Talk:Turkey/Archive 5

message: these were by:
15:49, 29 October 2006 72.82.95.149 (Talk) (→Foreign Relations)
5:48, 29 October 2006 72.82.95.149 (Talk) (→History)
12:37, 29 October 2006 Akanemoto (Talk | contribs) (→External links)
12:35, 29 October 2006 Akanemoto (Talk | contribs) (→External links)
12:28, 29 October 2006 Akanemoto (Talk | contribs) (→External links)
08:03, 29 October 2006 Ttiotsw (Talk | contribs) (Make Annan plan details more neutral and more positive towards Turkish Cypriots EU rights. Spelling of Croesus. Need to check dates.)
07:25, 29 October 2006 Ttiotsw (Talk | contribs) m (Signed in 1963 not 1964 - it was a customs union but intent was to full EEC membership so associate member is OK to stay. The last bit about October 2005 stuff was too simplistic.) 
No one said the Association Agreement was signed in 1964. The agreement got in force on December 1, 1964 the date the Association begun. 
"Europe agreements and other agreements
1.5.1. Draft additional protocol to the agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey following the enlargement of the European Union. Turkey’s association came into force on December 1, 1964 (the month of publication to enforce it)
Reference: Agreement establishing an association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, known as the 'Ankara Agreement': OJ 217, 29.12.1964, http://europa.eu/bulletin/en/200505/p105001.htm"
Please stop messing the text and saying you would revert if the info is incorrect. Please enter what you KNOW is correct. Thanks.
:As an encyclopedia then thats what we need to say i.e. the Ankara Agreement was signed in 1963 and came into effect the following year in 1964 (with a reference to the gazette). I always enter what I know to be correct based on the evidence at the time. This also means that the other Wikipedia articles are thus probably wrong as they refer to the 1963 date which you do not like. Ideally we need a consensus on the exact wording to use. Please assume WP:GF with edits especially with your edit summaries. Ideally also please login and sign your contributions as an IP address makes responding to specific edits hard to track, though it is your right to not do this. Ttiotsw 04:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see in your reverts that you did that you also reverted my spelling correction to Croesus so that it is now as a red link !. I'm really confused how my correcting a mispelt name can be misrepresentations, deletions and vandalism. This leads me to suspect that you are not accepting changes in good faith. Ttiotsw 00:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well you (I'm guessing) added what I feel was the incorrect spelling back in. Like you say 'Please enter what you KNOW is correct. Thanks. - It's a foreign word. Maybe you've got something new on this name. Please assume WP:GF with edits especially with your edit summaries. Ideally also please login and sign your contributions as an IP address makes responding to specific edits hard to track, though it is your right to not do this. Ttiotsw 04:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored various misrepresentations, deletions and vandalism

message: Does anyone have access to a recent survey on the religions of people in Turkey? I think that we will definitely need it at some point.. Baristarim 01:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey on Religions

message: I had to put this back since some anon unilaterally deleted some parts of the article by referring to other editors as kids.. See article successor state...
I made an edit saying that the Treaty of Lausanne confirmed the Republic of Turkey as the successor state of the Ottoman empire, and somebody deleted it.. To avoid this delete in the future, couple of words as to why it was made: it is only a legal and technical information, it doesn't imply any political or ideological message. The Russian Federation is the successor state of the USSR, but their ideological systems are completely different.. For people who know Turkey this might be evident, but for complete strangers making research on the Net about Turkey and that don't know its history, it could be intresting to know.. Successor state just means that the new state assumed the debts, properties (such as embassies), archives etc of the old one.. That's it.. The fact that there was a revolution doesn't mean anything, the USSR was the successor state of the Russian Empire, even though there was a much more profound revolution.. The UN, Treaty of Lausanne, the global academic community, Turkish people and Turkish government know this, it is hardly a secret or anything :)), in any case there is absolutely no-one anywhere that disputes the fact that Turkey was the successor state (legally). The article is about the Republic of Turkey and not the Empire, but this info is extremely relevant as to how Turkey was founded (contrary to other states that were a part of the Ottoman Empire who are considered as new states that are supposed to have declared their independence from the Empire and confirmed as such by treaties, legally speaking). Syria, Greece, Lebanon were not the successor states of the OE, Turkey was.. That's all... Regards Baristarim 23:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Successor State

message: A detailled study of the history of this page and a few subpages shows that several fiercely pro-Turkish contributors frequently delete any critical information, even when backed up with sources and references.
I agree. No mention of the million armenian deaths, whether holocaust or victims of a rare hunger that only affected armenians. Oh! By the way, the Rwandan Holocaust was not because it wasnt organized or carried out by the government, it just stood still whilst the Interhamwe did the job.88.16.44.192 23:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Refer to Talk:Turkey/Archive_4#Request_for_Comment:_Sanitization_of_Turkish_history. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shamefull pro-Turkish bias 

message: I changed the cuisine bit to remove the weasely "is one of the world's most famous". See Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words. I apologise to the die-hard nationalist chefs out there, but this sounded like the intro to a turkish cookery book. yandman 17:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Wikipedia, anyone can edit any page. If, as you say, the Greece page has terms like this, we'll change them. Is this a sort of competition between you and the greeks? yandman 07:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cuisine 

message: *No need to see any Turkish cookery book, See your cookery book(I mean Greek).
*Please clear following funny phrases in Greece article in the same manner;
 :"Regarded as the cradle of western civilization and being the birthplace of democracy[2], Western philosophy[3], the Olympic Games, western literature, political science, major scientific principles as well as drama[4] including both tragedy and comedy,"
 :"Greece has a particularly long and eventful history and a cultural heritage considerably influential in Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East." 
 :"The shores of Greece's Aegean Sea saw the emergence of the first advanced civilizations in Europe" 
 :"Greece is often known as the cradle of Western civilisation."
Regards
 Mustafa Akalp 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Wikipedia, anyone can edit any page. If, as you say, the Greece page has terms like this, we'll change them. Is this a sort of competition between you and the greeks? yandman 07:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkish Cousine

message: I was wondering if we couldn't replace the image of Mount Ararat with another geographic area of Turkey.  My reasoning behind this is that Ararat is considered to be a national symbol of Armenia.  Please note that I am not discussing the Armenian Genocide or Armenian-Turkish relations, I just feel that it would be the sensitive thing to do.  Turkey is a vast and beautiful country and I am sure that there are other noteworthy geographic formations that hold greater significance to the Turkish republic.  Kindest regards, Clevelander 11:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Clevelander,
I am against your suggestion but not because of Turkish Armenian relations. I think the significance and necessity of Mount Ararat in this article is that it is the highest peak of Turkey.
CrashMex 14:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encylopedia for heavens sake, not somewhere where we should be worrying about Armenian sensitivities. It is the tallest peak in Turkey and as such is very notable for any reader concerned about geography in Turkey. Really, i find this whole attitude compeletely wrong, we're here to convey knowledge to people, and you are telling us to compromise that because of nationalist feeling towards a mountain. Next, we'll have Greek users telling us not to show pictures of Aya Sofya in articles related to Turkey. --A.Garnet 15:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with A.Garnet if we do something like that then, lots of people will come and ask for removing the images of different things.CrashMex 16:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the Armenian sensitivities to this issue, but it was not put there to offend anyone, it is only there because it is the highest peak in Turkey.. In fact, I am nearly 100 percent sure that the person who put it there was thinking of only this.. Baristarim 20:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, we all know the story about why Ararat is important to Armenians, but as an encyclopedia the highest peak in Turkey is very relevant in the geography section of this article, believe me, nobody put it there to offend Armenians, if that can make u feel better :)) Baristarim 20:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see.  I understand now.  -- Clevelander 20:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mount Ararat

message: The gallery is too big. A lot of the images are not that good either. I suggest we either get rid of it completely, that away stop the arguments between people who think their images are better, or else reduce it to no more than 12 very good images. What do people think? --A.Garnet 13:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think that at the end of the day we will have to get rid of the gallery section either by removing the pictures to relevant articles or adding more pictures in the main body.. For the moment we can reduce it to 12 as Alf said, later on we can fuse some of them into the article then remove the gallery completely.. Baristarim 11:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one disagrees but i get the feeling if i remove or cut it people will suddenly revert it. So unless objections are raised soon i will go ahead. --A.Garnet 18:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrap gallery or drastically cut? 

message: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.116.237.67 (talk • contribs) .
::As your last warning said, this page is for discussing problems in the turkey article, not in Turkey. And try to give up the caps lock, please. yandman 07:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, let's avoid straying off the topic, we can't simply headdive into such issues with statements that, frankly, won't help solve anything at the end of the day. Baristarim 11:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: most of the north caucasians and slavic muslims given as minorities are now assimilated as turks and cant even speak their ancestral languages. Turks themselves are a MELTING POT of ottoman muslims united under the banner of the turkish language and turkish culture. The section should be like the page on 'France' because turkey is in many ways like france with regards to diversity and population movements.
I think the minorites should be like this. From the everyculture website...
'Those who speak non-Turkic languages include Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Circassians, Georgians, Laz, Arabs, Rom (Gypsies), Ossetes, Albanians, and Chechens' http://www.everyculture.com/To-Z/Turkey.html
This wikipedia page on Turkey also says that there are Croatian, Serbian and Sudanese minorities in turkey. I am turkish and I have never heard of such minorites. is this a joke or what?
::There are only a few thousand of people who speak other than Turkish or Kurdish. Most of them are 80 years old greek or armenian remnant villages folk. They were not Greek or Armenian; they were Ottoman families/citizens before. Most of them have never been in Greece or Armenia. Everybody is in the melting pot as you said, pal. Do you call Black people in USA as minorities? Do they call themselves Africans? Have they ever been in Africa before or speak any of African languages? Of course not. --JohnEmerald 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicities 

message: Bu madde yalan Olmuş !!!!
Bu kapsamda, Türkiye’nin güvenlik kaygıları temel olarak
Terörizm, uzun menzilli füzeler ve kitle imha silahlarının yayılması, İrticai faaliyetler, Bölgesel çatışmalardan kaynaklanmaktadır. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeak  (talk • contribs) 
:And that means? yandman 08:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means: Me Turk man,Personal attack removed    Sshadow 10:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madde 

message: An IP address, 172.130.190.2 , reverted my contributions and then added stuff to my talk page without signing that. I will explain what I wrote here so that all can judge. 
The article mentions that Turkey WRT European Union ... "being an associate member since 1964." This sounded odd to me so checked up and the protocol that started this associate status off (initially as a Customs union) was the Ankara agreement and it was signed in September 1963. I thus wrote what I feel was the correct information by removing the 1964 and replacing that with,
"September 1963 with the signing of the Ankara Agreement with the EEChttp://www.abgs.gov.tr/en/tur-eu_relations_dosyalar/chronology.htm"
If this is wrong then please say why instead of just reverting and adding snide comments accusing me of vandalism. Ttiotsw 00:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW - other Wikipedia pages have the year as 1963 e.g. EU-Turkey_Customs_Union Enlargement_of_the_European_Union . Nope it look like the IP address needs to assume good faith in edits before going on about vandalism, though I'm happy to admit I'm wrong if it is in fact 1964 and correct the other Wikipages. Ttiotsw 01:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I'm happy it's 1964. The other Wikipedia articles are thus wrong too if they specifically don't mention the signing of the Ankara Agreement but just the associate member status. I suggest new text of,
being an associate member since December 1964 following the signing of the Ankara Agreement with the EEC in September 1963 http://www.abgs.gov.tr/en/tur-eu_relations_dosyalar/chronology.htm.
Ttiotsw 05:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have updated Enlargement of the European Union and  European Union-Turkey Customs Union to correctly reflect the 1964 date compared to the 1963 signing of the agreement. Hopefully keeps the various IP addresses happy and stops personal attacks !. Ttiotsw 06:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Found another Wikipedia page that was in error Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union and have updated that not with what I know to be correct but what I could WP:VERIFY. Subtle difference missed by some I guess. Ttiotsw 23:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding 1963/1964 EEC Associate Membership dates. 

message: I corrected Creosus to Croesus but it was reverted and I was accused of vandalism. This talk is here to explain what I did so that all can judge. As far as I can work out the correct spelling in English of this kings name is Croesus. Whoever reverts this can they please explain why they think it isn't that. Do we need a redirect from Creosus to Croesus ?. Please explain yourself before reverting and accusing people. Please assume good faith here. Ttiotsw 00:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not revert spelling changes of Creosus else it will be a redlink in the article. 

message: The original article had,
"In October 2005, the European Union opened accession negotiations with Ankara and thus Turkey is a candidate country to join the European Union as a full member, having been an associate member since 1964."
The article seemed to imply that all of sudden in October 2005 accession negotiations started. This is wrong as talks with Turkey have been going on since, well 1963 or more but for this Wikipedia article we can't just list the zillion and one meetings that have taken place so it is really just the key documents that are the turning points in the discussions. Obviously the initial Ankara agreement in September 1963 is one but the more relevant in recent history are the EU-Turkey Accession Partnership Document and the Turkish National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis. I felt that given Acquis is such a important point with regards to EU law that this had to be hooked in there. On the relevance to Turkey please read the section in Wikipedia on Acquis and you will see that for the negotiations with Croatia and Turkey, the acquis was split up into 35 chapters instead - so any reference to Turkish National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis is so very relevant. In fact the concept of Acquis would probably make euroskeptics recoil in discust as it is usually presumed to be a non-negotiable "ratchet" of law, rules and regulations and pro-Euro people knowingly nod in agreement (google Acquis and ratchet). So I feel Acquis is the key important turning point and so I changed the article to,
"In March 2001 the Council of Ministers of the European Union accepted the EU-Turkey Accession Partnership Document and the Turkish Parliament accepted the corresponding Turkish National Programme for the Adoption of the Acquis. Since that time, amongst other efforts, a significant number of changes to Turkish constitutional and other law have taken place. The European Commission periodically publishes details on the progress of Turkey towards full EU membershiphttp://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/turkey/key_documents_en.htm."
as it correctly, I feel, mentions the critical accession documents which were negotiated a few years prior to October 2005 which is the date mentioned by the current Wikipedia article. 
As this change isn't as clean as the 1963/1964 Ankara Agreement date issue we need some consensus  that my version is more accurate than the previous version. Yours in good faith... Ttiotsw 01:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need consensus on timeline of Turkey-EU talks for most relevant accession milestones. 

message: Isn't the new locator map funny? It has the same format as in the EU countries, e.g. Finland or Poland, instead of the format of the countries that are not EU members, check Albania or Belarus for example. and before jumping into quotes about candidancy, also see Croatia and Republic of Macedonia. Someone correct it please. Hectorian 14:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi I'm the one who made the new map to replace the old and ugly version standing there since 2004. I had no idea that this could be an issue of discussion and I definitely do not see the "fun" part. I think there cannot be any mention of a "correction", since there is nothing wrong on the map (if there is anything wrong, please indicate so that they can be corrected), I also think that the maps for Croatia and Republic of Macedonia should also mark the EU countries, since these are now official EU candidates and it's very illustrative to see the geographical relation of the union and the country in question. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 14:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely keep the old one. Having this map in the intro gives the false impression that Turkey is part of the EU. There is already a map with the EU countries and Turkey in the "foreign relations/EU" section, so there is no reason to highlight the EU on the main map. Why not the Developing 8, or the OIC, or the OECD, or Nato, all of which Turkey is a member of? yandman 15:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I do not get how on earth one can possibly think Turkey is currently an EU member. You can propose ways to get rid of any amgibuities you think exists with using this image, but we should not replace it with the old one. I can't resist to express that I'm a bit sick of people making a discussion out of every single thing about Turkey. What is wrong with the map? The probability of someone getting a wrong impression? Then please go on and fix it. You could just type a note like "Turkey is currently not an EU member" under the image, or if it's not enough, to a dozen other places. I guess I'm not in a good mood today. Sorry. If this is really an issue, the clearest solution is not to mark EU members on the map, like the maps used by Armenia, Georgia (country), Albania and others. Or Croatia and Republic of Macedonia maps could be "corrected" to mark EU member states, as there is nothing that makes their usage "the standard". (Croatia, Republic of Macedonia, and Turkey are the three EU candidates.) Atilim Gunes Baydin 15:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I repeat: why would the EU be highlighted when neither the Developing 8 nor the OIC nor the OECD nor Nato are highlighted? Turkey isn't even in the EU! I also repeat: A map like this is already present in the article. You'll notice that the maps of countries that are in Europe but not the EU have a map where Europe is highlighted, but not the EU. The clearest solution is to follow that style. And as for being an EU member, remember that we don't all live in Europe. Our colleagues unfortunate enough to live in the US probably aren't as well informed about EU politics (if they even know what the EU is...) yandman 15:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I made another version that does not mark the EU member states (:Image:Europe location TUR2.png). Please allow some time for discussion and the map can be replaced with the unmarked one. And who said Turkey is in the EU? Did I miss anything? And I shall repeat my idea that it could be established as a practice that EU candidates can mark the existing EU members on their maps in the infobox. Who is to decide such things? Atilim Gunes Baydin 16:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use the second version, it's consistent with other European countries that are outside the EU. --Bjarki 16:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the map. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 16:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi. Quite the contrary i am in a very good mood today, that's why i found the map "funny" and i laughed out loud with yandman's comment if they even know what the EU is...;-). Had i not been in good mood, i would call the map "weird", trying to find reasons for its appearence... Anyway, the locator map in the countries that are EU members (and the two countries that definately will become in 1-1-2007, Bulgaria and Romania), has the respective country highlighted, the other EU member states slightly highlighted and the rest of Europe normal. If we highlight the candidate countries as well, how will the map seem in e.g. Croatia? that FYROM and Turkey are already members... I think we should follow the same format as in the other European states. there is nothing negative like making a discussion out of every single thing about Turkey. come on! the map is the first that attracts the reader's attention! this is how i noticed it, btw. i think, Atilim Gunes Baydin, that the new map u created is fine. but if u find it important to have maps highlighting the candidate states along with the member states in the main country articles (i believe such a map should exist further down) have in mind that another colour should be used for the candidates, as, e.g. in the Council of Europe , where each status is marked with another colour. and another comment (maybe irrelevant, but i saw some confusion in this discussion): the EU is not an organisation like OIC or OECD. it is a hypernational union, a confederation, or (if maybe) a wannabe federation... Regards Hectorian 17:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much for clearing! I thought the "funny" issue was meant to be a rude comment. I think that's again because of today's malfunction in my "assume good faith" routines. I maintain that the maps of EU candidate states could mark the existing members (not like the case you mentioned for Croatia, I mean, I marked Bulgaria and Romania only because it is definitely established that they will join the union on January 1st) but I don't want to insist on that. Perhaps something on that line could be made later. Regards and καληνύχτα, Atilim Gunes Baydin 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the new map as well, although I think we should have all country maps based more on geography rather than politics, but that's just my opinion. BTW yandman, what exactly do you mean by "unfortunate enough to live in the US"?? :-) Khoikhoi 02:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Map 

message: I dont know who put Bush's picture on Turkey's page but I am totally taking that off... I respect everyone's opinion but Bush definetely should not be on Turkey's page...If you are very much interested, you can put Ahment Necdet Sezer's picture on USA's page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltimur (talk • contribs) 
::Are you going to give a reason, or is there a policy I've overlooked stating that all pictures must be of people you approve of? yandman 08:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a common sense that if a country's president is handshaking with USA president, that means, this country is somewhere important, it has an important role on world politics etc. Here's a proof, Turkey's important: here's Bush, handshaking our president. See.. --JohnEmerald 10:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noone likes Bush so i guess this shouldnt be a problem. Metb82 04:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Bush in Turkey? 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Khorshid 13:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Kurds}}