Talk:Turkey/Archive 18

Geographic location 8 way template
This template was not designed for countries, it was made to be placed onto cities or towns articles, the use here is not recommended Turkey is not a Euroasian coutry, it's just Asian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.109.199 (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Strongest Military power in middle east/Second largest Armed Forces in NATO after the US
The article mentions that Turkey has the largest and most powerful armed forces in the Middle East, save for Israel. This statement is incorrect as the Turkish Armed Forces is also ranked higher than the Israeli Armed Forces. Global Fire Power ranks the Turkish Armed Forces higher than Israel. Turkey is home to NATO's second largest armed forces after the US Armed Forces. The Israeli Navy and Army is not even comparable with the Turkish Navy or Army. The Turkish Air Force also has a advantage over the Israeli Air Force in many respects such as aerial refueling capability, Boeing 737-800 MESA AWACS, NATO missile shield etc.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.241.156 (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * None of this plays any large part in determination of the power of national armed forces. The very inclusion of 'Global Firepower' is just a big no no, numbers are not the only indicators of power. G.R. Allison (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

SLOGAN
PLEASE ADD 'PEACE AT HOME PEACE IN THE UNIVERSE' TO NATIONAL SLOGAN. CORRECT TRANSLATION OF CIHAN IS NOT REALLY THE WORLD, BUT THE UNIVERSE. BUT THE WORLD WILL ALSO DO FOR NOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.33.174 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

U.S. data from the Ethnologue: Languages ​​of the World organization PA St. Andrews - compared to 2001

Ethnic origins in Turkey:

86.21% of Turkish

Kurdish 8:36%

Circassian 2.14%

Arab 1.63%

Zaza 0.53%

Hyperlink to Note 12 Should Be: http://www.heptagonpost.com/Dessi/can_turkey_be_a_source_of_stability_in_the_middle_east
I have noticed that hyperlink to note 12 doesn't wrong ... the address added is wrong ... the correct one is:

http://www.heptagonpost.com/Dessi/can_turkey_be_a_source_of_stability_in_the_middle_east

I don't have the right to edit the article myself, so can someone else update it?

Masfiore (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is completely bias and touristic
Article does not show real side of Turkey where poverty and cruelty is at its peak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.133.131 (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Poverty and cruelty is at its peak"... And that's not biased? There are sections in the article that are indeed biased, but they're mainly about the Armenian Genocide issue and is constantly being written as a propaganda for the Armenian diaspora. So yes, there is cruelty in the article, just not about the right subject. All the best, --Diren Yardimli (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.54.233.216, 28 May 2011
the following statement has no place in this article : "this website sucks" 94.54.233.216 (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * no such statement. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Anti-erdogan protests
5 people killed in Anti-Erdogan protests in a visit of Turkish president to Black sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strovolos01 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 5 people? Check the sources. And please do not add this minor event to this page. Kavas (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Earthquakes
Should more info be added about Turkey's earthquakes? It's really active. Attaturk is Greek (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tudordavies1987, 6 June 2011
Please change the following:

The tourism sector has experienced rapid growth in the last twenty years, and constitutes an important part of the economy.

With:

The tourism sector has experienced rapid growth in the last twenty years, and constitutes an important part of the economy.

Tudordavies1987 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * . Unfortunately, the reference you suggest does not meet our criteria. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 14:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Etymology of Turkey
The part which said Hungarians and Turks have ancestral links is wrong. It should say that the Byzantines used to call Hungary "Tourkia" because that land was once occupied by Turkic tribes, before they migrated away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.236.2.162 (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"Kurds and Zazas"
User:Pensionero claimed CIA and Milliyet say only Kurds.

But at least in Milliyet (a research by KONDA), it's clear that they used Kürt ve Zazaların nüfusu (population of Kurds and Zazas). Takabeg (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A Country Study
Turkey: A Country Study was used in this edit. But this book was published in 1995. Toooooo old and out of date especially for demographic datum. Meybe we can use these information for writing history of Turkey. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Secularity
Opening Section 1, Paragraph 4 states Turkey is a 'secular' state; the map provided under 'Secularity' declares Turkey is non-secular. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.238.237 (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Secularism is one of the building blocks of the Republic of Turkey, it is one of the major reforms of Atatürk. I don't know what article's map you are referring to, could you provide a link? You can also post this in its discussion, so that we can correct it. -EthemD (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Religion Segment
Whoever cited the KONDA article has changed the values drastically. I took a look at page 27 of the KONDA report, and it clearly shows that Agnostics represent 2.3% of the population, and atheists at 0.9%. The remaining 96.8% consists of religious people. It would be wise for whomever is looking over the religion section to verify this and make the appropriate corrections. I have so far changed the Agnostic/Atheist percentage to put them in line with the statistics from the KONDA survey, but I do not know the number of Christians/Others at the moment. Looking at the Christianity in Turkey article page, it seems that that number is around 0.1%, but someone should verify. I have changed the Islam percentage accordingly as well. I also changed the text in the article to reflect this fact. It would be wise to clean up the religion segment of this article, as there are various numbers given. The KONDA survey is by far the best gauge of religion in Turkey today, so I feel that it should be given the priority in the segment. Articles for Christianity and other religions should be featured as well. The Fear (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Motto
Does Turkey have a motto? Something like, "Peace in the homeland, peace in the world". Politis (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Turkey doesn't have motto. İts Ataturk's famous quote. --78.181.25.207 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Armenian Genocide sentence
Which wording is preferable, this one, or this one ? I have explained my reasoning here and here. I also think that Kavas' wording does not accurately represent the source (BBC). The entire discussion can be seen here. Athenean (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Turkish government ..." choice is better - [from an uninvolved editor].   You are asking which sentence should follow this: "During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were deported and exterminated in the Armenian Genocide."  The two options you present are:
 * A)"The Turkish government denies that there was an Armenian genocide and claims that Armenians were only relocated from the eastern war zone."
 * B)" Among historians the majority view is that the mass killings of Armenians amount to genocide, and more than 20 countries have recognized the genocide, however, the minority view among historians and the Turkish government's position is that the killings were not orchestrated. '
 * Choice (B) is a bit too detailed for this overview article on Turkey. The sentence preceding it already states there was a genocide, and already uses the word "exterminated", so there is no need to pile-on with statements like:  "more than 20 countries...".  Furthermore,  the blue color on Armenian Genocide phrase in that sentence indicates that there is a WP article dedicated to the topic.  Inserting detail about majority/minority views is just asking for trouble and may confuse readers.  That kind of detail is best left in the  Armenian Genocide article.  Also, choice (A), the  "Turkish government denies..." sentence,  is more encyclopedic.  Another choice that may be a good middle ground is:
 * C) The Turkish government and some historians state that there was no genocide, and instead assert that Armenians were only relocated from the eastern war zone
 * --Noleander (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 *  I agree that "The Turkish government ..." is best. Besides the fact that I don't like majority and minority being used as adjectives, I think the longer one is redundant.Mpgviolist (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * AGREE with "The Turkish Government....." Adamdaley (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment C is better. I had to remove "some" since the same editor said that it was a weasel word and then I became helpless. Actually, what you write is similar to my first proposal. [But everyone knows Armenians were killed, the only thing Turkey denies is that the killings were an act of genocide.] Did Mpgviolist and Adamdaley select A or C? Kavas (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. I had intended to select A. However, if there are reliable sources supporting the historians in C, I would be fine with that as well. Mpgviolist (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The Turkish government one is better. This is just a single event in Turkish history, there is no need to go into detail of who says what was genocide. It's notable enough that the Turkish government opposes its classification as genocide. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 *  Comment Would you consider C? Kavas (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't, as even the Turkish government agrees that many Armenians were killed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 *  Comment What about this one? "the Turkish government and some historians opposes the events' classification as genocide" Kavas (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to dislike statements which say "some" in them. It can be appropriate, but in this situation I don't think it gives the reader any useful information. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that people does not like C, but this was not an option available in this RFC. When this RfC is over, I think we should start a new RFC between A and C. Kavas (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Population of turkey
turkey got in 2002 already 72 million. so how can the population be 73,7million ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.21.198 (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

birth rate is high %2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorkemsem (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Turkey is not Member of the United Nations Security Council
Turkey is not Member of the United Nations Security Council!!Remove that Tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.168.156 (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Turkey Presidential symbol
Turkey Presidential symbol

http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dosya:Presidential_Seal_of_the_Republic_of_Turkey.svg&filetimestamp=20101130093325 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SÜVARİii (talk • contribs) 19:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision
I think this article has not well and objective written. Please edit this article. I'm saying for editors. Please read this article and fix the problems. this article is not SAFETY. please read and check this problems. --Goktr001 (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Added to the article wrong and biased article
"During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were deported and exterminated in the Armenian Genocide."

There is a problem in the above article

The fact that the event is as follows.:

--Tacirci (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Armenians in the Ottoman Empire the rebellion was
 * Armenian killed 2 million Turkish people
 * Armenian Ottomans sent to another city resident
 * Climatic conditions on the road of death caused by a small amount of
 * There were 800 thousand Armenians in the Ottoman Empire...

Incorrect use of "comprise"
A sentence in the second paragraph reads, "The country's official language is Turkish, whereas Kurdish and Zazaki languages are spoken by Kurds and Zazas, who comprise 18% of the population.[14]"

I would love for that to be reworded. Perhaps "comprise" could become "constitute". I am new to editing Wikipedia and don't know how to do so as this is a locked page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.139.27 (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done; thanks for pointing that out. Some people seem to think "comprise" sounds fancy in inappropriate places. It doesn't. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity percentages - CIA
The last time I checked, there was no official census in Turkey about ethnicity, so an estimation by anyone doesn't belong in the Infobox, next to basic facts like "Capital: Ankara" or "Official Language: Turkish".

And CIA isn't exactly known as an organization that does studies or surveys in different countries. Maybe the figures can be mentioned in the article, but not in the Infobox, that would be way too much unjustified endorsement. --Mttll (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Official census is not almighty. As we know, headstones and dogs were counted in the official census in Turkey. In wikipedia, CIA world fact book is considered as a reliable sources. KONDA is also considered as a reliable sources. Takabeg (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Official census is by far the best source in a country of over 70 million people. Where do you think most information about Turkey in the World Factbook come from? Independent research by CIA? However, it's good that you mentioned KONDA, which I also think is the best source about ethnicity in Turkey considering the lack of an official census. Let me give you some facts about their study:


 * - People (nearly 50 thousand) interviewed for the study are adults.
 * - Among dozens of things in the study about demographics, there are "self-identity" and "native language" data that's relevant to our discussion here.
 * - Since people weren't guided in the interviews, some of them identified with non-ethnic things like Earthling, Ottoman or Alevi.
 * - The percentage of people who identified Turkish is 81.33%. This figure doesn't include Manav (0.59%), Anatolian Turkmen (0.24%), Yörük (0.18%), other Anatolian Turkish tribes (0.03%), Turks from Bulgaria (0.04%) or "Muslim Turks" (0.59%) who are, for all intents and purposes, are subgroups of Turkish people.
 * - The percentage of people who said their mother language was Turkish is 84.54%.
 * - It's said in the study that in order create a chart of ethnic groups, self-identity and mother language are "combined" in a way and that way is this: 4.08% of self-identified Turks speak Kurdish as native language; whereas 8.82% of self-identified Kurds speak Turkish as native language. KONDA moved the former group to "Kurdish people" and kept the latter group in the "Kurdish people". Why? God knows. They say this eliminated non-ethnic identities like "from Turkey" (Türkiyeli) and turned them into ethnic ones, but the blatant interethnic inconsistency deflated the number Turks from 81.33% to 78.1% and inflated the Kurdish-Zaza one from 9.02% to 13.4%.
 * - Then it basically seems like it had occurred to KONDA the number of Turks could be further decreased by calculating the number of underage people who weren't represented in the study. Somewhat later in the study, it's said that there is intermarriage between ethnic groups, but the last figures concerning ethnicity is, by brutal math, Turkish 76,03%, Kurdish 15,68% and other 8,3%.


 * Where can go from here:


 * 1. We can create two headings for ethnicity (self-identity) and native language. Either for adults only, which would be purely based on data, or for the whole population.
 * 2. We can have one heading, "ethnicity" (self-identity), without any adjustment to the native language. And again, either for adults, or the whole population.


 * Either way, I'd say the main articles is a better place than the Infobox, but I am willing to discuss that. Eagerly, waiting for a response. --Mttll (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on specifics, 1) the CIA is a good enough source for ethnicity information in the infobox if something better is lacking. 2) Language is not ethnicity, and we should not treat it as such. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree. CIA's world factbook itself is similar to Wikipedia except its mistakes are harder to correct. For example, the official censuses of 85 countries are quoted in the "Ethnic Groups" section: Link. Understandable, really, considering the focus of the organization is very different. --Mttll (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The World Factbook is different from Wikipedia in that some crank can't just declare Turkey all Kurds or something similar. They do their best to pull a variety of useful and reliable information from many sources, presenting it in a way that is useful to them and to the US government. They have quality control, which is what makes the CIA and not us a reliable source. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Having received no response from Takabeg, I remove the section under question from the Infobox. We can sort it out when he returns or there are other who wish to discuss this. --Mttll (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You've still given no good argument that the CIA is unreliable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have:
 * - CIA isn't exactly known as an organization that does studies or surveys in different countries.
 * - ''For example, the official censuses of 85 countries are quoted in the "Ethnic Groups" section: Link.
 * In any case, CIA is a clandestine government organization and can't be considered neutral. Don't get me wrong, the World Factbook is a good, systematic source for basic information about the countries of the world, but if there is a controversy and lack of official data (which there is, now), it's not an authority by itself. [I vaguely remember a section in the Factbook about the sources, but I can't find it (because of different interface?) now. My current impression is that an actual study is misquoted in the World Factbook]
 * Also, you don't seem very familiar with the notion of ethnicity in the old world: "Language is not ethnicity, and we should not treat it as such." That's why I said I was waiting for Takabeg or someone is familiar with the basics. --Mttll (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Population figures
I don’t think the Template:Largest cities in Turkey is properly sourced. I couldn’t find the same figures for say Antalya Bursa or İstanbul. (The most reliable source is Turkstat.) Especially since this article is a candidate for featured article the contributers to that template should check their sources.(Unfortunatelly the latest figures have been added by an ambigious contributer.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

JEREED?
Since i can not edit the main page, iceHockey things becoming more common despite less inclined? where is the some traditional sports out to be forgotten, Such as Most interesting ones as the jereed, or commons like box,taekwando, volleybal  things becoming more common despite less inclined? im Turk never liked them as supposed to be, but the most popular. (88.242.226.165 (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC))
 * To be able to edit the page, you can create an account and then login, ask for removal of edit restrictions, or ask if you could edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndanielm (talk • contribs) 20:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

emblem
In my opinion it is better to use the presidential seal as the emblem of Turkey. I checked many countries, many of them has Coat of Arms. Turkey has no coat of arms, so It will be good for us to use presidential seal. If you look at the "Japan" article, you can see that they are using the Imperial Family's seal as their emblem. USA is using the Great Seal. Dontbesogullible (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Dontbesogullible

I didint know that we had an emblem at all. But you can put that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emblem_of_the_Republic_of_Turkey.svg

82.222.104.216 (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Armenian Conflict
I hereby request the change of the following sentence "During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were deported and exterminated in the Armenian Genocide." under The History of Turkey. As can be seen in the Armenian Genocide article itself, the Armenian casualties in 1915 have not been recognized as a result of a genocide performed by the Ottoman-turkish civil or militants to the Ottoman-armenian population. The death of many Ottoman-armenians during the war is well recognized, however the word genocide is not accepted by the Turkish government and not recognized by many others, therefore I suggest the change of this sentence. - EthemD (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

- There was a debate here, and the majority of editors were in favor of editing that sentence. The proposed sentence was "During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were deported and exterminated in what many historians call the Armenian Genocide". See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&oldid=432086569. I think you agree on this. Kavas (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a more acceptable sentence, but it still talks about "1.5 million Armenians being deported and exterminated", as if it were a fact, but even the number of Armenians (1.5 million) that were deported is not recognized by many historians/nations, i.e. Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I propose this sentence "During the war, a vast amount of Armenians were forced to migrate from their hometowns by Ottoman officials which many historians and nations believe to be the act of an Armenian Genocide.". -EthemD (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't have to change that sentence. We can (have to) add the sentence that explains the standpoint of the Turkish government.

For example,

''During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were deported and/or exterminated in the Armenian Genocide. However, the Turkish government denies that there was an Armenian genocide and claims that Armenians were only relocated from the eastern war zone.'' -Takabeg (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That basically the same as "There was the Armenian Genocide, Turkey denies this", which makes the Armenian Genocide still look like a fact. Look, we can either say: yes the Armenian Genocide did happened, or no it didn't happen, or we can say that Armenians were forced to migrate by the Ottomans (which both sides agree) and say that this might have been a Genocide or not (which is the questionable piece). This perspective is represented by this sentence "During the war, a vast amount of Armenians were forced to migrate from their hometowns by Ottoman officials which many historians and nations believe or deny to be the act of an Armenian Genocide.". This is not a biased sentence, it does not deny the Armenian genocide, neither does it approve it, unlike the current sentence, am I not right? EthemD (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

- BBC summarizes "Armenian Genocide" as below: I think, it is agreed that the current form is not sufficient because it does not represent the minor view. Turks and some historians does not deny the killings took place but they argue that they were not orchestrated. Wikipedia's rule is simple: Add minor view to a topic, if the minor view is not too marginal. In "Armenian Genocide" case, the minor view is shared by some historians, surely more than just a few. Kavas (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of thousands of ethnic Armenians killed by Ottoman Turks in 1915-6.
 * Many historians and the Armenian people believe the killings amount to genocide.
 * Turks and some historians deny they were orchestrated.
 * More than 20 countries regard the massacres as genocide.


 * There is only *one* sentence in there about the Armenian Genocide. If you add a sentence about the "minor" view (i.e. the genocide denial view), that is one sentence each. In other words, equal weight would be given to both, which would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. There is also a "minor" view that the Holocaust didn't really happen, but we don't include it in the article on Germany. Athenean (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No. that editor only added one word. As "There is only *one* sentence in there about the Armenian Genocide", adding one word to represent the minor view is not contrary to WP:UNDUE. Kavas (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Besides, Holocaust denial is clearly not a "minor" view, but rather a very very minor view or a conspiracy theory. Kavas (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "...what many historians call the Armenian Genocide" is WP:WEASEL. Athenean (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If we are going to approach this topic like a popularity contest, it can be still argued, 1. That the neutral view, is the majority view and that approval of the Genocide is not a majority view. 2. It can be argued that the opinion of the countries close to the place where these happened, and the archive's claim should be weighted more than foreign countries (especially if they have been purely influenced by lobbying). 3. It can also be argued that there is no need to mention the Armenian Genocide, in the 2 paragraphs section of the Ottoman Empire, as no deaths or other events, other than factional changes in national sovereignty are mentioned. Claims 1 is already difficult to prove, and claims 2 and 3 both speak for changing or removing that sentence. -EthemD (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am still requesting a change of that section of the article. I actually do not think this issue will be resolved, and propose the removal of the whole reference to casualties of the Armenian (and any other ethnic) conflicts (as casualties for a disputed Armenian Genocide are not relevant and minor compared to world war I casualties/conflicts in the Ottoman Empire); and it should just be mentioned how the partitioning of the Ottoman empire took place. - EthemD (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If no reply comes from opposing editors, you can go on and edit the page. Then if they revert, the discussion will be active again. Kavas (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, can you provide for us the link of BBC's article ? Takabeg (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8572934.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8563483.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8636800.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8553013.stm By default, BBC uses these terms. Kavas (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merci. I understand BBC doesn't use the term "Armenian genocide" (Results of this research in BBC's website). Takabeg (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be prudent to utilize the search box available at www.google.com by typing site:http://www.bbc.co.uk/ Armenian Genocide: http://www.google.com.tr/webhp?hl=tr#hl=tr&source=hp&q=site:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2F+Armenian+Genocide&oq=site:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2F+Armenian+Genocide&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=725l725l0l871l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0&fp=4573876ea68e87c9&biw=1280&bih=653 Kavas (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "What many historians call the Armenian Genocide" is weasel wording, pure and simple. We've been over this 100 times already, going through the motions every few months all over again is meaningless. The proposed changes were roundly rejected the last time around, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Athenean (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's possible to write this term without explicitly using the terms "most", "some", or "many". See my last edit.Kavas (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not rejected, the majority was in favor of keeping that word. Kavas (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Considerable number of Turkish intellectuals don't deny the Armenian Genocide. For example, özür diliyorum ("I'm sorry", or "I'm apologizing") (see Özür Diliyorum, Простите нас). They use the term Büyük Felâket that is Turkish translation of Մեծ Եղեռն (Medz Yeghern, Great Catastrophe). Takabeg (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One of signers was a friend of me. Most Turkish historians "deny" Genocide is a suitable word to describe the mass killings of 1915. Kavas (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't support weasel wording, but you have been and are basically rejecting the whole idea behind keeping the article unbiased, just because of a piece of phrase that was poorly worded. It would be better if you tried to understand why the current version needs a change and help us make this change happen. We have to have a clear equal-sided reference or keep the whole reference and topic out - either way, this version of the article is unacceptable. Reading through the whole section, there isn't even a reference to any other deaths in WW1 besides this globally controversial Armenian Genocide! How did this even make it into the article?
 * It's not up to us wikipedians to do the historian's jobs and argue what is true and what not - we are just here to pass on information with correct wording and citation. If we don't have enough facts, then we should just drop the whole topic, especially in such a featured article. This motion is neither denial nor approval of the Armenian Genocide. I've described the situation in my previous posts as well and am still, after more than half a month, requesting any Wikipedia Administrator to do something about this. EthemD (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia Administrators is not an authority to decide the article content, they work like other editors. But they make other editors abide by Wikipedia rules like 3RR. You can add other deaths in WW1, if someone opposes this, probably we'll discuss it and it is less likely to have consensus to remove sourced content. I'm not sure "most" or "some" is weasel wording since BBC writes articles by using this term. Kavas (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if that is the case, I will then proceed with removing the section about the casualties, and the justification behind this edit is firstly the current unacceptable biased version of the article, and secondly the irrelevancy of the mentioning of the casualties of the ottoman conflicts during WW1. This issue is a clear two-sided dispute with major contributions from both sides and an irrelevant and unnecessary mentioning of specific casualties/conflicts during World War 1 of the Ottoman Empire, in a minor history section of the major article of the Turkish Republic. (also, a link to the Ottoman Empire wikipedia page has been and was always provided by the article, if more needed to be read about it. The phrases can be transferred over there if needed, so that we don't lose any information.) I have announced this change for more than half a month and haven't received any objections, but if there are any, please mention them below, before reverting my changes. Thank you. - EthemD (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently, it failed. My suggestion is to add all causalities in WW1. They cannot revert this, because in this case they would be the editors who remove sourced content. Kavas (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But it's impossible to remove info. about Armenian Genocide without consensus. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The Republic of Turkey is one of the successor states of the Ottoman Empire, but we cannot completely deny the continuation between the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey. I think the casualties during the World War I and Armenian Genocide must be mentioned in this article, because World War I and Armenian Genocide is very important factor for Turkish national movement.
 * Firstly, I had removed the content with all right. I had given enough time for objections and discussion to be mentioned before removing the recoverable, disputed, sourced content, so please at least recognize that and don't get me involved in edit warring.
 * Secondly, last year I observed that an administrator locked the article keeping this section about the Armenian Genocide - ever since there have been many disagreements, but like now it has been kept as if it were a fact. So the current state of that paragraph did not go through a bilateral consensus either. (If there are more people who remember this, please feel free to comment below)
 * Thirdly, this is not a small detail, this article is a featured article, plus the national Wikipedia page of the Republic of Turkey. It is better to remove the content and place it back once consensus has been reached. As mentioned before, the Turkish government and many others do not approve with calling it 'Genocide', so this is a serious detail that needs more attention and more caution and care. In other words, it is better to temporarily remove it and place it (hopefully a better version) back when there is a consensus.
 * Fourthly, look at the article about the Ottoman Empire. Even that has only a few sentences about the Armenian Genocide and such disputed massacres, while most sourced content should be mentioned over there rather than here.
 * Also, you are paraphrasing Taner Akçam, who is one of the major contributors to the perspective that a genocide was planned by the Ottoman Empire during that time. In other words, you are still not taking a neutral reference. What you wrote is just an interpretation of someone who supports the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Such details should not be used as a justification to keep off-topic content on a current nation's page and should rather be discussed in their own pages.
 * If the Armenian Genocide has to be on this page, then both perspectives and the circumstances in WW1 (more details about the involvement of Ottomans, Turkish, Armenians, Greek, Syrians, other minority groups and foreign nations in WW1) should be mentioned on this page to present a fair amount of context. I personally think that such details don't need to be on the page, but am willing to help out if that is what you seek. - EthemD (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You used the website to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey to legitimize your removing information on Armenian Genocide. But in this case, the website to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey is not concerned as third party neutral source. Takabeg (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Takabeg here that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey is not a neutral reference. Also I think that the Armenian Genocide is an accepted historical fact in spite of a small minority of historians and organisations/states espousing the opposite view. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is fair enough, I didn't give enough reference, but that was just a simple reference to present a majorly different perspective from the current state, but that was before I was aware that the popularity of the information is more important than the factual data. Also, by no means did I remove that sections purely based on the Turkish ministry's statements - of course they are not neutral. I don't intend on writing their perspective into this article either. I am just saying that a more neutral perspective should be seeked, as the current one seems too heavy and biased. I can fetch some more references if needed, it will consume some of my time though.
 * I don't think I agree that this recognition has reached an international majority and still think that the neutral view which I try to seek presents a better alternative than that method. If you can link me to a study that provides credible information about this amount then we can use it here though. I think the Armenian Genocide is still globally disputed and has not reached the majority of history books, other than in a very few number of countries. So I don't think we have the right to treat it like the holacaust for example. And I still don't think that it really is relevant information in this article and would be better if kept separate. It still seems to me like an off-topic detail and does not need to be mentioned other than in the main article. Like I said, the sources content would probably be better off over there. - EthemD (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * People here only did oppose to the usage of words like "many" and "some", as they claim these words are weasel. So instead of "many" and "some" I used "major" and "minor". If you suggest alternative names, it could help us. But please keep in mind that in academia Genocide theory has more supporters. Kavas (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to sanitize that section since it directly relates to the Ottoman Empire. Furthermore, the statement of Armenian Genocide is also shown to be denied by the Republic of Turkey which is backed by a reference. Considering the time, money, and effort expended by the Republic of Turkey to "prove" that the Armenian Genocide did not happen, that is all the more reason to include it in the article. Other than treading on the personal opinions, nationalistic feelings of some individuals, and/or some silly attempt to remove any mention of the Armenian Genocide, there is no viable reason to delete this information. Also, if a wider perspective is to be considered(concerning the genocide), then the Republic of Turkey's actions concerning denial should be expanded upon. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding BBC as a Turkish nationalist source, but not regarding Wikipedian editors as Armenian nationalists is problematic. The style of BBC for neutrality is to be respected rather than the style of Wikipedians who claim to be historians without using their real names. Turkey's effort to deny Armenian genocide is already covered on many different Wikipedia articles. Kavas (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I finally understand what you mean Kavas. Sorry if it took a while. So you are telling me that they are rejecting the neutral point of view because of wording, which they claim to be weasel wording. And you are defending that sort of wording, because that is how the BBC also refers to them. I don't have anything to add to that, but I agree that it is unjust to reject the neutral point of view of the proposed sentence, just because of a minor wording, which some don't accept, even though it was used by the BBC. And like I said, I personally think either a neutral point of view should be kept, or the whole text should be moved to the main article.
 * Here is another point: how would it be fair if the majority recognition only got tallied by counting every nations perspectives for something that was involved in World War 1, where the Allied Powers (warring with the Ottoman Empire) were clearly the majority (in number of nations)? The only way a yes or no answer to the Armenian question can be reached is when international and third party historians reach a consensus multilaterally. Turkey has been supporting such an action and had already opened all its Ottoman archives so that this consensus can be reached. Western politicians don't accept this and want Turkey to unilaterally declare an opinion about something that has a poor amount of evidence. The Turkish people only don't believe that something like Genocide exists in their culture (which is rather an opinion of the majority of Turkish People and not a standpoint) and are mainly restricted to discuss such topics due to Turkish law enforcement, but if such a consensus was reached via an international investigation, they are willing to accept it. This standpoint doesn't make them deniers of the Armenian Genocide, which is frequently misinterpreted by the western media and Armenian Genocide supporters. The Armenian Genocide is accepted as dispute in Turkey, as it has not reached international investigation and consensus. The current constitution unfortunately restricts private publications about this matter, but that is just a general problem of Freedom of Speech in Turkey, rather than something aimed against the Armenian Genocide. I didn't have time to look for a reference document for this, but I will later, if you want me to and time allows: It is partially what the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has summarized several times in the past years.
 * Kansas Bear, it's saddening to read what you said - I don't want you to think that I am involved in this only because of personal interest. My only two opinions are that this should be treated as a sensitive topic, as it is a huge statement (despite being in a minor section of the article) and a neutral point of view should be reached, rather than a biased one - I would have the same opinions for any other nation or topic. I apologize if I am not writing in the Wikipedia convention or in a technical way and not referencing enough, but I am still a newcomer here, so please don't discriminate me due to that. I am still learning and trying to improve my attitude and wording in such discussions. I hope I got my message across this time. - EthemD (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The previous wording introduced by Takabeg was much better. In addition to bad English, the "minority academic view" mostly consists of members of the Institute of Turkish Studies, which as we all know is exclusively funded by the Turkish government. So it is nothing more than the view of the Turkish government, not an independent academic view. And enough with the BBC already, there are much better sources out there (such as the one added by Takabeg). Athenean (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We'd better change the number from 1.5 million to ... between one and one and a half million.

Takabeg (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Or with adding Turkish source we can change as ...between 800,000 and 1,500,000. As long as I understand, formerly even Turkish officials also accepted this catastrophy and the problem for the Turkish government (not for Wikipedia:)) is the term "Genocide". Takabeg (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence I have added conveys the information in the sentence you wrote above. Kavas (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see what's going on. Basically Kavas, you are trying to make the denialist view more respectable by saying, "See, it's not just the Turkish government that denies that it was genocide, but that it is also a minority view within academia". But as we all know, this "minor view" is funded by the Turkish government through the Institute of Turkish Studies. Also, you insist on mentioning the 20 countries, because that's a way of saying "See, it's only 20 countries that recognize it as genocide. That's called POV-pushing. No way. Athenean (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. You don't like the sourced information and claim the wording is weasel but you don't help me rewrite the sentence.

You argue that there is an unanimous agreement on academia that the mass killings is in fact a genocide but this is not case as even you cannot deny that some scholars does not share this view.

I don't mention that more than 20 countries for POV-pushing, I'm just adding verifiable content. Kavas (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Typical denialist POV. Clearly there is no point in trying to negotiate with you, so I am referring this dispute to the wider community. Athenean (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want, you can add as a footnote, though some scholars deny the genocide, most of these denialist scholars are funded by the Turkish government. Of course, you have to use different wording, as "most" is not allowed, per WP:Weasel.Kavas (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We mustn't confuse views of countries with views of academics. Probably some academics are sponcored by the governments. But countries behave not for seeking historical facts, but by political reasons and interests. As to minority of historians, we can show Category:Armenian Genocide deniers (Bernard Lewis, Stanford J. Shaw, Justin McCarthy, Guenter Lewy, Heath W. Lowry, Norman Stone, Gilles Veinstein etc. can be a academic. But Samuel Weems is not academic.) In short, Academic of historians consider this massacres as a genocide, but minority of historians don't accept it. And some Turkish historians and interectuals accept it. Most of all governments of the related countries accept it. But the Turkish government doesn't accept it. Takabeg (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, however, this is all beyond the scope of this article. These things should be discussed at Armenian Genocide denial, that's why we have that article. In this article, a brief mention that the Turkish government does not accept that these events were genocide is sufficient. Anything more than that is beyond the scope of the article and is in main article fixation territory. Athenean (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

For the claim "During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were deported and exterminated in the Armenian Genocide.[35][36]" reference 35 is not a neutral source. As stated in the source website, (http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/aboutarc/history.html), the idea is represented by Knights of Vartan Endowment, Armenian Research Center, which is founded by Dr. Dennis R. Papazian. The text has no reference listed and has a strongly biased script which doesn't reflect any solid counter data. It is referred as "University of Michigan", however it is an institution under "University of Michigan-Dearburn."

As there is a dispute over the number of Armenians who were deported and/or exterminated, several neutral sources should be stated before claiming an estimated number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Armenian_population

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire: In 1915, as the Russian Caucasus Army continued to advance in eastern Anatolia with the help of Armenian volunteer units from the Caucasus region of the Russian Empire,[106] and aided by some Ottoman Armenians, the Ottoman government decided to issue the Tehcir Law, which started the deportation of the ethnic Armenians, particularly from the provinces close to the Ottoman-Russian front, resulting in what became known as the Armenian Genocide.[107][108][109] Through forced marches and massacres, the Armenians living in eastern Anatolia were uprooted from their ancestral homelands and sent southwards to the Ottoman provinces in Syria and Mesopotamia. Estimates vary on how many Armenians perished during the Armenian Genocide but scholars give figures ranging from 300,000 (per the modern Turkish state), 600,000 (per early estimates by Western researchers)[110] to up to 1.0 million to up to 1.5 million (per modern Western and Armenian scholars).[111][112][113][114][115][116]

This is a political subject and there is no consensus so it is better left open as a dispute. Still it is a shame for humanity that such things ever happened, no matter how many people died. 194.171.252.101 (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Gorkemsem, 10 August 2011
unemployment rate has fallen to %9.9

Gorkemsem (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  —  Jeff G.  ツ  12:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * unemployment rate has fallen to %8.9 --46.115.16.95 (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Tourism section
This page could use a section on Tourism. The sperate page has more locations than information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.221.222 (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Work needed
Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Post to prevent bot archiving Brad (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In the map- Indian administered Kashmir
In the map, why is there a border line between Indian administered Kashmir & the rest of India? The Indian administered Kashmir is an undisputed part of India and even the Pakistan administered Kashmir is recognized by the UNO as a disputed area. If the correction in the map is not made as soon as possible, it will be reported to the Indian government. SourabhDev (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoever made that map separated each bit of Kashmir in the same way. Legal threats do not work on wikipedia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats will definitely work on Wikipedia after it is reported to the Indian government. Few days before the UN apologized to Indian government for showing Pak administered Kashmir as a part of Pakistan. This is a more serious issue which is separating even the Indian administered Kashmir from India. SourabhDev (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEGAL. No legal threats are allowed on wikipedia, and making them will get you blocked. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't be the one who will give legal threats, it will be the Indian government. What's the use of blocking dude, can't I sign for another account SourabhDev (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not under Indian law. Basically, without significantly better reasons, there is no incentive to one-sidedly change the map. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not against any Indian law but Indian government can report the matter to the UN and the UN has the power to interfere in this matter. It's not just the map of Turkey on Wikipedia but maps of almost all countries on Wikipedia are showing border between Indian administered Kashmir & the rest of India SourabhDev (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Offering to involve the Indian government and the UN may be reasonably perceived as a legal threat. It is certainly possible for a blocked user to make another account, but a new user who grinds the axe of a previously blocked user will likely be investigated for sock puppetry, which in itself is grounds for blocking. It would be better to find a reliable source for any proposed changes, than to make risible suggestions that the UN will interfere. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that you want reliable source to prove that Indian administered Kashmir is a part on India? Don't you know that it is only Pak administered Kashmir which is disputed area? Indian administered Kashmir is an undisputed part of India. If you want reliable source for this then look for any world map anywhere except Wikipedia. SourabhDev (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

speaker of parlement should be written over the prime minister.
speaker of parlement should be written over the prime minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.173.193 (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

INVASION OF CYPRUS
I would like to refer to following sentence taken from the penultimate paragraph of your text under the heading "Republic era":  "Turkey invaded Cyprus on 20 July 1974 upon the request for guarantorship intervention by the Turkish Cypriot leader and Vice President of the Republic of Cyprus Rauf Denktaş",

Anyone reading the above text will erroneously arrive at the conclusion that there was a legal premise for the invasion. The so called "guarantorship intervention" which according to your text Rauf Denktaş called for, is covered specifically by Article IV of the Treaty of Guarantee both as regards circumstances as well as the purpose for any such intervention. The Article provides: "In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions. In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty."

Rauf Denktaş had no power under the constitution of the Republic to "request guarantorship intervention " by anybody and the "guaranteeing powers"  were not authorised to "intervene" save under the provisions of Article IV. Turkey did not endeavour to consult together with the other two guaranteeing powers which, therefore, rendered the so-called intervention an outright illegal invasion. What is more significant though, is that the purpose, of even a legal intervention, should have been   "action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the Treaty." Turkey violated the very Article she invoked in order to invade Cyprus since it went ahead to establish the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

The sentence in your article should be amended to simply read : "Turkey invaded Cyprus on 20 July 1974 and occupied 37% of its territory. Nine years later the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is recognised only by Turkey, was established." Even such a statement would be deficient in so far as it does not mention the ethnic cleansing applied by Turkey in the part of the island occupied by its army, but at at least, it does not try to present the invasion as a legally justified action. cgc 19.3.2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.228.112.194 (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What is written above is partially not true. Right after the putsch Turkish PM Ecevit flew to London asking United Kingdom for a joint Anglo-Turkish intervention. Only when it became clear that the U.K. was not ready to do it, Turkey invaded Cyprus. Alex2006 (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The national motto of Turkey
Our national motto is "Yurtta Barış, Dünyada Barış" which translates to "Peace at home, peace in the world"

This motto used to be present on the article but has thenceforth been removed. It is a key motto in Turkey's modern self and the reader would benefit greatly from knowing this motto when wanting to learn about Turkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mertface (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it was removed because Turkey is currently seeking to invade and attack Syria (which is likely to lead to the breakup of Turkey itself). You can't be peaceful if you are planning to invade a country unprovoked. 130.56.91.121 (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Turkey isn't invading Syria anytime soon, also its a motto, Frances motto has equality when there is religious restriction on headscarves. Their motto is still up.

(talk • contribs) 17:30, 19 April 2012

74.724.269
Please replace the text "74.724.269" with the exact text "74,724,269"

I am sorry for this section however some fool has locked the article. I also suggest that any europeans who are offended by this message to grow up, it is absurd to use or even maintain such a conflicting system which can easily lead to mass confusion. In addition, there is absolutely no need to create your own obscure system when one that is perfectly functional and, indeed, serves every single purpose you are seeking to address. 130.56.91.121 (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Literacy
The literacy rate given here is blatantly false. The official data from the Turkish Institute of statistics (equal to the US census bureau and other government statistics agencies) gives the literacy rate for males at 97.79 % and females at 90.13 % Source: Turkey in Statistics 2011 (Page 14). Available in pdf format from their website.

Please correct this article to reflect reality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seternec (talk • contribs) 14:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Also please remove the racist insinuations about certain groups. Im shocked that this is present — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seternec (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 May 2012
The literacy rate given in the Turkey article is blatantly false. The official data from the Turkish Institute of statistics (equal to the US census bureau and other government statistics agencies) gives the literacy rate for males at 97.79 % and females at 90.13 % Source: Turkey in Statistics 2011 (Page 14). Available in pdf format from their website.

Please correct this article to reflect reality and please remove the racist insinuations about certain groups. Im shocked that this is present.

I propose the text regarding literacy to be changed to "The literacy rate is 97.79% for males and 90.13% for females as of 2010" Source: Turkey in Statistics 2011 (Page 14). 

Seternec (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. The previous version article used data from the year 2004. Kolay gelsin-Maviyengeç (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 May 2012

 * largest_city            = Konya
 * most_crowded_city       =İstanbul

178.26.84.115 (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Konya says it is the 7th largest, and 'most crowded city' is not a parameter of Template:Infobox country (click 'Show' at Syntax / Parameters for Country or territory). Dru of Id (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

armenian genocide
The writer made a very bad mistake about so-called armenian genocide. Armenians during the WWI commited many many murders against turkish villager despite their (armenians) citizenship in Ottoman Empire. Ottomans took a decision about the armenians that commited crimes, and that decision was about relocation of armenians to syria and lebanon. Here some Turkish archive documents about it: http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/turkce/arsiv/004.html http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/turkce/arsiv/006.html http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/turkce/arsiv/013.html http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/turkce/arsiv/019.html And some foreign archive documents: http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/turkce/arsiv/060.html (american) http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/turkce/arsiv/063_01.html (american) http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/turkce/arsiv/068_01.html (armenian) http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/turkce/arsiv/069_01.html (french) http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/turkce/arsiv/071_01.html  (armenian)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alkodet (talk • contribs) 00:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Nuri Bilge Ceylan Cannes 2008.jpg
The file File:Nuri Bilge Ceylan Cannes 2008.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Nuri Bilge Ceylan Cannes 2008.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor Grammar Error
Under the Religion section there is a sentence fragment "Though academics suggest the Alevi population may be from 15 to 20 million." "Though" should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefunk187 (talk • contribs)
 * ✅, thanks! CMD (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Turkey history
In brief history section why people skipped the most important part that Turksih people were originally from central asia that they migrated in VI century to this modern location from central asia? Orgio89 (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Population May/July 2012 (new)
population of turkey is amounted to 79,749,461 million in may/july 2012. source:
 * https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html
 * http://www.tageo.com/index-e-tu-airport-tu.htm
 * http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/turkey/turkey_people.html
 * http://www.turkiccouncil.org/turkey/
 * http://www.eoearth.org/article/Turkey
 * http://www.robinsonlibrary.com/history/balkan/turkey/general/facts.htm

09:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.32.125 (talk)

World War I
It entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers and was ultimately defeated.

— This is all we have to say about Turkey's role in the First World War? Nothing about the SMS Goeben exploit, by which the Germans maneuvered Turkey into the war on their side? Nothing about the infamous Gallipoli Campaign, in which Turkey suffered a quarter million casualties in beating back the British? Very strange. Sca (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Add Request: Template:Turkish Holidays
67.141.28.172 (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Turkey
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Turkey's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "worldbank": From Russia:  From Economy of Bolivia:  From Republic of Macedonia:  From Nepal:  </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Images
I have undone this revert by User:Maurice07 on the grounds that the map is actually very useful and informative to our readers, much more so than the image of Istiklal Avenue. The map informs the readers where the minorities are located in Turkey which is useful. The picture of Istiklal avenue doesn't really inform the reader about anything. The edit summary under which the map was removed "unnecessary png!" is also completely spurious, as is the excuse that the legend is in German. The names of the minorities are easily understandable by any English speaker. I note there are similar maps in other country articles, e.g. Greece, Albania, Iraq, etc...This seems more of a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else. I also removed two images from the military section, on the grounds that there were too many images in that section and there was some serious WP:SANDWICHing of text. It is mentioned that Turkey is a founding member of NATO in the text. What is the point of having an image of a NATO meeting? What more information does it convey to the reader about Turkey. Ditto with the F-35 picture, it doesn't really inform the reader about Turkey. Athenean (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The avenue image is pure decoration, and the F-35 gives very little information (the state of the military I assume, is far better shown in text). CMD (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The map is also used without complaints in Minorities in Turkey. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive revert in the History section
I have reverted this revert-without-an-edit-summary, which I consider disruptive, on several grounds: One, the addition on the Circassians is poorly written and unsourced, and moreover largely irrrelevant to this article. The remaining additions are also of low quality as they are based on highly partisan (Justin McCarthy), outdated (Carnegie report) or outright falsified sources (Mann). I have checked Mann's book and nowhere does he refer to "murderous ethnic cleansing" of Balkan Muslims. In fact, much of his book focuses on the Armenian Genocide. There is nothing to the effect of what is claimed by Salako1999 on page 113. The information regarding the flight of several million Balkan Muslims is moreover already included in more compact form immediately below. Athenean (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Expulsion and Emigration of the Muslims from the Balkans(Vertreibung und Abwanderung der Muslime vom Balkan)

http://www.ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/europe-on-the-road/forced-ethnic-migration/berna-pekesen-expulsion-and-emigration-of-the-muslims-from-the-balkans by Berna Pekesen Original in German, displayed in English▾ Published: 2012-03-07 Translated by: Christopher Reid Editor:  Lutz Berger Copy Editor:  Lisa Landes  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salako1999 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and? Do you speak English by the way? Athenean (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I can read and write in eng, but maybe I can't speak it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salako1999 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this is about. This article is not even published, at least just an empty page shows up on my screen. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

these issues are only being used to smear. facts no one cares.
 * Gun Powder Ma, I can see the article very well. Salako, please learn to sign your talk ARTIK... Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Transformation of the regional power
Turkey is a regional power not only around its borders (Balkans, Middle East, the Caucasus, the Black Sea Basin and Eastern Mediterranean) but also in Central and South Asia, Northern Africa (Maghreb), Eastern Africa and many other regions. In fact it is fast transforming into a global power. Read this, from STRATFOR, as one of many examples to serious analyses on Turkey's foreign policy. --E4024 (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The STRATFOR article opens with "Turkey is re-emerging as a significant regional power", which indicates it's only just coming into its own as a strong regional power, which is nowhere near your assertion of "fast transforming into a global power". It also deals with Turkey's opportunities, rather than mentioning much on current influence. CMD (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let us hope this will help you convince to remove the unnecessary addition of "Middle Eastern" before the words "regional power" in the article. --E4024 (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What will? That whole article is about future possibilities, rather than current status. CMD (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is a case of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UNDUE. Not an academic consensus at all. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 15:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, and like a lot the definition WP:CRYSTAL, which I did not know. As a closing comment, I would like to remember that in the early nineties, Italy - my homeland - was known as "the fifth (world) power" (and - at least economically - it was), and I read at that time a lot of erudite analyses like that of STRATFOR above about its future role in the world. Alas, its ranking today is slightly different. The problem is that human brain likes linear extrapolation, but reality usually is more complicated. Alex2006 (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Labeling Turkey as a Middle Eastern regional power is nothing but Euro-centrism. France and Germany are considered regional powers but no one refers to them as European regional powers. Russia is a regional power, mainly in Central Asia with the only influence in Europe being Belarus and no one refers to Russia as a Central Asian regional power. Giving Turkey's regional power another title is nothing but forcing an identity that other countries are not forced to accept. This is open racism and I would expect better from the editors of Wikipedia. Mertface 12:28, 11 August 2012 (EST)
 * I advice you warmly to read something about geopolitics (and geography). France is the hegemonic power in most of its African colonies, and - among others - was the driving force in kicking Gaddafi out of power. Russia's territory covers eleven time zones (most of them outside Europe), and Putin could annihilates Istanbul (and Rome, and Washington) with its nuclear warheads (plus having a decisive influence in Caucasus, Ukraine, Syria, Asian far east, and so on). About Germany, this is exactly what the article says. Alex2006 (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Putins annihilation of certain cities has nothing to do with this topic. If you're going to make an argument make it relative. Political influence of Russia and its military influence are different things. The article makes no claim that Germany is a European regional power. Turkey also has influences on areas not considered part of the historical middle east such as Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, etc. Again exclusively adding a Geographical location to the Term Regional Power for Turkey is nothing but Euro-centric racism. Turkey is regionally considered middle Eastern by most countries regardless of including the statement. The statement was put there so others wont think that a country like Turkey could possibly have influence on a continent like Europe. By adding that, one is implying that Turkey isn't good enough to influence Europe even though no one is claiming it does. It is also making sure no one assumes Turkey is anything but Middle Eastern. There is no knowledge value of including that statement there. If you're going to be openly racist that's up to you, but don't include it sites like Wikipedia where large amounts of people go to seek knowledge. Mertface 07:15, 13 August 2012 (EST)
 * Hallo Mertface, it is difficult for me being racist against Turks, since my wife is Istanbullu. :-)
 * About Germany, in the article is written (in the incipit) that it is a Great power. The same for Russia. About Bosnia, it is economically an European satellite. Its currency (whose name is Mark, not Lira :-)) it is locked with euro. This is what counts. And I think that the article that you put as source explains well the reason why these small countries are flirting with Turkey. They are just trying to accelerate the process of joining the Union. None there thinks seriously that Ankara is better than Brussels (or Berlin :-)). About Caucasus, for me this belongs to middle east. If not, you can add it in the article, since it is clear that Turkey is a player there, at least regarding Azerbaijan (but Russia, as you know too well, has a greater influence over Georgia and Armenia). I would not speak about a real political influence in Central Asia, since there Russia, America AND China play the real game. In summary, what I was trying to explain, is that you can make a power politics if you have the instruments to do it. And Turkey does not (yet) have them. Maybe in 10 - 20 years it will be different, but the reality now is so. And I assure you that this is not eurocentrism, at least in my case, but derives from my knowledge of the country, which still has many big problems to solve (first of them the Kurdish question). Alex2006 (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then if you are claiming all this, why put it as a middle eastern regional power if you are pretty much saying it has no influence. Remove the statement if you disagree with it so much. Mertface 12:20, 15 August 2012 (EST)
 * Now don't exaggerate: :-) Turkey has for sure an influence in the Middle East, and a growing one: but also there the big players, are - for the moment - others. Question: I get a lot of my info about Turkey from this journal, which in 2010 published a 200 page special issue about Turkey ("The sultan's comeback"). It is something as "Foreign Affair", but in Italian. do you have also such a journal in Turkey? If yes, I would like to read it (although in the Italian special issue there were interviews with Davidoğlu, Gül, the Army's Chief, etc., so the Turkish point of view and ideas are well represented). Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You realize most of those articles are stating that Turkey has a growing influence in the middle east? the articles I've provided state that Turkey has a growing influence in the Balkans and thus are talking about the same thing. I see no reason to only include the middle east if what you're basing 'regional influence' on is growing influence. Articles such as: http://setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2012/05/08/feature-05, http://csis.org/blog/western-balkans-turkey-back, http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Europe/Turkeys-Growing-Influence-In-The-Balkans.html state more or less the same thing as the two articles provided as a source for saying Turkey is a middle Eastern regional power. All the articles (both the ones I've provided and the previous editor has provided) are filled with 'ifs' and 'coulds.' Since both the articles say the same thing, why only include half of the information? Mertface 02:52, 15 August 2012 (EST)


 * From: http://www.stratfor.com/ quote:
 * This does not look to me as if it means that Turkey is a major player in any part of Europe. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 19:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I can find articles that say teh same thing about Turkey's influence in the middle east. The provided articles state that in each reason Turkey has a growing influence. so why only write that the influence is present in the Middle East if it has growing influence in both Areas. You are selectively telling the truth. Including the Middle East to state that Turkey is Middle eastern and excluding the Balkans to say Turkey cannot have an influence in Europe when both articles state the same thing. Mertface 03:33, 15 August 2012 (EST)
 * None of these articles as far as I know use the description "major regional power" to refer to Turkey. They actually talk about Turkey's influence and strategic plans instead. Therefore I think we may have to drop the description "major regional power" and instead describe Turkey's influence in the region using appropriate citations. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 20:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * To me it just sounds like some people simply don't like Turkey described as "Middle Eastern", because somehow that makes it less "European". As if "Middle Eastern" is somehow "uncool", and "European" is "cool".  There is no point and no need to engage this sort of silliness. Anyway, I would certainly dispute the whole "major regional power" claim.  Turkey wanted Israel to apologize over the flotilla.  It didn't.  Turkey wanted Cyprus to stop drilling.  It didn't.  Turkey backed the SNC in Syria.  The SNC has now been sidelined.  Where is the influence?  Meanwhile the PKK is all over the place.  Turkey is not on talking terms with Israel.  Not on talking terms with Cyprus.  Not on talking terms with Syria; Iraq;  Iran;  Armenia.  Who is left? Georgia?  What kind of "major" regional power is this that has no influence, is not on talking terms with its neighbors, and has a huge unsolved internal conflicts?  Things in the region have changed quite drastically since the heady days of 2009-2010.  I would support removing the sentence altogether.  Athenean (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd support removal if there's the feeling that sources are talking hypotheticals. CMD (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It is only a matter of definition. If the definition is as follows (from the corresponding wikipedia article):


 * be part of a definable region with its own identity
 * claim to be a regional power (self-image of a regional power)
 * exert decisive influence on the geographic extension of the region as well as on its ideological construction
 * dispose over comparatively high military, economic, demographic, political and ideological capabilities
 * be well integrated into the region
 * define the regional security agenda to a high degree
 * be appreciated as a regional power by other powers in the region and beyond, especially by other regional powers
 * be well connected with regional and global fora

Turkey - especially after the Arab spring - IS a regional power (in the Great Middle east, of course: NOT in the Balkans).

If we take this other definition (from the same article) : "A state belonging to a geographically defined region, dominating this region in economic and military terms, able to exercise hegemonic influence in the region and considerable influence on the world scale, willing to make use of power resources and recognized or even accepted as the regional leader by its neighbours"

IS NOT, but then we should as well remove the definition "regional power" from almost all the articles. From my main source (unfortunately only in Italian, but one of the main articles about the Turkish strategy is the translation of an American one), comes out too that Turkey is widely considered a middle East regional power, and is striving to become one in the Balkans too. But one think is "wilde aktionismus" as the one of the Turkish government, another (for now) reality. Alex2006 (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)