Talk:Flag of Turkey

message: The legend that gives the design of the Turkish flag as being due to the events during the fall of Constantinople were related to me by user:Adam_Carr who heard that story while visiting Turkey
ThaGrind 01:38, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: A name for the Croatian flag is also "barjak". Anybody an idea if that's somehow similar to bajrak or am I just wrong... --Neoneo13 00:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, "bayrak" is the general name for "flag" in Turkish, I guess this is the same in both languages. Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barjak 

message: Under "construction" there are a couple refferences to "the circle around the star". There is no circle around the star in the flag, so describing an imaginary circle placed around the star isn't very accurate. Would it be better to substitute "A" for "the"?
with respect that you didnt have technical drawing education; A smooth star,(or anyother geometric shape) is drawn by a circular referance(in or out).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.175.192.132 (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the" circle around the star 

message: The Flag of Byzantium
In 670 BC, the citizens of Byzantium claimed the crescent moon as their state symbol, after winning a battle, which they attributed to Artemis, the Greek goddess of the hunt, whose symbol was the crescent moon.[1] Other ancient cultures might have worshipped the sky, moon and stars but Byzantium was the first governing state to use it as their national symbol. In 330 AD Constantine I added the Virgin Mary's star to the flag. When the city fell to the Ottomans in 1453 they saw this flag with the Crescent all over Constantinople and took it as their own which the Turkish Flag and many other Muslim nations have inherited ever since.
The crescent moon and star were not completely abandoned by the Christian world after the fall of Constantinople. To date the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem official church flag is a lavarum of white with a church building with two towers and on either side of the arms, at the top, are the outline in black of a crescent moon facing center, and a star/stars with rays.[2]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantium]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantium[/url]
So why call this a theory? This is evidence and fact, not a dream of Attaturk's like the other 'stories' LOL. Reaper7 00:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the?? Since when are the stars, the moon and other astronomical creations the property of one nation or empire??? Quote: "As far as I'm aware the crescent and star combination has a heritage directly linked to the Babylonian cult of Inana (who if I'm not mistaken was usually depicted as crowned with the crescent and star combination) - and with the numerous other equivalent female fertility cults of near eastern antiquity (e.g., the cult of Isis). Its subsequent adoption as an Islamic symbol is similar to the Christian appropriation of pagan symbolism elsewhere (e.g., the various European "Black Madonnas"), and is testament to the persistence of ancient systems of belief into late antiquity and early modern times." How about that for a theory?? So let's stop this effort to appropriate everything in Turkey to Greeks and Byzantines.. Now that you mentioned it, maybe I should go to the Byzantium article and mention this.. Baristarim 22:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO obviously you are confused severely, what I am saying, is that it is a little more than a coincidence to anyone with 20% of a brain the fact that the flag of byzantium at the time of its fall to the Turks was a moon and star, this should not be grouped in the theories section like Attaturk's dreams, LOL. But please - what I posted was obviously not for you, don't care if the Byzantiums got it off the Eygptians who got it off Martians - that is not the point, it was the flag of Byzantium and that is fact and that is where the Turks aquired it, and it is a little more than a 'theory' to a non Asiaitic Turk. Reaper7 22:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not neccessarily.. It didnt originate from the Byzantines , so it is quite possible that Turks got it from the other peoples of the Middle East and Persia before - please see this .. It explicitly states that this symbol has been assumed as being transferred via battles, but the true origin is the cultural movements of the Middle East.. Seljuq Turks and other Muslim Turkic tribes used this symbol on various occasions before the fall of Constantinople.. OTOH, I agree that there are certain legends mentioned in that page, and they should be clearly labelled as such.. Baristarim 23:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Legend 

message: I noticed that the image on the right which shows the crescent moon and Jupiter lined up was from the Battle of Kosovo, not the battle of Manzikert, as the text in the body of the article suggests.  Someone should clear up this ambiguity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oreo Priest (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: I came across the Battle of Kosovo/28th July theory on another page, and checking it it appears to be highly improbable. The Battle of Kosovo was fought on St Vitus' day, 15 June 1389, in the Julian Calendar. The 15th June 1389 Julian was 23rd June Proleptic Gregorian Calendar; St. Vitus' day is celebrated on the 28th June now because of the continuing shift between the calendars (15 June 2007 Julian is 28 June 2007 Gregorian). However, the close approach of Jupiter and the Moon was on 28th July (Gregorian calendar), a month after the battle no matter how you reckon it. That would appear to make the theory impossible, and there's no citation? Bazzargh (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this legend has been 'fixed' since, but without reference to a source, so is still incorrect. Now it claims the date of the astronomical coincidence was 28 June 1389, when as the original author of that section wrote, it happens on 28 July 1389. Even with this fix, the legend still makes no sense (the death of Murad was still 2 weeks earlier), but now the astronomy doesn't back up this entry. I tried to find a source for this story when I first looked at it, and it only appears on recent forum posts. The confusion of the 28ths (of June and July) suggests someone thought this up fairly recently - St Vitus' day only became the 28th in the last century. I'm going to remove this as unsourced in a month or so unless someone can find a supporting reference that this isn't just a recent invention. Bazzargh (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The same story was added again recently, again with no references, except for an image by Hayton of Corycus. However, simply labelling this image '14th century' is misleading - it depicts the Second Battle of Homs not the Battle of Kosovo. Hayton died around 1307, so this image cannot argue for a 1389 origin. This time I deleted the story, last time I left it 'citation needed' for 2 years before removing it - no citation was found in support (just to be clear: it's not just that the story is unlikely, it's that the story appears to be a recent invention on the internet, hence the lack of any mention in print). The image, however, does seem apposite to the Osman I section so I moved it to there. Bazzargh (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with 1389 Theory 

message: The Byzantine theory has no sources to back it up.
The Byzantine theory doesn't add up, the flag when Mehmed II conquered was the Double Eagle not a crescent and star as is suggested in the article.
The use of the Crescent and Moon is attributed to BC, prior to contact with Turks.
The Turks meanwhile were also using the crescent and star in Central Asia and the Kayihan Kaganate flag and tamgha incorporated these symbols.
--Torke (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byzantine theory - A critical flaw 

message: This whole article is terrible. The Byzantium Empire was the only known Empire to use the crescent moon and star together. Other cultures using a star or a moon separately is totally irrelevant as is Turks crossing through countries that used the star and moon separately. The City of Byzantium first used the star and crescent to represent Artemis, then the symbols took on Christian relevance. By the time the Turks arrived their is NO evidence of them EVER having the crescent and star together. However, the flags flying on Byzantium the day it fell to Islam - and even the coins in the pockets of the Greeks were these and had been for centuries:
http://imagedb.coinarchives.com/img/cng/076/big/76000205.jpg
http://imagedb.coinarchives.com/img/cng/072/big/721471.jpg
http://imagedb.coinarchives.com/img/baldwin/nyc9/00156p00.jpg
http://imagedb.coinarchives.com/img/gorny/130/thumb01799.jpg
Reaper7 (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Name the other Empire that used the crescent moon and star as the symbol of an empire? 
Answer: PATHETIC.
Reaper7 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  REALITY - It Will Hurt The Turkish Nationalist, But Is Beautiful To The Turk Who Loves Reality And History  Of His Diverse Nation 

message: Modern Turkish flag was adopted a century before the Battle of Sakarya. Please remove that theory from the main article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruist22 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sakarya Theory should be removed 

message: There's the one minor error noted about measurement E, but measurement G must be 1, rather than 2, because a measurement of 2 would make the height of the flag greater than its width.--Atkinson (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measurement flaws 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Gokturks coin.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Nanobayrak.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: The lede opens with ""
This isn't presented as a possible origin but as the plain fact. It's presented in the lede with so reference or other supporting info, and is not referenced or discussed further in the article body. There is a reference to Osman's dream and that's it.
The article Flags of the Ottoman Empire, of interest because the flag of Turkey is quite similar to the Ottoman flag and which is more extensive and better referenced article, mentions nothing of pagan deities or space gods, but offer various theories, none apparently proven, that it was based on the Byzantine flag, on the sky during some important event in Turkish history, as well as Turcic tribal tradition (there's no mention of Gün Ana and so forth).
Let's not tell the reader that things are so when we don't know that they're so, people. Herostratus (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Pagan gods, really?

message: It is a bit difficult to understand what  menas by "unclear colour specifications". Giving the colour as Pantone as well as RGB and Hex seems to make it very clear. The colour question is also presented further down in the section "Colour". Please explain what is unclear.
Also, the comment "the same flag was not adopted in 36" is difficult to understand. As stated in the lead, the flag was "standardized with the Turkish Flag Law on May 29, 1936". The year 1844 is significant for the flag of the Ottoman Empire; it may or may not be significant related to the flag of Turkey. But the year 1936 has to be mentioned, since that is the date for the formal adoption. The reference to the American flag "the american flag is not readopted every time a new star is added" is also strange, since the Flag of the United States article actually has two dates in the infobox, both the date of the first "Stars and stripes" flag and the date of the current 50 star version.
By the way, the link to the 1936 flag law was dead, so I have renewed it. --T*U (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox september 2017 

message: During the last months, this article has been heavily expanded, mostly by  and . Many of those additions are highly problematic due to lack of sources, original research and synthesis, and the totality of the edits give undue weight to content concerning the flags of the Ottoman Empire. I have now found time to go through all the changes, removing or rewriting most of the added material. I will comment on my edits in a numbered list for easy reference.
!: Heading in infobox has been changed from "Turkey" to "Republic of Turkey" with edit summary "republic of turkey official name, like united states of america instead of just america on us flag page info box title". It is correct that the US flag infobox has the heading "United States of America", but that is clearly an exception. The usual presentation use the common English name: "Sweden", not "Kingdom of Sweden", "Luxembourg", not "Grand Duchy of Luxembourg", even "Macedonia", not "Republic of Macedonia". I have changed the heading back to just "Turkey".
2: Adoption date in infobox has been changed many times. The current flag was formally adopted in 1936. There has been attempts to change the year to 1844, which seems to be the accepted adoption year of the last Ottoman flag. A compromise solution was to mention both 1844 and 1936, but then the year was put to 1793. There is one source mentioning the year 1793, stating that it has not been possible to confirm that information. Anyway, this article is about the flag of the Republic of Turkey, not about the Ottoman flag. The year 1793 is unacceptable i the infobox. I could support something like "1844 (Ottoman flag) / 1936 (current flag)" if that would create a consensus, but I prefer the solution recently entered by an IP editor, "29 May 1936". Both "late 18th century" and 1844 are mentioned not only in the text, but also in the lede, which is fine.
3: The section "Military flags" is an exact copy of a section in the Ottoman flag article. Content about the precursors of the precursor has nothing to do in this article per WP:UNDUE.
4: The section "Ottoman era" is an expansion of the former "History" section, and again most of the addition is a direct copy from the Ottoman flag article, even including "explanation needed" templates! Again, most of it is undue. I have changed the title back to "History" and readded the "further" link to the Ottoman flag article.
5: Illustration of Ottoman flag has been added, which is fine. But there is no reason that this picture shall be larger than the one in the infobox. And the caption is weird. How can an empire that ceased to exist almost hundred years ago have a "current flag"?
6: The three illustrations of "historical flags" at the bottom of the "Ottoman era" section and the matching text at the start of the section is pure conjecture. All the three files in Commons have clear information that they are fictitious; it is even in their file names. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, so these speculations have no place.
7: The gallery at the bottom of the "Legendary origins" section is (again) just copied in from the Ottoman flag article. Misplaced and undue.
8: Picture galleries have been introduced both at the bottom of the "Legal basis" section and at the bottom of the new "Display and use". It is not customary to have so many pictures in flag articles. If they really are needed, they should be placed in one gallery at the bottom of the article. I have removed the Northern Cyprus flag as irrelevant.
9: The two sections "Turkish colonies" and "Flags under direct or partial influence" have been removed by me earlier, but the removals have been challenged. I will shortly start two RfCs for their removal.--T*U (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major changes 

message: * Delete as WP:UNDUE and highly subjective original research. This is an article about the flag of Turkey. There is a separate article about the flags of the Ottoman Empire. The republic of Turkey has no colonies and never has had, while some of the areas covered (not all) could be seen as Ottoman colonies. Such a section might have a place in the Ottoman flag article, but it has no place here. It would, however, need to be sourced. The so-called "Flag of Turkish Greece and Cyprus" is a "Fictitious Ottoman flag" according to the file name, the so-called "Flag of Turkish Habesh" is just the Ottoman flag from 1844. --T*U (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * Delete as unsourced subjective original research. The section started out as "Similar flags", but has since changed title several times. It has been marked with OR template since June, with RS template since August, but the only thing that has been added to the section, is more flags plus an unsourced introductory text with little informative value. See also the section "Similar flags" above on this talk page, which has had no response. There may be room for a section about influence from the Turkish flag, but the influence has to be sourced. The Ottoman flag will, of course, have to be removed. How could that flag have been influenced by the Turkish flag? It certainly may be possible to find sources for influence from the Turkish flag to the flags of Hatay, Northern Cyprus, East Turkestan and perhaps also Cyrenaica and Turkmeneli, but that is probably all. For some of the other flags, it may be possible to find sources for influence from the Ottoman flag, but that will have to be presented in that article, not here. And as long as nothing is sourced, the whole section must be removed. --T*U (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flag of Turkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607174704/http://www.ttk.org.tr/index.php?Page=Sayfa&No=81 to http://www.ttk.org.tr/index.php?Page=Sayfa&No=81
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The official name of the country has been changed and we should respect that. Osnonymous (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:COMMONNAME. Beshogur (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, the name change at the United Nations took effect earlier this month.  It was done to differentiate the country from the bird by the same name and the negative connotations connected with the later. Blue Riband► 19:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change article title to “Flag of Turkiye” 

message: The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) is a separate entity from Turkey. Even though the flag of the TRNC is based on the Turkish one, I do not believe that it is appropriate to put the TRNC flag under this article. If the TRNC flag meets credibility criteria, it should have its own article.
Associating the flag of TRNC and Turkey hints to a perception of the first being a "puppet" of the latter, and this article is not the place to dwell into that discussion.
Therefore, I propose the removal of mentions to the TRNC flag, as well as its images from this article. Iago777 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me; counterarguments, anyone? —Tamfang (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Proceeding with the edit. Iago777 (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, Turkish flag is officially representation of Cypriot Turks, and TRNC always use the Turkish flag as kind of co-flag. For last, obviously TRNC flag is influenced by the Turkish flag. Beshogur (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is a page for the Flag of TRNC. Please do not reverse edits without common consensus. Iago777 (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And? This section talks the usage of Turkish flag in Cyprus, not the TRNC flag. Beshogur (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

text: And I also think its incomplete, also usage in Cyprus (as told in its constitution) itself should mentioned. Beshogur (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of mentions to the TRNC