Talk:Turkey/Archive 22

National emblem
The Emblems of Turkey article states that, "Turkey is one of the few countries that does not have an official national coat of arms or national emblem." Despite this, Elmasmelih is ignoring previous discussions about this matter and passing off File:TurkishEmblem.svg as the emblem of Turkey - providing the reader with incorrect information. Elmasmelih notes that the star and crescent is used on passports, ID cards etc. However this symbol is derived from, and seems to be used as a substitute for, the national flag which is the sole national identifier of Turkey. Perhaps other users can come up with justifications for including this symbol in the infobox, despite it not being official? -- Hazhk Talk to me 18:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. I've explained the whole thing in the note which goes as: Altough Turkey has no official emblem, this star and crescent is being used on passports, ID cards, driving licences, embassy signs, and the seal of the TBMM -- unsigned comment by Elmasmelih
 * I understand the note. However, by including the note at the top of the infobox and identifying it as the "emblem", you're creating the false impression that this is a national emblem. You accept that this is a symbol being used only for certain, select purposes; so what I want to ask is why you think it needs to be in the infobox? Other articles use a national coat of arms or emblem, when one is available. Why should the Turkey article be different by including an arbitrary symbol that is clearly a substitute for the national flag and not a national emblem in its own right. You talk of consensus, but I don't see any consensus for including this symbol as you've done. I'm also having trouble locating the edit where you inserted this symbol in the first place. -- Hazhk Talk to me 19:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Because it is the symbol which is nearly the official emblem except it isnt official do you get my point mate?

Just above this section, Kutsuit wants it to be re-instated as well. elmasmelih 19:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be "nearly" the national emblem, but it isn't the national emblem. So no, I don't get your point. It may be used on passports and drivers licenses, but it isn't used to represent the state in foreign relations, because it is not a symbol of the nation. To pass it off as a national emblem is misleading the reader. You're not appealing to any official law or third party source, you're selectively taking instances where the star and crescent are used and deciding that's 'good enough' for a national emblem; this is your own personal preference. There's no rule that says we have to have a coat of arms or emblem in the infobox (in fact the Canada article, a FA, has chosen to omit the coat of arms for various reasons), so there's no reason we should have to settle with something that is "nearly" an emblem. The above section cannot be taken as a consensus or a justification to include your emblem; you actually disagreed with him? Your response to Kutsuit is spot on - there is a valid reason for not including this emblem. The only reasonable action to take is to remove the symbol from the top of the infobox, that is the overwhelming consensus that can be gleamed from every past discussion on this talk page. I'm sure other users will agree with me. -- Hazhk Talk to me 20:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that User:Hazhk is right here. An official emblem should be codified by the respective state, otherwise it does not exist, and its insertion in the article (with or without footnote) is arbitrary. Alex2006 (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Should we wait for one more user to write his/her thoughts or should we remove the emblem right away? elmasmelih 19:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove it now. An alternative option is to display the symbol in the notes st the foot of the infobox, with your note accompanying it. 81.149.32.116 (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandal is back on business
Some of you know about User:Lord of Rivendell and his distruptive edits(he got banned because of them). Well he is on again, under the name Eldarion of Gondor and Arnor, doing same things.

He is ruining the page again like he did before(check history and you'll see) and because of him, we might lose this article's GA promotion.

Some of the Signs of sock puppetry already fits his current position but i will need more help in order to open up a Sockpuppet investigations and to get rid from his nonsense vandalism. Any help will be appriciated.

Well well Sockpuppet investigations/Lord of Rivendell, not the first time eh? elmasmelih 20:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Article fully protected for three days
The alternative would have been to block a couple of editors for edit-warring, and we don't want that – do we? Both parties to the talk page! Favonian (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * One of them is a probable sock. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, seen it. I'll let the CheckUsers do their stuff rather than pass behavioral judgment at this point. Favonian (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you Favonian. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

He won't collaborate with us. He is User:Lord of Rivendell, who was famous with is distruptive edits like i said just above us. Thank you for the page protection. elmasmelih 12:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am shocked as to how this article became a GA with its persistent instability and its Turkish nationalist oriented POV as mentioned by me and several other users above. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm only here for the socks. I have no other involvement. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Étienne Dolet; I've tried to neutralize the article as adding some missing pieces but you can iprove it further as the GA tag says, and the persistent instability is caused by those who make distruptive edits/removals, not on some argued content edits by decent editors though, take it into account. And don't see it as WP:OTHERCRAP but for example Germany(which is a FA) is written German-oriented as well. elmasmelih 20:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your good-faith edits towards this article are highly appreciated. I am glad you've taken the time to get rid of much of the problems this article has had. We can talk about improvement after the protection expires. Cheers, Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks mate. I've opened up a WP:PR request for the article. You should comment in there. elmasmelih 21:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted to indefinite semi-protection following the block of one of the combatants – see Sockpuppet investigations/Lord of Rivendell. Favonian (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 August 2014
Hi. Per WikiProject Countries the 'Administrative divisions' sub-section under the 'Politics' section must be seperated and placed just above of Politics section. Could anyone do that please. Thanks. elmasmelih 21:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.- Arjayay (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent information on holder of Prime Minister office
Noticed this inconsistency as of 2014-10-28 20:17 EST: In the summary sidebar and in the pictures in the Politics section, the prime minister is listed/captioned as Ahmet Davutoğlu. However, the text under the Politics section reads
 * The prime minister is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan,

No experience with Wikipedia editing - would rather leave to the experts. 207.237.132.91 (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. Thank you anon. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Cuisine Section
The whole Cuisine section is sourced to which seems to be just a random website. It's hard to see how this can qualify as a reliable source for the claims given. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

can you say how it doesnt comply with WP:RS? kazekagetr 20:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears to be a self published source with no identifiable author. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. It should not be difficult for a user with access to Turkish sources to find a good, reliable reference, like the works of Tuğrul Şavkay about the ottoman and Turkish cuisine. Each bookstore in Istanbul has plenty of books about Turkish cuisine and its development.Alex2006 (talk) 08:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

could you guys please improve it then? i am busy as hell these days. kazekagetr 09:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * To be honest, it should probably just be deleted for the moment, or reduced to one sentence and a pointer to Turkish cuisine. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Take a look at it now mate, is it ok now?   kazekagetr  12:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Better, thanks, but the promotional phrases like "influential" would require better sourcing, so I have taken them out. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

ok mate, could you take a look at other things? article has been peer reviewed but a second look would be good i assume. kazekagetr 17:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there still a strategic alliance with the USA?
Relations with USA still important of course but is there still a strategic alliance? I would say no - not since parliament voted against allowing US forces through Turkey during the invasion of Iraq. Therefore I think "is" should be changed to "was" in "The other defining aspect of Turkey's foreign policy is the country's strategic alliance with the United States."

Your views? Jzlcdh (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe there is a strategic alliance but not strong as it was in Cold War-era. USA enlisted Turkey to fight back IS, altough Turkey declined that time, Turkey helped anti-IS militia after the hostage crisis resolved. BTW this article asks the same question. You might wanna read it mate. kazekagetr 19:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with KazekageTR. In principle, you need more than an episode (and an article of a generalist newspaper) to relegate to the past an alliance which has been lasting so long. It is sure that much is changing in the position of Turkey nowadays, but the situation is still very confused, and personally I doubt that behind the Turkish moves there is a long term plan. Alex2006 (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I suspect there is no long term plan in Turkey's foreign ministry re relations with the USA. Turkey's membership of NATO is strategic but bilateral relations with the USA are purely tactical I reckon. Good Washington Post article - thanks. Jzlcdh (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Should foreign relations with Iraqi Kurdistan be in this article - please give your opinion
Recently my addition of the sentence: "Relations with Iraqi Kurdistan are good, which is important both to help prevent a restart of the Turkey–PKK conflict and to diversify Turkey's energy sources." referencing http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/24/world/meast/iraq-kurds-oil-sale/ was removed as being too detailed and more suitable for the "Turkey Iraq relations" article.

I agree that some of the info in this article is too detailed, but not the above. However I propose moving the historical info about foreign relations with America to a more detailed article and re-adding the above sentence. Because I believe Turkey's current relations with immediate neighbours are more important than its former relations with the USA (except as part of NATO which I would add to the list of imternational organisations at the top of the section).

Another ref: http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21606297-buoyed-recent-success-their-iraqi-brethren-kurds-turkey-look-hopefully?zid=307&ah=5e80419d1bc9821ebe173f4f0f060a07

Any strong opinions? Jzlcdh (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Unsure of a country's diplomatic relationship with a province. Like saying that France gets along well with Quebec. Or "France gets along well with Bavaria." Just doesn't sound right. Yes, Turkey needs to have an "understanding" with Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan, in particular, about possible support of Turkish Kurds, but not really that convincing that this is at the correct level. With Iraq having a totally dysfunctional government, hard to argue what level is correct! :( Student7 (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Well mate, like Student7 said, we can't just put Turkey's relations with every single country or autonomous republic into that section. elmasmelih ( used to be KazekageTR ) 20:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a consulate in Erbil,the title of the section is "foreign relations" and it also covers relations with other entities as well as nation states. Of course Elmasmelih's comment is right, however it does not refute my argument. According to "the potential ramifications of recent developments in Turkey and along its borders have become critical to U.S. interests and the long-term trajectory of the Middle East as a whole."Jzlcdh (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I see the sentence I added was removed without any discussion here. That is a bit irritating. I will add it back when the protection expires unless anyone gives a convincing argument here why it was removed. Jzlcdh (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

mate, like i said before. this article contains general information about Turkey. What you are typing belongs to Foreign relations of Turkey. kazekagetr 10:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sure you agree that the most important foreign relations are summarised in this section of this article, and that more detail and less important foreign relations are in Foreign relations of Turkey. I think relations with the KRG are important enough to have a sentence in this article and I believe the references I have cited support that. Jzlcdh (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

but we dont think that it is 'that' important to consider it as a 'non-detail', 'macro' thing to put there. kazekagetr 06:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I think most people would agree that it is more important than relations with, say, the ECO, the ACD, Afghanistan and Somalia which are all included in the section. Jzlcdh (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

About Somalia and Afghanistan, they are not country relations but macro relations with NATO and UN. I am repeating what i said last time, that you keep putting is a detail and not a supranational relation. We cant add every single relation with a govt or an 'semi independent' state. Well I think most people would disagree that it is more important than relations with international organizations rahther than a relation info about an autonomous state btw. kazekagetr 13:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course you are right that "We cant add every single relation with a govt or an 'semi independent' state." but I have not done that and am not suggesting that should be done. Jzlcdh (talk) 10:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Then i suggest you to establish a consensus before putting 'detail' info to that section. As you know there are users that agree with me on that issue. kazekagetr 20:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Student7 seemed not to have a strong opinion at the time. Perhaps they and everyone interested can comment below after taking into account events since Student7's comment above. Jzlcdh (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Surely someone else besides myself and kazekagetr  must have an opinion on whether foreign relations with Iraqi Kurdistan should be in this article or not. Come on speak up. Jzlcdh (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Parliamentary System?
As of the last presidential elections, since the president is now elected directly (popular vote) by the people. Republic of Turkey is no longer a parliamentary republic, its a semi-presidential republic (not to be mistaken with a presidential system, semi-presidential is different) This needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.224.128 (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP may be correct here. Anyone want to look into this? Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Turkey is a 'Parliamentary republic with a ceremonial president, where the prime minister is the executive.' but what you're saying will become true in following months. President's powers will be extended. Turkey's system will change into 'semi-presidential' which will evolve into full 'presidential' system. But like i said currrently Turkey has a president with ceremonial role.   kazekagetr  14:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything depends on the definition of semi-presidentialism. If to define a republic as semi-presidential it is enough the popular election of the president, then Turkey is already a semi-presidential state: if - besides that - also additional powers of the president are needed, then it is not (yet). Alex2006 (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The proper definition includes that 'active' role rather than 'ceremonial' one i believe. But as i said, it will fit in that semi-pres. definition surely.   kazekagetr  22:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2014
88.227.146.91 (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Adamlara da hak veriyorum.Büyük mücadele veriyorlar bize karşı...Eeee onlar da biliyor bir geldik mi 600 yıl gitmiyoruz...!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AeVXs2d-I8&list=UUuNvLeS7_Alp4qWWmly167g

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. Please note that films on YouTube are rarely considered reliable sources - Arjayay (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the English Wikipedia and requests must be in English.

American Cia data is not faulty lens
Kurdish population and demographic war Cia, Hope Özdağ the required data Cie shaped American policy and political deception demographic data on Turkey,

Turkey cia data by year:

1985 : Turkey ratio of 85%, Kurds rate of 12%, 3% other groups

1991 : Turkey ratio of 80% cure rate was 17%, 3% other groups: Notes ratios ranging american politics is changing with the collapse of the USSR

1993 : Turkey ratio of 80% cure rate was 20%, 0% other groups: Note: Increasing rates of PKK terrorism is changing

2009 : Turkey ratio of 70-75%, Kurdish rate of 18%, 7-12% other groups: Note in 2009, lived to be asked to put forward Kurdish and other ethnic structure, respectively (novel-Georgian-gotta-Arab Circassian) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.60.73 (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

so what are you trying to say? CIA is compatible with WP:RS btw. kazekagetr 13:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Cia working for American interests,Phony information unreliable,

Iraq lies

world order and the cia

Usa-Iraq war ,Syria civil var ,Libyan civil war 2011


 * of course they work for usa's interests they are usa's intelligence agency for gods sake. hadi iyi günler sana.   kazekagetr  21:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Time to update the lead to reflect the current situation?
I'm wondering if it's time to update the lead to reflect the developments of the last 2-3 years, which have been pretty significant. The last sentence of the lead reads "Turkey's growing economy and diplomatic initiatives have led to its recognition as a regional power.". This was written in the heady days of 2009-2011, when Turkey was at the peak of its popularity in the Middle East, and its economy growing. Now, the economy is not-so-growing anymore, and "zero problems with neighbors" has turned into "zero friends among neighbors". Turkey is completely isolated in the region, its only friends left being Hamas and Qatar. When Turkey recently ran for a seat at the UN security council, it humiliatingly lost to Spain 132-60 (not one country from the region voted in favor of Turkey). It is not hard to find sources to back this. I'm wondering if its time for "growing economy" and "diplomatic initiatives" to be removed. Athenean (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

lead has to be a general info about country like summarizing al things and that you are saying is kinda detail, because turkey is still considered as a regional power and it has a growing economy. its like greece and quality of life thing. greece's economy is one of the worlds worst right now but still it is consideded as a high income has a good credit rating etc etc. what you are stating is already written in foreign relations section mate. kazekagetr 08:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

ethnic groups
hi there mates User:Alessandro57 wanted me to open up a discussion about my recent edits. First of all my intention isnt a product some kind of nationalism as i am a Georgian not Turkish. I suggest that we should trim the minorities per population basis, we cant just write down every single minority in Turkey to Demographics section as there are more than 30 ethnic groups. Most of them covered in Demographics of Turkey and Minorities in Turkey articles btw. So i suggest that minorities 500,000+ pops should be represented and a sentence that indicates/states the multiplicity of the ethnic groups must be added. kazekagetr 16:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hallo, and thanks for going to the talk page! I understand the need of simplifying the article, but on the other side many minorities - although very small - have a high historical significance (I am thinking among others to the Greeks and the Armenians). Others, like the Assiro-Caldean, live in Turkey since thousands of years and in the last times have been heavily persecuted. I believe in your good faith, but I don`t know if it is a good idea to get read of all of them. To make an example, in the article about Italy, the Italian ethnic minorities, which are almost as many as the Turkish ones, are not named as ethnic groups, but as languages, anyway they are mentioned all without exception. Alex2006 (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course every single culture matters but as you said mate, simplifying matters. Nearly all of these ethnic groups are covered in minorities and demographics article so if a reader wants to take a detailed look, he/she will find info. Also the recognized minorities a.k.a Greeks Armenians and Jews are already mentioned so there is a general info about poly religious culture and community. And I say it again mate I'm no nationalist, I belong to Georgian minority. kazekagetr 20:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

GDP (PPP) per capita
The GDP (PPP) per capita is stated as $19,080. However, the reference documents states that it is $18,551 and dates back to 2012. IMF puts that number as $15,352.610 for 2013.

Countries in the world through the eyes of Turkey Türklerin gözünden dünya ülkeleri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A Paragraph for Armenian Genocide ?
There are a few paragraph of 2 thousand years' Turkish history. And Armenian Genocide covers it. This article has nothing to do with it. Turkey didn't exist that time. I think somebody is sliding in the historical hostilities. It's not necessary for this article, besides described excessively. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I found the first mention of the Armenian Genocide under the section, The Seljuks and the Ottoman Empire. There are 3 sentences pertaining to that genocide. While there is one sentence pertaining to the Hamidian massacres. Neither constitues a paragraph. This sounds like you simply don't like what is stated. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Kansas Bear How is this related to Turkish Republic? I think it sounds like WP:DISRUPTPOINT. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it related to Turkey? For starters, Turkey is famous for denying it. That's how. I can't believe we are having this conversation. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Δρ.Κ., It's exactly WP:GAMING. One can express self hatred in related articles but Turkey is irrelevant. Will you add this paragraph whoever deny it? There should be brief info about history, not details of a controversial subject.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How is he gaming the system when he's not even cited any policy or guideline? I see no sign of hatred. Please refrain from ad hominems and argue your case civilly. How is this related to Turkish Republic? It relates to the history of the Turkish Republic. It's common for country articles to outline the history of the territory a modern state occupies and of its peoples. You're gonna have to explain why it'd be appropriate for the Armenian Genocide to be excluded. Alakzi (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "There should be brief info about history, not details of a controversial subject." Sounds like you just don't like it. And in response to your question, "How is this related to Turkish Republic?, since the Republic of Turkey draws on Seljuk and Ottoman eras as its past, therefore, anything that occurs during those eras should be related. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Δρ.Κ., stop cencoring my words. Your manners are disruptive, i answered you. Why are you attacking me? I don't know how the word "hatred" is personal attack, while it's not intended personal. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm inclined to believe that the murder of two million Turkish citizens by their own government has to do with Turkey in some shape or form. It would actually be a disservice to our readership to exclude the disappearances of two million Turkish citizens, would it not?


 * Kafkasmurat, I have sent you to WP:AE before for personal attacks and you're continuing to do so here. So please refrain from personal attacks towards other users, or we may just have to handle it at the AE board again. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Étienne Dolet, it's not fare. There's no attack. Can you tell me what is the attack? I said one can't "express hatred" here. I leave this favoritism to community. There is no chance to bring forth new ideas. Hope, Wikipedia will not serve conflicts of interest. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , you did not say "one can't express hatred", you said "You can express your hatred" to Dr.K. even after you pinged him. Remember, telling someone that he is "expressing hatred" towards a certain article is a personal attack, especially when it's an unfounded accusation. Such statements do not help the discussion. So I advise you to remain WP:CIVIL in your conduct and adhere to the WP:FIVEPILLARS of the project. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Mate it is mentioned in 'history' and since Turkey considers itself as the succesor of the Ottoman Empire, it is relevant to mention these massacres in history section. But you might say that why are these massacres are mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of the summary as they arent milestones in Turkey's history. kazekagetr 18:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This paragraph is so offensive and placed so irrelevant that it looks like a total hatred speech. Should we use wikipedia for political racist attacks or true information? Ali tr (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Armenian revolts, the massacre of the Armenian gangs, Turkey and massacre of Muslims. Persecution of Ottoman Muslims,Armenian resistance during the Armenian Genocide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added sentences to relevant positions. You can improve the Ottoman Emprie sub-section in History section, with references. kazekagetr 23:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , we shouldn't be comforting the grievances of users who claim to be personally "offended" or that "Armenian gangs" were responsible for wholesale massacre of Muslims, that's just incoherent denialist jargon that has been refuted too many times before. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. As for McCarthy, his work has been proven to be an unreliable source over and over again at the WP:RSN and various other discussions pertaining to the mass murders of Armenians and Greeks (See sample discussions here and here). His work is denialist in nature and limits the sufferings of Armenians and Greeks at the hands of the Ottoman government. This means his work is far from neutral and using such a source will greatly depreciated the neutral tone of this article. Above all, his stance goes against the general consensus here on Wikipedia which accepts the Armenian Genocide as fact. Using such a source challenges that notion, yet at the same time unequally expounds the 'persecution of Muslims', should be excluded in this article at all costs. Moreover, equating a few massacres of Turks in 1821, which is all what the sources say, is not the same as persecution of Ottoman Muslims at large. The Ethnic cleansing in twentieth-century Europe, which is the only source that is borderline reliable, doesn't even mention that Ottoman Muslims were persecuted. That turned out to be complete WP:OR on your part. Even if persecution of Ottoman Muslims were the case, it would be more probable to say that such persecutions may have occurred during brief intervals of time and as a result of some war beyond the border of today's republic. So I advise that this POV editing be removed from this article if we still want to have its GA status retained. Otherwise, the GA status of this article will have to be revised. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Persecution of Ottoman Muslims" by their victims is a myth based on misinterpretation of the sources. There was never systematic campaign of persecution against Ottoman muslims by their Christian subjects.  There were reprisal attacks against the perpetrators of genocide, but that is not persecution, any more than the Warsaw Uprising was "persecution of Nazis". Athenean (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright then mates i've found some other references, how about you check them too.   kazekagetr  15:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How about you post a draft here and wait a bit rather than drag people into an edit war. Alakzi (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * its only a sentence mate, literally, just a sentence with new and more neutral-looking references. I am not gonna write a paragraph for this sensivitive issue cause i know that Armenians burned down our Muslim-Georgian village back in 1900s and my relatives fought in Caucasus Campaign and Eastern Front (Turkey). Because of that, writing a paragraph would be non-neutral therefore non-ethical for me.   kazekagetr  16:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ...And in light of your previous comment, I am now convinced that your recent edits in this article are (mis)guided by a personal POV. You can keep your sensitivities towards the issue to yourself, but editing in a manner that emits those sensitivities is highly discouraged in Wikipedia. Your recent edits, for example, were in complete violation of OR; since you evoked the idea that a few deaths of Turks surmounts to persecution, even when the sources don't use such language. Even if such language in sources were to be used, placing that information in the context you are here to defend would be a deluded attempt to give equal validity to systematic genocide with random acts of violence. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

hahahah if my edits were a product of a POV as you said, i would have done this edits over and over and over. you know how acitve i am on wikipedia. i was just trying to neutralize the articles as other users stated that above. please dont be 'that' funny and make this a big issue. btw your POV accusation is total crap, i've defended that mionority persecutions should be mentioned under the history section and i've clarified myself above that i am not guided on this sentence but i would if i had written a paragraph. kazekagetr 07:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Perincek vs Switzerland, europe free thought , human rights, not just their insanına me , Turks and Muslims are second-class citizens Does everything the Turks or Muslims asked to be removed unjustly , We do not accept , and we say we do genocide no , do not be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ottomans butchered Armenians, there are very good proofs and persons who lived through it, stop denying and start reading. Drop that nationalist sentiment. kazekagetr 18:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm blocked for this proposal. Can we investigate truths? Is mankind able to examine reality? We can't simply believe things which we feel pity for. Never mind, i lost hope for Wikipedia. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In the end. I say that we keep the paragraph under the 'History' section. But we should remove the sentence in the intro cause the massacres have no 'macro' historical importance as WWI or previous empires/states. Any thoughts?   kazekagetr  20:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The murder of millions of Ottoman citizens is, in fact, a macro historical event. I don't get why it shouldn't be considered as such. Just look at the leads of Germany, Rwanda, Cambodia. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Etienne as you know I do accept the fact that Armenians were killed unlawfully. But as you can see and as you may agree, the intro contains 'macro' elements and milestones of countries' history and general info. Genocides can and must be mentioned in Ottoman Empire's intro and the history section in this article but I think that these massacres are more like 'details' or 'micro elements' comparing to previous huge scale wars and previous states/empires. And I cannot tall about the other countries like Germany and Rwanda cause I am sure that they had some sort of consensus or cooperation in mentioning those atrocities in the intro paragraphs, maybe even in the case of USA and Native Americans. But instead of genocides which were committed by Ottomans, we could add a sentence about the thing happened during the Republican period nationalism, turkification and atrocities towards minorities like Istanbul Pogrom or Varlık Vergisi . kazekagetr  20:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * KazekageTR, acts of genocide are as macro, if not more macro, than Turkey's involvement with the war. After all, Turkey used the war to carry out its plan. Removing such information from the lead would be a disservice for the readership. This information has been in the lead for quite some time, and I don't think it was just some unilateral edit that placed them there. There must have been a consensus to have it placed in the article for so long. I don't know of the consensus for Germany, but one thing is for certain, that Germany is a FA article and that means it is more exemplary of what an article should look like. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic groups on the infobox
kazekagetr insists on reverting my edits on the infobox and adding CIA's estimates to the infobox. Turkey does not have official figures on ethnic mix, the article itself states: "Reliable data on the ethnic mix of the population is not available, because Turkish census figures do not include statistics on ethnicity." There are various estimates of course, one of which is CIA's. The infobox is for official, non-dubious information, like capital, official languages, government, area, population, GDP, Gini, HDI, currency, time zone etc, for all of which we have official figures. We have official figures about CIA's estimate of Turkey's ethnic mix too, so if we had a section like "CIA's estimate of ethnic mix", the figures would certainly belong there. Currently, since official and reliable data is not available, it is best to refer to the Demogrophics section.

This time, while reverting my edit, kazekagetr claimed that "CIA is one of the most widely used references in wikipedia and in nearly all countries' infoboxes, ethnic groups section is referenced by CIA". I do not know what countries he is referring to. In United States France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Switzerland, India, Iran and most of the countries I have checked, ethnic mix is not mentioned in the infobox. Even in Belgium, an ethnically divided country where we have abundant information about the ethnic mix, the section in the infobox refers to the demographics section without containing any figures. In Sweden, it states "no official statistics". In the United Kingdom, the numbers are given because they have official figures from the United Kingdom Census 2011. Same with Canada and Canada 2011 Census, China and 2010 China census, Russia and Russian Census (2010).

In Turkey's case, the last official figures about ethnicity date to the 1965 census, and even then the languages, not ethnicity was queried. So we do not have any official and certain data about the ethnic mix. The demographics section will contain estimates, naturally; but in the infobox, we have three options: omit it like United States France, Germany, Italy, Greece, link to the demographics section like Belgium, or write "no official statistics" like Sweden. One can discuss which of them to use, but please stop adding CIA's estimate in the infobox like it is official, kazekagetr, it does not belong there, just like the "Religion" estimates doesn't.--Cfsenel (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I have just noticed that kazekagetr claims that my arguments are based on JUSTDONTLIKEIT in the revert summary. I do not know what I am accused of not liking, CIA or the figures themselves; but I am pretty sure that I did nothing that would imply that. I imagine I am most likely being accused of either being a Turkish nationalist who thinks the Turkish percentage is too low, or a Kurdish nationalist who thinks the Kurdish percentage is too low. How about making an actual argument instead of making personal attacks and presuming to know my intentions?--Cfsenel (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Mate chill out im not gonna call you a nationalist by any means. You should've checked all Euro countries like, Austria, Andorra, Armenia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina etc. etc. they all have that ethnic group thing... kazekagetr 17:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I was offended when I was accused of JUSTDONTLIKEIT without basis. Looking at your examples, they are all based on official figures: Austria: Kommission für Migrations und Integrationsforschung der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Andorra: Ministerio de Justicia e Interior de Andorra, Belarus: Population census 2009. Bosnia and Herzegovina also officially keeps record of ethnicity, final ethnic census results are to be published at 2013 population census in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Only in Armenia's case I am not sure if the results belonged to an official census, because the link is dead. Even if it is not, it is the exception here, and it is the one that should be changed, not all the other countries. Do you see the distinction here? When and if the Turkish government begins the inquire about the ethnicity in censuses, (and does so in an orderly manner, without the findings being dismissed by most as fraud) the results should be published here, as it is the case with all countries. Right now, no official results are available, so none should be mentioned in the infobox, as it is the case with all countries. Doing otherwise would correspond to an important policy change: We would have to add CIA's figures to all countries, like France and Germany (e.g. "German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4%, other 6.1%"); and we would probably need to add the religion info from the CIA to all countries as well, which in Turkey's case gives the figures as "Muslim: 99.8%, other: 0.2%". You can suggest such a policy change if you like, but Turkey's talk page is not the place to do it.--Cfsenel (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Cfsenel, your whole argument is based on the flawed premise that "the infobox is for official, non-dubious information" and never estimated data. That is simply, flatly just wrong. We routinely use estimated figures in almost every type of infobox, including Country Infoboxes. Furthermore, the CIA is oftentimes the source for those estimates. We estimate things such as GDP, population, and, yes, even ethnic groups, when no "official" or "authoritative" source exists. See Laos, North Korea, Burma, Vietnam, Syria, Tajikistan, El Salvador, etc. There are examples from every region of the world and all are sourced to estimates either in the CIA fact book, or Ethnologue and other encyclopedias, which, in most cases are themselves citing the CIA factbook. It has long been considered a reliable source for information here on WP, where better sources don't exist. In fact, estimated data probably outnumbers "official" data in country infoboxes simply because many countries, such as Turkey in this case, don't supply figures. I will be reverting your edits and restoring the CIA estimates unless you can come up with a more reliable source that says they're wrong. We have a source that says X, you claim that source is not sufficient, we can't take your word for it...you need to supply a more reliable source that says this source is wrong or your argument is a non-starter.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear William Thweatt, your claim that "We routinely use estimated figures ... (for) ethnic groups, when no "official" or "authoritative" source exists" is clearly wrong, as I think I have already demonstrated. I won't list the countries again. I will not come up with a "more reliable source that says they're wrong", as I never claimed they were right or wrong, that was not my point. I could name various sources which gives different figures (e.g. Ali Tayyar Önder's Türkiye'nin Etnik Yapısı in 2006; 2005 Eurobarometer: Europeans and their languages survey, Ethnologue quoting McCarus 2009, tr:Tarhan Erdem's KONDA survey in 2006, etc), but I wouldn't necessarily argue that one source is better than the other. What I said was they should be all mentioned in the article, and we cannot just pick one and put it in the infobox which purports to be the 'real' figures.


 * It is a false equivalence to say that "we are using estimates for other data like GDP". Almost every number in every infobox is an estimate, even figures like population and GDP. Population and GDP are well defined concepts, there exists a correct number and different sources estimate the same thing within a margin of error. Who is an ethnic Turk? Should people who say in surveys they are ethnically Turk but their native language is Arabic considered ethnically Turk, or did they just misunderstand the concept of ethnicity? What about people who say they are ethnically Kurd but their native language is Turkish? Each survey above takes a different stance on such issues while making their estimates. Some Zazas are offended when they are included in Kurds, some Kurds are offended when Zazas are not included in Kurds. Is Zinedine Zidane ethnically French? French government would insist that he is, and (mostly French) Wikipedians insist on featuring him in French people, in contrast with the practice other ethnic group pages, whereas CIA might have a different definition. Some countries have officially defined their understanding of ethnicity and publish figures accordingly. Turkey is not one of them. Nor are many other European countries, and that is why they do not have ethnicity figures in their infoboxes. You are talking about a better source, I am saying that cannot exist. There is no right or wrong estimate. There are different estimates, each correct (within a margin of error) using their definition. It is completely different from estimates of things like population. Everybody agrees on what population means, they just differ in methodology and precision.


 * You are arbitrarily adding CIA's estimates to the infobox, against the accepted practice in most of the countries in Europe. If you intend to persevere, may I suggest that you try to do the same thing in other countries? I would be surprised if you manage to get it through and change the consensus, convincing people that CIA's way of calculating ethnic group populations is the only way to go if no official data is available, and that the infobox should unambigously take sides on whether an ethnic group is actually an ethnic group because CIA deems so.--Cfsenel (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Also (again, not essentially my point, I never claimed that CIA's estimates are right or wrong), CIA's demographics data are in a great conflict with Turkey's official figures. In late 2012, early 2013, Turkish Statistical Institute estimated the population of Turkey to be 75,627,384, whereas CIA estimated the population to be 80,694,485. There is a huge difference of over 5 million people. Turkish Statistical Institute's president accused CIA of giving very inaccurate figures. It is expected that any figure on ethnicity will be disputable, given the disagreements around definitions of ethnicity and the difficulty of making such an estimate; but how come the two figures are so off when it comes to population, something much more well-defined, is beyond me.--Cfsenel (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Motto of Turkey
The reference given for the mentioned motto, "Egemenlik, kayıtsız şartsız Milletindir" is titled "motto", but nowhere in the title or in the page the word motto is actually mentioned, it only states that the sentence is expressed in the article 6 of the constitution. Is there any basis for the claim that it is the motto of Turkey? It is obvious that it is not the motto de jure, but any reason why we should consider it de facto the motto of Turkey? True, it is written in the parliament building, the legislative branch, but that doesn't make it the motto. e.g. the judicial branch uses the motto "Adalet mülkün temelidir" and virtually every government body, police etc. has a quote from Atatürk that it considers its motto. The choice of "Egemenlik, kayıtsız şartsız Milletindir" seems arbitrary to me.

On the other hand, National emblem of Turkey is quite well established. True, it doesn't have legal status, but nor does National emblem of France, and no one seems to question whether France's emblem exists. The current emblem is used in passports and diplomatic missions of Turkey, and that is quite sufficient to be considered the emblem. When and if the Turkish government officially makes a new emblem and change the passports etc. accordingly, we can change it, but at the moment de facto logo of Turkey is the star and crescent.--Cfsenel (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that in France's case, emblem should be removed also cause infobox contains legal infos. But i think you are quite right about the motto.   kazekagetr  16:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The infobox isn't meant for 'legal infos', but key facts. Is the emblem a key fact? I think not. Is the anthem audio file a key fact? Are the coordinates of Istanbul and Ankara key facts? Is the rule of the road a key fact? The infobox is littered with trivia. Alakzi (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is actually, if it wasn't, you would have the right to write whatever you want. Oh and BTW, 'coordinates' are solid just like 'legal' or 'official' facts.   kazekagetr  17:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Read WP:IBX. Alakzi (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:KazekageTR that we should put 'solid', 'official' facts. However, I would argue that Turkey's emblem is a 'solid', 'official' fact, and so is France's emblem. True, Turkey and France does not have a law that officially defines an emblem, however, we cannot base what is official solely on laws. All countries have different legal traditions, it is not just with Turkey and France. For example, United Kingdom does not officially an anthem, not even an authorized version of lyrics, it's just a tradition. This does not prevent us from listing "God Save the Queen" on the page United Kingdom. While there are no laws, United Kingdom officially condones its use where other nations use their anthems. Or the United States does not officially have a national language, but the government of United States uses English in all official documents and legal proceedings, so we list English in the page United States as the national language. Similarly, Turkey and France do not have laws that define national emblems, but they officially use their respective emblems where other nations use theirs, i.e. on passports and diplomatic missions. That is official by any standard. We may consider adding a note to the pages of France and Turkey, like there is in United Kingdom and United States, saying the emblems do not have legal status. It certainly makes more sense to add a note only to the emblem, instead of adding notes to everything else affirming that they are legally defined, at least from a visual point of view. I will go ahead and add the note.--Cfsenel (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have added the note "as appears on the Turkish passports and diplomatic missions of Turkey". You can change it if you have a better idea, e.g. want to emphasize that it does not have legal basis; but I am not sure an extensive discussion on its legal status and history is warranted here, anybody can click to National emblem of Turkey and read about it.--Cfsenel (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A footnote should suffice §  Infestor  T•C 18:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
Since I'm a wiki noob, I didn't know how or where to put this: There's a verbless sentence under the Demographics subheading. Hope someone can fix it :) Sorry for my ignorance of the Wikipedia rules, you may delete this once the grammatical error is fixed. Minorities other than the three officially recognized ones do not any minority rights.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.194.41 (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there still a strategic alliance with the USA?
There was a discussion of this last year which has presumably been archived. Since then relations have been described as

"transactional" at http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/us-turkey-relations-like-old-marriage-no-longer-a-love-affair-says-american-analyst.aspx?PageID=238&NID=77407&NewsCatID=510

and "dischordant" at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/23/us-mideast-crisis-turkey-idUSKCN0IC1Z520141023

and "strained" at http://www.voanews.com/content/us-turkey-relations-suffering-over-islamic-state/2455776.html

and "divergent" http://www.turkishweekly.net/columnist/3933/turkey-u-s-relations-embedded-disputes.html

I have asked for a citation to show the alliance (with the USA not NATO) is still strategic NOW as opposed to the early years of the AK Party government. So I think the citation should be from this decade.

If no convicing citation can be provided I will change "is" to "was".


 * I refuse. As you know these things can happen in politics. Lets take a look at the relation between Israel and US. Nearly the same thing has been going on lately, right? These things have a very limited impact on 'macro' relations. I'm sure that being a member of NATO alone states that Turkey is still an ally of US.   kazekagetr  15:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field.png to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field.png will be appearing as picture of the day on April 24, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD caption at Template:POTD/2015-04-24.

The same announcement was made at Armenian Genocide, but I think this forum ought equally to know what is planned. c1cada (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You should post it to Portal of Turkey, not here mate.   kazekagetr  16:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, KazekageTR. I have now done that. c1cada (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The views of "all sides" (Armenian, Turkish, neutral) must be given
As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must concisely cite "all views and estimates" (Armenian, Turkish, neutral) so that the readers can understand what's the dispute, including estimates by neutral historians regarding the casualties during the Tehcir Law deportations of 1915-1916. Superfluous man (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The Tehcir Law deportations took place between 1915 and 1916. From a legal point of view, the Armenian civilians who died during the Tehcir Law deportations can count as "genocide victims" (or "ethnic cleansing" victims.) The Armenian soldiers of the Armenian volunteer units in the Russian Army, and the French Armenian Legion in the French Army, or the armed local Armenian militia who died while fighting the Ottoman Army during WWI don't count as "genocide" victims, but as "war" victims. Superfluous man (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The 600,000 figure is Toynbee's figure for the first year of the genocide. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as an accurate count of all Armenians that have died during the Armenian Genocide. By the way, the genocide lasted until 1923, and not 1916. Saying that the genocide ended when the Tehcir law is to misrepresent what the majority of sources say regarding the event. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Legally, only the Armenian civilians who died during the Tehcir Law deportations of 1915-1916 (which was under the responsibility of the Ottoman government) can count as "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" victims. The Armenian soldiers of the Armenian volunteer units in the Russian Army, and the French Armenian Legion in the French Army, or the armed local Armenian militia who died while fighting the Ottoman Army during WWI don't count as "genocide" victims, but as "war" victims. The deaths which occurred during the inter-ethnic clashes between local Armenians and local Muslims (Turks and Kurds) in eastern Anatolia during WWI also don't count as "genocide" casualties, but as "civil war" casualties. Superfluous man (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edit contains the phrase lost their lives due to massacres, starvation and diseases, according to Armenians and a number of international sources which downplays the acceptance of the AG by the mainstream scholarship and is heavily POV. Your arguments seem to relitigate known facts about the AG and are also POV. You are also edit-warring to keep your preferred version. Please stop your edit-warring until an NPOV version of your edit is found. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You have purposefully taken the latter part of the sentence, and not all of it. Here's the complete paragraph:

The Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers and was ultimately defeated. During the war, the empire's Armenians were deported from Eastern Anatolia to Syria as part of the Armenian Genocide. As a result, up to 1,500,000 Armenians lost their lives due to massacres, starvation and diseases, according to Armenians and a number of international sources. Turkey maintains the view that approximately 300,000 Armenians died during the Tehcir Law deportations between 1915 and 1916, while Encyclopædia Britannica cites Toynbee's and McCarthy's estimates of circa 600,000 deaths. The Turkish government refuses to acknowledge the events as 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. Following the Armistice of Mudros on 30 October 1918, the victorious Allied Powers sought to partition the Ottoman state through the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres.

Superfluous man (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You have purposefully taken the latter part of the sentence, and not all of it. Your WP:AGF-defying reply still does not address my concern. Your sentence according to Armenians and a number of international sources seeks to downplay the vast majority of academic sources which call this a genocide and you make it appear as if the Armenians and some unnamed sources agree that it is a genocide. This is misinformation. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You are using sources that are considered unreliable in Wikipedia because they go against the general consensus which this project has instilled towards the Armenian Genocide. McCarthy has minimized the suffering of Christian minorities during their respective genocides, while exaggerating the deaths of Muslims to make it appear as though it was a civil conflict. That's not neutral, and hardly reliable. Also, you still haven't addressed the issue regarding Toynbee. His report on the number of deaths was in 1916, no more than a year into the Genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you disagree with the fact that the deportees died because of massacres, starvation and diseases? This is a widely accepted fact. Also, the definition Armenian Genocide is made in the previous sentence. There are conflicting estimates on the death toll (see the Britannica link.) Superfluous man (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Mates, current intro is fine i think. Numbers should be stated in History section. In order to satisfy both sides, number should be represented as 600.00--1.500.000 or sth like that. There is no need for heartbreaking... kazekagetr 19:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your philosophical approach Kazekage but I think you know better than most that and his socks do not seem to have a very high regard for the 3RR rule. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  22:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The 600,000 estimate has been widely discredited; see WP:UNDUE. Alakzi (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide
There should be a section just on the Armenian Genocide as it is popular in current news it would be helpful for wiki readers to see a more brief and detailed topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xelophate (talk • contribs) 00:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

there is an article for it right? btw it is mentioned in the lede and in the relevant section (history-ottoman) along with the other massacres/genocides. kazekagetr 12:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

kurdish percentage
In Cia world factbook the kurdish percentage is estimatedwith 18%, not 24% as the article claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franky384 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2015
Please change the kurdish percentage under demographics to 18% as the cia world factbook says which is given as source. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html

87.164.0.237 (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion
A move discussion with connection to this article is open at Kurdish languages' talk page. Khestwol (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You should post it to portal of Turkey. kazekagetr 23:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Motto
Turkey is a parliamentary representative democracy and Turkey's constitution governs the legal framework of the country. Due to that conditions, Motto of the Turkey should be rewritten again as "Sovereignty unconditionally belongs to the Nation". Please check the Wkipedia page: Sovereignty unconditionally belongs to the Nation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.255.97.45 (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2015
88.104.185.225 (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Turkey is responsible for helping the forces of Islamic state perpetrate genocide against the Kurdish people.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Banning the term 'Turkish Kurdistan' in this article
Turkish Kurdistan does not have to be an administrative division within the boundaries of today's Turkish Republic in order for it to be mentioned in the article. Turkish Kurdistan can simply have a geographical and historical connotation, and that's good enough for Wikipedia. Even the main page of Turkish Kurdistan calls it "unofficial name for the southeastern part of Turkey." So why should we prohibit in this article? Also, the map is a good indicator of the complex demographics of Turkey. I don't see why it should be removed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The map is important, and useful to our readers. We mention the Kurdish minority in the article so a map showing where they are located is useful.  This region is also in the news a lot these, so it's doubly useful.  I also see no valid reason to no include it.  Btw "Heimdallr of Assir" whatever is a sock of "Lord of Rivendell", so no need to take him seriously. Athenean (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, made this revert with the following edit-summary:
 * "Is it Turkish Kurdistan or Western Armenia? Both of them have the same map. You guys should better make up your mind, or you will start fighting each other over your conflicting irredentist dreams, which will never become true."


 * Firstly, edit-summaries are not places to insult and inflame political tension. This is not a WP:BATTLEFIELD. Please refrain from doing so. I'd rather just comment on the substance of the edit-summary: the whole Turkish Kurdistan or Western Armenia debate. Both Armenian and Kurdish irrendentists view the Treaty of Sevres as their legal basis to the land found in Turkey. Kurdish land granted to the Kurdish delegation in Sevres is separate from the land granted to the Armenians. As you can see with a simple look at the map of the Treaty of Sevres, Kurdistan is just south of the land granted to Armenia. To put it simply, Armenians and Kurds do not claim land from one another. But I do not want to sway off-topic here. I would like to discuss my first comment, we can then move on. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Treaty of Sevres (1920) was never ratified by the Ottoman Parliament and was later superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) following the Turkish War of Independence (1919-1922). Learn to live with this fact. Heimdallr of Æsir (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The so-called Turkish Kurdistan and Western Armenia have the exact same map. Which one is true? The definition "Turkish Kurdistan" is misleading, because in Iraq and Iran, there are official regional administrations with the name "Kurdistan" (Iraqi Kurdistan and Iranian Kurdistan have official status and defined borders; but no such region or administration exists in Turkey, with no defined borders.) 88.251.101.249 (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A treaty does not have to be ratified in order for it to be legal. Any legal scholar would dispute that.


 * The Treaty of Laussane doesn't replace or rescind the Treaty of Sevres because not all of the signatories of the Treaty of Sevres were present at the Laussane conference, and that includes the Armenian and Kurdish delegations. The common misconception that the Treaty of Laussane replaces the Treaty of Sevres is a ploy made by the Turkish government to avoid land claims. However, this isn't something the international community believes. Turkey knows that. That's why its government tries so hard to have Armenia acknowledge the border between Armenian and Turkey. Also, this is one of the reasons why Turkey was the first country to acknowledge Armenia's independence so as to reaffirm its belief that today's Armenia is the only Armenia Turkey will ever put up with.


 * I've already said that the maps don't criss-cross one another. Again, the legal basis to Armenian and Kurdish land claims is the Treaty of Sevres which seperates both Armenia and Kurdistan geographically. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Your claim that the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) didn't supersede the never-ratified (it has no validity without the ratification of the Ottoman Parliament) Treaty of Sevres (1920) proves how DELUDED you are on this subject. There is a reason why the Great Powers of Europe signed the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, instead of insisting for the Treaty of Sevres to be formally recognized by the Ankara government. Anyway, good luck to Armenia with its population of 2.9 million and GDP of $10.3 billion for realizing its dream of "sharing the eastern half of Turkey with the PKK". Would you like to have some Turkish coffee for waking up? 88.251.68.205 (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Treaty of Laussane was nothing but a treaty to end war. It does not replace the Treaty of Sevres. The only institution that says it does is the Turkish government in order to evade legitimate territorial claims by Armenia and Kurdistan under the Treaty of Sevres. Unlike you, I don't believe in this Turkish government propaganda. No legit international law scholar does either. Nevertheless, you can call me delusional all you want, but in all legal aspects, the Treaty of Sevres is live and well. The Turkish government can't change that. Here's some more reasons why the Treaty of Laussane cannot rescind Sevres:
 * The Treaty of Laussane says nothing about Armenia or Kurdistan. The Treaty of Sevres, however, does. To that extent, it cannot be said that it replaces the Treaty of Sevres when all the parties of Versailles weren't even present in Laussane.
 * Armenia and Kurdistan were not a signatory party to the Treaty of Laussane. Under the Treaty of Sevres they both were.
 * Turkey cannot base its claim on conquest (i.e. Western Armenia in 1920). That's violation of international law in and of itself.
 * The Treaty of Laussane makes no mention of the Treaty of Sevres. It makes no mention of how it negates the Sevres Treaty either.
 * The Treaty of Laussane does not define the Armenian and Turkish border, therefore territorial claims by Armenia is still legally binding under the Treaty of Sevres.
 * Most of the provisions of the two treaties do not contradict each other, nor do they negate one another.


 * Again, ratification is not obligatory for a treaty to be legally binding or enforced. In the case of the Treaty of Sevres, this is entirely true. And since the Treaty of Laussane doesn't replace the Treaty of Sevres, as aforementioned, the Treaty of Sevres is very much a treaty that has enforcement rights. If you don't want to believe me, perhaps you should check out this source:.


 * I have never advocated a military solution concerning this issue. However, one thing is for sure. The Turkish government is illegally sitting on top of Armenian and Kurdish lands. That shouldn't come to anyone's surprise, since before the arrival of the Turks, Armenians and Kurds have been living on those lands for thousands of years. Today's geopolitical situation cannot change that, neither will the Treaty of Laussane. And by justifying the Turkish governments presence on those lands solely due to the prowess of its military doesn't give you rightful ownership of it either. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Lest there are any doubts that this seemingly new maniac is a sock of the demented, here is a diff by one of his innumerable socks that shows the same peculiar obsession with Armenia's 3 million people and 10 billion GDP  (though he has revised his figures somewhat).  As this individual is banned, there is no need to engage him, and all edits, including to this talkpage, may be reverted on sight per WP:BAN, and are even exempt from WP:3RR per WP:3RRNO. Athenean (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's not mistake ought for is: Turkey's current borders are internationally recognized. The Treaty of Lausanne, which was signed by Turkey, is in effect; the Treaty of Sevres, which was signed by now long bygone Ottoman Empire, is not. Some may find these unfair, but facts are facts. Having said this, I'm skeptical of the term 'Turkish Kurdistan'; because unlike, say, 'Iraqi Kurdistan', it has no official status and thus its borders are inevitably imprecise. I'm not saying it should absolutely not be used at all, but we should be careful as not to create any confusion. Lastly, Armenian and Kurdish land claims in Turkey most certainly do overlap: You cannot find a map of a proposed 'Turkish Kurdistan' that doesn't include Van, for example. --Mttll (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A name does not have to have official status for it to be in used in Wikipedia. Turkish Kurdistan is a widely used term to describe a certain geographical part of Turkey. All we are saying in this article is that a certain part of Turkey is also known as Turkish Kurdistan. That's like saying a certain mountain of the United States is also known as Denali (think before the recent name change). Per WP:COMMONTERM, the use of alternative names is encouraged, as long as they are commonly used. That appears to be the case here. And again, Kurdish and Armenian land claims have never overlapped in its history. Don't get mixed up with demographic maps with political ones. As I have said, the basis of all land claims have always been the Treaty of Sevres (see here). I don't believe there's any other legal basis for them. Check out the United Armenia article as well and particularly this map which shows the goals of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation in terms of land. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not say that 'Turkish Kurdistan' should not be used because it does not have official status, but because its borders are inevitably imprecise and would create confusion. And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but separatist Turkish Kurds don't care about Treaty of Sevres. Their argument is self-determination in regions where Kurds make up the majority. Treaty of Sevres was signed by an Ottoman delegation. Today, It is about as relevant as treaties signed by the Holy Roman Empire. Again, Turkey's borders are internationally recognized; the Turkish control of Eastern Anatolia is considered legal. This is not me being a Turkish nationalist. For example, I realize that the international community considers the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus an illegal occupation force of Turkey. It's just that they don't feel the same way about the Turkish presence in Erzurum or Van. Now you may find this unfair, which fine, I'm not here to convince you otherwise. But you can't push some agenda here. Wikipedia is about how the world is, not how the world ought to be. --Mttll (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't care what Turks, Greeks, Kurds, or even Armenians think about the Treaty of Sevres. Neither do I have a deep-seeded desire to suggest how the world ought to be. My simple two edits in this article shouldn't even reflect that notion. What ought to be, however, is what the Wikipedia community would like to see done. It is the simple guidelines of the Wikiproject that should be observed. This means setting aside Turkish Republic idealism and editing by means of consensus. In the case of Turkish Kurdistan, nothing is more appropriate than just adding a simple "...also known as Turkish Kurdistan", especially when thousands upon thousands of third-party sources that widely use that term. By the way, I didn't even mention the Treaty of Sevres to begin with. I can't see why a simple demographic map could ignite such an uproar about that. Sevres Syndrome perhaps?


 * P.S. Armenian and Turkish borders are hardly recognized. In fact, the recognition of the Armenian and Turkish border is one of the three preconditions set by Turkey for establishing diplomatic relations. The border between Armenia and Turkey is set by the Treaty of Kars, a treaty not considered legal under Armenia's view. This has made Turkish politicians uneasy because of Sevres' legality. Just another reason why the Treaty of Sevres is relevant even till this day. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, right now there is such a sentence in the article: "Kurds are concentrated in the east and southeast of the country, in what is also known as Turkish Kurdistan." Personally, I don't have a problem with this. It is not exactly precise as to where Turkish Kurdistan begins and ends, but I guess there is no need for absolute precision there. We can move on. As for the Turkish-Armenian border, it may be disputed by Armenia, but it is recognized by the international community. Just the Republic of Cyprus is disputed by Turkey, but recognized by the international community. Facts are facts. --Mttll (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If the facts were facts, Turkey wouldn't have made it a precondition for Armenia to recognize the borders between the two countries. If Turkey was so rest assured about its borders, it would just go along and make diplomatic relations with Armenia. But, as it appears, not everything is fact in the geopolitical world, especially in such a volatile region. There's a lot of grey area too. At any rate, this discussion has already digressed into another topic of discussion. This topic of discussion doesn't have much to do with the article. If you feel like talking about Turkish-Kurdish-Armenian relations, talk to me on my talk page. Otherwise, I feel that there's no point in furthering this discussion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Mttll, you are missing an important detail: The Treaty of Sèvres (1920) was signed by the Ottoman delegation led by Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha, but the Ottoman Parliament in Istanbul refused to ratify the treaty (the treaty was never put into effect on Ottoman Turkish territory, i.e. never attained legal status in Turkey.) Similarly, even if the Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras signs a new bailout deal in Brussels with the EU, if the Greek Parliament in Athens refuses to ratify it, the deal won't be put into effect (the deal will be annulled and become void if the Greek Parliament refuses to ratify it.) An international treaty must be ratified by a signatory country's national parliament (if that country has a parliamentarian system) in order to be enacted (otherwise, it won't attain legal status on that country's sovereign territory.) Heimdallr of Æsir (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have rewritten the map caption to simply and neutrally state what the map shows: "Areas in Turkey with a Kurdish-majority population" rather than "A map displaying the Kurdish-majority region of southeastern Turkey". Having a map showing where the majority-Kurdish areas are has obvious usefulness in the article so it should stay (though I think the map is very crude in its aim, a better map would define these and adjoining areas with greater accuracy, such as areas with 40%, areas with 70%, etc.) The "in what is also known as Turkish Kurdistan" text is highly pov and aggressive I think, and rather weasily too since its unqualified use implies the status of acceptance by all. Who says it is "also known"? I think either get rid of its use in that context (i.e. separate it from the same sentence as southeast Turkey, but maybe mention it elsewhere in the article), or reword it to something like "what some also call 'Turkish Kurdistan'" and give it a source showing who that some is. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely nothing wrong with the term "Turkish Kurdistan". That it is "highly pov and aggressive" is just your own opinion, which is not backed by anything.  We happen to have an article by that name.  Is that article title "highly pov and aggressive".  If you think so, then you should put in a move request (good luck with that), and if it is successful, then come back here and we can talk.  As for "weasily", you should consult WP:WEASEL.  Wording such as "some consider" is the exact definition of weasel wording. The current wording is perfectly neutral.  Athenean (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You present nothing. Present some modern commercially-produced maps that say "Turkish Kurdistan". Present a single political entity that uses "Turkish Kurdistan". You cannot because they do not exist. You have not even presented sources, not even a single source, proving the term "Turkish Kurdistan" exists at all! (I am not saying the term does not exist, but the fact you have not even bothered to find a source to indicate it exists reveals lack of substance in your arguments). The wording you advocate using in this article as correct is pov, aggressive and weasel because it has no sources and it falsely presents the "Turkish Kurdistan" definition as having equal standing and usage as the universally accepted "Eastern Turkey" definition, when it is actually a phrase very rarely used and used by persons/bodies advocating a particular point of view. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Turkish Kurdistan is a widely used term . The only ones who have a problem with it are Turkish nationalists.  Anyway, if the term is so objectionable to you, you should first try to rename or delete the Turkish Kurdistan article, then come back here and I'd be willing to listen to you.  Till then, so long.  The assertion that somehow mentioning it here equates it with "Eastern turkey" is in your head, no one is saying that.  Athenean (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The text that you want in the article, "Kurds are concentrated in the east and southeast of the country, in what is also known as Turkish Kurdistan", implies unequivocal parity of usage between the phrase "Turkish Kurdistan" and all other phrases/terms that could be used, such as "the country" (i.e. Turkish republic) or "eastern Turkey". This is unsupportable in reality, so your "also known" is weasel wording because it gives undue weight to a minority terminology used by those holding a particular outlook. Or shall we also say "most north Americans are concentrated in the United States of America, which is also known as the Great Satan"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with "also known". It is not weasel wording in any way. Your analogy with the "Great Satan" term is a straw man. Athenean (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just repeating "there is nothing wrong with also known" is just an empty "I'm right" statement. The "also known" wording you want implies parity of usage, but no such parity of usage exists in reality. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)