This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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.
This subject is featured in the Outline of Turkey, which is incomplete and needs further development.
I do not know why there needs to be a photo for Camlica Mosque or Armenian Genocide (which is unnecessarily graphic for the scope of this article). I do not think architecture part needs 4 photos for instance, as there is already a page for Turkish architecture.
Another thing is on the country box there are too many details that is not present at other countries' pages, for instance the spoken languages part seems unnecessary and distracting. Or at the very least it can simply list the three most common languages... It is misleading to list languages that are spoken by a couple thousand, if this was the standard for the article on USA we would have to list 100s of languages.
Overall someone really needs to tidy up this article. And also there really needs to be clear-cut standards about these country boxes, in every country there are different sections, some lists race, some lists ethnicity, some lists nothing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:8300:997:6CCA:8913:524F:66F7 (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I had previously made an edit that was undone. I added the emblem although it is not official for all intents and purposes it acts as one. Please let me know if you disagree and why. Flags200 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't have any problems with it to be honest, it's the emblem used on the Turkish passport. Redman19 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
With this edit, Turkistan has added several dates to the "Establishment" list, dates not relating to the Republic of Turkey, but to the Ottoman Empire and even before. This has been discussed several times earlier, but has usually drowned in other discussions, so it has never been brought to a conclusion. See Talk:Turkey/Archive 26 for some of the latest discussions. I am not negative to adding "Ottoman Empire 1299" or similar to the section under certain conditions. However, in order to get sufficient input and a clear consensus, I think it needs to be formalized through a WP:RfC. --T*U (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
In October 2019, Turkey invaded the Kurdish-controlled regions of Syria.
This sentence is the last sentence of the Turkey#Republic of Turkey section. It is dubious because the invasion did not begin in 2019, but in 2016 and in 2018, it was against ISIS (mainly Arab) and SDF (Kurdish and Arab). Though the sentence says Turkey invaded in 2019, skipping the past 3 years. And says Kurdish Controlled regions, which is false and the citation given of it is a failed verification. There ought to be some changes into how this sentence is written. The 2019 operation was not aimed at the Kurds neither since SDF claims it is an Arab and Kurd 50-50 armed group, the area invaded on the other hand is Arab majority. KasimMejia (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
EtienneDolet, Symmachus Auxiliarus. What are your arguments for inclusion of this image per your reverts. It sounds perfectly logical per, Buhedyar that it shouldn't be included since other countries much larger genocides, Germany Holocoast 6 million, is not included. Neither are British genocides, such as Irish Famine 2 million or those in India 100 million or Native Americans millions. Discuss. KasimMejia (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm gonna go with WP:IGNORE in response to this. There may be a rule about WP:OTHERCONTENT yet there is a rule called WP:NPOV, the rules are cancelling out each other meaning they should be ignored. KasimMejia (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
That’s not how it works. And if you’ve read NPOV, I suggest you re-read it. Most of the policy has to do with neutral editing in the sense that we support what receives substantial coverage and representation in reliable sources, not about watering down the text. It’s to protect articles from an undue POV and fringe viewpoints. My main concern is that this seems like an attempt at censorship. The fact you changed “killed” (as supported by the source) to “died” is what really raised alarm bells. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument anywhere on Wikipedia. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no point of that picture. No country page has "look at this sad picture of a person dying" photo. China doesn't, Germany doesn't, UK doesn't, Russia doesn't and why should Turkey have it? If you want to add Armenian genocide part? Go ahead even though I'm not in favor of that either. Considering the person who added the picture and the content is a greek/hellenized anatolian, I don't think he had good intentions concerned only about contributing to the page.Buhedyar (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
First, please stop edit-warring. Secondly, please refrain from making accusations toward other editors based on perceived ethnic allegiances. This warrants discussion, not repeated reverts. For the record, other country articles have pictures related to unsavory parts of their past, such as Nazism and the Holocaust in Germany. Whether another picture is more suitable is certainly a topic for discussion. So far, the arguments made are not supported by any editing policy. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Contentious image must be removed to be consistent with other countries' articles. Khestwol (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
There's no agreement that articles have to be consistent in that way. And in any case, the answer might be to add content to other articles, rather than removing it from this one, might it not? William Avery (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
If we start to add genocide/deportation pictures to every country's page, i'm especially thinking about Westerners, It will just create bloated talk pages. As I mentioned, the only purpose that the picture serves is to rile people up. And the picture isn't even too credible anyway (even if it is, not related to the discussion). And I don't think we should add every single very very sad very tragic not staged pictures to every country's wiki page, rather, create wiki pages for their atrocities or add the pictures to the existing ones Buhedyar (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Principle of least surprise is a good argument. The pictures on Human are kept pretty low key. William Avery (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The comparisons with Germany or the UK overlook the fact that Germany has apologized repeatedly for the Holocaust and tried to make amends. The UK also recognizes its actions. In contrast, there is an almost complete genocide denial by official Turkey, making the inclusion all the more relevant. Yes, pointing out atrocities is more relevant when the perpetrators actively try to deny them than when they openly admit and apologize for them. Jeppiz (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
This smacks of "righting great wrongs". Additionally, facts are covered in the text, but the picture is too emotive. William Avery (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree with the removal, it looks 100% fake.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
That wasn’t part of the original contention editors expressed over the photograph. As far as I know, it’s part of a series of documentary prints housed in the Library of Congress. I don’t think anyone has ever denied their veracity. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The arguments (if we can call them that) against inclusion of the pics boil down to: WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and should be ignored. The Armenian Genocide is a major event in Turkish history, and is nowadays very frequently mentioned in the news with regard to Turkey, especially in light of the recent ethnic cleansing campaigns by Turkey in northern Syria (against Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians, and others). Khirurg (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Khirurg. I think you about summed it up. There’s no valid reason for the removal of a photograph about the Armenian Genocide based in policy, though as I said (and Jeppiz also stated), we could certainly choose a different photograph(s). It clearly needs to be illustrated per coverage in the top-level article. I also agree with Jeppiz that this photograph is likely overly emotive. While I’d prefer some photographic diversity on the project, pictures of one of the forced marches are fairly closer to that objective, as opposed to people mourning over the corpse of a dead child. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that pictures which depict atrocities and/or the results of those atrocities can be ascribed human psychological reactions. A picture is inherently a mechanical reproduction of a fact. Humans may react emotively to this reproduction, but this is neither here nor there. The depiction of the historical fact is important. The mother crying over the body of a dead child captures the horror of the Armenian Genocide very well. A picture depicting a march tends to neutralise the death toll since I don't think there are dead victims depicted in such a picture. This neutralisation of such a central factor in the Genocide, is not NPOV. If this picture has to be replaced by another, it should be a picture such as Morgenthau's. Dr.K. 03:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Jeppiz Which genocide did the UK recognize. Furthermore, does the recognition of a genocide make it OK to do so? Say lets kill millions of people and say we are sorry! It should be OK. ? Yet Turkey's disputed genocide, which killed 1.5m people is worse than those which killed 100 of millions because Turkey refuses to deny it? And lets place a picture cause why not? West are the good guys, they apologized for their genocide we should not write a word about their atrocities! The bad easterners should be portrayed worse even though their alleged crimes is 1 in 100th in scale. KasimMejia (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Just a note, User:Buhedyar has been blocked at ANI for persistent disruptive editing. They’ve threatened to sock as well, so keep an eye open. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)