Talk:Turkey/Archive 1

Turkey (country) or Republic of Turkey
I think we should spin off Turkey (country) from the other meanings, at least once it becomes time to update this information in accord with the WikiProject Countries. -- April 14:14 Sep 3, 2002 (PDT)


 * Given the fact that most of the inbound links are meant from the country (judging by the titles of the articles), I'd say there should be a block-format disambiguation at the top, with a link to Turkey (disambiguation) which lists the other meanings (actually only the bird, the others are merely dictionary entries which do not make an article). Jeronimo


 * That would also work. I just based int on the Georgia (country) link. -- April

As Turkey just redirected to this article at Republic of Turkey, I moved Republic of Turkey back to Turkey. Others, e.g. Turkey, North Carolina, can easily be found with Turkey (disambiguation). -- User:Docu

Motto
I'm not entirely sure that Atatürk's slogan of "Peace at Home, Peace in the World" can really be considered the Turkish motto. It most likely isn't the official national motto as one would normally understand it, but it does seem quite prevalent. Indeed, the Foreign Affairs site opens with it. I'll leave it in until hopefully someone more knowledgeable can clarify. -Scipius 20:57 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * As long as I know, that is the Turkish motto.--Alessandro Riolo 14:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Although it is widely accepted as a national motto here in Turkey, it has no official status. Zfr 14:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I would say that the Turkish national motto is: "Ne mutlu Türküm diyene!" (Happy is the one, who can call himself a Turk). At least this is found throughout Turkey in schoolbooks, as well as on road side signs. Maren 11:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Peace at Home, Peace in the World is the turkish motto. though I think it is impossible to attain both goals --Kahraman 13:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC). There is always a flash point somewhere.

Unfortunately the motto "Ne mutlu Türküm diyene!" was used in a worldwide hacking of phpbb forums on Dec 19/20 2005. Many of these forums belonged to charitable or vulnerable groups. One of these lost almost 3 years worth of data and research as a result. If anyone has any information on the perpetrators please post here.

EU
For the message of the EU countries and candidates please read the Talk:Romania page.--Alessandro Riolo 12:00, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC) It is impossible to say that there is a motto that unifies all the Turks. Both of the sentences are just said by the most powerful person on the recent Turkish history and this does not make them a motto that unifies the whole nation. Ask any one in Turkey from any ethnic background about Nasrettin Hoca joke that when two persons disagreed and asked him which one is right and he had said that both were right and when a third person asked how that could be he said you are right too and they would say "that is wisdom for you" and that has kept the ordinary people unified and tolarant towards each other for centuries.

Ottoman empire
The introduction states that "until 1922, Turkey was known as the Ottoman Empire." I don't think that this is accurate. I would say that "Turkey was the center of the Ottoman empire", but I'll leave the actual editing to someone who knows more than me.


 * This matter can be disputed. It is a fact that the Ottoman state evolved into the Republic of Turkey, however the republic was as a state so different from the Ottoman that it can be said to be as much known as the Ottoman Empire as for example Bulgaria. From another point of view, the name Turkey is still referring to the same country after undergoing some serious change.
 * However, many still use the term Turkey when they are referring to the Ottoman Empire. The use of Turkey for the Ottoman state was very common before the fall of the Empire, both by foreigners and the Turks themselves. After the declaration of the republic, the official status of name Turkey was changed so that it would refer to the republic, and only the republic. In the west, however, the name Turkey can still mean both the Republic and the Ottoman Empire. The line at the start of the page is simply stating that if you have followed a link from an article about a subject dating before 1922, you should probably see the Ottoman Empire article instead. &mdash;The Phoenix 16:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Problem with editing
There seems to be something wrong with this article. It can't be edited. &mdash;The Phoenix 18:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem seems to have been fixed somehow. &mdash;The Phoenix 16:41, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

True or false??
True or false: a page link that is meant to be for the bird is likely to point here. 66.245.29.74 20:24, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * True! I just made one yesterday. Most of the present incoming links do seem to refer to the country however. Still, "Turkey" should redirect to "Turkey (disambiguation)" and all of the plain links to "Turkey" should be fixed.  -- SS 17:30, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

German article
The German article is very much longer and contains much information, pictures and diagrams not found in the English version or even in the English subarticles such as Geography of Turkey which are mostly just stuff from the CIA world factbook.

Demographics?
"The majority of the Turkish population (around 99%) is of Turkic ethnicity, who speak the only official language of the country, Turkish."

This is severely at odds both with the dedicated demographic page and everything I've ever read about Turkey. The demographics page, which uses the CIA Factbook as its source, lists 80% Turkish and 20% Kurdish--obviously approximations, but clearly more accurate than "99% Turkic", which is just silly. I'd hazard a guess that this line was put in by someone with an (anti-Kurdish) axe to grind. I bring it up here so as not to cause trouble by simply editing it.

Another user: But actually the first one is the true one in the sense that Kurds are also considered Turks or Turkic, that is they are not in any means minority. For example, if you ask a Kurd his/her nationality the answer would be "Turk" or "Turkic". But if you ask where s/he was from you'd get the "Kurd" or "Kurdish side of Turks". Form this perspective it doesn't look "silly". People outside Turkey suppose that in Turkey there is really a distinction. But it is actually forced as a political matter rather than a public one. Yet imho it should be better to discuss. Note- it was not me who edited the article but I do not think that the s/he had any aim to offend anyone.

Unknown user: This is just out and out bullshit! does the writer even believe this crap.

Calling Kurds a branch of Turkic people is propaganda and factually incorrect. I would imagine it would be offensive as well. IMHO it is fair to call the Kurds of Turkey Turkish Kurds, but this is only for nationality, not ethnic origin. The culture of Kurds living in Turkey is not fundamentally different from the other ethnic groups living in their area, I think this is because culture was shaped heavily by the land and religion (which is mostly common), and strong interaction over centuries homogonized things. However, the languages, apart from some vocabulary overlap, are very different. ato 18:14, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Everyone knows that there's no constant definition or a specific "cradle" homeland for "Anatolia" Turks. All anatolian Turks are a mixture of balkan, byzantine, middle-asia warriors and middle-east folk; it was a true empire, so, in my opinion nobody can claim his origins here in Turkey. I am Turkish, i look like middle-eastern people, My mother's family are from Syria, My father's family are from Middle-asia and i think they mixed with Kurdish folk in Southeastern part of Anatolia.. Now i live in Istanbul, what a mixture.. So tell me what percentage i am in? %10, %20, %90 ??...

Turkish propoganda
What is it with wikipedia and its proturkish antikurdish agenda. I'm kurdish and it seems to me that not only do i have to put up with discrimination in real life but i have to log on and face cyber fascism. Most articles relating to the kurds are just plain anti kurd propoganda such as the previuos zaza article which said that its insulting to call a zaza a kurd. for your information the dimli (zaza) people are great kurdish patriots who have had many martyrs in the figt for an free and independent kurdistan.
 * 1) Please sign your posts to Talk pages. You can do this by using four tildes ~ . 2) This page is not the place to raise objections in Zaza or any other page. Please complain there. If there is a dispute there and you want people who may be reading this page to comment then say so. 3) This is not Turkish propaganda, I am Turkish and an ethnic Turk, and I never spread this kind of thing. I do not understand how distinguishing Zazas from Kurds favors Turks anyways. ato 23:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well you said dont raise objections here but since you asked a question i will answer it. By saying that zaza people are distinct from kurds you are robbing the kurdish nation of 2 million people who see themselves as kurds. obviuosly this means nothing to the zaza of which i am one who see themselves as kurds but this is just another strategy bu the turkich ruling elite to fragment the kurds so much that kurdish opposition to assimilation will become impossible. Dont get me wrong i love the turkish people as they truly are our brothers but i must speak up for my people in the face of non existance, be honest think how much of a relief it would be for the turkich government if kurds started fighting tribal wars again (e.g zaza vs. kurmanc) instead of uniting to protect our millenia old culture.user:avenger

I don't get this, why does a mistake about Kurds have to be called "Turkish propoganda"? ProTurkish does not mean in any way antiKurdish, like proKurdish does not mean antiTurkish. The Turks and Kurds are friend communities living with each other for thousand years, so why is someone trying to make/call them as enemies? And why does someone think do the tribes have to fight each other because they are called as "distinct" tribes (Zaza vs. kurmanc)? Also why would Turkish government relieve if there is a war/conflict between tribes? For example wasn't it the Turkish government who reconciled Talabani and Barzani (the heads of 2 different Kurdish tribes in Northern Iraq) when they were fighting each other?user:kunefge

history
do you think is is entirely relevant to have the link to armenian genocide (an article whose neutrality is disputed) while that part of this article is generally outlining turkish history? i think it should be included in a context where the history of turkey is discussed in more detail.

PS: i have not deleted the reference myself but I approve the action. i think it -should- exist in History of Turkey but not in the 3-paragraph summary. if the edit wars continue I will report the user involved whose only interest in the article is doing propaganda. ///Darius2

I will remove that reference and this time will not step away from a revert war if necessary. Saying this is a "big deal" (to quote RaffiKojian) is not justification to include a non-NPoV sentence, without stating that there is a dispute regarding this issue. IMHO, this is propadanga, and in this form does not belong in this article, especially considering the level of detail of the article now. at0 00:09, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * (for the record). I have written only the preceeding paragraph. The previous two paragraphs are not written by me. at0 04:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I think it is a bit questionable to say 1) we need to talk, 2) to say it should exist in the History of Turkey page, and 3) remove it from the History of Turkey page. My compromise for now will be to keep it on the History of Turkey page, but not this one.  If that is not acceptable, we can just go straight to moderation.  I think that removing a link to a well developed article (which frankly I think is quite neutral, quoting from all sources, and linking to Turkish sources as well), from a relevant place must be against policy, though I haven't checked.  And calling the mention of the Armenian Genocide without qualifying it as disputed (by Turkey) "propaganda" is just not acceptable.  Countless scholarly references are made to it, including in neutral, primarily Jewish focused Genocide journals, books.  Often the articles themselves are about the Turkish government policy of denial. The NYT and other media also simply mention the genocide without a further word. So please, don't throw the word "propaganda" around again. To say that the Armenian Genocide, which was planned and executed by the Ottoman Turkish government is not relevant to Turkish history in any way, is incomprehensible to me. If genocides were named after their purpetrators, and not the victims, then would it be relevant all of a sudden? This is certainly relevant to Armenian, Turkish and Kurdish history. In any case, do to my compromise for the time being, let's keep the conversation in one place, the History of Turkey Talk page. --RaffiKojian 03:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * What is being challenged is the relevance of this reference in this context and form, not the authenticity of the claim. at0 04:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

-RaffiKojan, I suggested it should not be here, and it should be in History of Turkey. I have not deleted anything from History of Turkey. I think, in the broader context (history page), it is perfectly OK to direct the users to the article and to state that there are discussions about that.

-Ato, If you thinks the reference should not even be in history of Turkey, I would not agree with you. I think it's OK to have it when we can also state (there are ongoing discussions about the authenticity of this article) ////Darius2

Demographic figures are wrong
The %24 figure for the kurdish minority is wrong. The real figure cannot be known, since there is no question of ethnicity in the turkish census, but it is believed that the kurdish population is about %10-%15 percent. This figure can also be justified by the election results. DEHAP (the party of the kurds) got about %7 in the last elections. Assuming %30 of the kurds did not vote for DEHAP, we obtain a figure about %9. If we also consider that some of the kurds do not vote, and the majority of kurdish population are younglings who cannot vote, we see that this %9 figure rises about %50, to approximately %13. So, %24 is a baloon figure. Can you please change the figure? --wanderer 15:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

no one hears? --wanderer 16:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your calculation has too many "ifs" and "buts". Not that it is wrong, nor that I have any different numbers to offer, but clearly any number will have more secure foundations than voting statistics and presumed voting behaviour. Refdoc 18:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Demographic Figures, continued
"but clearly any number will have more secure foundations than voting statistics and presumed voting behaviour." Do you really believe in what you say? _Any number_ without any reasonable ground having a more secure foundation? Here, there is at least some real data, and some logic in this calculation. Opposingly, I think this number has a more secure foundation than any other nationalist Kurdish / or Turkish exaggerated number. Anyways, if you cannot offer a better ratio, I'm going to change it. If someone can, we can talk about it and have a concensus. --wanderer 12:00, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

15-20 million Turkish Diaspora?
This is totally wrong. There is no such a big diaspora. There are approx. 3 - 3.5 million turkish people living in europe, and the figure for the united states is much lesser. --wanderer 15:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is a geuestimate anyway :-)  There is one million muslims here Netherlands,  of which 350-400.000 Turks. But I am Turkish, and I have a Dutch nationality. The official numbers do not take this into account. Officially there are only about 150.000 Turks of Turkish Nationality. About half of the actual number. There are 6 million Turks in Germany alone. Thats not taking into account austria, switzerland, France, Denmark, Norway Sweden Netherlands,Belgium etc  --Kahraman 16:11, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * PS I am including Turkish Kurds (Euro-Kurds?)into the whole Euro-Turks estimate. Hope nobody gets offended :-) --Kahraman 14:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I still do not think this figure is reasonable. Do you have any resources to cite? --wanderer 20:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not know how your dutch language skills are, but here I have a reference in dutch from the central institute of statistics, which states officially 328.000 muslims of Tukish origin in the Netherlands. Since there are also non-muslim people from Turkey, as well as Kurds, I expect this number to increase.

http://www.cbs.nl/nl/publicaties/artikelen/algemeen/webmagazine/artikelen/archive/artikel.asp?jr=2004&id=1543k&dt=20-9-2004

Help resolving redlink
In trying to resolve redlinks in the UK's Terrorism Act 2000 page, I ran across one described by the UK government as :
 * Revolutionary Peoples' Liberation Party - Front (Devrimci Halk Kurtulus Partisi - Cephesi) (DHKP-C) "DHKP-C aims to establish a Marxist Leninist regime in Turkey by means of armed revolutionary struggle."

Do we have an article for this group somewhere? -- John Fader 01:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat's edits
Coolcat, you're simply wrong to say that only terrorists use the term Kurdistan. I can for instance show you official British Foreign Office documents that refer to the "Kurdistan" regions of Iraq and Turkey. Please stop POV pushing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kurdistan
I am not wrong. The british foreign office does not dictate what Turkey calls its regions. In turkey we dont care about ethnicity nor is it an issue. We do however care about armed people killing indiscriminately. Now these terrorists give kurds a bad immage as Kurds tend to be very peacefull, the people I met through out the region dont relly like/care to be called by their ethnicity, like Martin Luther King jr. said "People shouldn't be judged by the color of their skin but by their character". Thats my belief. I oppose giving people special rights based on their skin color (ie ethnicity). Kurd or Turk (which I dont see what the heck there has to be a distinction) or whatever in Turkey everyone is assumed to be a Turkish national or Turkish (since the country is Turkey) and everyone has equal rights people who ask for exta rights are frown upon. Turkey did have a kurdish president so Kurds can be in charge of the country. A different political party representing the minority tends to "burn the Turkish flag publicaly" which makes poor publicity hence they never have serious power. You are welcome to claim things based on what the British think. But, I am not British nor is the country in discussion is Britan. I urge you to revert the changes. It would be best of our interest to talk this through instead of some sort power conflict.

I dont like to see statistics and declarations by countries else than Turkey in Wkipedia: Turkey article. - CoolCat
 * It's easy enough for the majority to say "we should all be alike", because it usually mean "the minorities should all be like us". Do you think most Turks would be willing to learn Kurdish, and make it the official language of the country?  How about if they changed the name of the country to Anatolia, so as not to emphaisize one group (Turks) over another? Jayjg (talk)  17:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actualy Turk does not refer to a race back in Turkey. I am not the majority. In the United States you have to know English to survive while the spanish is also a supported language it ends up being a very annoying experience as sometimes places are refered by their spanish name while person is used to english. It ends up being a confusion. The official language of Belgium is Dutch and French. Coutless people circled the high way because the Dutch dont ever write the French name and vise versa. What some kurds want to provoke is a civil war. I promised several people that died infornt of my very eyes that the entier conflict will not be forgotten, language and country name are minor issues. In my opinion not worth the discussion. In Turkey we had a Kurdish President and a Female prime minister. When it comes to ethics and so forth Turkey is well ahead of some European nations and the US. While laws are nice in Turkey thats extra (and useless) red tape. And honestly since there cannot be a pure race. (like it or not Turks used to look far eastern and over time they looked more European/Middle Eastern) The Kurds are not the only minority, if they get special rights everyone will have special rights. Soulth Eastern region of Turkey is at best a crater. Nothing grows there even though the land is extremely fertile. problem is no water. Now There was a GAP project to buld Dams to irritate the region which would primar ily benefit the people already living there, what happened? Enginners building the Dams got abducted and shot. Why the hell would a goverment send people to build Dams if they did not like the people living there....

Aside from that the Armenian genocide belongs to the Ottoman forum if it really needs to be placed somewhere. Its not in anyway a part of Turkeys business. Its on the long run an excuse for the Armanian goverment for their ridiclous claims for territory and money. Regardless of my views and facts Armanian Issue is not a part of turkeys domestic issue. Belongs to the Foreign relations of Turkey page maybe.

The Armenian Genocide is a huge part of Turkish history and must be included in this article, just like the Jewish Holocaust is included in the page about Germany (subsection regarding the Third Reich).

Kurd statistics are disputed
We dont know how many there are, in Turkey no one quite cares. Race statistics are pointless in my opinion as there is no such thing as a pure race. The external links dont belong to the general article. They are demographics related and does not belong to the demographics article either as the link is not neutral. It is very opinionated. Instead of linking to the page write your arguments in the aproporate discussion. Which is the demographics discussion. Kurds are not a special minority, they are just a minority, they ask for special rights, I dont like giving one group of special rights just because they are from some other race. Thats my POV right there. I am not anti-kurd. I am merely reveting your edits because you are not using your edit power to do something productive. Officialy the number of kurds is disputed, CIA siggests 20% that does not sound remotely reasonable. Your views on politics cloud your judgement. Read articles posted on my userpage regarding, what wikipedia is not, neutral point of view. --Cool Cat| My Talk 17:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)Just learn from what is happining in Irak where etnicity is being used by Gret Powers to manipulate and divide the people so that they can rob Kurd and Turk or Sunni and Shia alike. Who ever says i am a Kurd or i am a Turk has a right to be but if one says i am a human being yiu will not be counted in tha statistics.

Coolcat's Lack of Neutral POV
User Coolcat constantly assaults each article he sees the word "Kurd" in. He even tried to forge some statistics to diminish the Kurdish population; that "90-97%" of Turkey is of Turkish descent. We are talking about a country where no census figure on the issue is available. Maybe a 5% margin would be OK for an estimate but what's the big deal about "90-97%", for Christ's sake? That is totally a hoax! Wikipedia is not a tool of propaganda. I guess this principle is even more significant when some users try to promote hatred, supremacy, and chauvinism, especially at times it is officially supported by the establishment of the country concerned, which the situation of the mentioned user is. (unsigned)

I rely on official statistics and data. All my edits are NPOV based. I re-checked my edit and apperantly I typed 90 instead of 80 which is the disputed CIA factbook data. I am by no means anti-kurd. I dont see a logical reason for Kurds to have specility on general information regarding Turkey. Kurdish people do not want to be discriminated, In Turkey there is assumed to be a 100% majority, Thats what the system is based on. this article is not the place to discuss it. If you claim you know the nation I lived in through out better than I do you are welcome to participate in a conversation. I believe in factual data rtaher than ESTIMATES based on random organisations. Kurds claim to be more than they are. A good number of Kurds do not want a Kurdish state. Instead they want to be a part of the majority while a minority want to be discriminated for special rights. With my edits I am keeping NPOV attitude. I had to redit statistics several times and I made an error once. I am sorry for that. We had a very serrious set of vandalism throughout this articles history. In Turkey there are over a dozen minority groups. They all have equal rights like anyone else. If you dispute that I will aproach to you with suspicion. For all practical purposes Turkey is one of the few Countries that elected a minority as their president, Turgut Özal, he was not elected because he was a member of the minority, but for his character. His actions and desicions while he was the presidet are subjct to debate like any political leader. I realised how much of an issue racism is when I came to the US, its only understandable given what Americans had to deal till 1960's and even today race can be quite an issue. Its quite different in Turkey, while state does not monitor for racial discrimination, the people frown up on people who bring up race as an issue culturaly. For state to intervene people need to be first discriminated, as in equal but diferent drinking fountains, leave seat to Turkish guy, etc. That kind of behavior or remotely close to it is not observed in Turkey. --Cool Cat| My Talk 08:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The major regional diversities depend on culture". What culture? The culture of Sultanbeyli differs from the culture of Ni&#351;anta&#351;&#305;, for instance, and does that constitute a "major regional diversity"? Please don't try to kid each other. Well, yes, I guess I can claim that I know the nation you "lived in through out" better than you do. (signed) Behemoth —Preceding undated comment added 10:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--Cool Cat|My Talk 01:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Race issue
You can claim it maybe I dont see anything supporting your case. Yes, my bad people living in Sultanbeyli are African in origin and people from Ni&#351;anta&#351;&#305; have chineese origin (sarcasm). When you are talking about race you are trying to imply race groups that are so close to each other as far as Anthropology is concerned they dont have a distinction. Comparing poverty vs rich is a poor way to start race comparasion. I lived on every corner of the nation in question, I am highly knowlegable on what goes around me. There is a group of minority who want to be discriminated so they scream out they are diferent while the constitution assumes a 100% equality, in the Modern US Black(African American) people or woman dont remotely have the luxaries minorities have in Turkey. WHile By law discrimination is banned, this only creates a gap between people. In the state I reside currently an employer can fire an employee without an excuse at all. For this reason it is very important to see this perspective, talking about race often ends up being discrite propoganda. I never seen/heard racism being a serrious problem in Turkey, I dont see why it has to be declared a serrious problem on wikipedia. I lived in cities like Kars, Van, Istanbul, Ankara, Kirklarelli and a dozen more. I dont know how much you travelled around. Met people loved with them for a year or two, learn the way they do things, for your suprise life on Van is not extremely diferent from life on Kirklarelli while diferent traditions and cultural activities make up the diference. When you make race a problem you mean that for instance if you are a Kurd you get below minimum wage and you have your own fountains seperated from Turkic people or If you are a Greak you have to leave your seat to the Majority. System isn't perfect. In my observation livving in Belgium, Italy, US (2 years each), system in Turkey works better. In the US with affirmative action a black is more likely to be hired as there is a quota based on rank, so if you have higher grades, spent more time in college the slacking black guy gets your job on the sole fact that he is black, which in my opinion is quite unfair. Now its not right for the black guy to be discriminated even if he is better than the white guy. The red tape regarding race is excessive which does not promote a unification. Anybody living in Turkey regardless of their race etnicity is 100% Turkish as far as people/red tape is concerned. I am a member of the "so called" minority. No one annoyed me or made fun of me regarding my race or anything. Although I often take attention (which is rather nice sometimes) ;) --Cool Cat| My Talk 09:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You may have traveled a lot because of the fact that your father was a government employee, maybe an officer in the army. The truth is that you were always an outsider for them. By the way, articles in Wiki are not about memoirs of the user. They have to be written in an optional objective manner with a minimal literal concern of expression or self-reflection. I am not talking about "race" here. (Your liberal usage of the word "race" even implies me something further of you [lol].) Please read the nice article Race for the recent (and current) debates about this notion. And, if you don't mind, I am changing the ratio. That "97%" still stands funny! (signed) Behemoth

What is this %97? It has no reasonable background. The real ratio is somewhere between %80-%85.--wanderer 23:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) --wanderer 23:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

97% is the data from encyclopedia of America and 80% is cia factbook. Please read what wikipedia is not before lecturing me. I know the nation inside out. I am not a kid. I toured the nation and that only means I have good background. Wikipedia is not a propoganda tool, sneaky vandalism is not permited, you can belive only 90% of te nation is turcic I dont care, officialy the number waves between 97% - 80%. The real ratio is unknown, thid id not an antrhopology forum do that elsewhere. As Tuskish system is based on Equality or race-blind, unlike the US which affirmaive action is around. I dont know what race you consider yourself to be, but there are only 3 major races according to genetics and anthropology. Everything else is derived from them. These are African (Black) Chineese (Yellow) and European (White), while the factuality of that is debatable the actual article is not the place. If you continue to play with numbers based on your views you will be blocked as that falls under sneaky vandalism. I wrote my views here because it opposes your views to some extent, wikipedia is based on neutrality. I dont put my views in the article if you havent noticed, I dont let anyone put their views either. --Cool Cat|My Talk 01:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it is you, Cool Cat, who should be banned or somehow restricted from editing the percentages to suit your purposes. In theory, the Turkish system is based on equality since it has, after all, adopted Western standards. However, there are plenty of cases were said standards have been completely disregarded and the acting bodies have reverved to the age-old, barbaric Muslim customs. Don't try to portray Turkey as a nation equal to an E.U. state, because you provoke our laughter.(unsigned)