Jump to content

Talk:Turkey: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic
Undid revision 1226527229 by 85.96.136.79 (talk) See FAQ.
Line 526: Line 526:
:::::Excellent point about the "mixing" Picco. It seems some "mixings" are of particular interest to some people and need to be highlighted, while others...less so. I am now firmly against this "mixing" wording on the grounds of [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:POV]]. [[User:Khirurg|Khirurg]] ([[User talk:Khirurg|talk]]) 00:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::Excellent point about the "mixing" Picco. It seems some "mixings" are of particular interest to some people and need to be highlighted, while others...less so. I am now firmly against this "mixing" wording on the grounds of [[WP:UNDUE]] and [[WP:POV]]. [[User:Khirurg|Khirurg]] ([[User talk:Khirurg|talk]]) 00:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::Now that I've looked into it more (and will continue), the sentence about {{tq| Influence of Greek communities were mostly limited to western coast of Anatolia until the time of Alexander the Great.}} also cannot stand for the same reasons. From the Oxford Handbook of Anatolia, p. 29 {{tq|The Midas of Herodotus’s narrative is the first non-Greek to dedicate offerings at Delphi (1.14),indicating how far Greek influence had penetrated into the interior of Anatolia by the early seventh century b.c.e .}}. This directly contradicts the narrative of Greek influence being limited to the west coast. The sentence is also undue and POV, in that again only the Greek colonies are singled out for "limited" influence. Was Persian influence limited? Was Roman influence limited? Why is it always the same culture that is "mixed" and "limited", but none of the others? It would be helpful if people actually read the source the used instead of [[WP:CHERRY|cherry-picking]] those pieces that fit their POV narrative. [[User:Khirurg|Khirurg]] ([[User talk:Khirurg|talk]]) 01:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::Now that I've looked into it more (and will continue), the sentence about {{tq| Influence of Greek communities were mostly limited to western coast of Anatolia until the time of Alexander the Great.}} also cannot stand for the same reasons. From the Oxford Handbook of Anatolia, p. 29 {{tq|The Midas of Herodotus’s narrative is the first non-Greek to dedicate offerings at Delphi (1.14),indicating how far Greek influence had penetrated into the interior of Anatolia by the early seventh century b.c.e .}}. This directly contradicts the narrative of Greek influence being limited to the west coast. The sentence is also undue and POV, in that again only the Greek colonies are singled out for "limited" influence. Was Persian influence limited? Was Roman influence limited? Why is it always the same culture that is "mixed" and "limited", but none of the others? It would be helpful if people actually read the source the used instead of [[WP:CHERRY|cherry-picking]] those pieces that fit their POV narrative. [[User:Khirurg|Khirurg]] ([[User talk:Khirurg|talk]]) 01:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

== Its Turkiye/Türkiye and not Turkey anymore. ==

Its legally changed. You are spelling the name wrong by saying turkey. You have to use the official real name of the country. Which is Türkiye. [[Special:Contributions/85.96.136.79|85.96.136.79]] ([[User talk:85.96.136.79|talk]]) 06:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:08, 31 May 2024

Former featured articleTurkey is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 9, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
December 20, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
August 11, 2014Good article nomineeListed
September 15, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 27, 2017Peer reviewNot reviewed
May 20, 2019Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 8, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 29, 2005, October 29, 2011, October 29, 2012, October 29, 2013, October 29, 2014, October 29, 2015, October 29, 2016, and October 29, 2017.
Current status: Former featured article

The article is too long

It's currently 13,585 words or 87kb.[1] Will aim for under 9k words per Wikipedia:Article_size and Wikipedia:Peer_review/Turkey/archive3. That means multiple sections will need to be trimmed. Although some areas need expansion. For example, coverage of earthquakes, faultlines etc are ridiculously short. Bogazicili (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming is certainly a good thing, but you should ensure first that the child articles are in an appropriate shape. E.g., Turkey#Republic_of_Turkey is much better writen than History_of_Turkey#Republic_of_Turkey; the latter trails off into a mere timeline (but then child-child article History of the Republic of Turkey is looks better). This is relevant because History of Turkey in its entirety is the child article of Turkey#History. So anyonw jumping straight from the section Turkey#History to History of Turkey will have – as of now – a worse reading experience at the bottom of the latter than at the bottom of the Turkey#History. I only mention this because I have seen cases trimming of main articles without brushing up the child articles. I think @CMD can be of much help in the challenge of how to create best structure and best content in article hierarchies. –Austronesier (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

@Bogazicili Two things before we get to the material discussed. Please do not re-revert when your change away from the stable version has been reverted. Secondly, the template you have given me for 'not providing a valid reason in the edit summary' is wholly inappropriate; I explained my reasoning quite clearly in an edit summary.

As for the content dispute; I disagree with you on multiple counts.

1) I disagree with the comment made by the peer reviewer; all citizens are Turkey are not by definition Turkish -- at least not by most definitions. Turkish as an identity covering all citizens is virtually never cited as an ethnic definition, but rather a legal term, because it was created as such and is generally not used by ethnically non-Turkish citizens as a pan-ethnicity. Our article on Turkish people makes this distinction:

While the legal use of the term Turkish as it pertains to a citizen of Turkey is different from the term's ethnic definition, the majority of the Turkish population (an estimated 70 to 75 percent) are of Turkish ethnicity.

Here, as in most WP:RS, a simple distinction is drawn; there is the ethnic definition of Turkish, covering three-fourths of the Turkey's population, and the legal definition, which is contrasted with the ethnic definition, and includes nearly everyone. The latter does not belong in the ethnic groups section, because it is not referred to, in WP:RS, as an ethnicity. (See the sources given from my quote)

2) There is, indeed, another ideological stance that knowingly conflates the legal term with the ethnic term. This should be considered WP:FRINGE, however, as I have never seen WP:RS that defends a Turkish origin for the Kurds, for example. That much is pseudo-science from the 1980 military junta. So if this second position is what you are referring to as ethnicity, then it would be WP:POV to use it here.

3) Yes, German can have a citizenship-based definition, but the context and the politics surrounding that are entirely different, and the German infobox has no "ethnic groups" section.

Long story short, the definition you are providing is not thought of as an ethnic one in mainstream scholarship, and therefore should not go into the ethnic groups section. Uness232 (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert was inappropriate because all the footnotes and reliably sourced information within was deleted without a proper reason. You didn't just remove the parts you objected to, like the percentages.
As for the content issue, the footnotes make it clear. For example, there are people who identify as both a Turk and Kurd in Turkey. For example, Hülya Avşar: "hem Kürdüm hem Türküm" [3]. You do not get to say she is not a Turk, but just a Kurd. You also do not get to say she is not a Kurd, but just a Turk.
This is the footnote: "Turkish constitution defines all citizens as “Turks”.[6] In surveys, when asked about their ethnic background, people may self-report different answers.[7] Some people have multiple ethnic identities.[8][9]" Everything in the footnote is WP:RS
It makes the legal definition clear. It makes it clear people may self-identify in different ways. It also makes it clear some people like Hülya Avşar have multiple ethnic identities. And the infobox gives percentages based on both definitions.
Pages like Germans, French people just give the citizenship numbers. Germany doesn't have ethnicity info in the infobox. But Turkey does. So just giving the one, single-choice (adds up to 100%) definition, while ignoring the citizenship definition (or ignoring people who identify as both Turk and Kurd etc) is biased (against WP:NPOV). Turkish people should also give the numbers for both. Maybe the only thing I can add is to give examples in the footnote: "people may self-report different answers, such as Kurd or Arab"
I forgot to add. Giving the legal definition does not mean suggesting "Turkish origin for the Kurds". That is ridiculous. Bogazicili (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili People might indeed have multiple ethnic identities. However, unlike Hülya Avşar's case, some people may also identify as both Kurd and Zaza, or might identify with two other non-Turkish ethnicities. The citizenship definition does not get rid of this problem; to say it does would be assuming that everyone who identifies with multiple ethnic groups are by definition identifying with "Turk" along with a non-Turkish identity, which is not the case. If there is a problem here, it is with the people making these surveys; that is not our problem to fix.
Moving past that, my initial problem with this edit is simple: the legal/citizenship-based definition of "Turk" is not considered an ethnic one by WP:RS. The citizenship definition therefore should be excluded from the "ethnic groups" section of the infobox. Placing it somewhere else might be perfectly acceptable, but not there. If you are bothered by people with multiple identities not being represented, I believe some surveys include multiple answers for self-identification; I would be perfectly fine with the inclusion of such a source.
Also, I did not mean to say that you specifically were suggesting a Turkish origin for the Kurds. I am simply saying that that is the only way the citizenship definition of Turk can be viewed as an ethnic grouping. Uness232 (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see WP:NPOV. There is no single definition of "ethnicity". There is no single definition of "Turk". If there is going to be an infobox, it should include multiple definitions. The alternative is omitting percentages in the infobox (like Germany). However, the footnote should stay after this line "most are ethnic Turks, while ethnic Kurds are the largest ethnic minority.[b][4]" in the lead. The footnote after population number "85,372,377[a][5]" should stay.
Also, the infobox was clear
"By citizenship:[a][5]
98% Turks
2% Others" Bogazicili (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili I have read WP:NPOV before, thank you. There may be no single definition of ethnicity, but in its Turkish context, citizenship is never equated with ethnic categorization in mainstream scholarship; if you can find me examples of this being done (specifically the 98% number being used as an ethnic qualifier; i.e. something like "Turkey's population is 98% Turkish") in reputable academic journals, I will concede this point.
The information given in the infobox might have been clear, but because of the previous point, it should not be in the ethnic groups section.
All that being said, I see which footnotes you were talking about now; I have no objections to those two, and sorry for reverting them along with what I objected to. Uness232 (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uness232:, citizenship is not equated with ethnic categorization. I put it in the ethnicity field, because I couldn't find a way to add a custom field into the infobox template. I'd have renamed it as "ethnicity/citizenship". That's why the clarification was to the right ("By ethnic background", "By citizenship"). Bogazicili (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That 98% of residents of Turkey have Turkish citizenships is not sufficiently notable to include in the Infobox, and is a factoid that is rarely included in country infoboxes. DeCausa (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis, sorry for random ping but we are discussing the issue you raised here Wikipedia:Peer_review/Turkey/archive3, care to comment? Bogazicili (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely wrong for Bogazicili to make this edit without consensus, it constantly violates WP:WAR policy. 176.55.188.95 (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox is now a mess and filling all these parameters makes it not necessarily better. Shadow4dark (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at that PR and the article state at the time, my comment referred to specific phrasing in the lead which has been improved since then. This dispute seems to be about the infobox, which is a bit more tricky as there isn't really room to craft words that provide nuance. There probably isn't a perfect solution that fits all perspectives, especially considering this is a prominent page in an international encyclopaedia that will be read by many people with no background knowledge of Turkish demographics. CMD (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just stepping back from the detail, or at least the politics, and think about what readers might need or want. As a general statement, I don't think including the proportion of non-citizen residents of Turkey is a useful or interesting piece of information - at least for the Infobox. Except for countries like Saudi, it's not really a key aspect. One would expect to see the vast majority to be citizens. I'm not saying it couldn't be covered in the article text, but for the Infobox it needs to hit significant info only. DeCausa (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding citizenship is useless, since wiki template uses ethnic groups, not citizenship. All those discussion about citizenship is purposeless. No reason for adding citizenship. And I do not even think tüik report of 98% Turkish citizens is a true number with all those refugees, etc. Beshogur (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i agree. Lionel Cristiano? 22:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur: Syrians under temporary protection is not included in TUIK population stats, it's in the footnote. Bogazicili (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uness232 Chipmunkdavis Shadow4dark DeCausa Beshogur Lionel Cristiano, should we keep ethnicity stats in the infobox given that "Turk" also has citizenship meaning? As previously mentioned, many countries do not have ethnicity stats in the infobox. Bogazicili (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes - the ethnic make up of the country is a significant issue that global readership would expect to have info on given the longstanding coverage and controversy around the Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency. That's the usual case where there is ethnic conflict - see for example Cyprus, Nigeria etc DeCausa (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa: This doesn't explain why you removed reliably sourced footnotes. User readability is a nonsensical excuse.
Also, looking to the Cyprus page, their demonym is "Cypriot", so saying Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots etc works.
Same for Nigeria. It doesn't say 70% Nigerian, 30% Hausa. Bogazicili (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your post doesn't make much sense. We have an article called Turkish Cypriots and an article called Kurds in Turkey. The Infoboxes would just reflect that standard nomenclature. Nigeria is different. There is no Nigerian identity separate from the component ethnicities. That's a different scenario. The point is ethinicity not citizenship is dealt with in both Infoboxes because it reflects a real world controversy. They're tailored to reflect the actualities of those contries. that's standard for country Infoboxes - Turkey should have the same treatment. You seem to be tie ing yourself in knots over something that is actually quite simple. (Removing the footnotes isn't directly related to this thread. We've discussed your POV pushing on my talk page which is a different issue.) DeCausa (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed pretty hostile in your talk page and didn't provide adequate explanation. And, no, I'm not "POV pushing". You seem to not understand there is a difference between "Turk" and "ethnic Turk". Bogazicili (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a Turkish citizen and an ethnic Turk. Is that what you are trying to say? Of course I understand that. The point is that the stats of the former are of no interest for the purposes of the Infobox whereas the stats of the latter would be of interest to a global readership. This latter point is what you seem not to get. DeCausa (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Do you still maintain the nonsensical excuse that footnotes that are currently in the article impair user readability? Should I expect further reverts from you from the current version of the article?
2) Do you understand the word "Turk" is a Homonym? Indeed it does ALSO mean "Turkish citizen". Bogazicili (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WTF?? How has that got any bearing on what we are talking about? DeCausa (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa: See below. Bogazicili (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili When we are talking about ethnicity, the word 'Turk' never means 'Turkish citizen'; which is what the infobox section is about. Uness232 (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uness232: This an assumption. This is an encyclopedia, some people will know nothing about Turkey. And again, many countries tie ethnicity to citizenship. Bogazicili (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with DeCausa here. Uness232 (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uness232 so you want to keep using single choice CIA stats as if there are no one who's both ethnic Kurd and ethnic Turk. Bogazicili (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily; I'm sure there are surveys with multiple ethnicities as a possible answer. I remember seeing one back in 2022. However, if that solution is not possible, I would want the ethnicities to stay. I am also not particularly opposed to one concise footnote explaining how the ethnic definition is not the same as the legal term and demonym. Uness232 (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also prefer qualifiers such as ethnic Turks, ethnic Kurds, other ethnic backgrounds, not just Turks, Kurds etc. Bogazicili (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah. If somehow "ethnic Kurd" is better for you than "Kurd" then let's go with that. (It's a misconception that it makes a difference in the English language but if it resolves this for you, then no problem.) DeCausa (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Great. And, of course it does make a difference. Many countries tie ethnicity to citizenship. Germans, French people etc just give citizenship numbers, and ethnicity was omitted in their country articles. So saying 70% German, 30% X can mean 70% German citizen and 30% foreign citizens. Saying 70% "ethnic German" is completely different.
2) And I'm asking again: "Do you still maintain the nonsensical excuse that footnotes that are currently in the article impair user readability? Should I expect further reverts from you from the current version of the article?" I'm trying to improve the article and I don't want to deal with nonsensical time-consuming full reverts. Bogazicili (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) It doesn't make a difference because the parameter in the Infobox is "Ethnic group". You've completely misunderstood the situation. Neither France nor Germany have the Ethnic group parameter completed in their infoboxes - which doesn't surprise me as the ethnic grouping doesn't have the same significance in those countries as in Turkey. Anyway, it doesn't matter now if you're happy with that wording. (just so you know, someone will rightly say that referencing "ethnic Turk" under a heading of "ethnic groups" is a redundancy.)
2) I couldn't give a shit. It's unnecessary clutter and better out than in but it wasn't the target of my revert which was the even worse clutter of the citizenship info that you put in. Just collateral damage but i wasn't sorry to see it go. If you want to keep that sort of pointlessness in i'm certainly not going to waste time removing it. DeCausa (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Not redundant for previously explained reasons.
2) Great, we established you don't "give a shit" and make full reverts, and you don't care about "collateral damage". Hopefully this won't repeat in the future. The article is currently in a bad shape and requires lots of work. I just don't want to waste too much time to nonsensical time-consuming full reverts. Bogazicili (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not letting that go. It is utterly redundant. Uness232 has just made the exact same point to you. You don't seem to understand that under the heading "ethic groups" the only criteria for inclusion is ethnicity not citizenship. It's irrelevant how the country in question defines citizenship. This has become so tedious I'm ok with you adding the word "ethnic" in but i would say it's an almost a near certainty that someone will take it out because it's redundant. And as far as your second point is concerned, yes i will make a "full" revert when you make a poor quality edit even when some of your edit is marginally less poor quality than other aspects. None of your nedit was worthwhile or improved the article. DeCausa (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, again, some countries do tie ethnicity to citizenship, whereas other countries officially collect ethnicity/race stats. This issue was also commented in Wikipedia:Peer_review/Turkey/archive3 Bogazicili (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? That's not the point. I give up. Seriously. DeCausa (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point that approx 4 million Syrians under temp protection is not included in the official population number of ~85 million is also important and was in the footnote. But I'm sure you don't "give a shit" either. Bogazicili (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili Countries do not tie ethnicity to citizenship. Many countries are named after a single, usually majority ethnic group, causing their demonyms to be used in two different senses: one ethnic, and the other legal. Turkey is one of these countries. Some nationalist political movements in Turkey might try to impose a top-down 'fusion' of those two senses aiming for the assimilation of other ethnic groups, but those two senses remain separate in WP:RS, with only one being referred to as ethnicity.
And by the way, calling people "ethnic X" in an infobox section called "ethnic groups" is a redundancy at best. Uness232 (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Uness232: This started to become like a grandpa/uncle debate (this makes more sense in Turkish). No one is saying Kurdish ethnicity doesn't exist. You are arguing against a point I didn't make. Btw, there are also "nationalist political movements", or far right movements, that think ethnicity is all about "blood" in the world. My issue is with the oversimplification in the infobox. And this is WP:RS. Kirişci, Kemal; Winrow, Gareth M. (1997). The Kurdish Question and Turkey: An Example of a Trans-state Ethnic Conflict, p. 121:

However, in the case of Turkey, this inevitably raises the question of who is a Turk. Does the label 'Turk' refer to an ethnic background or to citizenship? How individuals perceive themselves is important. As noted earlier, individuals may perceive that they have a multiple identity. Which identity a person may choose to stress could be dependent on a particular context. And the largely psychological 'boundaries' between ethnic groups are not fixed. Different generations within a certain family could thus perceive themselves as either Kurdish or Turkish, or they may feel that they belong to both identities. A Kurd could consider him/herself to be a member of a specific tribe, hold a Kurdish ethnic identity and also feel him/ herself to be a Turkish citizen. On the other hand, a Kurd who is a citizen of Turkey may reject a Turkish identity in any form. Therefore someone like Hikmet Çetin would consider himself an ethnic Kurd of Turkish nationality (citizenship). He would regard himself as a Turkish Kurd. There are a number of Kurds, though, who not only refuse a Turkish identity in any form, but also publicly take offence against Hikmet Çetin for holding a multiple identity

Bogazicili (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can also be written in other sections other than the information box. Lionel Cristiano? 00:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. The country infobox is very rigid by consensus, and well-defined parameters should not be hijacked for information that is misplaced under that header (unless there a good reason and local consensus for it). I deliberately say "hijacked" because citizenship is not ethnicity. This is also the case when a term is used at different levels with different meanings. Turkey is no different from many other countries in this respect. There was a time when the national/citizenship definition was considered exclusive, and merely assertively self-identifying as anything else but Turkish was considered high treason at some point in the dark history of late 20th-century Turkey (at least for certain ethnic groups). But that doesn't mean that the Turkish constitution defines "Ethnicity" at any point–it deliberately doesn't do so to emphasize national unity over ethnic diversity.
The label "Ethnic groups" makes it inappropriate per se to include citizenship data within it. And our standard country infobox doesn't give room for the latter data. Even in extreme cases like the UAE with a very high proportion of non-citizen residents, we don't have citizenship stats in the infobox.
As for the same data (notes + sources) in the lede, I have no objection to their inclusion, although I don't consider them super-relevant here unless you also mention the negative impact that enforcement of this definition on Turkish citizens from a non-Turkish ethnic background has had in course of modern Turkish history. NB that's me; Uness232 and DeCausa might see things differently, so I'd advise not to restore anything. I have restored the stable version, since you have completely ignored the objections by two other editors in an ongoing discussion. –Austronesier (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: are you even aware what you reverted? Look at the previous version again. Bogazicili (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very much so: The misplaced sentence Turkish constitution defines all citizens as “Turks” in the note in the infobox "Ethic groups", and the trivial statement that Turkish citizens self-identify ethnically the way they like. –Austronesier (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: As mentioned, no one including Uness232 and DeCausa objected to the footnotes. You also deleted the following footnote:
"Total Population: 85,372,377
Foreign Population: 1,570,543 (excludes "Syrians under temporary protection" and "foreigners holding visas or residence permits shorter than 90 days")
Turkish citizens: 83,801,834"
I guess the fact that almost 4 million Syrians under temporary protection is not included in official population number of ~85 million is also "trivial".
So let me ask again, are you even aware what you reverted? Bogazicili (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you are aware that the figure of 1,570,543 is not mentioned elsewhere in the article? For the implications of this, I count on your awareness of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. –Austronesier (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slowly improving the article from top to bottom. I would have gotten to it when I come to the demography section. But again, no one is objecting to footnotes. You deleted reliably sourced information for no reason. Bogazicili (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None, except for the very substantial ones above. –Austronesier (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what exactly? Do you object to the footnotes? You yourself said you have no objection. Bogazicili (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bogazicili This excerpt in no way supports your claim. In fact it draws the same distinction between the ethnic and civic-national definitions of "Turk" that I did. Nowhere in this source is the "Turkish" part of the "Turkish Kurd" is an ethnicity; in fact it points out how it is otherwise: Therefore someone like Hikmet Çetin would consider himself an ethnic Kurd of Turkish nationality (citizenship). See how the distinction is being made? There is a way in which people identify their roots and/or cultural affiliations (which is called ethnicity in this text, and can also include multiplicity), and their citizenship (which is called nationality).
I understand that you are trying to capture a complexity here; some people identify with two ethnic identities as well. However, Hikmet Çetin is not one of these people; he is ethnically just a Kurd, and by nationality a Turk. That is not the same as multiple parts of a family identifying themselves ethnically as Turks or Kurds. Uness232 (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's indeed the point. The ethnic and civic-national definitions of "Turk". Now if you just say 70-75% Turk, 20% Kurd in the infobox, without any footnotes or qualifiers such as "ethnic Turk", how accurate and complete were you? Bogazicili (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very, considering the section is called "ethnic groups", not "demographics"; though one concise footnote can be added to the section about the two definitions of Turk if deemed strictly necessary. You do not seem to understand that ethnic group refers specifically to people's sense of ethnic belonging; a "Kurd of Turkish nationality/Turkish Kurd" is, in the context of an "ethnic groups" section, a Kurd. And indeed some people might define themselves as both a Turk and a Kurd, and mean both in an ethnic sense, but you can not measure that with citizenship data. Uness232 (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can also add a nationality field like Spain. Right now the infobox is just giving the ethnic definition of "Turk", and ignoring the "civic-national" definition as you called it. I recently realised nationality was also an option in country infobox. They also completely ignored ethnicity in Spain article, even though there is Catalan independence movement. Bogazicili (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly!!!! This is an ethnicity parameter not a nationality parameter, which is what I, Uness232, and Austronesier have been trying to get you to understand for hours. The only relevance the info you want to put in is the little used nationality parameter. (France is a rare example). But there is no pint adding yet more clutter to the box so I'm against that. It's an incredibly uninteresting parameter and little used for good reason. DeCausa (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had already said if I could create a custom parameter, I would have renamed it ethnicity/citizenship. What you fail to understand "for hours" is just what I said. Giving the ethnic definition of "Turk" while ignoring the "civic-national" definition of "Turk" in the infobox. Bogazicili (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about ignoring it. It's about not needing it there. –Austronesier (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has become boring and too time consuming. Just trying to assess if we need Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Uness232, DeCausa, Austronesier, do you object to 1) footnotes removed by Austronesier [4] being added back? 2) object to saying "ethnic Turk", "ethnic Kurd" "other ethnic backgrounds" in the infobox, where it currently says Turk, Kurd, others? Bogazicili (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on 1, I oppose 2 (i.e. I would want the terms Turk, Kurd etc. to stay as is). Uness232 (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want something "boring and too time consuming", then Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is it. Add perfunctory, and you'll have the full definition :)
@DeCausa at some exasperated moment above already has granted you "ethnic Turk", "ethnic Kurd" etc. OTOH, I think it looks silly under "Ethnic groups".
Another point is however the applicability of "ethnicity" to the entire population of Turkey. Many Turks that are not of non-Turkish ethnic background do not self-identify in ethnic terms. They mostly self-identify as Turkish by nationality alone; ethnicity is for the "other", so to speak. This is not Turkey-specific, but also applies to many other countries like Germany, Morocco (see discussion there about the proper ethnic labelling of the non-Berber majority population) or Japan. Most reliable sources use the "ethnicity" label for miniorites, but rarely for the "Turkish Turkish" majority. It is not a coincidence that in many articles, we find CIA factbook as the only source for the ethnic composition of countries. Better sources address this complex matter in a different way. Instances of the term "ethnic Turks" in reliable sources mostly appear in the context of Turkish minorities outside of Turkey. –Austronesier (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: Can you answer to 1 and 2 similar to Uness232? You made a revert, but you refuse to answer simple questions. "Ethnic Turk" is used in the sources I have btw. Bogazicili (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My answers don't meet your expectations or don't come in the shape you want to have them; you should accept that. Calling this "refus[ing] to answer simple questions" is very much your perspecitve.
Repetition is boring and time consuming, but here we go: 1. oppose the note in "Ethnic groups" in the infobox (for reasons stated above), but weak oppose the note in "Population"; 2. oppose for reasons stated above. –Austronesier (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks. Conciseness is appreciated in talk pages Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. Bogazicili (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and created a request in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Bogazicili (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:1AM situation. Where I'm on this: (1) I'm now opposed to your footnote. Apart from anything else it's too reliant on WP:PRIMARY. I have a counter-proposal as a footnote, which is as follows: Turkish law does not recognise minority ethnicities. All Turkish citizens are deemed to have the legal status of "Turk", which is not considered to indicate membership of an ethnic grouping This would be cited to Bayir, Derya (2016). Minorities and Nationalism in Turkish Law. Routledge. p. 144. ISBN 9781317095804. (2) I'm opposed to add the word "ethnic" being add to each of the groupings. It's unnecessary and redundant as the heading of the parameter is "Ethnic groups". DeCausa (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa: anticipating a "friendly" reminder by @Bogazicili: what's your take on the note in "Population"? Oh, and I have rejected to continue at DRN, 1) because it's 1AM situation, and 2) because I don't see that the current handling of DRNs is done in an acceptable way. I haven't seen a place in WP where editors are treated more condescendingly. –Austronesier (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa: Here's a secondary source:
Heper, M. (2007). The State and Kurds in Turkey. p. 91

"On the other hand, the 1924 Constitution took the Turkish nation as an entity made up of all disparate elements, that is, both ethnic Turks and nonethnic Turks as well as both Muslim Turks and non-Muslim Turks. Initially, some deputies met with consternation the Article 88, which read, ‘The people of Turkey, regardless of their religion and race, are Turks’. One such deputy, Celal Nuri from Gelibolu, expressed his concerns as follows: ‘We formerly used the adjective “Ottoman”, and this applied to all the people.. Now we are deleting it. … All the people of Turkey are not Turkish and Muslim. What shall we call these? If we do use the adjective “Turkish” not in respect to them, how else can we refer to them?’ As a response to this query, it was suggested that from the point of view of citizenship, all of the people were going to be considered as Turks. This formulation was adopted, and the draft Article 88 was amended to read, ‘The people of Turkey, regardless of religion and race, are Turks as regards citizenship’.46 The makers of the 1961 and 1982 Constitutions, too, adopted this formulation."

Bogazicili (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a non-sequitur. I've already given you the secondary source I'm proposing to be used and the text that should go with it. Can you address that first please. DeCausa (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your text is incorrect. There are official minorities recognized. Bogazicili (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the case (in the context of ethnic groups), then there would be no need for a footnote at all. DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote and qualifiers is there because you were against adding nationality field like in Spain or France.
Recognized minorities are already in the article and seems well sourced: "According to the Constitutional Court, there are only four officially recognized minorities in Turkey: the three "non-Muslim" minorities recognized in the Treaty of Lausanne (Armenians, Greeks, and Jews) and the Bulgarians," Bogazicili (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that the "footnote and qualifiers is there because you were against adding nationality field" is patently untrue. You were pushing both well before you raised or even became aware of the nationality parameter. The Lausanne minorities are a complicated issue - the recognition is arguably about religion etc. But see my broader response below. DeCausa (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support DeCausa's note. It covers the citizenship aspect, but its focus is explicitly on ethnicity and the way it is official handled in Turkey. –Austronesier (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withdrawing my footnote proposal. On reflection, the Turkish state's attitude to the recognition of ethnic minorities is far too complicated to cover in a footnote. See for example Prof Arndt Künnecke's paper here on the complexities of the issue. That was 2013, and it's got even more idiosyncratic since then with some of the developments on the attitude to the Kurds. It needs an article to cover it not a footnote - and our Minorities in Turkey does a poor job of it as far as I can see. The Infobox needs to stick to simple positions. The RS given a consistent view of the ethnic groups of Turkey which is what we have in the Infobox. The twists and turns of the Turkish legal and governmental position is too idiosyncratic and too much of an outlier to attempt to address in the Infobox. DeCausa (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, complexity is a good reason for treating things not as infobox matter. Lack of robustness of data is another one. How consistient really are RS about figures for ethnic minorites? The only consistency I can find is that all good sources agree that most ethnic figures are based on "intuitive guesses" (per Kirisci & Winrow (2013), The Kurdish Question and Turkey: An Example of a Trans-state Ethnic Conflict). However, the entry for Kurds (19%) based on CIA factbook feigns a precision that is in sharp constrast to what reliable scholarly sources say. I don't want to remove the ethnic composition from the infobox, but this is actually a clear case of {{bcn}}. –Austronesier (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a reasonable number but I doubt they have that precision. Even some publicly available data is incorrect in the The World Factbook by the way, such as fertility rate. Bogazicili (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Bump Bogazicili (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation format for books and long reports

Anyone minds using short inline citation format for books and long reports with {{cite book}} and {{cite report}} templates? Recently, I seem to be the one adding most of these type of sources. Bogazicili (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also {{cite encyclopedia}} ones. Bogazicili (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too much emphasis on the Ottoman Empire in the lede

I find that, as at 13 April 2024, there is excessive weight given to the Ottoman Empire in the lede section, and very little information on the the history of the current-day Republic of Turkey, which this article is about. In fact, the lede mentions nothing at all about contemporary Turkish history other than its founding in 1923.

Many of the sentences in the lede that deal with the Ottoman era can be trimmed or otherwise moved to the history section of the article, or even moved to the Ottoman Empire page itself. Actually most of it has already been mentioned at length in the history section. The lede should be short and concise per article guidelines and should never go into excessive detail.

I have trimmed these sentences accordingly and reinserted previous material that is more relevant to present-day Turkey. Feel free to discuss. Yekshemesh (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and actually it's worse than that what you have said: the first history paragraph is mostly pre-Ottoman! The way the long history of Egypt is handled in its article seems a reasonable model: one long paragraph half of which is pre-mid(ish) 20th century with the other half a high level summary of many centuries. (And yes the Armenian Genocide should get a name check in the lead.) For Turkey, I suggest it should be half pre 1920 and half post. However, edit-warring wasn't the answer: after you were first reverted you should have stopped and waited to see if you had consensus support here. DeCausa (talk) 06:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your response! I don't mind the paragraphs related to pre-Ottoman history as they still form part of the history of present-day Turkey - so long as they are kept short. I do take issue with the overemphasis on Ottoman history however. True, the legacy of the Ottoman Empire forms a big part of what Turkey is today, but a lot of the content there can be condensed further. Examples: 1) the persecution and mass migration of Muslims from Rumelia to Anatolia: this part can be trimmed or removed 2) The Second Constitutional Era: this definitely belongs to the Ottoman Empire page 3) the late Ottoman genocides: this can be condensed a bit further; it is already discussed at length in the history section of the page, along with the bit about mass expulsion of Muslims mentioned earlier 4) the Three Pashas don't belong in the lede; they're more relevant to Ottoman-related pages 5) NOTHING is written about Turkey's history post-1923. This is quite disappointing, since this article is about the Turkish Republic itself. This is the issue I most disagree with. Turkish history doesn't stop at 1923. I'm okay with your suggestion to have the lede split into two halves, first half for the pre-Republican era, and second half for Turkey's contemporary history. And thanks for your courteous reminder on edit warring. Maybe I got a little too carried away there. I'll be mindful of this next time. Opening the floor to other views on this. Yekshemesh (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Turkey. So this is the main article. I'd consider mentioning Göbekli Tepe more significant than "The economy was liberalized in the 1980s, leading to stronger economic growth and political stability" sentence for example. If genocides part is going to remain, persecution of Muslims part should stay too. Otherwise, there would be a bias in the lead. I also find it significant that Ottoman Empire was basically a dictatorship when it entered WW1, and was quite different than how it was for most part of its existence (the Three Pashas part). For this sentence "Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II, but was involved in the Korean War and joined NATO in 1952", NATO is already mentioned in the last paragraph. You could mention "Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II, but was involved in the Korean War" but is it really that significant? I also don't want 5 paragraphs in lead as there are length limitations in the lead (see: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length). Maybe something very concise can be added at the end of 3rd paragraph. Half pre 1920 and half post doesn't make sense to me given the length of history subsections. And first and 4th paragraphs could already be considered post 1920. Bogazicili (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about this for the end of 3rd paragraph: "Turkey remained neutral during most of World War II and started economic liberalization in the 1980s" Bogazicili (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Regarding the genocides, there is a longstanding consensus via RfC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkey/Archive_27#RfC_Genocides), so that cannot be removed. Khirurg (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the genocide mentions are to remain in place, but per Bogazicili it would be only fair to include a (short and concise) mention of the Muslim expulsions as well.
Korean War: this is a major Cold War conflict in which Turkey played a prominent role, and was its first significant involvement on the international stage (see Turkish Brigade). It should be included. If anything, I wouldn't even mention WWII in there, a war which Turkey sat out until February 1945 and was practically never involved in.
The coups d'état of 1960 and 1980 are significant events in post-1923 Turkish history, shaping Turkish politics in each of the following decades, and should be included.
A short bit on the development of the Turkish economy should also be mentioned.
In short: it's absurd that absolutely nothing is mentioned about contemporary Turkish history after 1923 in the lede. It's like making no mention of US history after the declaration of independence, or China after the Communist takeover in 1949. We need to remedy this. The article should focus on Turkey, not the Ottoman Empire or the eras preceding it.Yekshemesh (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added something short. Again, there are space limitations in the lead. We are already over recommended word counts. Bogazicili (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bogazicili. I've trimmed the sentences further. Yekshemesh (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yekshemesh: your changes were not helpful. There was not just "en masse" migration, but also approximately 5 million dead Turks, Circassian and other Muslims. Are we only supposed to mention loss of life of Christian people in the lead (the genocide sentence)? What kind of bias is that? Also "en masse" is unnecessarily complex wording, use simpler wording. And why remove "early" from "early 20th century" part? What are you trying to achieve here, just trying to add Korean war? Bogazicili (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be belligerent, I'm actually on your side here. I added "ethnic cleansing", the definition of which includes the killing of ethnic groups (here referring to Muslim). If it were up to me I'd remove the genocide mentions in the lede altogether (both Muslim and non-Muslim) and put them in the Ottoman Empire page where they properly belong, but I acknowledge prior consensus on this.
Also, why the need to list out all the territories affected (Balkans, Crimea etc)? Is it absolutely necessary? Aren't these part of the Ottoman and Russian domains regardless? Why mention the Three Pashas, the Second Constitutional Era, the Ottoman coup of 1913? Don't you think these would be more relevant to Ottoman-related pages? Did these events have direct consequences on the modern Turkish state, which this article is about?
I would rather remove the bit about World War II (in which Turkey played virtually no active role at all), but I still left that in anyway.
The bottom line here is to be as concise as possible. These excessive details are cluttering up the lede unnecessarily. The part about migrations during the Ottoman contraction as well as the genocides against the Christian minorities is already mentioned in the history section below, for example. Lastly, your reversion also removed some grammatical corrections that I made. I hope you see my point. (ps. I left in "early" 20th century. My intention was to cut down on excessive words, but I understand that you might want the time period to be a bit more precise.) Yekshemesh (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where did mass migration come from during Ottoman contraction? Arabian peninsula? North Africa? Levant? No. It came from Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea. That needs to be spelled out. It was Crimean Tatars, various people from Caucasus such as Circassians and people from Balkans including Turks. Large-scale loss of life is a better description than ethnic cleansing, given what the sources are saying. There is no "ethnic cleansing" in any of the quotes in the source. You seem to be editing without reading the sources. That is very problematic. Please make your further suggestion in the talk page. Bogazicili (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) The Caucasus and Crimea were part of the Russian Empire. If the names of these territories need to be spelt out, it can be done so in the history section. Nowhere did I mention North Africa, Arabia etc. These details are unnecessary for the lede, it's excessive clutter.
2) Propose "massive" loss of life. More words need to be trimmed. Yekshemesh (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mass migration during Ottoman contraction can mean anything including North Africa, Arabia etc, since those were also part of the Ottoman Empire. Similarly Russian Empire is also big. Did Ottoman Empire receive mass migration from Moscow area?
Also millions of Turks today have partial Crimean Tatar or Circassian ancestry, or their families are Turks who migrated from Balkans, so yes it's very relevant to modern-day Turkey. "Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea" is also only 4 words. I'm surprised at your suggestions. If you just want to do an RfC about the genocide sentence, go ahead and do an RfC, instead of trying to make unnecessary cuts from rest of the lead. Bogazicili (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every single word counts in a lede section that's already extremely cluttered, @Bogazicili:. Propose the following:
"In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims in the former Ottoman Balkans, Russian Crimea, and the Caucasus led to massive loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey." (with relevant linking to articles) Yekshemesh (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These events happened AS Ottoman Empire retreated from Balkans and AS Russian Empire expanded into Crimea and Caucasus. Your suggested wording doesn't convey that. "former Ottoman Balkans" sounds like it happened after Ottomans left. "Russian Crimea" sounds extremely problematic.
The lead is also not extremely cluttered. Earth is an FA article. Its FAC was quite recent (2022) and its lead is 575 words. What are you proposing to be added into the lead? Korean war? Bogazicili (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Turkey's role was substantial in that war, and also contributed to it joining NATO. I'd rather put that in and remove the reference to WWII, which Turkey had almost nothing to do with.
I'm not looking to start a fight here on the parts regarding persecution of Muslims. I even thanked you on some of the prior edits you made. To be clear, again, I don't disagree with the sentiment, I just disagree with how it is worded. I'll leave the sentence as is for now, although I still think it is unnecessarily convoluted.
I'm removing the mentions about the Three Pashas, the Second Constitutional Era, and the 1913 coup, and moving the sentence about Turkish dizi to another part for better structure. Yekshemesh (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with adding the Korean war. That's why I'm asking. Is there anything else besides Korean war? And no, 3 Pashas should stay, I had already trimmed that sentence. Second Constitutional Era is already removed. Bogazicili (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And may I know what's your reason for including the 3 Pashas? The gist of the sentence is that the Ottoman Empire entered WWI; who was in charge back then is only of secondary importance (since, again, this article should focus on Turkey, not the nitty-gritty details of what happened during the Ottoman era).
Aside from the Korean War, how about we mention something about the liberalization of the economy in the 1980s, which has effects into the present day? I believe that had been inserted previously.
That's probably the extent of my additions. Otherwise the lede would be too clunky (as though it weren't already). Yekshemesh (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The gist of that sentence is "that the Ottoman Empire entered WWI", but it was under 3 pasha dictatorship. I don't think that's "nitty-gritty". The added word count is minimal. And this article does focus on Turkey. Turkey includes Ottoman past. You seem to make an artificial division. India's lead, an FA quality article, doesn't just "focus" on post-1947. Bogazicili (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added Korean war, liberalization of the economy in the 1980s means we might have to talk about inflation in the 90s etc, that's too detailed. Bogazicili (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter sections will be merged

Per Wikipedia:Peer review/Turkey/archive3, shorter sections will be merged. I'll also continue to trim as necessary to bring the article size down. Will merge Tourism into Economy, and will merge Roman and Byzantine sections. Merging Roman section to Byzantine section makes more sense to me than merging Roman section to Antiquity. Bogazicili (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Bump Bogazicili (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page should be moved to Türkiye

CLOSED
See reply and previous discussions

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

The country has changed its name, therefore it no longer makes sense to use the old one Rares Kosa (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, see the earlier discussions that have ended in a lack of consensus for a move and that present the reasons for this. Closing this discussion to avoid a full rehash that would be disruptive to watchers of this article.

Largoplazo (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Improvement

need improvment in first paragrafe about country Irani2024 (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically? Chidgk1 (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not appropriate for the main article, as the sample is not nationally representative: "Online samples in Brazil, China, Chile, Colombia, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey tend to be more urban, educated, and/or affluent than the general population" [5]. It can be added into a sub article with adequate explanation of its sampling. Bogazicili (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TOGG

The picture pertaineing to TOGG shows a T10X SUV not a T10S sedan. Furthermore T10S has since been changed to T10F, please correct. Mr.DetectiveMan (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culture section needs a re-write

It's a mess. I'll return to it later. There might be lump edits, rather than the incremental ones I've been doing. The article is also still too long. I'll probably condense and merge "Visual arts" and "Literature and theatre" sections into an Arts section. Bogazicili (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of ancient sources

Use of 2000+ years old sources such as Metaphysics (Aristotle) or "See Diod.5.32–33; Just.26.2. Cf. Liv.38.17; Strabo 13.4.2." is inappropriate in a high level article such as this. Ancient sources were often incorrect and incomplete:

Neither Homer nor Herodotus knew of the Hittite, Assyrian, or Urartian sources, discussed in this volume, which describe some of the same people who occur in their narratives; they did not know of the origins of the name Lycia in the Lukka Lands of the Hittite records or the Hittite treaty with Wiluša (Wilios) long before Homer wrote about Troy. They therefore tended to favor narratives of origin that tied Anatolian peoples to Greek or Aegean origins, partly because they had none of the records we now have with which to critique such narratives.

p.31 Bogazicili (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing only ancient sources to support a statement like "By the 1st century BC the Celts had become so Hellenized that some Greek writers called them Hellenogalatai" is obviously OR, or – as in this case – plagiarism from an uncited source: Strootman (2005), Kings against Celts: Deliverance From Barbarians as a Theme in Hellenistic Royal Propaganda. So this is easily mended by adding a citation to the actual source (and fix the close paraphrasing). So you don't need to engage in OR yourself to refute a statement from a scholarly source. –Austronesier (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: the above was with respect to this edit [6]. I don't think there's anything OR there. I haven't started going over the Rome section yet. And I didn't write this part, I just moved it to Rome section: "By the 1st century BC the Celts had become so Hellenized that some Greek writers called them Hellenogalatai" Bogazicili (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been more specific; I meant the citation of "Diod.5.32–33; Just.26.2. Cf. Liv.38.17; Strabo 13.4.2." –Austronesier (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again I have nothing to do with that citation either, I just moved that entire part to Rome section. I'll replace it with better sources when I'm going over the Rome section. I have this for the Celts [7] Bogazicili (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you opened this very thread by calling a citation to "Diod.5.32–33; Just.26.2. Cf. Liv.38.17; Strabo 13.4.2." inappropriate? For Wikipedians, to do so is indeed problematic per WP:PRIMARY; for secondary scholarly sources, this is of course highly appropriate and in fact obligatory for historians if they don't want work out of thin air. In this case, it does come from a secondary source; I have added the full citation in the meantime. My point is, a citation like "Diod.5.32–33; Just.26.2. Cf. Liv.38.17; Strabo 13.4.2." should always raise copyvio alerts.
For the record, the plagiarized text was added here[8]; either directly from the source without citation, which is really bad, or maybe copy-pasted from another WP article without attribution and scrutiny, which is also bad. –Austronesier (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. Opened this thread so primary and ancient sources such as those are not used in the future. Of course it'd be fine in a secondary and modern source, at least with respect to WP:RS Bogazicili (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classical antiquity

Austronesier and Khirurg, this article is part of Wikipedia Core Contest. Would you mind discussing your edits here so the article doesn't get locked?

First of all, there are waves of Greek settlement: 3 or 4 settlements before 1200 BC, around 1000 BC, and in 750–480 BC. With the way you are adding your sentences, it is not inline with the chronology. Also the paragraph is 157 words now. Bogazicili (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is unnecessarily long: These eastern Greek settlements played a vital role in shaping the Archaic Greek civilization; important cities included Miletus, Ephesus, Smyrna (now İzmir) and Byzantium (now Istanbul), the latter founded by Greek colonists from Megara in the seventh century BCE. Why repeat Greek settlements and Greek colonists? Megara is also mentioned in the paragraph. Bogazicili (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"important" in "important cities" is unnecessary per MOS:PEACOCK Bogazicili (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Miletus is also repeated twice, why? Before 1200 BC, there were four Greek-speaking settlements in Anatolia, including Miletus. Around 1000 BC, Greeks started migrating to the west coast of Anatolia. These eastern Greek settlements played a vital role in shaping the Archaic Greek civilization; important cities included Miletus... Bogazicili (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FIXIT. And I hit the road until the contest is over. –Austronesier (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is fixable. The sentences Before 1200 BC, there were four Greek-speaking settlements in Anatolia, including Miletus., Greeks colonists mixed with native Anatolians... and Influence of Greek communities were mostly limited to western coast of Anatolia... are all non-essential and can easily be removed. The last is not even strictly true, since a large number of colonies were founded by Miletus on the Black Sea coast and by several other city states on the southern coast well before Alexander. For the purposes of the history of Turkey, the main points are that a) There were several waves of Greek settlement, first by the Myceneans, then the main wave in 1000 BC following the Mycenean collapse, and then the 750-480 BC wave, that b) Numerous important cities were founded by these colonies, especially Smyrna/Izmir and Byzantium/Istanbul, and c) Miletus played an outsize role in philosophy, d) the two wonders of the world. I will draft something in the talkpage shortly. Khirurg (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal

Beginning in the Mycenean period, there were several waves of Greek settlement on the coast of Anatolia, with a major wave around 1000 BC. The settled regions were named Aeolis, Ionia, and Doris, after the specific Greek groups that settled them. Numerous important cities were founded by these colonists, such as Miletus, Ephesus, Halicarnassus, Smyrna (now İzmir) and Byzantium (now Istanbul), the latter founded by Greek colonists from Megara in c. 667 BC. Some of these cities, in particular Miletus, went on to found numerous colonies of their own on the coasts of the Black Sea starting 750 BC. Miletus was also home to the Ionian school of philosophy, and many of the most prominent pre-Socratic philosophers lived in Miletus. Two of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus, and the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, were located in these cities. Khirurg (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is OR, so wouldn't work. Bogazicili (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which part is OR? Khirurg (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't begin in Mycenean period and there was no "major wave" around 1000 BC. The balance in the rest is also off.
We can simply switch to The History of Turkey by Douglas Howard, and just condense the first paragraph to what is covered in that source. We'd also reduce the length of the article. I had used Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia only because there was additional information there before I edited. Bogazicili (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if this issue is that confusing, we should definitely make this clear.

The only clear evidence we have for significant Mycenaean settlement anywhere in the Near Eastern region is at Miletus on the southwestern Anatolian coast, at the mouth of the Maeander River, and at the site now called Musgebi, further to the south, where a large number of Late Helladic IIIA–C chamber tombs have come to light (Mee 1978 :137–42).

p. 369
So we have 3 or 4 (Encyclopedia Britannica source) Mycenean era settlements in Anatolia. Bogazicili (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like the above proposed wording is based on this quote from the Britannica source: The major Greek settlement of Anatolia’s west coast belongs to the Dark Age (c. 1200–c. 1000), which is followed by In contrast to the at best sporadic colonization of the Mycenaean period, the movement (referring to the Dark Ages 1200-1000 BC) has all the characteristics of a migration. Piccco (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, thank you Piccco for pointing that out. While the Mycenean settlement is definitely limited compared to subsequent waves, it is well documented. Khirurg (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica is a tertiary source. WP:RS: Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates to or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.
Encyclopedia Britannica also says this: Before the Greek migrations that followed the end of the Bronze Age (c. 1200 BCE), probably the only Greek-speaking communities on the west coast of Anatolia were Mycenaean settlements at Iasus and Müskebi on the Halicarnassus peninsula and walled Mycenaean colonies at Miletus and Colophon. [9]
This is already in this article. More sources:
In the river valleys of the Aegean shores, Greek migrations had begun around 1000 BCE. At first, these settlements were poor agricultural villages with singleroom, mud-brick houses. By the seventh century, these eastern Greek settlements grew more prosperous, expanding northward along the coast, and took the lead in building a powerful Greek civilization in the Aegean. p. 27 (Author: https://calvin.edu/directory/people/douglas-howard)
The above quote from Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia is also clear.
As such, the wording proposed above is OR. Given this issue seems to confuse even experienced editors, it should be mentioned clearly. There were only 3 or 4 Mycenaean settlements. And that is what this article should say. Bogazicili (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is a source that contradicts above of course. Khirurg and Piccco, if you have sources that contradict above, can you please provide them with page numbers and quotes? Bogazicili (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we agree that there were only 4 settlements, those still count and indicate Mycenan presence in Anatolia. So it is correct to state that Beginning in the Mycenean period... Unless of course you are trying to argue that the presence of Mycenean settlements in Anatolia contradicts Mycenean presence in Anatolia. The other source you are quoting is a generalist history of modern Turkey, not a source that focuses on Anatolia. It is better to use academic sources that specialize on Anatolia, e.g. the Oxford Handbook of Anatolia, p. 753 By 900 b.c.e. , Greek settlements stretched from the entrances of the Hellespont to the peninsula of Knidos. Aeolian speakers possessed the shores of the Troad, Aeolis, and the island of Lesbos. Many of the communities of the southern Troad or Aeolis were dependent territories ( peraea ) of either Mytilene or Methymna on the island of Lesbos. Ionians settled thickly on the shores from Phocaea to Miletos and on the two great islands Chios and Samos; Dorians settled the shores between the two southern peninsulae of Halicarnassus and Knidos, and the islands of Kos and Rhodes.. But in any case it doesn't contradict the fact that there was a major migration of Greeks to Anatolia around 1000 BC, something which is well documented. Khirurg (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why say "Beginning in the Mycenean period", when you can say there were 3 or 4 settlements before 1200? It seems unnecessarily misleading. And the point seems to confuse even experienced editors like yourself.
Also given what Howard says above, it would not be in line with WP:NPOV
For the "major wave", we've been over that already [10] [11]. If the source says It is impossible to estimate the scale of Greek migrations after the collapse of the Mycenaean kingdoms (and that is from Oxford Handbook of Anatolia you recommended above), you can't add "large scale" or "major wave". Do you have any source for the "major wave" part? Can you please provide it with page number and quote? Bogazicili (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the full quote pp. 752-753:

The arrival of the Greeks on the shores of Asia Minor was thus associated by later Classical authors with the downfall of the heroic kingdoms of the Mycenaean age ... It is impossible to estimate the scale of Greek migrations after the collapse of the Mycenaean kingdoms.

Bogazicili (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another 2020 source [12] in [13]:

The collapse of the Mycenaean and Hittite Empires in the twelfth century ushered in the Iron Age. [p. 224]

That people could and did move around the Aegean in the Early Iron Age is highly probable. That some “Greek” populations made their way to Anatolia is equally plausible, although it seems unlikely this was as part of an organized migration wave. More probable is a gradual, protracted process that involved interaction between various different population groups, resulting in later Iron Age periods in emergent new identities....Nevertheless, it is apparent that the focus of early Greek activity is on the west coast. Continuity of occupation from the Late Bronze Age and into the Early Iron Age is hinted at through the presence of twelfth‐century BC ceramics, notably from Ephesos, Miletos, and the Dorian region [p. 225]

Again, 12th century BC and diverse population are noted above. This is in line with what we have in this article. Bogazicili (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Proposal by Khirurg copied from above: Beginning in the Mycenean period, there were several waves of Greek settlement on the coast of Anatolia, with a major wave around 1000 BC. The settled regions were named Aeolis, Ionia, and Doris, after the specific Greek groups that settled them. Numerous important cities were founded by these colonists, such as Miletus, Ephesus, Halicarnassus, Smyrna (now İzmir) and Byzantium (now Istanbul), the latter founded by Greek colonists from Megara in c. 667 BC. Some of these cities, in particular Miletus, went on to found numerous colonies of their own on the coasts of the Black Sea starting 750 BC. Miletus was also home to the Ionian school of philosophy, and many of the most prominent pre-Socratic philosophers lived in Miletus. Two of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus, and the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, were located in these cities.

Proposal by Bogazicili:

Before 1200 BC, there were several Greek-speaking settlements in Anatolia, including Miletus.[92] Around 1000 BC, Greeks started migrating to the west coast of Anatolia.[93] These settlements were grouped as Aeolis, Ionia, and Doris, after the specific Greek groups that settled them.[94] Further Greek colonization in Anatolia was led by Miletus and Megara in 750–480 BC; cities such as Byzantion were settled.[95] Greeks mixed with native Anatolians and city-states developed.[96] Influence of Greek communities were mostly limited to western coast of Anatolia until the time of Alexander the Great.[97] Thales and Anaximander from Miletus are also thought of first Western philosophers.[98]

Bogazicili (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bogazicili, thank you for responding. Before I begin, I wanted to clarify that I quoted from the Britannica source because you had previously used it in the article yourself. I also wanted to say that reading the above discussion I have the impression that there isn't really a significant disagreement between us three. With good-faith I don't think it'll be hard to iron this out.
For example, what Khirurg proposed isn't really contradicted by the information that you presented: (1) it is true that there is Mycenean presence in the coast of Anatolia which occurs in the late Bronze Age. (2) It is also true, as you said, that these settlements are not yet as many and are restricted in the west coast. (3) Yet, this presence is already notable enough to be documented in many Hittite records (sf. Involvement in Anatolia). The following quotes seem to summarize and confirm the previous statements p.194 The Mycenean colonies of Anatolia were emphatically confined to a narrow coastal strip in the west. There were community-colonies at Ephesus, Iasos and Miletus, but they had little effect on the interior; no doubt the Hittite rulers resented Mycenean interference on the coast and took action to prevent any further encroachment. The Hittites must have regarded the Mycenean colonies as a thorn in their side, resenting Miletus (...); p.192 Beyond this core was a region so stronly acculturated with Mycenean elements that some scholars have proposed conquest, others large-scale colonization; this consisted of the islands ... and the south-west coastline of Anatolia.
So there's no contradiction or OR in saying that the earliest presence/waves etc. begin in the Mycenean period or something similar. Tbh, I don't really have strong opinions about the exact wordings, as long as the fact itself is mentioned, but in this case I do think that attempting to number the Greek settlements (3, 4 etc.) is very close to being OR. Most sources don't even attempt to do that; instead they just broadly mention "colonies", "settlements", "communities", "footholds" etc. and just go on to name a few, mostly Miletus. I don't think it's possible for us wikipedia editors to accurately count them.
Now regarding the word "major" for the following migrations, Imo it is accurate, but as I said, I don't have very strong opinion about specific words. The current version doesn't mention it and it's still okay. If anything though, the subsequent Iron Age wave is definitelly "larger" than the older Bronze Age one. Piccco (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I updated my proposal (and also created a new section). It's pretty much the same with the current text. I dropped to 3 or 4 in case a source contradicts it. "Major" seems contradictory to me per above sources. We should also try to avoid MOS:PEACOCK. For your first point, the above source is very vague: Continuity of occupation from the Late Bronze Age and into the Early Iron Age is hinted....These are scarce finds, often associated with areas that experienced prolonged contact with Mycenaean Greece, perhaps suggestive of maintained and complex east–west exchanges Bogazicili (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is too much detail that is not relevant to the history of Turkey in your proposal. I also recall you complaining that the current paragraph is too long, and yet what you are proposing is just as long. The sentences Greek colonists... and These Eastern Greek settlements should be removed for brevity. Your proposal also contradicts itself, given that it states that there were Greek settlements before 1200 BC and then that "Greeks started migrating around 1000 BC". If they only started migrating around 1000 Bc, how did those settlements from before 1000 BC come about? Lastly, how is the influence of Greek communities limited to western Anatolia if multiple colonies were established in the northern and southern coasts as well? You proposal is not much of a proposal, it's just basically identical to what is in the article already. See below for a counter-proposal. Khirurg (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My own version was quite concise before additions. Lastly, how is the influence of Greek communities limited to western Anatolia if multiple colonies were established in the northern and southern coasts as wel: They must have small towns compared to the population in other areas? Source says "largely (although not exclusively) limited" and text says "mostly limited". The explanation for pre-1200 BC is in the above source. Agreed about "These Eastern Greek settlements". We also don't need "after the specific Greek groups that settled them" due to previous sentence. Updated proposal 14:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Bogazicili (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your version is factually incorrect. The large number of colonies established on the Black Sea coast clearly contradicts the assertion that Greek influence was restricted to the west coast. Virtually all major Turkish cities on the Black Sea coast started as Greek colonies: Trabzon, Samsun, Sinop, to name just a few. The wording after the specific Greek groups that settled them is necessary as an explanation to readers, otherwise the sentence makes no sense. Readers will be left to wonder why these regions were names as such. Khirurg (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's from the Oxford Handbook of Anatolia. You yourself said above: It is better to use academic sources that specialize on Anatolia, e.g. the Oxford Handbook of Anatolia? Bogazicili (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does not answer my question. Encyclopedias are not written by finding a source that favors one's particular POV and sticking with it no matter what. Not only do you completely fail to address my point about the Black Sea colonies, but the same is true of the southern coast: Pamphylia, for example, was heavily settled by Greeks longs before Alexander. Colvin, Stephen (2013). A Brief History of Ancient Greek. John Wiley & Sons. p. 84. "Herodotus and Strabo record the story that the Pamphylians were the descendants of Greeks who arrived with the seers Calchas and Amphilochos after the Trojan War.", John D. Grainger, The cities of Pamphylia, Oxbow Books, 2009, p.5 The settlement of Greeks in Pamphylia is traditionally dated to the post Bronze-Age migrations. While it is true that Greek penetration into the interior of Anatolia was limited prior to Alexander, the same is not true of the southern and northern coasts. There were multiple Greek cities on the northern, western, and southern coasts of Anatolia long before Alexander, and the sources are all there. Khirurg (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you quoted conflicts with "mostly limited to western coast of Anatolia". Mostly doesn't mean exclusively. Bogazicili (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it conflicts. I have no patience for word games ("mostly does not mean exclusively"). Multiple cities on both the northern and southern coasts. "Mostly" is doing a lot of work here, misleading our readers by presenting a "mostly" false impression of the picture at the time. Khirurg (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, but we can ask in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard Bogazicili (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can do that. But your version contradicts even itself. If Further Greek colonization in Anatolia was led by Miletus and Megara in 750–480 BC; cities such as Byzantion were settled, where did this colonization take place? The Propontis and Black Sea Coast, i.e. not western Anatolia. When did this take place? Before Alexander. At a minimum, the article should not contradict itself. Khirurg (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New proposal

Several Greek settlements existed in western Anatolia before 1200 BC, leading to interactions between Mycenaean Greeks and Anatolian peoples. Around 1000 BC, more Greeks migrated to the west coast of Anatolia. The settled regions were named Aeolis, Ionia, and Doris, after the specific Greek groups that settled them. Numerous important cities were founded by these colonists, such as Miletus, Ephesus, Halicarnassus, Smyrna (now İzmir) and Byzantium (now Istanbul), the latter founded by Greek colonists from Megara in c. 667 BC. Some of these cities, in particular Miletus, went on to found numerous colonies of their own on the coasts of the Black Sea coast of Anatolia starting around 750 BC. Miletus was also home to the Ionian school of philosophy, and many of the most prominent pre-Socratic philosophers lived there. Two of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus, and the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, were located in these cities.

This factual, concise, on topic, NPOV, and grammatically correct. As you can see I have adopted some of your verbiage. Khirurg (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that these areas are diverse are mentioned several times in Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia:

Herodotus, as a native of Halicarnassus, brings first hand experience of the ethnic complexity of Caria, the region where migrating Greeks most intimately mixed with Anatolian populations [p. 22]

Ionians took refuge in Athens before their migration across the Aegean to the Anatolian coast, but points out that even those Ionians migrated without their families and took Carian wives by force after their arrival in Anatolia (1.146), creating an ethnic mix unacknowledged by the Ionians themselves. [p. 25]

Ionian and Aeolian Greeks, refugees from former Mycenaean kingdoms, had intermingled and intermarried with native Anatolians [p. 754]

Bogazicili (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mausoleum at Halicarnassus was built under Persian rule, that's why that whole part is in the end of section. Bogazicili (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? What does that have to do with the history of Turkey? Virtually all your edits and proposals are intended to minimize and dilute anything related to Greek settlement in Anatolia. Halicarnassus was a Greek city and the architects who designed it and built it were Greek, not Persian. The temple of Artemis was built long before Persian rule. Khirurg (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My intention wasn't "to minimize and dilute". I'm going by the sources. Why do you want to ignore the diversity in Western Anatolia? Bogazicili (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will comment based on the two new proposals I've read:
1) The first sentence seems okay in both versions, Khirurg seems to also include the Mycenean-Anatolian peoples interraction; information which I believe Bogazicili wanted somewhere in the paragraph. I can see this fitting here, given the well-documented and extensive Mycenean-Hittite/Anatolian interactions. 2) Indeed, "started" appears a bit contradictory, so a wording that doesn't contradict the previous sentence (or even simply "Around 1000 BC Greeks migrated...") might be better.
3) I won't lie, a big sentence being about the "mix" of the imigrants who settle with the locals seems a bit weird to me; When talking about the movements of ancient populations, a degree of "mixing" (as in blood-mixing e.g. by intermarriages) is a natural process; I'm not sure why this is notable enough and what exactly it adds specifically here, and not in any other paragraph and other populations. A word like "intermingled" or "interacted" might be better too.
Perhaps the significance of the concept of the polis might be worth the mention? Btw, Bogazicili, I wouldn't say that the diversity of Anatolia is ignored in this article at all, as all the paragraphs that precede this one discuss exclusively the various Anatolian peoples. Only this paragraph seems to focus more on the ancient Greek component and influence in the region.
4) Regarding the "prior to Alexander" sentence, I kind of understand both sides: the "mostly limited" is in line with the given source, yet it appears as if it ignores the important colonies on the northern and southern Anatolian coast. 5) Lastly, perhaps mentioning the school of philosophy, as Khirurg did, and a few notable examples, as Bogazicili did, might be better? I don't have a very strong opinion about the two wonders of the world; they fit in both places. Piccco (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3) This article is about Turkey. Carians were a population in Turkey. They were entirely in modern-day Turkey. So the fact that Greeks mixed with them is relevant. It's mentioned both in Oxford Handbook of Anatolia and A Companion to Greeks Across the Ancient World. My original wording was this: Greeks mixed with native Anatolians and city-states developed. This is concise, accurate and on-topic. I don't know why this information is trying to be supressed. Borrowing the term used above, are you trying to portray Greek settlements in Anatolia as "undiluted"? And similar information is actually already in other paragraphs.
4) It's what the source says. Our job is to follow sources, not to critique them. You are free to email the authors of the book and ask them. Bogazicili (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I updated my proposal above. Bogazicili (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your updated proposal is worse than before. Regarding the sentence Greeks mixed with native Anatolians... you even removed the part but maintained ties with their kin in mainland Greece and differentiated themselves from Anatolians, whom they regarded as barbarians, through the concept of the polis., even though is in the source. Quoting sources selectively is intellectually dishonest. Important cities such as Miletus, Ephesus, Smyrna and Halicarnassus should be mentioned. And the link between Smyrna and Izmir and Byzantion and Istanbul should be stated explicitly, not hidden from readers. The factually incorrect and contradictory sentence about Greek influence being limited to the west coast until the arrival of Alexander (despite the presence of multiple Greek cities on the northern and southern coast) needs to go as well. The sentence Thales and Anaximander from Miletus are also thought of first Western philosophers. is grammatically awful and non-sequitur, and my sentence about the pre-Socratics is broader in scope. Khirurg (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the interaction between Greeks and Anatolians should be mentioned in the first sentence as in my proposal, there is no need to repeat it again with a new sentence about Greeks mixed with Anatolians.... Khirurg (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's selective or intellectually dishonest. I had reverted to my original wording, since you also mostly reverted to your initial suggestion. Interaction may mean trade relationship, whereas Oxford Handbook of Anatolia specifically mentions "ethnic mix". I'd be ok with "but maintained ties with their kin in mainland Greece and differentiated themselves from Anatolians, whom they regarded as barbarians, through the concept of the polis". Bogazicili (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the exact wording of the Oxford Handbook. WP:CLOP. You also did not address any of my other points. Khirurg (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't have the exact wording. You are welcome to give the page numbers and quotes above in Wikipedia:Copyright problems and ask if the current text is Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Bogazicili (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but "mixed" has a very narrow meaning, whereas "interacted" or "intermingled" as suggested by Picco has a broader, more inclusive meaning, and includes other types of interactions, such as trade, cultural exchanges, etc. Khirurg (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3) I still don't know how to feel about the the "mixing" part. Did the rest of the various and distinct Anatolian peoples not mix with each other? Why don't we mention this? Is this a unique incidence in history? Is there any particular reason why information about "mixing" is exceptionally notable in this specific pararaph but not in any other? This information appears to be WP:UNDUE and insisting on "ethnic mix" in particular is very close to being interpreted as POV. The 'renewed' (older) version is, in fact, not an improvement, because it was simply misleading. The source says that city states distinguished Greeks from the Anatolian people, they didn't appear as a result of their "mixing".
If we really are to keep this sentence though (part of which could actually be notable, like the city-states), an alternative NPOV wording like 'interacted' or 'intermingled' would be needed.
4) It is a fact that many colonies existed outside of the western coast (northern and southern coast). If we are to say that they were "mostly limited" in the west coast, then the former might also need to be mentioned somehow?
note I want to focus only on these two at the moment, because they seem to be most important issues. I think that if a consensus is reached on these two, the rest (e.g. the exact wording about the philosophers) will be much easier to agree on.
extra comment The most important colonies, e.g. Ephesus, Smyrna etc., of course, deserve to be mentioned. Piccco (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point about the "mixing" Picco. It seems some "mixings" are of particular interest to some people and need to be highlighted, while others...less so. I am now firmly against this "mixing" wording on the grounds of WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Khirurg (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've looked into it more (and will continue), the sentence about Influence of Greek communities were mostly limited to western coast of Anatolia until the time of Alexander the Great. also cannot stand for the same reasons. From the Oxford Handbook of Anatolia, p. 29 The Midas of Herodotus’s narrative is the first non-Greek to dedicate offerings at Delphi (1.14),indicating how far Greek influence had penetrated into the interior of Anatolia by the early seventh century b.c.e .. This directly contradicts the narrative of Greek influence being limited to the west coast. The sentence is also undue and POV, in that again only the Greek colonies are singled out for "limited" influence. Was Persian influence limited? Was Roman influence limited? Why is it always the same culture that is "mixed" and "limited", but none of the others? It would be helpful if people actually read the source the used instead of cherry-picking those pieces that fit their POV narrative. Khirurg (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&oldid=1226532665"