussions all over the place, of course it deserves mention of some form. --Calthinus (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I think there is consensus to include, but no one seems to want to do the work to actually any WP:RS. I will do it eventually but am in the middle of some things right now. Seraphim System (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Some brief Google searching gives some sources (such as [39]) that use the term Turkification to refer to actions in the 1920s; as long as the context and the WikiLink target are clear that shouldn't be relevant. This web forum discussion mentions some reference materials. This book declares Manzikert to have "a key symbolic role as initiating the process of Turkification of Anatolia", but the full context is more mixed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a review of a book by S Vyronis on the topic, which says "The basic premise, which is generally accepted, is that the Turkish conquest of the area began in 1071 with the battle of Manzikert." It (citing the book itself may be better, if somebody has access) should be sufficient as a reference for including this in the lead, though the existing wording may need to be improved to make clear that this was a centuries-long process. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

sourced content[edit]

Ottoman empire was a world power according to source, you all removed it. who is a "pov pusher"? absurd! why should languages of minorities be in infobox, thats intro section information Ottoman empire was the previous regime of Turkey, france uk germany all do the same, hypocrisy there!

can anybody justify?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talkcontribs) 20:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC) 
In general I would appreciate it if everyone could maintain basic civility in their edit summaries, and follow WP:BRD - the justifications for many of this reverts have been specious at best. This tactic of wearing editors down is part of WP:ADVOCACY, and basic civility is a minimum requirement for discussion and collaborative editing. I suspect editors are aware of this, and this is causing the edit warring problems on this article (and several others). Seraphim System (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC Genocides[edit]

Which of these for the LEDE?

Option 1: During the war, the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek citizens.

Option 2: It is widely accepted by scholars, the international community and legal experts that the Ottoman Turkish government committed genocide against the Armenians during the war. The government of Turkey denies there was an act of ethnic cleansing. Significant scholarship has been published discussing genocide against the Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek populations of Ottoman Turkey.

Option 3: It is widely accepted by scholars, the international community and legal experts that the Ottoman Turkish government committed genocide against the Armenians during the war. The government of Turkey denies there was an act of ethnic cleansing.

  • See extended discussion for debate about including disputed genocides in the LEDE.

Seraphim System (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Option 1, in concise and encyclopedic, per WP:SS, WP:LEDE. Option 2 is long, verbose and WP:UNDUE for the lead. Khirurg (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - concise as a lede should be, without confounding the reader with false balance.Icewhiz (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - Whether or not actions against the Greeks constitute genocide is disputed by a significant scholars and experts on the Armenian genocide. I am being told the "consensus on Wikipedia" is that it was genocide - but there should not be a consensus about whether or not it was genocide on Wikipedia. If there is significant dispute in scholarship, we can't just ignore it because Khirurg and Icewhiz want us to. Also the statement that the Ottomans committed the genocide should be balanced against the Turkish government's denial. This is usual practice when government's deny certain actions, and I don't see any need to diverge from it here. Also, I am not sure if everyone who was effected was a "citizen". Seraphim System (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - this should be succint and straight to the point. Let’s be careful when bloating the lead. If users want to learn about the role the Turkish government has played during and after the Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian genocides, they can easily access the articles of these events. That should be suffice. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - per Icewhiz. --T*U (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • None - the nature of the campaign against the Greeks indeed a matter of dispute as any reading of the archives of that talk page can tell, but these are issues that should be addressed there. The only problem is that Option 1 implies systematic and direct government involvement in all three campaigns, which is not necessarily true for the Assyrian genocide. This had a different nature - there were no systematic orders of deportation and the chief researchers of the genocide are of the view that this rather boiled down to local initiatives. See the section on this there. Option 1 is as such an oversimplification and inaccurate. Options 2 and 3 definitely contravene WP:LEAD. We need another alternative. --GGT (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Plenty of scholarship lumps all three genocides together as part of the same policy of extermination. The lede of the article is not for hair splitting. Khirurg (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Plenty of (on average) more detailed scholarship has a more nuanced approach than that. Pointing out inaccurate statements about an entire genocide is not hair splitting. --GGT (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing "inaccurate" about Option 1. See WP:JDL. Khirurg (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm familiar with that. It's not a statement of dislike, it's a statement of reasoned concern based on academia by a user who wrote a good part of the article on the Assyrian genocide. We simply just can't write articles based on only the scholarship that lumps the three genocides together, and we can't use them selectively for an over-simplification. The dismissive comment above is actually pretty uncivil. --GGT (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not an oversimplification, it's an encyclopedically succinct summary, per WP:LEDE. Details can discussed in the respective articles. Khirurg (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@GGT: How about you suggest one? I can see the merits of separating the Armenian genocide from the others. But we do need to keep it short and to the point, and no throw doubt where it is not there (e.g. there is discussion over genocide classification but hardly any doubts the events occured).Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it definitely needs to be as you described. Which is why I was not immediately able to come up with something, but it will happen. Otherwise Option 1 is the one that is currently in the article anyway, I believe. --GGT (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - per Icewhiz and Khirurg for me as well. We need to be careful as to not bloat the lede while mentioning these important governmental policies that left an everlasting impact to the country. --SILENTRESIDENT 06:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • None - none of the sentences reflects facts. The statement "widely accepted by scholars, the international community and legal experts" simply is not true, especially regarding the alleged Greek Genocide. If you look into that article, you'll see that it's recognized only by a handful of European countries, two of them being Greek themselves (Greece and Cyprus). They were recognized by those parliaments based on the lobbyism of political groups, not by decrees or reports of historians or whatsoever. It's a similar case with the Assyrian one. You should just check which countries in the UN recognize those alleged genocides, and then compare the numbers. And they should be handled seperately, since they are not connected. Akocsg (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment I would drop genocide as fact and use massacre and ethnic cleansing instead. I would add at least elements within the Ottoman government or similar wordings instead of plain Ottoman government. Since there is no events (including what happened during WWII) which would still qualify exclusivally as genocide by its original definition (that's why terms like functionalism and similar constructs have emerged), true concensus will never be reachable with the three proposed options (if that was possible articles like the Holocaust would have reached GA statue by now). Genocide word could still be used, but to stat that it is often being called genocide (instead of stating it is one) or in foreign languages (Armenian, Greek, Syriac: where they injoy true concensus). Since the term is not universal, it's a construct and therefor can never describe an event beyond its defined parametters. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System: The horrible and beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that the editing history is open to view. That means that when you accuse someone of lying here and then remove the comment here, the accusation is still open to see. But there was no lie, was there? In this and the following edits, you actually edit war to remove from the lede among other things the sentence "During the war, the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek citizens." Please refrain from personal attacks. Accusing people of lying is unacceptable. --T*U (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@T*U: Thank you T*U. Unfortunately this is not the only time this account has spread blatantly deceitful (dis)information about me. I have collected diffs about the disinformation from this account and I showed them to you on your talk. Perhaps, you also noticed the attacking edit-summary, calling good-faith editors "trolls" while removing his/her blatantly deceitful allegation. This kind of behaviour is utterly disruptive.

As far as this article, you can check the deceptive edit-summaries, in the links I, and also you, provided above, talking about paleolithic/neolithic content at the lead or content not discussed at the body of the article, while removing all mention of Genocides from this article. The disruption continues unabated. Dr. K. 08:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you think this is the appropriate place for this discussion? How many edit wars have I been involved in? How many edit wars has Dr.K. been involved in? How many of his edits have been to article talk pages - 9.2%. How many of mine? 27.1% - ok, case closed. I removed the entire section because the entire section needs to be rewritten based on the sources that are in the article, and because Ottoman history is overemphasized for an article that is not about Ottoman history, not because it mentions genocides. This is some weird ego drama that I don't want to deal with. Since you've seen my talk page, I can only assume you have also seen that I am no longer editing, and that I removed this comment because I don't think you are credible and I do not want to talk to you, so I can only conclude that you are pinging me in a reply to a deleted comment because you enjoy drama. Seraphim System (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Do you think this is the appropriate place for this discussion? Yes, since this is where you accused people of lying in your edit summary. I don't think you are credible Fine, I only wonder how and why you have decided that I am not credible. Credible how? I do not want to talk to you Then why do you? you are pinging me in a reply to a deleted comment because you enjoy drama Nope, I do not enjoy drama. But: The main point in my last edit stands: Please refrain from personal attacks. Accusing people of lying is unacceptable. And as for your comments towards me, whatever happened to WP:AGF? --T*U (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I assume good faith until I am proven wrong. I don't think that an editor who is regularly involved in edit warring but has 9.2% of edits to article talk pages is acting in good faith. It is not credible that you care so much about accusations of lying, yet say nothing about the numerous personal attacks the editor you are defending has made. Seraphim System (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The position he (SS) maintains has an existence of its own, doesn't matter if he was (or wasn't) deceitful. Might be he does not have any problem with the word genocide being mentioned, but only the way it is mentioned. There is a distinction between writing an event is a a) genocide or an event is b) often called a genocide. I proposed proposition b). Reason is that while massacre relate to general and universal human behaviors (does not have an author), the word genocide is a construction and therefor authored (Lemkin). The initial concept, in its original form isn't tenable (relies on the state apparatus) anymore making it open to interpretations (which are never fully generalizable). It relies entirely on a form of academical or group driven solipsism. We shouldn’t name on Wikipedia historic events by authored terms (in this case models). I made my point, so there is no point adding more.Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think in cases where there have been formal legal proceedings and convictions that the word genocide can be used objectively, as in Anfal, the Holocaust or Yugoslavia. I have a law background and I agree with the above comment - in cases where there has been no finding of guilt by a recognized legal body, it can only be described in terms where experts agree that it probably fulfills those conditions. We can't know what the Court would have decided. Genocide, beginning with Lemkin, is fundamentally a legal construction. It's purpose is prosecution, punishment and deterrence. I don't know why editors would assume I want to erase it or accuse me of genocide denial, but I don't think my participation in consensus discussion is realistic or possible under these circumstances unless clear guidelines are set for what kind of behavior is appropriate. I am also skeptical of an editor who is regularly involved in edit warring and has only 9.2% participation in talk page discussions, and I don't think it is fair to blame an editor with 27% participation on talk pages. Seraphim System (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is where we diverge, I don’t actually believe that legal proceedings have anything to do with it. If we were to debate about the differences between murder and killing (both rely on minimal constructs) this argument might somehow stand. But not in the case of genocide, see Functionalism_versus_intentionalism, and Raul Hilberg with his functionalism; even during WWII, there was no such intent (as originally defined by the concept of genocide). The limitation is within the model of genocide itself, just like Quantum mechanics (also an authored model) emerged from the inadequacies of Newton physics to wholly represent physical reality. Reason why articles like the Holocaust will never achieve FA, is that they are construed guided from the defining parameters of a model to describe a historical event. Terms like Armenian Genocide, Holocaust, Rwanda genocide etc. all suffer from the same limitations… because the defining parameters are arbitrary guided by models coined by someone (they’re not universal) somewhere, some jurists. The Armenian tragedy included massacres, revolts, some elements of premeditation, etc… In conclusion, academic solipsism can not define events effecting a population, because those concepts are simply not generalizable, they're arbitrarly sliced. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes that is more extreme then my position, I'm pretty simple - if a Court has stated that it is genocide, then this has a significance. There are many death penalty cases in the United States where we follow the Court's determination of guilt in describing the incident, even where we note disputes that have been raised by scholars. The decision of a Court is not the same as scholarship. This is something different then discussing genocide as a vague "concept" - which I am inclined to agree has a limited significance compared to other words like "massacre" or "summary execution". I have never seen genocide described as a model, my understanding based on reading Schabas' treatises, Lemkin and the case law is that it is an intent crime that has been codified both on the national and international level, which currently has certain rules and case law that have developed the "concept" and that Lemkin is a lawyer and expert specialist source whose writing influenced our understanding of the concept as a crime that should be prosecuted, punished and deterred. Seraphim System (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This is my last answer, because the problem won’t be fixed here, uses of constructs are generalized on Wikipedia. An example, the main article Humanism I have provided elsewhere. See, for most in the world (outside the elitist circle), humanism is simply our humanity which is not the mostly thinking construct (as often described in academic circles) but deals with feeling, thinking, intuition and sensing. Since Wikipedia is name-fed (academic source based) it suffers heavily of the cognitive bias of being solely thinking (see: Jungian_cognitive_functions), which often entirely dismiss the majority (serious selection bias as is the case in the humanism article, since what the majority of academics claim does not necessarly represent what most people claim (case of academical solipsism)). Those are real historical events, which includes arts, oral history, witnesses… they are not solely judiciary cases. By using some legal terms we add arbitrary parameters restraining the event to what is coined by some jurists. Events are events which may have genocidal components, genocides are not whole events, because the event can not be constrained to some legal word (it's the other way around). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Well I think using the "word" is the main issue here and I am not going to argue about that because the word is in use - but there is significant dispute from experts about the Pontic Genocide (and based on comments from other editors in this discussion, the Assyrian genocide as well) - I am unconvinced by arguments that "conciseness" is a justification to dismiss these disputes and make objective statements of fact. I would also clarify that the use of the term genocide is widely accepted for the actions against Armenians, and be specific as to who it is accepted by because that is the minimum level of detail required by the statement. Generally, I don't think that the tendency to politicize these issues or advocate for the "truth" improves articles. Additionally, it is abominable to accuse editors of attempting to erase the genocide or leaving deceitful edit summaries without even attempting a discussion. It is not enough to just say "please seek consensus on the talk page" - good faith is something that I assume until I am proven wrong, it is not blind faith. Seraphim System (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, it is abominable to accuse editors of attempting to erase the genocide or leaving deceitful edit summaries without even attempting a discussion. Please spare us the nonsense. This is not a qui pro quo. There is no logical connection between the two - How can you discuss blatant deceit? You left three deceitful edit-summaries to hide your blanking of the three Genocides. This is the trifecta of deception. Here they are:

"(the history section does not summarize what is already in the article (paleolithic/neolithic) - the lede and the content should be consistent WP:LEDE)" - Hello? What do the three Genocides have to do with paleo/neo? And are you seriously suggesting that the three Genocides are not covered in the article body?

Rv edit warring Undid revision 807949252 by Dr.K. (talk)) - Hello? I just reverted your blanking of the three Genocides, thank you very much.

"not discussed in the article WP:LEDE" - Hello? The three Genocides, not discussed in the article? Misleading edi-summary much? Dr. K. 03:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System Since you like numbers ("How many of his edits have been to article talk pages - 9.2%"), how about this: How many times have you been blocked for edit warring (in the last 6 months alone)? How many times has Dr.K. been blocked in his entire wikipedia career? Yeah, that's what I thought. Now I strongly suggest you cease and desist from any further wikidrama and casting aspersions, and find something productive to do, or this won't end well. Khirurg (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Where in the article do you think the Assyrian and Pontic genocide discussed? You don't understand the logical connection between assuming good faith and attempting a discussion? How long have you been editing? If you had attempted a discussion, or replied to my attempt to initiate a discussion, and articulated your concerns instead of being abusive towards an editor acting in good faith, I could have pointed out that our article refers to these events as "large scale massacres" and not "genocides". Seraphim System (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Where in the article do you think the Assyrian and Pontic genocide discussed? You don't understand the logical connection between assuming good faith and attempting a discussion? Um, have you forgotten the Armenian Genocide? Why did you blank it, since it is covered as such in the article body? Why did your edit-summaries conveniently ignore the Armenian Genocide? You don't understand the logical connection between assuming good faith and attempting a discussion? You either misunderstood my reply, or you are just obfuscating as usual. The connection I'm talking about is between your deceptive edit-summaries and the blanking of the three Genocides. No amount of evasion or obfuscation on your part will hide that.

instead of being abusive towards an editor acting in good faith That's rich. You insult me on my talkpage, using obtuse arguments and misrepresentations, while not acknowledging that you erased any Genocide: Paleolithic is not in the body. It is Neolithic. You are restoring information to the lede that contradicts when is in the article, without discussion. Please, please stop editing articles in this topic area. You've demonstrated a repeated inability to edit civilly in this area and this is not productive. and then you want me to discuss anything with you? Dr. K. 03:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Seraphim System Now that you mention it, "large scale massacres" should actually be changed to "Genocide". Thanks for pointing that out. Khirurg (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Khirurg, large scale massacre is a stronger word than genocide. Since it always imply physical destruction of individuals, while something could be considered as genocide (under its own definition) without involving physical destruction (like transfering members of a group into another group). For this reason it is weasel wording... it gives actually no information on what did happen, while ethnic cleansing, massacre, expulsion... are more explicit and less open to interpretation (they're generalizable). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I like a shorter blurb but it's important to mention the fact that Turkey disagrees. Adding a sentence about the amount of the subject seems much for a lede about the country as a whole. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Chris troutman: you said that it's important to mention the fact that Turkey disagrees. and I disagree with you. This article is not about what political views the Turkish government has on these historical events that have unfolded on the country's soil. This article is about Turkey and the historical events that unfolded on its soil. Period. Wikipedia's role is not to advocate these political views on irrelevant articles. If we want to include the Turkish government's views, we may do so only in the articles dedicated to these events (i.e Armenian Genocide, Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, etc) that tackle about the opposing views on these events. Like I said, the article Turkey is about the country and the indisputable historic events that have unfolded on its soil. Nothing more, nothing less. The Turkish government's view of them has no place here. --SILENTRESIDENT 10:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't care that you disagree. I made my point. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Your "point" makes no sense at all and is contradictory. One hand you support adding a sentence to the lead (regarding the denials of the Turkish government, and on the other hand you say that adding a sentence "seems much" for the lede. Khirurg (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

What about replacing option 3 with Option 4: It is widely accepted by scholars, the international community and legal experts that the massacre and deportation of Armenians and to a lesser extent other minorities constitute genocide while the Turkish government and several Western scholars (while a minority) reject that the event constitute a genocide.

This proposition separate the event (invariable in time) from the word genocide...(which popularity might change) Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Khirurg (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
(which popularity might change): In the very remote case that it does, we can change it. But not before then. Dr. K. 00:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The advantage of my proposition is that it stands on correlates which can be generalized across multiple articles regardless of the subject they cover (that's called consistency). But seems that articles particularly of this subject area (involving nationalism) are contaminated by ethnic-centrism and it will be naive to expect any changes without any form of authority imposing concessions from all sides. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
It's (tragically) funny how compound terms ending in "-centrism" are used during POV-pushing to attack perceived opponents. Check a recent example and count how many "-centrisms" were used by that now-blocked account. Dr. K. 15:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You’re assuming more than what I have implied. There are elements of truth in what the blocked user is stating (like there are for his opponents), and this irregardless of his wiki-expulsion. If your reply was to be wholly relevant, you would have no problem raising the position I am pushing with almost zero ĉontroversial article edits. The peculiar thing about POV pushing is that editors feeding them request arbitrary rules which can’t be generalized (that’s called selection bias), while I request consistency. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

And for your information, I had in the past started a draft [[40]] on how to reach concensus on the Armenian massacres on Wikipedia. But removed it by finding a better approach which will be known later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talkcontribs) 17:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended Discussion[edit]

  • Statements here about WP:UNDUE do not seem sincere or justified. WP:UNDUE is a policy that is supposed to improve WP:NPOV, not diminish it, as editors want to do here. This is a pattern of consistent disruptive POV editing, by a small number of editors. The sources can be found here Greek_genocide#Academic_discussion Seraphim System (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    It's a technicality. There is some debate as to whether actions against the Greeks and Assyrians constitute ethnic cleansing or rise up to the level of genocide, not as to whether these actions (and resulting death and expulsion) occurred.Icewhiz (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
No it is not a "technicality", genocide is a technical term and we are supposed to accurately reflect what the current state of scholarship is, this is what WP:DUE and balance are about. This is the kind of sloppy, lazy editing that should be discouraged because it is slowing down article development. I don't think I am going to continue editing if the community is unable to get this kind of disruptive behavior under control. I don't really want to invest time on articles where a small group of editors are allowed to turn the articles into badly written, poorly sourced polemics.

The editors working in this topic area have made it clear that they are editing from a truly bizarre POV and are only interested in a very narrow range of issues which are repeated in article after article, whether they are relevant or not. In their phenomenal campaign defending the heritage of Christian Turkey, the regular editors seem to have forgotten to mention that Paul was born in Turkey, the seven churches of the Aegean - in fact they reverted these additions to lede. To what end, one wonders. I'm not especially willing to continue investing time into a project where the consensus is to de-emphasize the history of early Christianity, and to pretend care about Christians when it makes Turkish nationalists angry. The negativity on the whole is WP:UNDUE, for a country that has such a rich history - why should the war be emphasized when the entire early Christian period is missing from the LEDE? Whatever, I have other things to do. Seraphim System (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Our consensus on-wiki is that most sources say genocide in this case. Those who do not (with the exception of the Turkish government) say ethnic cleansing or similar terms. This is a distinction/clarification that is best left to a footnote, not an expanded 3 sentence block in the lead, which leaves the possible naive reader with doubt as to whether actions against the Assyrian and Pontic Greek actually occurred (as "scholarship has been published discussing" - without specifying the points being discussed).Icewhiz (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
We are not here to lead the naive reader. This is advocacy. My job as an editor is not to convince anyone that the bad Muslim Turks committed this genocide or that genocide, it is to inform about what scholarship is available. In fact, unless the academic consensus is as overwhelming as it is for the Armenians, it should probably be left out entirely. We don't simplify disputed issues in the LEDE to support WP:ADVOCACY. The Greek Genocide and the surrounding dispute would be better left to the body, so I will add an Option 3. Seraphim System (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Icewhiz:, no, there really has not been an on-wiki consensus in the recent discussions on this topic. Per usual practice we stick with the status quo upon not reaching a consensus and this issue is not to be addressed here, but claims of an on-wiki consensus are simply inaccurate. --GGT (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@GGT: consensus in the form of the current article names (and frankly my personal opinion differs from the present name) - Whatever they are named - Turkey should link to them in the name decided on. We shouldn't call them A in the article about the events, and B in the the article about Turkey - and whatever the label, it should be in the lede here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Removing genocides is not Wiki friendly behavior, who ever is intended to remove them should consider reading a consensus on the matter. Redman19 (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That's par for the course in this article. Please observe the gutting of the lead and the removal of all genocides in three separate attempts by the same editor, using false edit-summaries to boot: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3. The same editor then came to Greece, an article they never edited before, and started retaliatory edit-warring. Quite a story. Dr. K. 07:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The Holocaust is clearly mentioned in the lead section of the Germany article, so we should maintain the same course here. Redman19 (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Why does the Lede of the article spend two paragraphs summarizing several millennia of the history of Anatolia, the history of the Ottoman Empire, and World War I, but ends abruptly at the foundation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923? Too much prehistory of Turkey and not enough history following the foundation. There is currently no mention of:

NATO is mentioned, briefly (an early member of NATO). The Population exchange between Greece and Turkey and the Cyprus dispute could be mentioned if you have specific proposal. I can't support the others here, but they should all likely be mentioned in the lead section at History of the Republic of Turkey. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Most of these are relevant, but not the Korean War, which didn't really matter for Turkey at all except as an allied Western country.--Calthinus (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Turkey participated in the Korean War to enforce NATO membership, I also think it's not relevant since Turkey's NATO membership is mentioned in the lead. Redman19 (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Current massive changes[edit]

JimPody has made massive changes to the article. While some of the edits may be fine, they also include disruptive removals of consensus material. There already is a series of discussions going on about the lede, and several of the edits go into just these discussions. This is a GA, so massive changes has to get consensus before they are implemented. I have restored the changes made by Seraphim System. I have also changed the population data in the infobox from census to estimate. --T*U (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. This behavior by JimPody needs to stop. Khirurg (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Yo I didnt do the census. I dont care what you guys think I am bringing the truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talkcontribs) 15:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
JimPody, Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth, actually. It just matters what sources say, not what users deem to be "true". --Calthinus (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that unilateral changes to sections that are currently under discussion makes things more confusing, and especially because it is GA dramatic sweeping changes are more likely to be reverted. Seraphim System (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


Hello fellow editors

Here is what I hope we can agree on for the formation section on the infobox

-Turkish Empire (1299) -Dissolution (1919) -War of independence (1919) -Treaty of Lausanne (1923) -Turkish Republic (1923) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talkcontribs) 14:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Well since no one has any objections I will go ahead and make the change, one which every european country on wikipedia has anyway. austria has been about 10 different countries, you europeans cant keep together. france probably went from republic to dictatorship to nazi land every few years and germany, well lets not get into that one. Turkey has been one empire one republic. so simple, yet you all insist that Turkey gets different treatment for some reason. How is it that a country (ottoman empire) which was informally called Turkey since the 18th century not actually the predecessor to the republic? Absurd! the same flag, same language, continuation of courts and even the recognition of sultans as previous heads of state but somehow not a successor state?!?! very crazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talkcontribs) 09:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

JimPody: Well since no one has any objections I will go ahead and make the change. No, you will not! Firstly, you need to wait longer before you can say that no one has objected. Secondly, as you know, there is already a discussion above about the same thing, where there are arguments both ways. I happen to agree with you about the Ottoman Empire (but not Turkish Empire), but we have to wait until a consensus has been formed. Also: Please learn how to sign your talk page postings. See WP:SIGN. --T*U (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we can call it Turkish Empire, and the addition of a formation section to the infobox would have to be sourced. Seraphim System (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Turkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)