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 22:57, 18 March 2016 (→Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2016: Not done as nothing to change). 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.
Good articleTurkey has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 9, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
December 20, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
August 11, 2014Good article nomineeListed
September 15, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Mentioning every empire in the lede

I disagree with this addition [1] and reverted it per WP:BRD. Per WP:LEDE, the purpose of the lede is to provide a brief summary of the main points of the article, not to list every state that ruled the territory of the country in question. Anatolia has been ruled by dozens of states over the millennia, are we to list each and every single one of them in the lede? A mention of the Achaemenids is of course important, but it is sufficient to do so in the body of the article (which is itself subject to WP:SS, but Achaemenid rule is important). Moreover, the lede is already very long and contains a lot of history. Let's keep it reasonable. Athenean (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Achaemenid Empire is not just one of the "dozens of states" that ruled Anatolia. It ruled virtually all of modern-day Turkey for over 200 years. Are there any other states that did so, or even close to it, that are not mentioned one way or another? Then I'd be much reluctant to agree with Athenean's rationale. The area played an extremely pivotal role in the growth, development, decline, stagnation, and overthrow of the empire. Even after the fall of the empire, descendants of the Achaemenids had an important role in the history of this area through the (partly culturally Hellenized) Kingdom of Pontus. Per these reasons, I don't see why it would be an issue having one line regarding the Achaemenids in the lede. I believe the issue regarding the long lede (I agree its long) can be solved without much issues. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the lede is to provide a summary of the entire article, not just the country's history. Currently, more than 50% of the lede is about history, which already way too much, and the lede is already very long. If anything, we need less history, not more. Second, giving a whole sentence to the Achaemenid empire is WP:UNDUE. The Achaemenid Empire did not have a major impact on Turkey. Turkey, and the area it comprises, was never predominantly Persian-speaking or Zoroastrian. From 300 BC to 1100 AD it was predominantly Greek-speaking and Christian, and after that it was predominantly Turkish-speaking and Muslim. Consider that for the whole Hellenistic period, there is only one sentence, and for the whole 1500 years of Roman/Byzantine rule there is only one sentence. Thus giving a whole sentence to the Achaemnids would put them on par with these two periods, which were arguably far more important. The argument that the area was important to the history of the Achaemenid empire is irrelevant. This article is about Turkey, not the Achaemenid Empire. The Kingdom of Pontus was a minor state. In no way is that enough to warrant a mention in the lede. Athenean (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References


Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2016

Please remove this sentence "During the war, major atrocities were committed by the Ottoman government against its Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek citizens." Because although you indicated your reference actually there isn't any evident about that the Ottomans committed a genocide. There is no official record about any genocide committed by the Ottomans. Lazarow 61 (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. There's plenty of evidence to support the historicity of the Armenian genocide. GABHello! 23:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Well then for neutrality this page should also include the atrocities committed against Ottoman Turks by Greeks and Armenians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ottoman_Muslims Patetez (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both of my preceedors. This article is not neutral if it only contains the point of view of Armenians. It is already a topic of debate whether the Turks committed a genocide or not - even under well-known historians. And to quote Google as a source of proof is not only unprofessional, it makes me laugh at you. And to make it clear: It's not proven that this genocide has ever taken place. Greets from Germany --93.215.150.222 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provided evidence of the support of the Turkish military forces (for artillery fire large caliber) and the purchase oil off the terrorists.

Sabri: All of these sources are from Russian newspapers, and also proven wrong by the KRG and Turkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavakdere (talk • contribs) 10:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provided evidence of the support of the Turkish military forces (for artillery fire large caliber) and the purchase oil off the terrorists. [1] [2] [3]

National Emblem

Hello

I was wandering if the national emblem is really appropriate to use as this is not official an is only used in passports, not as the emblem but as the Crescent Moon and Star of the Turkish Flag, just like Canada, I move that the Wikipedia community remove this as it is not in any way official and should not be used on this page.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavakdere (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2016

In this article Link the Kurdish percentage in Turkey is 17,7%. It relates to a survey made by Konda and is the most reliable source for the kurdish percentage in Turkey in my opinion. Jabba31 (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done we cite the World Factbook (which is generally considered a reliable source) for the percentages in the lead, and also in the demographics section lower down, which gives 18% - I am not sure about the reliability of your source, especially as your article discusses the disagreement about the figures, but 17.7% is extremely close to 18% - Arjayay (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2016

Dimetoka is not a city in Turkey, it is a city in Greece..

166.172.63.132 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I can see no mention of Dimetoka or Didymoteicho in this article and it hasn't been edited for 11 days - Arjayay (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://russian.rt.com/article/145541
  2. ^ http://lifenews.ru/news/182947
  3. ^ http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1579521/video/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&oldid=710767613"