Talk:Turkey/Archive 20

Current dispute - "Anatolia" and "Armenian Highland"
"Eastern Anatolia" is 42 to 48 times more commonly used than "Armenian Highland" in reference to eastern Turkey by scholarly sources.

Wikipedia is not a battleground, and no place for revanche. --Mttll (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Some encyclopedic definitions:


 * And yes, Anatolia is explicitly considered synonymous with Asian Turkey:
 * Have a nice day. --Mttll (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Google search results — Armenian Highland - About 3,410,000 results ; Eastern Anatolia - About 1,680,000 results. -_- PS. Armenian Plateau - About 2,680,000 results. 3,410,000 + 2,680,000 = 6,090,000 (Armenian highland and Armenian plateau) results against 1,680,000 (Eastern Anatolia).
 * Have a nice holidays. Rs4815 (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Google search results — Armenian Highland - About 3,410,000 results ; Eastern Anatolia - About 1,680,000 results. -_- PS. Armenian Plateau - About 2,680,000 results. 3,410,000 + 2,680,000 = 6,090,000 (Armenian highland and Armenian plateau) results against 1,680,000 (Eastern Anatolia).
 * Have a nice holidays. Rs4815 (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a nice holidays. Rs4815 (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Get your facts straight please:
 * Raw Google Results: 540,000 Eastern Anatolia vs 104,000 Armenian Highland
 * However more important thing is scholarly sources:
 * Google Books: 159,000 Eastern Anatolia vs 3,710 Armenian Highland
 * Google Scholar: 13,100 Eastern Anatolia vs 270 Armenian Highland
 * It's no contest. --Mttll (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Protected fully?
It was initially protected semi, then fully. Someone unprotected it, this is a wrong chose. -- Hinata  talk   20:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Update Main Article notes in History section. Main article for overall history is History of Anatolia. For Classical, Classical Anatolia and Byzantine Anatolia. For Seljuk Turks and the Ottoman Empire, History of Turkey (articles listed there should probably use See also instead of Main articles notes). Republic of Turkey's main articles (History of the Republic of Turkey and Atatürk's Reforms) are up to date.

The reason the main overall article isn't History of Turkey is that that article only covers the eleventh century to present, the scope of this articles history section is the same as History of Anatolia (except that this section doesn't cover pre-history). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. I have reduced the protection level to semi-protection. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Protection level reduced
I have reduced the protection level of the article to semi-protection, as the discussions about the disputed content appear to have stopped and therefore protection was no longer justified. This means that all autoconfirmed users should be able to edit the article now. However, I will be monitoring the page, and if there is any further edit warring I will hand out blocks rather than protect the page again. I would also like to remind editors that the three-revert rule is not a licence to revert up to three times, and I may block editors who don't reach three reverts. (This is especially true if the reverts are of the material that led to the page being protected in December.) Please let me know if you have any questions about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic population
2007 Konda research 70,500,000 population of Turkey []

55.484.000 Turkish, 11,445.000 kurdish-zazas , 3.000.000 other groups

Turkish % 81.33, kurdish-zazas % 15.6, other (...)
 * I think you touched some button unexpectedly and your edit is unfinished. Let me calculate for you: According to the above data, "other ethnic groups" would be 4 % of the population (by 2007). However, we prefer the CIA's World Factbook which says 7-12 %. In other words, the latter "guess" of the CIA is almost double the former. Still we have preferred this source, who knows why; and of course I do not agree with such volatile "facts" and this choice of source. --E4024 (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

CIA's World Factbook cannot be accepted as a "trusted source" since it has been provided by a very political agency and it would be absurd to expect objectiveness from such an agency.

According to the "Türkiye'nin Etnik Yapısı" (Ethnic Structure in Turkey Ali Tayyar Önder, Fark Yayınları 2006 ISBN:9756424044) Kurdish population is about %5-6 of the population. Noting that you cannot fully seperate these people from Turks and define them as completely different nation.

It is very normal to see many ancestries in Anadolu because it was the maninland of Ottoman Empire which helt many nations, groups etc. But exagratting the Kurdish population serves to who or what? What do they want to do with these people on these lands? (Reminders: Greece, Armenia, World War One...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.128.177 (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Turkey consensus ethnic research 2011-2012

Turkish population : 57,089,942 people, Kurdish-zazas population : 8,693,000 people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.125.211 (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic structure of Turkey are incorrect. Rate of 78-81% of Turkish,

Kurdish and Zaza rate of 13-15%,

5-7% in the other groups Native Turkish speakers at the level of 85%.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.10.202 (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This page not objective
In Turkey %70 of all people votes to right partys but this page entirely writen by left people, they did very partisan job in this page and as an avarge Turkis person this is offends me. First Kemal Dervis accomplished notting all succes belongs AKP you can search it Second They talk about jornalist been arrested but they doesnt talk about military coup(s) which sapported by some jornalist and in this coups manny people (mostly from right wing religious people) sufferd inculuding me, i watch my muslims teachers fired from schools just becouse they use scarf for cover their hair, in turkey forbiden thing isn't only hijap it is simple scarf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.161.109.177 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * are you objective?--Qwl (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Turkey ranks "High" in the HDI Index, not "Medium"
Check out the article list of countries by Human Development Index and then please correct your mistake in the infobox of the Turkey article. 88.251.85.34 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Correction of the HDI level
I would like to inform you that HDI level of Turkey is set as 'medium' and in fact it is on 'high' level according to all HDI reports. The organisation will not be seen objective and trustable information source by Turkish public as long as current information remains. It is known that this is done deliberatly before tourism season.

Human development level of Turkey is calculated by UN development programme and can be seen below.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/map

http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/TUR.html --Msimsak (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Population genetics in the lede
The mention of the population genetics of the Turkish people does not belong in the lede, for the following reasons

1) This article is about a country, not an ethnic group. Such information may be appropriate for the Turkish people article, but it does not belong here, especially in the lede

2) Not everyone in Turkey is a Turk (only 70-75% are in fact)

3) We do not include population genetics in the lede of country articles. I can't find a single country article where we say "The inhabitants of X primarily descend from ancient X-ians", and there are many countries where we could do that, e.g. Greece, Iran, India, etc...

That the information is sourced is irrelevant. All kinds of things can be sourced. Does that mean we should add them to lede of an article? Athenean (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The current text does not accurately and completely represents what the sources are saying: "Although Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since ancient times, the Seljuk Turks began migrating into the area now called Turkey (derived from the Medieval Latin Turchia, i.e. "Land of the Turks") in the 11th century" suggests that Turks replaced native populations, similar to what happened in USA with respect to Native Americans. This is incorrect, not sourced, and misinforms the readers. You, yourself, said mention of pre-Seljuk area is justified. This mention should not violate Wiki policies.


 * Also, contrary to what you claimed, ethnic/ancestral origins is included in various leads. Eg: Denmark, "Originally the home of the Vikings, Norse seafaring explorers who invaded and settled in many parts of Europe and Russia, Denmark emerged as a unified kingdom in the Middle Ages.";Germany, "A region named Germania, inhabited by several Germanic peoples, was documented before AD 100.";Russia, "The nation's history began with that of the East Slavs, who emerged as a recognizable group in Europe between the 3rd and 8th centuries AD".


 * So, how about this. "Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since Stone Age, with Ancient Anatolians compromising the primary component in Turkish population today, despite waves of immigration and conquests." Cavann (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point here. This article is about a state not an ethnic group.   The examples you mention (Denmark, Russia) actually support my point.  Notice they don't say that "the Vikings or East Slavs comprise the main component of the Danish or Russian people", rather they say that the Danish and Russian states have their roots in those tribes.  We have separate articles for Danish people and Russian people where the issue of ancestry is discussed.  Similarly, the roots of the Turkish state lie with the Seljuk Turks, not with the Hittites and Lydians.  As such, I've actually changed my mind, I think it's fine to only mention the Seljuk Turks in the lede.  We can mention that the Turkic tribes imposed their language and culture and did not replace the previous population, however that should be in the history section, not the lede.  The lede is only meant to present a brief summary of the article's content.  Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the information you are presenting or the sources you are using, I am perfectly fine with it being included in Turkish people, it's just that this article is not about the Turkish people, it's about the Turkish state. Not all Turks live in this state, and not everyone in this state is Turkish. Athenean (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Your response perfectly exemplifies why we need that information in the lead. The roots of the Turkish state does NOT lie with the Seljuk Turks. It's like saying roots of Mexican state lies with Spanish settlers, just because Mexicans speak Spanish. It's also like excluding following text from the Mexico article: "In pre-Columbian Mexico many cultures matured into advanced civilizations such as the Olmec, the Toltec, the Teotihuacan, the Zapotec, the Maya and the Aztec before first contact with Europeans."


 * Modern Turkey was founded in 1923 by Ataturk, and he -himself- emphasized Ancient Anatolian. Eg: Establishment of Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Another example: . As such, not only your claim that modern Turkey has nothing to do with these ancient civilizations is incorrect, it also misinforms the readers. Cavann (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You're not listening. This article is about a country, not an ethnic group.  Regarding Mexico, again notice how the lede says that culture X and Y were located in Mexico, not that the Mexican people descend primarily from the pre-columbian population. Again, because that article is about a country, not a people.  At this point I think I'd like to seek a third opinion via the wikipedia community. Athenean (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Btw I never "claimed" that modern Turkey has "nothing do to with these ancient civilizations", just that the claim that the Turkish people descend from the ancient Anatolian populations does not belong in the lede of the article. That's all, and nothing more.  I don't even dispute the claim itself. You appear to not be hearing what I'm saying.  Athenean (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And entire paragraph is devoted to ethnicity stats and percentages, so your claims about ethnic information not belonging in the lead is ridiculous, especially when Ancient Anatolians and their connection is relevant when it comes to establishment of modern Turkey. I guess we'll have to go through dispute resolution. Cavann (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The information about the ethnic percentages in Turkey applies to the country as a whole, not to a single ethnic group. How exactly are ancient Anatolians "relevant" to the establishment of modern Turkey?  Did they found it?  Was Ataturk an "ancient Anatolian"? In case you haven't noticed, only 70-75% of Turkey's population are Turks.  The remaining 25-30% are not, that's a pretty significant percentage. Not to mention that Turks have other ancestries in addition to Anatolian and Turkic (Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, Circassian, Arab, Georgian, Laz, Albanian, Slavic, etc...). The ancestry of the modern Turkish population is a complicated point - the lede is not the place to discuss complicated points.  It is only meant to present a summary of the article. Athenean (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Learn to read. Primary component =/= Only component. Saying X compromises the primary component does not necessarily exclude A, B, C backgrounds. The point that there are other ethnicities in Turkey is already made in the lead, with an entire paragraph. Cavann (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC
Should the claim that the ethnic Turks of Turkey primarily descend from the ancient Anatolians be included in the lede of the article? Athenean (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not an accurate description of the dispute. This is the suggested text in the lead:

Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since Stone Age, with Ancient Anatolians compromising the primary component in Turkish population today, despite waves of immigration and conquests.


 * Modern Turkey was founded in 1923 by Ataturk, and he -himself- emphasized Ancient Anatolians in the context of roots of Turkey. Eg: Establishment of Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Another example: . Plus Ancient Anatolians do not only concern Turks, but may also concern other ethnic groups such as Kurds (eg: shared ancestry despite linguistic differences).


 * Finally, the current text is misrepresentative: "Although Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since ancient times, the Seljuk Turks began migrating into the area now called Turkey (derived from the Medieval Latin Turchia, i.e. "Land of the Turks") in the 11th century" suggests that Turks replaced native populations, similar to what happened in USA with respect to Native Americans. This is incorrect, not sourced, and misinforms the readers.Cavann (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the lead of country articles is definitely no the place to include various supposed ideas of ethnicity. There has, as noted in the quote, been extensive waves of immigration and conquest, as well as emigration, war, disease, and everything you could think of that affects the lives of people. In no area in this part of the world has demographics remained constant since the classical period. Ancient Anatolians actually make up none of the Turkish population today, as they're all dead. The proposed text is not an improvement. However, it may be worth changing the sentence currently in the text, perhaps to something like "Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since ancient times. The Seljuk Turks, after which Turkey (derived from the Medieval Latin Turchia, i.e. "Land of the Turks") was named, began migrating into the area in the 11th century." I personally see no indication that the Seljuks killed/displaced the pre-existing population. Migration is generally not an aggressive word. CMD (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I adopted this wording, with a slight tweak. Dropped "population genetics" (!).Cavann (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No you didn't adopt that wording, and your "tweak" was neither a "tweak", nor "slight". I have implemented the suggested wording. Athenean (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So now you are opposed to mentioning Ancient Anatolians in the lead? Cavann (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am, and I'm not the only one. Look around.  5 editors are in agreement with the wording proposed by CMD, not yours.  That's called consensus.  If you continue to edit-war against conesnsus, you will be reported and blocked.


 * What? They are against the original wording, not necessarily against the newer one. The newer one is completely different, and ignores the descent aspect. Cavann (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you talking about? Read the wording CMD proposed above.  What does it say?  That is the wording agreed upon by the other editors.  Everyone except you is against mentioning the descent aspect.  Athenean (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you an idiot? Read what the newer version says: "Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since stone age, including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations. The Seljuk Turks began migrating into the area now called Turkey (derived from the Medieval Latin Turchia, i.e. "Land of the Turks") in the 11th century."


 * There is nothing about descent. Just that Ancient Anatolians used to live there. Cavann (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question. What does CMD's wording say?  Does it mention the ancient Anatolians?  How many editors support that wording?  Answer me please, instead of name calling.  Why is is it so important to mention the ancient antolians in the lede?  If we mention them, we should also mention the Ionian Greeks, Armenians, Hellenistic kingdoms, Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, etc...Athenean (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per CMD. I also agree with his proposed alternative phrasing. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  19:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The popular idea that language indicates genetic history is very annoying, but this is a general interest encyclopedia, rather than Polemipedia. Any absolutist stance, like "Turkey's people are primarily Central Asian" or "Turkey's people are primarily Ancient Anatolian" should be quoted and quarantined as part of Turkey's internal nationalist power struggles over history, rather than presented as fact. Support CMD's wording. Shrigley (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the reasons I have explained above, and agree with CMD's proposed wording. Athenean (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per CMD. I was watching this from the sidelines. The article of Turkey is not a place to talk about the genetics of Turkish people. CMD's wording is compatible because it gives a separate emphasis on "ancient" and "Anatolians" and displays the "migrating" patterns of Seljuks. I might also want to add that migrating is a term to say the least of what the Seljuks have done in Anatolia. I am sure that is compromising enough in and of itself. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Main article notes
Regarding this revert, by "per talk page" I meant per my expiation on the talk page. In the six days that edit request was up no one objected to the change so there is consensus, and this is just a simple edit to update the main article notes to reflect the current scope of the articles. History of Turkey is not about the whole history, it's about the 11th century to present, correct article is History of Anatolia. History of Anatolia is not about Antiquity, it's about the whole history, prehistory-present. Correct articles are Classical Anatolia and Byzantine Anatolia. History of Turkey doesn't quite match up with "Seljuk Turks and the Ottoman Empire" because the article includes a section about the republic, but it's close enough. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any reason given as to why the notes shouldn't be updated, or evidence of a lack of consensus I'm restoring my edit. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding this revert how is showing the correct main articles "not appropriate an image for the article", as I pointed out the main article notes in their current state do not reflect the scopes of the target articles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In the absence of any expiation as to how linking to the correct main articles is "not appropriate an image for the article" I'm reverting. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many civilizations that have existed in Anatolia. Roman Empire, Lydia, Kingdom of Armenia, Karamanids and many more .. Why just Byzantine Anatolia articles? and about picture: can not be negotiated cartoonish. Meaningless to the section of history.For this section, there are dozens of media files.See: Wikipedia Commons Maurice (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I ment to get back to you sooner. The Byzantine Anatolia article is part three in our main Turkish/Anatolian history seares. Prehistory of Anatolia --> Classical Anatolia --> Byzantine Anatolia --> History of Turkey. Without it we're missing everything from the creation of the Eastern Roman Empire to the Turkish migration. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I dont think 98% of Turkish people are Muslims. They are Muslims in the background but there is a lot of atheism in Turkey as well and the main reason people of non-Muslim backgrounds are not living in Turkey is the hate created pre-WW1 and the population exchanges between countries. There were also emigration of Turks from the Balkans and Aegean Islands and of non-Muslims out of modern day Turkey, due to pressures by the society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.75 (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Demographical statistics for 1914
The demographical statistics for 1914 also include Ottoman Empire citizens living in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Hejaz, Asir and Yemen, which do not belong to Turkey today (the Republic of Turkey was founded in 1923.)

It is like including the statistics of Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Trentino-Alto Adige (South Tyrol), Friuli, Trieste, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Transylvania and Galicia into the Austria article, not taking into account the difference between pre-1914 Austria-Hungary and post-1918 Republic of Austria. Herr Bundespanzer (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

İstanbul, Sivas, Edirne, Niğde, Karesi, Antalya, İzmit, Canik, Çatalca, Menteşe, Kale-i sultaniye, Aydın, Hüdavendigâr, Bolu, Kütahya and Eskişehir, Kastamonu, Karahisarısahib, Trabzon, Konya, Erzurum, Ankara, Suriye, Adana, Beyrut, Harput, Kayseri, Haleb, Van, Jerusalem, Bitlis, Zor, Urfa. Total : 1.219.323
 * If that were the case, then there would be a dramatic drop in the Muslim population of the 1927 census. As you can see, quite the opposite happened...the Muslim population actually grew. The Ottoman census only regarded the following provinces as stated by the Turkish Armed Forces in its Ermeni Faaliyetleri publication (see page 609) which I will add shortly as a source. According to the census, the following provinces of the Ottoman Empire were taken into account:

Almost all of these provinces fall into today's Turkish Republic. The authors have taken into account that Suriye, Jersualem (Kudus), Beyrut are outside of the Republic of Turkey today. When taking this into consideration and by subtracting 3.245, 3.043 and 5.233 respectively from 1.219.323, you'll receive 1,207,802 which is give or take the same amount as stated in the table. I want to once again reiterate that the source is a completely reliable peer-reviewed source based off of data from the Armed Forces of the Republic of Turkey. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC2
The leads in articles for many countries mention historical inhabitants/cultures in their territories. Should Ancient Anatolians be mentioned in Turkey? Cavann (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question. What does CMD's wording say?  Does it mention the ancient Anatolians.  Five editors (CMD, Dr. K., Shrigley, myself and Proudbolsahye) support CMD's proposed wording, which does not mention the ancient Anatolians.  Filing Rfc after Rfc (while edit-warring) until you get the result you want is disruptive editing. Athenean (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The previous RfC was about descent of inhabitants of Turkey. There was a consensus and I accepted that. This RfC is specifically about changing the lead from

Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since ancient times. to Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since stone age, including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations.Cavann (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You still didn't answer my question. What is CMD's proposed wording?  How many editors are in agreement with it?  Answer me instead of evading, please.  Athenean (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You are acting in a bizarrely irrational manner. CMD's proposed wording and their agreement preceded my newer edit, so -of course- no one could have agreed to the newer version, since they have no time machines. The previous issue was about descent; the current issues has nothing to do with it. Cavann (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What's bizarre and irrational is your insistence on mentioning the highly diverse collection peoples (which you refer to collectively as if they were a single people, the "ancient Anatolians") in the lede of an article about a country where their languages and culture no longer exist. What is so incredibly important about them that they should be mentioned in the lede?  Anatolia has been inhabited by countless peoples since antiquity:  Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds, Laz, Georgians, Arabs, Romans, Byzantines, the list goes on. Should all of these be mentioned in the lede too? Athenean (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) They were there for the longest period of time (much longer than Greeks).
 * 2) For the same reason why these articles mention historic people, eg: Denmark, "Originally the home of the Vikings, Norse seafaring explorers who invaded and settled in many parts of Europe and Russia, Denmark emerged as a unified kingdom in the Middle Ages.";Germany, "A region named Germania, inhabited by several Germanic peoples, was documented before AD 100.";Russia, "The nation's history began with that of the East Slavs, who emerged as a recognizable group in Europe between the 3rd and 8th centuries AD".
 * 3) Kurds are mentioned in the ethnicity paragraph. Greeks/Byzantines also mentioned.
 * 4) I also note that you may be pursing a POV that some may consider Hellenistic-nationalistic from your edit history. Note that wikipedia is not a place to impose your POV, violating WP:NPOV. Given their thousands of years of history, my suggestion makes perfect sense. Your omission, however, is irrational.Cavann (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Greeks have been living there from 1200 BC since 1923. Armenians probably even longer.  Byzantines and Romans are not mentioned in the lede, even though Anatolia was part of the Roman/Byzantine Empires from ~ 100 BC to 1453 AD. The ancient Anatolians are moreover a hetergeneous group of peoples, not a single people.  Furthermore, they were completely Hellenized by the time of the arrival of the Seljuks.  As such, current Turkish culture contains nothing Anatolian, and the Turkish language similarly does not contain any "Anatolian" words.  Zero, to be precise.  I should also warn you to stop making personal attacks.  Your observations about my editing history are a personal attack and best kept to yourself.  You have also called men "idiot" and told me to "learn to read".  One more such attack and I will report you, clear?  My patience has its limits. Athenean (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Byzantines are mentioned: "The process was greatly accelerated by the Seljuk victory over the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071."
 * I am not opposed to mentioning the Hellenization after Alexander the Great conquest.
 * As for the time periods, learn what Neolithic means. Cavann (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The Byzantines are only mentioned in passing, which is not adequate. Stop pretending not to hear, nothing of Anatolian cultures or languages survives to the modern day. As for the Neolithic, what about?  Should we mention that in the lede as well?  There are no written records from the neolithic, thus there is no way of knowing who lived in Anatolia then and what languages were spoken.  And anyway, recorded history should be given more weight than prehistory.  I don't see any other country articles mentioning prehistory in the lede (although many do so in the history section, which is fine).  I've also reported you for your continuing incivility, it's time you learned how to be polite. Athenean (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you just say "there are no records from the neolithic"? LOL, I'm not wasting any more time with you. I will disengage and let others comment. If you do not know what you are talking about, you should stop trying to influence the process. This is an encyclopedia, not an avenue for you to rant. Cavann (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, wikipedia is definitely not a soapbox for you to push your primordialist "We-Turks-have-been-living-in-Anatolia-since-the-beginning-of-time" kookery. So long. What written records are there from the Neolithic btw?  I'm very curious. Athenean (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Unlike you, I do not have petty nationalistic agendas. That is why I said the following previously: "I am not opposed to mentioning the Hellenization after Alexander the Great conquest".
 * To be more specific, we can mention Hellenic period, Roman, and Byzantine periods, before the sentence with Seljuk Turks start. Cavann (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no agenda whatsoever. On the other hand, it is you who seems to be pushing a primordialist "We-Turks-have-been-living-in-Anatolia-since-the-beginning-of-time" POV all over wikipedia. Hence your obsession with mentioning the "ancient Anatolians" in the lede of this article, even though the Anatolian cultures and languages have been extinct for millennia and do not form part of modern Turkish culture.  Athenean (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead provides an historical overview such as the Mexico article: "In pre-Columbian Mexico many cultures matured into advanced civilizations such as the Olmec, the Toltec, the Teotihuacan, the Zapotec, the Maya and the Aztec before first contact with Europeans." This is despite the fact that Mexico speaks Spanish. Cavann (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "Mexico speaks Spanish". In fact many indigenous languages (62 I think) continue to be spoken in Mexico. And many elements of pre-Columbian culture survive in modern Mexico.  This is in contrast to Turkey, where nothing remains of the Anatolian cultures.  In the words of historian John van Antwerp Fine, "It is culture, not bloodlines that matter".  Athenean (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Many Mesoamerican languages are actually extinct. But that is not a criteria when writing an overview in the lead. The history is. As for the rest, they are your own POV, and hence irrelevant. Wikipedia is NPOV. We seem to be stuck, so I suggest moving along WP:Dispute Resolution next week. Cavann (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok this is my suggestion:

Anatolia has been inhabited since Paleolithic, including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations starting from the earliest Neolithic. After Alexander the Great's conquest, it was Hellenized until Roman acquisition and the subsequent Romanization, which transitioned into the Byzantine era.

Added into the paragraph containing info starting with Seljuk Turks, it will provide a more comprehensive and correct overview of the history section compared to the current sentence "Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since ancient times." Cavann (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Disagree. I just think it is too much detail for the lede, especially the mention of the Paleolithic and the Neolithic.  Most countries have been inhabited since the Paleolithic, and many have had Neolithic civilizations.  None of their respective articles mention the Paleolithic and Neolithic in the lede. Athenean (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't make up stuff you do not know. Eg: Iraq article mentions various Neolithic civilization. England mentions Paleolithic settlements. Also, the entire addition is 2 sentences. So your claim about too much detail is bizarre. Cavann (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Again with the rudeness. This is getting tiresome.  Why do you always make things personal?  Those two articles are the exceptions to the trend, and I disagree with the mention of the Paleolithic and Neolithic there as well.  Point is, the vast majority of country articles do not mention the Paleolithic or Neolithic in the lede, even though a) most countries have been inhabited since the Paleolithic, and b) many have had Neolithic civilizations.  At this point, I think your intransigence combined with your rudeness make it pointless to engage in further debate with you.  You can't even agree to disagree, instead trying to "prove" to me that I'm "wrong" to disagree with you (by cherry-picking), and making things personal.  I'm also tired of repeating myself.  I've said all I've had to say on the subject:  I disagree with your additions, they are too much detail for the lede, particularly the mention of the neolithic and paleolithic.  Period. Athenean (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, don't make up stuff you do not know. Many countries do mention those periods, especially Neolithic. Many Latin American countries mention ancient civilization in their territories. Or countries like Greece, China, Egypt, etc mention those periods in the lead. I have little tolerance for irrational and uninformed obstruction, and baseless claims. I reckon we will continue with WP:Mediation Cavann (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's true that Iran, Iraq, Egypt etc... mention the Neolithic in the lede, so I'm not going to insist on that.  Regarding the Paleolithic, well, just about every country in Eurasia has been inhabited since the Paleolithic.  I don't see that it's particularly notable. Would you be ok if we mentioned the Neolithic only? Athenean (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * For Paleolithic research, Turkey is an important area, so the mention should stay in lead. It's very short anyway. Cavann (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I was summoned by the RfC bot and it looks like there is still some discussion to take place before the proper RfC channels are explored. As of now it seems that there isn't a clear question that is agreed upon. Dreambeaver  (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Economic predictions in the lead
The economic predictions should be removed from the lead. I can't find a single FA country article where economic predictions are included in the lead. Yesterday, at Talk:Istanbul, there was a solid consensus to keep economic predictions out of the lead of that article. I don't see why this article should be treated any differently. Athenean (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree totally with Athenean, except for the fact that this are not even predictions, but mere extrapolations. While a prediction can be based on underlying economic models, an extrapolation is a purely mathematical operation, whose significance in the economic field is - for the time scales here adopted - zero. Moreover, none of the sources used as reference is - to use an euphemism - reliable (and no RS in the galaxy would dare to make a prediction until 2060). This falls 100% under WP:CRYSTAL. Alex2006 (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a consensus reached regarding the removal of economic predictions in the TP of Istanbul. Therefore, I find it accepting to remove economic predictions from this article as well. Projections in the end of the day are second hand observations and nothing but opinions which are often times contradictory. It is misleading to add such information because noone, including CNBC, can predict what a future of a country looks like. Wikipedia should not provide any sort of information that can end up utterly wrong. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I removed the predictions. WP:CRYSTAL allows the recording of notable future events such as a major sporting event, but opinions on economic outlook are not worth much (particularly when two of the refs are just reporting what a politician said). The OECD report has some substance, but no organization predicted the GFC, so while economic predictions might be better than nothing for someone planning their investments, such predictions are not useful for encyclopedic information. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing the speculation from the lead. Since the ANI thread is closed I want to set the record straight that Athenean's edit-summary invoking the consensus at Istanbul in reverting the WP:CRYSTAL from Turkey yesterday was not done under false pretenses as claimed yesterday at ANI but that in fact it was based on the consensus reached at Istanbul. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  19:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not genuine. Referenced information citing OECD report was completely deleted, not even moved into the economy section, even though many countries do have such info in their economy sections (e.g., Brazil, China). And not all projections are necessarily extrapolations. I have no interest in discussions that does not try to improve the article. Cavann (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Where's the argument about not including this info in economy section?Cavann (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Read what people have written just above. Athenean (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have. Have you? The economic predictions also stayed in economy section in Istanbul, since you referred to discussion there earlier. Cavann (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The arguments against your additions apply in general (that these are just extrapolations, etc...), regardless of where they are located in the article. Athenean (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Those are not extrapolations. Linear regression is not extrapolation. Cavann (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you know what extrapolation is? Athenean (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, do you know what Linear regression is? Cavann (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears you do not understand what extrapolation is. Athenean (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought it was obvious that I'm talking within the context of this discussion. The projections are not "mere extrapolations" in the sense that they just extrapolated based on current gdp growth rates. The projections are based on economic models, if you go to the actual paper. Cavann (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Doesn't make a difference, they are still extrapolations and as such worthless. Athenean (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Europe or Asia
Turkey is a south-east european country and its capital is Anycra. But because we are Muslims there are often used pseudo-arguments to detain Turkey's European membership. But there also pan-asian movements to put anatolia into Asia but such as claims are just propaganda. Anatolia neither belongs geological nor cultural into Asia. Anatolia is birthplace of european civilization so biologically anatolian Turks were part of european familiy of peoples. As well archaeogenetics show us that turkic people were eurasian nomads so that Turkey belongs more to the Eurasian Steppe then to Middle East. So stop making propaganda for Orientalism. 95.114.31.7 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular section or line in the article that you take issue with? The lede describes Turkey as a "Eurasian country", which I think is the most geographically accurate (if somewhat imprecise) way to describe its location, as "Europe" and "Asia" are defined somewhat arbitrarily, geologically speaking. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * And when you argue with the eurocentric logic that Anatolia is not considered to Europe so that makes our Anatolian border not automatically part of Asia. The most geographically accurate way to describe its truthful location is the term Minor Europe. The particular section in the article what me take this issue is that it's still propagate ancient perceptions. It's like supporting the Geocentric model... 95.114.31.7 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there any mechanisms for Wikipedia to correct predominant prejudices and delusions? Because this model placed the anatolian plateau to Asia to serves the geological system of many ancient civilizations such as ancient Greece. 95.114.31.7 (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure I understand specifically what you're referring to. If you could copy/paste the particular the particular line you're concerned about, or identify the specific section, it will be useful to discuss it specifically.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Turkey (..) is a Eurasian country, located mostly on Anatolia in Western Asia"


 * Turkey is not a Eurasian country, because it is part of Council of Europe.
 * Turkey is not located in Western Asia, but mostly in Anatolian plateau.
 * Eurasian is a political slogan to depicting an oriental imagined Turk. 95.114.118.28 (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What happened to "Turkey belongs more to the Eurasian Steppe"? Eurasian is not a political slogan, whether or not Turkey is "oriental" there's nothing bad or good about being oriental, and Anatolia is known as Asia Minor. CMD (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What "prejudices and delusions"? You mean geography? Anatolian plateau is -of course- in Western Asia. Cavann (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)




 * Turkey is European. And Turkey belongs more to Eurasian Steppe then to Middle East.
 * And Turkey is oriental (Byzantine). Then the words East and Western World comes from West Roman Empire and East Roman Empire. In this sense also Greece and Cyprus are oriental or did they belong to West Roman Empire? Well, I don't think so.
 * Also when the ancient world knows Anatolia as Asia Minor. The formation of this landmass is split from Asia by the Arabian Plate. The real borders of Europe includes Anatolia. 95.114.118.28 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Anatolian Plate is a continental tectonic plate consisting primarily of the country of Turkey.
 * In some references, the Anatolian Plate is referred to as a "block" of continental crust still coupled to the Eurasian Plate. But studies of the North Anatolian Fault indicate that Anatolia is de-coupled from the Eurasian Plate. 95.114.118.28 (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a completely political argument, having little to do with cultural or physical geography, much less plate tectonics. It seems to matter very much to some Turks whether they are considered European or Asian (because Kemalist vs. Islamicist policies are at stake, as well as EU membership), but both the Ottoman Empire and Turkey are historically considered Asian. So was Anatolia (aka "Asia Minor") before the Turks or Islam arrived, and definitely afterward. To argue that European civilization arose in Anatolia is both highly questionable and also irrelevant: Mesopotamia and the Holy Land contributed mightily to the roots of Western Civilization, but that doesn't make their modern equivalents part of Europe. What's especially interesting about this Anatolia-is-Europe argument is that it is a boast of Turkish tourism that Turkey is a cosmopolitan country bestriding two continents--except when politics enters the stage. But even in the ancient world the Thracian and Anatolian peoples (although both predominantly Indo-European speakers) were considered separate peoples, and even Greek mythology drew the line between Europe and Asia at the Bosphorus. (I myself would argue the very concept of Europe as a completely separate (cultural) continent from Asia is a Eurocentric invention, regardless of plate tectonics, and that there is really only Eurasia, just as there is one African continent, however culturally diverse. But a general encyclopedia is not the place to promulgate that view.) Winter Maiden (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

To put it more briefly, however much some of us might want to reconfigure Europe and Asia as Eurasia, or others might wish to redefine which parts of Europe or Asia actually belong to the other, the conventional long-established understanding of world geography says that Anatolia is in Asia and Thrace is in Europe, and this encyclopedia isn't the place to try to change that through example. Winter Maiden (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It is completely political argument when paranoid people tries to put Anatolia into Asia. This is one of the biggest lie in history. And paranoid human neither I am Kemalist nor Islamicist. And the ottoman Empire was founded in the Marmara Region - the most european part of Turkey. When there is a scientific hypothese that the Europeans were Anatolians then it's totally clear that the anatolian Turks were European. Originally the Bosphorus didn't exist. How can you then argue that it splits two continents? It is also needless when Anatolia is counted to Asia. Why? Because the borders of Europe has in history changed. That's why it is important to understanding our perception. But unhappily people tries with such pseudoscientific arguments to prevent Turkeys Eu-Membership. Your turcophobic statements show us that the christian europe must recondition his deep historically rooted Anti-Turkism. And that's the reason of the Apartheid between Europeans and European Muslims (Balkan Muslims, Albanians, Bosniaks, Macedonian and Russian Muslims). 77.3.103.210 (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you know how unhuman is it to treat us like second class europeans? This were the roughly borders of Anatolia and they belong into Europe. And Europe is a Subcontinent in Eurasia. But unnecessarily many land masses of Russia gets counted into Europe, but not the Anatolian peninsula. That is not only strange, but rather politically motivated. 77.3.103.210 (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Many people have morbid perception about us Turks. The idea that Anatolia belongs to Asia -an often used pseudo argument against Turkey's Eu membership- is like the Geocentric model an ancient imagination. I tempt in interest to educational work to Wikipedia to validity the truth. So yea everyone with common sense distribute professional knowledge not ancient imaginations. 95.114.51.228 (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC
Should reliably sourced economic predictions be included in the economy section and/or lead in Turkey. Many countries do have such info in their economy sections (e.g., Brazil, China).Cavann (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is the actual reliable source that some editors are blocking its inclusion: Cavann (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see above, where there is a clear consensus to keep economic extrapolations out of the article based on the nature of the material itself and the sources used (e.g. a Turkish government site that claims Turkey will be the fastest growing economy in the world through 2060). Athenean (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * An RFC like this is highly disruptive as there is a grand total of one editor who imagines that economic predictions for years into the future provide some form of encyclopedic information. This matter has been discussed more than enough, and consensus is clear. Johnuniq (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Given what could be considered canvassing, there is no such clear consensus and other articles do have such information. Cavann (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Asking neutral editors to contribute to a discussion is not "canvassing". And yes, there is a clear consensus, you're just refusing to accept it. Your understanding of canvassing and consensus appear to be as flawed as your understanding of extrapolation. Athenean (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree that he was neutral. This is why I made the RFC. Hopefully we can get input from non-involved editors. Cavann (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Any forecast half a century into the future, to 2060, is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL and I agree with John that this RFC is highly disruptive and unnecessary. But it has happened before. See also the RFCs on Istanbul and on this page just above. They are generated at such speed and numbers they now have subscripts: RFC, RFC2. See the mess above. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  01:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Apparently not everyone shares invest.gov.tr's rosy predictions that Turkey will be the fastest growing economy through 2060 .Athenean (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Original source is not invest.gov.tr. It is OECD. Cavann (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hallo Cavann, why did not you say that the source was OECD? I just gave a read to the paper, and this is not an extrapolation, but the output of an economic model. Anyway, this does not change much the final outcome: each prediction 50 years in the future, for whatever country, is worthless. It is a mere "Gedankenexperiment", an intellectual exercise which is useful to see how existing patterns evolve, but nothing more. Only Allah knows what will happen to Turkey (and the whole world) fifty years from now. I advise you to read "The black Swan" of Nassim Taleb or "The misbehavior of the Market" of Mandelbrot to understand how all these long term economic prediction stuff is worthless. Or just compare the world economic outlook of 2006 published by UBS (the bank with the best research department) with what actually happened worldwide during the last 7 years... ::::Moreover, on pg. 96 of the OECD paper is clearly stated the following caveat about the model: "The BLT model is in an early stage of development and could be expanded in many directions...". The authors themselves state that the adopted model needs further work in many directions. Other pearls from this paper: pg. 14 " If past trends continue..." pg. 14 " If the age composition of immigrants were to remain the same in the future..." page 19: "Under these assumptions,..." If, if, if... Pg. 85 "Turkey:Government finances are not represented due to data availability."  I could continue for a couple of pages. After reading the paper, I warmly advise the starter of this RFC to read the whole paper (as I did), and then to understand under which assumptions and hypotheses this model runs. If other articles uses this model, my opinion is that the model conclusions should be removed there too. Alex2006 (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 2060 is a bit much, but 2025-2030 may not be as WP:CRYSTAL as people realize. If a population is demograpically very young, its economy will grow through simple rise in numbers. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Per editor page request, I repeat Turkey is not a First World developed country. Whether US economy will go up 2% or down 1% next year is entirely unpredictable, but a demographically young country will expand. Young people have children. Children's spending goes up from when they are two to when they are nine. That is mathematics. it is not WP:CRYSTAL.-WikiSkeptic (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is not the place to put our own thoughts. And 2025 is also WP:CRYSTAL so please do not add this stuff into the article. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  03:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment This is not a forum for our personal opinions about the viability or usefulness of economic models. My own opinion about that is so unimportant, I'm not even going to tell you about it. Read and report what reliable sources say. It is possible that a paragraph summarizing one or two of the most notable predictions might have a place in this article. A paragraph like that should end with a sentence about the usefulness of such predictions. That closing sentence should directly rely on at least one reliable source, which summarizes a consensus of expert opinions about the usefulness of economic predictions. Every sentence in such a paragraph should be followed by at least one footnote citing a good, reliable source. It might take some real schoolwork to write such a paragraph, but this editor Cavann should have an opportunity to do the work. Look at how many hoops he would have to jump through to get consensus for that paragraph. If all of you will actively participate in a review of a paragraph like that, and make him work for what he wants, it'll be a good one by the time you're done. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 April 2013
Please add "founder of the republic" to infobox, because it is the reason of the government. History cannot be denied.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk Jpn zhr (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is mentioned prominently in the article, and the infobox lists the current government of Turkey. Listing him as Turkey's founder without a directly accompanying explanation of his role is imprecise and unencyclopedic, even if it is commonly considered to be true. If there is consensus to list him in the infobox as the first President of Turkey I would make that change, but I will leave that to someone more directly involved with the article to determine. -- El Hef  ( Meep ? ) 18:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

IMF and WB
Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) valuation of country GDP (Current international dollar) These data form the basis for the country weights used to generate the World Economic Outlook country group composites for the domestic economy.

The IMF is not a primary source for purchasing power parity (PPP) data. WEO weights have been created from primary sources and are used solely for purposes of generating country group composites. For primary source information, please refer to one of the following sources: the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Bank, or the Penn World Tables.

For further information see Box A2 in the April 2004 World Economic Outlook, Box 1.2 in the September 2003 World Economic Outlook for a discussion on the measurement of global growth and Box A.1 in the May 2000 World Economic Outlook for a summary of the revised PPP-based weights, and Annex IV of the May 1993 World Economic Outlook. See also Anne Marie Gulde and Marianne Schulze-Ghattas, Purchasing Power Parity Based Weights for the World Economic Outlook, in Staff Studies for the World Economic Outlook (Washington: IMF, December 1993), pp. 106-23.

Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) per capita GDP (Current international dollar) Expressed in GDP in PPP dollars per person. Data are derived by dividing GDP in PPP dollars by total population. These data form the basis for the country weights used to generate the World Economic Outlook country group composites for the domestic economy.

The IMF is not a primary source for purchasing power parity (PPP) data. WEO weights have been created from primary sources and are used solely for purposes of generating country group composites. For primary source information, please refer to one of the following sources: the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Bank, or the Penn World Tables.

For further information see Box A2 in the April 2004 World Economic Outlook, Box 1.2 in the September 2003 World Economic Outlook for a discussion on the measurement of global growth and Box A.1 in the May 2000 World Economic Outlook for a summary of the revised PPP-based weights, and Annex IV of the May 1993 World Economic Outlook. See also Anne Marie Gulde and Marianne Schulze-Ghattas, Purchasing Power Parity Based Weights for the World Economic Outlook, in Staff Studies for the World Economic Outlook (Washington: IMF, December 1993), pp. 106-23.

Link: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/weoselser.aspx?c=512%2c666%2c914%2c668%2c612%2c672%2c614%2c946%2c311%2c137%2c213%2c962%2c911%2c674%2c193%2c676%2c122%2c548%2c912%2c556%2c313%2c678%2c419%2c181%2c513%2c867%2c316%2c682%2c913%2c684%2c124%2c273%2c339%2c868%2c638%2c921%2c514%2c948%2c218%2c943%2c963%2c686%2c616%2c688%2c223%2c518%2c516%2c728%2c918%2c558%2c748%2c138%2c618%2c196%2c522%2c278%2c622%2c692%2c156%2c694%2c624%2c142%2c626%2c449%2c628%2c564%2c228%2c283%2c924%2c853%2c233%2c288%2c632%2c293%2c636%2c566%2c634%2c964%2c238%2c182%2c662%2c453%2c960%2c968%2c423%2c922%2c935%2c714%2c128%2c862%2c611%2c135%2c321%2c716%2c243%2c456%2c248%2c722%2c469%2c942%2c253%2c718%2c642%2c724%2c643%2c576%2c939%2c936%2c644%2c961%2c819%2c813%2c172%2c199%2c132%2c733%2c646%2c184%2c648%2c524%2c915%2c361%2c134%2c362%2c652%2c364%2c174%2c732%2c328%2c366%2c258%2c734%2c656%2c144%2c654%2c146%2c336%2c463%2c263%2c528%2c268%2c923%2c532%2c738%2c944%2c578%2c176%2c537%2c534%2c742%2c536%2c866%2c429%2c369%2c433%2c744%2c178%2c186%2c436%2c925%2c136%2c869%2c343%2c746%2c158%2c926%2c439%2c466%2c916%2c112%2c664%2c111%2c826%2c298%2c542%2c927%2c967%2c846%2c443%2c299%2c917%2c582%2c544%2c474%2c941%2c754%2c446%2c698&t=188 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokturkk (talk • contribs) 06:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

secularity of the Republic of Turkey
The article states: "Turkey is a democratic, secular, ... republic ..... " This statement is probably false because: 1- The state pays the salaries and pensions of the sunni islamic clergymen (imams) while no stipend is awarded to the religious representatives of shias, christians and other religions. 2- ID cards must have the religion of the holder printed clearly and atheism is not acceptable as an option. 3- Religious education to underage youth is promoted actively and financed directly by the state at the detriment of regular secular education.

Therefore basic state activities are not independent of religion and Turkey cannot be considered to be secular. And this, in spite of article 2 in the constitution of the Turkish republic where secularism is claimed.

It seems to me this adjective (secular) must be removed for the sake of truthfulness to actual facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonandtruth (talk • contribs) 00:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Please add information about the brutal crackdown on peaceful protesters
This is mentioned so far: "In 2013, widespread protests erupted in many Turkish provinces, sparked by a plan to demolish Gezi Park but growing into general anti-government dissent." News to add: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57589533/mayhem-in-istanbul-hotel-as-protesters-seek-refuge/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.153.230.50 (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Right size for a country level article
Germany, 5354 words when promoted, 7825 words on the latest Featured article review; Japan, 4643 words at promotion, 6010 words at the last FAR; Australia, 4221 words when promoted, 6555 words on the last FAR; Canada, 4623 words when promoted, 7081 words on the last FAR; India, 2285 words when promoted, 7637 words on the last FAR; Indonesia, 4311 words when promoted, 4346 words on the last FAR. So, even if we consider only the size when they were last checked for FA status, the average size is 6500 words. The article currently has 8100 words, so it would be wise to cut it down a little further. --eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

GNP data in lead
One source uses IMF data, the other uses World Bank data. This looks inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxr033 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The IMF is not a primary source for purchasing power parity (PPP) data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokturkk (talk • contribs) 16:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Read! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkey#IMF_and_WB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokturkk (talk • contribs) 16:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK but the GDP nominal uses IMF figures, while the GDP PPP uses World Bank, why not have both use World Bank? Also the figure of 1.306 trillion doesn't appear in either the WB or IMF, is there a mistake?Oxr033 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Link? WB link Gross domestic product 2012, PPP "15 Turkey 1,306,155" http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP_PPP.pdf

WB link GDP per capita, PPP 2012 "Turkey 17,651" http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?order=wbapi_data_value_2012+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.215.81 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Motto?
The current version of the article links to this page, giving it the misleading title of "Motto". In reality, the word 'motto' is not even mentioned there. From this page, also from the ministry of culture, the motto is given equal space, along with Peace at home, peace in the world: "Sovereignty unconditionally belongs to Nation and Peace at home, peace in the world are the raising fundamentals of the Turkish Republic". Peace at Home, Peace in the World is used much more often as Turkey's motto, though never by official sources.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections, I will remove the motto from the infobox, as there's no evidence that there is an official one.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Peace at Home, Peace in the World is a policy in foreign relations. Because of that you can hear about this in international meetings.

Overall, Turkey conducts a foreign policy guided by the principle of “Peace at Home, Peace in the World” as set out by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk http://www.mfa.gov.tr/synopsis-of-the-turkish-foreign-policy.en.mfa

But Sovereignty unconditionally belongs to the Nation is motto of founding and governance. if you can check the link you will see that principle is always written on the wall behind the chairman of the General Assembly Hall in the Grand National Assembly and in Turkish constitutions.--Qwl (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

cultural mental illness-address it,please!
Don't use Wikipedia talk pages for expressing personal views. Kavas (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Cemevi photo on Religion
Firstly, Alevism is not a separate religious belief! It is a different sect of Islam like Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, Jaafari. Besides, Cemevi officialy is not an alternative to a mosque because of not been adopted as a place of worship. 2.6 million Alevis live in Syria but there is no icon about cemevi in this chapter. This article is not the place of propaganda a specific opinion! Maurice07 (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Alevis and Alawites are two different things. --Mttll (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Alevis are 20% of Turkey. They should be represented in the religion section. Cemevi picture is fine I think. Cavann (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you. There is sufficient knowledge about Alevism in religion section. A cem house photo, not reflect a separate place of worship. Also, not recognized as official! Maurice07 (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Be advised, now it has recogized as a offical worship place under the new law. And as a different sect by the government User:KazekageTR

False information on politics section
Change needed for false information on this page, Politics section.

"According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, the AKP government has waged one of the world's biggest crackdowns on press freedoms.[73] A large number of journalists have been arrested using charges of "terrorism" and "anti-state activities" such as the Ergenekon and Balyoz cases, while thousands have been investigated on charges such as "denigrating Turkishness" or "insulting Islam" in an effort to sow self-censorship.[73] In 2012, the CPJ identified 76 jailed journalists in Turkey, including 61 directly held for their published work, more than in Iran, Eritrea or China.[73] A former U.S. State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, said that the United States had "broad concerns about trends involving intimidation of journalists in Turkey."[74]"

This information is false. It should be replaced with "According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, the AKP government has waged one of the world's biggest crackdowns on press freedoms.[73]But the government claims "Journalists are not arrested because they are journalists, but because there are serious claims, some were accepted by courts, like the attempts made to overthrow the government." There are always such atrocious propogandas against the government, and mentioned articles in the report are altered or basically changed/are being planned to be changed."

Purple phenomenon (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. You have provided no sources for your view that the information on the number of journalists jailed is false, and also no sources for the government quote. Dana boomer (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Etymology section and name article
What info should go in the section and what in the article? Jzlcdh (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Name
Not Turkey.Turkey is old name.That must be Turkei (in Turkish Türkiye) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.8.177.235 (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 October 2013
The specific text that should be removed; "During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were deported and exterminated in the Armenian Genocide.[46][47] The Turkish government denies that there was an Armenian Genocide and claims that Armenians were only relocated from the eastern war zone.[48] Large scale massacres were also committed against the empire's other minority groups such as the Greeks and Assyrians.[49][50][51]" because the sources that are cited are not academically reliable nor variable. In order to be objective the text should also mention that Armenians reject to open their National Archives about the "so called genocide" issue. There is a vast difference between history written to defend one-sided nationalist convictions and real accounts of history. Also ignore the fact that the Armenians who were most under Ottoman control, those in Western cities such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Edirne, were neither deported nor molested, presumably because they were not a threat. If genocide is to be considered, however, then the murders of Turks and Kurds in 1915 and 1916 must be included in the calculation of blame. The Armenian molestations and massacres in Cilicia, deplored even by their French and British allies, must be judged. And the exile or death of two-thirds of the Turks of Erivan Province, the Armenian Republic, during the war must be remembered. Any civil war will appear to be a genocide if only the dead of one side are counted. Their writings would be far more accurate, and would tell a very different story, if they included facts such as the deaths of nearly two-thirds of the Muslims of Van Vilayeti, deaths caused by the Russians and Armenians. Histories that strive for accuracy must include all the facts, and the deaths of millions of Muslims is surely a fact that deserves mention.

Please change this "During the war, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were deported and exterminated in the Armenian Genocide.[46][47] The Turkish government denies that there was an Armenian Genocide and claims that Armenians were only relocated from the eastern war zone.Large scale massacres were also committed against the empire's other minority groups such as the Greeks and Assyrians.[49][50][51]"

to During the war, an estimated between 125,000 and 150,000 Armenians emigrated from Ottoman Anatolia to Erivan and other parts of the Russian southern Caucasus. One of-the many forced migration was the organized expulsion of Armenians from much of Anatolia by the Ottoman government. In light of the history and the events of this war, it is true that the Ottomans had obvious reason to fear the Armenians, and that forced migration was an age-old tool in Middle Eastern and Balkan conflicts. It is also true that while its troops were fighting the Russians and Armenians, the Ottoman Government could not and did not properly protect the Armenian migrants. Nevertheless, more than 200,000 of the deported Armenians reached Greater Syria and survived. (Some estimate that as many as two-thirds of the deportees survived.)Popular opinion today knows of only one set of deportations, more properly called forced migrations, in Anatolia, the deportation of the Armenians. There were in fact many forced migrations. For the Armenians, the worst forced migrations came when they accompanied their own armies in retreat. Starvation and disease killed great numbers of both, far more than fell to enemies' bullets. Turkish Republic propose to the Armenian Republic that a joint commission be established, its members selected by scholarly academies in both countries. All archives should be opened to the commission -- not only the Ottoman Archives, but the archives of Armenia and of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. (The call is often made for the Turkish Archives to be opened completely. It is time to demand that Armenians do likewise.) I have been told that the Armenians will never agree to this, but how can anyone know unless they try? In any case, refusal to fairly and honestly consider this question would in itself be evidence that the accusations against the Turks are political, not scholarly." Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims at the end of the Empire, Justin McCarthy, 1997 http://wilson.engr.wisc.edu/Armenia/mccarthy.html'''

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.145.243.67 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 20 October 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -- N  Y  Kevin   03:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing reference
In the citation number 3, there is a reference to Turkstat, but no link to the actual report that says the population estimate for Turkey in 2013. 163.117.203.65 (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Photos conflict
Your last edits about wide panoramic photos, I am evaluating the scope of the WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT also, I didn't see any satisfactory explanation. Such large panoramic photographs show only article more crowded and chaotic. Please take a look to the featured country articles : Germany, Japan, India, Rwanda and other advanced arts. France, United Kingdom, Iran and etc. There is no any wide panoromic image! Also, It's runs contrary to the criteria of featured article. Other disputed picture on Sport, I think, we must be objective about this. Turkey has three major sports club and dozens. Instead of a single reserve sport club on the section; a national approach, may be more constructive. Yes, footballers does not represent the current squad but the date was specified on the caption. Examples: Germany, Brazil. Maurice07 (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem here is not "scientific facts" deleting or biodiversity issues. Problem is large-scale panoramic photographs take place in the main article. I removed "Fatih Sultam Mehmet bridge" photo with Northern Anatolian Mounts. You have praised photo uploaded contrary to the Wikipedia image use policy. It's probably non-free content. Hopefully, you specify your opinions on the talk page instead of edit summary! Maurice07 (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit reguest regarding GINI-index
According to the figures by The World Bank, the actual Gini Coefficient rate in Turkey was 39 for 2008, not 40. Please change, no need for it to be higher than it is. In the most recent survey it was 40: GINI World BankPqnlrn (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

about my changes
I am adding main sectors of economy and other subtitles to 'culture' sections(why there was an only subtitle 'sports' anyway). Check these countries about my changes,in those pages more than two subtitles for economy and culture are used; Japan, Denmark,Spain,Greece,S.Korea. KazekageTR (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Kazakage. Thank you for your contributions to Turkey article. The opening new sections on the article, necessary and essential for the development. However; currently, there is an extreme image density on the article. Image dimensions is above the standards and for the appearance of the article seems negative. Also, I think large panoramic pictures should be removed. Maurice07 (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I didint know that there was an actual image dimension standart thanks for saying that. The one in the biodiverstiy section is useless and we could remove one of two panoramic pics in the economics section. KazekageTR (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)