Talk:Turkey: Difference between revisions

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Template:FAOL

Turkey Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5 Template:TrollWarning Archives: 1 * 2 * 3 = Reversion occurs regularly on this article.Talk needs structuring.The quality of debate is poor----Clive Sweeting

Hi... The history section of Turkey is very brief. There is discussion of the ottoman empire and neolightic period, but the pressence of the Roman Empire is completly ignored, as well as the role of christianity previous to the ottoman empire... The history of this country is so rich, the section on history here certainly needs to be expanded.... --- Isn't it a little bit odd that there's no mention of the Armenian Genocide in the history section. I can't imagine an overview of the History of Germany which didn't mention the Holocaust and link to it. Are people just afraid of starting an edit war with Turkish nationalists, or is there some other reason it's not mentioned?

• • I agree 100%. Most countries appear to recognise that a genocide occured.

• • Most countries DO NOT. Only a few do and they do it because of the presence of armenian lobbies , politicians greedy for armenian votes and hatred for Turks. The terrorist state Southern cyprus recognises armenian claims. just how surprising is that ?

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

• Thats because the Armenians have strong Armenian lobbies that persuades (lies to) the governments in these countries about the "genocide". The Turkish lobbies are not as strong, however, they need to be because it is immoral for the Armenians to change history and claim their was a "genocide" when in fact there wasn't. There is strong Armenian propaganda against Turks for the reasons as stated below.

• • Oh, the same way as Jewish Holocaust deniers claim that Jewish lobbies lies to governments in other countries about the "Holocaust"?Kuifjeenbobbie 10:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • This is typical armenian propaganda. They try to compare their geno-lies claims to the jewish holocaust to make it real, when there is no comparison. The jewish holocaust has been proved beyond doubt and will prove itself again and again based on the vast body of evidence. jewish holocaust denial is a tiny fringe view, nothing more. Funny how the armenian president refused to have armenian geno-lies claims evaluated by a neutral academic committee. Cant prove crap thats why. Scared that itll shatter your little revionist dream world eh ?

• • The genocide was an important event which deserves mention. If some people disagree that the genocide occured, they can add that it is not universally acknowledged that the genocide took place. It is also significant that Turkey denies the genocide occuredKuifjeenbobbie 10:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Important to who? What the hell does it have to do with modern turkey? Your little claims are not even a speck in thousands and thousands of years of turkish history. armenians will do anything to spread hate propaganda against turks. their national identity rests on it.

• Kuifjeenbobbie: You are a great example of Armenian brainwashing. Because you were taught to hate Turks or perhaps because of all the false information you were feeded by Armenians on the "genocide" this is what you believe. It is really sad for me to witness this. There is no objectivity by Armenians at all! All they say/worship/think/eat/sleep is there was a "genocide", they are trying hard to convince themselves of their lies. We all know Armenians want to cover up the fact that they actually commited atrocities against Turks where hundreds of thousands of Turks were massacred before Turkey finally retaliated. Armenians just want everyone to feel sorry for them and get some Turkish land, just as the Jews got the creation of Israel after the holocaust. Its actually quite disturbing that Armenians would use the Jewish holocaust for their own selfish needs.

• • It's not mentioned because there wasn't an Armenian genocide but only a Turkish genocide committed by Armenians!! Isn't a bit odd that Armenians made up the "genocide" to gather sympathy from the international community and thereafter possibly getting some Turkish land???? To Armenians of course its not odd its perfectly natural, how Armenians get what they want in life is by lying! Armenians lie, lie, and lie and they actually believe their lies because it is a great way to convince people that their was a "genocide". There should be a link for the TURKISH GENOCIDE BY ARMENIANS. I cannot believe that Armenians have the nerve to declare a "so called genocide"! They keep on changing how many Armenians died in the "so called genocide". One day its half a million, then a million then who knows maybe they'll start declaring that Turks killed a hundred million! I guess they keep changing the number to get more support from the global community. It looks better that way........Firstly, Armenians slaughtered defenseless Turkish citizens for a chance to take over the Ottoman Empire because the empire was extremely weak so Armenians thought they would take over Turkey easily but to their surprise the Turks defended themselves, but it was too late since nearly a MILLON TURKS DIED!!! Secondly, they call Turkey defending themselves genocide?? Talk about adding insult to injury............of course claiming genocide like what the Armenians are doing has many advantages-the world feels sorry for them and politics react in their favor, if the Armenians say that they started killing Turkish civilians it wouldn't look so good for them and hence they wouldn't get world sympathy/support (and the benefits that go along with it) that they so desperately seek. What a shame! Armenians should get a F****N HOBBY and STOP SPEADING HATE PROPAGRANDA AGAINST TURKS! Armenians are racist! They are entitled to their sick and twisted opinions, however to change history is cowardly, unjust, and pathetic!!!

• • No one gives a rat's ass about genolies claims except armenians. Armenian diaspora should spend their money helping armenia's starving population instead of sitting on their asses in comfortable cali and spreadign hate against turks. It all comes down a centuries old inferiority complex that armenians have

Just a random question, perhaps ignorant on my part but I don't know very much about the country. So are there actually turkeys in Turkey?--J.a.f.a.c. 04:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes here are turkeys of course but with a small difference from there our turkeys do not use internet but i see your's do.

The name comes from "Turkish Hen" a kind of chicken looks like Turkey (we call it hindi in turkish) but smaller, the Britts probably mistaken by it.

Yes indeed there are. But the naming is other way around the common belief. Name of the bird comes from the country [1]. --þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 19:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Wikipedia agrees: Turkey (bird)#Naming --þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 19:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO! the name Turkey was given by Britain when Ottoman Empire and Brithish Empire were two most powerful forces of Europe to have fun with Turks. Turkey has nothing releated with turkey the bird. Also as a Turk we never use word Turkey (Türkiye) to refer imperial times. So removeing Ottoman history is strongly recommended. --Mko 22:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name Turkey is first used for Egypt of Mameluke(where almost all the soldiers and rulers were Caspian Turks) times again by Europeans Turque is a latin perhaps givven by crusaders or Latin merchants. And that should have passed to Anatolia when Sultan of Rum hired some Frank merchanaries against Karaman Kingdom and Babais (his soldiers didn't obey him because of higher rank in nobility of Karamans).It isnt easy to use name turkey at those times cos more than half of the known world was rulled by Turks from China to rumenia and Egypt where Turkestan(as saracens called) term appeared for central asia.

Even though "we" Turks never use the word Turkiye for the Ottoman times now, the words "Turk" and "Turkey" are definetly not invented in the republic era. Oxford English Dictionary (which is the definitive source for English language) says that "Turquie" is the medieval Latin name for the land of Turks. Above references clearly states (and OED agrees) that the bird took the name from Turkish land in the 16th century. It has nothing to do with 19th century European newspapers making fun of the "sick old man of Europe" that probably gave you the wrong impression. Can you give any references for the claim "the name Turkey was given by Britain......to have fun with Turks". BTW what do you mean by "removeing Ottoman history"? --þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 06:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an addition to the above: the terms 'Turks' and 'Turkey' were in use from much earlier than 16th century, when refering to the Ottoman or Seljuk Empires and their (muslim) citizens. As far as the Greeks are concerned, these terms were not 'invented' in the 19th century, and as far as i know, it had been used by the Austrians as well (even before the Siege of Vienna). The difference lays on what/who was described by tese terms. for example, a christian that converted to islam was named 'turk'. and the land were the majority of the inhabitants were muslims and turkish-speaking (id est Anatolia) was named 'Turkey' (or Turquie or whatever similar in each language). but places such as Arabia or Syria or Palestine were not called 'Turkey' not even by the Turks themselves... Lastly, these two terms, in the turkish republican era, got the meaning of an ethnic group and a nation-state, something very different compared with the era before 1922-23, or perhaps the time of the Young Turks. --Hectorian 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the first usage we know of the term "Turk" goes back to 6th century Göktürks. (See Turkish people#Etymology) --þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the word "Turk" can be traced to "Tou-kin", a word the Chinese used for the Xiongnu. Or so ive heard--Kilhan 23:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff; thanks for the answer on the turkeys in Turkey question. But it seems as though there's a more pressing question here. When exactly did the terms Turkey and Turk appear? We've got some interesting points, but we need some solid sources. It would be a good point to add in the article-J.a.f.a.c. 04:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember from our history courses back in high school that the word "Türk" is a word meaning "strong" in ancient Turkic language. I don't know if it's true or not. It could be just a patriotic history book trash :).

The word "Turkey" probably comes from latin postfix "-ia" meaning "Land of...". "Turk-ia" (which is "Türkiye" in Turkish) meaning "Land of Turks". --EpiC-- 00:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Indeed the first usage we know of the term "Turk" goes back to 6th century Göktürk State.

Just as a state name it is the first use, in fact after Gokturk Tyrany over turkic tribes dissolved none of the white tribes used name Turk till islam or even after they were referring other tribes as Turks but themselves with the tribe name az Oguz, Ogur, Kypcak, Uighur, Tatar etc. Even when europeans first encounter with Ottomans they called them turks and had a serious reaction from them that "Turks are in the east we are Oguz our language is Oguzca" (as if they spoke something different they are almost same even today villager turkish speakers can understand and communicate to an uyghur)today even most distinct Sakha Turks cal themseves Turks but Tatars prefer the name Tatar to honor their alliance with Mongols.

Above is your answer(i agree with the author)

It has come to my attention that there is a concerted effort by a group of very motivated editors to portray Turkey and Turks in much of a negative light as possible.This is evident by the horrible bias reflected in many of the pages involving turkey. If there any people from turkey reading this talk page, I ask you to sign up on wikipedia immediately and help us counter the hatred being focussed.

Dear anonymous: looks like an unsubstantiated excuse for vandalism and censorship! i've seen many cases where objective and relevant facts were cut out, and that without any decent explanations, let alone authoritative external sources and references. I'm very much considering spending again some time overhere. --Rudi Dierick 22:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • No Rudi hate propaganda against Turks was being cut out not facts. If you think those were indeed "facts" then perhaps you are a racist yourself and your concept of "facts" is not realistic. If you think those were facts then it seems to me that you would also support the Klu Klux Klans "facts" about African Americans, Jews, and so on and so forth. Everyone knows that racist comments and racist views are not accepted and does not need any explanations to be cut out, especially to you!

Just as A. Garnet removed some childishly partisan POV from Booby, it looks to me that Kilhan also introduced some partisan POV, namely cutting out some statements that are, altough critical about Turkey, quite objective as far as I can see. Moreover, neither Booby, nor Kilhan provided any the slightest external reference for their childish contributions, let alone any convincing authoritative sourcing. Therefore, i tried to re-establish some facts that apeear both relevant and corrent, and, as said, thanks to A. Garnet for similar efforts. --Rudi Dierick 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, dear Mr. Richards, it is not Mr. otto rehn, but 'Olli' Rehn who as an EU commissioner published those reports ciricising Turkey's attitude towards human rights. --Rudi Dierick 22:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your stated aim to "objectify the article", rhetorical words like "so-called" are hardly what the article needs. That is exactly why you were reverted multiple times by a plethora of other editors. Keep in mind that this is an encylopedia article on Turkey, not an indictment:)--Kilhan 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you review Wikipedia's policy of No personal attacks before thinking of throwing out labels like "childish". I simply reverted Booby687's edits ([2][3][4]). Would you care to explain just how reversion of these edits is "childish" ? Btw, Checkuser has confirmed that you and Lucas Richards are sockpuppets. You are required to mention here which account you wish to retain. Regards--Kilhan 02:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't help you very much. Somewhat yeah: verify more carefully who deleted objective information without allowing any room for discussion. On the other hand, I will continue posting my things here (mainly explanations on the discussion page as you certainly must know). And inded, I will try to objectify my wordings. But I can't help you about Mr. Richards. Just ask him and follow his later contributions. --Rudi Dierick 06:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons why I felt that several reverts were childish (and I stress that I'm not doing any detailled verification here) is that it looks -and I stresss this 'looks' because it is very much an impression, perception you know- that objective facts were cut, and that the explanations I found on the discussion pages (if there were any, which is not always the case) were absolutely not adressing the accuracy of those facts. So, maybe I was wrong in attributing the blame for that un-Wikipedia-alike behaviour to you. Therefore, I offer my apologies. However, I will stick to my criticism of such hostile and very unencyclopedic behaviour. So, it looks as the coming WE, I will have to do some detailled verifications.

On the other hand, as you are so hugely eager to guard proper procedures, would you not like to join me in these verifications, and try to come up with:

:::: * Better ways of formulating whatever is good, accuarte and relevant in other person's contributions?  --Rudi Dierick 06:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Some explanations why you choose to revert, instead of first engaging in a discussion, and trying to seek consensus? --Rudi Dierick 06:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine and all, but its the admins, not me that you need to convince regarding sockpuppetry. As you know, Wikipedia has strict rules regarding usage of sockpuppets to win "edit wars", vote stacking and providing other forms of support for the views of another id. Maybe you could ask Lucas to answer at the case page because both you and Lucas seem to share the exact same computer according to the IP check and that seems to be the major problem. In addition, this is hardly the place to discuss this issue and other exchanges of a personal nature. A far more appropriate place would be a user talk page.--Kilhan 09:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi, regarding this edit by you, saying "A major source of tension in its EU aspirations is Turkey's widespread human rights abuses" is hardly encylopedic. According to whom ? In what context? Is the person/organization who made the claim notable? What about the report that Turkey has managed to be one of the top 10 countries in the world that are in line with the European Union Human Rights Council ? What about the US State department's report about Turkey that asserted "The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens" ? "Widespread human rights abuses" seems heavily out of line in the context of those reports, and is most important of all, vague, unsourced and unverified. Besides, all this detailed information is best left to the specialised articles, which are linked to from the article. --Kilhan 09:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply according to official EU reports, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Freedom House, and many other such organisations. And if you don't like their conclusions, Ok, your problem! Both you and me should recognoise that some reports are 'generally favcorable', while others, from equally authoritative sources, are very much less balck and whiote, including several important criticisms of Turkey. So we can now both start throwing reports at each other. What will this help? Why not just agree that indeed Turkey make a huge progress, but that it is not yet there? --Rudi Dierick 17:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but one of the key stumbling blocks for Turkey joining the EU is its lack of democracy. How do we square that with calling it a democratic state? I think a more modulated turn of phrase is required that reflects the gap between Turkey's goal (to join a democratic EU) and its current standing. Politis 15:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey is a parliamentary democracy, its people vote, they elect leaders, they are accountable. There is no dictatorship, no autocracy, no monarchy in Turkey. Democracy has a very specific political definition which Turkey adheres to, regardless of criticisms to its human rights or foreign policy. --A.Garnet 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey certainly qualifies as a democracy as far as the definition goes - at least since the end of Kenan Evren anyway. What could be disputed about Turkey and any other democratic country for that matter would be their implementation of "democratic principles". But that again is open to plenty of interpretation.--Kilhan 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not such a clearcut case. Several sources say Turkey is 'largely democratic', but with some important remartks. Among these voices, Freedom House lists Turkey as only partially free (see also Freedom House's survey Freedom in the World 2006).

After some of the famous pro-Turkey contributors, and awaiting a stern reply from Lucas Richards, I feel more inclined towards Politis. Turkey has indeed many democratic institutions, and that should be correctmly described. however, it's procedues, and many practices of the Turkish state appear far less democratic (as its harrassment of dissidents, the privileges for Sunni islam over other religions), or even squarely undemocratic (as it's widespraed severe discrimùinations of minorities as Kurds, and to a lesser extent Alevi, ...). the rfeprots from HRW, Amnesty International and official EU reports are clear enough on this. These lesser points should also be mentionned. So, why not describe Turkey as "a country with democratic institutions, but with not (yet) all democratic procedures"? --Rudi Dierick 17:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudi have you ever been to Turkey? To say their is discriminations of Kurds and Alevis is down right hilarious - it couldn't be further away from the truth.

All those very authoritative organizations have a very differen opinion from yours. So who's probably right? An anonymous person, or them? --Rudi Dierick 21:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Authoritative organizations have opinions for all countries in respect to human rights. They are also critical in evaluating European and North American countries as well- Does that mean these countries have democratic institutions but not with any democratic procedures? All countries have some impairment when it comes to human rights. Turkey is a nation that is doing its best. It has to deal with constant terrorism from Kurds and hate propaganda from Armenians and Greeks. Considering the abuse it receives from these ethnicities, it is doing a miraculous job! All ethnicities in Turkey enjoy freedom! You will never see a Kurd being in prison for being a Kurd. Have you noticed how many Kurds are in Turkey's government infrastructure? If not you are probably blind!!
• Armenians/Greeks/Kurds and whoever else can open any business they want, speak their language freely, practice whatever religion they chose, travel wherever they desire, vote, etc. etc. etc. If you still don't get my point, take a trip to Turkey more specific Istanbul because of they large Armenian/Greek/Kurd population there. You have a higher chance of winning a $100 million jackpot before seeing any of these ethnicities being harrassed or discriminated against! Unfortunately Turkish human rights in Armenia, Greece, and Northern Iraq (known as Kurdistan) cannot remotely measure up to the human rights they receive in Turkey. Why don't you focus your efforts (if you are such a caring man about human rights) on Turkish rights in these countries. You will see that Turkish people have little or no rights in these countries!! Is that fair Rudi?? If you purpose that Turkey is not doing a good job on human rights, what do you suggest Turkey does when it suffers from terrorism by Kurds? And if Turkey is such a horrible country when it comes to human rights, why are these ethnicites living there??? Why are these ethnicities establishing businesses and getting their education in Turkey? Why are they raising there families in Turkey?? Why are they building churches and synagogues in Turkey?? The answer is simple: Because they are being treated just as every other Turkish citizen and have productive and pleasant lives in Turkey!!! Rudi it seems to me you a racist man that is just looking for an outlet to project your racism! You should make peace within yourself and let go of the hate! Life is short!

• • Kurds speak their language freely, are members in the government, own businesses, and have just as many rights as Turkish people.

However, many Kurds are also supporters of the terrorist group PKK if not a terrorist themself so obviously they have to be dealt with differently. Its a situation similar to the United States cracking down on all Al-Qaeda members/supporters but not against all Arabic people in the US, understand? Alevis practice their religion just as any other Muslim, Jew, or Catholic would in Turkey, in fact when their special holidays come Turkish television always show how they celebrate with Sunni Muslims! You also mention the priviledges of Sunni Muslims, how about the priviledges of Greek Orthodox priests having their special meetings in Istanbul in their Churches??? And to top it off they discuss hate propaganda against Turks!!! So what are you talking about buddy? Perhaps you are high on crack and have no idea of what you're mentioning!! ;) Why don't we discuss European countries idea of human rights, shall we? Did you know that if you are born in Germany of immigrant parents, the German government will discriminate against you and classify you as an immigrant when in fact you were born and raised there. France clearly discriminates against Muslims and is not shy to say so!! Its funny how the French empire went into Muslim countries, changed the language and the religion for the most part and then does not want Muslims in their own country!! Turkish people living in Greece CANNOT speak their language freely, must change their last name to one that is Greek and practice their religion usually in hiding for fear of persecution by the Greek government. In fact just in recent years Athens got its first Mosque (despite the Islamic population living there for hundreds of years) and unfortunately some Muslims were shot to death by Greeks, but I guess they are better at "human rights" then Turkey - yeah right! I suggest to get off that cheap crack you have been smoking and if you are going to examine Turkish human rights then you also must be critical in examining the human rights of every country!!

Can someone add about Turkey's Flora & Fauna? I have tried several time but I don't know how to add the referance there and removed it.

I understand your view about the necessity of such a section, but the text you added seems to be directly lifted from here and would therefore constitute a copyright violation unless we can get confirmation of its copyright status (that allows usage of it on wikipedia). Regards--Kilhan 17:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Kilhan,

I just wanted someone teach me how to add the referance there. I think I have added the link to the external links. Turkey has very rich Flora and Fauna, we have to put them to Turkey page. See; USA

I'll be very glad if you can add it succesfully to the Turkey page.

Sincerely, Zaparojdik

If you mean reference as in citation, add < ref > add source here< /ref > (without spaces) after the text you wish to reference. The text will automatically appear in the references section at the bottom of the page. --A.Garnet 18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Try <ref>insert reference</ref> like A.Garnet suggested. If that still doesn't work out, take a look at how the other references/links are inserted and try to use the exact same syntax. Regards--Kilhan 18:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• country name
• history
• politics
• military
• area
• geography
• economy
• traffic
• national (people)
• education
• culture
• sports
• See also
• external links

--Suisui 23:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that it's Turkey's tallest mountain, but what's wrong with having images of Pamukkale instead? This is a section on geography, not mountains. —Khoikhoi 04:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mountains are part of geography, it is Turkey's tallest peak, and the image is good and clear - that is why it is there. I do not understand Clevelanders unexplained deletion of it, i could assume bad faith and cite the usual Armenian claims to it, but i hope that is not the case. --A.Garnet 12:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, Mt. Ararat is Turkey's highest peak, but I think its best to stay out of divisive things such as these although there is a strong context for inclusion in this case. It just causes too much conflict and invokes emotions thats really unnecessary above anything else. Similarly, the image of ararat in the Armenia article should be taken off and replaced woth something more appropriate. Its a real shame that all wowturkey.com images were deleted because I have this really nice image of Antalya's med coastline in mind that would look terrific in that section.--Kilhan 09:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is Kilhan, when i put this image, i did not even think of the political situation with Armenians, nor should i have. It is simply a mountain that is part of Turkey's geography, there is absoloutely no reason for its removal whatsoever. --A.Garnet 09:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of this image seems tactless----Clive Sweeting

I think it's wrong to put "ottoman empire at its height in 1600s" map into the article. It'll be taken wrong by wiki users that they'll think that modern Turkey is a diminished, little Ottoman empire. When you enter "United Kingdom" page, yes, there is a map that shows old UK maps of British empire, ruling most of the world. And yes, UK is the same UK as it was 200 years ago. It was a large empire; now it's small. It's still a monarchy. But when you enter France's page, there's no French map showing a large french empire. Because French empire doesn't exist: you should check french empire pages for that.. Remove Ottoman map from history section. It's right place is "History of Turkey"... --JohnEmerald 22:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks for attention its wrong to put Ottoman map because turkey got independence from Ottoman Empire as mistaken by most Turks and foreigners. In Independance War sultan and his government was a harder foe than French, English and Armenians and turkey is not the successing state to Ottoman and didnt inherit any land the public fought for what is theirs now.[reply]

Yes, Ottoman map must go, this is not the place for it. But some people need to understand how each article has its own prioritiesPolitis 18:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Politis 18:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Ottoman Empire was an important part of history. The map is a great way to see how large and how far the Empire expanded. So what's the big deal? When I studied about various empires in history, the professors always showed maps of the areas the empires covered.
    • But we're trying to say that, Modern Turkey is not a continum of Ottomans. Is there a "Roman empire" map at Italy page? ..or Charlemagne Frankish kingdom map at France's page?. ..Or Nazi Germany map at Germany's page? No..No.No.. --JohnEmerald 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemagne Frankish kingdom is not even French as you say it is "Frank" who are Germanic not Latinised Celts.

A paragraph on Ottoman history certainly belongs, but the map is inconsistent with similar material elsewhere. It should be removed. Valentinian ^(talk) 07:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are relevant article on Kemal Ataturk and Turkish history, this is not the place. Some countries are loaded with uncecessary historical facts. This is an article about the country as it stands. Politis 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what if their is too much history? Some countries have a richer history then others, it does not mean if it excesses a certain amount it has to be deleted. The Honorable Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is an important part of Turkish history and must not be ommitted!

I agree with Politis. This is not the place.--Ćele Kula 08:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Anyone that studied Turkish history, knows that Ataturk is Turkish history so cannot be excluded ,in fact it is imperative. Cele and Politis obviously don't know that so therefore their comments are irrelevant.

User:Kilhan, how can you dismiss EU membership as, “Leave all that to the detailed article. There is only so much we can devote to this. There is a lot more to Turkey than some membership in a regional bloc)”. The emphasis is mine, but you are reverting important and sourced information. Namely:

Turkey's main political, economic and military relations remain rooted within Western Europe and the United States. An associate member of the European Union since 1964, Turkey is currently in the process of accession pending the completion of negotiations. A major source of tension in its EU aspirations is the reluctance of France, Germany and Austria whose voters are apprehensive about Turkey's accession [5],[6], [7], [8], [9]. There is also concern over its human rights record [10], including freedom of expression. Another, though lesser factor, is the issue of Cyprus, a member of the EU which Turkey does not recognise, but instead supports the de facto independent Turkish Cypriot north. Supporters of its membership point out that it acts as a bridge beween the West and the Islamic east. Based on what it views as lukewarm support for its accesion to the EU, and alleged double standards in its negotiations, the Turkish public has become increasingly euroskeptic in recent times. A mid-2006 Eurobarometer survey revealed that 43% of Turkish citizens view the EU positively; just 35% trust the EU, 45% support enlargement and just 29% support an EU constitution ^[1]. Politis 18:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politis, we already have an article devoted to that issue - Accession of Turkey to the European Union. Thats where all this detailed information should go, not here. Here, we provide a brief overview and move onto other things concerning Turkey, like Demographics, culture, education, religion and so on. Just how credible would this article be if a third of it dealt with membership in a regional bloc? Its just way, way too disproportionate to put it simply. A person interested in detailed information about turkey's acession can simply click on to the link to the specialised article thats listed at the bottom of "Foreign relations".--Kilhan 19:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, all the Ottoman stuff and history about Ataturk has definetly no place. But the EU issue is too central in Turkey's current state to be dismissed so swiftly; especially when we have direct quotes from French leaders, the Austrian presidency and other EU countries. That makes it absolutely central. If you are concerned about the image of Turkey (and my impression is that you are happier to edit out seemingly unfavourable facts and to emphasise the grandeur of the Ottomans), then we can suplement the quotes with official British and American views. That would make good sense. But even though you have a point please try to reconsider your editing priorities. Politis 19:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. There is a little something called "Article size" and we cannot include every single titbit of information unless you want the article to become as long as the Epic of King Gesar. Honestly, a few hundred words about Turkey's Eu accession and just two sentences about Ataturk? This is clearly undue weight and disproportionate. Just take a look at other country articles are structured for a comparison. --Kilhan 19:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying, but the article as it stands is unbalanced. There is a special feature on Ataturk and the EU remains central to Turkey. Every country analyst, every Turk and most Europeans are aware of this. We have to revert and your skills can be exerted in other Turkish related articles. Politis 19:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but to say Cyprus is a lesser factor is completely wrong. It is the single most threatening obstacle to Turkey's accession. The enlargement commisioner Olli Rehn talked of a 'train crash' in negotiations specifically about the failure to resolve the Cyprus issue. --A.Garnet 08:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus will be the key of Turkey to get rid of EU membership and push the guilt on EU because Turks wont do anything before EU does its homework and EU cant do it because they(you know who) don't want to.And Turkey's forces won't leave the island till they are sure about safety of Cypriot Turks (non anounced genocide occured there between 1950-1974 worse than Crete). So it seems impossible to continue relation by both sides but no one wants to be responsible so they are passing balls to eachother insted of scoring.

Turkey doesnt wan't that membership we are a young, growing, healty nation once again and Europe is old, ressesive, sick countinent but some local ares like britain and ex-communist states. today some politicians on charge see Europe membership is nessecary for their terrorist purposes and in next election they will have a great failure as reported. 43% is told nowadays but no one asked me if they ask people infront of expensive discos and bars thats natural but in fact the real ratio is even lower than 20% and less than that among university students. So no govenment in Turkey can force the majority to membership only radical muslims and seperatist facists want that membership. Turks like the thought that they are alone and they really are to the West.

There is no such thing as an Armenian genocide

• If anyone believes there actually was a "genocide" they must also believe that pigs fly....I don't mean to be too sarcastic but thats what is ultimately comes down too. If Turkey actually committed genocide why would they deny it? They have no reason to! Look at how Germany is successful after the holocaust! Look at the Serbs after their genocide campaign of Bosnian Muslims - it occurred in the 90s and I'm sure nearly all of the international community forgot about it! Not to mention all the other genocides committed in history! And every country is continuing wonderfully with genocides and all! So why would Turkey do such a thing? Because they don't want to look bad - who cares? The only reason Turkey denies a "genocide" is because there never was one!! And its pathetic to see Armenians coming together trying to convince the international community about it - Where is the justice?? Can any ethnic group with the appropriate resources have the right to change history into their favor?? We live in a world, filled with all kinds of people. There are people who lie to get what they want in life, there are people who manipulate, there are people who are psychotics, etc. When it comes to the topic of genocide, should we just "believe" Armenians. They are a group of people who are making serious accusations against Turks so therefore serious research needs to be implemented in order for such accusations to be proclaimed as the truth. However, that is not the case here. Armenians are stating with no relevant unbiased evidence that there was a "genocide" against them. Why don't Armenians state the genocides they committed agaisnt Turks and Azerbaijanis, if there such a fair people who seek justice?? Why don't Armenians state that the only reason they want everyone to accept the fact there was a "genocide" is because they think its a great way of expanding its borders into eastern Turkey? They want eastern Turkey and it seems if the international community feels sorry for them about the whole genocide thing they can get it really easy without any physical effort or casualties. Very Clever!

A genocide in the 20th century and the fact that it is denied is surely significant.Kuifjeenbobbie 15:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it is a bit strange that there is not even a link to the Armenian genocide article. There should be a way to insert a sentence in the WWI paragraph. Kusma (討論) 15:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried as a new editor 6-8 months ago to JUST have it listed under "See also" and was shot down. The owners of this article won't allow it so it isn't even worth trying. I think the arguement back then was it happened during the Ottoman period so it doesn't belong ANYWHERE in here or something. I see history going back before the creation of the current State, so why can't it go in there. Anyways, I am sure I'll get ripped a new one and really didn't want to come back here, but couldn't help myself :) Anyways, carry on..--Tom 15:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had the same problem as Tom. As soon as I try to insert an objective mention of the Armenian Genocide it is removed very quickly with no justification. I am surprised that anything negative about turkey on this page is not removed immediately either!Kuifjeenbobbie 15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the argument is that it occured under the Ottomans and therefore has no place, then why is there any reference to the Ottoman past, at all? Perhaps its mention should go, unabiguously, in the Ottoman section of this article and we could state that the genocide question and its legacy affects the perception of modern day Turkey. Why are some editors so intransigent over this issue. A reasonable compromise can be found with a bit of good will (?). Good luck. Politis 15:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that would be a good idea. However I suspect even the very suggestion would be edited out! I propose "The legacy of the alledged Armenian genocide at the end of the Ottoman period affects the perception of modern day Turkey". I will put this in tomorrow and see what happens, but I am not confident it will remain there for long.Kuifjeenbobbie 16:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think its notable enough to warrant a mention in the history section, especially when an event with massive ramifications such as WWI is summarised in just one sentence. Actually the whole genocide issue came up in relation to freedom of speech/freedom of the press in Turkey and has nothing to do with whether such an event occurred. This article as it is, is overlong and could use some major trimming especially the "foreign relations" and "economy' sections. The table showing the demographical indicators for turkey also doesnt seem to serve any purpose other than regurgitating the information already present in the article--Kilhan 15:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kilhan is right, there is also a question of freedom of speech. But how refreshing! An economy section that is too long! Personally, I thought there were too many pics at the end. Politis 16:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is complete bullshit because this geno-lies rubbish is not even a speck in thousands and thousand of turkish history. Proof that anything is a possible on wikipedia when there is an alliance between racist germans and armenian nationalists —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mactcel (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that France and Austria have indicated they will hold referendums on Turkey's membership was mentionned as an indication of the suggested double standards against Turkey?. However, such referendums are part of the normal democratic process in those countries. referendums are held there for many other reasons, so this can not be mentionned as an indication for that lukewarm support. The support for Turkish accession to the EU is indeed very weak, but that's more a matter of lack of support among the populations from many current EU countries. If one wants to include double standards here, then (s)he should properly document that claim. --Rudi Dierick 21:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stating "The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular, constitutional republic" appears a gross, and unjustified simplification. There has been more then enough objective information provided in this and related articles that underline that this very general claim can not be seen as correct:

1. widespread persecution and prosection of anyone criticising the Turkish nationalism;
2. widespread discrimination of ethnic minorities and of other religions and other religious tendencies then Sunni Islam;
3. Turkey's signature under the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam;
4. excessive influence of the military.

Given the number and the severity of those non-democratic behaviour of the Turkish state, and because of its religious and ethnic discriminations, that should be reflected in the general description of the nature of the political institutions in Turkey. My proposal is to add a slight moderation by adding 'largely'; that results in: The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular, constitutional republic ... --Rudi Dierick 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say Turkey is a democratic, secular, constitutional republic in an EASTERN style. It's shape and colour cannot be like a western Germany or France. Democracy is not a computer program that runs same on every computer; it's just something in people's brains, not in people's blood.. --JohnEmerald 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, Germany uses democracy for a shorter time that Turkey. Before that, they were also ruled by kings. Also, how many years passed since the France has an ideal democracy(they are trying since the end of the Napoleonic Wars). Of course we re-arrange things to fit the system to the nation. We love our traditions and in some ways, democracy can cause moral dilemmas for Turks. With respect, Deliogul 23:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's your full right to prefer to do thinbgs differently, but then accept also that we describe the 'Turksih' way of doing things as differently from 'our' (EU) style. --Rudi Dierick 21:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxidentialists.Hmph.And Democracy can run in every nation,provided it has the economical,social and political prerequisites for the exact process in which "Western" Democracies are evolved."it's just something in people's brains" I trust you are not thinking our nation as retarded?--88.247.96.210 07:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite its influence in civilian affairs, the military continues to enjoy strong support from the nation, frequently seen as Turkey's most trusted institution. although some critics maintain that the military exerts excessive influence over Turkeys government some even going as far as claiming that the country is effectively a military dictatorship with a fascade of democracy" Someone seems to take exception to the bolded section of the above passage even though 1) Its a claim made by many (leftwing and Kurdish) observers, 2) The preceeding text is rather POV in that it implies that everyone in Turkey is content with the role of the military in Turkish society. Pointing out that not everyone sees it this way makes the section more NPOV 3) If Turkey really is the open democratic society it professes to be then such subjects should be open to discussion.

Its hard to imagine that anyone can suggest that the Turkish Army doesnt have an excessive level of influence in Turkish society when it has carried out no less than three military coups ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.89.232 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not POV to cite many public surveys on this subject that show that Turkish people trust the TAF more than any other institution.. This is not a political statement, there are many reasons for this. In any case, that claim is cited, whereas your claim wasn't. There are many articles relating to this issue, article about the country is not the ideological battleground for those... Again, I repeat, this is not a blog, pls cite your claims and try to insert them into the general flow of the article.. Pls don't imply that someone is not an open to discussion, this issue is being fervently debated in Turkey, so don't assume.. Lastly, nobody has claimed that TAF doesn't have any political influence... Baristarim 20:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "(most) Turkish people trust the TAF" but It becomes POV to selecively quote surveys without making it clear that a substantial number of people have some reservations. There are many articles in both the Kurdish and leftwing Turkish press criticising the role of the military and complaining about the lack of real democracy in Turkey. The Article as a whole paints a picture of Turkey as an open secular democratic republic and in comparison to most other countries in the region it is difficult to argue otherwise however it is inappropriate not to also mention that there are powerful reasons to ask how democratic a country where one can be imprisoned for "Insulting Turkishness", "Seperatist Speech", "Undermining military service" or (in some circumstances) ANY speech in languages other than Turkish really is ! 87.114.22.198 18:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse trust and not having reservations about too much interference.. That would be too much political correctness.. There are many reasons for that trust level, corruption of elected officials etc.. And let's not forget that this is not a blog.. Let's not forget that France also denies the Algerian Genocide and recently passed a resolution 'to confirm the positive role of colonialisation'.. That is no reason to go the article about France and add such comments.. The info given in the country article has to be concise, there are MANY articles that talk about the shortcomings of Turkey.. Lastly, democracy is not an absolute.. If you had been following the recent developments, you can see that this article is not about the Turkey of 70s.. Pls keep these things in mind.. Everything you cited seems to come from bits and pieces of info, not enought to justify the claim of military dictatorship with a façade of democracy.. Please see my comment above about France and Algerian Genocide to keep things in perspective...Baristarim 19:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian genocide? That’s a new one. How come Wikipedia doesn’t have a section on it? Few people would deny that the French in North Africa committed atrocities but surely calling it genocide is an exaggeration? Anyway we are not discussing the events of the 1910's or 1970's we are talking about the role of the military in Turkish society today and whether the degree of influence they have over the government makes Turkey undemocratic ? 87.113.80.28 16:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been seen France article of wikipedia, there were writes first state of France on formation, I added early Turkish state Ottoman Empire, please don't change.

Sincerely,

Zaparojdik

• I would delete any reference on the "genocide", just as I would delete any other absurd comment! If not for deleting, imagine all the chaos with all kinds of psychotics just writing anything they want! It would be sheer madness! If we can't delete crazy comments and accusations than perhaps we should also take time and get some advice from a psychotic person living on a New York city street bench.

This editing approach of deleting anything that seems critical of the country is not very helpfull and not helpful to people who like Turkey and try to understand it. At best, this approach makes us focus on a prevailing inability in the country to discuss certain issues. That is a shame because there is much more to Turkey than this. This blank deleting approach goes against the spirit of its Ataturk heritage and against its declared aspiration to become a bridge of understanding between different cultures. Turkey is a powerfull country and there are some responsibilities that accompany such a status. Politis 12:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Politis. It seems to be a particular problem on this page. I have visited other pages which mention the Armenian genocide, but these are not continually deleted without giving a reason or with the unproven assertion that the genocide is a Armenian consipary. Kuifjeenbobbie 13:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.. Although I don't consider myself as the prime recipient of your message, I did make an edit reverting the genocide topic so I'll state my reasoning. The (alleged, if you so wish) Armenian Genocide is marked as a controversial topic and I think the inclusion of any such topic shall be refrained from until a consensus is reached on the talk page. The same goes with any controversial topic as far as I'm concerned. Take care --Xasf 16:06, 16 August 2006 (GMT+3)

turkey has plenty of enemies who spread dirty propaganda like greeks and armenians. For them it is imperative to try to slur turks and they try to put stupid things like geno-lies in everything connected to turkey. But this is not even a speck in thousands and thousands of turkish history ! This is not even Ottoman Empire but modern turkey. Ottoman empire is not turkey! Roman Empire is not italy ! Soviet union is not russia! but to certain racists, ottoman empire is turkey because they need to spread hatred against turks

It has always been my opinion that the issue should be explained as part of a political dispute and not a historical narrative. --A.Garnet 13:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do you suggest to mention it somewhere outside the history section (where?), or do you suggest not to mention it at all? Kusma (討論) 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that there is no racial slur intended against Turks when mentioning the genocide issue. It seems that A.Garnet has a good point by suggesting to include it as a 'political dispute' - because, if nothing else, there is no doubt that it is a political dispute. So what are the factors of that dispute? It involves the Armenian people and diaspora in the US and Europe, France, occasionally the European Parliament and even mentions in the European Council. One possibility is to present the issue in a few short lines and, of course, the position of Ankara (saddly, I do not have the time to propose a text in the near future). Politis 14:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im with A. Garnet on this one, but im not sure how some armenian lobbying groups constitute a notable enough party to mention it as a dispute. It is also important to note that the temporary closure of the turkish-armenian border is over the nagarno karabakh dispute between azerbaijan and armenia and not the alleged genocide issue. Does it even have any relevance to the Turkish republic, which was established in 1923 and just one of the many states that emerged from the ottoman empire?--Kilhan 05:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name of our country is Türkiye, not Turkey. Turkey is the name of a bird that americans eat to celebrate holidays.

This is English Wikipedia. See WP:NAME. Bertilvidet 08:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a native Turkish speaker, and I find this "our country is named Türkiye" claim a nonsense. Each language has its own terms for countries, and Turks should respect English. After all, Turkish language has the same trick with this bird. Would you consent to call "Hindistan" as "Bharat" from now on? I won't. Filanca 09:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its "Türkiye" in Turkish and "Turkey" in english. Turkey existed long before European explorers named the bird as such when they first encountered it in the new world--Kilhan 14:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kilhan, that can not be proved. Etymology on this page of the name Turkey must be wrong. The name is "Türkiye". Türkiye was established in 1923. The Europeans went to the Americas much before Türkiye existed. Ottoman Empire was in place, not Türkiye. Regards, dog

Well I meant to say that the words "Turk" and "Turkey" (not the present state) were in use much earlier before the bird came into the picture. I just forgot to type the quotation marks in. Sorry about the confusion:)--Kilhan 15:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, by that logic we should call China "中国" or Russia "Россия" or Egypt "مصر"? That's what their people call their country...--Fox Mccloud 17:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baharat means Spice in Turkish.Just FYI.--88.247.96.210 08:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the author refers to "occupation"? The Greeks establish Smirni much before the Turkic people were in the area. Same as Constantinoupole. Please provide evidence. Pushing POV. It was liberation. Greeks returned to the area to get back what was theirs before. It can only be occupation through the Turkish POV and third parties. Regards, dog

Is this post meant to be serious? Bertilvidet 13:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree prove your argument and provide explanation why you have reverted the post. dog @ 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your POV is hilarious.Ottoman Empire ruled Smyrna over 500 years,and it was theirs.Never mind,some of my countrymen think of liberating Athens from the heathens too.--88.247.96.210 07:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Turkey don't occupy a part of Cyprus, because the island previously has been ruled from Istanbul? And Hitler liberated Alsace, since that region previously had been a part of the German Empire? Sorry, it really doesn't seem serious to dispute an occupation (however provided for in the Treaty of Sèvres). Bertilvidet 14:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bertilvidet. Izmir was part of the Ottoman Empire at the time. When the Greek armed forces (of the state of Greece) took over the city, they occupied it. Gee, whats there to dispute? --Kilhan 14:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, Allow me to add to the discussion. Nice subject. Solid argument.

"So Turkey don't occupy a part of Cyprus, because the island previously has been ruled from Istanbul? Bertilvidet 14:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)"

First of all Turkey was established in 1923, how can it has ruled Cyprus? Before its existance? What do you mean? Turkey ruled Cyprus before Turkey existed? Yes at the Time of Byzantium Empire, Greeks ruled Cyprus from Constantinoupoli or as Greekish-Turk you would say Istanbul "is tin Poli" meaning "to the town" as Constantinoupoli was also called Poli" before Ottomans came to the area or as i could argue before Ottomans existed. That argument of yours must be False. Turkey invaded Cyprus because Cyprus had been a Greek island much before the Turkic people were in the area. In fact through the Ottoman period the majority of the island were Greeks. Just because the poor population was changing rulers it does not mean that that people lost their identity. Otherwise how would you susbstantiate that the majority of the island in Cyprus right now speaks Greek and call themselves Greek-Cypriots even after the Ottoman empire and the British Colony. You seem to forget that people dont loose their identity even if you brutaly treat or sell them /lease them. However i do not think i should be discussing Cyprus in this article because the question is Smirni or as you will say Greekish-Turk say İzmir.

Allow me to say that your argument was terrible. Same with Smirni. Smirni was established and populated since antiquity by Greeks. Ottomans arrived in the area much later and Continuously attacked until they Conquered/occupied the land from the Greeks. I quote "Turks first captured Smyrna under the command of Chakabey in 1076". Which nation did Turks capture Smirni from? The Greeks of course. Then when the Greeks On 15 May 1919 took back the city with the aid of Treaty of Sèvres, that was signed in agreement by the Ottomans. "The nationalist government in Ankara rejected the terms of the treaty and resisted the Greek army's advance into the area although the Ottomans had signed in agreement". How on earth and why does the article state "invaded?" and not liberated or even took back what was promised to them? Bear in mind that the land had Greek inhabitants since antiquity and was____ lost?? in 1076? (Lost yes was lost in 1076). Although you attempt to minimize the issue "Sorry, it really doesn't seem serious to dispute an occupation" you understand that it is a substantial, solid argument "however provided for in the Treaty of Sèvres". A neutral article would say "liberated" or "took back what was signed in agreement with the Ottomans" and not "occupied" --Aristovoulos 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your views with us. I can understand that you think Greece did the right thing in occupying Western Turkey. This is a legitimate stand. It is however irrelevant for the editing of an encyclopedia. We need to state the facts in a neutral matter, not what you might think of historical events. Bertilvidet 18:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invaded or liberated, it is not really important because as we all know Turkish Army decisively defeated Greeks in Western Anatolia and then took back the city of İzmir. We don't have to talk about Hellenic Army's "attack" on the city. With respect, Deliogul 20:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy boy, this little particular discussion is not about how it ended. The question if is the article should tell that Greece for a period occupied Izmir, as provided for in the Treaty of Sevres, or if we should use a more propagandistic term in order to underline the opinion of some users who find the occupation rightful. Bertilvidet 07:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bertilvidet, stop putting words into my mouth of what you wished i said and start proving your arguments instead of deviating the argument. I am demanding your solid argument on the issue. My case is clear. Since it was signed in agreement then how can the Greeks have invaded? I expect an answer and not your feelings. I can see you are passionate but you should prove your case and NOT accuse. I demand you also prove this: I can understand that you think Greece did the right thing in occupying Western Turkey.Bertilvidet. Is this what you do whenever you have no argument? --Aristovoulos 19:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I refuse to use Wikipedia to discuss our views on politics and history. The word "invaded" does not appear in relation to the treaty of Sevres. It is a funny argument that a country is not occupied if the central power collaborates or accepts the occupation. Then France was also not occupied by Nazi Germany, becuase the Vichy government approved it. Bertilvidet 20:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The owners of this article have made it quite clear that this will not be allowed. Thanks! --Tom 20:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. Armenia is mentioned in the 2nd sentence. Disregard above note, thanks. --Tom 20:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've said before and ill say it again. This article is about the Republic of Turkey. That is why centuries upon centuries of pre-republican history is glossed over in a matter of paragraphs. The armenian relocation is encompassed in World War I and yes, the armenian relocation is part of World War I. To say that armenian relocation is somehow notable enough to be mentioned over stuff like the Russo-Turkish wars, siege of constantinople, and even individual battles in world war I is looking from a heavy armenian pov.--Kilhan 20:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to not mention it at all is neutral? —Khoikhoi 20:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say is that to mention it when there are infinitely more important things is heavily disproportionate and undue weight --Kilhan 21:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica refers to the events as the "first significant genocide of the 20th century", see here:

The first significant genocide of the 20th century was directed against the Armenian residents of Asia Minor by the Turkish government. This deliberate slaughter began on April 24, 1915, under the cover of World War I. April 24 is still commemorated by Armenians around the world as Martyrs' Day. The numbers killed are uncertain. The lowest estimate is 800,000 and the highest more than 2 million. The Turkish government has consistently denied that this event ever occurred, but what happened had been carefully documented by outsiders.

Now I know this is a sensitive issue, but something like that has to be pretty significant. Would you object to mentioning the Ottoman Armenian casualties in the article, perhaps with the addition of a Turkish perspective on the events? —Khoikhoi 21:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that whatever Brittanica contains,is written at the hands of the West.Does it contain how Turkic peoples were relocated after the Ottoman Empire,or how many TUrks were killed during the invasion of Izmir?Does it say how Armenian rebels slaughtered Turks by burning them in mills,or even at least how many Turks died at their hands,unveiling the goal of removing the Turks from Caucasus region so that when a population count was done,the region will belong to Armenia?Here is the best example of Western DOUBLE STANDARDS.Regards.Ack,I forgot,the winners write the history,don't they?--88.247.96.210 07:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is, it is pre-republican. If you take the time to read Ottoman Empire, you'll see the relocation mentioned in a sentence and rightly so because it belongs there. However, it holds very little or no relevance to the history of the Turkish republic (which exists since 1923) - long after world war I passed. In the country articles, we provide overviews of various aspects of the country and link the detailed info as a "main article". There are just too many way more defining/pivotal moments in the history of ROT--Kilhan 21:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The "owners" of the article? There is no such thing here. Wikibofh_(talk) 22:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget ROT for a minute now. Just read Ottoman Empire and see how much space the armenian relocation takes up, as a measure of significance. It seems obvious that its pushing it to include it on a History of ROT (which didnt even exist back then and is the focus of this article), let alone an overview.--Kilhan 22:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of issues here which need urgently to be addressed----Clive Sweeting

The following line "Although PKK, Freedom Falcons of Kurdistan and some Armenian organisations regard Turkey as a terrorist state" was deleted from the article. Why? That's all true!

The short answer is that none of those are notable enough to mention it as such. The PKK on the other hand is proscribed by many states and international organizations, and that makes the difference.--Kilhan 03:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A personal spam link advertising the personal web page of the national of another country is removed.

Restored vandalism on links by 'Utezduyar' who was banned for recurrent spam.

In English a distinction needs to be made between the name of the country/nation of Turkey and the state that governs the country and nation as Turkey existed as a name for the country/nation well before the Republic of Turkey came into existence.

When the state the Sublime Porte governed the country/nation of Turkey it was called Turkey both in common usage (as in "Johnny Turk"), and in formal intergovernmental correspondence (as well as Ottoman Empire) Turkey was on occasions used. Here is an example of Turkey being used:

In view of those new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the Allied governments announce publicly to the Sublime-Porte that they will hold personally responsible [for] these crimes all members of the Ottoman government and those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres.[11]

I think that at the very least the history section should be updated to reflect the use of the terms "Turkish Empire" and "Turkey" by English speakers long before the state "Republic of Turkey" existed and that such terms are still used to describe the Ottoman Empire, because without pointing this out, some people, who edit these pages, do not seem to know this and mistakenly IMO try to restrict the use of the word Turkey to describe only the Republic.

BTW making this distinction is very common in English. France was France long before the 3rd Republic, Germany Germany before the Bundesrepublik Deutschland, America was America before the United States came into existence and Russia remained Russia even thought it was governed by the government of the USSR. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am an American Wikipedian who had never even heard of the "Armenian genocide" until the pregnant Turkish author went on trial for "insulting Turkishness" this week because one of the fictional characters in her latest book discussed the events. While I can't imagine that "insulting a country" could ever be a crime in any democracy with the freedom of speech, I don't feel that mention of the event belongs on this page. The events obviously did not happen in the state of Turkey, as the country did not exist when the events occurred. Uris 06:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Greek person Hectorian: The article on Turkey is not your domain. In fact, it is not even your expertise. Please do not revert legitimate changes there with your personal hang ups without proper procedures and basis. Your interpretation of "sourced information" is incorrect and there is no basis for a reversal. Turkey is NOT a "muslim or Islamic country". It is a secular democratic country. There is no other secular "Muslim" country. There is no reference to its religion in its legal structuring. The link in the paragraph which does not support the preceding sentence or the paragraph as well as the terminology such as Hijab (not a turkish term) as a very narrow concept are editable, and therefore, your interference does neither make sense nor is welcome. I kindly request you to exercise your restless skills in areas you know best in your culture, or on other borrowed Turkish contributions to your gastronomy such as Tatsiki, baklava, imambayildi and gyro kebap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.129.81.141 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

I had decided not to answer before, but i guess u are pressing for an answer,so... I guess u have misunderstood something: Turkey's article on Wikipedia is not turkish property... it is not an article in which only turkish users can edit (but i am sure u know this quite well...). i have never attacked this article, and as a matter of fact, i have reverted sometimes vandalisms and blankenings on this page, before turkish users notice it (and everyone can search history to verify this). as for Greece's article, u are welcome to join and contribute, as long as u have something worthy to added. Lastly, u can keep no user out of no article... Hectorian 23:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my apologies. I forgot to include your Danish sidekick Bertilvidet who bites the hand that feeds him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.135.234.118 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, i did not know that Bertilvidet "bites" the hands of the Danes... Hectorian 23:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not feed the troll. —Khoikhoi 00:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, as a Turk I have to agree with Hectorian on this... And personally, I haven't seem him (I don't know about other users) 'attacking' the article...Baristarim 03:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the history page, I guess his reversal of a legitimate edit without basis and in 13 minutes on September 16 was the subject above, but I am not sure because I did not study his activities in other pertinent pages loged under his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.18.95 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, who is biting the hand of what and whom?? I am completely lost on that one coz i haven't been following the discusion.. :)) Baristarim 03:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, ok I see now.. wow, have things always been so rough around here?? :)))... :)) Baristarim 05:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but someone needs to protest the continuous lurking around of these guys and mocking about in every opportunity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.18.95 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, another vandalismus by Khoikhoi today on a link that has been giving him heartburn for weeks. By the way Khoikhoi, who gave your flag the blue color. Your Homer and nation did not have a word for blue and were calling the sea wine colored? It was the Turks of the East and the color of the East that you adore everyday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.18.95 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nezigurler has twice removed the sourced mention of the Armenian Genocide in the "Turkish-EU relations" section, once indicating that it's "not a factor" (diff.) and once without giving any reason at all (diff.).

If this issue was already discussed, and a decision taken not to include this mention, could somebody give me a link to that discussion ? If that's not the case, I would appreciate if Nezigurler could explain his reasons for removing this text. Thanks already :-) Regards, Evv 19:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That section has been reworded.. On the other hand I am new to Wiki and haven't followed the discussion page about this issue.. On the other hand, pls also note that the section talks about the stumbling blocks in the candidacy of Turkey to join the EU; human rights and Cyprus are mentioned in the accession reports, where as this isn't.. There has not been a formal demand from the EU and the European Commission in the candidacy process, and thus it would not be considered as a stumbling block since the EU has not made such a formal demand. I am not beating around the bush, it could be considered as such in other issues, but not in the one about Turkish-EU relations (please note that the EU is a seperate identity than the states that compose it, therefore the section is named as such, not Turkish-European relations).. The same goes for proximity to the Middle East and poor economy.. These are not found in any of the EU accession documents.. They talk about market reforms, yes, but not a poor economy.. Same goes for Middle East, what is the proof that it is a stumbling block in the accession process? I know that it is a factor in the sense that there are issues arising from it, but it is way too much of a blanket statement to be included in that part..Baristarim 21:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evv has thoughtfully provided a link to a better source than mine, which states: "the European Parliament has backed a non-binding resolution saying Turkey must recognise it as such before it can join the EU.". This is therefore very much a stumbling block. Now I know this is a rather thorny issue, but it seems to me that certain persons refuse to accept the inclusion of the phrase "armenian genocide" in articles relating to turkey. I agree that it can be argued that this article being about the Republic of Turkey, it has no place in the history section. However, Turkey's current attitude is a very important factor in its relations with its neighbours. Yandman 14:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a joker you are. European parliament has no power to do anything. It is non binding because it is not serious and silly reports like that are not meant to be serious. what is more important is that we ruled your ancestors for centuries and trying to put negative images of turks in the turkey page is not going to change that. This is not a place for you to get your 'revenge'. Go and edit the golden dawn wikipedia because your ideas will only be welcome there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezigurler (talk • contribs) 17:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noting: "European parliament has no power to do anything" Is a comment about why the reference was removed, it spells out the irrelevancy of the European parliment from his point of view. The reason for removal has, therefore, been replied to. unsign Nezigurler also provides further reasoning re: the irrelevancy of the European parliment from his point of view, my ancestors ruled yours (therefore whatever legal force my be in existence today is irrelevant). In order to communicate with Nezigurler, it would be necessary for Nezigurler to

1. recognize that the European parliment exists today.
2. understand the power they represent.
3. recognize that their proclamations have influence in the area of his concern.

Therefore, my suggestion would be that the article contain at least some amount of information about the European parliment, some information presenting its force and influence in shaping policy because if a Wikipedia editor holds that view, surely some portion of his countrymen also hold that view. The article should explain the relevance of the European parliment, (the stumbling block), in a way which can be understood by Nezigurler's countrymen. Terryeo 13:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the article about the European Parliament.. I very well know the exact power of the EP, and its limits, please see my post about this particular subject below. Baristarim 16:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Yandman 17:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above, it is not mentioned in any of the accession documents.. refusal to recognise the Armenian Genocide is too much of a blanket statement.. It is not only this, if somebody cannot bring a citation to back up proximity to the middle east, FROM the EU accession documents, and not from a news site, i will remove it.. I'm not taking a stand on this issue, it can be mentioned in other articles, but here it is not appropriate, it gives the impression that recognition of the Armenian Genocide is a prerequisite of Turkey's adhesion to the EU, whereas it isn't.. Some people might want it to be so, but until there is a formal demand from the EU, it is not the case... Baristarim 00:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will also like to mention that the resolution in question was non-binding.. Yandman said that the removal of a cited fact is vandalism, but I also would like to remind that use of citations that don't back up what is written is called original research.. Baristarim 00:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my somewhat strong worded edit summaries. These were aimed at Netzgurl. And I agree with you that "proximity to the middle east" should be removed. However, the paragraph descibes stumbling blocks, not brick walls. I agree with you that the resolution is non-binding, however the fact is that Turkey's refusal to recognise the genocide (why is this a "blanket statement"?) is seen as a problem, so much so that the EU parliament has produced a public document showing it's disapproval. This could make Turkey's bid fall, hence the term stumbling block. Yandman 16:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply fully in due time.. But the news article in question (I had read it many months ago the day it came out:)) mentions a vote by the French parliament - France is not the EU, the article's title is Turkish-EU relations, not Turkish-French relations.. The info maybe at the bottom, but we cannot tell people go to the bottom, look right then a bit to center :)) If it was worded to include non-binding and provide a link to the original resolution from EU archives web-site, then we can talk.. Baristarim 08:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it is not up to you to give the conditions relating to the inclusion of a fact. Evv has given two sources, one of which clearly states:Turkey should recognize the Armenian genocide as a condition for its EU accession, MEPs argue in a highly critical report adopted by a broad majority in Strasbourg on Monday (4 September). As I have explained before, we are discussing stumbling blocks, and this is obviously a stumbling block. The fact that the resolution is non-binding is irrelevant. Even if this hadn't been a formal resolution, the fact that a majority of MEP's publicly criticised Turkey's stance is enough to warrant inclusion. As for the link to the original resolution, it is at the top of the second source. Here is an extract from the amendments to the resolution: "Reminds Turkey that denial of historic facts such as the genocide of the Armenians and Pontic Greeks and the infringement of the rights of the many minorities within its territory cannot be reconciled with its European prospects and direction". The facts could not be clearer. Yandman 08:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is Wikipedia that gives the conditions for the inclusion of a fact: the sources have to back up what is written, and the info in question cannot be a falsehood.. What is written in its current state implies that it is a prerequisite for Turkey's adhesion to the EU, whereas it isn't.. If you reword in a way to include that the EP passed a non-binding resolution, that would be different, if not it is original research, you are citing a source that doesn't back up what the info implies.. It is as simple as that.. And BTW, the second info that is cited, was accepted in a sub-commission of the EP, and is also non-binding.. Pls let's stop playing with words, the day the EU made a formal demand, it can be included, Cyprus, human-rights, these are all mentioned in the accession documents, this isn't.. That's all I am saying... Baristarim 08:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what you wrote, I can only infer that you are not aware of how EU decision-making works, MEPs have said that Turkey should recognize it in a non-binding vote, but it is the E Commission that is the executive branch of the EU and it is the EC that is in charge of EU foreign relations, and Turkey-EU accession negotiations are considered in the cadre of foreign relations - as such what is important is what EC says, theoratically and practically, it is the EC that has the power, the EP just rubber stamps, it has no practical relevance in EU politics, anyone familiar with EU would know this.. What is important from a legal point of view is the demands set out by the EC in the accession documents that were signed by itself and Turkey.. As long there is no formal demand there, it would be misleading... Baristarim 08:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition of a genocide of Armenians is not a prerequisite for entry, and the report by the Dutch MP has yet to be adopted by the Euopean Parliament. In fact, Eurlings has gone down as saying he is going to try and remove the text as it serves no purpose other than to worsen Turkish-EU relations. The Socialist MP who even added Armenian amendment has said she will try and remove it. So until we see the final text of the report, and the result of the vote of its adoption (this Wednesday), that sentence should not really be there. The Armenian issue can be raised within a Turkey-Caucases relations, but in my opinion the foreign relations section has become very overbloated. --A.Garnet 16:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with above.. All the wordings used imply what it isn't.. It was only backed in a preliminary meeting of the foreign relations committee of the EP.. In any case this is irrelevant, since it is not a prerequisite for entry and it is the EC that handles the accession negotiations. Baristarim 18:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also concur. The lack of recognition of the genocide is one among many pretexts used in oppostion to Turkish EU-membership. It might be relevant to list the arguments used in the European debate - but in such a list the genocide debate does not deserve that much attention. Far more important issues are that the country is Muslim, its big and still increasing population, geographically being in both Europe and Asia etc. Bertilvidet 19:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Regardless of whether you feel that it's a prextext, the fact is that it has been reported in major news outlets as a point of contention in the EU discussions. The section that has repeatedly been removed is sourced properly. I realize that many Turks dispute the word "genocide" being applied to the event; the Armenian Genocide article presents those viewpoints. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not a prerequisite for adhesion.. Mentioning this when there are much greater problems and issues can only be considered as agenda-pushing.. Economical problems are ten times more important than the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, anyone familiar with EU-Turkey relations would know this.. It is not a question of sources, but one of relevancy.. Baristarim 20:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it's difficult to assess relevance objectively, here's one attempt: a Google news search yields over 100 recent articles on the topic. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is indeed relevant for articles concerning Turkey's history. But the paragraph here is about Turkey-EU relations - complex affair with many issues on the agenda - but these do not include the genocide debate. For a list of issues appearing in the European debate against Turkish membership it might also be relevant - but indeed giving it half the space about Turkey-EU relations is agenda pushing. Bertilvidet 20:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic is too complex to be covered adequately in the article, then perhaps a separate article should be created. I also find it odd that the Armenian issue is not even mentioned in Turkey or History of the Republic of Turkey. The only Turkey-oriented article I can find that mentions it is Armenian-Turkish relations. I'm not trying to push an agenda, but I'm concerned that omission of a frequently reported news item seems like an attempt to sanitize the articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there seems to be a complete lack of understanding about the report and its significance. At the moment all that exists is a draft report which needs to be approved by the parliament (this is due to take place on Wednesday). It is highly likely that the Armenian statement will be taken out of that report, since its author has publicly stated its inclusion was made against his will by a Socialist MP who herself has now seen the need to retract it. So the statment that "the European Parliament has backed a report stating that Turkey should recognise the Armenian genocide as a condition for its EU accession" is a misinterpretation of a news source which states MEP's backed the report, not the parliament. So please people, understand the situation in its entirety before blindly misinterpreting news reports. --A.Garnet 21:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. The news source says a majority of MEP's backed the report. Therefore the parliament did back the report. This is called democracy. Anyway, we are drifting away from the subject matter. The title of the paragraph is Turkish-EU relations, not Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union, which is another article altogether. Here we are trying to present a brief overview of the major issues concerning EU-Turkish relations. Even the most fervent defenders of Turkey cannot deny that this controversy has taken the spotlight. It is therefore worthy of inclusion. As Jamie has said before, there seems to be a consensus to remove any occurence of the phrase "Armenian Genocide" from this article. There isn't even a link to the corresponding article anywhere on this page. We have a link to the Turkish Scouts, but none to the genocide? Could you imagine the article about Germany making no reference to, and worse, providing no link to, the holocaust? Yandman 07:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And someone has gone even further and removed any criticism of Turkey from the EU relations part. We now have a paragraph which only describes Turkey's opinions of the EU and not the opposite.Yandman 07:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the majority of MEP's in the foreign affairs committee backed the report, the MEP's in parliament will vote on the report tommorow, and it is very likely the Armenian amendment will not even be included. --A.Garnet 07:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit saying that the Treaty of Lausanne confirmed the Republic of Turkey as the successor state of the Ottoman empire, and somebody deleted it.. To avoid this delete in the future, couple of words as to why it was made: it is only a legal and technical information, it doesn't imply any political or ideological message. The Russian Federation is the successor state of the USSR, but their ideological systems are completely different.. For people who know Turkey this might be evident, but for complete strangers making research on the Net about Turkey and that don't know its history, it could be intresting to know.. Successor state just means that the new state assumed the debts, properties (such as embassies), archives etc of the old one.. That's it.. The fact that there was a revolution doesn't mean anything, the USSR was the successor state of the Russian Empire, even though there was a much more profound revolution.. The UN, Treaty of Lausanne, the global academic community, Turkish people and Turkish government know this, it is hardly a secret or anything :)), in any case there is absolutely no-one anywhere that disputes the fact that Turkey was the successor state (legally). The article is about the Republic of Turkey and not the Empire, but this info is extremely relevant as to how Turkey was founded (contrary to other states that were a part of the Ottoman Empire who are considered as new states that are supposed to have declared their independence from the Empire and confirmed as such by treaties, legally speaking). Syria, Greece, Lebanon were not the successor states of the OE, Turkey was.. That's all... Regards Baristarim 23:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These tables and paragraphs are way too confusing.. I have the impression that they were written as a list, rather than with the purpose of presenting something.. I will also add info about recent migratory movements to Turkey (don't forget there are half a million east europeans in TR at the moment, more than half the ethnicities that are listed there) - Please have a look at the articles of other countries, none of them list so much, even in countries with huge ethnic assimilations like France. Anyways, let me see what I can do.. Baristarim 14:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing for religion, there is no need to list every single minority.. And where are the atheists?? :)) There are more atheists than syriac orthodox or molokans (?? molokans - what is that?, did anybody bother to check that article?? :)) and thus he foresaw the prophecy :)), i am removing it..) We can create an article called Religion in Turkey and link it there and NOT Islam in Turkey BTW, why is that the main link in the religion section is Islam in Turkey??? And people are going to buy that it is a secular country, right? :)) nominally 99 percent, right... You know I just wish that, in 2006 at least, we would have stopped reciting all this propaganda that we learned at primary school.. You are either muslim, or you are not, there is no nominally :)).. In any case where is the proof? It can honestly be 99 percent, it is scientifically possible, but without quoting a credible survey (like it is the case in Greece), i think we should refrain from including it.. I will put a hand to it when I get around to it.. Baristarim 21:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article neither mentions, nor links to: the Armenian Genocide, the Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide by Turkey and Human rights in Turkey. Attempts at mentioning the genocide in the history section have been reverted, as have attempts at mentioning the controversy caused by Turkey's denial in the EU-relations part. 07:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• It is my opinion that this event is an important part of Turkish history. A common argument used is that the event took place before the Republic of Turkey existed. However, the history section describes events before the republic, and in my opinion a genocide is important enough to warrant mention. For example, the page on Germany has a brief paragraph describing the holocaust, even though that took place under the Thrid Reich. Secondly, I believe that the Turkish government's denial of this event, and repression of those who talk about it, is an important part of what Turkey is (for example, see the human rights section on People's_Republic_of_China). It is above all an important factor in its foreign relations, especially with the EU (we are not talking about adherence to the EU, just relations). This article has a really good base (nice photos!), and with a bit of NPOV work, I believe we can get it up to featured article status, and who knows, maybe this beautiful country will be on the welcome page one day... Yandman 07:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It links to them via Politics of Turkey, History of the Republic of Turkey and History of Turkey, this article is an overview of the country, it is already way too long as it is.. I agree that half the text in the history section should be moved to other articles.. Baristarim 15:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also personally offended by your implication that the human rights record of Turkey is in anyway comparable with one that executes 2000 people a year, has exiled tens of millions of people from their homes, has crushed thousand of students with tanks only fifteen years ago.. It is not even comparable.. I also would like to remind you that Orhan Pamuk and Elif Safak who talked about the armenian genocide were charged but the competent court annulled the charges the first day it was convened.. So, pls put things in context, we are not talking about China here.. Baristarim 15:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding Baristarim's first statement about what links to the genocide article; I couldn't find any links to it from the articles you mention (or any of the history-related articles); the only Turkey-related articles that link to it are Demographics of Turkey,Foreign relations of Turkey, and Ottoman Empire.

Comments

• Firstly, as i had said, the Armenian precondition has been dropped from EU report endorsed yesterday. My objection with your inclusion of it was that it was an innacurate statement, but i do agree however the issue is large enough to be included in its foreign relations (which i have in the past included before). Where i dont know, ideally a Turkish-Caucases relations would be perfect, but the foreign relations section has already become quite large. If people dont mind expanding it then i dont mind including the political ramifications of the dispute. I also disagree with whoever removed the problems Turkey is facing in its negotiations with the EU, why it was done i dont know. I also want this article to reach FA status, but forgive my pessism, i think there are a lot of people who would vote it down for no reason other than it being Turkey. Still we could at least try. Thanks, --A.Garnet 08:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Concur with above.. It is not a precondition and MEPs voted to drop such a mention from the report, hence didn't back it. As such, I fail to see how it can be included in the foreign relations article, the real underlying problem of Turkish-EU relations at the moment is macro-economical, all other considerations come second.. And I would like to respond to what something Yandman has said about the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide.. Please avoid categorizing and bundling genocides together, it makes genocide sound like an ordinary event and degenerates its meaning.. On the other hand, why was the RfC named sanitization?? You could have said this is a dispute about if there should be a link to/or mention Armenian Genocide.. Sounds a bit agressive to me.. The goal of the article is not to glance over every aspect of Turkey, personally I think that even the history section is bloated, it could also be trimmed down.. Look at all the other articles about countries, they are much more concise in this aspect.. As for the link to Human Rights in Turkey, it was me who dropped it when I was organizing the see also section, it is in the history.. I did so because human rights in Turkey is linked to under more global articles such as Politics in Turkey, that effort was not sanitize anything, I did it just to logically structure the see also list per other country articles.. I added Demographics of Turkey and Culture of Turkey and deleted Turkish Grand Prix, Turkish scouts etc... I will add the link to History of Turkey and we can move half the stuff that has been talked under the history section of this article...

It is a historic detail not worthy to be on this article. See History of Turkey. I was contacted via email to comment and am not particularly interested in this debate/nonsense/whatever at this point. I'd like to note that 'denial' is not exactly a neutral approach --Cat out 14:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call a genocide a detail. And why is 'denial' not neutral? " denial : noun : an act of denying or declaring something not to be true". Yandman 14:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with cat out about the use of the word denial.. That's why there is an article armenian genocide and a Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide, I replied to your first comment, above.. This article is an overview of the country.. You are asking to cover half the Turkish-EU relations with this (see your past edits).. That's agenda pushing.. Don't forget that this requirement was dropped from the EU report, so much for stealing the spotlight as someone had mentioned above. Turkey had an imperial history of 900 years, genocide or no, this article has to be about Turkey as it is at the moment, and that only as an overview... Baristarim 15:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try not to accuse others of pushing agendas. As for the often-used argument: "Turkey had an imperial history of 900 years, genocide or no, this article has to be about Turkey as it is at the moment", just explain to me why Turkey should make no mention of their genocide, whilst Germany does? Yandman 15:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I told you the two events are not comparable, in the same way no genocides are comparable - please refrain from this, it denigrates the horrible nature of these events by categorizing them.. Inclusion of the Holocaust in Germany is understandable since Germany still suffers from the ghosts of what happened, socially and politically.. Recently Germany refused to send any combat troops to Lebanon with the fear that German soldiers might end up facing Jewish soldiers.. On the other hand, for Turkey, no such traumatism exists.. Turkey was one of the first countries to recognize Armenia's independence in 1991, there are 40000 Armenian citizens who live and work in Turkey at this moment; as such in modern day Turkey, this is not a social issue.. the recognization issue is a political one, it doesn't have any social or cultural implications for anyone involved, this is why this can be only considered as agenda-pushing.. And don't say things like their/our genocide, we are not talking about some car, nobody owns a genocide.. Please make some more search on the armenian genocide, turkey doesn't own a genocide, these events happened during the Ottoman Empire, please feel free to mention it in the article about the ottoman empire, and talk about its political implications in the article about the foreign relations of turkey.. Baristarim 15:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop taking valuable time in a talk page where we could be discussing improvements to the article; as recently as yesterday and two days ago I put two posts about the demographics of turkey and religion in turkey, if u r so interested in getting this article to featured status, see my posts and try to have a positive contribution by searching for a survey about religion in turkey that mentions the exact numbers of muslims, christians etc.. Baristarim 15:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If most scholars refer to it as denial, then neutrality doesn't work. We have an article on Holocaust denial so that argument flat out fails. The Genocide issue is quite an inundated topic in Turkey so I don't understand why it does not merit an inclusion.--MarshallBagramyan 16:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Google news search suggests that the subject still receives a lot of attention, not just in regards to the EU issue. Given that, it seems odd to relegate mention of it to a couple of sentences in a few sub-articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the subject, I was not trying to take a stance on the issue.. this is not the talk page of the armenian genocide; there is no relegation, the articles of armenian genocide and denial of armenian genocide exists.. this article is already way too long as it is.. You are right that there is way too much irrelevant stuff, in the history section, demographics etc.. I respect people who consider this issue very close to their hearts, on the other hand, Turkey has much more conjectural issues that deserve to be addressed before.. Please don't take this the wrong way.. Baristarim 18:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie wasn't changing the subject. He was pointing out that all mention of the genocide and it's denial has been relegated to sub-articles. This is obviously true: Go to the article page, press Ctrl-F on your browser, and type genocide. See? And as for your last statement, Wikipedia is NPOV. We are not here to talk about what deserves to be adressed, we are here to talk about what has been adressed by others. And the whole genocide/relocation thing has been given a lot of attention, and therefore it warrants inclusion. Yandman 19:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been given attention, but what is important is to put it in context.. I have already told you that the article needs trimming, and you edited so that half the Turkish-EU relations section is about the armenian genocide, that is also inapporpriate.. Turkish candidacy has tons of other issues to be addressed, if you took a look at all the news stories about this subject, you will see that.. and other articles you mentioned are not sub-articles, they are also articles.. In the recent report of the EU voted yesterday, MEPs voted to not include the recognition condition, so pls put things in context.. Please be constructive, in the light of this the controversy surrounding this issue doesn't need to be mentioned in a way that half the Turkish-EU relations section gets imbroiled in it.. Baristarim 22:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If users agree, i think the foreign relations section can be trimmed down and space made for TUrkish-Caucases relation. The dispute can be mentioned within that. --A.Garnet 21:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea. From what I understand, Baristarim does not agree with Jamie, Marshall and myself as to it's inclusion in Eu-relations, but I think it definetly needs to be talked about under "foreign relations": Please don't be offended by this, but from the viewpoint of someone who lives in an EU country, whenever Turkey is mentioned, "human rights" and "denial of the armenian genocide" are quick to follow. To ignore these aspects would, I feel, damage the credibility of the article.Yandman 16:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, u r still taking things out of context: what resonates before anything when Turkey is mentioned are being Muslim (the big daddy of all), economical problems (the real big daddy in the eyes of people who truly rule EU), human rights, Cyprus, Kurdish rights etc.. Please see this article written by an Armenian political science doctor and historian and published in panarmenian.net [12] that proves this point. As for Turkish-Caucases relations, it would also take things out of context.. Everyone who follows global geopolitical conjecture would know that Turkish-Israeli relations, one of the main and most important axis of Middle East, is much more important than even Turkish-Greece relations.. But even that is missing from that section.. These can be fully discussed in foreign relations of turkey and history of turkey, the article is already way too bloated.. The way some edits were done made so that half the EU-Turkish relations were about the recognition of the Armenian genocide, that also damages the credibility of this article, that's all I am saying... In the light of what I said, I think that you will agree that some edits were nothing but agenda-pushing.. Baristarim 18:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do people think of the statisitic boxes in Economy and Society sections? I think they should go to their relevant sub-articles, I dont think a general country article is the place for them. What do others think? --A.Garnet 11:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Bertilvidet 16:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means move them. A month ago, I integrated the additional information into the text and removed them as they just seemed to add to the clutter. But someone put them back although the tables are pretty much redundant now--Kilhan 03:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. —Khoikhoi 10:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur as well, it is way too crowded.. Baristarim 23:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be more logic to have the etymology section in the end of the article? Bertilvidet 16:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, in most of the country articles they are at the top.. I also think that it is a good thing, since it allows readers to get it over with pretty fast.. Baristarim 01:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I havent been through enough country articles to judge what the trend is. However, none of the country articles I have seen start with etymology. I really don't believe this is the most important feature to the country. Btw, any objections to leave out the etymology of the bird called Turkey of this article. It might be funn~y anecdote, but really not relevant for the country. Bertilvidet 15:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking of moving it to the bottom, but then A. Garnet pointed me towards other Featured Article country articles like Canada and Australia, so that's why I thought they should stay, otherwise it doesn't make a diff for me.. On the other hand I definitely agree with you about the anecdote on the bird :)) It is funny, but it is not that relevant to the country.. Baristarim 23:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with Turkey being part of D8? Someone keeps removing it. I've put it back, but I'd just like to know why it's a problem. Is there something controversial about this? Yandman 16:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a particular problem with that, I think the argument is that it just takes too much space, there are already tons of templates.. Baristarim 18:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

biraz da başka şehirlerden resim koyun lan amına goduklarım. doğu, güney anadolu bölgelerinden utanıyor musunuz avradını siktiklerim. türkiye istanbul, izmir ve bilimum batı anadolu şehrinden mi ibaret bacısını siktiklerim. neden utanıyorsunuz lan kendi ülkenizden şerefini siktiğimin çocukları

Anyone care to translate? Yandman 07:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of insults and a question about why there were not any pictures from the east or south east anatolia..