Talk:Turkey/Archive 10

message: While Prime Minister is required to be the Member of Parliament, there is no restriction for the ministers. Thus, the phrase "Neither the Prime Minister nor the Ministers have to be members of Parliament" uttered under "Government and Politics" subtitle must be corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.6.78.82 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 November 2006  (UTC)
 Not done since the page is not fully protected, please ask other users more familiar to this topic rather than an admin to edit. Thanks. --WinHunter (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Correction required'''

message: Posts that have nothing to do with this specific article, no matter which viewpoint they represent, will be taken down and moved to the talk pages of articles where they might be relevant, if there are any. This is not a forum or a blog of any kind. Debate and discussion is encouraged, however endless looping discussions that do not conribute to the improvement of this article and that only serve to create a hostile working environnement, or irrelevant posts that only create confusion have no place in this talk page. Please do not import disputes from the talk pages of other articles. There have been many interesting and thought-provoking posts, but please ask yourself how relevant they are to this article and if they could not be of more use in the talk page of a more relevant article. Thanks... Baristarim 00:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Important Note'''

message: This article has been submitted for Good Article review. Baristarim 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article review

message: Help me expand these articles. --Armanos 22:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They should be the same article. However, I fail to see why you created the Bribery in Turkey article with only one sentence in the main, with no sources, that sentence being: "Turkey is a corrupt society".. Maybe when you have learned Wiki rules on sources and start to understand that Wikipedia is not a blog, then we can talk... Baristarim 22:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I merged the two articles, and put the neccessary WPTR and fact tags.. Baristarim 22:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bribery in Turkey

message: There's a severe logical error in the "Religion" section of the article on Turkey, where it says:
"The remainder of the population belong to other beliefs, namely Christian (Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism), Judaism, the Bahá'í Faith, Yezidism and Atheism."
This wrongfully lists Atheism as a belief. Atheism is exactly the absence or opposite of religious belief, i.e.: Atheism isn't a belief but disbelief. (see the article on Atheism)
Thus, this sentence needs to be reformulated so as to get Atheism out of that list of beliefs and named separately.
--82.194.109.112 12:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "most atheistic philosophers and groups define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities", taken from the relevant article. Anyway, I doubt the people answering the census in question where all philosophers. I think that in this case it is relatively safe to say that those classed as "atheists" are those with no religious beliefs. yandman 13:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the absence of belief in a deity. I believe that God doesn't exist: that is also a belief.. Baristarim 14:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the absence of belief does not imply the belief of absence. To quote Smith, "Atheism is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not a person who believes that a god does not exist, rather he does not believe in the existence of a god." yandman 14:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but it is not the absence of belief that makes atheism a belief: since an atheist doesn't believe that a God exists, he, most probably, believes in different theories (definitely bordering on spiritual and philosophical) as to creation and life. That's why it is a belief; of course it would not be a religious "belief" per se, however it is a spiritual belief in the same category as religions. Because religions are also beliefs that try to spiritualize about creation and life, and so does atheism in a way. The only difference is that "religions" have decided to address those concerns by incorporating the existence of a "God". Some earlier religions try to incorporate other elements, like fire etc. It was me who rewrote that particular section in question, and that's why I chose those words carefully instead of simply using religion: they are all beliefs. However, I can see why atheism can pose a problem at that level since, by its nature, it doesn't have a uniform dogma, therefore atheists can vary widely in their beliefs about creation, life etc. Much less than Muslims etc in any case. Baristarim 17:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Atheists are also spiritual people too sometimes :)) Baristarim 17:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no logic error. Strong atheists express a belief that there is no god i.e. they have a positive belief that there is no god (or is at least god or gods are highly improbably (for example this is how Richard Dawkins views himself - See The God Delusion). I'm happy with how the current article reads and there is no illogic with it being in the "Religion" section if religion is used to simply mean some belief system. I must point out that I'm with Dawkins on this so potential bias on my part. Ttiotsw 02:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't think it matters much. It's true that strong atheists are "believers" (per Baris and Ttiot), but I'm sure there are "weak" atheists, who just can't be bothered thinking about it. Anyway, I doubt the census asked the question as precisely as we would have liked it... yandman 08:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: true :)) Baristarim 13:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkey

message: Should we cut down on the pictures in the gallery? And, is it just my computer, or aren't all the images in the gallery visible? I am never able to see four-five of the images unless I put in their wiki image address and vision their original page.. Baristarim 22:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see all of the thumbnails except for Mount Nemrut/Adıyaman, for which there is no link to an image file either. That applies both for Mozilla and IE. Which ones can't you see? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That one and a two others, ones from Side and Troy.. I wonder what is wrong... Baristarim 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery

message: Shouldn't we say that Turkey contains the Sea of Marmara, rather than "bordering" it? AnonMoos 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Baristarim 14:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Borders the Sea of Marmara"

message: I think that this article should be renamed/moved to "Republican history of Turkey" per similar articles like Economic history of Turkey, Constitutional History of Turkey, what do you think? It only talks about history of Turkey since the foundation of the Republic in any case. Baristarim 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Republican" as an adjective in English has many meanings, while, "History of the Republic of Turkey" is unambiguous.  (Could also be "Turkey's history as a republic", I guess.) AnonMoos 15:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's that, and there's also the fact that irrespective of the alternate meanings of the adjective in question, "Republican history of Turkey" means the history of Turkey as relates to republicanism (just as "Economic history of Turkey" means the history of Turkey relating to economics), and not "The history of Turkey during its period as a republic", if you see what I mean. yandman 15:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the alternate meanings in question was about the meaning of Republican in the US, that shouldn't stop such a move. However, I can see that such a rename could give way to certain confusion.. I will try to think of another way of putting it in a concise manner. I just proposed it since, even after months, it still confuses me sometimes when I see History of Turkey and History of the Republic of Turkey, considering many recurring debates out there about Turkey, what it is, when it began etc., I just thought we might need a clearer timeline and structure for history. Oh well, we will see about it later then.. Baristarim 23:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[History of the Republic of Turkey]]

message: What on earth are the dates of the Ottoman Empire doing in that infobox? Miskin 10:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok Miskin, since you asked for it, let's go back to History 101: Turkey is the direct successor state of the Ottoman Empire, that was founded in 1299, per the Treaty of Lausanne, thus making the founding date of the state that enjoys sovereign powers in Turkey as 1299. Per the same treaty and other established principals of international law, the foundation of the Republic in 1923 is considered as "regime-change", rather than the "foundation of a new state" (as opposed to the former provinces of the Empire who are considered to have declared their independence, and thus considered as "new" states) (btw name changes are also considered in the former category, a country can be renamed to anything, however what matters is the continuity of sovereign powers that a state is built upon). Turkey, from a legal point of view, was established in 1299 since the Treaty of Lausanne permitted a direct transfer of sovereignty from the Empire to the Republic... Under international law, only specific treaties or long periods of discontinuation of sovereignty can constitute a "break" in the line. For Turkey, that is not the case, as such the foundation of the state is considered as 1299. That is for this reason that there are still laws in Turkey, that date back to before 1923, that are still applicable since they have not been replaced (even though 98 percent have been under the new regime). This is a simple fact, similarly England is considered as having been founded more than a millenia ago since such continuity of sovereignty has existed. On the other hand, same cannot ba said of Egypt for example: the state of Egypt cannot be considered to be founded in 3000BC for instance. Similarly for ex-colonies of Africa and South America etc. Any more questions about this? Baristarim 12:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As for the other thing, pls read carefully: it says "continually inhabited" and not simply "inhabited". Per the evidence unearthed during archealogical studies that show continous settlements dating back to 5000 BC, the region is definitely one of the oldest continually inhabited regions in the world... Baristarim 12:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, which is why I argued above that modern Turkey cannot detach itself from such facets of Ottoman history as the Armenian Genocide. In other words, Turkey cannot claim only those parts of the Ottoman legacy that suit it and reject those that don't. That said, I too fail to see User:Miskin's problem with the current wording. It's not as if it's claiming that "Turkey is one of the oldest continuously inhabited countries in the world" or anything outlandish like that. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Errr...no. This is an article on "Turkey". Following your reasoning, the article on Germany should start in 1989? yandman 14:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Then that is technically incorrect. Russia did not become independent of the Soviet Union; it is the successor state to the USSR in a way that none of the other former Soviet republics is. In the same vein, Serbia is the successor state to Yugoslavia but Montenegro is not. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit conflict - Then the Russia article is wrong.. Turkey didn't proclaim its independence from the OE like other states that were part of it before the Balkan and First World Wars.. Treaty of Lausanne explicitly transfers sovereign powers of the OE to Turkey, it is as simple as that. I was not trying to change your mind at all, you can believe what you want to believe, it was for other readers as well since it referred to a part of the article, not our personal opinions. And you don't have to change your mind, but know that what I just said is the legal fact, you have a right not to like it however... There has not been a break in the continuity of state, however there was a regime change (or break)... For the other thing: "continually inhabited" are sourced in their respective articles, that is an acceptable form of citation. Baristarim 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Baristarim. TR is both the direct successor state of the OE (parallel with Soviet Union/Russia is apt), and it is the continuation of a political/geographic/cultural entity that had been called "Turkey" for centuries, independently of its statehood (parallel with Germany). In both senses, treating Ottoman Turkey here - with appropriate explanations and disclaimers where necessary - is quite okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: USA is a new state that gained its independence after being part of the British Empire... Same for all African and Latin American countries... Belgium is also a "new" state that was created via treaties.. They don't all end up at a "treaty": states that exist today and are (more or less) founded on the same region as the states of antiquity are not "successor states" of each other: eg Rome, Greece, Egypt etc.. Montenegro is also considered a "new" state, it is not the successor of Yugoslavia for example.. Baristarim 15:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no contradiction here: the intro states "whose political system was established in 1923" AND the infobox states: "Foundation of the Republic: October 29, 1923".. Of course the Republic was founded on 1923, everyone knows that.. And that's why the same infobox makes clear when it uses OE instead of Turkey for the 1299 date. However, it is more than important and relevant to the reader that the Republic is the successor of the Empire.. That's all... The Brittanice article says: "modern Turkish Republic was founded.." First of all it doesn't say "declared independence" and secondly, it makes clear reference to the establishment of the republic, just like this article does in the intro and infobox as I pointed out a few lines above..Baristarim 15:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no contradiction between the infobox and what you said about the fall of the OE and establishment of the republic. Please take a look at it more carefully... Baristarim 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop throwing around weighty words :)) What concensus? I will tell you how the Ottoman Empire was dissolved: It was disolved upon the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne and was, at the same time, replaced by the new Republic (which was created). Nobody is saying that they are the same state: it is that Turkey is the successor state of the OE, obviously they cannot be the same since their coordinates in the fourth dimension are not the same. I am sorry to say but I am getting lost in your arguments, what exactly are we talking about here? First you said it should be that "Turkey declared its independence from OE" and now we are arguing how OE was dissolved and TR was created? In any case, of course one was dissolved and the other one was created, but that operation, from an intl point of view, happened at the ratification of that treaty. Also do not forget that the Turkish parliament passed a law in 1922 dissolving the sultanate and transferring its sovereignty rights to that assembly, which one year later proclaimed the republic upon the ratification of the Lausanne Treaty. Yesss OE was dissolved and yesss TR was created, but they are intrinsically linked by intl treaties, laws and declarations to the point that OE was dissolved simply to make way for the Republic that assumed the sovereignty of the former. If there is no continuity there, I don't know where there could be. Baristarim 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Reply to Miskin; if do you want to see POV based infobox please take a look to infobox Armenia, everything is included except Adam&Eva.Regards.MustTC  16:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: true. lol.. Maybe we also should mention the "traditional establishment of the Turks" :)) Baristarim 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Strictly speaking, Turkey did gain independence from the Ottoman Empire since the Kemalists and the Ottomans were enemies, but I only brought this up because it is mentioned in Russia. Including the Ottoman Empire's dates in the infobox field "Formation of modern Turkey" makes wikipedia looks bad, that is all I'm arguing about. And I believe the same about Germany and all the articles that follow the same practice of pushing POV in the infoboxes, it's not that I have something against Turkey in particular. Miskin 16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What we call Turkey today is the "Republic of Turkey", period. The history of 'Turkey', i.e. the peninsula that took its name from the republic of Turkey, is inevitably the history of Ottoman Empire. The title of that book doesn't prove anything however, as a history of Greece or Serbia would have to treat in detail the history of the Ottoman Empire as well. The historical connection between Turkey and the Ottoman Empire is mentioned in the History of Turkey. It's an abuse of terminology to stick an Islamic state in the Republic of Turkey's infobox. And for some reason I think that Kemal would have agreed with me. Miskin 16:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the peninsula came before the republic.... I think that this is the crux of the discussion. I don't think that Turkey does mean the "Republic of Turkey, period". yandman 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you are mistaken then. This is the article on the Republic of Turkey (which is larger than just Anatolia). If you want to discuss the peninsula, go over to Anatolia. dab (𒁳) 17:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking of "the peninsula" is indeed imprecise, but this is leading into another red herring. We are not talking about the concept of Anatolia, we are talking about the concept of "Turkey" - which existed prior to, and is still applied retrospectively back before, the foundation of the modern state. This article treats both, as befits common usage in the English language. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Miskin, country articles often give establishment dates of predecessor states in their infoboxes, e.g. 843 on France. I am opposed to this, after all, France isn't the article on the Frankish Empire. The infobox on this article shows why I am opposed: the infobox people stuff more and more material into what should be a brief factsheet, listing no less that six dates. This isn't a "formation date" entry, it is a brief summary of Turkish history. I agree we should discourage this sort of thing. You should, however, make your point at Template talk:Infobox Country or territory and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries for all entries, not just here on Turkey. dab (𒁳) 17:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (after 2ec) Miskin, you are caught up in a conceptual fuzziness that's not your fault and not Wikipedia's either but a common feature of the way we talk about countries in English: The same name ("Turkey", "Germany", "Russia", "Greece" etc.) is often indiscriminately applied both to a nation-state (a political entity), and to a cultural/historical/geographical entity, with the latter often transcending the former. Our Wikipedia articles with their "history" sections and subarticles are largely geared towards the wider perspective, and rightly so. It's true that the design of the infobox is focussed a little bit more on the purely political entity, but I don't think the Ottoman info is too alien in its context. It certainly isn't alien in the context of the whole article. The book I quoted proves exactly what I wanted to show with it: i.e. that historians use the term "Turkey" to refer to the history of the region pre-1920, and therefore so may we. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. This article's topic is not just the "Republic of Turkey"; this article's topic is Turkey, because that's what the article is called, with everything that term comprises in normal English usage. And if the Ottoman past is part of "History of Turkey", then it's also part of this article, because History of Turkey is properly a sub-article of this one. - I can follow dab in what he says about keeping some details out of the infoboxes though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formation

message: There is a contradiction in the following propositions: 
#the Ottoman Empire was dissolved,
#the republic of Turkey was created,
#the claim that the Ottoman Empire and Turkey are the same state.
It doesn't make sense does it? If you prove that they are regarded as the same state which simply changed its government, then the infobox makes sense. If not, the Ottoman Empire has no place in the infobox which concerns the formation of Turkey. As fas as I'm concerned, sources state clearly that the Ottoman Empire was dissolved, not evolved. Therefore the infobox is based on a POV and not on a consensus. Miskin 15:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop throwing around weighty words :)) What concensus? I will tell you how the Ottoman Empire was dissolved: It was disolved upon the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne and was, at the same time, replaced by the new Republic (which was created). Nobody is saying that they are the same state: it is that Turkey is the successor state of the OE, obviously they cannot be the same since their coordinates in the fourth dimension are not the same. I am sorry to say but I am getting lost in your arguments, what exactly are we talking about here? First you said it should be that "Turkey declared its independence from OE" and now we are arguing how OE was dissolved and TR was created? In any case, of course one was dissolved and the other one was created, but that operation, from an intl point of view, happened at the ratification of that treaty. Also do not forget that the Turkish parliament passed a law in 1922 dissolving the sultanate and transferring its sovereignty rights to that assembly, which one year later proclaimed the republic upon the ratification of the Lausanne Treaty. Yesss OE was dissolved and yesss TR was created, but they are intrinsically linked by intl treaties, laws and declarations to the point that OE was dissolved simply to make way for the Republic that assumed the sovereignty of the former. If there is no continuity there, I don't know where there could be. Baristarim 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Reply to Miskin; if do you want to see POV based infobox please take a look to infobox Armenia, everything is included except Adam&Eva.Regards.MustTC  16:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: true. lol.. Maybe we also should mention the "traditional establishment of the Turks" :)) Baristarim 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Strictly speaking, Turkey did gain independence from the Ottoman Empire since the Kemalists and the Ottomans were enemies, but I only brought this up because it is mentioned in Russia. Including the Ottoman Empire's dates in the infobox field "Formation of modern Turkey" makes wikipedia looks bad, that is all I'm arguing about. And I believe the same about Germany and all the articles that follow the same practice of pushing POV in the infoboxes, it's not that I have something against Turkey in particular. Miskin 16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What we call Turkey today is the "Republic of Turkey", period. The history of 'Turkey', i.e. the peninsula that took its name from the republic of Turkey, is inevitably the history of Ottoman Empire. The title of that book doesn't prove anything however, as a history of Greece or Serbia would have to treat in detail the history of the Ottoman Empire as well. The historical connection between Turkey and the Ottoman Empire is mentioned in the History of Turkey. It's an abuse of terminology to stick an Islamic state in the Republic of Turkey's infobox. And for some reason I think that Kemal would have agreed with me. Miskin 16:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the peninsula came before the republic.... I think that this is the crux of the discussion. I don't think that Turkey does mean the "Republic of Turkey, period". yandman 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you are mistaken then. This is the article on the Republic of Turkey (which is larger than just Anatolia). If you want to discuss the peninsula, go over to Anatolia. dab (𒁳) 17:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking of "the peninsula" is indeed imprecise, but this is leading into another red herring. We are not talking about the concept of Anatolia, we are talking about the concept of "Turkey" - which existed prior to, and is still applied retrospectively back before, the foundation of the modern state. This article treats both, as befits common usage in the English language. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Miskin, country articles often give establishment dates of predecessor states in their infoboxes, e.g. 843 on France. I am opposed to this, after all, France isn't the article on the Frankish Empire. The infobox on this article shows why I am opposed: the infobox people stuff more and more material into what should be a brief factsheet, listing no less that six dates. This isn't a "formation date" entry, it is a brief summary of Turkish history. I agree we should discourage this sort of thing. You should, however, make your point at Template talk:Infobox Country or territory and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries for all entries, not just here on Turkey. dab (𒁳) 17:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (after 2ec) Miskin, you are caught up in a conceptual fuzziness that's not your fault and not Wikipedia's either but a common feature of the way we talk about countries in English: The same name ("Turkey", "Germany", "Russia", "Greece" etc.) is often indiscriminately applied both to a nation-state (a political entity), and to a cultural/historical/geographical entity, with the latter often transcending the former. Our Wikipedia articles with their "history" sections and subarticles are largely geared towards the wider perspective, and rightly so. It's true that the design of the infobox is focussed a little bit more on the purely political entity, but I don't think the Ottoman info is too alien in its context. It certainly isn't alien in the context of the whole article. The book I quoted proves exactly what I wanted to show with it: i.e. that historians use the term "Turkey" to refer to the history of the region pre-1920, and therefore so may we. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. This article's topic is not just the "Republic of Turkey"; this article's topic is Turkey, because that's what the article is called, with everything that term comprises in normal English usage. And if the Ottoman past is part of "History of Turkey", then it's also part of this article, because History of Turkey is properly a sub-article of this one. - I can follow dab in what he says about keeping some details out of the infoboxes though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: I propose we should MOVE THE CURRENT ARTICLE which is the STATE as "Republic of Turkey", and create another article for the CONCEPT OF Turkey, which covers an generates links to States and other issues related to Turkey.--OttomanReference 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This will solve many other (besides the info box) issues as PEOPLE REALLY have problem separating these concepts...--OttomanReference 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: WIKIPEDIA can not solve conceptual problems. If we have REPUBLIC OF TURKEY seperated from TURKEY, atleast one LESS concept would be under constant edit wars.--OttomanReference 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Euthymios: too complex. We'd then have to do the same with Germany, Russia, Greece, Italy, Austria, Poland, Armenia, Iran, India... If natural language can bridge the gap between the "cultural-geographical entity" sense and the "political entity" sense by uniting both under a single term, then so should we. It takes some constant effort always staying aware of what we are doing in bridging this gap, but it should be possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, and worst of all, those new "concept of X" family of articles would end up as POV-forks. Miskin 19:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Will have to agree, it would complicate things even more.. :) I just want to reply shortly to something that Miskin said: It doesn't at all mean that the Balkans etc were stolen from the Ottoman Empire/Turkey. Remember that we are referring to times when intl law didn't even truly exist, and historically it could easily be argued that it was the other way around: that Ottomans "stole" the Balkans in the first place. However, let's not forget that any of those approaches would be too anachronistic. The standarts of 16th century were definitely not the same as today, especially with religion and vassal relationships and all... It is simply that Ottomans conquered/invaded and thus controlled the Balkans etc for a while, and at one point those territories decided that they would be better off being independent. Kinda like Britain and the US for example: Nobody can claim that the US was "stolen" or "taken away" from the British. The territory was under the sovereignty of the British Empire for a while then its inhabitants decided to break that relationship. That's all.. However, I have to agree with user dab that this issue might need to be addressed at a wider Wiki level since there can be a tendecy to "exaggerate" things in many articles, but as this article currently stands, the infobox makes clear the diff between OE and TR, and gives the impression that it is providing a "background" info more than anything else.. Baristarim 22:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: copied to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#articles.27_scope, please reply there. dab (𒁳) 08:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperation between "Turkey" and "Republic of Turkey" 

message: As we have established, this discussion is not Turkey-specific, but applies to Germany, France, Italy, India, Japan and many other articles. It should therefore be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries for wider attention and input. Let me note Fut. Perf. and I agree with the analysis of the problem, but not entirely regarding what should be done about it. The unsatisfactory bit is that its distribution is determined by what a country is called in colloquial usage. It has three stages:
*a) overlapping geographical notion: Italy, India, Australia, Cyprus, Iceland, Maldives, New Zealand
**already addressed: Korea, Congo, China
*b) predecessor states referred to with the same term: Germany, France, Switzerland, Poland, Spain, Russia, ...
*c) no ambiguity: USA, UK, Belgium, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan
be sure to note the  exceptions we make for China and Macedonia, for political reasons. India is another candidate, and I would strongly recommend a China solution for India, since the term as in Indian subcontinent includes Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh, as opposed to the term as in Republic of India. This leads to confusion and outraged comments again and again. My approach is that all these articles should be about the sovereign state, with any treatment of predecessor states confined to the "History" section. In case (a) only, "China solutions" may be useful (India disambiguating Republic of India and Indian subcontinent; Cyprus split into Cyprus (island) and Republic of Cyprus and ; maybe Italy dab'ing Italian Peninsula and Italian Republic). dab (𒁳) 08:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: copied to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#articles.27_scope, please reply there. dab (𒁳) 08:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: expand and move this discussion!