Talk:Turkey/Archive 13

message: I am new to wikipedia, hence could not edit a semi-protected article. Could someone with an account fix the fact that in the article there is no mention of the fact that Turkey is a part (founding member?) of the Developing-8 organisation. And the article says Turkey is a Developed Nation. I found this a little odd. (See Developing_8_Countries).
Have a great day!
59.96.94.75 07:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No Mention of Turkey's Membership in D8

message: I stumbled onto this article and was shocked to find that some Turks actually believe they are considered a Eurasian nation, this is highly inaccurate. Turkey's small enclave in Continental Europe is neither a natural or ethnic reflection of the country, it would be analogous to argue that Spain is an African country based on its tiny outposts in North Africa. Additionally Turks have no ethnic, cultural or historical commonality with Europe apart from Terrorizing the Romanians and Balkan peoples. Koalorka 23:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know the meaning of Eurasia? It is the name of the main continent which contains both Europe and Asia. Let me put it this way, geographically, there is no difference between Germany, Turkey and China. They are all located on Eurasia. Deliogul 18:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Turks have a saying, "Kazın ayağı öyle değil", which simply means "That is not the case". Europe and Asia are terms that were constructed according to the ancient understanding of the world, which is a perspective with no geographical basis. By the way, I think you are also not familiar with the ethnic distribution of humans because ethnically Turks have nothing to do with Arabs etc. Turks also have another saying, "Bilmeden fikir sahibi olmak", which means "Having an idea about a case without actually knowing the case". Think about it. Deliogul 20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sadly, there is not a thing called Mongolic/Arabic ethnic inheritance in Turkey's case. Turks came from Central Asia and they are not Mongols (see Oghuz Turks) or Arabs. Also, what is the Arab derived language. Turkish language has its roots in Central Asia and once owned its unique language system (see Orkhon script). Of course, Ottomans adopted the Arabic "alphabet" because Arabic is the language which Qur'an was written in. This doesn't mean that Anatolian people were talking in Arabic, they were still talking in Turkish. There were some influences that shaped the direction of Turkish language. Once it was under the effect of the Persian literature and, during the 19th century, under the effect of the Western languages, dominantly French. Assuming that, at least, we all know that both French people and Persians are not Mongolic or Arabic, your interesting theory comes to an end here. Actually, it would be hard for you to conclude any discussion positively, as long as you keep your current way of thinking. Deliogul 20:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkey Asian country

message: Minor Technical thing, can someone with account fix it?  There is this "time line" thing but when you click on it, well it look like cubist abstract art... no text no nothing.  can someone delete that or switch it with an actual time line or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.69.231 (talk • contribs) 
I think that cubic abstract art thing is like an icon of timelines. You should click the link next to it (History of Republic of Turkey) to go to the template, Template:Timeline of the history of the Republic of Turkey. The timeline is too wide, it may cause problems. denizTC 05:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline Broken?

message: Turkey with its 70M population have the 60% science output of 1.5 Billion muslim world, besides its annual science output growth rate is even twice of some EU countries. I could not find any place to put these kind of scientific output information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.179.60 (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be a little scientific and academic, just for a "minute". Deliogul 18:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look at the second definition of minute.66.211.241.60 (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In case anybody wants to include it in the article, here I found a source for the 60% claim. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific output of Turkey 

message: Finally :) I just ran into this: . This should put an end to it. It is a major survey done by a major newspaper and research institutes among 50,000 people about the ethnic repartition and identification of Turkey. I will slowly integrate the info in there to concerned articles. It also includes the first serious survey on language repartition since 1965 btw.
So, among adults, 82 percent of the population are Turks, 13 Kurdish+Zaza, the rest Caucasian etc (obviously this was about self-identification, not genetic testing) And no, half the Turkey is not Kurdish or Albanian :)))
As for assimilation:
* 4 percent of the population self-identifies as Turk even though their first language is Kurdish,
* 8.82 percent self-identifies as Kurd even though their first language is ₥Turkish.
+ 1.38 percent has Arabic as first language even though 0.7 percent self-identifies as Arab, and there are more Arabs than Zaza.
There is more info in the survey, but those ones were interesting. Those percentages are included in the general self-identification survey. The info there can be used in many articles about Turkey, it is a pretty good source. It also includes info on Lausanne minorities. I will try to update this article based on that later today. Baristarim 17:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratualtions. I hope and wish that this survey might put an end to all the discussions going on. I believe we should make more people hear about this. Again, thanks for sharing. Thelorien 17:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, this survey clearly puts an end to any argument going on, doesn't it? Cause Turkey is a place that you can carelessly give answers about how you identify yourself ethnically to any reporter coming from the west, and the number of people who claim to have kurdish as a mother tongue in a survey using wrecked population statistics as the basis of sampling process clearly identifies the percentage of ethnic groups within population. Oh, and the newspaper cited is also one of the most impartial sources of information titled with a name as "nationality" and i guess this paper should also be known for reporting any item throughly and decently, so that we can agree that the survey it has paid to be conducted should be held as the last point to be made on the subject. What a relief this is..TheDreamingCelestial 01:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Soapboxing. Any other points? Baristarim 04:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The survey that we had been waiting for 

message: I noted that it's widely believed that 99.0% of Turkish population is Muslim. This percentage is getting upto 99.8% in some other sites. I tried to find a official or unofficial statistics in internet but I couldn't. I believe that this statistics don't reflect the reality. I've checked the talk archive of this article, and saw that there were some other people with same doubt, and asked for a citation. Current citation directs to a missing page. This page supposed to be in the site of an international development agency. It doesn't sound reliable. I added a 'citation needed' in this sentence. Please don't remove it until there's an official source of information. iyigun 20:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it, and that was the best one there was available. The link is there but there might be a typo. I have reverted you both here and in Religion in Turkey. I will try to fix the problem though. Baristarim 20:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And not quite. A survey by a newspaper in 2001 had found that 97.4 percent were Muslims. However I cannot remember where I had seen it. Will check back in. And why is it not "reliable"? Please try to raise the issues in the talk page before making substantial changes and particularly before adding fact tags. Cheers! Baristarim 20:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not reliable because they label people as Muslims right after they were born hehe :) I'm not the best Muslim around but my ID says that I'm one... This is the problem. See you, Deliogul 22:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know :)) For one reason whenever I hear something like "99" or, even worse, "99.8" percent it just doesn't sound right.. There was a debate in another page sometime ago about Cultural Muslim.. Baristarim 23:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can use your percentage (97.4%) in the article but we have to mention that this is the legal status of people and doesn't have to be correct in real life. Deliogul 09:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  It's not reliable because they don't give any source to the information in their site. Do you really believe that an agency which defines itself as "international development agency" can determine such statistics? If you find such statistics in "www.die.gov.tr" or from a respectful international organization which deals with statistics this would be reliable. Btw, the link in the citation doesn't work. Please either remove the citation or correct the link. iyigun 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As a second topic, if we're not able to confirm the statistics, we should write that this is not confirmed. In my opinion it could be written like "although it's not confirmed, it's widely accepted that..." I don't think wikipedia is the correct place to express such  wishes or claims. iyigun 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear Baristarim, don't you think that we should at least mention in the article that "99%" does not reflect reality because of this reason or that reason? You also know that this religion marker you're talking about is the reason of this high value in the statistics and there has never been a major survey. Can't we just tell it to other people also? If it's written here as 99% and reference a site, someone reading this may think it's actually reality. iyigun 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In Turkey, is it not required that every individual be born into a religion? If nothing else, I heard that one was automatically registered by the government as a Muslim, but correct me if I am wrong. Maybe thats why the percentage is higher than should be.Tourskin 03:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: These numbers are pure political. As Tourskin said, you are given the religion of your father when you were born (in many cases Islam) and nobody asks anything about it again during your life if you don't change it with your own will (which is nearly impossible in many regions of Turkey). So in that 99.8%, there are practicing Sunnis, Cultural Muslims, atheists, deists etc. That 99.8% also contains a huge Alevi population that is very different from the Sunni population. I'm not even talking about the state's suppression on non-Sunni people (by giving insane funds to Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı etc.). Deliogul 10:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in the 2008 budget of Turkey, the government is giving an appropriation of 1,5 billion dollars to the Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı. If they would give this money to a single person, the guy would directly enter the "top ten wealthiest people list" of Turkey. Deliogul (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion statistics 

message: User:Bush is vandalising the article. I reverted twice but he keeps vandalising. He should be stopped immediately.--Ugur Olgun 20:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What just happenned??!!! Man, some people are really going out of their way to be negative.. And now the article is full protected.. Baristarim 21:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh man, I was going to work on updating the demographics section tonight with the help of the survey above... :( Baristarim 21:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If there's no objections, I'll unprotect and set sprotection back again. The vandal is bound to run out of sleeper accounts at some point. El_C 21:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ok with that. Baristarim 21:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And we can always introduce range blocks, or even contact its ISP and file an abuse report. El_C 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: They've tried range blocks did not work. Artaxiad 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Let's just see what will happen. If he is using proxies it could be harder to stop him, but I don't know... Baristarim 21:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: He doesn't use proxies. Artaxiad 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That guy has got too much time in his hands to waste :) Baristarim 01:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't we all? (Despite being very busy at the same time, maybe) Did we not block the page before against new users? Did s/he have all of those user names ready? Man, people think a lot ahead. :) denizTC 06:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Those sleeper accounts (and the ones at Armenia) involve really well-sought-out names, though! I find that somewhat amusing. ;) El_C 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandals back again 

message: What happened to the pictures? Baristarim 18:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As You can see,deleted due to Copyright problems. There is a gap in our watchlist. Please check a way for watch to deletion nominated images.Must.T  C  18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Ocobot identified one broken link in this article: http://www.unfpa.org.tr/turkey/countryinfo.htm. I'd replace it with http://www.unfpa.org.tr/countryinfo.htm but I cannot as the article is protected against editing by normal registered users. Please take care of this. Thank you. — Ocolon 08:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have fixed it. But it's funny - it doesn't seem to be the same link which I had pasted a while back, even though it looks very similar. Did they take the info out since then? I will check into this asap, so in the meantime don't remove it yet please! Baristarim 05:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: The motto of Turkey isn't unofficial. It's official. See also Turkish Version of Wikipedia.
:Actually, a national motto is a word or sentence which you can read on the emblems and coat of arms of the countries. Turkey hasn't got such a word on her flag and, imho, Turkey has no coat of arms either. We can call SPQR a national motto but we can't determine a motto for Turkey because there is not an officially accepted one. Turkey uses different quotes from her founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Deliogul 11:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the motto line not deleted on the page? Clearly it is not the officially accepted motto and it neither reflects the country's policies or actions..TheDreamingCelestial 01:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto 

message: hi - why is the article locked?? grrrr.... --74.53.88.50 10:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess, it is locked because of some high profile! vandals. We can barely add new things to articles because all we do is to fix the articles after vandal attacks. Take care, Deliogul 11:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hi 

message: I wanted to make some (rather minor) changes, I will write them down, and that put the editportected tag if there are no objections. I was just going to make these edits, but due to Ararat arev's (or maybe Artaxiad?) disruptive edits, I cannot do it now
section Turkey#Pre-Turkic History of Anatolia:
from
:renaming it Constantinople (now İstanbul). After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it became the capital of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire.
to
:renaming it New Rome (later Constantinople and Istanbul). After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it became the capital of the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire).
please remove the blank space at the end of section as well (one byte gained one byte gained)
:Since this page was very recently protected for edit warring, it wouldn't be appropriate for anyone to make this kind of change.  The protection will likely be removed in a few days, at which point you will be able to edit the article to make the desired changes. CMummert · talk 12:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  editprotected 

message: Page protected to deal with vandalism once more. I'm still banging my head against my desk over this... it's amazing how persistant some users are, so we need to send the message clearly... "We don't care, go away". --Deskana (fry that thing!) 16:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: What religion status has Turkey? How many muslims (Shia/Sunni), christians and so on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.108.226.234 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the article, and is comprehensively covered and links to other articles which cover the subject fully is given as well :) Baristarim 01:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion? 

message: This page is getting vandalised a lot, dispite the semi-protection. 
What makes me point the finger at sockpuppets is the curious manner in that the attacks bring the page to a similar or identical state as other attacks I've seen. Either hunt the puppeteer or consider stricter protection. Bob f it 13:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are sockpuppets of User:Ararat arev (I hope I got it right this time). He has already been banned from editing either from an account or anonymously, but from what I hear he has been hijacking these accounts and using them to bombard the article. --LuigiManiac 13:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been happening recently today. BuickCenturydriver   (Honk, contribs)   16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ararat arev.. He will eventually get tired and do something more worthwhile. :) Baristarim 03:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, 244+58 sockpuppets at the moment, so  303 accounts (probably many more).  He stopped being imaginative though. DenizTC 05:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet attacks? 

message: 
Please remove the Emilian-Romagnol (eml:) interwiki, which covers the bird turkey rather than the country. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --ais523 17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False interwiki 

message: The information given isn't accurate. Please check tr:Türkiye.Mavromatis 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area 

message: Someone added this link at archaeology, for which it is too specific, but I thought it might be used here, either in External Links or under the prehistory section: Archaeological Turkey PaladinWhite 12:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe under Tourism in Turkey or History of Turkey (or History of Anatolia)? I am really wary that any additions of touristic ELs will break down the floodgates.. Baristarim 12:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: External links should not be put in the article body, and this one doesn't fit into the external links section at the end, which is carefully focused. CMummert · talk 13:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *shrug* I haven't done any work on this article, but the link looked potentially useful, so I just wanted to pass it on to those who would have a more educated perspective on it. PaladinWhite 15:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries! I will see what I can do with it, I will add it to one of the articles above. Cheers! Baristarim 17:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: External links in the article body are called "citations". If you want to stick an external link into an article, find some claim that the linked page makes and cite it. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add archaeology link 

message: I started to hate this, whenever I try to edit this article, I find out that mr vandal, Ararat arev, or Artaxiad, or whoever else, with their hundreds of (suspected) sockpuppets, and gazillions of hacked accounts, managed to get the article protected once again. Please tell me on which administrative page I should mention this, so that we can possibly stop it. Apparently no one is going to do anything except reverting and protecting, and the vandal gets away with it. If we have similar vandals attacking other articles, this might be the doom of Wikipedia. denizTC 00:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what else can be done? I dare say every option has already been considered. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 21:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that is about all we can do. But we do understand that this is a pain in the ass, too, and we will be very happy to make protected edits. Just put up  and say what you want done. It sucks, I agree, but sooner or later the guy will get bored and go away. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the vandal always wins 

message: Just note there is no entry for Abdullah Gul, currently Foreign Minister and set to become President of Turkey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 57.67.177.33 (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Abdullah Gül denizTC 03:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: According to Turkish state politics, there is a seperate state in the northern part of the island. It is clear that this state is not an official sovereign state. Therefore I want to ask two questions. First, why did you write this comment under "Abdullah Gül" headline? Second, do you want us not to count a governmental body as an actor in the region because it is not a legitimate one? Don't forget that, even if Turkey doesn't accept Northern Iraq as a seperate political entity, this doesn't change the reality about the autonomy that is enjoyed by the Kurdish population in the region and their effect on the regional politics. Deliogul 19:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abdullah Gul 

message: I think the following sentence is not correct:
:"Following their victory over the Byzantine Empire in the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, the Turks began to abandon their nomadic roots in favour of a permanent role in Anatolia, bringing rise to the Seljuk Empire.[20]"
If you have ref #20 (cyril mango, oxford history of byzantium), please check it, and if the sentence above is not correct, write down the corrected version below, so that an admin can edit it.  Thanks. denizTC 03:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They wouldn't become an empire if they weren't settled but I'm not sure that they gave up nomadic tradition specially for Anatolia. Also, nomadic tradition didn't just go away, there were many people in Turkish ruled lands that still live according to old traditions. Deliogul 16:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  section [[Turkey#Turks_and_the_Ottoman_Empire]] 

message: Feel free to outline your edits here and an admin may add these to the protected page for you. Thank you, and sorry for the inconvenience. El_C 02:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits to chronically protected page

message: Shouldn't as turkey's national motto be as "ne mutlu türküm diyene" this phrase is more commonly used. Or maybe "egemenlik kayıtsız şartsız milletindir" as it is written on parliment.
:Actually, a national motto is a word or sentence which you can read on the emblems and coat of arms of the countries. Turkey hasn't got such a word on her flag and, imho, Turkey has no coat of arms either. We can call SPQR a national motto but we can't determine a motto for Turkey because there is not an officially accepted one. Turkey uses different quotes from her founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Deliogul 11:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "ne mutlu turkum diyene" (how proud are those who pronounce themselves as turks) should be marked as the motto, because it defines the structure and reality of the state and also all the elementary school students are made to cry this motto out every single day in the state schools which comprehend some 80%+ of the people at that age. It is also frequently used in the military as the young male population is forced to cry this slogan out throughout the mandatory military service and they are also made to write this slogan in the face of the mountains with rocks painted in white, especially in the regions where the low-intensity war with the kurdish separatists is going on. the current 'motto' listed is one of the more moderate sentences devised by M.Kemal (the founder), but it is not actually referenced that much aside from some opportunistic accounts in contemporary history books and it is mostly favored by a small cadre of elitist intellectuals and not the state itself.TheDreamingCelestial 01:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Motto

message: minor edit
section Turks and Ottoman Empire
from
:In its wake, one of the Turkish principalities governed by Osman I was to evolve into the Ottoman Empire, thus filling the void left by the collapsed Seljuks and Byzantines.
to
:In its wake, one of the Turkish principalities in Anatolia governed by Osman I was to evolve into the Ottoman Empire, thus filling the void left by the collapsed Seljuks and Byzantines.
Thx denizTC 03:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Proposed edit 1]

message: undelete the article, immediately, please denizTC 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, the deletion was to remove the recent disruptive edits which has made the history not useful, it has now been restored and unprotected. --WinHunter (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Proposed edit 2]

message: section Turkey#Turks and the Ottoman Empire from 
:The empire was not to last, however; by 1243 the Seljuk armies were defeated by the Mongols and the power of the empire slowly disintegrated. to 
:In 1243, the Seljuk armies were defeated by the Mongols and the power of the empire slowly disintegrated.
section Turkey#Republican era 
#from Kemal Pasha to Mustafa Kemal
#from Following a decade of intercommunal violence on the island of Cyprus and the subsequent Athens-inspired coup, Turkey intervened militarily in 1974, resulting in the breakaway Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus recognised only by Turkey. to
::Following a decade of intercommunal violence on the island of Cyprus and the subsequent Athens-inspired coup, Turkey intervened militarily in 1974. Nine years later Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) was established. TRNC is recognised only by Turkey.
Please also redo the edit suggested by WardHayesWilson below. DenizTC 01:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Proposed edit 3]

message: The first sentence of the Culture article is hard to read. "Turkey has a very diverse culture that is a blend of various elements of the Oğuz Turkic and Anatolian, Ottoman which was itself a continuation of both Greco-Roman and Islamic cultures, and Western culture and traditions which started with the Westernization of the Ottoman Empire and continues today." 
I suggest the sentence be edited to read "Turkey has a very diverse culture that is a blend of various elements including Oğuz Turkic and Anatolian, Ottoman (which was itself a continuation of both Greco-Roman and Islamic cultures), Western culture and traditions which started with the Westernization of the Ottoman Empire."
I'm not sure my edit preserves the full intention of the original. My guess is the author is involved in a complicated political act of trying to carefully acknowledge a host of cultural influences and at the same time subtly and carefully suggest the importance of each without offending anyone. But the sentence as constructed is confusing and hard to understand.
Maybe it should be broken into two sentences.
WardHayesWilson 15:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not currently under full protection, you may edit it yourself. --WinHunter (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is protected now, and it's been two days without any objection, so they've been split into two sentences without changing the meaning at all.  Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested readability edit

message: This article is a Featured Article. so I request that an admin add the  template so that the little cute star appears at the top right corner of the article. Thanks. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A.Garnet is right. The problem is not just a missing  tag. Going through the history, I see that the problem is introduced by admin User:Shreshth91 at 17:05, 28 April 2007 (, marked "minor" with edit summary "moved User:Riana/Turkey dump to Turkey: history merge"), reverting the article to a much older state easily recognizable by its layout / linking of currently non-existing images / lack of  template at the top. All the good-faith edits after that point only fix the issues of an obsolete version of the article, like the linking of dead-images. The article should be reverted back to  edited by User:Denizz at 03:30, 25 April 2007. I have never been able to understand what the admins are trying to achieve by these cut-and-paste operations and now this actually did serious harm to the article. Please be more careful, the article suffers enough from the vandals. Atilim Gunes Baydin 15:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I did wonder why there were so many dead images to remove from a featured article. My humblest apologies to all involved. Feel free to have a yell at me on my talk page. – Riana ऋ 15:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Riana's last edit fixed the problem. The article seems fine to me now, and I apologize if I overreacted. The article represents the collective effort of dozens of users and many hours of serious work and it made me quite emotional to imagine it being carelessly copied and pasted between pages. It could also be a technical fault. Thanks for the quick fix. Atilim Gunes Baydin 17:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request / Serious harm done by an administrator 

message: Can anyone explain exactly why this vandal is repeatedly vandalising this page? I don't get what's so special about his page version. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 00:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No easy answer. Obviously, an idée fixe propogated by a very disturbed and determined individual. El_C 00:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you also take a look at the proposed edit 3 above ? Thanks DenizTC 15:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: i think the bird is unnecessary at the top since there is already a disambiguation and humiliating/misleading coz the name of the bird comes from the country. 85.97.12.110 22:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please before you post any comment on Wikipedia, do check it is correct. I can clearly see that you've failed to do that. There are no "real" references to any genocides that you've mentioned. The stress on the world real is becuase I believe, a real reference does not come from a politician but from a scientist. Thelorien 17:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, also, please do get used to the correct and official name of our beautiful city Istanbul. One might think that you still live in the Medieval Ages...Thelorien 17:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: All of this Genocide business is nothing but a theory and we can't accept it just because some politicians accept it to collect more votes. If you would know anything about the six arrow of Kemalism, you wouldn't say such things. Also, why didn't you sign your post? Here is mine, Deliogul 15:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can accept that Kemal was great leader, I can accept the his intentions for Turkey where good from the point of view of the average Turk Muslim. What the average Turk cannot accept (including you as I can see) is that Turkey is a state that was founded in a land that belong and was inhabited by many different "millet's". Kemal, his predecessors and his successors saw that as a weakness and decided to solve it by ethnic cleansing. This is not a theory it is a historic fact, the only place in the world that this is not accepted is Turkey. The reason is simple and it is that people would need to revisit their history and identity and moral standing. That is a very brave stance that not many people are willing to take but I guarantee you that this is the only way forward. If you are looking for evidence here is some: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-44274/Armenia (note where it says the first genocide of the 20th century) this is britannica not "some politician". You can find a lot of evidence everywhere if you look (with the eyes open:) ). Finally the fact that there are many efforts to not present those facts is evidence that it is a significant issue for Turkey. People in Turkey are dying all the time, others go to jail for mentioning the truth, doesn't that make you suspicious? Since you talked about the six arrows you would know that one of them is populism... in other words you need to sustain a popular myth among the uneducated masses... I firmly believe that it needs to be mentioned. -- Kosta Servis 12:52 GMT+10 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Farm3r (talk • contribs) 02:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Britannica is not a reliable source of information just like many others are not for one very simple reason: Those information did not exist till this very decade. Before, this "artificial" genocide could not harm the realation between the Armenians and Turks. Well, now it can because now Turkey is in great danger. Now, there are many people who "choose" to believe what you defende because this idea is also defended by the superpowers of Europe. One more thing. How reasonable do you believe France's acts are. They theoratically defend freedom of speech. Well, now they don't. They ban to "tell the truth" as you've mentioned. It is banned to express you idea. One last thing. I also live in Turkey but what you said about jails makes no sense. I have many Kurdish friends. I didn'T hear about that even from them. But you know what, you guys will not succeed. You'll never make me and my fellow citizens hate our Kurdish fellows. We are brothers. I do not expect you to understand brotherhood. Still, do RESPECT it.Thelorien 17:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "You can find a lot of evidence everywhere if you look (with the eyes open:))"... Hımm, I'm a student at the Koç University, a university which uses the US system in all of its structure (and it has a considerably big library), so it is really hard to find a more "objective" place in Turkey to talk such things "freely". I'm here, talking to you as an educated brother of those "uneducated" masses. I can clearly say that you are totally subjective. Bad things happened during the fall of the Ottoman Empire but they were because of the status co and things didn't happen in the way the Western scholars (actually not all of them) think today. I talked about the six arrows not because your claims are connected with Mustafa Kemal or his ideals but the six arrows is the symbol of progress and rise in a newly formed country. We can discuss for hours about your every single claim (you wrote them just like simple things but social sciences are not that simple) and we still can't reach to a conclusion. This is why they are not facts but theories. They are not the law of gravity which is a pure example for the things that we call "facts". Deliogul 19:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear Farm3r, why dont you start looking at things from our perspective for only a short time. Our grandfathers were fighting with the rest of the world and there wasnt even any food to find. Then imagine a people, a people who you never discriminated, and brang to the highest statues of the Empire again founded by your grandfathers. There are millions of them and they start to join the rest of the world to fight you. You are completely weak not and will at least lose your country that you inhabited for thousand years in the end. what would your grandfathers do? give them flowers?? 85.97.12.25 00:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am quite disgusted by the logical fallacy that 85.97.12.25 has given. The Turks had began the "allegded" Armenian genocide in 1915, before World War 1 ended. Look at Germany and Austria, did they start ethnicnally cleansing people in their countries as the war came bad? Besides, you don't deal with a rebellion by crushing women and children too. Their are rules in war no matter what and civilians were caught up and murdered. Remember, the Turks were a Steppe peoples who came to Anotalia by force and conquest and butchered the inhabitants of Constantinople for at least two days. This proud empire that your grand fathers built was built upon murder. Turley cannot deny the Genocide forever, and the more it does  or the more it justifies the killing of Women and Children, the more barbaric it appears. It is well known that for centuries, Assyrians and Maronites have been heavily persecuted throughout the hundreds of years of Ottoman Rule. The Genocides of 1915 and after are no different. You may reply with all yoru anger that these are theories but blood has already soaked the lands of the Earth. There is no such extreme choice presented as teh one you are suggesting - giving flowers or massacring women and children or starving. However they died, they did so at the hands of the Young Turks. No you don't give flowers to your enemies User 85.97.12.25 BUT YOU DON'T GIVE THE FOLLOWING ORDERS: "In case of the smallest resistance, every soldier must perform his duty to murder these men in large numbers. The fatherland orders so. You must not neglect to perform your duty: every soldier is obliged to kill four to five Greeks for our country's grandeur. Every soldier is obliged to carry out the contents of this order."''
- The order of Nourredin, Chief of the Turkish army in Smyrna (Izmir) for the slaughter of the indigenous Greek population, 1922 The destruction and genonice of Smyrma. Tourskin 01:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citizens of Constantinople were killed by the Ottoman troops, a common thing for the Middle Ages for many sieges. You know, the citizens wouldn’t receive flowers if another army would manage to conquer the city instead of the Ottomans or Greeks wouldn't think a second to kill people if they would take Edirne etc. during the Middle Ages so be calm and don't judge the past with today’s understanding. Also, don't show it just like Turks killing people and remember what the Greek army did when they entered Anatolia back in 1919. Don't be subjective... Deliogul 20:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone please stop using wrong names of our city Istanbul. It is wordwide accepted that, even by the Greeks although they refure to admit that, Istanbul is the official and correct (also modern) name. Thelorien 17:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: On second review I agree with  386-DX, I was just putting an alternate view point in an equally inflammatory manner. Well the article should have a section questioning whether or not the Genocide occured but then again that would create endless debate so I must withdraw from this discussion without further suggestions. Sorry for any insults intended. You can deny the genocide, that is debatable but no one can deny that killing women and children is wrong. There is never a strict choice as to whether one should give flowers or death. Thats a logical fallacy because one is assuming that there is no middle way. That was what I found to be wrong. And yes, all empires and kingdoms are founded upon bloodshed, not just the Ottoman empire. Tourskin 00:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 386-DX, I don't want anybody to believe in "my version of history". It would be enough if they can be a little objective and really that's all. Tourskin, I didn't say that death is a good thing, I just said that it was "ordinary" in the past. Countless numbers of people died in America back in 1918 because of a simple illness like influenza. Today, we think that we are unlucky if we can't recover from it fast enough. So times are changing ;) Take care folks, Deliogul 09:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation 

message: Given the praise given to The Economist on the newspaper's Wikipedia article (and the fact that all the world's leaders read and rely on it, blah blah blah), can it be quoted as a reliable enough source concerning facts about Turkey's economy, ec. growth, statistics etc. ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.1.219.142 (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Economist is a perfectly reliable source. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: According to the Polity Index, Turkey's democracy score is 8/10 (not bad at all haha). This doesn't mean that Turkey doesn't have a "secular democracy" or it has a bad regime. The real problem is Papua New Guinea's score is 10/10 :) ... Actually, this is one thing but Turkey is 30 times more populous, nearly 40 times richer and has a way better HDI score. Deliogul 22:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Economist defines Turkey as a "a secular democratic state" - see here http://www.economist.com/countries/Turkey/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-FactSheet
Which article are you talking about? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.19.70.59 (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Economist: A reliable source ? 

message: Turkey is one of the top 10 world destinations in all tourism categories.why not adding this info into economy?
I LOVE INDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
YAY ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IM FROM THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YAY ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:Yay :) Please go to India related articles... Deliogul 14:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TOURISM

message: Why does the short history in this article not at least give a mention to the government of the Young Turks and the Armenian Genocide? These are very significant events in Turkish history. MarkThomas 12:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can be shocked when you hear it but the incident in 1915 is not accepted as a Genocide by many people. I guess there is not a healthy entry about the government of Enver Bey because there is not a consensus on what had happened during his time. Deliogul 15:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Mark, the issue is mentioned in the "Foreign relations" section with links to the articles you've cited. This is a consensus reached after serious discussions during this article's FA candidacy to mention the issue in relation to Turkey's foreign relations, since it's a major problem in that area. Atilim Gunes Baydin 15:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the above points, (1) I am not shocked that many Turks dispute the Armenian Genocide, but that is irrelevant to Wikipedia, which seeks to tell the truth - 24 countries now formally recognise it as a genocide and no serious historian outside Turkey doubts its existence, so not to mention it is extreme-Turkish-nationalist POV of the worst sort and (2) it isn't just a "foreign relations" issue. The fact that many Turks disaprove of mentioning it does not mean that it does not have a place here on the main Wikipedia page for Turkey. This logic extends to other country pages where people within that country for nationalistic or racist reasons do not want a particularly unpleasant episode in their countries' history to be mentioned. It's basically censorship of Wikipedia. MarkThomas 17:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that "the events of 1915–17, in which actions by the Ottoman Young Turks led to the forced mass evacuation and related deaths of an estimated hundreds of thousands, up to 1.5 million, Armenians." is clearly mentioned in the article, with links to Young Turks and Armenian Genocide articles for detailed information. So, what censorship are you talking about? Do you just want this to be repeated more than once within the article? I did not say it's "just" foreign relations and I'm also one of the least nationalistic persons you can encounter on the planet. I personally don't like what Deliogul's been doing with discussing the events instead of the article's situation, and using this page as a forum, while it is not. But it's his choice and style. Because of your reply bordering on rudeness, I tend to believe you've come here with the prejudice of not finding a reference to the events in the article and thus shouting "censorship", a prejudice not realized. The info and the links are in place since months and this article passed a very serious and lengthy FA review process with many comments and discussions (accessible in the archives) involving editors of Armenian ethnicity. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I should be clearer. My point is that it should be in the history section. The current context within foreign relations, together with the way in which it is described, makes it sound as if the whole thing is a misunderstanding by foreign powers about a much-misunderstood and best forgotten non-event in a minor part of Turkish history. Whereas the truth is that it is a central event in Turkish history. MarkThomas 21:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever. It's a lot more important than a "problem in foreign relations". However I agree with you that the Turks have had a long history of mass-murder, so it's not exactly a new thing. MarkThomas 21:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh!.Good deal.Must.T  C  13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MarkThomas, you showed that you are totally subjective. Yes, Turks didn't march to Anatolia with peace songs etc. but this is the same for every nation without exception. The West was burning people alive because they were "witches" during the Inquisitions. So don't play the defender of the civilization to us. Deliogul 11:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the genocides mentioned above are mentioned in articles, see for example []. The Boer War concentration camp victims and other victims of British imperialism I agree should be described briefly in United Kingdom and I will raise it. All I am asking for here is a sensible mention of this very key episode in the main history section. I'm afraid I don't find the argument that Turkey is not the successor state of the Ottoman Empire very convincing, especially since pride in Ottoman history appears to be a cornerstone of Turkish xenophobic racist nationalism. But at least you're not alleging that the Armenians just invented the whole thing, as many in Turkey apparently believe. MarkThomas 15:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Goooood I like the spirit!!! --Gokhan 21:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we'll be more embarrassed of Wikipedia. --A.Garnet 23:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Young Turks and the Armenian Massacre

message: It writes : "Other major ethnic groups include the Kurds, Circassians, Roma, Arabs and the three officially-recognized minorities (per the treaty of Lausanne) of Greeks, Armenians and Jews" 
Firstly there is no officially-recognized minority(no minority has special rights) in Turkey. Also in the treaty of Lausanne, no minorities were officialy recongnized and all the previous rights given to these minorities were cancelled officially.  The only rights minorities have right now are langugage related. 
The reference about the quoted part from the article, (that is [85]) does not say anything about any offical minorities. So that sentence is wrong and has no reference. It is a totaly subjective comment and therefore should be edited.
--81.213.200.31 17:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  demographics edit? 

message: (For some reason I am unable to edit NPOV? so this is a continuation of NPOV?)
Lets take things from the beginning and find out what you guys disagree in. Is it:
1. Kemalists in Turkey have commited genocide against a number of ethnicities.
1a. not a gencide because it is a rumour.
1b. not a genocide because we have the right to desplace, kill, force to labour etc. people who oppose our national policy.
1c. it wasn't the Kemalists it was the ... (insert scapegoat here) who did it.
1d. Only the Armenians suffered genocide, not the Greeks or the Kurds.
2. There is sufficient mention of those events in the article.
3. It is irrelevant to the Republic of Turkey, because since  the foundation of the Republic,  Armenians, Greeks or Kurds have been left alone.
Which is it? 
I am very interested in your opinions, and I am open to discussion and I might reconsider. Farm3r 22:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Young Turks are accused of committing Genocide, not Kemalists and yes, the Ottoman Empire always used harsh policies against rebels. Generally all nations in Anatolia faced such aggression by the Sublime Porte instead of Armenians until the 19th century. Times were changed so Armenians used the policies that they faced to shape their theories about Genocide. We have to clearly understand one thing, the empire forced Armenians to leave their homes, it used force on insisting fractions and many people died in the end this policy but this wasn't like the completely planned and organized Holocaust of Nazi Party. The goals were different and yes, if the empire was a bit capable at the time of these sad events, many Armenians wouldn't die because of hunger etc. Russians and British government were also in the business because they armed Armenian rebels and gave them promises which were impossible to be kept. So their ambition to save the day also shaped the situation. We can’t call an event a Genocide just because people died during that event. Take care folks, Deliogul 08:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be interested to see how long the revisionism on the Armenian genocide will last. Turkey has already threatened France to desist from officially recognising the Armenian genocide. Obviously its power to threaten any country that has a commemoration date for this atrocity is limited. It will probably end with Turkey being the only country to dispute this well documented event -- much in the same way that Turkey still recognises TRNC. Everyone demands a balanced representation of turkish history in this article but it seems all the black spots have been removed. --Tedblack 11:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is no problem to talk about the Armenian casualties in the article as long as the records are objective and not propaganda oriented. We are talking about an empire here. House of Osman couldn't just watch Armenian rebels are getting what they want. It would be two times worse since the WWI was continuing during the events. You are partially correct about the standing of Turkey but you shouldn't forget one thing. Many times, Turkish scholars offered Armenian scholars to gather and talk these issues with documents from the two sides but Armenian side hasn't taken any positive move yet. I also have to add that the events of 1915 are nobody's business but Turks and Armenians. France, California etc. don't have right to talk about this issue at least at political level (of course academic studies from all around the world are kept separated from politics of such states). See you brother, Deliogul 15:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, it is the duty of any signatory to the Genocide Convention to punish genocide.  So the events of 1915 are all signatories business.  (Where this argument breaks down is that there is not similar laws regarding denial of other genocides, except for the Holocaust). Fmark 13:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this argumentation should be developed under Ottoman Empire. Armenian efforts related with the Turkey is limited to bring the recognition of what they consider as a historical fact of the WWI. Issues related with the WWI (size of the casualties, who killed who...) should be under Ottoman Empire; simply that is the state and political system of its time. Talat Pasha is the Ottoman Empire's Pasha not the Republic of Turkey. Turkish people learn about the conditions of Ottoman Armenian citizens, but the Armenians do not learn about the conditions and difficulties of Ottoman Empire. I believe the hatred is so big, that they do not even want to use the word "Ottoman" in their language. Development of these issues under its time and period would create a better understanding of the issues involved, as all the related information will be under the same page. --Anglepush 23:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I want to know why other countries support Turkey in the region if they are working next Armenia to punish Turkey. Just have a look at the natural gas and industrial routes between the Central Asia and Europe (For example, ). They are just skipping Armenia, whatever the extra cost is. So thinking that one day Turkey will be left alone in the international arena is just absurd when we look at the growing social and economic ties between Turkey and the other countries. On the other hand, Armenia slowly becomes the playground of the Armenian Diaspora and if this economic exclusion will continue, they will have even harder times. I also didn't see any backfire from the West to Azerbaijan when Azeris said that they want Nagorno-Karabakh and other Armenian occupied territories back (they added that if Armenians don't give up these lands, Azerbaijan will invade Armenia). All of these can look irrelevant but actually they show the latest scores. Deliogul 14:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV2? 

message: As a Turk I understand why some Turkish users prefer using the Turkish dotted capital İ in Turkey-related texts such as "İstanbul" and "İzmir", etc. Many Spanish and French city names in the English Wikipedia also use such national letters.
However, such a use might be misleading, especially for those who don't know that the Turkish "İ" is practically the English "I", while the Turkish "I" is actually equal to the sound of ë.
Those who don't know this might think that the "İ" represents a "long I".
I've always wondered why my Italian friends say "Iiiiistanbul" instead of "Istanbul", perhaps thinking that the "İ" in front signifies the correct way that it should be spelled.
If I were not Turkish, I would also think the same way.
Therefore, it's perhaps better to avoid the Turkish "İ" unless it's really necessary.
Flavius Belisarius 07:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's really necessary. No average English reader knows how to read the non standard Latin letters in A Coruña, Münster, Antonín Dvořák, Franz Josef Strauß (and many other articles, as you have noted), and precisely for this reason, the pronunciation of these are presented at the beginning with IPA letters and a sound recording in some. Turkish language and the Turkish alphabet deserves the same respect shown to German, French, Spanish, Czech alphabets. Atilim Gunes Baydin 10:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of the Turkish "dotted I" (İ) in Turkey-related articles 

message: i doubt the country makes 350,000 billion a year.
: If you are referring to Nominal GDP, it already surpassed $410 billion by the end of March 2007 (2007 Q1)
: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/6820581.asp?rdr=1
: The exact figure is $410,823,000,000 in 2007 Q1 according to the Turkish State Statistics Institute.
: GDP-PPP is getting close to $700 billion at the moment. Flavius Belisarius 21:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that GDP per capita is even close to that number. It looks like an AKP propaganda. Deliogul 09:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: edit:I understand the source of my problem. Nominal values are at the bottom of PPP values. It confused me for half an hour so it can confuse others too. AKP has nothing to do about a problem maybe for the first time in their history :D Deliogul 10:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: money