Talk:Turkey/Archive 21

Recent expansion of the article
This article has been carelessly expanded of late, and the end result is not at all positive. Images have been added everywhere without the slightest concern for layout or proportion, and the culture section alone more than tripled in size in the last few months. The article currently has 12,118 words, which would take over an hour to read at average speed. Good or featured articles are never that long: Germany was 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. Not one of them comes close to the current size of this article, and it's easy to see why: excessively large articles tend to have a poor layout, and are harder to check for accuracy or vandalism, and rapidly decline in quality as a consequence. If we want this article to be featured again one day, our top priority should be to make it readable again, by moving all the content in excess to sub-articles, per the Article Size and Summary Style guidelines.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I care about layout and i agree with you that there are lots of unneeded pictures and texts but my edits on rearrengements(for a better layout) of pictures are getting reverted by the user Lord of Rivendell. And he adds texts without concern as you can noticed, when i revert those changes he starts an edit war with me, in order to stay out of trouble i keep his changes and re-do my rearrengements( you can notice that i've always added 'for your pleasement' - referring to him- on my edit summarys.). Anyways i'll gladly help you but the users keep violate Ownership of articles. If you help me out with that problem, we can work together.KazekageTR (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I counted 57 images, and that is excluding images from the infobox or templates so the sheer number of them is problematic, not least because they can't possibly all be relevant to the article's core topic. What's more, the images have been added without any concern for the MOS:IMAGELOCATION guideline, so that the text is often 'sandwiched' between images. The article is in very poor structural condition, so I much appreciate your offer to work together., since he made most of the rencent changes, we should discuss the matter together and reach a consensus on how to improve it.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Whoa Lord of Rivendell is on an edit spree again. We shoulds sort it out right now. KazekageTR (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, User:Underlying lk. Article has been expanded as cursory in very short time by User:Lord of Rivendell. Unnecessary details, repeated internal links, non encyclopedic info, wide panoramic images, unrelated photos on sections, photo size... Unfortunately, there is WP:OWN here by Lord of Rivendell. There is no way to negotiate and compromise him in any way. We should work together to improve it. Maurice07 (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My proposal is that we should first decide on an appropriate prose size for the article (which is not the wikicode size that is displayed in the history page, but is calculated using this script), an appropriate number of images and then work together to decide what should be left in the article, and what should be eventually moved to sub-articles like Music of Turkey. Personally I think we should try to bring it down to 7,000 words or so, which would be in line with most country-level featured articles, and no more images than could fit in without violating the the MOS:IMAGELOCATION guideline. I left Rivendell a message on his talk page, and I hope he will decide to participate to the debate.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It was KazekageTR's idea to expand the Turkey article in the first place. Originally, I and other users (such as EtienneDolet) tried to stop him, but he simply "copy-pasted" loads of paragraphs and images (without copyedit check) from articles like Economy of Turkey, Culture of Turkey, etc, into the Turkey article. Now, he is complaining just because of his "feud" against me. The user Maurice07 didn't miss the occasion to put the blame on me, because he was blocked for 3 weeks due to edit-warring in the same article. Lord of Rivendell (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I will gladly revert the article back to the "pre-KazekageTR expansion" version, i.e. before he started to "copy-paste" (without copyedit check) entire paragraphs and images from articles like Economy of Turkey, Culture of Turkey, etc, and literally "dumped" them into the Turkey article. Lord of Rivendell (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this article has been abused by various users that have been guided under their WP:OWN like edits. I don't want to blame specific users. I would like this article to be fixed however. It has now become an excessively long article and needs a massive cleanup. I will now add a tag to garner more editors and have a broader discussion over the matter. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's got completely out of hand. 178kb is way too big. Too many pics and the bloated Culture section stand out. DeCausa (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Etienne and DeCausa. We can see very clearly from the Revision Statistics (scroll down for the "Article size over time" section) that there was a recent, massive spike in the article's size, and that the quality of the article has gravely deteriorated as a consequence. Can we try to agree on a 'target' size for the article, before deciding what should be included and what should not be? I already suggested a limit of about 7,000 words (calculated using this script), based on the average of featured articles about countries at the time when they were promoted.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

A target size would be idealistic. However, due to the recent tensions over the content matter, I think it will spark a feud and perhaps even bigger problems. The target size needs a lot of planning and consensus. I think we need to have these tensions subside just a bit before moving forward too quickly. Basically, we need immediate planning and some sort of maintenance over the content. Therefore, I propose to request page protection. I think that will lead to more discussion in the talk page and draw a consensus over the content matter. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am also worried that drastically reducing the size of this article may cause as many, if not, more problems than it would have during the recent excessive expansion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Here, there is great need to consensus. But I'm pessimistic about it, since the opening of this section, 72 changes has been edited by User:Lord of Rivendell, (within the last 24 hours, 38 edits) without any negotiation !!! The sole purpose of this user, accuse me and User:KazekageTR. On 24 December 2013 He/She blocked with me due to edit war. Firstly, I think he/she should be topic banned on the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement — Maurice07 (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I just finished a section-by-section review of the article, comparing it to an earlier stable version. The most remarkable thing is that despite the spike in editing activity, most of the article has remained relatively stable. The major changes which caused the recent deterioration are concentrated in the following sections:
 * Economy, where three more sub-sections (Tourism, Infrastructure, Science and technology) have been added to an already large section: the word count rose from 914 to 1905 words;
 * Culture (including sports), where again lots of sections were added, greatly contributing to the overall bloating of the article: the word count went from a relatively moderate 1054 to a whopping 3336 words.
 * It's fairly obvious that any attempt to salvage the article will have to focus on these two sections, which are badly in need of summarisation.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Well here is User:Lord of Rivendell again. He blames User:Maurice07 and me for expansion??? Well we've stopped adding additional texts after we've agreed each other in talk page. And like i said in my last edit, he frequently goes on an edit spree(check the history page he is on an edit spree again, oh my god!). Lastly without taking any steps, we should make a plan and apply it. But we wont be good partners with Lord of Rivendell(i assume Maurice07 wont be a good partner too by the way). Thank you for you interference cause it was not going to solve itself(because of Lord of Rivendell of course).KazekageTR (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I kind of thought "Science and Technology" was an improvement. Just my opinion.
 * I moved material about under "Economy." Didn't delete anything. I think some stuff is ancient enough to move to "History," where some of it will fall by the wayside IMO. The sections are supposed to state what Turkey is today, and not get lost in history. That is what the "History" subsection is for. I appreciate that some of the "economy" model needs maybe a ten-year history. Without some history for context, it is less meaningful.
 * The other stuff needed headers, I think. Not because they necessarily contain valuable information, but just to deal with it. Student7 (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Our current mission is to summarize the page and removing of unneeded titles(see the old culture page for example). Thank you for you consideration.KazekageTR (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree on summation. But this can be more easily done with proper organization of the material. Candidates for deletion will reveal themselves. There is (for example), too much history in the article that should be in a) the History subsection and then, most likely, be moved to the History of Turkey article. For credibility it can be done a bit at a time.
 * I'm a minimalist here. Let's not get so shell-shocked that we are averse to all changes, even routine organizational ones. And we have sort of a deadline here. Student7 (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Comparing Turkey with its equivalents

 * Turkey (172K) is a much larger and more ancient country (with a more complicated history and culture) than Croatia (174K), Sweden (176K), Taiwan (176K), Portugal (202K), Poland (218K), Ukraine (222K), or Israel (224K). Lord of Rivendell (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * India (170K), Italy (174K), China (191K) and Greece (193K) can be seen as ideal equivalents of Turkey (172K) in terms of history, culture, art, architecture, etc; so I think the article size and the amount of details are fair enough. Lord of Rivendell (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Clogging the talk page with this drivel won't fix the article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * At least I reduced the article size from 178K to 172K with summary edits, while all you guys did was to chat. Lord of Rivendell (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the idea, to reach a consensus before carrying out changes. If everyone attempts to unilaterally impose its preferred revision, an edit war is all you get. You cite India as an example, but the India article is 8228 words long. What matters towards the end of WP:ARTICLESIZE is the prose size, i.e. the readable text, not the wikicode. An article of 170kb of 15,000 words and few references is not the same as an article of 170kb but with 8,000 words and many references, qualitatively speaking.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I restored all the citation tags (page number needed, verification failed, etc.) for your information. Lord of Rivendell (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, I restored them, what you did was reverting every other change, without explanation, despite the abundant consensus that changes are required.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed two citation tags: One in the intro section, one in the Etymology section. Now they are all complete. (This was your only objection that made sense. Your other deletions saved less than 1K: From 173K to 172K, including the restored citations.) Lord of Rivendell (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You obviously did not even check what you were editing, you are offering no explanation for your reverts (while I abundantly motivated my every change) and saying "your only objection that made sense" is a taunt, not a reason.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not about countries that are 'better', or 'deserve more', or any such thing. Such considerations are trivial, petty, and utterly irrelevant. There is no prestige to be had by actively trying not to be concise. On another note, you seem to have failed to realise that in terms of prose size, India is actually substantially shorter than this article. CMD (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Turkey article is now 165K, very close to Germany (161K) which has an FA star. Lord of Rivendell (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So what? See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are guidelines about article size, the fact that some articles don't respect them is no reason to ignore them. Plus, there is clear consensus from the talk page that the current version is unacceptably bloated.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. WP:SIZE is key. It's also worth keeping in mind that total article size is very different from the size of the prose, as it included references and images and hidden links etc. India, the FA above which is longer than this page, has a prose size of only 52kB, much shorter than Turkey's 72kB. Germany's is 63kB, only just above recommended minimum size. CMD (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If someone breaks the rule, that doesn't gives you the right to break the rule.WP:SIZE is the main rule for articles and after finishing Turkey, you might want to edit all those countries instead of giving examples. Like i said Lord of Rivendell is not a person that you can cooperate easily.KazekageTR (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Uppss..It's quite a long staircase, really :) I am in favor featured article of Japan as a reference. Instead of completely remove sections, may be shortened. (For example, Culture of Japan) All sub-titles (Art, Sport, Music, Cuisine, Literature) can be mentioned as short paragraphs. It's also quite successful in a photo layout. Actually, my favorites Canada and India — Maurice (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In common law legal systems, a Precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The general principle in common law legal systems is that similar cases should be decided so as to give similar and predictable outcomes, and the principle of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. This is the reason why I listed the size of other country articles. Lord of Rivendell (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with and. Things that must be fixed in my opinion: A music section with an unnecessary long list of musicians/artists. A literature section with an unnecessarily long list of writers/poets. A sports section that talks about ethnic Turks playing the in the NBA. All of the aforementioned long list of people in fact belongs to the Turkish people article, not an article about a country. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am going to attempt a section-by-section review of the whole article, to restore material which might have been added or removed without sufficient oversight and to remedy the generalised state of neglect of this article. I will purposefully leave untouched the economics and culture sections for now, so that we may first find sufficient consensus on how to best summarise them.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Lord of Rivendell just reverted my changes in their entirety, offering no better explanation than this edit summary: "After a massive removal spree of factual and visual content, you arrived back to 172K. Bravo...". And this is despite my decision to avoid edits to the most contentious sections like culture, for now. This is not how we discuss on Wikipedia and this continued imposition of revisions without discussion is unacceptable.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I reported Lord of Rivendell for edit warring on this article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've pledged my support to you on your edit warning, eh bien mon prince. He always violates WP:OWN, enough is enough already.

By the way there are lots of pictures and im afraid to remove them because Lord of Rivendell will interfere for sure :(((((.KazekageTR (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are far too many pictures, but it's probably worth discussing which ones we want to keep. I imagine one or two per section will be more than enough without sandwiching the text. CMD (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As Lord of Rivendell got blocked, we can work on now.KazekageTR (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I had already made some improvements outside the economy and culture section, but Rivendell continuously reverted them so they're not included in the current revision.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to those changes, although I feel the hidden notes are a bit redundant. The paragraphs should be self-explanatory, and having the hidden note may stifle connections between the paragraphs. CMD (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent image edits
First of all, there is a one-sided edit racing now. It is primarily needed to progress step by step. As User:Underlying lk said, WP:IMAGELOCATION and WP:IMGSIZE should be as reference. I returned to religion section the previous version, religion bar and photo is important for section. There are many examples of this: United States, Russia, Australia, Spain,.. it's also had since 18 Novemeber 2010 Also; As I said summary, Islam is dominant religion in Turkey with 98%, christianity percentage 0.02% church photo is unacceptable. 3.5 million Turks live in Germany but ı don't see any mosque photo. Another example Kuwait: Christianity rate 15%..no church,monastery and cathedral image. Additionally, multiple image on military and EU map should stay. Maurice07 (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that a picture of a mosque is preferable to a church in the religion section, but not based on wp:otherstuffexists arguments. I disagree that a religion bar is of any use whatsoever given 98% are associated with one religion. Given IMAGELOCATION and IMGSIZE, the multiple images and the EU maps should not stay. The multiple images are necessarily very very small, and none of the images were very informative for readers. The EU map was sandwiching text, and I chose to remove it in preference to the other one as all it did was show the EU states and Turkey on a grey background. The other image isn't great either, but it is at least more visually appealing. CMD (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Chipmunk about the bar chart, because as the first paragraph of the religion section says, "Islam is the dominant religion of Turkey; it exceeds 99% if secular people of Muslim background are included". The CIA figure is a bare-bone statistic and it's not very insightful or detailed. I would also like to see the 'multiple images' template replaced by normal thumbnails, given that the template makes the thumbnails appear smaller than they would otherwise be, and forces all the images to appear on one side of the article, which potentially causes layout problems at higher resolutions.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * How about my last edit. Does it suits you ?KazekageTR (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You've removed any semblance of image alternation in the history section, and readded the image of the church. Why? CMD (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They have a relevant information about their sections. But those I've removed, they don't(like you said up there).KazekageTR (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no, before making edit, please join the discussion Kazekage!! About image editing, there is a need to negotiate. Ok. you can leave visual layout, continue to summarizing the article. Otherwise, this could turn into edit war status. Can you tell me the purpose of being here photo of the church? About this issue should not created "fait accompli" — Maurice07 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well actually im in this discussion since it has started. And i dont get your point on church why are you want to remove it, CMD gave you a good reason to keep that image. Lastly i hope that the current image layout suits you guys otherwise we cant really focus on summarizing issues.KazekageTR (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not against removing the monastery image, given the size of the section. The current image layout violates the MOS of alternating non-sandwiching images, and without a very good reason to do so. Images are not critical to the prose, they are meant to complement what should already stand-alone. CMD (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Motto
The site referenced for the motto says "Egemenlik, kayıtsız şartsız Milletindir" is the beginning of chapter six of the Turkish constitution, the chapter dealing with sovereignty. It doesn't say anywhere it is the nation's motto. In the Turkish article's talk page Qwl confirms this is the correct motto. However the reference ought to be changed. Pqnlrn (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Motto is written on the wall behind the chairman of the General Assembly Hall in the Grand National Assembly with capital letters. --Qwl (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

One last contribution before I leave, for the love of my country
"Mühendishane-i Berr-i Hümayun" in the Culture section (formerly in the Art subsection) is actually Mühendishane-i Bahr-i Hümayun (Naval School of Engineering), which later evolved into the present-day Istanbul Technical University (İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi). Kazekage, can you please make the correction? Adios amigos... :) 88.251.111.164 (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, sort of. (LR?) I like English, which didn't seem to work out well in this case. Probably needs a few more words accompanying it. Student7 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, my edit is the right correction. That is what he meant. Thank you 88.251.111.164.KazekageTR (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with WP:USEENGLISH? Does that convention need revising? Student7 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I reversed the change, this time adding a quote. Mühendishane-i Berr-i Hümayun was correct, "Mühendishane-i Bahr-i Hümayun" was a different, and unrelated, institution.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is redlinked in English Wikipedia. Same as Istanbul Technical University, right? Student7 (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not totally unrelated: Mühendishane-i Bahr-i Hümâyun (1773) and Mühendishane-i Berr-i Hümâyun (1795) were merged to become Istanbul Technical University (these two are considered the parent schools of ITU.) Therefore, it is possible to link it to the Istanbul Technical University article in the English Wikipedia. 88.251.117.91 (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To be precise, Mühendishane-i Bahr-i Hümâyun (1773) is the parent school of Istanbul Technical University and Turkish Naval Academy; while Mühendishane-i Berr-i Hümâyun (1795) is the parent school of Istanbul Technical University and Turkish Army Academy's Artillery and Engineering School (Topçu ve İstihkam Okulu). 78.181.159.98 (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW: My IP number was automatically changed by the ISP, but I am the same person. :-) 78.181.159.98 (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you are Lord of Rivendell, isn't this edit a straightforward case of block evasion?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One more problem: "The very first painting lessons were scheduled at what is now the Istanbul Technical University, then, the Imperial Land Engineering School in 1793 mostly for technical purposes." Mühendishane-i Berr-i Hümâyun was established in 1795 (two years later) so are you sure it's not the Mühendishane-i Bahr-i Hümâyun established in 1773? 88.251.97.165 (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, it was me who added the Art section to the article, including the information about Mühendishane-i Berr-i Hümayun; so if there's an error to be corrected, I will be correcting my own error (due to copyedit from another article.) It was also me who added the texts of the Architecture, Music, Cuisine, Science and Technology, Tourism, etc, sections, together with a massive contribution in other sections, so you have no right to make such arrogant remarks. 88.251.97.165 (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Answering the question of Underlying lk: "Mühendis" means Engineer in Turkish. "Mühendishane-i Bahr-i Hümayun" means Imperial Navy School of Engineering in Ottoman Turkish. "Mühendishane-i Berr-i Hümayun" means Imperial Army School of Engineering in Ottoman Turkish. 78.181.154.245 (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked no such question to you or anyone else. What I did ask you, is why are you evading a week-long block by editing through IP addresses?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the ITU website, Mühendishane-i Bahr-i Hümayun (Imperial Navy (Sea) Engineering School) was established in 1773; Mühendishane-i Sultanî (Imperial Engineering School) was established in 1792; and Mühendishane-i Berr-i Hümayun (Imperial Army (Land) Engineering School) was established in 1795. Since the definition says "the first painting lessons took place in 1793", maybe it was at the "Mühendishane-i Sultanî" established in 1792 and mentioned in the ITU website. Lord of Rivendell (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing (again)
After retiring and leaving forever just a week ago, Rivendell is back on his disruptive edit sprees again, and he's pushing for the same deletions as he did before he was blocked. If the situation should degenerate into another case of edit warring, we should take the matter to ANI, where any further block is likely to be permanent.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. He goes on his famous edit sprees again. And they are not just in this article, but other Turkish-related ones. If you need support with ANI, i will stand beside you. KazekageTR (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Do whatever you can... Lord of Rivendell (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to request that all editors fill in WHY they are making a change in the edit summary. I can see there is a new picture, but why is that better than the old picture? Or no picture? The financial aspects of the addition/subtraction are not within Wikipedia editors purview, and therefore not a very good reason IMO. The edits mentioning older statistics, and that the Ottoman Empire was only called "Turkey" by the English, are more persuasive. I don't agree with the latter claim, but the edit may be valid.
 * I like to WP:OWN articles myself, but I try to be careful where there are other knowledgeable editors actively editing and interested. Editing should not be a means of tormenting ones fellows IMO. We have bars for that sort of thing. And, best of all, one gets "instant feedback!" Student7 (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Sports
The above discussion noted much of the recent disputes and expansion occurred in Economy and Culture. I've looked through these, and compared to older versions, to try and summarise, but I'm unsure how to do sports. First of all, I don't think sports deserve the special emphasis they seem to have had historically on this article. They don't seem particularly important relative to other aspects of Turkish culture; even less so perhaps, as many the sports under discussion don't really have a Turkish focus (although this by itself isn't an argument that they shouldn't be mentioned). That said, it's difficult to summarise. Most of the current information is various records. Would, as a start, it be worth not mentioning individual people, as there are many that could be mentioned and lists aren't that informative. Furthermore, for national teams, would a limit of mentions to gold medals, or first place in tournaments, make sense? Obviously it can be refined further if other changes make sense. CMD (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Check my edits CMD. I did my quicky-best though i dont have much time at the moment. KazekageTR (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"Largest cities of Turkey" template
I think it's better to delete all photos from the "Largest cities of Turkey" template (it's better to have no photos in this template at all) because noone will ever be happy about them (there will never be a consensus on which photo "alone" best represents an entire city.) Also, the template adds the extra size of "4 more photos" to the Turkey article (without these photos, the article size can be reduced to 148K or less.) Lord of Rivendell (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What's so important about the overall kB size of the article? The relevant part for MOS is the prose size, which images don't factor into. CMD (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are contradicting yourself with regards to the unnecessary culling of images in the article (also, your argument for reverting my addition of the İstiklal Avenue picture in the Demographics section was rather unconvincing, because the graph at right is very narrow and the İstiklal Avenue picture did not "sandwich" the text, as you claimed.) Lord of Rivendell (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the organisation of the images is very different to their kB size. The picture did sandwich the text, as there was a graph to its right, and the text was sandwiched between the two. CMD (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not a photo expert.
 * I find the "largest cities" display one of the most attractive I have run across. It is balanced.
 * Having said that, the pictures are really too small to convey information. But I wouldn't want them larger - it would destroy the symmetry.
 * Istanbul and Izmir just look cluttered and smoggy.
 * Ankara has a tower on the right which seems distinctive. Bursa appears to show a modern street.
 * It is aesthetically pleasing if you don't look too closely! Removing them wouldn't help the reader much. Usually, pictures tend to stop the flow of information, but balanced, as they are here, that doesn't happen. This layout is almost a classic. I think this subsection is a good example (along with criticism) for the WP:CITIES Project Page. ("Other cities please copy"!) Student7 (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the Bursa image in the template resembles the slums of Istanbul: It shows an "ordinary", "disorganized" and "over-crowded" pile of "concrete" (what's so "interesting" in that image? What does it tell us about Bursa?) For Ankara, I would suggest an image with Anıtkabir; and for Bursa one with the Grand Mosque and Mt. Uludağ in the background. Lord of Rivendell (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have specific pictures in mind that would look good at the current size of the images in the box, could you post them here? More identifiable images would indeed be nice. CMD (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For Bursa, I would suggest an image with the Grand Mosque and Mt. Uludağ in the background. I actually think this public square, with Mt. Uludağ in the background looked much better and "orderly" (green and clean) than the current one (which shows a "slum" neighbourhood that you can find anywhere in the Third World.) The Ankara image is "so-so" (much better than the Bursa image), but there are more "orderly-looking" alternatives. If we can find a good panorama of Ankara which also contains Anıtkabir, it would be great. This image of Kızılay Square in Ankara is also a "tidy-looking" alternative. Lord of Rivendell (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a good idea to replace the current image of Ankara(which i've put) with Lord of Rivendell's proposed picture. But the other picture is the city centre of Bursa, and it's a cropped one not like the panorama picture, so i don't see a reason for its removal. And why did you opened up this section here, got to its talk-page instead. It will be more helpful indeed.KazekageTR (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to belittle the good people of Bursa, but as slums go, that's quite a nice one, third-world wise. There does indeed seem to be recent conversation at Template talk:Largest cities in Turkey, best to join in there rather than override it. CMD (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This image shows the Governorate (Valilik) of Bursa, with the Atatürk statue in front of it, and the hills of Mt. Uludağ in the background; while the other image shows gecekondu style apartment blocks (without architects and proper construction permits) that don't tell anything about "Bursa" and could be anywhere (resembling the slum neighbourhoods of Istanbul.) Lord of Rivendell (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's pray that Adana passes Bursa in terms of population in the near future... Bursa is a hopeless case from almost any angle... :-) Lord of Rivendell (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Especially because your angle and POV is rather unique... The Banner  talk 00:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of Military split
The old section (and current) section isn't badly done, but it is mashed together. The sentence starting "The Turkish Armed Forces ....(at the top) seems to state in objective terms how the service is structured. This continues through "....does not offer a civilian alternative to military service." This was all formal, descriptive structure. Not all of this was unique to Turkey. Some countries may have an allied structure or practices.

The next paragraph starts "In 1998, Turkey announced a modernisation programme..." and is history in part, foreign relations in part, but has nothing to do with the structure of the military. It is unique to Turkey. This continues to the end of the section. While this is all "military," the structure lags IMO. Might just as well do away with all structure and put everything under "Turkey" in one big glob! :) The information is well-presented but no longer represents a single topic. Lumping it all under "military" merely begs the question. Like picking a section name "Istanbul" and lumping everything that happens or happened or is located in Istanbul under that section. One can rationalise it, but not really part of the same topic.

The first is organization of the military.

The second is what the military accomplishes which may have political or foreign policy ramifications. Student7 (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This interplay between the military and its role in foreign relations is why some countries (eg. Australia) have actually combined both. That said, if they are separate, having two sections titled "Military" is confusing (and bound to mess up incoming wikilinks, if any). If you feel the current structure lage because you think the "Military" section should only cover organisational structure rather than the foreign policy ramifications, why not move the paragraphs on foreign policy ramifications to the "Foreign Policy" section? CMD (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A good suggestion. Student7 (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Superpower/Great power
To whom is interested, a good article about definitions of what are Great powers / Superpowers. As one can read, Superpower is a concept which applies to contemporary countries. Alex2006 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh there we are, thank you mate, i was expecting that someone would enlight me eventually. KazekageTR (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Good find Alessandro. The term Great power is only generally agreed upon in its usage for the post-Napoleonic era when there was a European balance of peace to maintain. Use of the term before that is down to the opinions of individual historians, and is particularly odd when discussing countries before Westphalian sovereignty became established. CMD (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Protection
Protection is expired, may I edit the page.68.5.244.183 (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well according to WP:CON and to avoid another protection, you should argue your edits first.KazekageTR (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2014
Benim ülkemin adı ingilizce de olsa TÜRKİYE türkçede olsa TÜRKİYE dir.

78.165.75.6 (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Öyle yürümüyor işte işler. Git ilk bunu uluslararası kamuoyuna bildir. KazekageTR (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

minor issue
can anyone put the IPA pronunciation of the word 'Türkiye Cumhuriyeti'? KazekageTR (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
I would like to make a small change to the Armenia-Turkey relations in the Nagorno-Karabakh part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.160.218 (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you think it is better than creating a Wikipedia user-id and make the changes yourself can you give us details? Jzlcdh (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Alevi
It should be made clear that Alevi are Shia Muslims, as opposed to the majority Sunni Muslims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.84.174 (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Jzlcdh (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Alevism doesnt considered as Shia it is a sect itself. elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 15:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Armenian genocide references
Reference 52 is an islamophobic reference. The book is full of misinformation about islam. Destruction of World Trade centers was not jihad as the book suggests it was terrorism. Please use another more reliable reference from an academic source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmanwh (talk • contribs) 05:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Western sources and El-Kaide says that the attacks of 9/11 were Cihad and these attacks defined as terrorism by western and eastern world societies. I can't see any problems.KazekageTR (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But the book is not being used as a reference to prove anything about 9/11. It seems to me to be the wrong sort of book to use as a reference for the massacres and genocides of WW1 in the Ottoman empire. There are far better sources, written specifically about those events, that could be used (unless there is a policy to use general non-specialised sources for content in a general non-speciailised Wikipedia article). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The correct number of deaths is 600,000 according to Encyclopædia Britannica, Arnold J. Toynbee and Justin McCarthy
According to Encyclopædia Britannica (which is the world's most prestigious "academic" encyclopedia, and will always be more prestigious than Wikipedia, which will never be accepted as an "academic" source) the correct number of deaths is 600,000, which corresponds to 1/3 of the pre-WWI Armenian population of 1,800,000. 78.181.138.199 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Armenian nationalists dominate the Armenian Genocide article in Wikipedia (dare to add something to that article which defies their dogma (in terms of facts or numbers) and it will instantly be erased.) For the Armenian nationalists, this issue is a matter of national honour (some of them are even hoping that one day, the eastern half of Turkey will be ceded to Armenia, as in the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920.) The purposefully inflated facts and numbers regarding the Tehcir Law deportations of 1915–1916 are actually for strengthening this claim and attracting the world's attention (while keeping the issue "fresh" even after 100 years), in case Turkey will lose another war in the future and its territory will be carved out as planned in Sèvres. The Armenians even had a terrorist organization named ASALA in the 1970s and 1980s, which assassinated Turkish diplomats and intimidated Western academicians who wrote books which didn't comply with their views (American historian Justin McCarthy was among those who received death threats for writing the truth.) According to both Arnold J. Toynbee (a famous British historian who was given the task by the British Foreign Service during WWI for investigating the deportation of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire) and Justin McCarthy, the correct number of deaths is around 600,000. 78.181.138.199 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The "1915–1923" dating (claimed by the Armenians) of the Tehcir Law deportations (1915–1916) is not correct, because: 1) Eastern and northeastern Anatolia (including Trabzon, Erzurum, Van, etc.) were largely under Russian occupation between 1915–1917 (during WWI), until the Russian revolution of 1917 (Lenin indirectly restored eastern Turkey for the Turks, by pulling back the Russian forces in 1917.) 2) Before and during the Russian invasion of eastern and northeastern Turkey, thousands of Turks and Kurds were killed by Armenian paramilitary organizations such as Dashnaktsutyun and Hunchakian, which assisted the Russian Army even before the deportations began in 1915. 3) During the Turkish War of Independence, the Turkish Army concentrated mostly on the West Anatolian front, against the Greek Army, which reached the outskirts of Ankara in 1921-1922. The Mediterranean coast of Turkey was under Italian and French occupation, while the Marmara Region and Istanbul were under British occupation. Turks had more important concerns than deporting the Armenians between 1918 and 1923 (and lacked the will, means or money for such a thing.) Armenians deliberately want to extend the date of the Tehcir Law deportations (which took place only in 1915–1916, according to Encyclopædia Britannica) until 1923, in order to connect the issue with the Republic of Turkey which was established in 1923. 78.181.138.199 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I could just not respond. I could just sit here and say, "oh well, this user is blocked and therefore a response is unnecessary." In fact, this discussion shouldn't be on this talk page but on the talk page of the Armenian Genocide article. But I'll respond to these baseless assumptions about the Armenian Genocide itself for the sake of further informing yourself about this part of Turkish-Armenian relations.


 * First off, Wikipedia is not dominated by "Armenian nationalists" as you say. The Armenian Genocide article is prolifically sourced by not only Armenian historians, but third-party historians as well. If you truly believe that that article spews of Armenian nationalist POV, then please let us know what's so POV about it? There's an Armenian Genocide denial article where all your views can be expressed there. As for my share, I have attempted to reduce POV in that article for quite some time.


 * I'll respond to your points one by one:
 * 1.) The Armenians of Erzurum and Trabzon were largely liquidated by the time the Russian troops arrived in 1916. Renewed efforts of massacre actually started when Russian troops withdrew in 1917-8. With the withdrawal of Russian troops, the Ottoman army under the Army of Islam led by Vehip Pasha's Third Army invaded the former occupied Russian territory and reached the Armenian frontier where Turkish troops were just 25 km outside of Yerevan. Meanwhile, reports of massacre were rampant as Turkish troops got rid of all those in their way. The United Nations estimates 100,000 died in the process Others, such as German Military Plenipotentiary in the Ottoman Empire Otto von Lossow proclaimed that the "The Turks have embarked upon the total extermination of the Armenians in Transcaucasia", "Talaat's government party wants to destroy all Armenians not only in Turkey, but also outside Turkey", and that "On the basis of all the reports and news coming to me here in Tiflis there hardly can be any doubt that the Turks systematically are aiming at the extermination of the few hundred thousand Armenians whom they left alive until now." Even the international community got involved (see this New York Tribune article). Even Vehip Pasha, the main responsible figure of the invasion into Eastern Armenia confessed during his testimony at the Trabzon trials that the massacres were systematically organized:


 * Others, such as Halil Kut, proclaimed in the summer of 1918 in front of thousands of Armenians in Yerevan that "I have endeavored to wipe out the Armenian nation to the last individual"
 * My claims of massacres continuing into 1923 is by no means baseless. Massacres were reported in 1920 when Kemalist forces relaunched their efforts of taking back Eastern Turkey from the Armenians. The provinces of Eastern Turkey at that time consisted mainly of Armenians who returned to their homes in Kars and Ardahan after the armistice of Mudros in 1919 when the Turkish army withdrew their troops. It is believed that these massacres resulted in the deaths of 175,000 Armenians.
 * Meanwhile, Ataturk and his troops took back Marash from the French Legionnaire's supported by Armenian troops. This was accompanied with even more massacres of tens and thousands of Armenians who returned to their homes after the Treaty of Serves was signed ultimately spelling the end of the Armenians in Cilicia.
 * Let us not forget the Great Fire of Smyrna as well. The Armenians that were massacred in their churches and quarters were largely made up of Genocide survivors who wanted to flee the Ottoman Empire. Ataturk finished the job the Young Turks failed to finish. With the establishment of the Republic, 1923 is a symbolic year that signifies the consummation of the Armenian question and the beginning of state-sponsored denial.
 * 2.) The Armenians in 1914 weren't representing the Hnchaks or the Dashnaks but the Russian government. They were conscripted soldiers which mainly followed orders from their Russian military commanders. These detachments numbered in the hundreds and not "thousands". Even if massacres of Turks took place, why should an Armenian woman and child in Edirne pay the price of this with their lives? Mehmet Celal, Governor of Konya and Aleppo, said it best:


 * 3.) I never said deportations continued after 1916 and onwards. I implied that the genocide occurred with systematic massacres of those Armenians that happened to survive the deportations of 1915 in the localities that I have aforementioned (i.e. Alexandropol, Marash, Izmir).


 * So I suggest you join the Armenians in commemorating April 24 this Thursday. It really is, after all, the least you can do. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And why didn't the Allies mention any of these during the Treaty of Lausanne peace talks in 1923? According to neutral sources, including Encyclopædia Britannica, 1/3 of the pre-WWI population of 1,800,000 Ottoman Armenians (i.e. 600,000 people) died during deportations, while most of the remaining 1,200,000 people (2/3) survived in exile. In fact, calculating the number of Armenian refugees accepted by the Soviet Union, the United States, France, Canada and Argentina (together with the surviving Armenians in Syria and Lebanon within the former Ottoman Empire) will prove that the Armenian claim of "1.5 million deaths" is impossible. 88.251.118.202 (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe Talat Pasha actually told the truth: according to Ottoman archives (the only available government archives regarding the issue) an estimated 300,000 people died during the deportations. As Encyclopædia Britannica points out, there was never a proper population census in Turkey until 1927, and there wasn't a complete government record for the deaths which occurred during World War I. Even Arnold J. Toynbee's (who worked for the British government, which was at war with the Ottoman Empire and therefore wasn't neutral on this issue) estimate of "600,000 (1/3) died, 600,000 (1/3) went into exile, 600,000 (1/3) went into hiding" (out of 1,800,000 Ottoman Armenians in total) doesn't sound very "scientific", just like all the other sourceless numerical estimates (a book author who writes "1.5 million people died" doesn't have the archives, sources or documents to prove that this number is correct.) Armenians spread a lie (1.5 million) and the "lie" eventually became a "fact" due to being repeated by many "sourceless" people (by politicians and academicians who aren't experts on this issue.) Armenians are also adding "those who survived in exile" to the death count. 88.251.121.177 (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.99.83 (talk)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.81.225 (talk)

I told you a countless number of times that the report Toynbee drafted claiming that 600,000 Armenians died accounts only until 1916, which is merely the first year of the Armenian Genocide. This figure jives with initial reports of 500,000 dead in the first 5 months alone. By the end of the Armenian Genocide, those who attest to the death of 1.5 million Armenians do not include only the number of Ottoman Armenian citizens but Russian Armenian citizens as well since, as I have aforementioned, the Ottoman government took the willful steps of annihilating not only the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, but outside of its dominions as well (i.e. Russia, First Republic of Armenia, and etc.). Allies to the Ottoman Empire, such as German major Carl Franz Endres, who served in the Turkish army, estimated the number of Ottoman Armenian deaths as 1.2 million, which excludes Russian Armenian deaths (Carl Franz Endres, Die Türkei. Munich, CH Beck, 1918, p. 161). The French ran their own investigative commissions after World War I and proclaimed the death of 1.5 million in 1919. Most sources, if not all, attest to the death of at least a million Ottoman Armenian citizens. If we assess the number of Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire in 1914 as 1.9 to 2 million, these numbers are seemingly accurate.

But this isn't about the numbers, nor is it about statistics. The mere fact that these people were deported without food and water to the deserts of Syria never to be returned to their ancestral homelands again is in itself a genocide because you are ultimately limiting the rights for a certain group of people to live in a certain place based on their ethnicity alone. And let's say it wasn't a genocide. Let's say that the Ottoman government acted in good faith those their Armenian subjects and resettled them due to sincere reasons. Then, you should ask yourself, what happened to the properties of these people? What happened to their assets? Did the Turkish government safeguard them and rightfully return it to them? Did the Turkish government provide food, shelter, or even a drop of water to these deportees so that they could one day return to their righteous lands? It didn't and at this rate, it never will. The government of Turkey merely kicked them out of Turkey in the most audacious way yet to be known in the history of mankind by that time. They cleared the country of most of its Armenians and achieved its ultimate desire: Turkey without Armenians. This, in itself, means that the Armenians are as good as dead for the Turkish government since they don't live in Turkey anymore. Again, I am not even including the systematic massacres that were accompanied with these deportations.

It's April 24 in Turkey today. 99 years ago this day, if you were an Armenian living in the Ottoman Empire, you would have been most likely killed. In other words, if you were the same person as you are today, yet just so happen to be born Armenian, you would have been arrested, sent to a local prison, then deported to Ankara, where you would have been murdered alongside other fellow Armenians. Yet, you still insist on dragging yourself in the midst of the very same darkness that continues the very notion of genocide by denying its very existence. Meanwhile, Turkey is going through an enlightenment towards this issue, even when deniers like you are trying so hard to turn that light off. But it's not working. Even your lovely Prime Minister ("Van minut") appears to have a more advanced viewpoint towards the Armenian Genocide than you. So I wish you luck in your ventures to deny the genocide because it seems as though luck may be the only way someone will even listen the ever-so outdated arguments of a denialist. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to express my most sincere condolences to the descendants of the victims of the Tehcir Law deportations of 1915–1916, which eventually became known as the Armenian Genocide (ethnic cleansing of eastern Anatolia from its third largest ethnic group), which was the biggest stain in the recent history of my nation (followed by the Istanbul Pogrom of September 6-7, 1955.) Please don't get me wrong: I am only trying to assess "the correct number" of the victims. Similarly, when someone claims "Istanbul's population is 20 million" I express my objection, because such exaggerated (inflated) numbers are inaccurate. 88.240.114.233 (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of Turks don't know anything about this issue (it's not taught in Turkish schools) so when someone talks of the deportations/genocide, the first reaction of an average Turk who is not a history buff will be "such a thing never happened, actually they killed us" (mentioning the Turks and Kurds who were killed by the Dashnak and Hunchak rebels, backed by the invading Russian Army in eastern Anatolia; or mentioning the massacres committed by the French Armenian Legion during the French occupation of the Cilicia region in southern Anatolia; or mentioning the Turkish diplomats and Turkish/foreign civilians who were killed by the ASALA terrorists; etc.) As long as "the other side of the coin" is not taught in Turkish and Armenian schools, a reconciliation will be very difficult (both sides should learn to show empathy and understanding.) It wouldn't be realistic for the Armenians to expect a territorial concession from Turkey, though some minor "win-win" exchanges can theoretically be negotiated (e.g. Turkey can give medieval Ani and its surrounding area to Armenia, in return for taking the same amount of land (same square kilometres) in southern Armenia for establishing a direct land connection between Turkey and Azerbaijan (which can merge into a single state, from Çeşme in the west to Baku in the east.) Turkey can also pay an annual amount of financial aid to the descendants of the victims for the next 100 or so years, with comfortable rates that won't be a burden on the Turkish economy. In return, the Armenians should also accept their responsibilities regarding the victims of the Dashnak/Hunchak rebels, victims of the Armenian volunteer units in the Russian Army (which occupied eastern Anatolia), victims of the French Armenian Legion (which occupied southern Anatolia), victims of the ASALA terrorists, Azeri victims of the Armenian invasion of Azerbaijan's territory, etc. 88.251.75.58 (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Turkey Emblem
Acctually Turkey doesn't have any emblem or coat of arms. Can somebody remove that fake emblem from main Turkey page. Its for passports and IDs. Here some source for that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_Turkey https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrkiye_armas%C4%B1 https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrkiye  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogoryas (talk • contribs) 15:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You can't show other wiki pages as sources and if you click at the word "emblem" in there it says that information in its first sentence. elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 19:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Turkey per capita income by province 2011.svg
...is extremely dubious (it claims that Bolu is as rich as Luxembourg while Şırnak is poorer than Somalia) and based on a dead link. I'm calling for its removal. --Mttll (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is so, I agree too. It is nevertheless a pity, since such an info would be quite interesting. Alex2006 (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

We could look up for a reliable source (like Turkstat) to update the map, cause this map is useful indeed.

This Turkish Wikipedia article is based on information from TÜİK aka Turkstat, has a whole different table. The poorest province Şırnak has $2595 and the richest province Kocaeli (not Bolu) has $33620 per capita which looks more reliable than the current one. elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 07:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Languages
Some editors have cluttered the info box by inserted every language that has ever been spoken in Turkey. The infobox is supposed to be a short intro to the article, not a summary of everything in it. While Kurdish should probably supplement Turkic, there are few other languages that are widely spoken, and therefore should be omitted, not only from the info box, but from any "demographic" subsection or article. Student7 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Some people just don't have common sense. --Mttll (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Manual of Style/Lead says "Infoboxes contain summary information or an overview relating to the subject of the article..." WikiProject Countries says, "Next, there is a table with quick facts about the country." (emphasis mine). In neither case does it say, nor suggest that an infobox should contain a comprehensive list, overwhelming the rest of the material. Student7 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There should be some sort of limit if it is to be included. 5% first-language speakers perhaps. CMD (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Like i said in my talk page, you can remove it if you are trying to summarize the article. elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 07:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Abdullah Gül and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan may sue Wikipedia for accusing them with corruption
Abdullah Gül and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan may sue Wikipedia for accusing them with corruption in the Politics section of the Turkey article. There is no court decision in Turkey which has found them guilty of corruption so far, and there is no ongoing trial in Turkish courts with allegations of corruption. May I warn you that, from a purely legal standing point, Wikipedia might get into trouble in terms of being forced to pay a substantial fine.

Also, the Law section in the Turkey article resembles the film Midnight Express in terms of its exaggerated portrayal of the situation in Turkey. I haven't seen a similar section in any other country article in Wikipedia, including the countries of Latin America and Africa which are notorious for their far worse legal systems, police brutality and organized crime. 81.214.42.235 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We do not threaten editors with legal action. The heads of state of a country are free to pursue whatever course they might like, but editorial discussion will not be derailed by an anonymous editor suggesting that someone might sue over content. I won't block this IP or the other one used on the admins' noticeboard but do not persist in making threats like this. Protonk (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

This article caters to an ethnocentric POV
After reading and rereading this article, I have made the conclusion that the article caters to a Turkish ethnocentric POV. Some examples of this include:
 * The only architects mentioned are ethnic Turks
 * The only novelists, poets, and writers featured in the article are ethnic Turks
 * The only painters are ethnic Turks
 * The architecture section lists only mosques and palaces of Ottoman sultans

As of now, this is all that I have uncovered. From my view, the article appears to be Turkified all over since, from the looks of it, it appears that only Turks receive mention in this article and that the only people that have made contributions to the society of the country are ethnic Turks. It is unfortunate to see that non-Turkish minorities, such as the Armenians, Kurds, and Greeks, have been left in the dust. Lest we forget, that the first novel written in Turkey was by an Armenian, Vartan Pasha. The first sculptors in Turkey, both male and female, were Armenians. It is almost absurd to see no mention of the renowned Armenian Balyan family who designed the Dolmabahçe, Çırağan, Feriye, Beylerbeyi, Küçüksu, Ihlamur and Yıldız palaces. What is even more concerning is that all these buildings are mentioned in the article without a mere mention of who designed them. Mosques, even those built by Armenians and Greeks, are the only religious building specifically mentioned. Are there no churches in Turkey? On what basis is the Sumela Monastery or the Armenian Cathedral of the Holy Cross not worthy enough to be mentioned?

My list of concerns raised in the paragraph above are the most relevant to the article, but it can go on and on...

If there's not going to be a more accommodating approach towards the country's non-Turkish minorities, I will have to place a POV tag on the article. The article quite a few months ago had a more accommodating approach this regard. However, this approach has been severely deteriorated due to the mass amount of edits by various users since then (some of which have been banned/blocked for misconduct and POV editing). If there are not objections in the matter of 24 hours, I will place the POV tag accordingly. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than jumping straight to tagging, what specifically from the previous version do you think should be added here, and if it applies what do you feel that is in the current article that is undue in prominence? All the issues you point to seem to be in the culture section, which frankly could use a pruning of its uninformative lists in favour of the general overview. CMD (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Article should be improved indeed. Turks consist 70% of modern Turkey, (in Ottoman Empire, the figure might be like 50%) this figure makes minorities important to mention (not just Armenians of course....).

By the way about the churces, there was a discussion, some dudes mentioned that in Germany or France -those Turkish-minority countires- didn't consisted any pics about mosques. Because of that, this page hasn't got any. I've put them but they were reverted actually. elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 21:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If there's no attempt to accommodate, I'm fine with just putting a POV tag in the Culture section rather than the top of the article. That whole section needs to be revamped. It has this whole "list-style" theme going on which needs to be reformatted coherently to avoid further disputes regarding who or what should be added. An emphases on non-Turkish minorities should be mentioned even if it means not having their ethnic background specified. So I propose just adding a few things about the Balyan family and perhaps add something on churches and monasteries. There's 500 of them in the country...it's the least we can do. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well you're right that the list-style theme needs to change. A list of architects and buildings doesn't help the reader. A general appraisal of changes in architectural style would be better. If the churches and mosques reflect a particular architectural style I don't see why that shouldn't be mentioned. CMD (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Good notice about the specific sections. In fact, entire paragraphs need to be re-written. Culture & architecture in their present form are extrelemy limited in nature, so a pov tag won't be a surprise if no action takes places.Alexikoua (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely the whole problem is arising because of the overly-broad content of the article. It starts out as an article about the modern Republic of Turkey, yet strays into trying to mention the history of every area or entity that ever existed anywhere within the current territory of that modern Turkey even when there is no real connection to it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're touching on another subject there. That's a good observation though. Glad you pointed that out. Where do we draw the lines in terms of the territorial and political boundaries of the Republic of Turkey considering its predecessor state being an Empire? Please, let us have a different talk page section header for any continuation of this discussion though. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Give us back the Ottoman Empire, and we will gladly add all ex-Ottoman ethnicities to the Culture section. 81.215.28.56 (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Then go to Ottoman Empire's talk page mate I'm sure there are lots of work to do in that article's culture section too. By the way we should start working on it. One of us can create a sandbox page and we can all work on it. You guys gave good reasons to scrap the current culture section. I will gladly work on it. elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 23:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

EtienneDolet, can you give a list of items you think should be added into the culture section that would result in the removal of the POV tag, or perhaps make a start on the issue yourself? This article is currently at GAN, and while I haven't given the article a thorough look through, but having a POV tag is a valid reason to insta-fail this article, so if it's not worked on soon, the first person to look at the GAN will be within reason to simply fail it immediately. CMD (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The POV tag keeps getting removed without proper consultation with the talk page. As for your request, I think the names of the architects should be added (i.e. Balyan family) and perhaps descriptions about various churches or synagogues. That's fine enough for now. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

With Balyans; Fossati brothers, Mimar Kemaleddin Bey, Raimondo Tommaso D'Aronco and Alexander Vallaury should be added too. Unfortunately, i couldn't compose a suitable sentence to the relevant place in the paragraph. I could use some help though. elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 21:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, Vallaury and Fossati would be good additions too. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The tag being removed isn't optimal, but it's irrelevant if we add stuff. Personally I don't think we should really add names (and we should remove the list currently there going for GA really). Names tell the reader nothing. The descriptions of churches and synagogues is a much better idea, as it focuses on overall architectural styles, which is what makes up an informative summary. CMD (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Lets just aim for the removal of this tag first. Then we will recompose the whole section. How bout that ? elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 00:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is about Turkey, not people! Architects (or anybody else) should be omitted if possible, no matter how persecuted their ancestors were! All architects, except maybe those from the year 1000, should be removed. People have their own article. Notable structures have their own articles. Student7 (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The Ahmadiyya religion doesn't exist in Turkey
There isn't a single Ahmadiyya mosque in Turkey. The Ahmadiyya religion was born in 19th century British India and exists only in the Indian subcontinent (in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) and in countries influenced by Indian culture, such as Indonesia.

The Pakistani and Bangladeshi "illegal travellers" (not "illegal immigrants" because Turkey doesn't give them "immigrant" status) who use Turkey as a "transit route" for entering Greece or Bulgaria (thus entering the European Union, as a first step of moving to wealthier countries in Western Europe) should not be counted among Turkey's local population.

The user Peaceworld111 previously used the user name Mohsin in Wikipedia. He is an Islamic activist of Bangladeshi origin who lives in the United Kingdom and has made it "his life's goal" to spread Islamist propaganda in Wikipedia. He spammed the Turkey article with an overdose of Islamic content in the past. There were even attempts to add Urdu as a language of the Ottoman Empire, which is totally incorrect. 88.251.65.65 (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear anonymous user, if you do think I am a sockpuppet, you can report me here WP:SI. But let me be clear, I have nothing to do with earlier edits that you accuse me of.  --Peace world  17:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Muslims in Turkey don't believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835–1908) was the Mahdi and Messiah promised by the Koran. There isn't a single Ahmadiyya mosque in Turkey. The Pakistani and Bangladeshi "illegal travellers" in Turkey (who use Turkey as a "transit route" for entering Greece or Bulgaria, i.e. the European Union) don't count as Turkish citizens. Mehmed the Conqueror (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * See the Second Coming of Jesus in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, according to the Ahmadiyya sect for more details. This belief is not held by the Muslims in Turkey. Mehmed the Conqueror (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835–1908) even declared himself as the Caliph, challenging the Ottoman Sultan. Mehmed the Conqueror (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mehmed the Conqueror is right actually, in addition the fact they don't have any mosque, they don't have any established association or community center either. elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 15:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Elmasmelih, the source is clear "...reportedly been organized in Turkey since 1995 and has a presence in eight districts...". This clearly points to an establishment. The lack of presence of a mosque or community centre cannot be used as a justification for the removal of the denomination, especially in cases where countries discriminate faith members for their beliefs, let alone permit the construction of a mosque.  --Peace world  18:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Peaceworld111 Oh i didint noticed it. Thanks for stating that. elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 18:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@@Mehmed the Conqueror You have not replied for some time. Thus I have reverted your edit. --Peace world  11:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The "presence in eight districts" refers to the "missionary offices" opened by the sect, without necessarily a single follower. They also have a Turkish-language internet website for missionary purposes, which doesn't mean there are any followers. The financing is from the Ahmadiyya community in the United Kingdom. Mehmed the Conqueror (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Mehmed the Conqueror, that is your interpretation.  --Peace world  16:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me be very honest with you: As soon as the average Turks in the street (and the Islamist government that currently runs Turkey) will find out that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835–1908) claimed to be the last Prophet of God (Muslims believe Mohammed was the last), the Mahdi and Messiah (i.e. the reincarnation of Jesus Christ), as well as the Caliph of Islam (challenging the Ottoman Sultan), those eight "missionary offices" won't probably have a very bright future. Turks are pious Muslims and such claims by Mr. Ahmad are considered heresy and blasphemy in this country. Mehmed the Conqueror (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In Turkish we call such efforts "Müslüman mahallesinde salyangoz satmak" (trying to sell escargot in a Muslim neighbourhood.) Mehmed the Conqueror (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Mehmed the Conqueror, we cannot go by how the people of a certain country are likely to treat a minority. There are somewhat 4 million Ahmadis in Pakistan and the situation is far worse than it is in Turkey, where they are not permitted to call themselves Muslims by law. The source is clear and we should go by what the source says and not one's personal view. --Peace world  08:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Pakistani and Bangladeshi "illegal travellers" use Turkey only as a "transit route" for entering Greece or Bulgaria (the European Union) and are not given "immigrant" status by the Turkish government. Maybe you should add the Ahmadiyya religion to the Greece article (Greece is full of them.) Mehmed the Conqueror (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, this article is about Turkey. --Peace world  08:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that the source does not give any information about the number of adepts of this religion. This is the general article about Turkey, and this means that under the "Religion" paragraph should appear only the main religious groups present in the country now or historically important (like the Sufi). Writing here about all the other small groups present in Turkey, persecuted or not, is WP:UNDUE. So, please bring a reliable source which shows the current numerical consistency of this religion in Turkey or explain its historical importance in this country. Alex2006 (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If WP:UNDUE were to be strictly adhered to, we would need to remove various religious denominations that have already been mentioned. Moreover, I do not think that the presence of population figures is a requirement. The source is clear in stating that the group is established in various districts across the country, and this cannot point to a few individuals. Moreover, the section hardly discusses the historical importance of the denominations. Besides, this section is about "Religion" and not "history of Religion." Had history been of such importance, there should have been discussions of various denominations that have been extinct since time immemorial. --Peace world  15:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove all the denominations which according to you comply with WP:UNDUE. About religions which are historically important, I am not talking about extinct religions, but about denominations which have a number of adepts so small that numerically they would not deserve the inclusion: above all the Orthodox, whose Patriarchate of Constantinople has been established in the Roman age, and the Sufi, which constitute an important branch of the Islam. Coming back to the religion in discussion, the fact that it is established in various districts of the country does not mean anything without giving more specific numbers: the deduction that this cannot point to a few individuals is your POV. To insert it here, we need reliable sources which show its importance in the country. Alex2006 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

There are 2.1 billion Christians and 1.6 billion Muslims in this world. If Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835–1908) was indeed the Messiah (the reincarnation of Jesus Christ) we would have known, as he was supposed to "save entire humanity from evil", which Mr. Ahmad didn't. Interestingly, he claimed to be both the Mahdi and the Messiah, which is sort of an oxymoron (the Mahdi and Messiah (Jesus Christ) are different persons according to the Koran.) Mr. Ahmad can only be the "False Messiah" (Masih ad-Dajjal), but his influence on humanity and impact on history are too weak (insignificant) for even this role. He was merely a fraudster who used religion for personal gain, like thousands of others throughout the world. Mehmed the Conqueror (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * He was the Great Cornholio who needed TP for his bunghole (similar to Sabbatai Zevi and Bahá'u'lláh.) Mehmed the Conqueror (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Cornholio Bungholio :D Mehmed the Conqueror (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Really shouldn't have religions mentioned in Demographics of Turkey under 1%. Probably for this high level an article, the cut-off should be higher at 3% or so. Otherwise, we have hundreds of religions listed, making no particular point other than WP:SPAM for the reader. Student7 (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2014
I find the term Armenian Genocide false and the source cited too subjective also not reliable to be used in a so called objective information source.

Please do change the Term Armenian Genocide. Turkey is not the only country, which rejects to call the incidents "genocide".

Below is also a letter written by Stanford University Turkish Student Association regarding the matter.

http://web.stanford.edu/group/ccr/GreenHatBlog/armenian.pdf

217.110.82.61 (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ❌ The term is in common usage, whilst a letter, on a blog, from such a group is neither an Independent nor a reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic population misspelled
Political political reasons misspelled exaggerated ethnic population.

Ethnic population in Turkey : Turks % 78-81 ,kurdis-zazas % 14-16 ,other % 5-7

The Republic of Turkey State Institute of Statistics in 1965, the census and the mother tongue in the census results that:% 90.11 Turkish, 7.07% Kurdish, 1.16% Arabic and 0.48% Zaza, 0.18%, Circassian 0.08% Laz and other languages ​​spoken belirlenmiştir.1965 in Turkey, which is 31,391,421 2,219,502 of the population 'have reported that the mother tongue is Kurdish[^ Heinz Kloss & Grant McConnel, Linguistic composition of the nations of the world, vol,5, Europe and USSR, Québec, Presses de l'Université Laval, 1984, ISBN 2-7637-7044-4],

EUROBAROMETER SURVEY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 2005: TURKEY DIE MOTHER TONGUE OF TURKISH 93 percent of those who

After 1965 census questions have been asked in the native language. Research on ethnicity in Turkey "mother tongue" basis, while maintaining one of the last major work was the European Union. The European Commission's Eurobarometer statistics agency made ​​between May-July 2005 that "Europeans and Languages​​" Research has released in September 2005. According to the study, which considered native speakers of Turkish in Turkey was 93 percent. Accept Turkey as a mother tongue other languages ​​were reported as 9 per cent of those who

[Turks % 78.1-81.33 ,kurdis-zazas % 9.02-13.4-15.6 ,other 5-7,native language 84.54 percent of Turkish, kurdish-zaza 11.97 ,other % 3-4 http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2007/03/22/guncel/agun.html] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.59.85 (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The info about the ethnic groups is from CIA World Factbook. You call that source wrong? elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 20:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the emblem?
Why was the emblem of Turkey removed? I think it should be restored. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a valid reason to remove it. Turkey has no official emblem. It can be added bacak with a footnote which states it. Like in the Emblem of Turkey article. elmasmelih 11:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

HDR
Turkey actually ranks 69th in 2014 hdr report, NOT 2013. 21:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Kaxovskiy (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)