Talk:Turkey/Archive 24

RfC: Should this article mention the "emblem of Turkey"?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article mention the "emblem of Turkey"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maproom (talk • contribs) 10:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC) My point is that there is scant evidence that this whole national emblem thing is as standardized on a global scale as some people here are making it out to be. Ender and  Peter  05:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, stating there is no official emblem, but as a de facto emblem.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it is not an distinct emblem, it is just the central motif of the Turkish flag used without its red background. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Question - What exactly makes a national emblem "official"? There is a comment on this page to the effect that every country has a national emblem except Turkey, but you will be hard pressed to find the "national emblem", official or not, for the United States, or the United Kingdom, or any western non-European country as far as I can tell. We over here in the US have many a symbol, such as national animals, songs, mottos, seals, etc., but heraldry is just so pre-1776.
 * Bald eagle. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, as I said that is one of the national symbols. As far as it being the "official national emblem", you can certainly call it that, but my point is that it is one one of many national symbols. Not all countries have the same view of a truly official, whatever that's supposed to mean, symbol that represents them. The closest you'll find to that in the US are groups within the government that use certain insignia to identify themselves, like the flag of the US Marines, or the Presidential seal, or the CIA's seal, etc. all of which are more like emblems than a national animal. Ender  and  Peter  15:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This feels like an ill-posed question. What is the specific controversy here? I don't see anything resembling a reliable source either in the comments above or in National emblem of Turkey. What section would the mention of an emblem be? What would the mention of the emblem say? Where are the sources for the inclusion of the statement? 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 02:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Some sources are listed at National_emblem_of_Turkey. Maproom (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw that, but that doesn't really address my issues above. This RFC does not make clear exactly what you want to add and where, but addressing those references:
 * Reference 1 is a dead link, but presumably it's supposed to go to a Turkish National ID card, hardly relevant.
 * Reference 2 just goes to the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs main page. Presumably this is supposed to show that this imagery is present there? At *best* it's a primary source.
 * Reference 3 is a direct link to an image on a random Turkish wordpress blog, with no provenance, definitely not supporting the claims for which it is a reference, and it definitely doesn't support that this is any kind of Emblem of Turkey.
 * Reference 4 is dead, but from the text I assume it's the same as Reference 5, which is also the same as Reference 3 - a picture of an symbol. Again, not a source for any claims.
 * Reference 6 is a 404, but a Google translate of the archive.org version refers to a Presidential Flag, not about an emblem.
 * Reference 7 is the closest thing to a reliable source. I don't speak Turkish, the text of the Wikipedia article mentions that it was about an attempt to adopt an official "coat of arms" (is this the same as an emblem?). Google translate does translate it as "state emblem", but specifically says Turkey doesn't have one and that these people are attempting to create one. Reference 8 is basically the same story from a different source. Even if this law passed, neither article seems to even have a description of the emblem, so it seems neither could be used to identify what the emblem is. Here is an article in English on the topic that indicates that the emblem has yet to be designed.


 * If there is such an emblem, official or unofficial, it seems it would be a simple matter to find a reliable source that says so. If you want this RFC to go anywhere, I suggest you 1. clarify precisely what action is meant by "oppose" or "support", and provide a reliable source that actually supports whatever claim you want to include. Until then, it's just a waste of time. 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 17:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your well-made points. My thoughts exactly. Dr.   K.  19:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * By "oppose", I mean oppose any mention of the emblem in the article. By "support", I mean mention the emblem in the article as at various dates in the past, e.g. here or here, showing at least one version of it, but making it clear that while the emblem is used by the Turkish government, it is not official. I raised the RfC when I saw that a request by, admittedly a rather troublesome user, was rejected because "there is clear consensus against having the emblem". The statement was supported by this reference, which does not in fact lead to anything resembling a consensus. I thought that, rather than citing a non-existent consensus, it would be better to have a real consensus one way or the other, and so it can be cited next time somone proposes adding or removing mention of the emblem. Maproom (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Adding a non-existent emblem in the infobox is not described accurately by the phrase "mentioning the emblem". This phrase is inherently POV because no such emblem exists. So calling it "emblem" without the qualifier "non-existent" is POV. Mentioning a non-existent emblem anywhere in the article is unacceptable. Adding the non-existent emblem in the infobox and giving it prominence without citing any sources that it is an official emblem is even less acceptable. Having this RfC with an ill-posed and POV question is both problematic and unnecessary. I think WP:WASTEOFTIME applies here. Dr.   K.  20:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, so the RFC should be "should the emblem of Turkey be included in the infobox", not "should it be mentioned in the article". Also, those two linked versions are two different images, both claiming to be the emblem, so if this RFC passes, which one goes into the infobox? Neither is supported by any sources. I suggest closing this RFC as a ill-formed, and if someone comes up with a specific suggested change to the article that is supported by reliable sources, the discussion can continue. 0x0077BE  ( talk ·  contrib ) 21:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support proposal to close the RfC as outlined in the above post by 0x0077BE. I also support the rest of the terms of the above proposal. Dr.   K.  22:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm troublesome user? Thank! Regarding the emblems, it emblems often appears when searching, many sites on the Internet call it an emblem of Turkey. Unfortunately I do not know much English and I can not fully enter into the discussion. Sorry Gl dili (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spoken languages in Infobox
Is it more useful to mention the most common spoken languages in Turkey (such as Turkish, Kurmanji, Arabic, Zaza, Kabardian) in the infobox, and to add a link "various others" to the article "Languages of Turkey" where all spoken languages in Turkey are mentioned or just to write “See section” as a link to the Languages section?

In other articles like Iran, Gibraltar, Sierra Leone, Laos, etc. are the most common spoken languages are mentioned in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.147.92 (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Why does Turkey redirect here?
I'd imagine more people when asked 'what is turkey', they'd say "A type of bird", rather than "a country in the middle east" 184.91.99.69 (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Page protection.
I believe, that this article should be protected, because it is a country and became a battlefield of the edit war today. - FriyMan (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've applied one year of semiprotection to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop deleting the decentralization issue from the article
Dear User:Balki Chalkidiki, please cease and desist from deleting the important and well sourced brief paragraph on the decentralization issue from the article. I just had once again to revert your vandalism on the topic. You cannot delete this topic of major relevance and importance from the article just because the topic/discussion does not suit your personal POV agenda. If you continue this disruptive bahavior, you will face consequences for your account. If you have issues about it, discuss on the talk page here. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As you apparently have no interest in a discussion, I will just for other editors briefly point out why your edit summaries are far from being a justification to delete the entire paragraph on the decentralization issue:


 * It's unlikely to happen


 * See WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL


 * The "European Charter of Local Self-Government" (see article) of the Council of Europe (not EU) is in effect since 1988, and Turkey has done nothing about it (it's non-binding). It's not an "EU" pre-requisite. The military coups are already mentioned.


 * -> The first part of your text is mostly factually correct, but no argument whatsoever to delete the paragraph (the "non-binding" is factually incorrect, but irrelevant for our issue here anyway). And I have no idea why you bring up "military coups" here, there was no mention of those in the brief decentralization issue paragraph which you persistently sought to delete.


 * You are "POV-pushing" with a charter which has no binding power on Turkey. The charter belongs to the Council of Europe, not to the European Union, and is in effect (with no effect in Turkey) since 1988.


 * -> The Charter is only one detail of the brief decentralization issue paragraph which you persistently sought to delete. Nothing there claims it had to do anything with the EU. Nothing contradicts your timeline. And as you can read in the references/sources of the paragraph, it is binding, just has no enforcement mechanism. But this is irrelevant anyway, because the paragraph is about the decentralization issue and uses the Charter only as a detail and illustration.


 * As you seem to have cooled down now, please do discuss here rather than do edit-warring in the future. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Balki Chalkidiki, as it appears that you have resumed edit-warring today, you might wish to consider answering the complaint about you for breach of the 3RR rule. As you this time did in your edit summary not even pretend to have a sincere reason or justification for deleting the important and well sourced brief paragraph on the decentralization issue from the article, I would not know what to discuss at this point; however, I still wish that you would discuss here instead of edit-warring. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Balki Chalkidiki, as you keep up your edit-warring deletions of the important and well sourced brief paragraph on the decentralization issue from the article and do not engage in any discussion, let me clearly point out to you (and to other editors reading this) why your edit summaries do not carry valid arguments for your deletions:

While is it obviously true that the The European Charter of Local Self-Government belongs to the Council of Europe and not to the European Union, nothing in the paragraph you keep deleting suggests otherwise. And one of the sources provided there actually even is from the Council of Europe website.

Your persistent claim that the European Charter of Local Self-Government were "not binding" is factually incorrect. The Charter of course is binding, like any legal instrument, it simply does not come with an enforcement mechanism to enforce implementation, this lack of an enforcement mechanism being a common characteristic of many international law treaties. Please read the sources given in the paragraph which you keep deleting.

Your selective attacks against elements of the important and well sourced brief paragraph on the decentralization issue do not even have merit concerning the respective elements, but even if they would have such merit, that would not warrant deleting the entire paragraph.

Please stop the edit-warring and engage in a good faith discussion and sincere work on the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Balki Chalkidiki, as you now started abusing the edit summaries for minor edits you make to slander the important and well sourced brief paragraph on the decentralization issue which you keep bulk deleting without justification, let me add:

 While it is perfectly true that the European Charter of Local Self-Government "doesn't give a municipality the right to declare autonomy or to secede from the central government of Turkey", nothing in the paragraph you keep deleting suggests otherwise.

Please stop the edit-warring and engage in a good faith discussion and sincere work on the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You are openly defending the "opinion" that "regional autonomy is better for government" while I can provide an equal number of references which support the opposite view. This is not a "fact" but an "opinion". One of the HDP municipalities actually tried to declare "autonomy" and got prosecuted for it. Turkey has a long history of granting autonomies (especially in the Balkan peninsula) and they all ended up in secession. Don't expect Turkey to make a similar mistake again. Balki Chalkidiki (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * (1) The term "autonomy" does not appear at all in the paragraph concerned, the topic of that paragraph and our issue at hand is a different one, namely legal provisions for the administrative and fiscal dimension of local self-government. (2) There is no "opinion" mentioned at all in the paragraph concerned that "regional autonomy is better for government". You are perfectly correct in claiming that the article should not endorse such (or any other) opinion, and it does not do that. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Initial presentation
There recently has been much fuss about the "administrative divisions" section of the article. See also talk page section above.

(1) It began with me editing a paragraph on the hotly discussed issue of decentralization in Turkey. Final version of the paragraph here.

(2) Then the honorable colleague Balki Chalkidiki started an edit-war to bulk delete the new paragraph in its entirety, regrettably did not engage in a discussion about the content, and after an administrator noticboard complaint and discussion there and stuff, his account is now blocked.

(3) However, before his block, he made a last edit to the paragraph concerned, which (a) deleted the sentence and five sources conderning the contemporary discussion in Turkey, and (b) twisted some of the other sentences as to no longer properly represent what the sources say. In particular in the case of the Council of Europe source, the article now states pretty much the opposite from what the source says.

(4) One of the administrators concerned recommended me to post for seeking consensus here to restore the paragraph on decentralization to the original state which includes the contemporary discussion in Turkey and accurately cites the sources for everything else. The "softer" starting formulation into the article would remain as it is now.

Original version (with new soft starting formulation):

The largely centralized structure of decision-making in Ankara is often considered an impediment to good governance, and causes resentment in particular in ethnic minority regions. Steps towards decentralization since 2004 have proved to be a highly controversial topic in Turkey. Turkey is obligated under the European Charter of Local Self-Government to decentralize its administrative structure. A decentralization program for Turkey is an ongoing discussion in the country's academics, politics and the broader public.

Version as it is now after Balki Chalkidiki edit:

The largely centralized structure of decision-making in Ankara is considered an impediment to good local governance by some ethnic minority groups,   while governmental decentralization is a highly controversial topic in Turkey. Turkey has signed the European Charter of Local Self-Government in 1985 (effective since 1988) to decentralize its administrative structure, and Turkish municipalities have local legislative bodies for decision-making on municipal issues.

Please feel invited to give your opinion on the issue. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

First comments/discussion

 * So here is my take: The decentralisation issue certainly deserves a mention, the part in the original version about the discussion also looks good. On the charter, though, more literature is needed. This is a country article, it is supposed to be a summary of summaries, so to say. The importance of everything here should be able to be established through a number of secondary sources extensively dealing with them. The European Union source has associated problems with it: firstly, it is a primary source; secondly, it doesn't really say that Turkey is obliged to further decentralise under the charter (it is certainly obliged to decentralise up to a degree but the charter would only be relevant here if it was supposed to further decentralise). It does recommend further decentralisation, but also recommends a re-examination of Turkey's reservations to the charter. We must investigate what these reservations are and see what their implications are on the path Turkey is obliged to take through relevant legal/political scholarly work. I would say that if Turkey's obligations under this charter are so significant that they merit mention here, there must be a decent body of literature examining these issues so that we can arrive at a healthy conclusion. The Carnegie Endowment source is all good, but only makes a passing mention of the charter with no reference to specific provisions or reservations. We cannot simply include a sentence on the charter here because we found a sentence on it in a single article. There must be more literature on this topic going into more depth to convince me that the charter should be mentioned in this article at all; otherwise I propose its removal. I must note that the discussion on decentralisation in Turkey seems to be driven not by legal obligations, but rather by the practical reasons that certainly do, as I said, merit a place here. Furthermore, with the current state of the rule of law in the country, this charter seems all the more trivial to me. --GGT (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I raise this source, for example, for examination. --GGT (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding that source as a reference for the Charter, too, would be a great idea. Keeping the Charter in the article in my view makes sense if only because the decentralization discussion in Turkey so much references it. As a brief explanation to your question, this Charter has the funny characteristic that every CoE member stated was allowed to opt out of up to 10 articles as of his liking, and Turkey was among those who opted out of some (Turkey actually chose to opt out of a full 10; some sources suggest that the somewhat strange choice of which articles they opted out of was designed to obstruct meaningful implementation as much as possible). That is what they mean by "reservations". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just had the time to search for and go through some further sources. One of the results is that at least in an overall assessment of the academic contributions, EU compatibility appears to often carry as much or even more weight as the Charter in the Turkish discussion. My petition would thus be, including your ideas, to change the third sentence of the original version into the following:
 * The efforts to decentralize the administrative structure are not least driven by the European Charter of Local Self-Government and/or Chapter 22 ("Regional Policy & Coordination of Structural Instruments") of the acquis of the European Union.


 * Dear Balki Chalkidiki, might it make sense in your view to add to the original version at the end an additional sentence, which explicitly states the fear of separatism which you describe above as your motivation for your actions here? Is there a source which states that this fear is widely held among Turkish population? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Fear of decentralization" would be a wrong definition, because I don't "fear" it, I simply find it "unnecessary" for a country with the size of Texas. In my opinion, Kurds and other minorities in Turkey should be given extended cultural rights, and these rights should be valid throughout Turkey and not just in the southeast (e.g. Kurds living in Edirne should have the same cultural rights with Kurds living in Hakkari.) As an ardent supporter of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems in corporate administration (a single information system with a single, central database, covering all functional business processes in the entire enterprise) I sincerely believe that too much decentralization will bring the "information silo" problem. Balki Chalkidiki (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But we agree that there are many people in Turkey who think and fear that administative local self-governance would lead onto a path to autonomy and in turn would lead onto a path to separation from the Turkish state, right? I understood you in exactly this sense in the discussion above, but irrespective of your personal views on this, it might make sense to explicitly include this view as widely held into the article, if we find a good source. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

First suggestion for consensus version
Based on all input from the first round of comments/discussion, this is the compiled first consensus suggestion:

First consensus suggestion:

The largely centralized structure of decision-making in Ankara is often considered an impediment to good governance, and causes resentment in particular in ethnic minority regions. Steps towards decentralization since 2004 have proved to be a highly controversial topic in Turkey. The efforts to decentralize the administrative structure are not least driven by the European Charter of Local Self-Government and by Chapter 22 ("Regional Policy & Coordination of Structural Instruments") of the acquis of the European Union. A decentralization program for Turkey is an ongoing discussion in the country's academics, politics and the broader public.

Further comments/discussion

 * Thank you very much for your research. I greatly appreciate it and support the latest proposed version. I do have one minor reservation regarding the "ongoing discussion". This might not be ongoing at the moment, given the shift in general Turkish discourse after the coup attempt towards anti-Europeanism that has been reciprocated by the recent vote in the European Parliament, as well as the current AKP-MHP joint push for constitutional reform in favour of a more centralised system with an executive presidency with almost no checks and balances. One of the sources, I note, is on Davutoğlu's programme; he was forced to resign because of his disagreements with (especially on the European issue) Erdoğan, and Turkey has changed since then. Of course, it is much harder to prove there is no discussion than to prove there is one, and it will naturally take time for secondary sources to pick up on this, so I am not expecting us to reflect this at this moment, but we do have to keep an eye on the discourse. --GGT (talk) 10:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How about this one: "A decentralization program for Turkey has been a topic of discussion in the country's academics, politics and the broader public" --GGT (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * More accurate English for the beginning would be "highly centralized" instead of "largely centralized". Other than that, I find the draft fine. It much understates the political drama in Turkey around the topic, but it does so nicely balanced. 91.61.68.139 (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Final consensus version
Based on all input from the first as well as the further further round of comments/discussion, this is the compiled unanimous final consensus version:

Final consensus version:

The highly centralized structure of decision-making in Ankara is often considered an impediment to good governance, and causes resentment in particular in ethnic minority regions. Steps towards decentralization since 2004 have proved to be a highly controversial topic in Turkey. The efforts to decentralize the administrative structure are not least driven by the European Charter of Local Self-Government and by Chapter 22 ("Regional Policy & Coordination of Structural Instruments") of the acquis of the European Union. A decentralization program for Turkey has been a topic of discussion in the country's academics, politics and the broader public.

I am now going to implement this consensus version of the decentralization paragraph into the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Istanbul is by population Europe's second largest city not largest
Moscow exceeds Istanbuls population in a more general definition like "urban area". The municipal borders of Turkish cities cover a vast area and would include many suburbs in other countries like France or even Germany.(Muhandis79) 15:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.114.233.90 (talk)

Stop the disruptive edits against the consensus version of the decentralization paragraph
Dear User:Balki Chalkidiki, as you continue disruptive edits against the consensus version of the decentralization paragraph, please let me once again ask you to engage in a discussion on the talk page instead of edit warring. If you want to change the consensus version, please present and argue your case here, seeking consensus for the changes you want.

With respect to your latest edit summaries, here is my take:


 * Contrary to your claim, the consensus version does not use the term "decentralization is widely considered a good idea", rather the text is this: "The highly centralized structure of decision-making in Ankara is often considered an impediment to good governance".


 * The consensus version does not mention any political parties in Turkey (or any other specific group) for this assessment, rather the references/sources mention a wide range of academic, political, economic and other actors in Turkey, as well as international academics and institutions. However, concerning parties in Turkey, contrary to your claim, it is not true that "decentralization is only supported by the HDP", rather the decentralization measures after 2004 were initiated/voted by the AKP majority party, one of the sources is a passionate recent pro-decentralization op-ed by the then AKP chairman and prime minister, and the staunchly pro-Europe CHP is very aware that the path to Europe necessitates more decentralization. Overall, the consensus version has a very conservative formulation.


 * Your persistent disrupting of presentation of the fact that both CoE and EU are persistently demanding more steps towards local-self government in Turkey has no basis in substance. There are four references/sources in the consensus version which make this state of affairs absolutely clear. The respective consensus version text "The efforts to decentralize the administrative structure are not least driven by ..." is a very conservative formulation for the reality of these demands and the implementation process. PLEASE read the sources. Your edits trying to present an illusion that Turkey as it is would already be "in line" with these demands is absurd and in open contradiction to the references/sources given.

Please stop the edit-warring and engage in a good faith discussion and sincere work on the article. If you continue edit-warring instead of discussing here in good faith, you risk a permanent block of your account. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 33 external links on Turkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915062836/http://www.karalahana.com/makaleler/kitap/pontus-antik-cagdan-gunumuze-karadeniz-etnik-siyasi-tarihi.htm to http://www.karalahana.com/makaleler/kitap/pontus-antik-cagdan-gunumuze-karadeniz-etnik-siyasi-tarihi.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140726115700/http://www.fatih.edu.tr/~ayasar/HIST236/Colin%20_Imber.pdf to http://www.fatih.edu.tr/~ayasar/HIST236/Colin%20_Imber.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117025024/http://globalheritagefund.org/onthewire/blog/catalhoyuk_world_heritage_list to http://globalheritagefund.org/onthewire/blog/catalhoyuk_world_heritage_list
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/PERSIAN.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160117212320/http://www.un.org/Overview/growth.htm to http://www.un.org/Overview/growth.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928233432/http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-08-16/turkey-egypt-recall-ambassadors to http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-08-16/turkey-egypt-recall-ambassadors
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101060355/http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/euro_pt1.pdf to http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/euro_pt1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219001301/http://www.tsk.tr/20_ingilizce_tsktr/5_international_relations/contribution-of-the-turkish-armed-forces-to-peace-support-operations.html to http://www.tsk.tr/20_ingilizce_tsktr/5_international_relations/contribution-of-the-turkish-armed-forces-to-peace-support-operations.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140226144110/http://www.karalahana.com:80/english/rize-travel-highlands.htm to http://www.karalahana.com/english/rize-travel-highlands.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614030216/http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/05/03/000016406_20060503112446/Rendered/PDF/wps3908.pdf to http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2006/05/03/000016406_20060503112446/Rendered/PDF/wps3908.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tcp.gov.tr/english/sectors/sectoringpdf/shipbuilding_2012.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130425042957/http://www.worldairlineawards.com:80/awards_2012/europe.htm to http://www.worldairlineawards.com/Awards_2012/europe.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140827141123/http://www.worldairlineawards.com:80/Awards_2014/europe.htm to http://www.worldairlineawards.com/Awards_2014/europe.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160519093619/http://www.turkishairlines.com:80/en-int/flights-tickets/flights-destinations to http://www.turkishairlines.com/en-int/flights-tickets/flights-destinations/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140705152333/https://hizlitren.tcdd.gov.tr/home/detail/?id=6 to https://hizlitren.tcdd.gov.tr/home/detail/?id=6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140608145555/http://www.taek.gov.tr:80/en/institutional/mission-of-taek.html to http://www.taek.gov.tr/en/institutional/mission-of-taek.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150909185440/http://www.minorityrights.org:80/4387/turkey/turkey-overview.html to http://minorityrights.org/4387/turkey/turkey-overview.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141127074441/http://www.minorityrights.org:80/4387/turkey/turkey-overview.html to http://www.minorityrights.org/4387/turkey/turkey-overview.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150211222106/http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2008/5/turkeykurdistan1867.htm to http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2008/5/turkeykurdistan1867.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081028211305/http://www.hsfk.de/downloads/prif78.pdf to http://www.hsfk.de/downloads/prif78.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131006160804/http://www.americansephardifederation.org/PDF/exhibitions/Jewish_Costumes_Early_History_Jews_in_Turkey.pdf to http://www.americansephardifederation.org/PDF/exhibitions/Jewish_Costumes_Early_History_Jews_in_Turkey.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016062736/http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/02/20/000333037_20130220112531/Rendered/PDF/541310SR0P107700Quality0Report02011.pdf to http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/02/20/000333037_20130220112531/Rendered/PDF/541310SR0P107700Quality0Report02011.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715114119/http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00011&multinational=3&display1=inscriptionID&display=maps to http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00011&multinational=3&display1=inscriptionID&display=maps#tabs
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110913161900/http://www.archmuseum.org/Gallery/Photo_6_1_the-search-for-identity-1st-national-architecture-movement.html to http://www.archmuseum.org/Gallery/Photo_6_1_the-search-for-identity-1st-national-architecture-movement.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150318163506/http://www.archmuseum.org/Gallery/turkish-architecture-in-the-republican-period_6.html to http://www.archmuseum.org/Gallery/turkish-architecture-in-the-republican-period_6.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103011035/http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=2946 to http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=2946
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120721010355/http://www.mimarlikmuzesi.org:80/Gallery/Photo_29_7_1911-kamer-hatun-camisibeyoglu-istanbul.html to http://www.mimarlikmuzesi.org/Gallery/Photo_29_7_1911-kamer-hatun-camisibeyoglu-istanbul.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.efesbasket.org/the_clup/icerik.aspx?SectionId=103
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324184003/http://en.efesbasket.org/Efes-Pilsen-History/Our-Successes.aspx to http://en.efesbasket.org/Efes-Pilsen-History/Our-Successes.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812213716/http://www.fenerbahce.org.tr/detay.asp?ContentID=23311 to http://www.fenerbahce.org.tr/detay.asp?ContentID=23311
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090313024550/http://www.iat.uni-leipzig.de:80/datenbanken/dbwrest/start.php/ to http://www.iat.uni-leipzig.de/datenbanken/dbwrest/start.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716153048/http://www.tesev.org.tr/Upload/Publication/67e244dd-5c21-4d34-8361-4c7f3d003140/11461ENGmedya2WEB21_09_11.pdf to http://www.tesev.org.tr/Upload/Publication/67e244dd-5c21-4d34-8361-4c7f3d003140/11461ENGmedya2WEB21_09_11.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705013300/http://goturkey.com/ to http://goturkey.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Total Area of Turkey
There is a mistake about area. it is not 783,356 km2 ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mist.117 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * So what is it, and what source is your suggestion based on? Jeppiz (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Turkey is NOT a democracy
There was some edit warring about this recently. However, the democracy index of 2015 classifies Turkey as a hybrid regime and NOT as a democracy, not even as a flawed democracy. Given the situation this year there will be surely further downgrading (and to me it seems clear that Turkey now is a dictatorship). So in the sentence "Turkey is a democratic ..." in the first paragraph of the article the word "democratic" should be deleted. 2003:77:4F77:BD09:34A1:2B2:BBA3:5226 (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree the democratic part needs to be removed as it is a joke. No one in Europe believes or views Turkey as a democracy. --Varj26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varj26 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Either everybody agrees or people haven't yet taken notice of this discussion. In any case I would suggest that somebody makes the change to the article with reference to this discussion. 2003:77:4F16:A548:C593:8F78:7E90:E3E6 (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

agree--83.128.126.218 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Turkey is absolutely a democracy. They have a leader with authoritarian tendencies, but the country itself is still a democracy. He briefly lost his parliamentary majority in the June 2015 elections; this would not have happened in a non-democratic country. At least wait with removing "democratic" until after the upcoming referendum. There is a chance the Turks will vote against his proposed constitutional amendments. When it comes to election fraud and media bias, these are obvious factors in downgrading the quality of Turkish elections. However, such things also happen in other countries that are classified as democracies. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * (To the first message) Do not even dare insult Turkey like this. If it is thanks to the fools in the Government today you have said this then the shame is all the same. I think I will report this for slander.

Help Me
Dündar aliosmanoglu is turkeys sultan in exile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCndar_Aliosman Depending on the constitutional referendum in turkey on April 16 the Sultan will be fully operated if they vote yes.


 * Um, no. We have an article on Dundar Alios, and there is no chance at all that he will be the actual, ruling Sultan of Turkey again anytime soon. Turkish constitutional referendum, 2017 has nothing relating to his position. It is not clear what "help" you are requesting, but there is no reasson to mention Alios in the article on Turkey now or after the referendum has happened. Fram (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Last time i checked, this article wasn't a private property.
@User:Balki Chalkidiki would you plase slow down for a bit. You edit like you own this page and i see that not just me but some others are also getting uncomfortable because of your distruptive edits. kazekagetr 11:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't weigh in on whether the edits are disruptive, but I'd like to ask that @User:Balki Chalkidiki groups similar edits together and writes small edit descriptions as most others who contribute to this article take the time to do. The user's constant refactoring and shuffling of content may be in good faith but it keeps me from making positive contributions unfortunately. Disruptive edits should be discussed in advance, clearly labelled and aim to minimise impact to other editors. OliverHargreaves (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Balki Chalkidiki had reverted to their preferred version of the article twelve times in the space of two hours today, this is plainly disruptive per WP:3RR. --McGeddon (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Gentlemen, the article seems fine to me, let's stop the revert war please Redman19 (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Balki Chalkidiki has now been indef blocked per Sockpuppet investigations/Shuppiluliuma; feel free to revert any of their edits as WP:BLOCKEVASION. --McGeddon (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I oppose that sort of editing behavior - I'll be checking this article over the next few weeks, and if I find accurate content is being removed for no other reason than the above, I will reinstate it. Same for any other article Balki Chalkidiki has edited. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I have put in the picture with Kaiser Wilhelm I, Mehmed V and Enver Pasha, it was an edit done by KazekageTR, I think it's a solid input because when one thinks of World War I these three names come up to ones mind. Redman19 (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The Increase in Protection?
I have been editing this page for years now. I made sure the GINI and GDP was correct, that the Population was correct, that there was no Emblem, that there was a simplified succession section, that spellings have been corrected and that the economic information was in line with IMF figures... now you are telling me I cannot edit? Why is this? Turkey is a democracy... I hate the fools in the government today because they embarrass Turkey so greatly it is a shame to us all... but Turkey is a democracy and I do not care for anyone from a country in eastern europe saying otherwise (if there is anyone) because their countries were communist and the antipode of democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavakdere (talk • contribs) 09:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

this is not a forum page mate. btw if you want to add/change something, you can ask us to do that. kazekagetr 16:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

why cant i just edit this is absurd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavakdere (talk • contribs) 15:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks to that sockpuppet 193.140.225.144 (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I see... Well KazekageTR, could you please lift this ban because I am afraid I do not deserve this as a longtime editor of this article... I made some of the most important edits! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavakdere (talk • contribs) 09:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

i didin't instated the protection but i think it is useful. i assume that you are aware of those disruptive edits of some sockpuppets. kazekagetr 03:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I read your messages regarding that and I understand but I cannot deal with this due to it being unfair... you must have the mechanisms to lift these restrictions on Me, or other considerate editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavakdere (talk • contribs) 18:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Shorten the Lead
This article has a very long lead, with what seems like far too much detailed history. In particular, there is a separate article on the Ottoman Empire, and Ottoman history does not need to be here. Also, some of the language is flowery like a guidebook, not direct like an encyclopedia. Can editors try to address this? Jd2718 (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. I have been meaning to do that, and will do so over the next few days now that I see support for it. Khirurg (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have also removed/changed some information. I think that the ledes of Germany and France looks good and i've re-shaped it after them. kazekagetr 16:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That's helpful. But since I commented here information about ethnic and religious minorities has come out of the article. We need to work on this. Jd2718 (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe that info about minorities is unnecessary in the lead and it does increase the length of the lede. One can refer to the demographics section since they are all mentioned in there anyway. kazekagetr 03:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you agree that we should add the Kurds at least? 20% of the entire population of Turkey is no small chunk. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the lead is long enough. You can check other well written country articles and see that there is not much of a ethnical information in their ledes. Of course it is not just my call but i reckon that the lede is better off without those linguistic or ethnical text. We do have a detailed and well documented demographics section.   kazekagetr  04:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the lead should summarize that section. It's worthy to mention that over 20% of a country's population is of a minority ethnic group. That's an astounding figure that should be mentioned in the lead. I'd like to see what others think about this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. For example, the lede of Republic of Macedonia mentions in the second paragraph that Albanians make up 25% of the population.  Same with Syria and Iraq, Iran, Ukraine, and many others. This is standard practice for countries with large minorities (I'd say ~10% or more). Khirurg (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Allrighty then. If someone else joins the argument, then we could reconsider to remove. But since you make the majority of this trio, the info stays. kazekagetr 14:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

, mate firstly i was in a edit war with a 'sockpuppet' who got blocked, not in a fight with anybody anymore though and secondly, maybe you've noticed that, i've requested a peer review for a possible fa candidacy so i'm trying to improve as best as i can. one can see that the lede was indeed long and it needs a stable version. kazekagetr 19:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Got it KzTR. I know you are far better than the sock, and a moderate editor. In fact we have cooperated several times at the SPI. That's why I was surprised to see you lately reverting all over the place. I don't ever remember reverting you before, yet I reverted you twice over the past couple of months. That's too much, as far as I am concerned. I just don't like doing that. I have a zero-revert plan/policy with you. :) Dr.   K.  20:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Kurds
The Kurds are not only numerically large enough to be mentioned in the lede, but also the fact that Turkey has been consumed by the Turkish-Kurdish conflict for the last 30 years (and which shows no sign of abating) warrants that they be mentioned in the lede. This is also standard practice for countries in similar situations, such as Republic of Macedonia, where Albanians make up 25% and the country is plagued by a simmering conflict for decades. Any summary of such countries should mention the large minority involved in the conflict. I can't imagine that a reader who wants a quick glance at Turkey should have to dig all the way to the demographics section to see what percentage Kurds are. Khirurg (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Dr.   K.  19:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

could you merge this section with the other lede one please. kazekagetr 19:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Most Kurds in Turkey are Turkified, amongst them are even Kurdified Turks. Speaking about a Turkish-Kurdish conflict is somehow silly to me because there has been an armed conflict going on between the Turkish army and PKK terrorists. Plenty of Kurds do serve in the Turkish army. I do agree that the Kurds are the biggest ethnic minority group and this should be mentioned but accusing an editor who has been sharing some solid information of hiding certain information is a little bit silly also, kind regards Redman19 (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

They cannot understand you because it is written in CIA facktbook (sorry for my bad English). It is really normal because CIA is an official organization of Turkish Republic. On the other hand Turkish MIT says Fethullah Gülen and U.S. is behind the coup, but I cannot see anything about this in U.S. page (maybe I am blind like you). Just writing here fackts (sorry for bad English again). In fackt (oh sorry again), U.S. supported soooooo^9999 many coup attempts (some of them succeeded) with lots of proofs and U.S. is democratic, Turkey is not.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 April 2017
Ceylin is the most pretty person from turkey! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyItzMeCris (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Turkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/The%20Position%20of%20Anatolian.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101017214402/http://www.ebco-beoc.eu/ to http://www.ebco-beoc.eu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Qualification as democracy
See this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkey#Turkey_is_NOT_a_democracy

Four people so far agree that Turkey should not be classified as a democracy with no one opposing, and a reliable source, if no one objects, can someone please make the edit, as this article is protected and I cannot do it?--83.128.126.218 (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've weighed in on the main discussion. I suggest we wait with removing "democratic" until at least the 2017 referendum. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

As a citizen of Turkey, i do agree that we don't have a democratic country. All those democratic acts like voting and campaigning are nothing but a show. But in legal terms, there is a democracy in Turkey. If we were to classify Turkey as a non-democratic state, we should edit all non-EU countries (exceot for US and CAN) and start discussions there.

But we can do this. Like that dude who use Greek-lettered username said, we should wait for the referendum. I'm sure that solid news outlets like BBC or NYT will classify Turkey as non-democratic and we could add some sentences from their texts. kazekagetr 07:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't democracy in general just an big illusion? Redman19 (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why wait for the referendum when a reliable source already qualifies it as not a democracy anymore? What can the referendum add? With the jailing of MPs, firing of thousands of judges, ten-thousands of teachers and government employees on ideological grounds, local elected politicians, blocking of internet sites, it stopped being a democracy already. No democracy without the rule of law and human rights (see democracy and the list of conditions in the second paragraph). --83.128.126.218 (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Turkey ranks poorly in all kinds of freedom indices, e.g. Democracy Index, Freedom in the World, Press Freedom Index ... Also, I found this recent article (Foreign Policy is reputable): Turkey Is a Dictatorship Masquerading as a NATO Democracy. 217.83.245.1 (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Well with the referendum, suppression and arrest of alleged political opposition, prosecution for insulting great leader, Turkey can't really be considered a veritable democracy. But changing this in the article will go unnoticed by Turks now that their government has completely blocked Wikipedia without official explanation. (as of 4/29/2017) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.198.1.220 (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Turkish government bans Wikipedia in Turkey, calls Wikipedians "supporters of terror"
"Access to Wikipedia Blocked in Turkey". --Dervorguilla (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As a result of the facts presented and properly cited in both this article, and in the Recep Tayyip Erdoğan article, the government of Turkey has called Wikipedia editors "supporters of terror." (See: Turkey calls Wikipedians supporters of terror.) Turkey has also contacted Jimbo Wales and asked that he have this information removed from this article.  In reply to this request, Jimbo stated, "Access to information is a fundamental human right. Turkish people, I will always stand with you to fight for this right." (See: Wales supports the Turkish people's right to freedom of information.)
 * Since that time, apparently at the behest of the Turkish government, certain editors have removed some of this information themselves. I have since re-inserted these facts.  Please keep this information in the article, and in its lead section, as it should be, and do not deny the Turkish people the right to know what their own government is actually doing.  The fact that the Turkish government now has incarcerated more journalists than any other government, including North Korea, and other related facts, need not be suppressed here.
 * I would ask any other Wikipedians who may find any further apparent censorship of this article by the Turkish government or its surrogates, to please promptly revert it. The suppression of free speech is against what WP stands for.  Such censorship is against the free flow of accurate information amongst free people.  While WP is always open to the removal of inaccurate facts, or fake news, it does not want to become the source of fake news.  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What exact content they want removed? - The   Magnificentist  18:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that Erdogan has reversed many of the reforms of Ataturk, Ataturk apparently remains as a sort of "founding father/ hero" to most Turks. Thus Erdogan generally seems to try to tiptoe around the fact that he is reversing much of Ataturk's work.  The article calls a spade a spade, right in the intro, which Erdogan is obviously displeased with.  The facts that Erdogan is locking up more journalists than any other country, along with tens of thousands of political opponents, are also facts for which those who repeat publicly in Turkey, are often locked up as "terrorists" these days. Thank God Turkish law doesn't apply where I live, or I would now be in the "Big House" for my edits here, with the label "terrorist" stamped on my new criminal record. I think the Blue Mosque of Istanbul just got pulled from the itinerary of my next trip to Europe!  Scott P. (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We are living in interesting times indeed. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The dreaded Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times." My own curse, "May you be a Wikipedian." Scott P. (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Who cares what they think? I am a Wikipedian and I proudly support nuking Turkey. They will on Uncle Sam's Thanksgiving plate when we're done with those Tusken Raider commies. Nobody fucks with Trump America.

Several new states?
"Following the war, the conglomeration of territories and peoples that formerly comprised the Ottoman Empire was divided into several new states. " I don't think this is an appropriate sentence. In fact, Arab territories were organized as new states, but Anatolia remained as single state, which is occupied by Allies. Kavas (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "divided into several new states" is also rather pov language imo, it implies a negative thing, the artificial division of something. I suggest rewording it to "formed several new states". This wording will also avoid the issue mentioned by Kavas. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

check the text. kazekagetr 23:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, no, no! The "partitioned" claim is straight from Turkish fantasy propaganda that their lovely peace-loving empire, seat of and origin of all that is civilized in the world, beloved by all its citizens, all of whom lived together in perfect peace and harmony, would have continued to exist forever if it were not attacked for absolutely no reason whatsoever and then partitioned by those evil foreign Powers that to this day are still trying to destroy Turkey because of their jealousy of its perfection and power and peacefulness. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

well i believe it is referred as 'partition' in nearly all historical documents and it is referred by this way by the historians. can't do anything bout it. the similar accounts are also referred that way (check Partition (politics) for further info). kazekagetr 17:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The beauty of the WP system is we don't have to be the ones deciding who is right or wrong. We can let the sources do this for us.  I think as our friend Kazekage has pointed out, let the majority of sources have the final word here. Scott P. (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Background reading on Turkey
Islamacist parties have been in power in Turkey for 19 of the last 22 years. You may be finding yourself being influenced by current news stories - a little background reading can make a nice antidote. Jd2718 (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Our main Turkey article says nothing about Islamicists taking over in 1995. If that is true, then perhaps you need to document and insert that fact into the article.  As I understand it, it is only since the attempted coup of last summer that Erdogan has begun the waves of mass incarceration of journalists and opposition figures.  This is the major event that I am aware of.  If you are aware of such mass arrests carried out by an Islamist administration before (in post Ataturk Turkey), then when? Also, then please document and insert into the Turkish history section. Scott P. (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you're mistaken, but I am saying that your information doesn't add up for me right now. Where are you getting this from?  Scott P. (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The main thing is, this wave of mass arrests of journalists and tens of thousands of other political prisoners, as far as I know is unprecedented since the time of Ataturk, is it not? Scott P. (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Start with History of the Republic of Turkey. Try AK Parti.  I would look at List of Prime Ministers of Turkey for quick reference. The general article is lousy. I'm not sure how to improve it. Jd2718 (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Without having reference points or background, everything in Turkish history must seem unprecedented. This stuff takes research. I would advise you to edit the body first, and let the lede follow. Otherwise editors can (fairly) accuse you of cherrypicking from sources when you don't understand the context or history. I realized another article worth looking at is 1980 Turkish coup d'état. Jd2718 (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Let's start with the body, then afterwards move to the lead. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please keep the summary of the current main political debate in Turkey in the lead
Let's not use the lede to make points. The first and last paragraphs are ok. The middle three need winding down into a single one - this is an article on Turkey, not on Anatolia, and certainly not on the Ottoman Empire. There probably does need to be a separate bit about Ataturk, the founding of CT, and the subsequent balancing acts between democracy and autocracy, military and civilian rule, secularism and islamacization. In that context mentioning the current situation sounds possible, but to write with the aim of keeping news in the lede of an article does not strike me as consistent with how we should be editing. Jd2718 (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about the middle. Much too detailed for a lead section.  I have re-inserted info about the current situationin back into the lead (hopefully as you mentioned.)  After my last re-insertion, if we are still in agreement, will proceed to winnow down the middle of the lead.  Are we still in agreement? Scott P. (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I am working on a shortened version. I will leave a mention of the current situation in the greater context of tensions that have been constant throughout the history of the Turkish Republic, but I think it is overemphasized as currently written. Jd2718 (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, Erdogan represents the first time since Ataturk that an Islamist administration has been able to successfully hold onto power for more than a few months. This seems to me to be a rather significant historical development, and probably the most significant historical development in Turkey since Ataturk. As such, the lead needs to unflinchingly and significantly address this apparent major recent historical event, or to risk being seen as becoming somewhat irrelevent to one of many page-reader's primary concerns when they come to this article, or even to possibly appear as an article somehow unduly influenced by  the Erdogan administration itself (as I'm sure your aware they have already tried.) Scott P. (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Do whatever you guys like, I am not feeling to contribute anymore after the Wiki ban, Turkey is a dying nation. Redman19 (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2017
SouthweII (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —   IVORK  Discuss 17:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The lifting of restrictions
I request the lifting of this unfair and unnecessary restriction on editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavakdere (talk • contribs) 11:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The style of writing of current events
I'm not exactly sure if this is standard procedure but there are sections in this article which refer to "the current government is doing this and that" instead of indicating a date. Those sections seem very out of place to me. For example the last section of the intro says this: "Turkey's current administration headed by president Tayyip Erdoğan has reversed many of the country's earlier reforms which had been in place since the founding of the modern republic of Turkey, such as Freedom of the Press, a Legislative System of Checks and Balances, and a set of standards for secularism in government, as first enacted by Atatürk." which could refer to 2001 all the way to 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.122.113 (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Turkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.studyinturkey.org/en/discover-turkey/first-step-to-turkey/international-airports/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312222212/http://www.did-cevreorman.gov.tr/indir/UCES_ENG.pdf to http://www.did-cevreorman.gov.tr/indir/UCES_ENG.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100605083710/http://www.tccb.gov.tr/pages/ to http://www.tccb.gov.tr/pages/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Turkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150321203401/http://www.justice.gov.tr/judicialsystem.pdf to http://www.justice.gov.tr/judicialsystem.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151015214513/http://www.educationinturkey.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemid=75 to http://www.educationinturkey.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemid=75

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2017
Good day. I wish to make some clarifications and edits to this page which are very important. Thank you Georgepodros (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain what these changes would be? Thanks, GABgab 16:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the succession bit on the info box, government, removal of emblem (this is an encyclopedia of facts so it is absurd to use this "emblem" which has no official value), population, and many many errors to be corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Good catch. This is longterm edit-warring despite multiple discussions agreeing on not including this. Dr.   K.  20:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

How may I edit now friend? Thank you for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) 08:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you add your proposed changes to this talk page in the form of "change asdfghjkl to zxcvbnm" then other editors with edit access to the article will see what errors need to be corrected. Thanks for your help, Just plain Bill (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2017
Hello to you wiki editors. I am hoping to have this section changed to a more clear, more precise one. You see Turkey was declared a republic in 1923. Turkey founded its state as an empire in 1299. simple. these treaties are not necessary as they are clearly covered in several articles and the history section. I request we change it to this: established_event1 Founding of Empire established_date2 21 January 1299 established_event2 Declaration of Republic established_date2 29 October 1923 Georgepodros (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The only Empire that existed during 1299 was the Ottoman Empire. The established parameters only speak of the events that led to Turkish independence, beginning with the Turkish war. The eventual declaration of the Turkish Republic was one of the events that led to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2017
Since editors will not budge on correction the foundation section. please remove the GNA since that was simply the sole authority governing over the ottoman empire, or at least was claimed to be. no other country has their provisional government, let alone authority power listed on the formation section. take Greece for example which gained independence from Turkey. Georgepodros (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, specify the exact change that should be made. Ruslik_ Zero 20:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The OP already described the original request in the section above. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2017
Remove Category:Internet censorship by organisation Turkey is not an organisation. 2A02:C7F:7027:E900:B5BF:715E:A12B:4EA6 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Added colon to above, so that the category would only be linked to and not include this page. Trivialist (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)