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 Arjayay (talk | contribs) at 14:53, 17 November 2014 (→Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2014: Not done - no clear request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleTurkey is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 9, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
December 20, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

GDP (PPP) per capita

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

References

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

Should foreign relations with Iraqi Kurdistan be in this article - please give your opinion

Recently my addition of the sentence: "Relations with Iraqi Kurdistan are good, which is important both to help prevent a restart of the Turkey–PKK conflict and to diversify Turkey's energy sources." referencing http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/24/world/meast/iraq-kurds-oil-sale/ was removed as being too detailed and more suitable for the "Turkey Iraq relations" article.

I agree that some of the info in this article is too detailed, but not the above. However I propose moving the historical info about foreign relations with America to a more detailed article and re-adding the above sentence. Because I believe Turkey's current relations with immediate neighbours are more important than its former relations with the USA (except as part of NATO which I would add to the list of imternational organisations at the top of the section).

Another ref: http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21606297-buoyed-recent-success-their-iraqi-brethren-kurds-turkey-look-hopefully?zid=307&ah=5e80419d1bc9821ebe173f4f0f060a07

Any strong opinions? Jzlcdh (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure of a country's diplomatic relationship with a province. Like saying that France gets along well with Quebec. Or "France gets along well with Bavaria." Just doesn't sound right. Yes, Turkey needs to have an "understanding" with Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan, in particular, about possible support of Turkish Kurds, but not really that convincing that this is at the correct level. With Iraq having a totally dysfunctional government, hard to argue what level is correct! :( Student7 (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well mate, like Student7 said, we can't just put Turkey's relations with every single country or autonomous republic into that section. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 20:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consulate in Erbil,the title of the section is "foreign relations" and it also covers relations with other entities as well as nation states. Of course Elmasmelih's comment is right, however it does not refute my argument. According to [1] "the potential ramifications of recent developments in Turkey and along its borders have become critical to U.S. interests and the long-term trajectory of the Middle East as a whole."Jzlcdh (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the sentence I added was removed without any discussion here. That is a bit irritating. I will add it back when the protection expires unless anyone gives a convincing argument here why it was removed. Jzlcdh (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

mate, like i said before. this article contains general information about Turkey. What you are typing belongs to Foreign relations of Turkey. kazekagetr 10:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you agree that the most important foreign relations are summarised in this section of this article, and that more detail and less important foreign relations are in Foreign relations of Turkey. I think relations with the KRG are important enough to have a sentence in this article and I believe the references I have cited support that. Jzlcdh (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

but we dont think that it is 'that' important to consider it as a 'non-detail', 'macro' thing to put there. kazekagetr 06:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think most people would agree that it is more important than relations with, say, the ECO, the ACD, Afghanistan and Somalia which are all included in the section. Jzlcdh (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About Somalia and Afghanistan, they are not country relations but macro relations with NATO and UN. I am repeating what i said last time, that you keep putting is a detail and not a supranational relation. We cant add every single relation with a govt or an 'semi independent' state. Well I think most people would disagree that it is more important than relations with international organizations rahther than a relation info about an autonomous state btw. kazekagetr 13:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are right that "We cant add every single relation with a govt or an 'semi independent' state." but I have not done that and am not suggesting that should be done. Jzlcdh (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then i suggest you to establish a consensus before putting 'detail' info to that section. As you know there are users that agree with me on that issue. kazekagetr 20:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Student7 seemed not to have a strong opinion at the time. Perhaps they and everyone interested can comment below after taking into account events since Student7's comment above. Jzlcdh (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surely someone else besides myself and kazekagetr must have an opinion on whether foreign relations with Iraqi Kurdistan should be in this article or not. Come on speak up. Jzlcdh (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2014/07/31/94936/the-united-states-turkey-and-the-kurdish-regions/

Inconsistent information on holder of Prime Minister office

Noticed this inconsistency as of 2014-10-28 20:17 EST: In the summary sidebar and in the pictures in the Politics section, the prime minister is listed/captioned as Ahmet Davutoğlu. However, the text under the Politics section reads

The prime minister is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan,

No experience with Wikipedia editing - would rather leave to the experts. 207.237.132.91 (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thank you anon. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine Section

The whole Cuisine section is sourced to [1] which seems to be just a random website. It's hard to see how this can qualify as a reliable source for the claims given. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

can you say how it doesnt comply with WP:RS? kazekagetr 20:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a self published source with no identifiable author. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It should not be difficult for a user with access to Turkish sources to find a good, reliable reference, like the works of Tuğrul Şavkay about the ottoman and Turkish cuisine. Each bookstore in Istanbul has plenty of books about Turkish cuisine and its development.Alex2006 (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

could you guys please improve it then? i am busy as hell these days. kazekagetr 09:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it should probably just be deleted for the moment, or reduced to one sentence and a pointer to Turkish cuisine. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at it now mate, is it ok now? kazekagetr 12:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better, thanks, but the promotional phrases like "influential" would require better sourcing, so I have taken them out. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok mate, could you take a look at other things? article has been peer reviewed but a second look would be good i assume. kazekagetr 17:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there still a strategic alliance with the USA?

Relations with USA still important of course but is there still a strategic alliance? I would say no - not since parliament voted against allowing US forces through Turkey during the invasion of Iraq. Therefore I think "is" should be changed to "was" in "The other defining aspect of Turkey's foreign policy is the country's strategic alliance with the United States." [1]

Your views? Jzlcdh (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a strategic alliance but not strong as it was in Cold War-era. USA enlisted Turkey to fight back IS, altough Turkey declined that time, Turkey helped anti-IS militia after the hostage crisis resolved. BTW this article asks the same question. You might wanna read it mate. kazekagetr 19:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with KazekageTR. In principle, you need more than an episode (and an article of a generalist newspaper) to relegate to the past an alliance which has been lasting so long. It is sure that much is changing in the position of Turkey nowadays, but the situation is still very confused, and personally I doubt that behind the Turkish moves there is a long term plan. Alex2006 (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I suspect there is no long term plan in Turkey's foreign ministry re relations with the USA. Turkey's membership of NATO is strategic but bilateral relations with the USA are purely tactical I reckon. Good Washington Post article - thanks. Jzlcdh (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Cia data is not faulty lens

Kurdish population and demographic war Cia, Hope Özdağ the required data Cie shaped American policy and political deception demographic data on Turkey,[2]


Turkey cia data by year:

1985 : Turkey ratio of 85%, Kurds rate of 12%, 3% other groups

1991 : Turkey ratio of 80% cure rate was 17%, 3% other groups: Notes ratios ranging american politics is changing with the collapse of the USSR

1993 : Turkey ratio of 80% cure rate was 20%, 0% other groups: Note: Increasing rates of PKK terrorism is changing

2009 : Turkey ratio of 70-75%, Kurdish rate of 18%, 7-12% other groups: Note in 2009, lived to be asked to put forward Kurdish and other ethnic structure, respectively (novel-Georgian-gotta-Arab Circassian) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.60.73 (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so what are you trying to say? CIA is compatible with WP:RS btw. kazekagetr 13:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary System?

As of the last presidential elections, since the president is now elected directly (popular vote) by the people. Republic of Turkey is no longer a parliamentary republic, its a semi-presidential republic (not to be mistaken with a presidential system, semi-presidential is different) This needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.224.128 (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP may be correct here. Anyone want to look into this? Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey is a 'Parliamentary republic with a ceremonial president, where the prime minister is the executive.' but what you're saying will become true in following months. President's powers will be extended. Turkey's system will change into 'semi-presidential' which will evolve into full 'presidential' system. But like i said currrently Turkey has a president with ceremonial role. kazekagetr 14:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything depends on the definition of semi-presidentialism. If to define a republic as semi-presidential it is enough the popular election of the president, then Turkey is already a semi-presidential state: if - besides that - also additional powers of the president are needed, then it is not (yet). Alex2006 (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The proper definition includes that 'active' role rather than 'ceremonial' one i believe. But as i said, it will fit in that semi-pres. definition surely. kazekagetr 22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2014

88.227.146.91 (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adamlara da hak veriyorum.Büyük mücadele veriyorlar bize karşı...Eeee onlar da biliyor bir geldik mi 600 yıl gitmiyoruz...!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AeVXs2d-I8&list=UUuNvLeS7_Alp4qWWmly167g

Not done: this is the English Wikipedia and requests must be in English.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
Please note that films on YouTube are rarely considered reliable sources - Arjayay (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21629450-recent-actions-push-turkey-away-west-and-european-union-problems-neighbours
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&oldid=634226999"