Jump to content

Talk:Turkey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kavas (talk | contribs) at 21:53, 24 May 2010 (→The Armenian, Greek, Assyrian Genocides and Turkey). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Guidelines for editing the Turkey article
  • Units in metric Manual of Style.
  • Only external links pertaining to Turkey as a whole, or official government of Turkey links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles. For further information, please see Wikipedia guidelines on External links and Conflict of interest.
  • All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits.
  • Please provide references when adding new information.
  • Please use the correct citation format when adding references. If you are not sure which one is appropriate, please see WP:CITE for a list of available citation templates.
Featured articleTurkey is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 9, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Discussion of Armenian Events

By not even mentioning the events around WW1 involving Armenians, or linking to other Wikipedia pages discussing it, this article is not presenting a neutral point of view, and so should be flagged as a biased page. There has been discussion and accusations of bias on the talk page so presumably all mentions of the events that have been added have afterwards been deleted. A Stalinist approach to history. 194.80.178.1 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey was not founded until 1923, and therefore there is no requirement for this page to have links to any of the events that took place before that. --82.109.84.254 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emblem

Turkey does not have any official or semi-official emblem, coat of arms or symbol. The oval emblem used on this article is not this: [1] (reads: Republic of Turkey - Consulate General) or this: [2] (T.C. for Republic of Turkey - Ministry of Foreign Affairs). These emblems represent just ministry of foreign affairs and embassies of Turkey, and are not the emblem(s) of Republic of Turkey. There is no statement about coat of arms/emblem for Turkey in any entry of its constitution. For this purpose, emblem section on article must be left blank. Kaygtr (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I think that we should provide some explanation in the article why Turkey doesn't have any emblem / coat of arms; may be something like in Turkish wikipedia (they have link to emblem page in infobox but don't have any image above it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins (talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey hasn'T got an emblem but This embliem is Cumhurbaşkanlığı flaması (presidental emblem) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.11.54 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential seal should replace the current emblem Vsyncie (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

coat of arms designed by Namık İsmail Bey
Since the Republic of Turkey – which is what this article is about – does not have an official coat of arms or national emblem, it is misleading to present the emblem of some other entity (such as the Presidency of Turkey) as the national emblem. I have removed the current fantasy emblem (a creative derivation of the seals seen on Turkish embassies). I am all in favour of providing some explanation why Turkey doesn't have any emblem or coat of arms (presumably based on Afet İnan's account that Atatürk did not like the proposed design; does anyone know if this was the design by Namık İsmail Bey?); in fact, that should be recounted in an article Emblems of Turkey to which Unofficial emblem of Turkey, Emblem of Turkey and Coat of arms of Turkey should all redirect.  --Lambiam 12:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oval design is just fantasy, which is derived from the emblem of Turkish embassies. I suggest its removal. Kaygtr (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd point out that if an emblem is used by embassies and ministries, that HARDLY makes it a fantasy, and Lambian should stop refering to it as such. Turkey doesn't have an official emblem, this is true, but the unofficial ones should be mentioned and linked to the main page. Fry1989 (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This emblem is not used by any ministries. There is an oval emblem of Turkish embassies but it is different from this design. This emblem is completely fantasy, and is never used except Wikipedia. Kaygtr (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove this? Wikipedia says otherwise Fry1989 (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please read this article: Unofficial emblem of Turkey. Kaygtr (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean't prove it'snot used by any ministries, when Wikipedia clearly states it is by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And considering the basic design is used at Embassies, you really should stop refering to it as fantasy. Fry1989 (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oval design is derived from the Emblem of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (it is not the Emblem of Turkey). Creator of image changed the colours and removed Dışişleri Bakanlığı (M.F.A.). Such emblem is not used anywhere. Kaygtr (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey is not a secular, democratic state, it only sees itself as such

Turkey is already secular and democratic country. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_Turkey#Part_One:_General_Principles

The theory of official declarations is one important source of information, but it appears against the Wikipedia spirit (and guidelines) to believe every official declaration with any critical analysis. The constitution of the former Sovjet Union also presents it as a democracy, but in reality ir was a totalitarian dictatorship!

User:Uber-Star005 04:37 9 June 2009 (UTC) where is Islam in this history of turkey,it was the motive behind the great Ottoman Empire,it was demolished by European because of its religion, you can not change history,all turks (99.8%) are Moslims and they are nowadays returning to Islam dont lesson to Billy dancers or a witter who dreams to be some thing he shouldn't be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.234.217 (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretending that all Turks are Muslims is a political program, which is in contradiction with the reality of the known existence of the many individual non-Muslim Turks, e.g. Hrant Dink! And so many other, known, Turks from Armenians or other Christian denominations. There is indeed a strong emigration of those non-Muslims, who report severe persecution because of their belief! This, also, is a solid reason why Turkey cannot be considered as a secular state.

Another reason is the fact that the huge budget of Diyanet goes entirely to Sunni imam's and other sunni's, and nothing to Shia, Alevi or Christians!

Also in the text, an article in the constitution regarding freedom of religion is mentioned: "Turkey is a secular state with no official state religion; the Turkish Constitution provides for freedom of religion and conscience."[102][103] Which gives an impression as this law is abided, yet there are lots of complaints coming from minority religious groups; for a long time Orthodox church is complaining about the clousure of Halki Seminary, Alevis also recently protested against state's policy of disregarding religions other than Sunni Islam. So a note about that should be added to the article, which is giving a false impression at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabadam (talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The government keeps a record of your religion and that percentage is based on the statistics of that records. I am a completely materialistic person but my record says that I am Muslim. Don't be too hasty. --88.240.87.93 (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The government keeps a record of your religion; Oh yeah? Which government on the earth does not?! (At least for the sake of stats) USA and EU countries do the same, as well. I guess you don't want to imagine a country without any statistics/information on the religions of the people living in, do you? --Deksar (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pezza and a bagel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.16.135 (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the map?

Where is the Turkey's map in this article??Please add it.User:Uber-Star005 04:32 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Geographic location 8 way template

This template was not designed for countries, it was made to be placed onto cities or towns articles, the use here is not recommended

Turkey or Istanbul?

Many of the article photos are related to Istanbul. It would be better if we could change them with photos of different regions of the country. 88.239.228.216 (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Turks

Sky Turks were not oldest anchestors of Turks..Turks and Turkic people came from Afanasevo and Andronovo Culture.

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasiyevo_k%C3%BClt%C3%BCr%C3%BC

--88.236.142.171 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (talk)18.08, 25 March 2010[reply]

This issue is not discussed at all in this article, which is specifically about the Republic of Turkey (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti). The oldest ancestors of the modern Turks are, depending on whether you believe in evolution or not, the last universal ancestor or Adam and Eve. Or was it the she-wolf Asena and an unnamed boy? There is considerable genetic evidence that the modern Turks of Anatolia largely descend from the earlier inhabitants of Anatolia from the time it was part of the Roman Empire, and thus ultimately from the Bythinians, Phrygians, Lydians, and so on. Your observation would better fit with our article History of the Turkic peoples. However, I wonder if there are reliable sources that clearly state that the Afanasevo and Andronovo cultures were Turkic.  --Lambiam 21:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkiye on the map

Can you change the colour of Turkiye to red on the map? --Kirov Airship (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done.  --Lambiam 20:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this necessary, every territory on wikipedia is green on the map, there is no reason why it should be otherwise.--84.104.37.107 (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Halki Seminary (some background information for Dousis)

In 1971 the Turkish government issued a law which made it obligatory for all institutions of higher education in Turkey to become nationalized and operate under the supervision of the Ministry of Education.

The law was tailored almost exclusively for Robert College in Istanbul (the university section of which was nationalized and became the Boğaziçi University in 1971), but it affected another institution of higher education: The Halki Theological School at the Heybeliada Island in the Sea of Marmara, to the southeast of Istanbul (the Greeks still call the island with its historic name Halki.) In those days the Cyprus issue was tense and the Turkish authorities wanted the Heybeliada Theological School to likewise operate under the Turkish Ministry of Education. The Patriarchate refused, claiming that the Treaty of Lausanne gave them special minority rights which would allow such an institution to operate independently from the supervision of the Turkish government on its educational curricula.

But the main reason, of course, is that the Church sees itself as a "divine authority" that's responsible "only to God"; so any form of control or supervision over the Church's teachings by a "secular authority" such as the Turkish government is regarded as "blasphemous". To give an example, the Orthodox Church in Greece is largely independent from the Greek government's jurisdiction. Places like the Mount Athos monastic complex are almost totally independent from the control of the Greek government's authorities. The Patriarchate desires a similar form of independence in Turkey, hence the clash with the Turkish government. The fact that Turkey is a secular but "largely Muslim" country, governed by "Muslim Turks", makes such a "blasphemy" even more unacceptable for the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate.

Another important factor is a popular suspicion among the Turks that a largely independent Christian theological school of higher education will pave the way for similarly independent Islamic schools, which is perceived as a threat for the secular education system in Turkey. StanStun (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Church property such as the Halki Seminary have not been "expropriated" as User:Dousis claims, they still belong to the church. StanStun (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the role of the Patriarchate according to the Treaty of Lausanne

Even though the Patriarchate is historically and traditionally called the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Ankara government made sure during the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 that it should be recognized merely as the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Istanbul" and be responsible only for the affairs of the local Greek Orthodox community in Turkey. The treaty also implies that the Patriarch can only be a Turkish citizen (he should be chosen among the Turkish citizens, i.e. the local Greeks living in Turkey.) The Russians still don't recognize him as the "leader of the Orthodox Church", but merely as a smybolic primus inter pares, i.e. the spokesman during the synods. In short, he is not an Orthodox Pope, and therefore not the leader of the world's Orthodox Christians. StanStun (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:StanStun

StanStun, let me help you get your facts straight. In your own words, my edit supposedly contained "too many errors," so let's go through it sentence by sentence and analyze where my supposed "errors" are.

"The Orthodox Church has been headquartered in Istanbul since the fourth century AD."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure even you agree with this sentence. The reason this is worth mentioning in an article on Turkey is that Orthodoxy is a major world faith, and it has a long association with the part of the world that is now Turkey.

"However, the Turkish government does not recognize the Patriarch, Bartholomew I, as the primary bishop of Orthodox Christianity, and forces the Church to operate under significant restrictions."

State-sponsored discrimination against a religious organization is noteworthy and belongs in an article about a country; the articles on Saudi Arabia and the People's Republic of China mention their respective lacks of religious freedom. In your comments, you wrote, "in short, [Bartholomew] is not an Orthodox Pope, and therefore not the leader of the world's Orthodox Christians." Nowhere in my edit did I suggest that Bartholomew is an "Orthodox Pope." He is not. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are organized differently. As you correctly asserted, he is a primus inter pares among several Orthodox Patriarchs, including that of Russia. I even linked the words "primary bishop," the title that best describes his status, to the primus inter pares article. However, as Ecumenical Patriarch, he asserts direct leadership over Orthodox Christians in Turkey, the United States, Latin America, and other parts of the world not governed by autocephalous (independent) Orthodox churches. He is also widely looked to as the Church's main (hence primus) spiritual leader by Orthodox Christians worldwide. This explains the title "ecumenical," which means "universal." The fact that the Turkish government does not recognize him as such, and limits his successors to Turkish citizens, is part of a longstanding effort to discredit the Patriarch and the Orthodox Church. As an Orthodox Christian and a free American citizen, I will never allow any government, especially a hostile one, to tell me who the leader of my church is. Furthermore, I ask you, StanStun: if Bartholomew is not the leader of the world's Orthodox Christians, then who is? The fact that you will be unable to answer this question further validates my point.

"Most of the Church's properties and schools have been expropriated, while Christians remain widely persecuted in Turkey."

Your main objection seems to be with the fact that I linked the word "expropriated" to the article on the Halki Theological School. I'll ignore your scare quotes around "divine authority" and "blasphemous," which are intended to make the Orthodox argument look irrational. Since the 1920s, the Turkish government has progressively taken over (or as you put it, "nationalized") many schools, hospitals, and land owned by the Patriarchate. Though they have done this with ostensibly benevolent aims, the real motive for these actions is to deny the Orthodox Church a presence in Turkey. As you correctly point out, "In 1971 the Turkish government issued a law which made it obligatory for all institutions of higher education in Turkey to become nationalized and operate under the supervision of the Ministry of Education." But you imply that the Orthodox Church is still free to do as it pleases with Halki, since it "still belongs to the church." "Nationalization" is equivalent with "expropriation." When a government "nationalizes" something, be it a copper mine, an oil well, or a university, it takes its ownership away from its private owner and transfers it to the government. StanStun, I have been to Halki. The seminary has sat empty for forty years, not having trained a single new priest. The "nationalization" essentially shuttered the school. You claim that the Church still owns Halki--technically, they may still have title to the land. I'm honestly not sure if it does or doesn't. But whether or not they do doesn't matter, since the Turkish government has taken over the seminary, even if it did so unofficially. If the Patriarchate were still free to operate Halki, why haven't any new priests been trained there since 1971? Why would President Obama, in his speech to the Turkish parliament, ask that Halki be re-opened? To re-open something, it would have to be closed in the first place. The Turkish government closed Halki in order to deny the Patriarchate new clergy and bishops. This is the same motive behind the Turkish law requiring Patriarchs to be Turkish citizens. If the church can't train new Turkish bishops, eventually there will be no Turkish-born bishops to become Patriarch. Then, the Turkish government will succeed at its longstanding effort to force the Patriarchate out of Turkey forever. This is religious persecution, and if you would only watch the CBS 60 Minutes special that I linked to in my edit, you'd see it for yourself.

I bear no malice towards Turkey, its civilization, or its people. Although I strongly disagree with the actions of Turkey's government towards its Christian minority, I have defended my edit for the sake of accuracy and not to promote a political viewpoint. StanStun, all I ask is that you do not allow whatever personal beliefs you might hold about Greeks and Christians to bias your editing of the Turkey article.

Dousis (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about improving the Economy section of the Greece article? I can personally give you a hand on that one. StanStun (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get right on it after the Genocide section of the Turkey article. Oh wait, all the Armenians froze and starved to death, I forgot. Dousis (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 78.182.226.205, 24 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Istanbul is the most populated city but not the largest. Please change Turkey's largest city is Istanbul to Turkey's largest country is Konya. Thank you. (:

78.182.226.205 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done In the context of cities, "largest" means "most populous". Algebraist 20:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

successor to Ottoman

I think stating that Turkey is successor to Ottoman is incomplete. I wrote a summary of history of Turkey. I mentioned Seljuks first. See the 2nd paragraph in Germany page: A region named Germania, inhabited by several Germanic peoples, has been known and documented before AD 100. Beginning in the 10th century, German territories formed a central part of the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted until 1806. During the 16th century, northern Germany became the centre of the Protestant Reformation. As a modern nation-state, the country was first unified amidst the Franco-Prussian War in 1871. In 1949, after World War II, Germany was divided into two separate states—East Germany and West Germany— along the lines of Allied occupation.[7] Germany was reunified in 1990. West Germany was a founding member of the European Community (EC) in 1957, which became the European Union in 1993. It is part of the Schengen zone and adopted the European currency, the euro, in 1999.[8][9][10]Kavas (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Guidelines for editing the Turkey article
  • Units in metric Manual of Style.
  • Only external links pertaining to Turkey as a whole, or official government of Turkey links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles. For further information, please see Wikipedia guidelines on External links and Conflict of interest.
  • All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits.
  • Please provide references when adding new information.
  • Please use the correct citation format when adding references. If you are not sure which one is appropriate, please see WP:CITE for a list of available citation templates.
Featured articleTurkey is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 9, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Discussion of Armenian Events

By not even mentioning the events around WW1 involving Armenians, or linking to other Wikipedia pages discussing it, this article is not presenting a neutral point of view, and so should be flagged as a biased page. There has been discussion and accusations of bias on the talk page so presumably all mentions of the events that have been added have afterwards been deleted. A Stalinist approach to history. 194.80.178.1 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey was not founded until 1923, and therefore there is no requirement for this page to have links to any of the events that took place before that. --82.109.84.254 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emblem

Turkey does not have any official or semi-official emblem, coat of arms or symbol. The oval emblem used on this article is not this: [3] (reads: Republic of Turkey - Consulate General) or this: [4] (T.C. for Republic of Turkey - Ministry of Foreign Affairs). These emblems represent just ministry of foreign affairs and embassies of Turkey, and are not the emblem(s) of Republic of Turkey. There is no statement about coat of arms/emblem for Turkey in any entry of its constitution. For this purpose, emblem section on article must be left blank. Kaygtr (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I think that we should provide some explanation in the article why Turkey doesn't have any emblem / coat of arms; may be something like in Turkish wikipedia (they have link to emblem page in infobox but don't have any image above it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins (talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey hasn'T got an emblem but This embliem is Cumhurbaşkanlığı flaması (presidental emblem) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.11.54 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential seal should replace the current emblem Vsyncie (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

coat of arms designed by Namık İsmail Bey
Since the Republic of Turkey – which is what this article is about – does not have an official coat of arms or national emblem, it is misleading to present the emblem of some other entity (such as the Presidency of Turkey) as the national emblem. I have removed the current fantasy emblem (a creative derivation of the seals seen on Turkish embassies). I am all in favour of providing some explanation why Turkey doesn't have any emblem or coat of arms (presumably based on Afet İnan's account that Atatürk did not like the proposed design; does anyone know if this was the design by Namık İsmail Bey?); in fact, that should be recounted in an article Emblems of Turkey to which Unofficial emblem of Turkey, Emblem of Turkey and Coat of arms of Turkey should all redirect.  --Lambiam 12:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oval design is just fantasy, which is derived from the emblem of Turkish embassies. I suggest its removal. Kaygtr (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd point out that if an emblem is used by embassies and ministries, that HARDLY makes it a fantasy, and Lambian should stop refering to it as such. Turkey doesn't have an official emblem, this is true, but the unofficial ones should be mentioned and linked to the main page. Fry1989 (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This emblem is not used by any ministries. There is an oval emblem of Turkish embassies but it is different from this design. This emblem is completely fantasy, and is never used except Wikipedia. Kaygtr (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you prove this? Wikipedia says otherwise Fry1989 (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please read this article: Unofficial emblem of Turkey. Kaygtr (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean't prove it'snot used by any ministries, when Wikipedia clearly states it is by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And considering the basic design is used at Embassies, you really should stop refering to it as fantasy. Fry1989 (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oval design is derived from the Emblem of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (it is not the Emblem of Turkey). Creator of image changed the colours and removed Dışişleri Bakanlığı (M.F.A.). Such emblem is not used anywhere. Kaygtr (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey is not a secular, democratic state, it only sees itself as such

Turkey is already secular and democratic country. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_Turkey#Part_One:_General_Principles

The theory of official declarations is one important source of information, but it appears against the Wikipedia spirit (and guidelines) to believe every official declaration with any critical analysis. The constitution of the former Sovjet Union also presents it as a democracy, but in reality ir was a totalitarian dictatorship!

User:Uber-Star005 04:37 9 June 2009 (UTC) where is Islam in this history of turkey,it was the motive behind the great Ottoman Empire,it was demolished by European because of its religion, you can not change history,all turks (99.8%) are Moslims and they are nowadays returning to Islam dont lesson to Billy dancers or a witter who dreams to be some thing he shouldn't be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.234.217 (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretending that all Turks are Muslims is a political program, which is in contradiction with the reality of the known existence of the many individual non-Muslim Turks, e.g. Hrant Dink! And so many other, known, Turks from Armenians or other Christian denominations. There is indeed a strong emigration of those non-Muslims, who report severe persecution because of their belief! This, also, is a solid reason why Turkey cannot be considered as a secular state.

Another reason is the fact that the huge budget of Diyanet goes entirely to Sunni imam's and other sunni's, and nothing to Shia, Alevi or Christians!

Also in the text, an article in the constitution regarding freedom of religion is mentioned: "Turkey is a secular state with no official state religion; the Turkish Constitution provides for freedom of religion and conscience."[102][103] Which gives an impression as this law is abided, yet there are lots of complaints coming from minority religious groups; for a long time Orthodox church is complaining about the clousure of Halki Seminary, Alevis also recently protested against state's policy of disregarding religions other than Sunni Islam. So a note about that should be added to the article, which is giving a false impression at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabadam (talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The government keeps a record of your religion and that percentage is based on the statistics of that records. I am a completely materialistic person but my record says that I am Muslim. Don't be too hasty. --88.240.87.93 (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The government keeps a record of your religion; Oh yeah? Which government on the earth does not?! (At least for the sake of stats) USA and EU countries do the same, as well. I guess you don't want to imagine a country without any statistics/information on the religions of the people living in, do you? --Deksar (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pezza and a bagel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.16.135 (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the map?

Where is the Turkey's map in this article??Please add it.User:Uber-Star005 04:32 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Geographic location 8 way template

This template was not designed for countries, it was made to be placed onto cities or towns articles, the use here is not recommended

Turkey or Istanbul?

Many of the article photos are related to Istanbul. It would be better if we could change them with photos of different regions of the country. 88.239.228.216 (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Turks

Sky Turks were not oldest anchestors of Turks..Turks and Turkic people came from Afanasevo and Andronovo Culture.

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasiyevo_k%C3%BClt%C3%BCr%C3%BC

--88.236.142.171 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (talk)18.08, 25 March 2010[reply]

This issue is not discussed at all in this article, which is specifically about the Republic of Turkey (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti). The oldest ancestors of the modern Turks are, depending on whether you believe in evolution or not, the last universal ancestor or Adam and Eve. Or was it the she-wolf Asena and an unnamed boy? There is considerable genetic evidence that the modern Turks of Anatolia largely descend from the earlier inhabitants of Anatolia from the time it was part of the Roman Empire, and thus ultimately from the Bythinians, Phrygians, Lydians, and so on. Your observation would better fit with our article History of the Turkic peoples. However, I wonder if there are reliable sources that clearly state that the Afanasevo and Andronovo cultures were Turkic.  --Lambiam 21:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkiye on the map

Can you change the colour of Turkiye to red on the map? --Kirov Airship (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done.  --Lambiam 20:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this necessary, every territory on wikipedia is green on the map, there is no reason why it should be otherwise.--84.104.37.107 (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Halki Seminary (some background information for Dousis)

In 1971 the Turkish government issued a law which made it obligatory for all institutions of higher education in Turkey to become nationalized and operate under the supervision of the Ministry of Education.

The law was tailored almost exclusively for Robert College in Istanbul (the university section of which was nationalized and became the Boğaziçi University in 1971), but it affected another institution of higher education: The Halki Theological School at the Heybeliada Island in the Sea of Marmara, to the southeast of Istanbul (the Greeks still call the island with its historic name Halki.) In those days the Cyprus issue was tense and the Turkish authorities wanted the Heybeliada Theological School to likewise operate under the Turkish Ministry of Education. The Patriarchate refused, claiming that the Treaty of Lausanne gave them special minority rights which would allow such an institution to operate independently from the supervision of the Turkish government on its educational curricula.

But the main reason, of course, is that the Church sees itself as a "divine authority" that's responsible "only to God"; so any form of control or supervision over the Church's teachings by a "secular authority" such as the Turkish government is regarded as "blasphemous". To give an example, the Orthodox Church in Greece is largely independent from the Greek government's jurisdiction. Places like the Mount Athos monastic complex are almost totally independent from the control of the Greek government's authorities. The Patriarchate desires a similar form of independence in Turkey, hence the clash with the Turkish government. The fact that Turkey is a secular but "largely Muslim" country, governed by "Muslim Turks", makes such a "blasphemy" even more unacceptable for the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate.

Another important factor is a popular suspicion among the Turks that a largely independent Christian theological school of higher education will pave the way for similarly independent Islamic schools, which is perceived as a threat for the secular education system in Turkey. StanStun (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Church property such as the Halki Seminary have not been "expropriated" as User:Dousis claims, they still belong to the church. StanStun (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the role of the Patriarchate according to the Treaty of Lausanne

Even though the Patriarchate is historically and traditionally called the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Ankara government made sure during the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 that it should be recognized merely as the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Istanbul" and be responsible only for the affairs of the local Greek Orthodox community in Turkey. The treaty also implies that the Patriarch can only be a Turkish citizen (he should be chosen among the Turkish citizens, i.e. the local Greeks living in Turkey.) The Russians still don't recognize him as the "leader of the Orthodox Church", but merely as a smybolic primus inter pares, i.e. the spokesman during the synods. In short, he is not an Orthodox Pope, and therefore not the leader of the world's Orthodox Christians. StanStun (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:StanStun

StanStun, let me help you get your facts straight. In your own words, my edit supposedly contained "too many errors," so let's go through it sentence by sentence and analyze where my supposed "errors" are.

"The Orthodox Church has been headquartered in Istanbul since the fourth century AD."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure even you agree with this sentence. The reason this is worth mentioning in an article on Turkey is that Orthodoxy is a major world faith, and it has a long association with the part of the world that is now Turkey.

"However, the Turkish government does not recognize the Patriarch, Bartholomew I, as the primary bishop of Orthodox Christianity, and forces the Church to operate under significant restrictions."

State-sponsored discrimination against a religious organization is noteworthy and belongs in an article about a country; the articles on Saudi Arabia and the People's Republic of China mention their respective lacks of religious freedom. In your comments, you wrote, "in short, [Bartholomew] is not an Orthodox Pope, and therefore not the leader of the world's Orthodox Christians." Nowhere in my edit did I suggest that Bartholomew is an "Orthodox Pope." He is not. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are organized differently. As you correctly asserted, he is a primus inter pares among several Orthodox Patriarchs, including that of Russia. I even linked the words "primary bishop," the title that best describes his status, to the primus inter pares article. However, as Ecumenical Patriarch, he asserts direct leadership over Orthodox Christians in Turkey, the United States, Latin America, and other parts of the world not governed by autocephalous (independent) Orthodox churches. He is also widely looked to as the Church's main (hence primus) spiritual leader by Orthodox Christians worldwide. This explains the title "ecumenical," which means "universal." The fact that the Turkish government does not recognize him as such, and limits his successors to Turkish citizens, is part of a longstanding effort to discredit the Patriarch and the Orthodox Church. As an Orthodox Christian and a free American citizen, I will never allow any government, especially a hostile one, to tell me who the leader of my church is. Furthermore, I ask you, StanStun: if Bartholomew is not the leader of the world's Orthodox Christians, then who is? The fact that you will be unable to answer this question further validates my point.

"Most of the Church's properties and schools have been expropriated, while Christians remain widely persecuted in Turkey."

Your main objection seems to be with the fact that I linked the word "expropriated" to the article on the Halki Theological School. I'll ignore your scare quotes around "divine authority" and "blasphemous," which are intended to make the Orthodox argument look irrational. Since the 1920s, the Turkish government has progressively taken over (or as you put it, "nationalized") many schools, hospitals, and land owned by the Patriarchate. Though they have done this with ostensibly benevolent aims, the real motive for these actions is to deny the Orthodox Church a presence in Turkey. As you correctly point out, "In 1971 the Turkish government issued a law which made it obligatory for all institutions of higher education in Turkey to become nationalized and operate under the supervision of the Ministry of Education." But you imply that the Orthodox Church is still free to do as it pleases with Halki, since it "still belongs to the church." "Nationalization" is equivalent with "expropriation." When a government "nationalizes" something, be it a copper mine, an oil well, or a university, it takes its ownership away from its private owner and transfers it to the government. StanStun, I have been to Halki. The seminary has sat empty for forty years, not having trained a single new priest. The "nationalization" essentially shuttered the school. You claim that the Church still owns Halki--technically, they may still have title to the land. I'm honestly not sure if it does or doesn't. But whether or not they do doesn't matter, since the Turkish government has taken over the seminary, even if it did so unofficially. If the Patriarchate were still free to operate Halki, why haven't any new priests been trained there since 1971? Why would President Obama, in his speech to the Turkish parliament, ask that Halki be re-opened? To re-open something, it would have to be closed in the first place. The Turkish government closed Halki in order to deny the Patriarchate new clergy and bishops. This is the same motive behind the Turkish law requiring Patriarchs to be Turkish citizens. If the church can't train new Turkish bishops, eventually there will be no Turkish-born bishops to become Patriarch. Then, the Turkish government will succeed at its longstanding effort to force the Patriarchate out of Turkey forever. This is religious persecution, and if you would only watch the CBS 60 Minutes special that I linked to in my edit, you'd see it for yourself.

I bear no malice towards Turkey, its civilization, or its people. Although I strongly disagree with the actions of Turkey's government towards its Christian minority, I have defended my edit for the sake of accuracy and not to promote a political viewpoint. StanStun, all I ask is that you do not allow whatever personal beliefs you might hold about Greeks and Christians to bias your editing of the Turkey article.

Dousis (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about improving the Economy section of the Greece article? I can personally give you a hand on that one. StanStun (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get right on it after the Genocide section of the Turkey article. Oh wait, all the Armenians froze and starved to death, I forgot. Dousis (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 78.182.226.205, 24 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Istanbul is the most populated city but not the largest. Please change Turkey's largest city is Istanbul to Turkey's largest country is Konya. Thank you. (:

78.182.226.205 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done In the context of cities, "largest" means "most populous". Algebraist 20:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

successor to Ottoman

I think stating that Turkey is successor to Ottoman is incomplete. I wrote a summary of history of Turkey. I mentioned Seljuks first. See the 2nd paragraph in Germany page: A region named Germania, inhabited by several Germanic peoples, has been known and documented before AD 100. Beginning in the 10th century, German territories formed a central part of the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted until 1806. During the 16th century, northern Germany became the centre of the Protestant Reformation. As a modern nation-state, the country was first unified amidst the Franco-Prussian War in 1871. In 1949, after World War II, Germany was divided into two separate states—East Germany and West Germany— along the lines of Allied occupation.[7] Germany was reunified in 1990. West Germany was a founding member of the European Community (EC) in 1957, which became the European Union in 1993. It is part of the Schengen zone and adopted the European currency, the euro, in 1999.[8][9][10]Kavas (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Armenian, Greek, Assyrian Genocides and Turkey

I'd like to invite to the discussion those, that think, that these issues are either irrelevant to the article or do not constitute part of the country's current life and politics both, internal and external, and so by this do not worth to be mentioned in this article. Any comments? Aregakn (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most Turks believe that the Armenian point of view is single-sided and doesn't include the Turks and Kurds who were killed by the Armenians and Russians in eastern Anatolia. The deportations are a reality, and it is also a reality that thousands of people died during the relocation from eastern Anatolia to Syria. But there was another side to that coin which should also be recognized. The Turks suffered similar tragedies between 1878 and 1922 but aren't making a lot of noise about it. Anatolia is full of Turks who had to leave the Balkans and the Caucasus (the lucky ones who managed to arrive) during the final decades of the Ottoman Empire. Also, the "genocides" that you mention do not rank high in terms of similar events in Spanish (The Americas), Belgian (Congo), British (South Africa), Japanese (China), German (Europe), Russia (Russia), etc, history. It is also a fact that the Armenians are inflating both the facts and the figures so that, if Turkey will become weak one day, they might attempt a revival of the Treaty of Sevres and the proposed Wilsonian Armenia. The whole "semi reality, semi myth" is for land, nothing else. Iceman rides your tail (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Iceman rides your tail. Also, feel free to create a new "X Genocide" article page and write whatever you want, there. Don't destroy the 'Turkey' article. Oh, by the way, how about this? [5]. Real deal! Should we add that to 'Armenia'?

Dousis; Me? Sockpuppet? of who? Don't just throw stone and run away. If you claim something, prove it. We're all here & waiting for you. --Ozguroot (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iceman, your above paragraph shows your anti-Armenian bias. "Deportations" and "relocation" are euphemisms for genocide. And about 1.5 million Armenians died, not "thousands." Holocaust deniers use the same tactics to downplay the monstrosity of the Nazi genocides. Saying that Turkey's neighbors treated Turks badly doesn't make the Armenian, Greek, or Assyrian genocides any less horrible or factual--two wrongs don't make a right. Furthermore, the Armenian/Greek/Assyrian genocides involved organized killings of minorities and ethnic cleansing in order to solidify Turkish claims to its present borders, while what you're talking about (1878, 1922) refers to Turks leaving countries that were once part of the Ottoman Empire but later achieved independence.
I think what's most abhorrent in your statement is the suggestion that, "Oh, the Armenian genocide wasn't that bad compared to other ones." Yes, more people died in the Nazi death camps and the Congo. No, that does not absolve the Ottoman government of wrongdoing and does not make it acceptable to deny historical fact today. Whether Armenians seek to recover lands that compose part of modern Turkey is immaterial. The Armenian genocide is a historical fact, it's worthy of a one-sentence mention in an article on Turkey. Let's all move on.

Oh, and while you're at it, don't put "genocide" in scare quotes. That's just insulting to the people who were the victims of organized mass killing at the hands of the Ottoman government--the technical definition of genocide.

Ozguroot, I was informed by User:Athenean that you're a sockpuppet of the banned User:StanStun and User:Shuppiluliuma. Your revisions and manner of speech are very much like those of the banned users, which leads me to believe Athenean.

Dousis (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean 'Oh, you are a sockpuppet because my friend said!'? No, "My friend said" is not a valid reference/reason. Gimme some better reason. Do you always call "sockpuppet" the people you don't agree with, in here? What revisions are you talking about? It seems you didn't even have a look at my edits. I am here because i edit Passports/Visas articles and people appreciate that a lot. I usually contribute only to those articles but of course i couldn't stay and watch your unobjective comments/modifications on the articles about the country i live in. I focus on Passports articles from September 2008 till/inc. now May 2010. Next time, please do a little effort and have a look at users' contributions pages. Who are StanStun, Shuppiluliuma? I'd prefer getting called 'sockpuppet of Passportguy'. That would make sense, at least. --Ozguroot (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed Ozguroot ia a big fan of Grigori Perelman and User:Shuppiluliuma does not seem to be interested in math. I am also a fan of Perelman. (By the way, Sukru Elekdağ did not have an official duty in 2000, so I did not see the connection between the reference and the sentence in which the reference is used.) Kavas (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I read the article now, it mentions some academicians, but except for Halil Hoca, none of them are Turks. ITS has not an official status. The writer calls for academacians and TTK to start working on the topic. As you see Turkish academicians does not work on this topic, according to the writer since he calls them to start working on. Have you read the article, or just the title? Levon Maraşlıyan is also Armenian. In short, the article does not support "The denial of these genocides remains an essential part of Turkey's foreign and internal policies, including in the academic sphere"Kavas (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&oldid=364002470"