Talk:Turkey/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 15


Need citations

Nearly every section can do with more citations. I know its up for good article review, but unless morder references are added i cant see it acheiveing GA status. General rule of thumb i believe is every paragraph should have at least one citation, this article isnt even close to that at the moment. The majority of citaitons are devoted to two events, Turkeys founding role in a number of IGO's, and the throwing of immigrants into the sea by Greeks! So lets start getting this article in order. Thanks, --A.Garnet 16:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I will try to find some general references. By the way, for those of you who might be interested, the Suleiman the Magnificent article is also on Good Article review, its nomination was put on hold for a week starting yesterday, and some points were made in the talk page for improvement. If anyone has some extra time, they can have a look there to see what can be done and maybe try to find some references etc. Cheers! Baristarim 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
One thing that is sorely needed, simply because it is so hard to come by, is a good statistic for the religion figures. For one reason 99.8 percent seems, well, too close to perfection :) So if someone finds some sort of a survey, research etc on this, that would be great. I have been looking for it for a long time.. Baristarim 20:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If someone has access to good citations and references for the data contained in the following sections, that would be great:

  • Economy done
  • Education done
  • Religion
  • Census figures for cities and provinces done MustTC 19:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Baristarim 17:17, 9 December 2006


I don't like the Whirling Dervishes picture. It is too dark. Hard to see the dervishes' heads. It is not an attractive picture. Can we find a better one? 16:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Baristarim doesn't like the Maslak picture that much :) I think we can put a picture about the Turkish towns/ agricultural places (I don't know where to find it) because Atatürk once said "Peasant is the master of the nation" so they also deserve a picture in Wikipedia. Deliogul 22:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

lol. another picture would be nice :) Baristarim 22:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The looong list of ethnicities

Been making some progress with rewrites and sources. Next is the education and religion section, and demographics section. All those sections are lacking much more fundamental information that need to be there, but Kabardians make the list!! Great.. There is still no reference cited for the age brackets, but Ossetians are there! Life expectancy sources weren't there, but it's ok, let's mention the Hamshenis! :))

I propose that some people better bring in good sources about ethnic groups, then we only mention the five-six biggest ones in this format: "the major ethnic groups include...". There is no need to mention Levantines etc. What is amazing is that the Jews (who only number 25,000 max) make a huge cut in both demographics and religion section, but Russians (who by some estimates number half a million) are not even mentioned. Gotta love the politically correct ethnic merry-go-round :) The list is way too confusing, and simply stupid. I had removed some of them two months ago, who put them back in?

By sources, I don't mean simply books written in a university in Australia, I mean the evidence of an actual seperate ethnic existence. The simple declaration that "there are xxx numbers of Laz" doesn't mean anything, do they really exist as a seperate group? If they do, do they see "Laz" and "Turkish" as exclusive? etc... A definite standard of proof would be the evidence of seperate socio/political structures. This somehow justifies the inclusion of the "big three" of Lausanne even though their numbers are extremely small compared to some others. This is important since we are not talking about "Turkish of xxx origin", but rather "ethnic groups".

Please take a look at other FA country articles, none of them are so disorganized in such sections. Instead of simply bloating the article, let's try to keep it concise. Concise, concise, concise and let's remove information that has nothing to do with a general overview of the country to their respective articles :)) Baristarim 23:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as it could be gathered, the main list of ethnicities that have some sort of seperate identity are Kurds, Zaza, Roma, Arabs + we can mention the "big three" (!) as recognized by Lausanne. Obviously it might be politically incorrect to say that the number of Russians is the three combined x 6, but hey, c'est la vie.. So what do people think about replacing the list with:
    • "Other major ethnic groups include the Kurds, Zaza, Roma, Arabs and the three official minorities of Greeks, Armenians and Jews." Baristarim 00:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And the rest, of course, will be moved to "Demographics of Turkey" or "People of Turkey" to be explored in detail, with both those articles listed as "main" right under the section heading. Baristarim 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I will move it right away, the demographics section along with the religion and education sections. All those three sections need to be combined since they belong a similar category. I will include my proposition above for the moment. If an editor would like to expand the list, please keep in mind that the main article of Canada, the biggest immigration nation in the world per capita, only lists 9 ethnicities in its main article, and that based on census figures. The above proposition includes 7 ethnicities + Turkish, so eight should make the cut satisfactorily. Any other official/non-official/semi-official/semi-existant minorities/groups should be listed in the article People of Turkey. Baristarim 02:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Merged the education and religion sections with demographics, and expanded the culture section. Phew.. Well, the next up are the geography (for references), foreign relations and republican era history for a little bit trimming, and maybe a few citations.. Baristarim 05:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Review: reasons for Hold

This article has been placed on hold for the following reasons:

  • Several sections need references:
    • Antiquity No references at all. Please reference
    • History of Turks and the Ottoman Empire' Has several assertions of fact with unclear references. There is one reference here, but it is uncertain if it applies to the whole section or only the sentence it follows.
    • Republican era First two paragraphs are unreferenced.
    • Government and politics Paragraphs #1 & 3 are unreferenced.
  • Style of citations:
    • While no specific style of reference is required, following WP:CITE guidelines would indicate that websites need retrieval dates. To simplify citations, consider using the {{cite}} templates. They are not required, but they do help organize the citation information.

Fix these, and I will be back in a week to recheck. If these issues are not addressed in the next week, I will have to fail the article. Happy editing! --Jayron32 04:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • All will be taken care of in two days. Most of those sections will be rewritten in an any case. Style of citations have been taken care of. The reference list is on par at the moment. All of them include retrieval date information and are correctly linked to their wiki articles as well as web-sites, except for sources that might not be needed after the rewrites. However, when all is done, all the sources cited will be on WP:CITE standards. Baristarim 19:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Gallery removed, some of the pictures have been inserted into appropriate sections. It seems that none of the other FA articles on countries include such a gallery (ex. Canada, Pakistan, Belgium, Australia, India, Bangladesh)
  • Economy section finished
  • History section needs to be looked at, and maybe trimmed, hopefully will get around to it tomorrow
  • Politics section nearly done, might require to be perused one more time
  • References section updated and now on par with WP:CITE standards
  • Culture section needs one or two sentences about Ottoman architecture, after which the layout of the section should be formatted
  • Geography section's climate info needs some work and references, hopefully will get around to it sometime soon
  • Minor cleanup in foreign relations
  • Some general references here and there

After those and some minor work, the article is set for FA.. Some of the FA country articles are in worse shape actually than this article's current state :) Baristarim 01:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I will also take out some of the Greece related stuff in the foreign relations section. That paragraph is bigger than the TR-US relations paragraph, and the section doesn't include any mention of other relations with Israel, Middle East, Russia, Balkans or international organizations. Also will remove most of the list of Int Orgs to the foreign relations article. Baristarim 07:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to get the opinion of other contributors to this article on removing the Turkish names that is used in certain places. I just took a look at Belgium and Canada articles, and I could only find one instance of an alternate name given except for the name of the country. Personally, I think the Turkish names might be better suited in the intro of the relevant articles, and might make this article a bit less confusing for non-Turkish speakers. So what do you think? And is there anything that needs improvement in the article (except for sources in the history and geography (climate) section)? If an expert on antiquity can take a look at that section, I think that covers pretty much everything. This article is currently in a better shape than some other FA country articles like Nepal. Baristarim 07:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Baris, I dont unerstand what you mean by Turkish names in certain places, what are you referring to? Great work on the article anyway. Here are some of my suggestions. We should remove the explanantion of the TRNC after the Annan plan, that is more relevant to Cyprus related articles than here. All we should mention here is Turkey intervened in 1974 following an Athens inspired coup. With regards to Foreign relations, i think it is important to keep a mention of Greco-Turkish relations, especially considering its importance in EU-accesion. But then again we may be able to summarise EU accesion and Greco-Turkish relations including Cyprus in a well written and concise paragraph. On administrative divisions i would remove the picture of Antalya and just leave the provincial map, I think if the image does not serve a purpose it is best not to have. Finally culture can be expanded a little, perhaps more on literature. Thanks, --A.Garnet 15:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I took out that picture. I will rewrite the foreign relations section, but I will keep that in mind. In any case, if there seems to be something missing, you can always add/delete some stuff :) For the Turkish names, I meant "Council of Ministers (Bakanlar Kurulu)" for example. I removed most of the in any case. I just wanted to make a note in the talk page just in case. As for literature.. I was thinking of contacting user:saposcat, however I must just take a look at the Turkish literature article myself and edit accordingly. If I can't, I will contact him to see if he can help out with a couple of sentences. In fact, it is the culture section that is the hardest to write, it requires some careful choice of words and articulate expressions.Baristarim 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Good work, I like this new Turkey article better than the old one. -- WiiVolve 11:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Temporary Technical Error

On the fourth attempt to go to this article, Wikipedia brought back an article about Turkey rather than one entitled Turkey but entirely about Ninjas - no I wasn't imagining it 22:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)mcww

New foreign relations

Hi Baris, i thought i would give my view on the new section. I have a number of problems with it compared to the old version (but then again i did write the majority of the first version so perhaps i am biased :)). Firstly the first paragraph is very general, talking about NATO, Cold war role, Israel, Iran and Central Asia in one paragraph.

On the second paragraph I dont think there is enough emphasis on the dominance of Europe on Turkish foreign policy at the moment, it is the major issue of the time and we should provide a short description of the most significant problems i.e. dispute over Cyprus (perhaps merge EU and Greco-Turkish relations in one description?). I think saying there is disagreement over issues is again quite a generelisation.

The final paragraph is fine. The problem I think is you have tried to cover too much and so you cannot go into much detail. That is why i only concentrated on the US, EU and Greece (mainly because Greco-Turkish relations concern Cyprus and the EU), allowing me to raise a number of specific topics pertinent to its main foreign policy issues. Thats my two cents. --A.Garnet 02:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your post. It is true that I set out to rewrite with the aim of trying to cover many aspects. Hmm. I was also wondering if Greco-Turkish relations should be merged in some way. I don't have a lot of time to look into this right now but I will get back to it later today and peruse the section one more time. Thanks for the review btw! Baristarim 06:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


I am going to pass this article based on the following criteria:

  1. It is well written.: It is VERY well written. The prose is easy to understand and flows very nicely!
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.: It is with regard to GA threshold: That is all assertions either challenged or likely to be challenged are referenced. This article is close to FA status, but further referencing is needed to meet the FA standard for referencing. See below for some more tips before you take this to FA review...
  3. It is broad in its coverage.: Boy is it ever. This is FA material if I ever saw it!
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. With a nation so close to many of our cultutal and philosophical crossroads, it would be east not to be NPOV. This article seems to do a VERY good job of addressing all issues, even those that could be controversial, in a sensitive and yet comprehensive manner.
  5. It is stable Looks like the only changes are improvements, and there does not seem to be any contentious edit wars...
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.: I spot checked the images included and they seem to be in good order WRT liscencing. Please double check EVERY image before going to FA as rules of liscencing images are very stringent there.

If you are going to take this for a Featured Article Review (and I STRONGLY encourage you to do so... I will endorse it!) then please consider the following checks:

  • All assertions of fact (not just those deemed "controversial") should probably be referenced. This is nearly done here, and should be easy to pick up what you missed, things like Historical dates, geographic information, etc. etc.
  • All images need to be double checked to insure they ALL meet proper guidelines for inclusion and compatability with GFDL/CC etc.
  • There's a typo in the refs section. One of the dates is missing a digit. No biggie, but you might as well fix it.

Anyways, congrats, and let me know on my talk page when you nominate this for FA. Like I said, I will endorse its promotion if it looks as good as it does now! --Jayron32 03:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!!!! Made me smile after a long stressful day. I will fix whatever is necessary to make it FA. Cheers! Baristarim 06:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations to all contributors and to Baristarim who initiated and undertook most of this effort. Thanks for the review Jayron! Atilim Gunes Baydin 18:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Yea wonderful job Baristarim :) Its been really good that you've been working on this article for so long. We all really appreciate it :) -- WiiVolve 11:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

New provinces template, and a remark about the images in the culture section

Hi, I took care of the last bad looking image on the article (Image:Turkish-provinces.png) and made a new provinces template to replace it. Here: Template:Turkey Labelled Map, I hope it looks OK. I'm not particularly happy with these football and whirling dervishes pictures in the culture section, if these are really the best two images we can put there to give an overall visual representation of the Turkish culture, I'm a bit ashamed of being Turkish. But nevermind. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 23:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see the "whirling" dervishes are not in the culture section and I forgot about the Yali houses picture, which is quite fine. Atilim Gunes Baydin 23:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Official language

There are many dialects of Turkish in Turkey and used by ethnical turkish minorities in the balkan countries and cyprus. The standard used in turkey is the istanbul dialect. I think this needs to be here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erdenvox (talkcontribs) 04:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Makes sense. I took the liberty to add that information to the culture section even if the dialects of Turkish and the one selected as the standard are covered in the Turkish language article already linked. Atilim Gunes Baydin 04:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. What is important is what is official, not what is spoken. Istanbul dialect is not used everywhere in Turkey, and the official language is Turkish as defined by Turk Dil Kurumu in Ankara, not Istanbul. This info might be relevant, but in a another article. Otherwise it would be confusing. Baristarim 04:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, you are right and it could be confusing. The point was that out of the many dialects of Turkish spoken within Turkey, the dialect of Istanbul is selected as the official standard and people are asked to write geliyorum not geluyrum or geliyem. Atilim Gunes Baydin 05:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
True.. The only thing is, if we start going into specifics over anything, then there will be this temptation to add other things in other places about anything. Particularly in that section, if you know what I mean! That's all. Nevertheless, the idea is definitely legitimate and factually correct, no worries there. By the way, thanks for the Ottoman map, it is really nice! As for the images, yes I know that maybe some more work needs to be done.. I actually wanted to link the dervishes under demo since I saw it under religion, not culture. I will look some more around Wiki to find some other pictures. In any case, there needs to be minor adjustments in the culture section + a few sentences to be added. So the Yalis were for the Ottoman architecture (i know, there are better images for it, but for a couple of days it should be ok), Pamuk for literature and the stadium for, well, football :) If a better set of images can be found, they should be changed. Baristarim 05:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand. By the way, I think the yali picture looks very nice. Atilim Gunes Baydin 07:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I like the new (unanimated) Ottoman map better than the old one, but if only the color differences were broader... It seems kinda hard to tell what is what by looking at the legend. Perhaps whoever made it should make a couple changes? And wasn't the Ottoman Empire at its height under Suleiman the Magnificent? Why is there another expansion after his one? -- WiiVolve 11:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Ottoman Empire didn't stop growing until 1683. They managed to connect the Crimean Khanate to the eastern borders and they gained even more power in Africa. Then Ottomans started to loose battles in a series of military conflicts between them and the west so the growing period came to an end, actually the empire started to loose territory. With respect, Deliogul 14:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Nearly done.. Added the new references section to organize books seperately. Just need three-four citations and a few sentences in the culture section. + License check for all images. Hopefully I will get around to it later today. Does anybody know if images are license-free on Wikipedia? If they are, where is the link for the grant of free-use?Baristarim 05:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, just perusing through other FA country articles + GA country articles, I think that this will be the best country article on par with Canada and Australia. That's normal though, they are anglophone countries. But articles like People's Republic of China simply give me the chills: it wouldn't even pass GA. The whole foreign relations section only has two citations. But it made FA back in 2004 apparently. I suppose standards have risen since then :) Baristarim 06:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Baristarim , most of your Geography section was copied from this site.
? That site itself is a Wikipedia redirect, like!!! It is that site that is copying Wikipedia, not the other way around. That's why I removed that source when I noticed that I had actually written some parts of what was shown on that page :) However, everything written in there is directly referenced from sources cited in the article. Baristarim 05:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Haha that is funny. Also, it was me that has referenced that page. You had me fooled there for a moment -- WiiVolve 12:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 :) Baristarim 04:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


What is this supposed to mean? "Despite its perceived alleged influence in civilian affairs,..." at end of the Government and Politics section. Hmains 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I was actually going to replace that, but I forgot since I was busy doing fixes in the references section. I will take a look. Baristarim 06:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should have used this template?
Crystal Clear app clock.png
This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while.
As a courtesy, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. The person who added this notice will be listed in its edit history. If this page has not been edited recently, please remove this template.
This message is intended to help reduce edit conflicts; please remove it between editing sessions to allow others to improve this page.
-- WiiVolve 14:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I generally edit by sections, so I don't need it unless I am rewriting whole sections. I also work with many windows that are open at the same time so I can keep track of changes pretty fast. However some anon sneak past from time to time :) In any case, I don't think that there will be anymore major edits in this article! Baristarim 20:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


OK, let's all stop editing the part about the armenian genocide before it gets out of hand. I don't think that it should be very long to begin with. Ottoman, I only reverted your edit, not because of content, but because of length. Each section was formatted to carry the neccessary historical weight, and even the whole Ottoman years is talked about in a short paragraph. So shouldn't we stick with the older version? Baristarim 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ottomanreference, the chunk of text you added to the article was overly long and unreferenced. Please note that the article undergoes an FA vote right now and be more considerate with making comprehensive additions. Also, your edit was definitely not "minor" and you should use edit summaries. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You can not add one side of the argument and leave the other. I do not disagree you adding recognition as a conflict between Turkey and Armenia. You can develop it as a "foreign policy." BUT as an Ottoman History (Genocide 1915-1917); If you want to include genocide in the history section "express it all". Remember this page is "Republic of Turkey" and It is only related with this issue as a foreign policy.--OttomanReference 21:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please reflect the overall weight of all sections, everyone, as you have all done an excellent job on this already--better than almost any other country article I've read, probably better than all for general balance.
About the FAC. This is one of the best FACs I've read since I've started reviewing FAC, because it is obvious that it was edited with care to present a general article on Turkey, the language isn't dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, either, with precise words being used where appropriate, and more general language where it works, the writing is accessible to a general reader, while still providing some enlightenment for a reader who has some background knowledge already, the tone is generally neutral throughout, without dumbing down facts, either. It does an excellent job of providing sufficient background on Turkey, with a few startling omissions, so that a user can follow current events closely, after reading this article. I learned something that clarified an The Economist article I read a few months ago--I didn't quite understand the relationship between Turkey and its military. I looked this up elsewhere, but was given such a biased article (that tried to make it sound gentler to American eyes), that I couldn't quite follow it--this article says, clearly, in a few sentences what another article couldn't explain worth beans in a few pages. Almost every time I encountered something I was not sure of, my question was answered with the following sentence. There are a few places for improvement, a few grammar errors (or maybe uncaught typos, again, very low for a FAC), nothing really unclear. Really well done, at an appropriate level for a FAC, would not embarrass anyone being on the front page today, even with a few details, and uncovered areas. I will post a few comments when I get the chance.
Congratulations on what you've achieved with a lot of hard work, a presentable article about Turkey. KP Botany 02:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!! It was exactly what I was trying to explain at the FAC. Cheers! Baristarim 03:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Ottoman, it is not a question of content, but one of style: the 623 year old Ottoman rule is talked in a shorter paragraph, and it is kind of confusing as is. I am thinking of reverting back to Jeyzel's version simply because it is shorter and informative. Anyone interested further can follow the wikilinks to discover more about the subject. There is no need to confuse the readers. All I saying is that we should be extremely careful with additions since all the sections are interconnected and balanced (balanced not POV-wise, but real world importance-wise). I will take a look at that section one more time. Cheers! Baristarim 03:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
In fact, I will try to peruse the bit as it is... Baristarim 03:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok done. I added the bit into the foreign relations section, and since the history section also mentions the nature of the problem and its dates, I think the reader won't be disoriented. The history section might be formatted (later though) to combine the the two paragraphs better to fit in a timeline. Thanks a lot for being patient and hanging with me with this :) I am trying to keep track of a lot of things, and I am already a bit paranoid with expecting something to go wrong! In any case, the current version can always be modified, but the idea is there and I will definitely be reverting if someone tries to delete something without giving any reasons or at least discussing changes in the talk page. The FR bit is definitely neccessary.
However in the foreign relations section I tried to concentrate on how the armenian genocide affects Armenian-Turkish (Azerbaijani relations as an extension), rather than how it affects its relations with individual states or the EU. For example, I had to change the Cyprus-EU-Turkey mention from "since Turkey is refusing to recognize Cyprus, instead supporting TRNC" to "since Turkey is refusing to open its ports to Cypriot traffic", because that's the actual and official nature of the dispute. We can have a general idea that the dispute centers on the Cyprus-TRNC-Turkey legitimacy issue, but I think that the subtilities of that can be developed in daughter articles. Similarly for French-Turkey relations for example: The French bill would fit in better in TR-FR relations, since the nature of the dispute and its impact on relations is still not clear.
So with the latest FR addition I tried to cover TR's relations with both countries in one shot: Armenia and Azerbaijan, while stating why the relations are bad/good. If there are any other suggestions, we can always discuss improvements here. Cheers: Baristarim 07:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to revert anything now, but that Armenian Genocide paragraph is too long comparing to other sections. Baristarim's mention of Armenian-Turkish relationship which both refers to the Nagarno-Karabakh war + alleged genocide was very good. This is much more than NPOV. Turkey article is now from Armenian-POV! In a summary, which skips 300 hundred years (1600-1900), giving one paragraph on Armenian POV of Armenian Genocide is absolutely meaningless. Why don't the people who are busy trying to neutralize this article, try to add at least 5% Turkish POV to the Armenian Genocide? Caglarkoca 15:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
And this is for the people who do not know what a Minor edit is! Caglarkoca 15:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
True, maybe it can be be merged into the foreign relations bit... I will take a look at this later tonight and later leave a note in the talk page. The thing is, this has really fallen at a bad time with the holidays and the new year coming up. It might not be obvious, but I am a serious multi-tasker and do many things at once, so I am trying to keep track of tons of stuff :) However I will attempt another fix in a couple of hours. Baristarim 19:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So I merged the sections under foreign relations to address the concerns that the Ottoman Empire section had gotten lopsided. And tried to reorganize the foreign relations section. I think it is ok for now at least :) I did the merge directly without touching the content. If there need to be minor touches, let's worry about them in a couple of days. Can't believe had to do this in New Year's Eve. Have to run urgently. Happy New Year everyone!! Baristarim 19:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: It was the same user that was doing nearly all of the deletion in the last 36 hours (Kallete+Redfein+two anons). They were all banned for sockpuppetry. Baristarim 09:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Article too unstable for FA status

I no longer support this article for FA status. It is just too unstable with edit warring over the mention of the Armenian Genocide. Additionally, the nominator of the article User:Baristarim is not working in good faith by deleting the compromise paragraph at this late date in its FAC. Many people supported the article only with this paragraph. I cannot belive you removed it. Disappointing to say the least. --Jayzel 20:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. A vandal had been attacking the page for the last 36 hours, I cannot do anything about that. Four IDs were banned for being the sockpuppets of one user. Only other changes are those that were done to address the concerns in the talk page. I also reverted that user's edits [1]. I fixed them both under foreign relations section last night [2]. The problem is, I cannot be everywhere at the same time on this holiday season! Baristarim 20:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There has been numerous reverts and deletions of a compromise section dealing with the Armenian genocide. FAC rules say unstable articles subject to edit wars fail to meet FA standards. Sorry, --Jayzel 20:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I reverted to the original version [3], and later reverted myself to User:Kilhan's version with a note that I would take a look at it again very soon. I had been leaving constant notes on the talk page. In any case, all I want to say is that other users can keep an eye on the article as well. That's not bad faith. I am sorry that you feel that way however. I merged the contents here [4], much earlier. Working to address the concerns on the FAC is excluded from the stability criteria. Otherwise how can the edits be done? Vandal sockpuppet attacks are also excluded from the satbility criteria. Baristarim 20:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, okay, but when I looked up the history I saw you were the most recent person to remove the paragraph and was surprised to say the least. I'll take back my comment you are acting in bad faith, but I think I will remain neutral on whether this should become an FA. I have a bad feeling it will remain a target for edit wars well into the future. Regards, --Jayzel 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It was very unfortunate to say that baristarim is acting in bad faith. I am very glad that you took it back. But, that problematic paragraph looks pretty long to me for the overview of the history part. The history part is very limited:
  • It does not mention the origins of Turkish people (origins of seljuqs);
  • It does not mention of accomplishments of Ottoman empire, ottoman empire was expanded till the atlantic ocean, but the article only talks about the european borders.
  • It doesn't even say a word about the reasons of fall and when it started to fall.
My personal opinion is to give armenian genocide in foreign relations along with the Nagorno-Karabakh war, because Nagorno-Karabakh war and actions of ASALA were more important factors shaping the Armenia-Turkey relations than (or at least, as important as)(allegations of) Armenian Genocide. (I used paranthesis because it is POV) But if everybody supports to talk about the genocide in the history, than we must consider the WP:Undue weight; because history section is about history of Turkey and Turkish people and (alleged) genocide does not constitute one-thirds of it. In my opinion, we can mention it both in the history and FR. Caglarkoca 00:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
As is, they were both merged under foreign relations in line with the BBC story. It pretty much reflects the neutral concise and matter-of-fact BBC wording on the issue (see BBC ref). Its addition to history section was not right simply because it completely threw the balance of the history section in the air, and looked definitely like it was added later haphazardly (which it was:))... The history section was carefully formatted to reflect the actual historical weight of concerned states and events etc. I will also try to work some on some related articles in due time. It is true that, even though this article is FA class, many of the articles that are wikilinked are not, and some of them need serious work. I understand that people might have concerns with wikilinks that take the reader to articles where there are constant edit-wars (not just about this issue either btw). But there is not much I can do about that - one thing at a time :) Baristarim 05:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Export figures

I added new ref for export figures for 2006. It should stay seperate from 2005 figures until 2006 import figure can be found, then 2005 figures will be replaced. Baristarim 05:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If we are talking about economy, I have a question. This is from the economy section, With a per capita GDP (Nominal) of 5,062 USD, Turkey ranked 64th in the world in 2005. but there are different figures in the infobox rather than these. What is the reason for that? Deliogul 11:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
That's because there are two different methods of calculating the GDP. One is the "nominal" version: It is the oldest and, widely-accepted as the most realistic one, where the GDP is calculated on terms of exchange rates. If the GDP in Turkey is for example 8000 Liras, then you simly convert them to USD - that's GDP Nominal. In a way, it kinda cuts down some of the BS and confusion of GDP PPP (Purchasing power parity), in which very complicated equations are used (specific to each country) to figure out how much "stuff" one can buy with the amount of money they earn. There is a sense to it since in less wealthy countries certain things are much cheaper than in wealthier countries because of cheap labor (for example a pack of cigarettes in France costs five euros, however in Turkey it is 2.5, I believe). However, the problem with it is the calculating system which varies between different agencies (govts, World Bank, IMF etc) and the fact that it is sometimes used by certain govts to show that things are going better than they actually are (hey look, we don't earn 5000, but 8500 a year!). Well, at the end of the day both can be used, but GDP Nominal is considered, simply, the least complicated version. The box uses the PPP version, because as far as I know it was decided in WikiProject countries to use it that way for all country articles. At first, I included PPP in the economy section, but decided later to use GDP Nominal. I don't know about the box though, maybe it can be changed in the future, but it seems to be a more Wiki-wide thing.
Thank you very much. I think now I know why I choosed International Relations rather than Economics :) but I think we still have a problem. The GDP (PPP) per capita of Turkey is shown as $8,385 in the infobox but it is $7,950 in the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. I'm still confused. Deliogul 14:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No one said anything about the detail that I mentioned in my last post. There is inaccuracy either in the infobox or the in the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. Deliogul 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Any comments? At least say which is true so I can fix it. Deliogul 18:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 :) I am sorry, I was going to check into this but I forgot. I will take a look. Baristarim 19:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I checked into it and modified the GDP PPP value in the infobox to 7,950. That list has a reference whereas the 8,385 didn't have a source. This way it is consistent with the List of GDP PPP article. Baristarim 19:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Today article was vandalled twice. I request semi-protection for this article, so that anon users cannot vandal it.Ugur Olgun 18:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe.. It seems normal-level for now, however it will most probably become semi-protected when it becomes FA. If some sort of vandalism still persists, then I will try to raise the issue with admins. cheers Baristarim 00:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If this is going to keep happening, they should at least ban the people who are doing it. -- WiiVolve 04:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: National motto? ...

Just a question: is the phrase given as the national motto in the infobox actually the official national motto? and wouldn't it actually be Yurtta sulh, cihanda sulh (i.e., isn't that what Atatürk actually said)? —Saposcat 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Since Barış=Sulh, it is not that much important. Actually I don't think that Turkey has an official national motto. Instead, this phrase which was said by the founder of the country is one of the main blocks of the existence of the Turkish Republic so I think we should keep it. Deliogul 22:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not official, but its usage is very close to a national motto in almost every sense. "Yurtta Barış, Dünyada Barış" is how the Atatürk quote in late Ottoman language is uttered today in current Turkish. Saposcat, I didn't expect this question to come from you, honestly. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 00:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I knew that it was, in essence, a national motto (official or not); I just was curious about whether or not it had official status, so I asked.
As for the wording, I asked that just because I have the feeling that it was türkçeleştirilmiş (i.e. turned into "modern" Turkish, with the exception of the Arabic-rooted word dünya) after Atatürk's death, and—honestly—just because it always sticks in my craw when I see the fine rhythms of Yurtta sulh, cihanda sulh turned into the awkward rhythms of Yurtta barış, dünyada barış. So it was partly personal ... sorry if I gave you an unpleasant surprise about myself, but it takes all kinds, don't it? Cheers. —Saposcat 05:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is true that Turkey does not have an official Motto, but it occurs to me that "Ne Mutlu Türküm Diyene" is more commonly used than "Yurtta Barış Dünyada Barış". Caglarkoca 00:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Very valid point actually.. Hmm.. I suppose the one about peace sounds better :) But that's no reason to keep it if there is another motto used much more. Maybe we all should make some more research to see what we can come up with. Baristarim 00:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


I think Khoikhoi should be blocked from editing this article. He is constantly adding extra (unnecessary) information about the Armenian genocide and does not give information about his notions in this talk page. In other words, he's just doing anything that comes into his mind. The things that he puts unbalances the Foreign Relations article. It is too detailed, and if someone really wants to know more about it they would just go to the genocide's own article. It is not needed in the ARTICLE ABOUT TURKEY ITSELF! -- WiiVolve 03:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That issue was discussed in the FAC, I don't think you have taken a look there. It has nothing to do with Khoikhoi my friend. He didn't add that info, nor is he keeping something out of it. Many Turkish editors, including me, have taken a look at that section. What is going on? Please do not make anything personal and just take it easy. It doesn't neccessarily unbalance it, and it is much better there than in the history section. That statement is taken from the BBC article which gives a concise overview about the events and the relations between Armenia and Turkey. Just chill.. Baristarim 04:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Locator map

Hi, during last October, I created and uploaded the map Image:Europe_location_TUR2.png to match the then newly launched map style used by Turkey's immediate neighbors (part of the "Europe location" map series created and maintained by User:David Liuzzo). The "Europe location" map collection is recently updated (see Image:Europe_location_ITA.png as an example), and unfortunately on the map depicting Turkey in this new series, Image:Europe_location_TUR.png, the country is half covered with a legend. This last update made Image:Europe_location_TUR2.png obsolete, as its design is no longer shared with any other country article. The other map suggested by David Liuzzo, Image:Asia location TUR.png also suffers from not following any established style and is very oddly cropped.

For now, I'm replacing the map with Image:LocationTurkey2.png, one of the two main designs currently in use. The article can also switch back to the veteran green Image:LocationTurkey.png, which has less detail. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 05:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we not get David Luzzo to move the legend to the left for the Turkey map? --A.Garnet 13:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I still haven't talked with him, but from some of his comments on his user talk page on Commons, and the fact that he nominated Image:Europe_location_TUR2.png for deletion [5], it looks like he is not happy to see his design used on this article and he only intends it to be used only when a country is wholly on the European continent. Actually, I sense that he purposefully put the legend there to prevent the design from being used by Turkey, Armenia, and Georgia, as it also conveniently covers the vague European boundaries in the Caucasus. But that's just my guess. Atilim Gunes Baydin 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


I can understand turkish culture being influenced by Islamic elements and post renaissance europe, but where does central asian turkic come in ? Turkey have virtually no contact with kazakhstan or kirgizstan or the uighurs. The turkish language is distantly related to their languages but other than that what else is there ? Turks have a lot more in common with greeks-food (kebap/gyros, baklava, lokum, raki/oozo), folk dances like chiftelli etc. There is no such thing as a turkic culture, so this doesnt make sense at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Volloman (talkcontribs) 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Not quite, take a look at another FA article, Turkish literature. You will see the influence of Central Asian Turkic culture.. Turkish language contains, whatever the reasons, many more original Turkic words today then it did hundred years ago. As for the other stuff :)) I would say that Greeks have a lot more in common with Turks :) Kidding aside, you will also notice that many Turks, including myself, have Central Asian names or surnames (Tarim in my case). Why can be criticized, but it is there. Traditional Turkish national sport, Yagli Gures, is an old Central Asian Oguz Turkic sport. It is fair to say that it is a blend of many cultures. That's all... Don't forget that we are primarily talking about the culture that Turks brought from Central Asia back in the day, not a culture transfer of today. The country's name, "Turkiye", comes from an Old Central Asian Turkic name! What can there be more to say? :) Baristarim 18:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Tezkere incident

A minor point probably, but the article says,

... the Iraq war faced strong domestic opposition in Turkey, and the Turkish Parliament failed to reach the necessary majority of approval votes for allowing US troops to attack Iraq from Turkey's south-eastern border, with 264 approval votes and 250 against...

The government proposes a decision, the parliament doesn't approve that, and this is referred to as "the parl. failed to reach..." Now why is this voting termed as "failure"? It was a decision, a rejection, a disapproval, but not failure in reaching the necessary votes. Because it was not the Parliament who tried to give that permission to the USA. I think we need to change the wording. Do you think that this needs to be changed? What about "the government failed to get the necessary votes from the parliament", or "the parliament voted against" or something like that? Okan 17:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to modify it. It is true that "failed" can be weaselly in this context. So what do you think of the new version? Baristarim 15:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems good, thanks! It highlights that the parliament and the government are actually different bodies. Not many people are aware of that... Even the MP's aren't, I guess, in most cases. :)
This incident was exceptional in the sense of the relations between the two. Significant to me mostly for that. Okan 19:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
True, it had quite a rare context. Baristarim 20:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)