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
No edit summary
Line 164: Line 164:


:::I agree with [[User:KazekageTR]] that we should put 'solid', 'official' facts. However, I would argue that Turkey's emblem is a 'solid', 'official' fact, and so is France's emblem. True, Turkey and France does not have a law that officially defines an emblem, however, we cannot base what is official solely on laws. All countries have different legal traditions, it is not just with Turkey and France. For example, United Kingdom does not officially an anthem, not even an authorized version of lyrics, it's just a tradition. This does not prevent us from listing "God Save the Queen" on the page [[United Kingdom]]. While there are no laws, United Kingdom officially condones its use where other nations use their anthems. Or the United States does not officially have a national language, but the government of United States uses English in all official documents and legal proceedings, so we list English in the page [[United States]] as the national language. Similarly, Turkey and France do not have laws that define national emblems, but they officially use their respective emblems where other nations use theirs, i.e. on passports and diplomatic missions. That is official by any standard. We may consider adding a note to the pages of France and Turkey, like there is in United Kingdom and United States, saying the emblems do not have legal status. It certainly makes more sense to add a note only to the emblem, instead of adding notes to everything else affirming that they are legally defined, at least from a visual point of view. I will go ahead and add the note.--[[User:Cfsenel|Cfsenel]] ([[User talk:Cfsenel|talk]]) 17:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I agree with [[User:KazekageTR]] that we should put 'solid', 'official' facts. However, I would argue that Turkey's emblem is a 'solid', 'official' fact, and so is France's emblem. True, Turkey and France does not have a law that officially defines an emblem, however, we cannot base what is official solely on laws. All countries have different legal traditions, it is not just with Turkey and France. For example, United Kingdom does not officially an anthem, not even an authorized version of lyrics, it's just a tradition. This does not prevent us from listing "God Save the Queen" on the page [[United Kingdom]]. While there are no laws, United Kingdom officially condones its use where other nations use their anthems. Or the United States does not officially have a national language, but the government of United States uses English in all official documents and legal proceedings, so we list English in the page [[United States]] as the national language. Similarly, Turkey and France do not have laws that define national emblems, but they officially use their respective emblems where other nations use theirs, i.e. on passports and diplomatic missions. That is official by any standard. We may consider adding a note to the pages of France and Turkey, like there is in United Kingdom and United States, saying the emblems do not have legal status. It certainly makes more sense to add a note only to the emblem, instead of adding notes to everything else affirming that they are legally defined, at least from a visual point of view. I will go ahead and add the note.--[[User:Cfsenel|Cfsenel]] ([[User talk:Cfsenel|talk]]) 17:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

::::I have added the note "as appears on the [[Turkish passport]]s and [[:File:Botschaft 021.jpg|diplomatic missions of Turkey]]". You can change it if you have a better idea, e.g. want to emphasize that it does not have legal basis; but I am not sure an extensive discussion on its legal status and history is warranted here, anybody can click to [[National emblem of Turkey]] and read about it.--[[User:Cfsenel|Cfsenel]] ([[User talk:Cfsenel|talk]]) 18:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:10, 23 February 2015

Template:Vital article

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.
Good articleTurkey has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2007.
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
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

GDP (PPP) per capita

The GDP (PPP) per capita is stated as $19,080. However, the reference documents states that it is $18,551 and dates back to 2012. IMF puts that number as $15,352.610 for 2013.[1]

References

  1. ^ http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2013&ey=2013&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=16&pr1.y=7&c=512%2C668%2C914%2C672%2C612%2C946%2C614%2C137%2C311%2C962%2C213%2C674%2C911%2C676%2C193%2C548%2C122%2C556%2C912%2C678%2C313%2C181%2C419%2C867%2C513%2C682%2C316%2C684%2C913%2C273%2C124%2C868%2C339%2C921%2C638%2C948%2C514%2C943%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C688%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138%2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C565%2C228%2C283%2C924%2C853%2C233%2C288%2C632%2C293%2C636%2C566%2C634%2C964%2C238%2C182%2C662%2C453%2C960%2C968%2C423%2C922%2C935%2C714%2C128%2C862%2C611%2C135%2C321%2C716%2C243%2C456%2C248%2C722%2C469%2C942%2C253%2C718%2C642%2C724%2C643%2C576%2C939%2C936%2C644%2C961%2C819%2C813%2C172%2C199%2C132%2C733%2C646%2C184%2C648%2C524%2C915%2C361%2C134%2C362%2C652%2C364%2C174%2C732%2C328%2C366%2C258%2C734%2C656%2C144%2C654%2C146%2C336%2C463%2C263%2C528%2C268%2C923%2C532%2C738%2C944%2C578%2C176%2C537%2C534%2C742%2C536%2C866%2C429%2C369%2C433%2C744%2C178%2C186%2C436%2C925%2C136%2C869%2C343%2C746%2C158%2C926%2C439%2C466%2C916%2C112%2C664%2C111%2C826%2C298%2C542%2C927%2C967%2C846%2C443%2C299%2C917%2C582%2C544%2C474%2C941%2C754%2C446%2C698%2C666&s=PPPPC&grp=0&a=. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |work= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

Countries in the world through the eyes of Turkey Türklerin gözünden dünya ülkeleri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Paragraph for Armenian Genocide ?

There are a few paragraph of 2 thousand years' Turkish history. And Armenian Genocide covers it. This article has nothing to do with it. Turkey didn't exist that time. I think somebody is sliding in the historical hostilities. It's not necessary for this article, besides described excessively. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found the first mention of the Armenian Genocide under the section, The Seljuks and the Ottoman Empire. There are 3 sentences pertaining to that genocide. While there is one sentence pertaining to the Hamidian massacres. Neither constitues a paragraph. This sounds like you simply don't like what is stated. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas Bear How is this related to Turkish Republic? I think it sounds like WP:DISRUPTPOINT. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is it related to Turkey? For starters, Turkey is famous for denying it. That's how. I can't believe we are having this conversation. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Δρ.Κ., It's exactly WP:GAMING. One can express self hatred in related articles but Turkey is irrelevant. Will you add this paragraph whoever deny it? There should be brief info about history, not details of a controversial subject.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is he gaming the system when he's not even cited any policy or guideline? I see no sign of hatred. Please refrain from ad hominems and argue your case civilly. How is this related to Turkish Republic? It relates to the history of the Turkish Republic. It's common for country articles to outline the history of the territory a modern state occupies and of its peoples. You're gonna have to explain why it'd be appropriate for the Armenian Genocide to be excluded. Alakzi (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"There should be brief info about history, not details of a controversial subject." Sounds like you just don't like it. And in response to your question, "How is this related to Turkish Republic?, since the Republic of Turkey draws on Seljuk and Ottoman eras as its past, therefore, anything that occurs during those eras should be related. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Δρ.Κ., stop cencoring my words. Your manners are disruptive, i answered you. Why are you attacking me? I don't know how the word "hatred" is personal attack, while it's not intended personal. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well Kafkasmurat, I'm inclined to believe that the murder of two million Turkish citizens by their own government has to do with Turkey in some shape or form. It would actually be a disservice to our readership to exclude the disappearances of two million Turkish citizens, would it not?
Kafkasmurat, I have sent you to WP:AE before for personal attacks and you're continuing to do so here. So please refrain from personal attacks towards other users, or we may just have to handle it at the AE board again. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Étienne Dolet, it's not fare. There's no attack. Can you tell me what is the attack? I said one can't "express hatred" here. I leave this favoritism to community. There is no chance to bring forth new ideas. Hope, Wikipedia will not serve conflicts of interest. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kafkasmurat, you did not say "one can't express hatred", you said "You can express your hatred" to Dr.K. even after you pinged him. Remember, telling someone that he is "expressing hatred" towards a certain article is a personal attack, especially when it's an unfounded accusation. Such statements do not help the discussion. So I advise you to remain WP:CIVIL in your conduct and adhere to the WP:FIVEPILLARS of the project. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mate it is mentioned in 'history' and since Turkey considers itself as the succesor of the Ottoman Empire, it is relevant to mention these massacres in history section. But you might say that why are these massacres are mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of the summary as they arent milestones in Turkey's history. kazekagetr 18:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph is so offensive and placed so irrelevant that it looks like a total hatred speech. Should we use wikipedia for political racist attacks or true information? Ali tr (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian revolts, the massacre of the Armenian gangs, Turkey and massacre of Muslims. Persecution of Ottoman Muslims,Armenian resistance during the Armenian Genocide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sentences to relevant positions. You can improve the Ottoman Emprie sub-section in History section, with references. kazekagetr 23:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kafkasmurat, we shouldn't be comforting the grievances of users who claim to be personally "offended" or that "Armenian gangs" were responsible for wholesale massacre of Muslims, that's just incoherent denialist jargon that has been refuted too many times before. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. As for McCarthy, his work has been proven to be an unreliable source over and over again at the WP:RSN and various other discussions pertaining to the mass murders of Armenians and Greeks (See sample discussions here and here). His work is denialist in nature and limits the sufferings of Armenians and Greeks at the hands of the Ottoman government. This means his work is far from neutral and using such a source will greatly depreciated the neutral tone of this article. Above all, his stance goes against the general consensus here on Wikipedia which accepts the Armenian Genocide as fact. Using such a source challenges that notion, yet at the same time unequally expounds the 'persecution of Muslims', should be excluded in this article at all costs. Moreover, equating a few massacres of Turks in 1821, which is all what the sources say, is not the same as persecution of Ottoman Muslims at large. The Ethnic cleansing in twentieth-century Europe, which is the only source that is borderline reliable, doesn't even mention that Ottoman Muslims were persecuted. That turned out to be complete WP:OR on your part. Even if persecution of Ottoman Muslims were the case, it would be more probable to say that such persecutions may have occurred during brief intervals of time and as a result of some war beyond the border of today's republic. So I advise that this POV editing be removed from this article if we still want to have its GA status retained. Otherwise, the GA status of this article will have to be revised. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Persecution of Ottoman Muslims" by their victims is a myth based on misinterpretation of the sources. There was never systematic campaign of persecution against Ottoman muslims by their Christian subjects. There were reprisal attacks against the perpetrators of genocide, but that is not persecution, any more than the Warsaw Uprising was "persecution of Nazis". Athenean (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then mates i've found some other references, how about you check them too. kazekagetr 15:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about you post a draft here and wait a bit rather than drag people into an edit war. Alakzi (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
its only a sentence mate, literally, just a sentence with new and more neutral-looking references. I am not gonna write a paragraph for this sensivitive issue cause i know that Armenians burned down our Muslim-Georgian village back in 1900s and my relatives fought in Caucasus Campaign and Eastern Front (Turkey). Because of that, writing a paragraph would be non-neutral therefore non-ethical for me. kazekagetr 16:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...And in light of your previous comment, I am now convinced that your recent edits in this article are (mis)guided by a personal POV. You can keep your sensitivities towards the issue to yourself, but editing in a manner that emits those sensitivities is highly discouraged in Wikipedia. Your recent edits, for example, were in complete violation of OR; since you evoked the idea that a few deaths of Turks surmounts to persecution, even when the sources don't use such language. Even if such language in sources were to be used, placing that information in the context you are here to defend would be a deluded attempt to give equal validity to systematic genocide with random acts of violence. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hahahah if my edits were a product of a POV as you said, i would have done this edits over and over and over. you know how acitve i am on wikipedia. i was just trying to neutralize the articles as other users stated that above. please dont be 'that' funny and make this a big issue. btw your POV accusation is total crap, i've defended that mionority persecutions should be mentioned under the history section and i've clarified myself above that i am not guided on this sentence but i would if i had written a paragraph. kazekagetr 07:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perincek vs Switzerland , europe free thought , human rights, not just their insanına me , Turks and Muslims are second-class citizens Does everything the Turks or Muslims asked to be removed unjustly , We do not accept , and we say we do genocide no , do not be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ottomans butchered Armenians, there are very good proofs and persons who lived through it, stop denying and start reading. Drop that nationalist sentiment. kazekagetr 18:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm blocked for this proposal. Can we investigate truths? Is mankind able to examine reality? We can't simply believe things which we feel pity for. Never mind, i lost hope for Wikipedia. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the end. I say that we keep the paragraph under the 'History' section. But we should remove the sentence in the intro cause the massacres have no 'macro' historical importance as WWI or previous empires/states. Any thoughts? kazekagetr 20:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The murder of millions of Ottoman citizens is, in fact, a macro historical event. I don't get why it shouldn't be considered as such. Just look at the leads of Germany, Rwanda, Cambodia. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Etienne as you know I do accept the fact that Armenians were killed unlawfully. But as you can see and as you may agree, the intro contains 'macro' elements and milestones of countries' history and general info. Genocides can and must be mentioned in Ottoman Empire's intro and the history section in this article but I think that these massacres are more like 'details' or 'micro elements' comparing to previous huge scale wars and previous states/empires. And I cannot tall about the other countries like Germany and Rwanda cause I am sure that they had some sort of consensus or cooperation in mentioning those atrocities in the intro paragraphs, maybe even in the case of USA and Native Americans. But instead of genocides which were committed by Ottomans, we could add a sentence about the thing happened during the Republican period nationalism, turkification and atrocities towards minorities like Istanbul Pogrom or Varlık Vergisi . kazekagetr 20:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KazekageTR, acts of genocide are as macro, if not more macro, than Turkey's involvement with the war. After all, Turkey used the war to carry out its plan. Removing such information from the lead would be a disservice for the readership. This information has been in the lead for quite some time, and I don't think it was just some unilateral edit that placed them there. There must have been a consensus to have it placed in the article for so long. I don't know of the consensus for Germany, but one thing is for certain, that Germany is a FA article and that means it is more exemplary of what an article should look like. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups on the infobox

kazekagetr insists on reverting my edits on the infobox and adding CIA's estimates to the infobox. Turkey does not have official figures on ethnic mix, the article itself states: "Reliable data on the ethnic mix of the population is not available, because Turkish census figures do not include statistics on ethnicity." There are various estimates of course, one of which is CIA's. The infobox is for official, non-dubious information, like capital, official languages, government, area, population, GDP, Gini, HDI, currency, time zone etc, for all of which we have official figures. We have official figures about CIA's estimate of Turkey's ethnic mix too, so if we had a section like "CIA's estimate of ethnic mix", the figures would certainly belong there. Currently, since official and reliable data is not available, it is best to refer to the Demogrophics section.

This time, while reverting my edit, kazekagetr claimed that "CIA is one of the most widely used references in wikipedia and in nearly all countries' infoboxes, ethnic groups section is referenced by CIA". I do not know what countries he is referring to. In United States France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Switzerland, India, Iran and most of the countries I have checked, ethnic mix is not mentioned in the infobox. Even in Belgium, an ethnically divided country where we have abundant information about the ethnic mix, the section in the infobox refers to the demographics section without containing any figures. In Sweden, it states "no official statistics". In the United Kingdom, the numbers are given because they have official figures from the United Kingdom Census 2011. Same with Canada and Canada 2011 Census, China and 2010 China census, Russia and Russian Census (2010).

In Turkey's case, the last official figures about ethnicity date to the 1965 census, and even then the languages, not ethnicity was queried. So we do not have any official and certain data about the ethnic mix. The demographics section will contain estimates, naturally; but in the infobox, we have three options: omit it like United States France, Germany, Italy, Greece, link to the demographics section like Belgium, or write "no official statistics" like Sweden. One can discuss which of them to use, but please stop adding CIA's estimate in the infobox like it is official, kazekagetr, it does not belong there, just like the "Religion" estimates doesn't.--Cfsenel (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I have just noticed that kazekagetr claims that my arguments are based on Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT in the revert summary. I do not know what I am accused of not liking, CIA or the figures themselves; but I am pretty sure that I did nothing that would imply that. I imagine I am most likely being accused of either being a Turkish nationalist who thinks the Turkish percentage is too low, or a Kurdish nationalist who thinks the Kurdish percentage is too low. How about making an actual argument instead of making personal attacks and presuming to know my intentions?--Cfsenel (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mate chill out im not gonna call you a nationalist by any means. You should've checked all Euro countries like, Austria, Andorra, Armenia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina etc. etc. they all have that ethnic group thing... kazekagetr 17:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was offended when I was accused of Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT without basis. Looking at your examples, they are all based on official figures: Austria: Kommission für Migrations und Integrationsforschung der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Andorra: Ministerio de Justicia e Interior de Andorra, Belarus: Population census 2009. Bosnia and Herzegovina also officially keeps record of ethnicity, final ethnic census results are to be published at 2013 population census in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Only in Armenia's case I am not sure if the results belonged to an official census, because the link is dead. Even if it is not, it is the exception here, and it is the one that should be changed, not all the other countries. Do you see the distinction here? When and if the Turkish government begins the inquire about the ethnicity in censuses, (and does so in an orderly manner, without the findings being dismissed by most as fraud) the results should be published here, as it is the case with all countries. Right now, no official results are available, so none should be mentioned in the infobox, as it is the case with all countries. Doing otherwise would correspond to an important policy change: We would have to add CIA's figures to all countries, like France and Germany (e.g. "German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4%, other 6.1%"); and we would probably need to add the religion info from the CIA to all countries as well, which in Turkey's case gives the figures as "Muslim: 99.8%, other: 0.2%". You can suggest such a policy change if you like, but Turkey's talk page is not the place to do it.--Cfsenel (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cfsenel, your whole argument is based on the flawed premise that "the infobox is for official, non-dubious information" and never estimated data. That is simply, flatly just wrong. We routinely use estimated figures in almost every type of infobox, including Country Infoboxes. Furthermore, the CIA is oftentimes the source for those estimates. We estimate things such as GDP, population, and, yes, even ethnic groups, when no "official" or "authoritative" source exists. See Laos, North Korea, Burma, Vietnam, Syria, Tajikistan, El Salvador, etc. There are examples from every region of the world and all are sourced to estimates either in the CIA fact book, or Ethnologue and other encyclopedias, which, in most cases are themselves citing the CIA factbook. It has long been considered a reliable source for information here on WP, where better sources don't exist. In fact, estimated data probably outnumbers "official" data in country infoboxes simply because many countries, such as Turkey in this case, don't supply figures. I will be reverting your edits and restoring the CIA estimates unless you can come up with a more reliable source that says they're wrong. We have a source that says X, you claim that source is not sufficient, we can't take your word for it...you need to supply a more reliable source that says this source is wrong or your argument is a non-starter.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear William Thweatt, your claim that "We routinely use estimated figures ... (for) ethnic groups, when no "official" or "authoritative" source exists" is clearly wrong, as I think I have already demonstrated. I won't list the countries again. I will not come up with a "more reliable source that says they're wrong", as I never claimed they were right or wrong, that was not my point. I could name various sources which gives different figures (e.g. Ali Tayyar Önder's Türkiye'nin Etnik Yapısı in 2006; 2005 Eurobarometer: Europeans and their languages survey, Ethnologue quoting McCarus 2009, tr:Tarhan Erdem's KONDA survey in 2006, etc), but I wouldn't necessarily argue that one source is better than the other. What I said was they should be all mentioned in the article, and we cannot just pick one and put it in the infobox which purports to be the 'real' figures.
It is a false equivalence to say that "we are using estimates for other data like GDP". Almost every number in every infobox is an estimate, even figures like population and GDP. Population and GDP are well defined concepts, there exists a correct number and different sources estimate the same thing within a margin of error. Who is an ethnic Turk? Should people who say in surveys they are ethnically Turk but their native language is Arabic considered ethnically Turk, or did they just misunderstand the concept of ethnicity? What about people who say they are ethnically Kurd but their native language is Turkish? Each survey above takes a different stance on such issues while making their estimates. Some Zazas are offended when they are included in Kurds, some Kurds are offended when Zazas are not included in Kurds. Is Zinedine Zidane ethnically French? French government would insist that he is, and (mostly French) Wikipedians insist on featuring him in French people, in contrast with the practice other ethnic group pages, whereas CIA might have a different definition. Some countries have officially defined their understanding of ethnicity and publish figures accordingly. Turkey is not one of them. Nor are many other European countries, and that is why they do not have ethnicity figures in their infoboxes. You are talking about a better source, I am saying that cannot exist. There is no right or wrong estimate. There are different estimates, each correct (within a margin of error) using their definition. It is completely different from estimates of things like population. Everybody agrees on what population means, they just differ in methodology and precision.
You are arbitrarily adding CIA's estimates to the infobox, against the accepted practice in most of the countries in Europe. If you intend to persevere, may I suggest that you try to do the same thing in other countries? I would be surprised if you manage to get it through and change the consensus, convincing people that CIA's way of calculating ethnic group populations is the only way to go if no official data is available, and that the infobox should unambigously take sides on whether an ethnic group is actually an ethnic group because CIA deems so.--Cfsenel (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also (again, not essentially my point, I never claimed that CIA's estimates are right or wrong), CIA's demographics data are in a great conflict with Turkey's official figures. In late 2012, early 2013, Turkish Statistical Institute estimated the population of Turkey to be 75,627,384, whereas CIA estimated the population to be 80,694,485. [1][2] There is a huge difference of over 5 million people. Turkish Statistical Institute's president accused CIA of giving very inaccurate figures. It is expected that any figure on ethnicity will be disputable, given the disagreements around definitions of ethnicity and the difficulty of making such an estimate; but how come the two figures are so off when it comes to population, something much more well-defined, is beyond me.--Cfsenel (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motto of Turkey

The reference given for the mentioned motto, "Egemenlik, kayıtsız şartsız Milletindir" is titled "motto", but nowhere in the title or in the page the word motto is actually mentioned, it only states that the sentence is expressed in the article 6 of the constitution. Is there any basis for the claim that it is the motto of Turkey? It is obvious that it is not the motto de jure, but any reason why we should consider it de facto the motto of Turkey? True, it is written in the parliament building, the legislative branch, but that doesn't make it the motto. e.g. the judicial branch uses the motto "Adalet mülkün temelidir" and virtually every government body, police etc. has a quote from Atatürk that it considers its motto. The choice of "Egemenlik, kayıtsız şartsız Milletindir" seems arbitrary to me.

On the other hand, National emblem of Turkey is quite well established. True, it doesn't have legal status, but nor does National emblem of France, and no one seems to question whether France's emblem exists. The current emblem is used in passports and diplomatic missions of Turkey, and that is quite sufficient to be considered the emblem. When and if the Turkish government officially makes a new emblem and change the passports etc. accordingly, we can change it, but at the moment de facto logo of Turkey is the star and crescent.--Cfsenel (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in France's case, emblem should be removed also cause infobox contains legal infos. But i think you are quite right about the motto. kazekagetr 16:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox isn't meant for 'legal infos', but key facts. Is the emblem a key fact? I think not. Is the anthem audio file a key fact? Are the coordinates of Istanbul and Ankara key facts? Is the rule of the road a key fact? The infobox is littered with trivia. Alakzi (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually, if it wasn't, you would have the right to write whatever you want. Oh and BTW, 'coordinates' are solid just like 'legal' or 'official' facts. kazekagetr 17:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:IBX. Alakzi (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:KazekageTR that we should put 'solid', 'official' facts. However, I would argue that Turkey's emblem is a 'solid', 'official' fact, and so is France's emblem. True, Turkey and France does not have a law that officially defines an emblem, however, we cannot base what is official solely on laws. All countries have different legal traditions, it is not just with Turkey and France. For example, United Kingdom does not officially an anthem, not even an authorized version of lyrics, it's just a tradition. This does not prevent us from listing "God Save the Queen" on the page United Kingdom. While there are no laws, United Kingdom officially condones its use where other nations use their anthems. Or the United States does not officially have a national language, but the government of United States uses English in all official documents and legal proceedings, so we list English in the page United States as the national language. Similarly, Turkey and France do not have laws that define national emblems, but they officially use their respective emblems where other nations use theirs, i.e. on passports and diplomatic missions. That is official by any standard. We may consider adding a note to the pages of France and Turkey, like there is in United Kingdom and United States, saying the emblems do not have legal status. It certainly makes more sense to add a note only to the emblem, instead of adding notes to everything else affirming that they are legally defined, at least from a visual point of view. I will go ahead and add the note.--Cfsenel (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the note "as appears on the Turkish passports and diplomatic missions of Turkey". You can change it if you have a better idea, e.g. want to emphasize that it does not have legal basis; but I am not sure an extensive discussion on its legal status and history is warranted here, anybody can click to National emblem of Turkey and read about it.--Cfsenel (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&oldid=648507969"