This template is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Turkey is both in Europe and in Asia (Islamic Middle East), presenting caractheristics of both. Given that only about 3% of its territory is in Europe it should be listed in the Asia category. The mere statement and parade of maps is not an argument for Turkey's straight categorization as European. User Aegean Boy seems, given the political positions stated in his user page, to be completely incapable of understanding, of even accepting, this dual nature of Turkey and the fact that most of the country is in Asia (as well as the fact that a great part of its culture is linked not to Europe but to the Middle East). It's strange to see someone (a Turk) refusing a significant part of his culture and identity. And it does remind one of a permanentely banned editor, User:Izmir lee, known for his sockpuppets. Aegean Boy, are you Izmir lee? The Ogre (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
OH! Behold! There are maps that do not included Asian Turkey in Europe!! What a surprise! I wonder why? The Ogre (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Location of Europe
First, I'm not a suckpuppet of any banned users! Turkey is European like Armenia, Cyprus, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Russia and Kazakhstan. These countries are both partly or completely located in Asia but they are all European. You put Armenia(100% in Asia) and Russia(67% in Asia) to Europe but you put Turkey(96% in Asia) and Kazakhstan(95% in Asia) to Asia. WHY? Because you say Islamic Middle East. This shows us that you are classifying countries by their religion! I read your talk page and I saw that a user wrote "For your information, Azerbaijan is a full member of the Council of Europe and geographically is partially in Europe, unlike Armenia which is fully located in Asia and which has likewise been associated for millennia with the Iranian and Turkic cultural milieu, but which you decided to include into Europe nonetheless. Just because the name of a country doesn't sound usual to a Western Anglophone ear doesn't mean it is geographically isolated from Europe. Modern Azerbaijan, having been part of the Russian Empire and the USSR for centuries, in fact shares a lot more similarities with Europe in terms of lifestyles than with Oman or Yemen. There is no basis in your attempts to present Georgia and Armenia as European and Azerbaijan as Asian, except your cultural prejudice. I suggest you examine this 'Countries of Europe' template before you make anymore reverts". Please stop editing with this logic. Aegean Boy (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
But Europe is a cultural as well as a geographical entity, and culturally speaking, Turkey and Azerbaijan are not the least bit European. There is NOTHING in the culture of those countries tying them to Europe. And by the way, citing other wikipedia articles, modified by users such as yourself, is not a valid way to argue. --Tsourkpk (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Stop deleting talk pages and accusing me of using suckpuppets Tsourkpk!!! Why do you say Georgia, Armenia and Cyprus are European, Turkey and Azerbaijan are Asian?! Because they are turkic and muslims and you are christian hence you don't like them. This was the idea of 12nd century! The Crusades fought against Muslims because of people who thought like you. Please accept that Europe isn't only Christian. Aegean Boy (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Tsourkpk, Stop vandalising articles or i'll report you. Aegean Boy (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, I agree with Aegean Boy here. While it is commonly known that Cyprus and Eastern Turkey are geographically in Asia, they are politically, culturally, ethnically, and linguistically considered European. Also, may I point out to people that the ideas of "Europe" and "Asia" are simply man-made, and do not actually exist as tectonic plates, in which they are considered one unity. Because of this, when dividing up Eurasia, it has become more common to divide into "Europe+Western Asia", and "Eastern Asia+Southern Asia", as has been done in several country lists on Wikipedia. I suggest doing a similar thing on this template. However, since there are no countries mentioned which come under "Eastern Asia+Southern Asia", there won't be a need for that category, and the term "Eurasia" can be applied. Note, North America and South America are different continets (which actually are separated by a tectonic plate) but they have still been put together as one on the template, so the idea of joining Europe and Asia into one category certainly shouldn't be such a problem. I will conduct the changes and see if there is agreement. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
We are talking about the Greek diaspora here. In this context, there is no such thing as "Eurasia", and the experiences of Greeks living in what is now Turkey are fundamentally different form those of western Europe. The Greeks diaspora in western Europe arose after the Ottoman conquest, when many Greeks migrated to the West to avoid persecution and for economic reasons. This continued up until the mid-20th century. By contrast, the Greeks of Anatolia (Turkey) were there before the Ottoman conquest. There was no migration to Anatolia from Greece, and their experience has been markedly different. They were subject to pogroms and persecution which the Greek in the western European diaspora were not. Rather than migrating to Turkey in the 20th century for economic reasons, they were sent to Greece as part of a population exchange agreement. Thus, their experience and history are the complete opposite of the Greeks in Western Europe. Their culture is also more influenced by Middle Eastern cultures, especially in terms of mentality, art, cuisine. Thus, to include the Greeks of Anatolia with the Greek diaspora in the West makes absolutely no sense. We are not going to go ahead with such nonsense in this article in order to appease the "wannabe European" complex of some people. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, Aegean Boy brought up an interesting prospective on his sockpuppetery case page. If Turkey is to be placed in the "Asia" category, then why not Russia? Having the "Eurasia" category has so far been successful in dealing with this kind of debate, on the pages it has so far been used, and I intend to keep my eye on this article to make sure Greek nationalist users do not POV push, as I am afraid to say some have been doing. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
What is diaspora context? Please show me. And why armenia is in europe not in asia? And Europe isn't only western europe like you say "..and the experiences of Greeks living in what is now Turkey are fundamentally different form those of western Europe. The Greeks diaspora in western Europe arose after the Ottoman conquest.." And Aegean coasts of anatolia was the homeland of Greeks in the past i know but you say turkey must be in asia in diaspora template? But armenia wasn't homeland of greeks but you put them in europe? and why did you change Eurasia. I agree with 184.108.40.206 too. Turkey (Ottoman Empire) is in Europe since 1453. And Turkey is a member of Council of Europe and EU candidate and Western EU's associate member and several other European organizations.. --Aegean Boy (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The whole discussion seems to have more to do with List of countries spanning more than one continent than this particular template. Turkey is both European and Asian by definition, the country should appear in templates dealing with both continents. The Ottoman Empire held territories in Asia, Europe and Africa and should probably belong to the historical background of all three continents. I basically agree with Aegean Boy here. By the way a minor correction, the Ottomans did not start their expansion in Europe under Mehmed II. Edirne was their capital since 1365. (I am also Greek but just try to read Balkan history since the 14th century while excluding the Ottomans and their influence. It is an impossibility. The same goes for a European definition that excludes Turkish and/or Islamic populations.) Dimadick (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Dimadick! Before replying to your comments, let me just say that the main user who maintained the dispute (User:Aegean Boy) is now a permantely banned sockpuppet of permantely banned User:Izmir lee, who provoked the dispute in the first place. Another user who upheld Aegean Boy's position (User:220.127.116.11) is now blocked (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours for edit warring. The single user who now defends their position against all other is User:Isimsizzorbebe (who strangely redirects its user page and identity to User:ZoRCoCuK, and signes *** Эɱ®εč¡κ ***) with a single edit in this matter and who has attacked me twice in my talk page calling me a racist and a vandal (and received my protocolar warnings for that), and has also attacked other user. Having said this, in no way does this diminishes the content and value of your comments. I just wanted to let you know the people we are dealing with. Notice, please, that this discussion is not about the Otoman Empire, but about modern Turkey. And no one is saying, I think, that one must exclude Turkish and/or Islamic realities from European history, namely in the Balkans. The question here, bearing in mind that of course there are countries (such as Turkey) that present both European and non-European caractheristics, is how to categorize countries that either have a substancial or the totality of their respective territory outside Europe, or countries for which there is a substancial controversy regarding their inclusion in the European cultural matrix. The previous debate was mainly between the position (defended by Izmir lee/ Aegean Boy) that Turkey is only European (in fact this user tried to erase any possible connection between Turkey and Asia or the Islamic and Turkic culture and history in a great number of articles) and those, such as I, that defended that, from a categorization point of view (as the one needed in this type of templates), Turkey should be in the Asian group, since only 3% of its territory lies in Europe (not to mention the fact that culturally it can not be said straightforwardly to be simply European). And also: that Russia should be in the European group, given the undispute European nature of Russia's culture (even if it did expand into Asia and this should also be noted); that Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are basically Asian countries, even if they have a small part of their territory in geographical Europe; that Armenia, Georgia are borderline cases, generally only included in Europe due to their cultural caractherisitics, such as Cristianity. I do acknowledge these ambiguities. The ones (basically the one) that defended an opposite view had no room for these ambiguities, and basically shouted "Turkey is European" a lot. I propose, in order to resolve this dispute and the protected status of the template this new version in the section below. What does everyone say about it? Thanks! The Ogre (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Good points, The Ogre. What's really important here is context. For example, in the context of sports, Turkey should be listed as European because its teams participate in European tournaments, both at the club and national level. That is what the relevant sporting bodies, and Wikipedia should follow that. However, the picture is totally different in the context of the Greek Diaspora. The origins, history, and experience of the Greek diaspora in Western Europe is vastly different from that of the Greeks of Anatolia (Turkey). Analytically:
The Greek Diaspora in Western Europe originated with Greek migrations during the twilight years of the Byzantine Empire and during the Ottoman period for mostly economic reasons. The Greeks of Anatolia are for the large parts descended from the original Greek colonists of the ancient, Roman and Byzantine periods, with roots going back to the 13th century BC in some cases. Rather than migrate, they were there in the first place, before the Turkish conquest of Anatolia. That is a huge difference.
The Greeks of Turkey were subject to repeated persecution, including notorious incidents such as the 1955 Istanbul pogrom, Pontic Greek genocide and the Great Fire of Smyrna. By contrast the Greek diaspora in the West has been free of such persecution. Modern Greece is full of refugees from the 1922 Greco-Turkish War, all from Turkey, but not a single refugee from Western Europe. Greeks from the Western diaspora are thus free of the refugee experience. Another huge difference.
Having lived in Turkey for centuries, Greeks from Turkey have absorbed certain elements of Turkish culture, particularly cuisine, that is completely absent from the Greek diaspora in the West. These two communities are thus vastly different from each other.
The Greek communities in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have also had a very different experience. While some communities have ancient roots, such as the Pontic Greeks, others are post-WW2 arrivals who fled Greece after the defeat of communist forces in the Greek civil war. The Greeks of the former Soviet bloc shared together the experience of Soviet rule, including deportations, and in some instances have been heavily influenced by Russian and other Soviet bloc cultures. For this reason, they constitute yet another distinct diasporic group. As for Africa, there are again two main groups: There are the Greeks of Egypt, largely descended from Greeks of Turkey who fled to Egypt to escape persecution in Turkish lands following the Greek War of Independence, and the Greeks of Sub-Saharan Africa, who migrated there in search of economic opportunities during the days of the British Empire in Africa. These two groups are distinct from each other.
I thus propose the following grouping, based on similarities among communities, rather than the traditional seven continents:
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union
Middle East/Islamic world (incl. Turkey and Egypt)
The answer to both is yes. --Tsourkpk (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you really think that eastern europe should be mixed with the former soviet union? I mean mixing Uzbekistan and Albania... The Ogre (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You have a good point there. Maybe we can split them. I'm also not sure what to do about the Greek populations in neighboring countries such as Albania and Turkey, as they are not really "diaspora" but indigenous. So maybe we can also include neighboring countries in a separate heading, and leave the rest in Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union. Or maybe we can split it into three (neighboring countries, eastern Europe, fm SU). Don't know what to do yet. I'll see what other articles, such as Greeks do it. --Tsourkpk (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Greek diaspora is a term used to refer to the communities of Greek people living outside of the traditional Greek homelands in southeast Europe and Asia Minor. Members of the diaspora can be identified as those who themselves, or whose ancestors, migrated from the Greek homelands.
So technically, the Greek populations in neighboring countries shouldn't even be included, as they are not considered diaspora. We could include them under a separate grouping though. --Tsourkpk (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this is the best way to solve this dispute only one exception. I separate Greece and Cyprus, Turkey and Egypt and put them in alphabetical order. This is better than The Ogre's. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This one should avoid any POV Jkliajmi (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
POV? What POV? Could you please explain? Have you read the above discussion? --Tsourkpk (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am referring to the disputes of where certain countries, such as Armenia and Turkey fit. This way allows for a clarity onto which one cannot argue "but country x should be instead placed in category b", or so-like arguments, if you see what I am saying. Jkliajmi (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the disputes over Armenia and Turkey have been resolved. There is nothing controversial about including Turkey under "Traditional areas of Greek settlement", and Armenia under "former Soviet Union", because that makes perfect sense in the context of the Greek diaspora. By contrast, there is no such thing as "Greater Europe", so that might create controversy. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tsourkpk. Besides, Greater Europe is a contentious and less known concept. The Ogre (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)