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 05:48, 15 August 2011 (→‎RfC on Armenian Genocide sentence). 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

Untitled

  • 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


Latest Vote of Turkey

There aren't latest Vote of Turkey results. --Sehinsah (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish culture and folklore

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 is not a Euroasian coutry, it's just Asian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.109.199 (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Military power in middle east/Second largest Armed Forces in NATO after the US

The article mentions that Turkey has the largest and most powerful armed forces in the Middle East, save for Israel. This statement is incorrect as the Turkish Armed Forces is also ranked higher than the Israeli Armed Forces. Global Fire Power ranks the Turkish Armed Forces higher than Israel. Turkey is home to NATO's second largest armed forces after the US Armed Forces. The Israeli Navy and Army is not even comparable with the Turkish Navy or Army. The Turkish Air Force also has a advantage over the Israeli Air Force in many respects such as aerial refueling capability, Boeing 737-800 MESA AWACS, NATO missile shield etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.241.156 (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JEREED?

Since i can not edit the main page, iceHockey things becoming more common despite less inclined? where is the some traditional sports out to be forgotten, Such as Most interesting ones as the jereed, or commons like box,taekwando, volleybal things becoming more common despite less inclined? im Turk never liked them as supposed to be, but the most popular. (88.242.226.165 (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

SLOGAN

PLEASE ADD 'PEACE AT HOME PEACE IN THE UNIVERSE' TO NATIONAL SLOGAN. CORRECT TRANSLATION OF CIHAN IS NOT REALLY THE WORLD, BUT THE UNIVERSE. BUT THE WORLD WILL ALSO DO FOR NOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.33.174 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that hyperlink to note 12 doesn't wrong ... the address added is wrong ... the correct one is:

http://www.heptagonpost.com/Dessi/can_turkey_be_a_source_of_stability_in_the_middle_east

I don't have the right to edit the article myself, so can someone else update it?

Masfiore (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The article is completely bias and touristic

Article does not show real side of Turkey where poverty and cruelty is at its peak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.133.131 (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Poverty and cruelty is at its peak"... And that's not biased? There are sections in the article that are indeed biased, but they're mainly about the Armenian Genocide issue and is constantly being written as a propaganda for the Armenian diaspora. So yes, there is cruelty in the article, just not about the right subject. All the best, --Diren Yardimli (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 94.54.233.216, 28 May 2011

the following statement has no place in this article : "this website sucks" 94.54.233.216 (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no such statement. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-erdogan protests

5 people killed in Anti-Erdogan protests in a visit of Turkish president to Black sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strovolos01 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5 people? Check the sources. And please do not add this minor event to this page. Kavas (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes

Should more info be added about Turkey's earthquakes? It's really active. Attaturk is Greek (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Tudordavies1987, 6 June 2011

Please change the following:

The <a href="/wiki/Tourism_in_Turkey" title="Tourism in Turkey">tourism sector</a> has experienced rapid growth in the last twenty years, and constitutes an important part of the economy.


With:

The <a href="/wiki/Tourism_in_Turkey" title="Tourism in Turkey">tourism sector</a> has experienced rapid growth in the last twenty years, and constitutes an important part of the economy [1].


Tudordavies1987 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Unfortunately, the reference you suggest does not meet our criteria. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 14:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Turkey

The part which said Hungarians and Turks have ancestral links is wrong. It should say that the Byzantines used to call Hungary "Tourkia" because that land was once occupied by Turkic tribes, before they migrated away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.236.2.162 (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Conflict

I hereby request the change of the following sentence "During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were deported and exterminated in the Armenian Genocide." under The History of Turkey. As can be seen in the Armenian Genocide article itself, the Armenian casualties in 1915 have not been recognized as a result of a genocide performed by the Ottoman-turkish civil or militants to the Ottoman-armenian population. The death of many Ottoman-armenians during the war is well recognized, however the word genocide is not accepted by the Turkish government and not recognized by many others[2], therefore I suggest the change of this sentence. - EthemD (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


- There was a debate here, and the majority of editors were in favor of editing that sentence. The proposed sentence was "During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were deported and exterminated in what many historians call the Armenian Genocide". See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&oldid=432086569. I think you agree on this. Kavas (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a more acceptable sentence, but it still talks about "1.5 million Armenians being deported and exterminated", as if it were a fact, but even the number of Armenians (1.5 million) that were deported is not recognized by many historians/nations, i.e. Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs [2]. I propose this sentence "During the war, a vast amount of Armenians were forced to migrate from their hometowns by Ottoman officials which many historians and nations believe to be the act of an Armenian Genocide.". -EthemD (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to change that sentence. We can (have to) add the sentence that explains the standpoint of the Turkish government.

For example,

During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were deported and/or exterminated in the Armenian Genocide. However, the Turkish government denies that there was an Armenian genocide and claims that Armenians were only relocated from the eastern war zone.[3] -Takabeg (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That basically the same as "There was the Armenian Genocide, Turkey denies this", which makes the Armenian Genocide still look like a fact. Look, we can either say: yes the Armenian Genocide did happened, or no it didn't happen, or we can say that Armenians were forced to migrate by the Ottomans (which both sides agree) and say that this might have been a Genocide or not (which is the questionable piece). This perspective is represented by this sentence "During the war, a vast amount of Armenians were forced to migrate from their hometowns by Ottoman officials which many historians and nations believe or deny to be the act of an Armenian Genocide.". This is not a biased sentence, it does not deny the Armenian genocide, neither does it approve it, unlike the current sentence, am I not right? EthemD (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- BBC summarizes "Armenian Genocide" as below:

  • Hundreds of thousands of ethnic Armenians killed by Ottoman Turks in 1915-6.
  • Many historians and the Armenian people believe the killings amount to genocide.
  • Turks and some historians deny they were orchestrated.
  • More than 20 countries regard the massacres as genocide.

I think, it is agreed that the current form is not sufficient because it does not represent the minor view. Turks and some historians does not deny the killings took place but they argue that they were not orchestrated. Wikipedia's rule is simple: Add minor view to a topic, if the minor view is not too marginal. In "Armenian Genocide" case, the minor view is shared by some historians, surely more than just a few. Kavas (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is only *one* sentence in there about the Armenian Genocide. If you add a sentence about the "minor" view (i.e. the genocide denial view), that is one sentence each. In other words, equal weight would be given to both, which would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. There is also a "minor" view that the Holocaust didn't really happen, but we don't include it in the article on Germany. Athenean (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. that editor only added one word. As "There is only *one* sentence in there about the Armenian Genocide", adding one word to represent the minor view is not contrary to WP:UNDUE. Kavas (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Holocaust denial is clearly not a "minor" view, but rather a very very minor view or a conspiracy theory. Kavas (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...what many historians call the Armenian Genocide" is WP:WEASEL. Athenean (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to approach this topic like a popularity contest, it can be still argued, 1. That the neutral view, is the majority view and that approval of the Genocide is not a majority view. 2. It can be argued that the opinion of the countries close to the place where these happened, and the archive's claim should be weighted more than foreign countries (especially if they have been purely influenced by lobbying). 3. It can also be argued that there is no need to mention the Armenian Genocide, in the 2 paragraphs section of the Ottoman Empire, as no deaths or other events, other than factional changes in national sovereignty are mentioned. Claims 1 is already difficult to prove, and claims 2 and 3 both speak for changing or removing that sentence. -EthemD (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am still requesting a change of that section of the article. I actually do not think this issue will be resolved, and propose the removal of the whole reference to casualties of the Armenian (and any other ethnic) conflicts (as casualties for a disputed Armenian Genocide are not relevant and minor compared to world war I casualties/conflicts in the Ottoman Empire); and it should just be mentioned how the partitioning of the Ottoman empire took place. - EthemD (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If no reply comes from opposing editors, you can go on and edit the page. Then if they revert, the discussion will be active again. Kavas (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, can you provide for us the link of BBC's article ? Takabeg (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8572934.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8563483.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8636800.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8553013.stm By default, BBC uses these terms. Kavas (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merci. I understand BBC doesn't use the term "Armenian genocide" (Results of this research in BBC's website). Takabeg (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be prudent to utilize the search box available at www.google.com by typing site:http://www.bbc.co.uk/ Armenian Genocide: http://www.google.com.tr/webhp?hl=tr#hl=tr&source=hp&q=site:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2F+Armenian+Genocide&oq=site:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2F+Armenian+Genocide&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=725l725l0l871l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0&fp=4573876ea68e87c9&biw=1280&bih=653 Kavas (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"What many historians call the Armenian Genocide" is weasel wording, pure and simple. We've been over this 100 times already, going through the motions every few months all over again is meaningless. The proposed changes were roundly rejected the last time around, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Athenean (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible to write this term without explicitly using the terms "most", "some", or "many". See my last edit.Kavas (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was not rejected, the majority was in favor of keeping that word. Kavas (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considerable number of Turkish intellectuals don't deny the Armenian Genocide. For example, özür diliyorum ("I'm sorry", or "I'm apologizing") (see Özür Diliyorum, Простите нас). They use the term Büyük Felâket that is Turkish translation of Մեծ Եղեռն (Medz Yeghern, Great Catastrophe). Takabeg (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of signers was a friend of me. Most Turkish historians "deny" Genocide is a suitable word to describe the mass killings of 1915. Kavas (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support weasel wording, but you have been and are basically rejecting the whole idea behind keeping the article unbiased, just because of a piece of phrase that was poorly worded. It would be better if you tried to understand why the current version needs a change and help us make this change happen. We have to have a clear equal-sided reference or keep the whole reference and topic out - either way, this version of the article is unacceptable. Reading through the whole section, there isn't even a reference to any other deaths in WW1 besides this globally controversial Armenian Genocide! How did this even make it into the article?
It's not up to us wikipedians to do the historian's jobs and argue what is true and what not - we are just here to pass on information with correct wording and citation. If we don't have enough facts, then we should just drop the whole topic, especially in such a featured article. This motion is neither denial nor approval of the Armenian Genocide. I've described the situation in my previous posts as well and am still, after more than half a month, requesting any Wikipedia Administrator to do something about this. EthemD (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Administrators is not an authority to decide the article content, they work like other editors. But they make other editors abide by Wikipedia rules like 3RR. You can add other deaths in WW1, if someone opposes this, probably we'll discuss it and it is less likely to have consensus to remove sourced content. I'm not sure "most" or "some" is weasel wording since BBC writes articles by using this term. Kavas (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that is the case, I will then proceed with removing the section about the casualties, and the justification behind this edit is firstly the current unacceptable biased version of the article, and secondly the irrelevancy of the mentioning of the casualties of the ottoman conflicts during WW1. This issue is a clear two-sided dispute with major contributions from both sides and an irrelevant and unnecessary mentioning of specific casualties/conflicts during World War 1 of the Ottoman Empire, in a minor history section of the major article of the Turkish Republic. (also, a link to the Ottoman Empire wikipedia page has been and was always provided by the article, if more needed to be read about it. The phrases can be transferred over there if needed, so that we don't lose any information.) I have announced this change for more than half a month and haven't received any objections, but if there are any, please mention them below, before reverting my changes. Thank you. - EthemD (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, it failed. My suggestion is to add all causalities in WW1. They cannot revert this, because in this case they would be the editors who remove sourced content. Kavas (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it's impossible to remove info. about Armenian Genocide without consensus. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of Turkey is one of the successor states of the Ottoman Empire, but we cannot completely deny the continuation between the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey. I think the casualties during the World War I and Armenian Genocide must be mentioned in this article, because World War I and Armenian Genocide is very important factor for Turkish national movement.[4]

Firstly, I had removed the content with all right. I had given enough time for objections and discussion to be mentioned before removing the recoverable, disputed, sourced content, so please at least recognize that and don't get me involved in edit warring.
Secondly, last year I observed that an administrator locked the article keeping this section about the Armenian Genocide - ever since there have been many disagreements, but like now it has been kept as if it were a fact. So the current state of that paragraph did not go through a bilateral consensus either. (If there are more people who remember this, please feel free to comment below)
Thirdly, this is not a small detail, this article is a featured article, plus the national Wikipedia page of the Republic of Turkey. It is better to remove the content and place it back once consensus has been reached. As mentioned before, the Turkish government and many others do not approve with calling it 'Genocide'[2], so this is a serious detail that needs more attention and more caution and care. In other words, it is better to temporarily remove it and place it (hopefully a better version) back when there is a consensus.
Fourthly, look at the article about the Ottoman Empire. Even that has only a few sentences about the Armenian Genocide and such disputed massacres, while most sourced content should be mentioned over there rather than here.
Also, you are paraphrasing Taner Akçam, who is one of the major contributors to the perspective that a genocide was planned by the Ottoman Empire during that time. In other words, you are still not taking a neutral reference. What you wrote is just an interpretation of someone who supports the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Such details should not be used as a justification to keep off-topic content on a current nation's page and should rather be discussed in their own pages.
If the Armenian Genocide has to be on this page, then both perspectives and the circumstances in WW1 (more details about the involvement of Ottomans, Turkish, Armenians, Greek, Syrians, other minority groups and foreign nations in WW1) should be mentioned on this page to present a fair amount of context. I personally think that such details don't need to be on the page, but am willing to help out if that is what you seek. - EthemD (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You used the website to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey to legitimize your removing information on Armenian Genocide. But in this case, the website to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey is not concerned as third party neutral source. Takabeg (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Takabeg here that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey is not a neutral reference. Also I think that the Armenian Genocide is an accepted historical fact in spite of a small minority of historians and organisations/states espousing the opposite view. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is fair enough, I didn't give enough reference, but that was just a simple reference to present a majorly different perspective from the current state, but that was before I was aware that the popularity of the information is more important than the factual data. Also, by no means did I remove that sections purely based on the Turkish ministry's statements - of course they are not neutral. I don't intend on writing their perspective into this article either. I am just saying that a more neutral perspective should be seeked, as the current one seems too heavy and biased. I can fetch some more references if needed, it will consume some of my time though.
I don't think I agree that this recognition has reached an international majority and still think that the neutral view which I try to seek presents a better alternative than that method. If you can link me to a study that provides credible information about this amount then we can use it here though. I think the Armenian Genocide is still globally disputed and has not reached the majority of history books, other than in a very few number of countries. So I don't think we have the right to treat it like the holacaust for example. And I still don't think that it really is relevant information in this article and would be better if kept separate. It still seems to me like an off-topic detail and does not need to be mentioned other than in the main article. Like I said, the sources content would probably be better off over there. - EthemD (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People here only did oppose to the usage of words like "many" and "some", as they claim these words are weasel. So instead of "many" and "some" I used "major" and "minor". If you suggest alternative names, it could help us. But please keep in mind that in academia Genocide theory has more supporters. Kavas (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to sanitize that section since it directly relates to the Ottoman Empire. Furthermore, the statement of Armenian Genocide is also shown to be denied by the Republic of Turkey which is backed by a reference. Considering the time, money, and effort expended by the Republic of Turkey to "prove" that the Armenian Genocide did not happen, that is all the more reason to include it in the article. Other than treading on the personal opinions, nationalistic feelings of some individuals, and/or some silly attempt to remove any mention of the Armenian Genocide, there is no viable reason to delete this information. Also, if a wider perspective is to be considered(concerning the genocide), then the Republic of Turkey's actions concerning denial should be expanded upon. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding BBC as a Turkish nationalist source, but not regarding Wikipedian editors as Armenian nationalists is problematic. The style of BBC for neutrality is to be respected rather than the style of Wikipedians who claim to be historians without using their real names. Turkey's effort to deny Armenian genocide is already covered on many different Wikipedia articles. Kavas (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I finally understand what you mean Kavas. Sorry if it took a while. So you are telling me that they are rejecting the neutral point of view because of wording, which they claim to be weasel wording. And you are defending that sort of wording, because that is how the BBC also refers to them. I don't have anything to add to that, but I agree that it is unjust to reject the neutral point of view of the proposed sentence, just because of a minor wording, which some don't accept, even though it was used by the BBC. And like I said, I personally think either a neutral point of view should be kept, or the whole text should be moved to the main article.
Here is another point: how would it be fair if the majority recognition only got tallied by counting every nations perspectives for something that was involved in World War 1, where the Allied Powers (warring with the Ottoman Empire) were clearly the majority (in number of nations)? The only way a yes or no answer to the Armenian question can be reached is when international and third party historians reach a consensus multilaterally. Turkey has been supporting such an action and had already opened all its Ottoman archives so that this consensus can be reached. Western politicians don't accept this and want Turkey to unilaterally declare an opinion about something that has a poor amount of evidence. The Turkish people only don't believe that something like Genocide exists in their culture (which is rather an opinion of the majority of Turkish People and not a standpoint) and are mainly restricted to discuss such topics due to Turkish law enforcement, but if such a consensus was reached via an international investigation, they are willing to accept it. This standpoint doesn't make them deniers of the Armenian Genocide, which is frequently misinterpreted by the western media and Armenian Genocide supporters. The Armenian Genocide is accepted as dispute in Turkey, as it has not reached international investigation and consensus. The current constitution unfortunately restricts private publications about this matter, but that is just a general problem of Freedom of Speech in Turkey, rather than something aimed against the Armenian Genocide. I didn't have time to look for a reference document for this, but I will later, if you want me to and time allows: It is partially what the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has summarized several times in the past years.
Kansas Bear, it's saddening to read what you said - I don't want you to think that I am involved in this only because of personal interest. My only two opinions are that this should be treated as a sensitive topic, as it is a huge statement (despite being in a minor section of the article) and a neutral point of view should be reached, rather than a biased one - I would have the same opinions for any other nation or topic. I apologize if I am not writing in the Wikipedia convention or in a technical way and not referencing enough, but I am still a newcomer here, so please don't discriminate me due to that. I am still learning and trying to improve my attitude and wording in such discussions. I hope I got my message across this time. - EthemD (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The previous wording introduced by Takabeg was much better. In addition to bad English, the "minority academic view" mostly consists of members of the Institute of Turkish Studies, which as we all know is exclusively funded by the Turkish government. So it is nothing more than the view of the Turkish government, not an independent academic view. And enough with the BBC already, there are much better sources out there (such as the one added by Takabeg). Athenean (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'd better change the number from 1.5 million to ... between one and one and a half million.[5][6][7][8][9]

Takabeg (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or with adding Turkish source[10] we can change as ...between 800,000 and 1,500,000. As long as I understand, formerly even Turkish officials also accepted this catastrophy and the problem for the Turkish government (not for Wikipedia:)) is the term "Genocide". Takabeg (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence I have added conveys the information in the sentence you wrote above. Kavas (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what's going on. Basically Kavas, you are trying to make the denialist view more respectable by saying, "See, it's not just the Turkish government that denies that it was genocide, but that it is also a minority view within academia". But as we all know, this "minor view" is funded by the Turkish government through the Institute of Turkish Studies. Also, you insist on mentioning the 20 countries, because that's a way of saying "See, it's only 20 countries that recognize it as genocide. That's called POV-pushing. No way. Athenean (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. You don't like the sourced information and claim the wording is weasel but you don't help me rewrite the sentence.

You argue that there is an unanimous agreement on academia that the mass killings is in fact a genocide but this is not case as even you cannot deny that some scholars does not share this view.

I don't mention that more than 20 countries for POV-pushing, I'm just adding verifiable content. Kavas (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typical denialist POV. Clearly there is no point in trying to negotiate with you, so I am referring this dispute to the wider community. Athenean (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, you can add as a footnote, though some scholars deny the genocide, most of these denialist scholars are funded by the Turkish government. Of course, you have to use different wording, as "most" is not allowed, per WP:Weasel.Kavas (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We mustn't confuse views of countries with views of academics. Probably some academics are sponcored by the governments. But countries behave not for seeking historical facts, but by political reasons and interests. As to minority of historians, we can show Category:Armenian Genocide deniers (Bernard Lewis, Stanford J. Shaw, Justin McCarthy, Guenter Lewy, Heath W. Lowry, Norman Stone, Gilles Veinstein etc. can be a academic. But Samuel Weems is not academic.) In short, Academic of historians consider this massacres as a genocide, but minority of historians don't accept it. And some Turkish historians and interectuals accept it. Most of all governments of the related countries accept it. But the Turkish government doesn't accept it. Takabeg (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, however, this is all beyond the scope of this article. These things should be discussed at Armenian Genocide denial, that's why we have that article. In this article, a brief mention that the Turkish government does not accept that these events were genocide is sufficient. Anything more than that is beyond the scope of the article and is in main article fixation territory. Athenean (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Kurds and Zazas"

User:Pensionero claimed CIA and Milliyet say only Kurds.

But at least in Milliyet (a research by KONDA), it's clear that they used Kürt ve Zazaların nüfusu (population of Kurds and Zazas). Takabeg (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Country Study

Turkey: A Country Study[11] was used in this edit. But this book was published in 1995. Toooooo old and out of date especially for demographic datum. Meybe we can use these information for writing history of Turkey. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secularity

Opening Section 1, Paragraph 4 states Turkey is a 'secular' state; the map provided under 'Secularity' declares Turkey is non-secular. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.238.237 (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secularism is one of the building blocks of the Republic of Turkey, it is one of the major reforms of Atatürk.[12] I don't know what article's map you are referring to, could you provide a link? You can also post this in its discussion, so that we can correct it. -EthemD (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Religion Segment

Whoever cited the KONDA article has changed the values drastically. I took a look at page 27 of the KONDA report, and it clearly shows that Agnostics represent 2.3% of the population, and atheists at 0.9%. The remaining 96.8% consists of religious people. It would be wise for whomever is looking over the religion section to verify this and make the appropriate corrections. I have so far changed the Agnostic/Atheist percentage to put them in line with the statistics from the KONDA survey, but I do not know the number of Christians/Others at the moment. Looking at the Christianity in Turkey article page, it seems that that number is around 0.1%, but someone should verify. I have changed the Islam percentage accordingly as well. I also changed the text in the article to reflect this fact. It would be wise to clean up the religion segment of this article, as there are various numbers given. The KONDA survey is by far the best gauge of religion in Turkey today, so I feel that it should be given the priority in the segment. Articles for Christianity and other religions should be featured as well. The Fear (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Turkey Monopoly propertysunturkey [1] Retrieved June 6th 2011.
  2. ^ a b c "The Armenian Allegation Of Genocide The Issue And The Facts / Rep. of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs". Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 2011-06-26.
  3. ^ Patrick J. Roelle, Islam's Mandate- A Tribute to Jihad, AuthorHouse, 2010, ISBN 9781452080185, p. 33.
  4. ^ Taner Akçam, From Empire to Republic: Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide, Zed Books, 2004, p. 223.
  5. ^ Totten, Samuel, Paul Robert Bartrop, Steven L. Jacobs (eds.) Dictionary of Genocide. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008, p. 19. ISBN 0-313-34642-9.
  6. ^ Noël, Lise. Intolerance: A General Survey. Arnold Bennett, 1994, ISBN 0-7735-1187-3, p. 101.
  7. ^ Schaefer, T (ed.). Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2008, p. 90.
  8. ^ Henham, Ralph J; Behrens, Paul (2007), The criminal law of genocide: international, comparative and contextual aspects, p. 17.
  9. ^ Marashlian, Levon (1991), Politics and Demography: Armenians, Turks, and Kurds in the Ottoman Empire, Cambridge, MA, USA: Zoryan Institute.
  10. ^ Yusuf Hikmet Bayur, Türk İnkılâbı Tarihi, Cilt: III 1914-1918 Genel Savaşı, Kısım: IV Savaşın Sonu, Türk Tarih Kurumu basımevi, Ankara, 1991, ISBN 975-16-0331-5, s. 787.
  11. ^ Turks in Helen Chapin Metz, ed. Turkey: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1995.
  12. ^ "Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi". Atatürk Araştırma Merkezi. Retrieved 2011-07-06.

Motto

Does Turkey have a motto? Something like, "Peace in the homeland, peace in the world". Politis (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Turkey doesn't have motto. İts Ataturk's famous quote. --78.181.25.207 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Armenian Genocide sentence

Which wording is preferable, this one [2], or this one [3]? I have explained my reasoning here [4] and here [5]. I also think that Kavas' wording does not accurately represent the source (BBC). The entire discussion can be seen here [6]. Athenean (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Turkish government ..." choice is better - [from an uninvolved editor]. You are asking which sentence should follow this: "During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were deported and exterminated in the Armenian Genocide." The two options you present are:
A)"The Turkish government denies that there was an Armenian genocide and claims that Armenians were only relocated from the eastern war zone."
B)" Among historians the majority view is that the mass killings of Armenians amount to genocide, and more than 20 countries have recognized the genocide, however, the minority view among historians and the Turkish government's position is that the killings were not orchestrated. '
Choice (B) is a bit too detailed for this overview article on Turkey. The sentence preceding it already states there was a genocide, and already uses the word "exterminated", so there is no need to pile-on with statements like: "more than 20 countries...". Furthermore, the blue color on Armenian Genocide phrase in that sentence indicates that there is a WP article dedicated to the topic. Inserting detail about majority/minority views is just asking for trouble and may confuse readers. That kind of detail is best left in the Armenian Genocide article. Also, choice (A), the "Turkish government denies..." sentence, is more encyclopedic. Another choice that may be a good middle ground is:
C) The Turkish government and some historians state that there was no genocide, and instead assert that Armenians were only relocated from the eastern war zone
--Noleander (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that "The Turkish government ..." is best. Besides the fact that I don't like majority and minority being used as adjectives, I think the longer one is redundant.Mpgviolist (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment C is better. I had to remove "some" since the same editor said that it was a weasel word and then I became helpless. Actually, what you write is similar to my first proposal. [But everyone knows Armenians were killed, the only thing Turkey denies is that the killings were an act of genocide.] Did Mpgviolist and Adamdaley select A or C? Kavas (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Turkish government one is better. This is just a single event in Turkish history, there is no need to go into detail of who says what was genocide. It's notable enough that the Turkish government opposes its classification as genocide. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Population of turkey

turkey got in 2002 already 72 million. so how can the population be 73,7million ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.21.198 (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


birth rate is high %2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorkemsem (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Gorkemsem, 10 August 2011

unemployment rate has fallen to %9.9 Gorkemsem (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   — Jeff G.  ツ 12:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&oldid=444925207"