Talk:Turkey/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 20

Why the only word should be added right beside CIA when it comes to developed classification of Turkey

The reason that I add the only right beside the CIA, when it comes to classify Turkey as developed is because ONLY the CIA classifies Turkey as developed. By the way the same agency doesnt classify Turkey as an advanced economy. Who knows what the real meaning is. Of course NO other major organization i.e. World Bank, IMF, UN, OECD classifies Turkey as a developed country. Turkey has a GDP per capita of around $9,000 and an medium HDI, around 82nd in the world, behind countries like Albania, Colombia or Uruguay. Also it has a relatively high infant mortality and low life expectancy. In essense I dont think that with those stats a country could be classified as a developed other than what the CIA says. So that is why I stress it. That ONLY the CIA classifies it so.Hope that helpsAee1980 (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Only" is redundant (therefore unnecessary) because the CIA is already mentioned in that sentence (it is already stressed that the definition is made by the CIA.) Please, let's keep the Greece versus Turkey pissing contest outside of Wikipedia. (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
A good reason why "only" is redundant is that only the CIA has a classification involving the notion of "developed country". I wonder, though, what the criterion is, if Hungary and Slovenia did not make it to the CIA's list. A problem with classifying specifically Turkey is the high disparity in development between the industrialized urban centres, mainly in the western parts, and vast rural areas, in particular in the east and southeast. In such a situation taking averages is not very informative.  --Lambiam 23:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The CIA's criteria for defining Turkey as a developed country are mainly based on three facts: 1) Turkey is a founding member of the OECD since 1961. 2) Turkey is a member of NATO (i.e. First World) since 1952. 3) Turkey is a founding member of the G20 industrial nations and has a highly developed industrial base, especially in the western regions of the country. Turkey of today is a bit like the Austria-Hungary of 1908-1918, after the annexation of Bosnia-Hercegovina. It's a large country with highly developed parts and considerably poorer, backward parts. But it's still a country with a strong industrial base and powerful armed forces. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Making a point to say that the CIA lists it as developed means, as per WP:NPOV, we must also mention that the IMF and World Bank consider it developing. So either keep the whole thing or delete the whole thing, don't cherry pick the parts that you like and remove what you don't like. Krawndawg (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The link to the CIA Developed Country list already shows that Turkey is NOT in the CIA's, the World Bank's and the IMF's Advanced Economy list. Developed country and advanced economy are two different concepts. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC) (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You're missing my point completely. There is a difference between "developed" and "developing". The CIA lists Turkey as developed, but the IMF and World Bank list it as developing. Only mentioning what the CIA says is POV cherry picking. I've reported you for WP:3RR. In the future, please use the talk page before edit warring, because there is a clear miscommunication going on here. Krawndawg (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
"Developing country" is not a fair description for countries like Turkey, Brazil and Mexico; that's why economists and political scientists had to coin the term newly industrialized country in the first place. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Countries like Turkey and Mexico shouldn't be grouped with countries like India and Nigeria in terms of developing, but regardless, if you're insisting we don't use the terms "developed" and "developing", why did you revert my removal of the sentence in the first place (that the CIA considers Turkey "developed")? If you're going to mention one, you must mention the others. All or nothing, as per WP:NPOV. Krawndawg (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's remove them. Tomorrow (March 31) Turkey will become a trillion dollar economy anyway, because the new Eurostat standard GDP figures will be announced, with an instant 32% increase in Turkey's GDP figures. Afterwards, who cares if you call it an "apple" or "pear"? Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to stir up a hornet's nest here now that it's quiet, but I was hoping that we could summarize all the analyses in a short paragraph. The CIA says this. World Bank & IMF say that. With the intro that "The state of Turkey's economy is evaluated differently by different observers." I don't think we have to conclude anything. And the information you all have found during this discussion would be important to this brief paragraph. It's not up to us to "conclude" anything. That would be violating WP:OR.Student7 (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way,CIA developed country list DOES list Turkey as a developed country.

Official figures of the new Eurostat GDP measurement system announced today

Nominal GDP: $ 658,786,000,000 (2007 official) Nominal GDP per capita: $ 9,333 (2007 official)

The GDP-PPP figures are not announced, but GDP-PPP in total will be between $ 1,001,000,000,000 to $ 1,020,000,000,000 (2007) while GDP-PPP per capita will be around $ 15,000 (2007). (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Res Gestæ Divi Augusti is on wikibreak this week; otherwise, I'm sure, the new data would already have been incoporated in the article.  --Lambiam 13:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Turkey, as general, is busy at the moment with more "important" things that changing numbers which doesn't have any effect in the real world. AKP's possible closure and all that stuff is the main theme in the news these days :) Deliogul (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
We've qualified a perfectly valid historicl amount for GDP. I don't understand why we are casting aspersions at it when it is the current figure. Just like saying that the Turkish census is wrong because a lady down the street had a baby yesterday. I don't think we should be questioning official figures. When the new ones are available, we can report those. We don't need to be quite so breathless about it, so we? "News at 11?" Not really encyclopedic questioning our own figures IMO. Let's either delete the figures entirely if we don't like them or report the ones we have. Where is it written, that we must anticipate every change? Student7 (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Emblem No

Coat of Arms of Turkey.svg

[1] real emblem ... go web site Turkey Emblem

Following the link gives us the president's standard. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oval shield at the center of the Ottoman Crest, the source of the oval ambassadorial emblem which was used by the Ottoman Empire since the late 19th century, and continued to be used by the Republic of Turkey
But does anyone have a source for the oval-shaped emblem? Our article Emblem of Turkey states that it is used by many government institutions, but the only place where I've seen it is on Wikipedia.  --Lambiam 01:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It's the emblem of the Turkish Embassies and has been in use since Ottoman times (19th century), the first examples being the Ottoman Embassies in Paris and Berlin. After the foundation of the Republic in 1923, the name on the emblem was changed from "Ambassade Impériale Ottomane" to the current "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti - Büyükelçilik" over the years. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The origin of the "oval" shape of the emblem is the oval shield at the center of the Ottoman Crest. The shape of this shield was used by the Ottoman government for the Ottoman Embassy emblems in the late 19th century, and these "oval" ambassadorial emblems continued to be used by the Republic of Turkey after 1923, with the simple difference being the letters "Ambassade Impériale Ottomane" in the former, and "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti - Büyükelçilik" in the latter. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Except the similar design of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, current emblem in Wikipedia is not used anywhere. It can not be accepted as a national or governmental emblem.

Every ministry and/or government institution has its own logo design.

The symbol used in Turkish passports is simply the crescent and star. The logo on passport is very important, as almost all countries use their emblems on passports. Crescent and star is also used in national ID cards and exists in different forms in all of governmental logos.

I strongly support the change of current emblem with this one. Kaygtr (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Writings accusing Turks

According the what articles I read in Wiki about the Turkey and Cyprus, I saw that most of the writings accusing Turks of being violent and killers. This made me almost cry and I really lost my faith anything relayed with west. Because I just saw that they will NEVER accept us and they will keep believing the thinks Armenian, Greek, Kurdish anyone opposite to Turkey says. We are trying for nothing because they never accept others. For example Nazi movements at 40's and now, movements against Afro-American people now and before(I saw that they are calling Katrina hurricane survivors refugee,these are American citizen for god's sake!) Indians, Algeria , India(Below Afganistan one) .... and many other stuations. If there is any western people thinks that we can still be united, please tell me how it will be. [email deleted to protect poster from spam] . I only see more confilicts and I just want peace. But not irregular one, because the one without justice creates more. And your system works on freedom, and ours on justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the above about? There is nothing in the Turkey article on "killers." The only word on "violence" talks about intercommuncal violence on Cyprus. I suggest that the above be deleted, along with my comment, as being political spam and not on topic. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
A more appropriate spot for this thread is on the talk page of WikiProject Turkey.  --Lambiam 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
turkey people are killers cuz theyre white muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The Turks are sometimes very un-civilized. An example: In 1991, Turkish prezident Turgut Ozal had a visit at Bucharest, Romania and adressed to the Romanian prezident Ion Iliescu with the words: "Halal Bashtan". In Romanian language "Halal" means "bad quality / dubious quality" and "Bashtan" means "Mafia boss or Goodfather". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am a Turkish engineer educated at MIT, living in Istanbul, and I have travelled extensively in Europe. I find it interesting that a Romanian is accusing us Turks for being un-civilized (at times). "Helal Baskan", which in Turkish means "Hi President" is probably what was said to the Romanian President by ours in 1991. I have been in Eastern Europe and have seen the children left on the streets by their "mothers" because they do not want to feed them and raise them. It was on BBC news as well just a few weeks ago. I have not seen any other people doing this kind of inhumanity anywhere I have been, not even in much poorer countries and cities. Does your HDI measure this ? EU can now be proud of this process happening inside its "borders". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would translate "Helal Baskan" as "well done president!". An informal expression of appreciation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

IMF data

If we want to insist on IMF data as reference, I think we do not need other countries' data save for rankings.

My suggestions for references:

rankings: either the way it is now (so no reference, but a wikilink to the relevant wikipedia article, which is well sourced. I think this is not Wikipedia self-referencing), or that bulk list of all countries' data, which is but not sorted on the IMF webpage.

2007 figures are not estimates, 2008 ones are estimates, we can have 2008 data only (just change sy=2007 to sy=2008 in the html links above) (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Since the infobox says "estimates" as a standard, we should change them to the 2008 figures. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope not having the subject descriptor is not a problem. Regarding the Gini coefficients, etc:

  1. If it is not something automatic related to the infobox, can we please change the color there from yellowish to black?
  2. Please give sources. I checked some relevant wiki articles. They use, what seems to be the most up-to-date, UN and CIA data there, and they give 2003 data for Gini. Is that 2005 figure based on Turkish Statistic Institute's data? The reference for the HDI index is Human Development Report 2007/2008 (page 230). There on page 282, we have the 2003 data for Gini index, not 2005 data. The 2003 figure is higher than the 2005 figure, and I can understand that, as Turkey might have had greater income inequality in 2003.
  3. 3 I'm not sure about Gini being "medium". It seems to be that HDI is medium. On Human Development Report 2007/2008 (page 281), the Gini indices are given, but the countries are sorted by HDI index, so being "medium" there is about HDI index, not Gini index

Another thing about the infobox is that 3rd footnote seems to be wrong. The population data does not seem to based on 2005 figures. I can understand having footnote 2 (where is the first one?) and footnote 5 in the infobox, but I think the reference for Gini and HDI indices should be listed at the end of the article. So let's have (at most) those two footnotes there, and also let's not use numbers for labeling, let's label them as A and B, or † and ‡ (dagger), or something like that. (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


I believe we have some Turkey related featured pictures on Commons, we should use them whenever they would give about the same information. Most pictures we have here seem to be somewhat featured picture material though. Probably I am not the one with the best of judgments when we talk about the "featured picture material"ness of a picture.

  1. There is this issue with the emblem. Turkey does not have coat of arms. I believe we should not use that picture at all.
It's the emblem of the Turkish Embassies and has been in use since Ottoman times (19th century), the first examples being the Ottoman Embassies in Paris and Berlin. After the foundation of the Republic in 1923, the name on the emblem was changed from "Ambassade Impériale Ottomane" to the current "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti - Büyükelçilik" over the years. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. Do we have a north-south oriented world map?
I think let's leave the map alone - this is by far the best compromise that we could get. Let's not revive a settled issue which was once hotly debated. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. The image of Blue Mosque should be changed in my opinion. Another building is obstructing the view. I believe we have better pictures of the Blue Mosque. Also, if we do not have such an image, we can have the pictures of other buildings like Topkapi Palace there.
I think the view of the Blue Mosque through the cupolas of the baths and imarets nearby is somewhat exotic, but it can of course be changed with an image which shows only the Blue Mosque. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. We do not seem to have a section about Transportation. Having the high speed train picture, or the airport picture would be relevant in such a section. I don't see why it should be relevant in the economy section. This might a matter of taste but I don't think they are featured picture material, either.
It's partially covered (though not extensively) in the main article Economy of Turkey that's linked at the top of the Economy section. Any new additions should respect (and be considerate of) the "100K" maximum limit of the article. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. I love the colors of whirling dervishes picture (and the flu'ness help in this case), but we might have a problem with the copyright. We might need to contact the author. He has released the image into the public domain (so probably no copyright problems), but he also says: "I allow this image to be used by the wikimedia commons" We need permission to be used worldwide, non-Wikipedia things as well. (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


Please check this diff. I checked the source, searched for "Alevi" and "Alevite" there, no hits. Apparently Yazdanism is a Kurdish thing, and most Kurds are Sunni, even if we include Zazas, and most Alevis are not Kurdish as far as I know (ratio might be around 90%). Alawis are different from Alevis. That might be the source of confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Demographics bias

"This low figure is mainly due to prevailing feudal attitudes against women in the Arab- and Kurdish-inhabited southeastern provinces of the country.["

This is not a NPOV. To say this is to suggest the ethnic Turks living in south-eastern Turkey do not share the same views as the Arabs and Kurds, which simply isn't true. This part of the country is largely undeveloped and unindustrialised - most residents still live in villages and work in agriculture. Healthcare and Education are underprovided and in some areas non-existant compared to primarily Turkish, western parts of the country. As far as views of female education in these provinces go, the Kurdish, Turkish and Arab views are homogenised. There is no distinction, therefore no such distinction should be insinuated. The line essentially attempts to wash the Turks hands of any similar views and blames the Kurdish and Arabic populations for the Turkish Governments ignorance of and, if you will, hesitation in developing the South-East.

This attempts to imply Turkish cultural supremacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Did you even check the reference and read it? Click here to read it, and please read it completely I believe it's rather a Kurdish supremacy thing pushing away vices (sometimes not universal vices, but what Westerners think as vices) (in this case male's supreme dominance over females, to the extent of honor killings, and this is a universal vice save for a few cultures). Instead of putting the blame away onto 'Turks' whomever they are, let's try and fix the situation. (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I did check the reference. The BBC is not a divine infallible source. The line clearly directs any blame for uneducated and backward views of women away from Turks, and turns it into a Kurdish and Arabic problem. How is that fair? How is it Kurdish supremacy to ask for collective blame? I don't recall asking for the blame to be centred on Turks, that would be wrong - as would centering the blame on any specific ethnic minority in Turkey, such as the Kurds and Arabs, which is what has been done. Turkey is a country which has collectively voted in a socially conservative, Islamist government. Yet, when "cultural conservatism" becomes a problem, suddenly it's a minority issue. Wtf? Simply saying the southeastern part of the country is unmodernised and backward would suggest Ataturk's great Turkish Republic put a foot wrong and didn't do its job, God forbid anybody ever suggest that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zannyvespertine (talkcontribs) 19:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Those who are keen to stress that southeastern Turkey is "predominantly Kurdish" in every occasion should not be ashamed of this fact when they face the local Kurdish traditions of that region, such as not letting the girls to go to school, "honor killings", fixed marriages from birth, "berdel" (fixed cross marriages between siblings of two families), etc... Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets get something straight. I'm an Armenian-Australian, and on no occasion have I declared the southeastern provinces of Turkey as being "predominantly Kurdish", true as that may be. Your assumption that I'm a Kurdish supremacist of some sort simply because I concerned myself with a Kurdish-related issue is offensive. I'm sorry to inform you that those actions which you listed occur in every province of Turkey. They are not particular to Kurds or Arabs - they occur among ethnic Turks as well - how much clearer can I make this? That line in the Demographics section is still biased, pro-Turkish, and anti-minority. I've been to Turkey, my parents lived there for most of their lives. I've encountered ethnically Turkish women in Aegean Turkey who cannot read, have never stepped on a beach in their lives and were arranged to marry from birth. Are you telling me this is a Kurdish and Arabic problem? This is outrageous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zannyvespertine (talkcontribs) 06:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC reference attributes those cultural traits to the Kurds and Arabs though. If you believe this argument is flawed, you should support your arguments with alternative references. Your personal opinions, experiences or family background don't count very much in Wikipedia as a reference. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I removed "Arabs and Kurds" from that sentence: It's ethically not correct to single out specific ethnic groups as the cause of this problem; even though the argument might actually have some truth in it. The Turkish state also has its fair share of responsibility in dealing with this issue since 1923, as well as the PKK which kills teachers and doctors who are appointed to the southeastern provinces. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we came to agree. And yes yes, I'm not trying to argue over Turkey's internal conflicts. Both sides hold a lot of responsibility for the atrocities that've taken place. But as you and I now concur, attributing illiteracy to ethnic groups for perceived cultural traits which, in fact, are not specific to those cultures is wrong.

Thank you :] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zannyvespertine (talkcontribs) 08:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Turkish rate of 88% considered "low" when countries like Malta and Portugal which are usually considered "developed" have rates of 92% and 93% (not mjuch higher) ? By the way, rates for people below 40 is well into the 90s. It's the older folk who drag the figure down. Real demographic problems faced by Turkey would be the rapid urbanization of the country as a whole and de-population of the east because of migration to the much more prosperous west. These are very much discussed in Turkey. Why isnt this discussed here instead ?

"Article 66 of the Turkish Constitution defines a "Turk" as anyone who is "bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship"; therefore, the legal use of the term "Turkish" as a citizen of Turkey is different from the ethnic definition. The majority of the Turkish population are of Turkish ethnicity." Calling every citizen in Turkey "Turk"s, isn't that assimilation? If you are a citizen with Arabic/German/Japanese ethnicity, you still have to call yourself a "Turk". Isn't this denying a persons ethnic identity? The reason for calling every citizen is as many know, to create more unity in the country, but why does eveybody but the Turks have to put their ethnic identity in the background? I find this unethical. It is nevertheless possible to create unity without denying people their identity; rename the country to United Anatolia an its citizens to Anatolians. This way it will not be only the minorities that have to put their ethnic identity in the second place. This will also prevent the developement of religious extremism because there will not be a need for finding a common platform now that everybody is Anatolians.
Does calling every American, "American" denies their ethnic heritage and identity? What does "British" imply? How about Russian or German? Is this all brutal assimilation? How about Australian?
This wordsmithing has reached ridiculous heights and there is no good will in much of these "Turkish" arguments. Ethnic "Turkic" and Turk as in "person from Turkey" or "citizen of Turkey" are two very different words. Just as "American" and "Indian" are. I have no doubt everybody on this page knows the difference. Can somoeone even describe what an "ethnic" Turk looks like? How many of them do you see when you step on a street in Istanbul or Urfa? What else are we supposed to call someone from Turkey? Please. I am not sure what people mean when they say 80% ethnic Turk, which probably means people who do not feel the need to identify themselves anything other than Turkish. Otherwise, as everybody here knows well, Turkey is a melting pot of a whole host of nations, religions, races, ethnicities and groups that were mostly ethnically cleansed from various Ottoman posessions. That is what makes it so uniqe.--Murat (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
We all know that this geography has the richest history in the world when it comes to different peoples and imperies living and taking place, but again why is this melting pot called Turkey and its citizens Turks? Ecscuse me for saying this but, the crap you have written about Turk and Turkic being different is just not accepted by me. USA is called USA, not New England or New Ireland, and Canada isn't called New England/France.
American, Austrilan, British/Briton are identiteis made of geography as a base. Citizens in USA consists of Native Americans/Indians and different peoples/ethnics from Europe, Afrika and Asia. A citizen is not named by only one of these ethnics or peoples, but they have a identity with the geographical name as a base. We see the same in Austraila and Great Britain.
The Turkish people or the Turks are defined mainly as being speakers of Turkish as a first language. So if the citizens of Turkey are called Turks as well, it is obvious that anybody who is not Turkish ethnically will be denied their real ethnic identity.
You may want to read the above again and re-write. If langauge is the common denominator, and I agree with it, then what is the role of ethnicity?
The role of ethnicity? Ethnicity doesn't need to have any role, it is simply a persons/groups identity. To see differnces between ethnic groups, we need to look at what language they speak. How they looks is not important. Their language, culture and traditions are the key.

I still would like to know what the "definition" of "ethnic Turk" is, so I can figure out who I am! Name Turk was used for the people of Anatolia and its rulers long before the Republic. World called them/us "Turks" for a thousand years. It was not some political invention of 20th century. What else should the people of Turkey be called? Ex-Ottomans, Anatolians, Levantinettes?--Murat (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Turkic people is the group consisting of; the Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz, Tatar, Uyghur, Azerbaijani, Turkmen and Turkish people.
The peoples living in Turkey are Turkish and other Turkics like the Tatars, Azerbaijani and Turkmen. Minorities are Kurds, Georgians including Laz, Circassians, Armenians, Arabs, Romanis and Jews. Calling minorities "Turks" is in my opinion denying peoples ethnic identity. But it could be solved simply by calling the citisenz of Turkey; "Turkish Citizens".
And Anatolian history goes longer back than the Ottomans, Selcuks and Byzants. The Persians and Medians have also a long history and significanse in not only Anatolia, but also in parts of Balkan and todays Syria and Iraq.

2008 figures

The 2008 estimate is the estimate for what will happen by the *end* of 2008, not the beginning, you don't give an end of year estimate in May. It has yet to occur, we are in May, not December 31. As for your Greece, Bulgaria comparison, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not an argument, and they are not featured articles, they are not examples to go by. Featured articles like Australia, Germany, India use the 2007 figures. With regards to your "fat" ref claim, that is an inherently inane argument, it makes no difference what years it covers as it is a url link, the information is all in the link, however a new query can easily be created.--Miyokan (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Keeping a "featured article" below the 100K limit is important, and your IMF link is "fat" because it includes all GDP figures from 2006 to 2013, which is totally unnecessary. The current IMF link has the 2007 and 2008 GDP figures, which are enough. Also, I can give you numerous other countries which use the 2008 estimates for GDP figures as an example, not just Greece and Bulgaria. As I said before, all GDP figures are "estimates" by nature, including those for 2007. There's no such thing as "precise" GDP figures (measuring GDP is different than measuring population or area.) Even so-called "official" government figures for GDP are merely "estimates". Therefore, if we're going to have an "estimate", let's keep the "estimate" up to date. Everyone knows that the "2008 estimate" is for the end of the year. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have already explained that the "other stuff exists argument" is not valid, and Greece and Bulgaria are not featured articles, they are not examples to go by, while most if not all featured articles like Australia, Germany, India use the 2007 estimates. This "other stuff exists argument" also completely avoids the question of why. Once again, you come back to the estimates/precise argument. Nobody is arguing that they are not "precise". The argument is that you don't write GDP figures that have yet to occur. We do not write "future GDP of Turkey". The 2008 estimate is the estimate for what will happen by the *end* of 2008, not the beginning, you don't give an end of year estimate in May. It has yet to occur, we are in May, not December 31.--Miyokan (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
And what makes you think that the 2007 figures have indeed occurred? They are likewise merely "estimates". Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Bangladesh is another "featured article" which uses the 2008 estimates. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Pakistan is also a "featured article" and likewise uses the 2008 estimates. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want "EU members" which use the 2008 estimates, there you go: Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, etc... Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
New Zealand also uses the 2008 estimates. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat it again, WP:Other Stuff Exists is not an argument, I am not concerned with those articles, their figures can easily be changed. It is clear that English is not your native language so I will explain it again. The IMF published its estimates for what it thinks countries GDP reached in 2007. No one is saying they are precise, that is why it says "2007 estimate". The 2008 estimate is the estimate for what will happen by the *end* of 2008, not the beginning, you don't give an end of year estimate in May. It has yet to occur, we are in May, not December 31.--Miyokan (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan (or should I say Mikoyan?) The 2007 figures are likewise "estimates" (they are not the "real deal") therefore what's the use of having old "estimates" when they are not the precise truth (unlike population or area figures, for example, which can be measured precisely.) Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are completely on the wrong page, I will repeat again, why on earth are you talking about the figures not being precise or the "real deal", I have not mentioned anything about this. The 2008 estimate is the estimate for what will happen by the *end* of 2008, not the beginning, you don't give an end of year estimate in May. It has yet to occur, we are in May, not December 31. We do not publish GDP estimates for 2009, do we? The 2008 estimates the IMF released are their estimates for the entire year of 2008, it is their estimate for how large the economy will be by January 1 2009. Seeing as we are not at the end of the year, we use the 2007 figures. That is also why the CIA FactBook uses 2007 GDP figures.--Miyokan (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
And who claims otherwise? Why do you think people give money to buy The Economist's "The World in 2008" which is loaded with "estimates for 2008", in December 2007? As I said before, the 2007 figures are likewise "estimates" and not the precise truth. It's impossible to precisely calculate GDP figures. Therefore, what's the use of having old "estimates" when we can have new "estimates"? Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Because we do not put figures which have yet to occur, the 2007 figures might be estimates, but that has already occured, while the January 1 2009 estimate has not occured. This is not "future Turkey GDP".--Miyokan (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Mikoyan, I'm sorry, but unless you don't change the figures of other countries to 2007 as well, I will continue to believe that you have a "special purpose" for your fixation that's exclusively for Turkey's figures - and for obvious reasons. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Resorting to ad hominem arguments and avoiding the issue is an act of desperation and means that this issue is resolved, it will be changed to the 2007 figures. I will change the other countries when I have time.--Miyokan (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
As long as a "third opinion" doesn't come, the case is open. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Especially an Administrator who has worked for the Turkey article should tell his/her opinion first. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister and Parliment

It states in the article that "Neither the Prime Minister nor the Ministers have to be members of the parliament", while this is true for ministers, prime ministers must be members of the parliment according to Turkish Constituion article 109. (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Ugras

You are correct. It is the president who doesn't have to be a member of the parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cansilgure (talkcontribs) 01:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus problem

There is no reference being made in the article about the promblem of Cyprus in which Turkey invated Cyprus in 1974 and occupies 38.2% of the country territory. Turkey refuses to remove its troops and return the land to its rightfull owners. The name Turkish Republic of Northen Cyprus which refers in the article in the section military should be removed. There is no such state and no country regognise it as a legal entity except Turkey. It should be refer to as the area that Turkey is iligally occuping after the invasion of 1974.

and27sav —Preceding unsigned comment added by And27sav (talkcontribs) 10:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Then we shouldn't write Republic of China in any part of Wikipedia. One can see that there are many other countries all around the world which are either partially recognized or not recognized at all. Recognition is de jure and governing power is de facto. On the other hand, UN resolution states that invading forces must leave the country but that is another chapter of the issue because the problem reached to a deadlock in 1980s when both parties, Greece and Turkey, aimed to give secondary importance to Cyprus issue and keep the status quo. I also want to remind you that it was the Greek Cypriot side which both broke down the London-Zurich Agreement of 1959 and rejected the Annan Plan of 2002. Your words are like the shadows of the words of Nikos Sampson and his puppeteers, the Junta of Colonels. Deliogul (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, spoken like a good pre-programmed Turk. :-) Ironic you mention the RoC, considering most Turks I've spoken with have a similar robotic mentality to PRC "citizens". The 2002 agreement was ridiculous, and this is from someone who is neither Greek nor Cypriot. Why would the Cypriots agree to something that was developed to placate Turkey, kept an occupation military there, Turkish occupying settlers, and made a permanent federal split -- rewarding Turkish aggression. You ever wonder why Turkey supports Israel so much? Maybe because Israel also doesn't want a competing genocide (i.e. Armenians), or claims on colonization (i.e. Palestine question). Turkey should get the heck out of Cyprus, as well should the British. Will you ever understand and go against your brainwashing? Doubt it. The little wheels are spinning in your head as you read this... I'm sure. :-)
It shouldn't be that easy to categorize people as "pre-programmed" when you don't agree with them. Especially when people are ready to believe it just because the opposite party is Turkish. Do we have to think like you and agree with you all the time - to be considered "intelligent" or "open-minded"? Don't think so. Cheers --Gokhan (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is not about brainwashing brother. I'm from the lucky group which has access to education and high social life in Turkey. I just wanted to mention that neither side is innocent and even if the whole world disagrees it, there is a de facto state there and we can't solve this problem by cheap word tricks here. I love Cyprus and I can handle the "heaviness" of asking for a visa rather than entering the country just by showing my Turkish ID card and "losing" Cyprus won't change another single thing in my life. Ok, maybe I would lose a "valuable source" in my main field, International Relations, but for peace, I can accept it. By the way, we can talk Israel issue deeper if you want but you may want to look at the period before and after the Johnson letter and Arab support to Makarios government in order to understand the phases of the Middle East policy of Turkey. Deliogul (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Again the map!

Please change it back, every reasonalbloe persons notices this is seriously biased, it looks like turkey belongs ONLY to europe, but no please!, at least make it in the middle of asia and europe. Sine Bot out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • You should see this.
    Euro 2008.png

You're wrong! Turkey is a European country and it belongs to Europe and you have to know that Israel, Armenia and Cyprus are members of the UEFA too. (They are geographically Asian...) --Izmir lee (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Izmirli, I don't think the discussion is that relevant, who cares about which map is there ( as long as it's correct)? Topics about Turkey are always delicate here @ WP thanks to lots of people with biases and enmities. If we try to fight every one of those(which we actually try to do), we should stop working or going to school - & just live connected to WP. Relax - Bence çok takma koçum. Regards, --Gokhan (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Logo of the UEFA which has the map of Europe in it

Honestly, enough is enough with the map!

OK folks, our aim should be the creation of a stable article. Stable articles make for reliable encyclopedias. Now, last time I checked, Turkey has not actually relocated since it was founded. If we can't agree where Turkey is, this makes us look fairly foolish to all the other articles about countries with an established consensus on static geographical location. I'm not terribly fired up about any one image, but the current one (beige land mass with Turkey colored red, and center in the image) seems fine to be. The country is centered, so we can see all the wonderful countries of the earth that surround Turkey. Next thing you know we'll get an image viewing Turkey from the point of view of Iceland, or French Guyana (politically a part of Europe!). If and when the EU and Turkey get together, rest assured that Wikipedia will be their last possible point of consultation. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the point of the map should be to show where Turkey is located, not to make a point about whether Turkey is in Europe or in Asia. The latest map with Turkey in the middle shows most of Europe (except for the top of Scandinavia), a bit of Africa, and some of Asia, so I think it gives a clear image of where the country is located. I think I'll restore it... Klausness (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Your proposal makes sense. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
That's probably because you are Greek. Berlinerzeitung (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, it's been reverted again. I unreverted, but we really need to get some consensus here about what map to use. Klausness (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. A map that shows Turkey "as part of Europe" is completely incorrect in any event. The lead of the articles says clearly that Turkey is a transcontinental country. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Turkey is special as being a transcontinental country, portraying is just in Europe wouldn't portray the whole picture. --Gokhan (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In light of the fact that this has turned into an edit war with the map over the past 24 hours, I have increased the protection of Turkey for 1 day in the hopes that people can come here and talk it through a little bit. We have two camps (maybe more, but lets keep it simple). One is in favor of a politicaly symbolic map that shows Turkey oriented to Europe. The other camp puts Turkey in the middle to show where it is in relation to surrounding countries. Personally, I like a version of the map that centers on Turkey, but more than anything, I'd really just like to see a consistent version of the map remain for more than a day or two. If there is a consensus on any particular version, then we should just support it and leave it be... unless the consensus is to put up a map of Nevada or something. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

firstly,i have to say that Turks fell European since the Turkish Council is founded by Kemal Ataturk.Turks have Caucasian race and Turkey is a Muslem country(officially Secular).I changed former map but realy i got bored.If all people agreed to Turkey's location map(except Turks),i DO NOT care anymore if Turkey will join to Eu or not.You are seperating us from Europe.Things are going to bad,Turks have high self-esteem.I am realy bored this debate.OK Turkey is Middle Eastern even Far Eastern either AFRICAN or anything else.Middle east stands for Arapic region(named by Britishs) " Honestly, enough is enough with the EUROPE! " (as you said).Big Turkish Union MUST BE FOUND against to Europe(especially France) anymore.We know Eu is founded because of prevent Europe from America and make Europe stronger.Therefore,Turkish union or Big Turkiye must be found —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aegeanfighter (talkcontribs) 20:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Turkey is politically and economically a member of European institutions. Turkey is a founding member of the Council of Europe since 1949, an associate member of the EU (currently negotiating for full membership) since 1963 and is part of the European Customs Union since 1995. The "Turkish State" is a part of Europe, just like the "Cypriot State" is a part of Europe (but not the island itself). Anatolia is actually closer to the European mainland than the British Isles or Iceland, and Turkey also has land in Europe, where Istanbul, its largest city and historic capital, is located. Berlinerzeitung (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't mean a politically loaded map showing only Europe should be shown. 97% of Turkey is in Asia; you don't see me suggesting a map which completely cuts out Europe and only showing Asia do you? The centred map we currently have is the most accurate and npov.Pureditor 03:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
100% of Cyprus is geographically in Asia, take a look at its map. The "political and economic allegiance of a state" is more important, and Turkey (the "Turkish State", just like the "Cypriot State") is clearly a part of Europe. Go to the BBC, The Economist or the Financial Times websites and you'll see that Turkey is only in the "Europe" section, not "both in Europe and the Middle East." Berlinerzeitung (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Unless you don't change the map of Cyprus as well (which is 100% in Asia) I will believe your "sensitivity" on this issue is politically motivated and a POV in itself. Berlinerzeitung (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Cyprus is in the EU and according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style thats the way Cyprus as an EU member should have its map. Turkey is not, so it has a centred map like everyone else. See Azerbaijan and Georgia (country) for articles similar to Turkey in their political and georaphical positions.Pureditor 04:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there really a "consensus" on "this" map?
Turkey is an associate member of the EU since 1963 and is officially in full accession negotiations since 2005. Turkey's economy is already integrated to the EU Customs Territory since 1995. Full membership is only a matter of time. Go to the EU's official website and you'll see Turkey on Europe's map at the Enlargement section Azerbaijan and Georgia are neither associate members of the EU, nor official candidates for full membership. Berlinerzeitung (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with Berlinerzeitung. Turkey is geographically, socially and politically European! You can't change the truth... --Izmir lee (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the people of Europe would disagree with you. 97% of Turkey is in Asia. With things like the genocide of the Armenians you could hardly call it socially European and its pretty unlikely that it will ever be a member of the EU considering support is so low among current EU members.
Sure anyway none of this has anything to do with a map. You say You can't change the truth. By not having Turkey in the centre of a map you are trying to do that. Your thoughts are pure POV and I wouldn't be surprised ifBerlinerzeitung was a sockpuppet of yours.Pureditor 02:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Turkey is both European and Asian. Sigh. How fucking pointless this is. Get a life already. - (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


I would just like to say that I think the section should start with the number of Muslims in Turkey and that it is the religion of the people etc. Then secularism should be mentioned after that, this is because the religion section is based in the demographics section, therefore it mainly concerns on statistics and demographics of religion. And I don't see why it is a big deal of having Islam in Turkey as being in Further information on the section, it doesn't mean Islam is the state religion of Turkey by just putting it there, but it will provide the readers of the article with more information of religion in Turkey, and that is what the Islam in Turkey shows, it has all historical events and information needed, so I believe it should be stated there, it is one of the main aspects or concepts of religion in Turkey, so it clearly makes sense. By just putting it that there doesn't make me an Islamist (as someone has mentioned) - ridiculous! This is Wikipedia, where it is an encyclopedia providing information for the people, just because Turkey is a Secular state, it shouldn't be prevented to the way information is used on the article. Please people. Common sense! Thankyou! Peace Out. Moshin (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Turkey is a largely Muslim nation, which is governed by a secular state apparatus. Someone reading this article should come away with the knowledge that the population of Turkey is overwhelmingly Muslim. That the State is itself militantly secular is equally important. The struggle between striking a workable balance between these two facts is the at the heart of most of Turkey's current political issues... so no surprise that this plagues the Wikipedia article as well. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring in the Turkey article

  • Adlerschloß and Mulacho are sockpuppets.
  • Adlerschloß has been engaged in numerous edit wars in other articles.
  • Moshin is a dedicated Islamist who keeps deleting referenced facts according to his own ideological views (POV). His only concern is to add some extra Islamic flavour to articles. Unfortunately for him, the secular democratic Turkish Republic will never become an "Islamic Republic" like his native homeland. (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Moshin says that he isn't an Islamist but he created userboxes about pro-AKP and lifting of ban of headscarves in universities! --Izmir lee (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, whose sockpuppet would I be? This is a personal attack. Adlerschloß (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Everyone calm down. IP is a sock of the banned editor User:Shuppiluliuma who has been here under countless other names, and he's just trying to get a rise out of anyone who will listen. I have protected the page for a few days, and I would just suggest everyone take a few deep breaths and relax. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
That is the same way in which the party views themselves as not being an Islamist. It is secularists who view them as this, and calling Islamist is mainly mentioned by those in the western world by the way. I am trying to create a sense of balance in Wikipedia of Islam and Secularism in the article, and that is what the party is tring to do, a balance in society. And even if I was an Islamist so what, does Wikipedia not only allow those with different morals and ideas? or doesnt the Turkey article allow this? Moshin (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I just add I am certainly not a sock puppet of some Islamist editor! Thanks and good day.Mulacho (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


GDP 2007 GDP nominal = $ 482 billion GDP nominal per capita = $ 6.774 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's outdated information, even the CIA World Factbook updated Turkey's figures recently. Berlinerzeitung (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
New list by The World Bank: Berlinerzeitung (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Centered map reflects consensus

alright, it appears that the map which is currently displayed at the time of this post reflects consensus. It is centered geographically to reflect the countries surrounding Turkey; European, Caucasian, African, Middle Eastern, Asian, and Sub-Continent... Everyone is involved. Protection is reduced, so let us all now focus on building the article, and not fighting over the map. Happy editing. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Prime Minister shall be appointed among the members of Turkish Grand National Assembly

The page of Turkey says :"Neither the Prime Minister nor the Ministers have to be members of the parliament" (footnote 33).

This is not true. Pursuant to Turkish Constitution Article 109:

"The Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President of the Republic from among the members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly"

The English version of the Constitution of The Republic of Turkey can be found on:

I hope you change this wrong information as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssurenoglu (talkcontribs) 22:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely new map

New map

I created a new map from scratch, from a completely different angle.

How's this one?

Berlinerzeitung (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair and shows Turkey between Europe, Asia and Africa. It's also better than the pink map, which lacks Scandinavia and many other details. Lyulkov (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an improvement over the maps which try to make Turkey appear as a part of Europe, but is not quite good enough. In this map, Turkey is not centered but is in fact near the extreme south of the map. You show all of Scandinavia, and in fact all the way north to the Arctic islands of Svalbard (!!), but show only small amounts of territory of countries that are actually near Turkey, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This map shows most of the Russian far east, and even most of Mongolia, but does not even go as far south as Mecca and Medina. If you feel using a map that shows the earth's curvature is important, please place Turkey in a more appropriate position towards the map's center. The furthest northern point on the map should not go above the southern part of Scandinavia, and the map's southern edge should be south of the Egypt/Sudan border, and south of Mecca and Medina. Turkey should be near the map's center, and including, seemingly for political reasons based on your prior edits, all of geographic Europe and placing Turkey towards the bottom of the map is not appropriate at all. Do not change the map until consensus has been established on Talk. Adlerschloß (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


Current map of Cyprus
The map I've created
  • Why did you changed Turkey's map which I've created? Adlerschloß says "In this map, Turkey is not centered but is in fact near the extreme south of the map. You show all of Scandinavia, and in fact all the way north to the Arctic islands of Svalbard (!!), but show only small amounts of territory of countries that are actually near Turkey, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This map shows most of the Russian far east, and even most of Mongolia, but does not even go as far south as Mecca and Medina". He is trying to show Turkey like a Middle Eastern country but Turkey is a European country! Cyprus, an Asian island, has the same map with Turkey's former map but nobody changes it's map because Cyprus is Christian! There is a double standart in this occasion! --Izmir lee (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Adlerschloß and Mulacho are sockpuppets by the way, possibly affiliated with the Islamist named Moshin (who has turned the Turkey article into a kind of propaganda platform for promoting Islamism), or one of the many Greeks and Armenians who have turned the task of "mocking Turkey" (their ex ruling state) into the greatest passion of their lives. (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I am no one's sockpuppet. I am neither Greek nor Armenian, and in fact earlier I created a map for the Armenia article which showed the country centered near its neighbors, not at the edge of a map dominated by the European continent. The dispute was similar to this one regarding Turkey. I am not an Islamist nor even a Muslim. Izmir Lee's bias should be made obvious by his tone. Less than 5% of Turkey's territory is in Europe. My point is that the map in question, which has been reverted to an older and even worse map unfortunately, shows huge amounts of territory that are nowhere near Turkey. How near the Arctic Ocean is Turkey? How near Scandinavia is Turkey? By comparison, how near Saudi Arabia and Egypt is Turkey? It would be most appropriate for Turkey to located near the center of any map, and not at the southern edge. Showing countries nowhere near Turkey, such as the Scandinavian countries and Ireland, in their territorial entirety while showing only small parts of countries very close to Turkey, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, is inappropriate. I trust that this will be solved rationally and by consensus and we will all agree on a map which with Turkey at the center, and that politically motivated people who wish to show it at the edge of a map dominated by the European continent will not be able to win this one with hysterical comments and edit warring. Adlerschloß (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow I am just completely shocked by your comments, all I have done is by adding three words to the section of the article, Islam in Turkey as 'Further information'. And by that you assume that I am an Islamist, that is just shocking. I have not said Islam is the state religion of Turkey or anything associated with politics or anything, but just added the name of an article on the page to provide people with more information, and by that you call make these comments. I have not added anything to that section of the article, but just 3 three words of a link to an article. I am assuming it is the same person it was before, please have common sense.. again I am sure it will come round. Moshin (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Adlerschloß, if you want to change some maps without consensus, you have to change Cyprus' map first. Because it is located between Turkey and Egypt. This means Cyprus is nearer than Turkey to Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc. but we can't see these countries in the map... Cyprus is completely in Asia but Turkey is a transcontinental country like Russia, France, Spain etc. --Izmir lee (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
France and Spain could only be classified as "transcontinental," a distinction uncommonly made in their cases, because very small territories under their sovereignty lie outside of the mainlands of their territory on the European continent. Inversely, only a very small territory of Turkey lies on the European continent, while its mainland and historical hearland, over 95% of its territory, lies in Anatolia, which is unambiguously a part of Asia. Cyprus is a member of the European Union, while Turkey is not. Turkey aspires to join, but its ascension is by no means certain, and in fact at this point seems unlikely to happen anytime in the foreseeable future. Its potential ascension is controversial in many states of the EU and inside of Turkey itself. Orienting a map of Turkey in a form dominated by the European continent showcases a blatantly political bias while our mission here should be to strive towards neutrality. If Turkey ever joins the EU in the future, its map should be treated as that of other EU member states. As this is not currently the case, it is inappropriate to politically bias the map towards Europe in such a way when Turkey, clearly, is not unambiguously, purely, or completely a European state. It is only fair and neutral to center Turkey in the map as with any other country. Please see maps in articles for Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan for precedents on how maps for nations often considered to be "transcontinental" between Southeast Europe and Western Asia have been treated. (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. The map that shows Turkey as if it were a member of the EU is inappropriate. Since it is a transcontinental country, it should be shown as such. If some hardline Kemalists have a problem with that, too bad for them. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Europe is not the same as the EU. Also, keep in mind that the definition of Europe is pretty arbitrary. Geographically, there's no resion why part of Azerbaijan should be considered to be in Europe but the entire Anatolian portion of Turkey is considered to be in Asia. As I've said before, the point of the locator map is supposed to be to allow a reader to figure out where in the world Turkey is, not to make a statement about whether Turkey is in Europe or Asia or both. Since I suspect that most readers of the English-language wikipedia are more familiar with European geography than Asian geography, I think it makes sense to include all of Europe, because that would be helpful to those readers. However, I think the map should also include portions of Asia and Africa (more than in the EU-based map), since that makes the exact location of Turkey clearer, and because locator maps should, in general, include significant portions of all adjacent countries. Just for the record, I think that the Cyprus locator map is, if anything, even worse than the EU-based Turkey locator map, since it puts Cyprus in a corner of the map and gives no indication of what's on the non-European side. Also, I don't know why thinks that Turkey's "historical heartland" lies in Anatolia when half of Istanbul is in Europe. The Kemalists tried to construct a history of Turkey that de-emphasized Istanbul (going so far as to move the capital to Ankara) in order to take power away from the Ottoman elites in Istanbul, but that history is largely a fiction. Historically, the cultural and intellectual center of Turkey has always been Istanbul, half of which is in Europe. Klausness (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"Europe" may be an arbitrary construction, but Anatolia is and always has only been considered a part of Asia. In fact, the term "Asia" came to existence as a description by the Greeks for the landmass we would describe as Anatolia/Asia Minor. Precise boundaries of the European "continent" (really a "subcontinent" of Eurasia) will vary, but none include Asia Minor.
I do not see why a map needs to go so far north as the Arctic Ocean so that readers in the English language world will be able to recognize where Turkey is in relation to European geography, which it's not even clear that most readers of the English language Wikipedia are especially familiar with. I'd like to see some sort of evidence backing up such a claim before it is used as justification for any sort of policy. It's difficult to know how seriously to take that line of argument. But, anyway -- if we already are including the British Isles and the entire Mediterranean Sea, and merely crop north of the southern part of the Scandinavian peninsula, as suggested earlier, this clearly shows enough of Europe for readers, without the absurdity of showing areas nowhere near Turkey, without showing places thousands of miles from Ankara. A map with Turkey on the very bottom which stretches all the way to Svalbard and Mongolia but only includes small portions of countries that are actually near Turkey, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, seems obviously and deliberately biased in its orientation and its presentation of Turkey's position in the world. A problem here is that maps are unfortunately abused for political purposes (should I go on with examples throughout history?), and many of the above messages on this very talk page confirm that certain users here are specifically motivated by a desire for Turkey to be shown as a "European country" on its map. It is appropriate for us to show Turkey centered on a map showcasing its place in the world without attempting to politically bias readers one way or another on the "European question." When protection is lifted I will revert Izmir Lee's edits, made against consensus, and place a less controversial and more appropriate map. A Eurocentric map is a severe disservice to readers in this case, and does not present an accurate view of Turkey's unique and fascinating position in the world.
Adlerschloß (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Adlerschloss, you write about political purposes and abuses of maps, so tell me why is Europe separated from Asia even they are the same continent in actually? I think the reason is a more cultural case or let's say a result of self centered character of European culture. As far as I have read in this MAP discussion, I cannot see a regualr solution, this discussion is more like dicussing "chicken comes from the egg or egg comes from chicken", this is nonsense, there wont be a solution for this map thing, because the discussion on its basics is very irrevelant to the main topic, talking on a map is a very superficial way of dicussing issues ( a medivial inquisitors' style of discussing). I will give you extreme examples to you now; "Ottoman was a European country when it was at its most expanded territorial state" is that right or wrong? Or How can we consider Danmark European eventhough GREENLAND is that far from Europe (Greenland is the largest territorial area in Europe, larger than Danmark itself, so percentage that you guys have been using does not make sense anymore). That's what the discussion indicates; however this is not the fact. The problem here is cultural and this problem does not solve anything please try to focus on solutions not the vicious circle if you want solution ofcourse. (cantikadam (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Turkish people article

Can somebody please archive the talk page on the Turkish people article, i would do it but i dont know how too, and it seems that nobody else is willing to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just created it. Justinz84 (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does a justification of the Turkish military action in Cyprus have to be in this article?

I know that there are severe edit wars on this issue, but there is a separate (hotly disputed) article on the Turkish military action. This present article also includes a brief justification of the event. Whether it is correct or not, it is a non-neutral, non-encyclopedic value judgment that should not be in this article, and I am taking it out. APW (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you understand from "justification", can you give a more detailed explanation? I guess we can find a better way to write that section. Deliogul (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Map & religion vandalism

I have noticed that someone uploaded a new map over the consensus centered one yesterday, just when I thought this issue had finally died down. I will try to get to uploading the old map again soon, but if someone else can correct this in the meantime, that would be appreciated. Also, due to persistent vandalism, it may be necessary to protect the image in some way if that is possible. Adlerschloß (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  • There seems to be a changing of maps here now and then, please can people discuss the issue of which map they would like to be viewed on the article rather than changing it to your likings, please discuss, or the article will be blocked again! By the way, please do not edit religion while you are editing 'maps' (continuos behaviors). Thanks. M Miah (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, let's analyze what's going on in the Religion section of the article:

User:M Miah wants only Religion in Turkey and Islam in Turkey to remain as "main articles" on top, while removing other main articles which he personally finds distasteful such as Christianity in Turkey, Judaism in Turkey and especially Secularism in Turkey. He actually makes no secret (in his user page boxes) that he despises Kemalism and secularism. I have also read numerous messages from User:M Miah (including the ones that he just deleted in this page, check out the History of Talk:Turkey) in which he openly expresses his "bias" on this issue.

I can only tell him a few things:

  • Wikipedia is not a platform to promote Islamism while deleting things related to Christianity, Judaism, secularism or any other given ideology which one might find distasteful.
  • He doesn't own the article.

In my opinion, his acts amount to "religious fanatism" and "intolerance" towards "others". Gönülçelen (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Well I think the only reason why you want to show all religions, because you trying to keep people away from knowing that Turkish people are Muslims, but trying bring this whole secularism into the people with these other religions, and they are irreligious. It is pretty reasonable that, if only Islam in Turkey is shown, because 99% of the people follow the religion of Islam. All the other religions are just minority religions, plus the articles do not show much detail. over 60% of the people are religious Muslims, and you are attacking the Turkish culture in Wikipedia. M Miah (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Does any reasonable person not think Turkey is an almost entirely Muslim nation? I don't think speaking to other religious communities in Turkey in a Wikipedia article is going to change the world's opinion of that. If anything, the other religions noted have important history that took place in what is now Turkey, so the links are clearly relevant. The two sides of this are speaking past each other. One is trying to discuss religion among the people who live inside the borders of Turkey. The other side is trying to discuss the political concept of secularism, and how the state applies it in running Turkish government.

The problems seem to arise in this article when one side tries to stamp out the other. Clearly, there are at least two distinct Turkeys inside the borders of the Republic of Turkey, and they don't get along very well, and their inability to mutually define the identity of their country is reflected in this article, which can't settle on one stable description of Turkey for more than 15 minutes. Wikipedia is not a political propaganda site, nor will the quality of this article impact the ability of Turkey to enter the EU, or for the AK Party to lead a stable government. The very fact that people can't even settle on the color of the map demonstrates what a joke this article is. A 12 year old school kid in Oklahoma who pulls up the Turkey article is probably looking up the bird, and has no idea where the country of Turkey is, let alone what level of political or economic development the country is at. Needless to say, we now have millions of English speaking students who think Turkey is a magical place floating sometimes in Europe, and other times in Asia. If you can't come to consensus on where or what your country is, then this is probably a hopeless exercise.

There is room for both sides of this to exist in the article in a NPOV fashion. Turkey has a lot of Muslims, as well as a political system that centers on secularism; both need to be described without placing any value on them. Turkey has a lot of territory that is geographically in Asia. We can agree on this. Most of Turkey's area is, in fact, in Asia, and we can agree on this as well. However, the little itty bitty piece of Turkey that is geographically in Europe is, in fact, bigger than a number of European countries, and it is geographically pressed up against the rest of Turkey, and thus Turkey is very much a European and an Asian country, because it extends across both landmasses as one contiguous unit. Politically, Turkey is a part of European political institutions in a way that places like Tunisia are not. This is a fact. Turkey is politically integrated with Europe. Inside Turkey there is a cultural struggle reflecting these dual identities. This is a fact. Inside Europe there is also a cultural struggle reflecting a debate over what qualifies someone as European (geographic, cultural, political, or some combination of the three). This is a fact. An NPOV article would describe all of these facts without assessing their value. Will that happen? Doubt it, but I think it would be in the best spirit of what Wikipedia is supposed to be about if you guys could spend the next week working together to create a neutral, informative article. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright then completely understand, but the links to these pages looks out of order. Main article should be: Religion in Turkey, Secularism in Turkey and Islam in Turkey, and Further information: Christianity in Turkey and Judaism in Turkey.M Miah (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
No other section in the Turkey article has "Further information". All of them should be listed in "Main articles", as in the other sections of the Turkey article. What makes the Religion section more important than others, especially in a constitutionally secular country, which defines "religion" in its laws as a "matter of private conscience"? Gönülçelen (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Protecting and defending the rights (and voice) of ethnically and religiously diverse groups in Turkey is important for me. I was born to a Muslim Turkish family, but I have half-American and half-French cousins who are Christian. My closest friend (who was likewise born to a Muslim Turkish family) recently married with a Turkish Armenian (and Christian) lady. Many of my best friends are Turkish Jews, actually I live in a building in Istanbul with lots of Jewish families. I personally find the growing discrimination and prejudice against non-Muslims in Turkey, mostly by radical Islamic groups, disgusting.

Secularism and Kemalism are also important for me, because I am perfectly aware of the fact that, without Atatürk's reforms, a country like Turkey (with no oil and natural gas) could have never become the largest Muslim economy and industrial producer in the world (the only Muslim country in any "Developed Country" list), with the best developed democracy and civil rights in any Muslim-majority country, despite all its flaws (by West European and American standards). Atatürk wanted to "compress" 500 years of European cultural, mental and scientific evolution into 15 years of his presidency (similar to the reforms that Peter the Great made in Russia after returning from his long trip to Western Europe), but of course, there was no way that these reforms (which took Europe 500 years to absorb) could have been absorbed by the relatively lower-educated Turkish populace (less than 10% of Turks could read and write when Atatürk became the President) in just 15 years without any problems; especially given the fact that Islam is an extremely conservative religion which doesn't tolerate "reform" and "change" too much. Gönülçelen (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You keep on repeating these Turkish laws, 'religion is a matter of private conscience' - but this is Wikipedia, it does not run by any constitution from any country, it is supposed to give a neutral point of view. So I understand that you are a Muslim and a Turkish right? and you are trying to give a neutral point of view by adding other religions, and that is fine. The way the article is now, it should be like this to give a balanced type of information. Turkey is 99% Muslim country, but still a strong secular state and I respect that, but this is Wikipedia and it should be given a neutral point of view, and by that I added Islam in Turkey as Further information, but now you want to add the others.. whatever. M Miah (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Moved 'ISLAM in Turkey* with the others, in the further information. M Miah (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
No other section in the article has "Further information", this is not in line with the style of the rest of the article. What makes Religion (which is an "abstract" concept and a matter of private conscience) more important than the other sections, especially in a constitutionally secular country? Wikipedia is not a tool for Islamic missionary activities. Please show some more respect to the sensitivities of the Turkish users, because you are touching a very sensitive issue in Turkey. I can likewise edit the Bangladesh article and add a substantial amount of information (supported by references) which you may find disturbing or "uninspiring in terms of national pride", so please be more respectful to the sensitivities of others. Gönülçelen (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Haha, don't make me laugh 'tool for missionary activities', how can 'Further Information' effect people, by finding it disturbing and - national pride??? What! All I have to say please have sense of mind, are you really sure you're not the only one who gets effected by this Further Information business? Allah please help us all! Well I have let you keep it like that, since you hate 'Further Information' so much, all the religions are listed in the main articles, hope you are happy, and once again please learn about ISLAM one day. Salaam. M Miah (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. What you have been discussing on is just a waste of time. It is not important if Turkey is geographically European or not (Even so what is Europea, it is ASIA if you look the point properly geographical). The problem is cultural that is all. However in today's world we should consider the cultural differencies on a positive way and we should more concentrate on working together to develop better economies and affairs. That is what going on through the whole world !! U.S.A does not care if China is christian or whatever, just job what they consider. If Europeans keep on thinking as they think in 1200s the development of Europe and surrounding countries will be less than those who are in a development race (Brazil, China, India etc.) so please do not stuck in really unrevelant issues, get to the point. (cantikadam (talk) 08:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

I guess everybody knows that this "99 percent" thing is no more than state propaganda. When you were born, they wrote it on your ID, without asking it to you. My parents are former communist activists and even on their ID's it wrote "Islam" in the religion section. Also there are Alevis, millions of them, who are strongly different than Sunni Islam that the Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı promotes. Wake up. Deliogul (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: Look, I really like to change this "99 percent thing" for good. It is as simple and useless as the Soviet claim of the atheism of its population. It is a reality that there is a considerable amount of citizens who don't believe in God at all, who beileve in a force but not "Allah" and who don't care about religion at all. Deliogul (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Support - The math just isn't there to support 99%. Something along the lines of "Turkey is a predominantly Muslim nation with significant religious minorities" perhaps? Hiberniantears (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Well im prediciting that probably the real Muslim population is around 70% (based on how many people think religion is important), but the Eurobarometer Poll showed that the figure '99%', is in fact quite correct. If you ask a non-practicing/secular Turk, he would still say he is a Muslim, but not religious. M Miah (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

One has to keep in mind that talking about religion is sort of a taboo in many places around Turkey. Maybe one can say that God does not exist while tasting an expensive coffee next to Bosporus at Bebek neighborhood but you can't do that if you are in Anatolia. You have to say that you believe in Islam in order to be accepted to the social and economic community. Deliogul (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add that a centred map is the consensus on this article and that am altered map showing a skewed picture is not acceptable.Pureditor 16:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add that I have reverted it to the version it was before, told you people to discuss it in the talk page to come to an agreement. Not my fault, trying to minimize reverts. Plus was the map even agreed? AMK1211 just came and put in without discussing it. Especially when new maps arrive they must be discussed in the talk page, rather than a continues edit war. M Miah (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


Hello Turkey.I'm Paul Auttonberry.I am from America.Your country is very big.I will visit you tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)