Talk:Turkey/Archive 25

WP:LEDE
This is a reminder that the Lede follows the body. The content of the body should be determined before any major revisions to the LEDE. Both the proposer of the above RfC and the Closer should familiarize themselves with our basic policies before proposing/closing any further RfC's. I have reworked the lede to reflect the article content (the article content in turn reflects the content of several "main" articles on the various specific topics involved.) This is basically destructive to the encyclopedia and in violation of all of our policies. I very much recommend that the closer take some time off from closing RfCs. Seraphim System ( talk ) 10:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And I recommend you approach AN and only AN (Venue is important! ), challenging the close of the RFC held above and prob. with a secondary proposal asking me to stay off from closing further RFCs.Further it may be prudential to note that a closure remains valid unless overturned, despite concerns of a heavily involved participant about it's validity.Also, this message was better suited for my t/p.Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 10:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is your recommendation? AN/I and a proposal that you not be allowed to close RfCs? Because if that is your recommendation I certainly think AN/I should accommodate you. The closure does not even make sense. The content that is now in the lede is directly sourced in the article. It is, at best, messy incompetence. If MAJOR changes need to be made in this topic area that effect MULTIPLE articles it is pretty clear that a hasty RfC starting with the LEDE of the TOP LEVEL article is the wrong way to go about it. I don't know if you are an admin but unilaterally imposing major changes that effect multiple articles starting with the lede based on "common sense" and ZERO source based discussion seems like a pretty solid reason for editors to be irritated (and while in the minority the several editors who were upset by this were very seriously upset at this abuse, so please don't try to make it sound like it was just me voicing concerns.) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 11:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! You are free to voice your concerns.As I said, I am not backing down from my close and if you are willing to overturn my close, approach AN.Cheers:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 11:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That line is out, it is not the issue. You can not in your closing dictate the future content of the article or what topics may be discussed on talk in the future, you may not "judge" a dispute about a source between two editors in the extended discussion, say that one editors "Huffington Post" source trumps Britannica, and claim that you've done it all in the interests of not supervoting. This RfC was about removal of one line - and that is the ENTIRETY of what I intend to honor. That is the ONLY thing there is consensus for. Most people who commented on removal were not even peripherally involved in the extended discussion. For example, there were issues raised for example that "multicultural" was not in the article and so it should be removed from the lede. I also want to be clear up front for my reasons, because I have opened a discussion about this (that of course anyone is welcome to participate in.)  Seraphim System  ( talk )" 11:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, what you are doing is bypassing the RFC closure on grounds of fine technicalities.That is not allowed.And thus, before you re-add any info pertaining to the part. words in the lead, that were removed as a result of the prev. RFC, regain consensus at this talk-page irrespective of the grammatical formatting of the sentence (you plan to add) and whether that is uni-sourced/multi-sourced/un-sourced.This statement may be viewed as an extension of the prev. RFC close.Thank you! Winged Blades of Godric On leave 16:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The closure was only for removal of that line. (For example some voted for remival because the line as it was written included content that was not discussed in the article. The only thing I've added is the most basic encyclopedic information that is already sourced and discussed in the article. If it is necessary to hahs this out to *clarify* the scope of your closing in AN/I then we can do that (or I will at least have to post there for discussion before RS/N or other boards because of the WP:FORUMSHOP rule) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the venue of the disc. (about my initial closure and/or scope of it) shall take place at AN/ANI.No other board (RSN et al) are suited for the purpose. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 17:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well let us see where the talk discussion I opened goes. If indeed a dispute arises about Britannica and WP:AGEMATTERS or the meaning of parliamentary democracy vs "democracy" ("parliamentary democracy" was not discussed at all the RfC) the closing will HAVR to be discussed first on AN/I before being posted to RS/n or any other other forum. I also also obliged to first attempt to discuss this with you (the closer), in the event that you voluntarily agree to clarify and limit your closing to question that was proposed in the RfC  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC regarding a sentence in the lead
"Turkey is a democratic, secular, unitary, parliamentary republic with a diverse cultural heritage."

Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Remove. Was mostly true up until the 90s. Secular is quite definitely out of the window (as many of the bans regarding religious affiliation were cancelled, and the continuing control of the Islamist Justice and Development Party (Turkey) and democratic questions further raise questions here), whereas the democratic status is increasingly being questioned (Wikipedia itself was recently blocked, but this is wider than that). Diverse cultural heritage - is puffery to begin with, and while absolutely true until 1920 (Ethnic Turks, Greeks, Assyrians, etc.)- following the large population transfers and genocide - it is questionable - particularly since the Turk identity of Turkey has been given ascendant status (the same can be said for other post-Ottoman areas which favored the culture of the locals).Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove. It does not reflect the nuances of reality. Turkey's ever-renewing current "state of emergency" alone would question the democratic / parliamentary tags, the "unitary" label is vague and has aspects of which are anything but democratic and parliamentary, and Turkey, based on its current government, is not secular in practice or principle anymore. "Diverse cultural heritage" as the above editor says, is really just PR puffery. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I will examine this bit by bit:
 * "democratic": Boils down to the question "is Turkey still a democracy?". Quite a lot of commentary going on about this, with many opining that Turkish democracy has fallen, especially following the referendum. As such, this part of the statement can be rightly removed.
 * "secular": This links to secular state - and herein lies the rub. Turkey most definitely does not have a secular society, it has never had one, but we must not confuse this with whether the state is secular. The AKP has pursued an agenda of the Islamisation of the state and a further Islamisation of the society, and many provisions of strict laicité have been revoked or eroded. The Presidency of Religious Affairs has assumed a prominent role and those running the state make frequent allusions to religion. Atatürk's vision of "removal of religion from all aspects of public life" has definitely been overturned. Nonetheless, the Turkish republic remains secular, which is independent of the stance of the current government unless they make further far-reaching legal reforms - there is no official state religion and sharia law is not practised (or recognised by the state). I can contrast this with the UK, which has a secular society but a non-secular state. As the word "secular" here qualifies the republic, it is correct and I think it would be a mistake to remove it.
 * "unitary": Links to unitary state and refers to the organisation of governance - Turkey is a unitary state, as opposed to a federation. The unitary nature of the state has been enhanced by the strongly pro-centralisation policies of the AKP. Factually correct and crucial information for the lead.
 * "parliamentary": Again, strictly about the mode of governance; "a republic that operates under a parliamentary system of government", as defined in the article. Though still technically under a parliamentary system until the transition takes place in 2019, the parliament has been effectively bypassed under the state of emergency and this has been made official with the referendum. This is obsolete, and hence must be removed.
 * "diverse cultural heritage": Indeed sounds like puffery, but I do see some encyclopaedic merit to this sort of statement. In the first glance, the author seems to me to have wished to emphasise the diversity of heritage sites in Turkey as well as the variation of the culture amongst the different regions. However, this links to Multiculturalism, which is just plainly wrong; as other users rightly pointed out, Turkey is far from multicultural, and this aspect of diversity is not emphasised even for nations with a much more multicultural fabric. As expanded in the "culture" section, however, the statement makes sense: the whole section is devoted to how Turkish culture fuses various cultural influences from the east and the west and thus exhibits a "diverse" nature. Indeed, this aspect of the country's culture is rather unique and encyclopaedically noteworthy. This implies that the sentence can be worded better, which I shall attempt to do now.
 * As such, I propose replacing this with the following:
 * "Turkey is a secular and unitary state with a cultural heritage incorporating elements from a diverse range of influences."
 * --GGT (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact of a wikilink to secular state is a red herring since Wikipedia is not a source - if the "secular state" claim goes, the wikilink goes with it. Same for the "unitary" and "parliamentary" wikilinks. What is required are sources that say Turkey is currently those things, or, more correctly since the lead is just there to summarize important content, a good amount content in the body of the article that says those things about the state of Turkey as it is currently. But if you look at recent sources, what they say is the opposite, that Turkey is no longer a secular democracy. "Diverse cultural heritage" is just unnecessary puffery because almost every country has a diverse cultural heritage and would incorporate "elements from a diverse range of influences". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A note: Given that there does not seem to be appetite for my proposal, if I need to make a choice between "keep" or "remove", I opt for remove. Statements that is questionable at best ("democratic", "parliamentary") should by no means be presented in the lead as definitive facts. --GGT (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This discussion seems to be based on editorial opinions and not WP:RS - I think this statement is still widely supported by WP:RS. Erdogan and AKP did win the elections, and though the country is polarized, he is considered the democratically elected president. This is evident from all the press coverage surrounding the coup attempt. The above comments about cultural identity demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the subject. Even in an RfC, the consensus must be based on WP:RS. Yes, there were forcible population transfers, and there is a very serious issue with the Kurds in particular that is ongoing, but there are many other ethnic groups (Muslims are not all the same ethnicity.) There are Turkish Americans, French Turks, German Turks as well, and they are multicultural (though it is correct that Turkish identity is very strong.) I really recommend closing this RfC and consulting some sources before proposing an RfC like this. An RfC is not an excuse to make edits in violation of WP:NPOV based on a whole range of unsourced (and quite ignorant) assertions. I would suggest that comments that are not based on WP:RS should not be counted towards consensus (and that is all the comments that have been made so far.) I don't think this statement is difficult to source. Any proposed changes should be based on sources It doesn't seem like this RfC is going anywhere. Seraphim System ( talk )
 * Also, regarding democracy, the very recent press coverage (last three months or so) presents a WP:CRYSTAL issue and WP:RECENT. I dont think we should rush into this, because it's not how Wikipedia articles are written. In a case like this, if you consult a source like Britannica, Turkey is still identified this way. Is there discussion? Yes. But at this point it is mostly predictions and that is not something we can use. I think we should wait for more serious academic sources before changing the long term widely avcepted view currently reflected in our article. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove Just because the constitution claims the country to be democratic and secular does not make it one. The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is not democratic, it doesn't belong to the people, and is not a republic. Therefore, we in the Wikipedia community should not voice it as such. The cultural diversity stuff is so untrue it's laughable. "Incorporating" diversity has never been set in motion in Turkey. Quite the opposite, Turkey's (Republican, 1923-) history consists of a wide range of violations, forced assimilation practices, ethnic cleansing and repressions, towards all non-Turkish minorities. Incorporating means Turkey respects cultural diversity and considers it a valuable asset. That's not the case. Most Armenian churches, for instance, have been destroyed deliberately since the genocide. The large Armenian and Greek minorities that existed up to the 1920s are nowhere to be found today. That's not incorporation, but a systematic government policy of Turkification. The ban of Kurdish language for decades, is another recent example. The unitary part may be kept, but it doesn't have to be place in the first or second sentence of the lead. It can be placed in another part of the lead. -- Ե րևանցի talk  07:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove Especially after last year's political developments it's better to be careful about this kind lede expressions.Alexikoua (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove as nominator. Reminds me of Voltaire's whole Holy Roman Empire saying: it wasn't Holy, wasn't Roman, and wasn't an Empire. To say Turkey is democratic, secular, and culturally diverse would be highly misleading for our readership since there's practically very little sources to back up such a statement. In fact, it's hard to say if Turkey ever was a democracy. I know the West is loving Ataturk right now since they constantly compare him to Erdogan, but Ataturk ruled with an iron fist under single-party rule. During his time, you couldn't even publicly speak any other language other than Turkish (see: Citizen, speak Turkish!). Could you imagine that? And after his death, the pattern of coups are self-evident to that end. Turkey, under its Republican leadership, was largely ruled by a minority of Kemalist bureaucrats up until AKP took power. And with the AKP, there's been another level of anti-democratic measures that we are all familiar with. So no, this has to go. I'm surprised it was there in the first place. Wikipedia should never voice such falsehoods. Considering how articles like The Netherlands, Belgium, and other much more democratic countries don't even have any sort of mention of democracy or secularism makes this particular sentence in this article rather alarming, a WP:REDFLAG if you will. Last but not least, the cultural diversity stuff is rather obvious. A country filled with long and extensive record of human rights violations against non-Turks, forced assimilation, forced deportations, denial of ones racial identity, the banning of languages, and then outright genocide should not be viewed as accepting of cultural diversity. That's rather obvious to me. As is the secular stuff. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove as per nominator. There was a time when this was true, but the very extensive purges of the last few years have removed any democratic credential. Turkey was definitely a democracy both prior to AKP rule and under many years of AKP rule, but that is no longer the case. Jeppiz (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove This is a biased, WP:POV sentence that cannot be supported by reliable sources. Democratic is highly questionable and contentious and secular is literally an untruth. Our readers deserve better than Turkish government spin. AusLondonder (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This RfC was proposed without any attempt at discussion on the talk page by the nominator. The discussion section includes comments from myself and the editor who contributed to raise this article to GA. Clearly discussion prior to this RfC would have been beneficial, because the sentence has multiple parts (Democracy, secular, multicultural) and many of the editors who have commented may not be following the full discussion. An RfC should have been formulated based on a discussion of WP:RS between editors on talk. I don't think there is any way to judge what the outcome would have been if editors had been provided appropriate context and WP:RS based discussion prior to commenting. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove per other commenters. At this point only the "unitary" still rings true. Khirurg (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * De jure Turkey is still a secular state - that particular bit was not removed (yet?). De facto - it is not after the long running rule of the AKP - both in internal issues and in terms of external affairs supporting the cause of Islamists (in Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Qatar, Egypt, etc.). This is really a situation in which the provision in the law is a dead letter. (Frankly - I would think that this is even more clear than the current questioned democratic status) Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should follow the encyclopedic (Britannica) version for now. This is an expert opinion:
 * "The question can be rephrased from a more global perspective: Does Western liberal democracy still hold its power as a model for freedom and equality? Illiberal values and populist movements are gaining ground not only among emerging countries and in authoritarian regimes but also among Western democracies. Turkey, an interface country between Islam and the West, finds itself at the epicenter of this...we were both committed to the ideals of the republic, individual freedom, women’s rights and the rule of law. But now we are witnessing a profound feeling of loss — secular intellectuals no longer command the future of Turkey."
 * Keyword here is "Undergoing" and this type of predictive language is used in source after source. I would not recommend changing this at this time. This is not a WP:FORUM - I do not see any prior discussion of this proposal on the talk page. This RfC is inappropriate and it should be closed. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 06:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a side note to say that the quoted Huffington Post opinion on "populism" being in any way connected to Erdogan in Turkey is a particularly vile distortion of reality, doubtlessly arising from its own political biases. Populism in Europe and the US arose from disgust among voters against establishment politicians and elites and their perceived or real corruption. In other words, it is grounded on a core believe that politics and democracy are important things for every citizen and they should not be corrupted or be in the hands of dynastic elites who think they can do whatever they want. However, in Turkey everyone, including AK voters, knows Erdogan and the AKP is profoundly corrupt and lies regularly about everything - but AK supporters don't care about any of that and have no particular concerns about how it affects democracy or politics or the rule of law in Turkey because they do not feel such things are important. What we see in Turkey is not populism, it is a form of tribalism based on a group adherence to a particular religious outlook. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is more of a case of undergone (under 15 years of AKP/Erdogan) with some processes on-going. Some sources:       .Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there has been a tremendous amount of work on this in recent years, all of it speculative. "Undergoing" is what the source says, it doesn't say "undergone." Here is another example from the first OUP source you posted:
 * "Within the last two decades, under Erdoğan's leadership it has become clear that a western model of ‘liberal democracy’ will probably not be the final destination of Turkey's path, but just one of many possible exits."
 * For the lead paragraph I think we should follow the encyclopedic source (Britannica). There are many sources questioning American democracy (Is Trump the End?), and Jewish democracy (for univeral sufferage?), and democracy in general. It is fashionable now, and for the most part, it is WP:CRYSTAL. There is absolutely nothing wrong with waiting on this. A lot of sources will also say laicism was authoritarian, for example...For something like this in a general overview article's lede paragraph, tertiary encyclopedic sources are appropriate to judge due weight. We don't have to cover every angle of the debate in the lede. Turkish democracy has never had a smooth trajectory, and all of the sources about its future are speculative. These are poorly informed comments and the sources you posted (like "Does Erdogan Want His Own Islamic State?") only support what I have said about WP:CRYSTAL. There was speculation 10 years ago, and there is speculation today, and that is all it is. This is not suitable for inclusion at this time. There is nothing even remotely resembling Islamic law in Turkey, it is still a civil law system. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 07:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Turkish democracy has indeed been troubled to begin with, as might be seen by [] - Describing Turkey as a democracy in the 1960s-1990s (with a periodic military coup) was problematic. It is also problematic under the current AKP regime. The cultural diversity, beyond being problematic given Turkification, is really just puffery. And secular (and yes - there were issues regarding whether veil (and other religious) banning was democratic back in the day) - is quite clearly disputed nowadays. We simply shouldn't be saying this in Wikipedia's voice - as they are all in dispute (and the cultural bit is puffery). We could say "according to Turkey's constitution" Turkey is X,Y,Z and then note criticism. Or just leave it out of the lead.Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I know you don't mean it this way, but what you are saying about cultural diversity is really a very backwards and anachronistic position. Turkification has nothing to do with this. The issue in the southeast is ongoing and very serious, I would not claim otherwise, but it is a strawman here. Students in Turkey study in French, German, English (Where all classes are in a foreign language.) Bosphorous University the entire curriculum is in English. They favor foreign clothes, and foreign films and music. Many have lived abroad. If you speak English or French that is considered very good. The issue is deeper, as this is still exclusive and out of reach for many. But it is completely bizarre to say that Turkey is not multicultural, that is what it is known for, being where the east and west meet. That is not puffery, it is two different worlds in Konya and Istanbul. I don't know where you got this idea but it is completely baseless. Anyway there is nothing wrong with saying it in Wikipedia's voice if it can be sourced directly to Britannica. Not even the sources you posted support your position - Did you actually read this source before you posted it?  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ottoman Turkey (and the empire outside of Turkey) was deeply multi-cultural - not in the sense that the elite in Istanbul embrace foreign language and culture - but in the sense society itself was deeply multicultural. Turks, Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, Jews, and a large number of other groups and sects all lived side by side - all with their own culture and language. This changed in the events of the empire's dissolution. Turk and Turkish became ascendant and dominant in Turkey. The historic past and culture was to a degree erased and purged. So yes - some Turks (to a large extent in elite Istanbul) embrace foreign culture and language - this does not make Turkey a multi-cultural society (I'll note that Erdogan is perhaps extending the ethnic bounds of the previous Atatürk cultural regime - in that he is embracing pan-Islamism and not just Turkishness). Turkey even denies that an Armenian genocide took place. In any event - "diverse cultural heritage" in Wiki's voice is really just puffery - even if it were true.Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again this is not a forum and the RfC is out of order. It should be withdrawn NB or i will request formal closure. Where is the source that Turkey's denial of the Armenian genocide is related to its cultural diversity? Again, this is not a WP:FORUM and it is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Ok, it's not the Ottoman Empire, that is not in dispute, so what? This is not only POV, it is unsourced POV - I have already asked you politely to stop.  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 09:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sentence could be modified and that "heritage" is a poor choice of words. This is why an RfC should not be proposed without any talk page discussion. The things you are describing happebed but you have to be realistic about how relevant things that happened 100 years ago are today. The fact that Turkey is a multicultural society is extremely easy to source and not seriously in dispute. This RfC should be withdrawn, and the revision should be discussed on talk first. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 09:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Turkey is not multicultural in any established sense. The main element that provides a second culture - the Kurds - are actively suppressed. Other than that - very small minorities. Ignoring Kurds - a single native language, single ethnic group, single religion - with small minorities. See ranking in well cited paper here (which includes Kurds): Fearon, James D. "Ethnic and cultural diversity by country." Journal of economic growth 8.2 (2003): 195-222..Icewhiz (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Seems there is actually a wiki article with Fearon's ranking as well as Alesina's ranking - List of countries ranked by ethnic and cultural diversity level - Turkey ranks low on diversity (and in both cases - the suppressed Kurds are the major contributors to Turkey's diversity - and even with them counted - it is low).Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

On the "secular" issue. That word or variations on it, appears 13 times in the article, two of those being in the lede. In the early days of Ataturk's government, there was definitely a pro-secular anti-religion program to remove religion (or rather, to remove those with religious influences) from politics, from the military, and from the ruling elites (but not from society in general, there was nothing like what happened in Bolshevik Russia). However, surely "secular" has to mean something more than just "a state not ruled by sharia law". It has to be a strict separation of state apparatus from religious institutions. How can that apply to Turkey when, for example, all mosques in Turkey are state controlled, the state pays for new mosques (which are going up everywhere), pays for all the wages of those who preach from those mosques, runs the religious institutions that trains those employees, and the state sets the general guidelines as to what can and cannot be said in sermons in those mosques. See Directorate of Religious Affairs. Nowhere in the text is it explained in what way Turkey counts as a "secular" state. In Turkey, Islam is a department of the state - Ataturk, in effect, "nationalised" Islam. Countries which are far more secular than Turkey are not described as "secular" in their ledes. In fact, I cannot find a single example, not France, not Germany, not Britain, not even the United States. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My main opposition to this RfC is that it was proposed without any prior discussion. Prior discussion on the talk page would have allowed a properly worded RfC with a couple of alternate proposals based on WP:RS, instead of simply proposing a removal of a major line that can still be sourced to major encyclopedias (including Britannica) - there may be consensus to modify the sentence, but I can't support the proposal as it is current phrased. It should first be discussed and then based on that discussion an RfC may be proposed if one is necessary to reach consensus. The justifications to remove are also largely based on WP:OR even where numerous sources exist that explicitly support use of the word "multicultural" for example. There are so many sources for this available from just a google search that it is preposterous to simply try to push a removal through via RfC without basing it on prior attempts to reach consensus on talk. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 07:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there has been discussion but it kept dying without anyone participating in it (discussed one, two, three times at least). So our best bet is to start an RfC to bring some formality into this discussion and encourage more users to participate in it. In fact, I think that sentence should've been removed outright since the sentence is entirely unsourced (the cited source makes no mention of Turkey being a democracy, culturally accepting, or whatever). With that said, this RfC is not even necessary, but I'm always willing to initiate discussion before making any such drastic changes to long standing content in the lead of a highly visited Wikipedia article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If the issue is sources I can post sources for it, most of it can be sourced to Britannica and there are a ton of sources for multicultural. I've posted sources within this discussion itself, so at this point it can't just be removed for lack of sourcing. There isn't much participation in this RfC either, and what participation there has been has mostly ignored the fact that this statement can be sourced and has been based on personal opinions. Sources are here: and the World Factbook. The comments here are not supported by the majority of currently available sources. It doesn't seem like even a minimal effort was made to source the statement before proposing removal. I checked the article for the United States and it is called a Federal Republic, there are sources to make this more precise here (I think World Facebook uses Parliamentary Republic) but I don't want to make the changes mid-RfC. Israel has been receiving similar treatment in the press btw, so if we change one article I think we need to change to maintain neutrality (I have previously discussed issues on the Israel article with some of the editors involved in this discussion, and wonder if they would support changing both articles.)  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the rather late response. Unfortunately, as Seraphim System rightly pointed out, I see a lot of personal opinions and not enough sources here. I had attempted to produce a compromise with my proposal, and specific concerns have been raised with regards to the correctness of the "secular" designation and "cultural heritage incorporating elements from a diverse range of influences".
 * Regarding "secular":, your points regarding this are no doubt well-informed and well thought out. Unfortunately, they seem to be unsupported original research that contradicts the bulk of independent scholarship about Turkish secularism. Your point about Atatürk's "nationalisation" of Islam is more or less in line with Hanioğlu's position in his book Atatürk: an Intellectual Biography, where he argues that Atatürk sought out a reformation of Islam guided by the state to reinforce republican principles. Having made this point, Hanioğlu has no trouble calling the state Atatürk built "secular". It would be interesting to debate at length what I believe to be flaws in your point - but this is not a forum, and a simple search would support the fact that the state Atatürk built has been called "secular" almost universally in academia (although Axiarlis' Political Islam and the secular state in Turkey does contain an interesting argument on this and a questioning of the meaning of "secularism" in the Turkish case). The fact that the other countries do not have an indication of their secular nature in their articles is simply a manifestation of the fact that the secular identity of the state is of uniquely key importance in understanding Turkey, given that it has been one of the pillars of the Turkish republic. France does approach Turkey in this sense with its laicité, and perhaps it is an important omission from the lead, and the article does refer to the secular nature of the French state. Perhaps we should expand a bit on it the way it is expanded on there though. , on the other hand, argues that with the growing Islamisation of the Turkey, the "secular" bit is "dead letter". Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, I would expect copious sourcing then that de facto, the Turkish state has ceased to be secular in nature. There is talk of threats to it, and there is definitely a lot of Islamist rhetoric going on - but the notion that the Turkish state is no longer secular is simply not supported by the sources out there. Axiarlis notes a "reinterpretation" of secularism in Turkey (regarding the sense of the word used in Turkish politics) by the AKP, but not a destruction of it. As we are writing for the very uninitiated here, simply using the word "secular" in the lead (and perhaps dropping a footnote?) would suffice.
 * On "cultural heritage incorporating elements from a diverse range of influences": I find Icewhiz's argument on multiculturalism and especially the quantitative sources he/she has presented convincing. With regards to my proposal, has used the straw man argument that the influences referred to must be the cultures extinguished in Turkish territory in the last century or so. That is not the meaning of the statement and a brief reading of the "Culture" section could have sufficed to understand that what I am referring to is expanded upon in this sentence: "Turkey has a very diverse culture that is a blend of various elements of the Turkic, Anatolian, Ottoman (which was itself a continuation of both Greco-Roman and Islamic cultures) and Western culture and traditions". For further substantiation, I present this (especially the quote from The Times: "a complex palimpsest of Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Muslim influences"). This source also clarifies the unique position of Turkey as a borderland in an attempt to resolve the question of Turkish identity. This demonstrates how these diverse influences are key to understanding Turkey and must in some shape or form be referred to in the lead for completion - the argument put forward by Tiptoethrutheminefield that every culture incorporates a diverse range of influences seems to be sophistry. I am open to suggestions regarding the phrasing of the statement. This source can also be examined for information on the various influences on various aspects of Turkish culture. --GGT (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing democratic is also unsupported. The issue remains that the proposal to remove democratic is based on recent press stories most of which we can not use as WP:RS because they are WP:CRYSTAL. The encyclopedic sources, and the World Factbook still support the use of democracy. If you compare this to Israel, the same language is used in that country article and no mention is made of numerous recent press stories questioning whether or not Israel is democratic (raising questions particularly about universal suffrage or censorship of the press) - The discussion about Turkey in news sources is largely based on the comments from the opposition and concerns about the rule of law. Of course, serious academic studies note that Turkey's democracy has not been a stable one throughout its history. Per WP:RS, if we are discussing opinions about the future direction, they have to be expert/specialist opinions and it should be clear that this is an opinion. Based on our policies, we should not use press sources for something like this, and I don't understand why it is only an issue on this article. Seraphim System ( talk ) 05:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For example editors support removal of "democratic" here (sourced to Britannica) based on unsourced POV arguments, oppose removal on the Israel page (where similar sources exist disputing whether Israel is a democracy) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&curid=9282173&diff=794456708&oldid=794450484] and also for unsourced POV reasons like "universal suffrage is not a requirement for democracy" - this whole thing belongs on NPOV/n noticeboard, given the ongoing and persistent problems with politically motivated edits on Turkey related articles, where WP:RS and policy based reasons have taken a backseat to political POV in consensus discussions (there are numerous past examples of this that I can dig up if necessary, where many other editors have explicitly noted and stated the political POV and bias in this subject area, so my opinion here is based on previous community discussions) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 07:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not make a POV stmt - one is not connected to the other. You cited future warning of "Jewish" or "Democratic" which are given in the context of the future annexation of the West Bank (and maybe Gaza) - however we do not see those territories as part of Israel in the current article - this is a future warning, not a current description of the situation. Furthermore, the well referenced sentenced you removed (it would seem mainly to make a point on this article - Turkey) was - "In its Basic Laws, Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic state." This is not a statement in wiki's voice that Israel is a democracy (though we could argue on whether this should be made) - but rather an attributed self-definition - Israel defines itself in its Basic Laws. So no - there is no equivalence between a statement (in the lead no less!) that Turkey is democratic in wike's voice - and a statement that Israel defines itself as democratic. Regarding this article - it wouldn't be a problem to state in the article itself that Turkey defines itself as X,Y,Z.Icewhiz (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get into it here, but since it is clear from your comment that you did not read what you reverted, I will partially revert (The second line) tomorrow. It is not only Kerry's quote, there are numerous press articles, that have very little difference from the articles you are supporting here. Since the statement that Turkey is democratic CAN be sourced to Britannica, removal has to based on something more then WP:OR and POV. If the consensus is to use press sources like "Is Turkey's Democracy Over?" to remove a statement that can be cited to Britannica, the community consensus should not be wildly different on another country's article, the analysis of WP:RS and application of policies should not radically differ based on nothing more then the article topic. I am fine with abiding by consensus, but it seems here that opinions are being guided by POV and not according to our core policies. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 07:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I indeed mainly responded to your removal of the first line - which was clearly out of line. Regarding Kerry and the rest of the Israel will have to choose between "Jewish" or "Democratic" IF the occupation is not resolved with 2 states chorus (and this is quite a wide chorus by 2-staters) - these are future statements (and clearly framed as future statements) regarding a 1 state solution (or lack of solution) - they can not be used to source your change as they do not refer to the present situation. In any event - I would appreciate if you stick to discussing my actions on my talk page, relevant article pages (e.g. Israel), or relevant forums - and not on unrelated articles (Turkey).Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am waiting for the close here, because of the policy issues that are raised by this RfC. Policies have to be applied consistently across articles, whatever the consensus is, though I think the RfC was improperly worded because it did not discuss any source-based or policy-based removals and so the majority of comments have not addressed source or policy based reasons to remove information that can be sourced to major, mainstream encyclopedias.  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 07:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also given the reasons for support by the nominator (entirely unsourced POV) that are not supported by WP:RS (sources support the current wording, with minor changes) - I think this RfC should be closed for being an improper use of the RfC process. Other issues here are systemic bias (full disclosure, I do edit Vikipedi, and I am probably one of the few editors here who does) and the uneven application of policies to articles regarding Turkey. I think the content of the article must follow our policies and be based on WP:RS, not on my personal political POV, which is what I find most inappropriate about the reasons given by editors who are supporting this proposal. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In regards to some of these labels (Cultural diversity should go due to it being puffery to begin with and contradicted by sources (both Fearon and Alesina et, as can be seen here: (and in the sources therein) List of countries ranked by ethnic and cultural diversity level (and this is when we include the Kurds (which are suppressed in the south-east) as fully part of the Turkish system)) - the problem is that this is a changing situation - so the question is whether sources in 2017 (or 2014, 2015, 2016) still refer to Turkey as a democracy. Citing Britannica which looking at the article history there hasn't updated its lead in ages - is not a proper source for this (and might even be a circular situation - e.g. they look at us and we look at them in order to determine when this tag should be removed in the encyclopedia's voice). While there were questions on the strength of democracy in Turkey in the past, in light of the frequent coups, it was typically referred to as a democracy. The question raised in this RfC is whether this label is still relevant - and for that you would need to show current sources that still refer to Turkey as a democracy. In regards to procedure (whether a discussion should have preceded the RfC) - there has been an extensive discussion as part of the RfC - I doubt that if we re-open a new RfC (following the alleged technicality of process in regards to the RfC) we will reach a different conclusion as an overwhelming amount of editors support removal - a single objection by my (perhaps flawed) count (7-1).Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is an absolute misstatement of policy and closing admins must take this into consideration. Britannica has not been superseded Given the non-source based and non-policy based reasons for support by the nominator (entirely unsourced POV) and given that WP:RS support the current wording - I think this RfC should be closed for being an improper and prejudiced abuse of the RfC process. The content of the article must follow our policies and be based on WP:RS For example, editors repeated WP:OR conclusion that human rights violations in Turkey, or in the early Republic, are somehow connected to multiculturalism - This is completely unsourced POV WP:OR. Given the obvious prejudice/unsourced POV of the nom's stated justifications for removal and some of the other comments here (I could provide diffs, but I refer to the above comments which are plain to see) I strongly recommend closing this RfC, and recommending that editors follow WP:RS when proposing modifications Obviously, closers have a responsibility to prevent abuse of the RfC process and review whether comments and support for a proposal is based on policy.  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, what we need to take into consideration is WP:CONSENSUS. Sure, there are RSs that might say Turkey is a de jure democracy (the Britannica source doesn't even say that by the way), much like how there are RSs that say North Korea is a Republic, but if it doesn't jive with reality, then it should not be presented as such. Why? Well, it would be highly misleading for our readers and would ultimately undermine the project's credibility. So the way we come to that conclusion is through consensus based off of reliable sourcing, but more specifically for the lead and in this particular case, it should be based off of the reliably sourced content already found within the article. You can't possibly deny the fact that there's a plethora of sources out there, many of which that are found within this article itself, that show Turkey getting an F in democracy, security, freedom of the press, and basic human rights. The cultural diversity stuff is also a no brainer. Sitting on top of lost civilizations doesn't make you culturally embracing either, especially when you've annihilated both culturally and physically those civilizations themselves. Last but not least, this constant back and forth, the stonewalling, along with a !vote of "Strong Keep" is strongly reminiscent of WP:JDLI. I advise you to take into consideration the overwhelming consensus being formulated here because it may look like you're trying to override the good faith efforts of these users who have done nothing but express their honest and informed opinion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

What I don't like is the suggestion that we should make edits based on what seems "obvious" to you (to quote your above unsourced justification for the removal) for a statement vthat is widely accepted by WP:RS. I am not saying it is a de jure democracy, I am saying Britannica says the following: "The modern Turkish republic, founded in 1923 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, is a nationalist, secular, parliamentary democracy. After a period of one-party rule under its founder, Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk), and his successor, Turkish governments since the 1950s have been produced by multiparty elections based on universal adult suffrage." and that the argument you are making that Turkey was never a democracy, because of Ataturk's policies etc. creates a strong appearance that this proposal is motivated by WP:OR and unsourced POV. Yes we do need to follow WP:CONSENSUS and consensus is not determined by votes - this is actually a critical feature of the WP:CONSENSUS policy The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. I would not invoke this policy but for the extraordinary circumstances in this RfC (supported by GGT who says above Unfortunately, as Seraphim System rightly pointed out, I see a lot of personal opinions and not enough sources here.) - I would highlight the above statement above by the nom that the WP:RS dont "jive with reality" - Citing WP:JDLI for policy and source based arguments is casting WP:ASPERSIONS, especially when the sum total of the argument made to support this proposal is itself ipse dixit. Consensus is not determined by votes. Oxford World Encyclopedia calls it a "Multiparty republic" - what are you proposing replacing the system of government with? Based on what WP:RS? The entire proposal was hasty, poorly thought out and not based on WP:RS. Seraphim System ( talk ) 09:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources have been cited here by several. You keep on citing Britannica which may not be up to date (just as Wikipedia is not in this case per the consensus here). Removal of the sentence, and specifically democracy, is an easier decision than a replacement sentence. It is quite clear, at this point, what Turkey currently IS NOT. It isn't totally clear what it IS NOW - as this is an evolving situation and requires and understanding of the inner workings of the current regime that hasn't reached consensus in RS (e.g. the degree of power of Erdogan vs. the wider AKP).Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Any discussion of whether Britannica is WP:RS for this statement would have to properly be raised at RS/n, which is another reason why this RfC should not have been proposed without recent discussion on the talk page. The edit should have been made, and if it was contested, then the issue could have been raised in the proper forum (in this case RS/n because of the issues with WP:CRYSTAL or whether Britannica has been superseded. RfC is for dispute resolution (per WP:RFC), and since there was no dispute on this page, there should not have been an RfC. In the event that a dispute arises, there might be other dispute resolution processes that would be more appropriate to resolve a dispute (in this case RS/n would be one option). Seraphim System  ( talk ) 10:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems pretty clear that there is a clear consensus for removal. While one single pro-Erdogan user is indeed very active in the discussion, that's not really of any consequence. If I could offer one piece of friendly advice to Seraphim System for future discussions, it would be to make shorter, fewer, better and more coherent arguments. Its the strength, not the length, of the argument that carries weight. There is very little point to bring up older sources in a discussion on a situation that all involved agree is recent. There is also very little point to keep bringing up Israel all over the place regardless of topic. The insistence by Seraphim System that the RfC should be closed in the favour of the one single voice differing from the consensus also comes across as surprising. Given the level of discussion, though, I do agree that the RfC could be closed as a clear census has emerged. Jeppiz (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to GGT's points. The lead sentence that is being discussed describes Turkey as it is now, today, not what it was in the 1920s or 1930s. So, even if the concept of what makes a “secular state” has remained unchanged since the 1920s (which it has not), whatever Ataturk in the 1920s and 1930s intended Turkey to be is irrelevant to deciding on the accuracy of that sentence. Also irrelevant are claims that Turkey makes for itself at an official level. Nor can some unique meaning of the word “secular” be coined to apply to Turkey alone. In the early years of Ataturk’s dictatorship, all mosques, Islamic schools, Islamic initiations and Islamic foundations were brought under state control and henceforth run by state institutions. See, for example, Directorate of Religious Affairs and Directorate General of Foundations. Then, selected areas within that nationalized entity that the state did not wish to continue existing were closed down, and the rest was maintained but operated within a framework of policies and ideologies determined by the state. A state where a single religion is governed and operated as a department of that state, whose entire apparatus – from its buildings to its employees - is paid for by that state, and with the state guaranteeing and promoting the continued existence of that one religion (while at the same time either not supporting or actively oppressing all other religions), cannot easily be described as a secular state. There are many sources that have always disputed Turkey’s claim to be "secular" for those very reasons – that alone should have made the inclusion of “secular” in the lead very questionable and certainly untenable without some qualifiers. But now we have the addition of Erdogan’s pro-Islam and re-Islamisation policies and rhetoric, backed by his parliamentary majority and state of emergency laws to carry them out. GCT claims that arguments that the “Turkish state is no longer secular is simply not supported by the sources out there”. But, setting aside the fact that there are dozens of recent sources questioning the assertion that Turkey is still a secular state, where are the sources supporting this “secular” claim? Turkey just claiming it is a secular state is not justification enough for that claim being in the lead – sources that are neutral and recent are required - and they are currently absent. The constitution of Turkey is not a suitable or a neutral source for claims about Turkey. The only other source is a dead link to a pdf publication. A working link to it is. This publication, on page 4, takes the extreme viewpoint that Islamic societies (which it defines simply as a society whose population adheres to Islam, allowing no nuances as to what branch of Islam or degree of fundamentalism) can exist in only two forms: an “Islamic state” and a “secular state”, and that these forms are determined solely by what is said in a country’s constitution. It claims that any "Islamic society" whose CONSTITUTION does not say Islam is the state religion is automatically a “secular state”. There is no way such an extreme and absolutist viewpoint can be allowed into the article on the basis of a single source. A country’s constitution is not a neutral or credible source for the reality of that country. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Unless I have said I am "pro-Erdogan" which I have not, you also should not say that I am, as it is a personal content. The guidelines for RfC are clear, the nominator should attempt discussion before proposing, that did not happen here. There is no consensus here, only a lot of personal opinions that can not used to justify edits of any kind. Seraphim System ( talk ) 10:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 10:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The statement in the article CAN be sourced, but since there was no discussion before the RfC was proposed, that was not reflected in the proposal. Britannica is not an "old source" and neither is OUP, there are multiple encyclopedic sources that support this. It is a poor understanding of democracy (which is not about the judiciary, the judiciary is non-democratic this is the point) and the source of the problem is that editors are not following WP:RS Seraphim System  ( talk ) 10:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 10:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Democracy, by the way, is nothing more then majority rule. What editors are confusing here, based on laymen opinions and without following sources, are constitutional limits on democratic government. Turkey has universal sufferage, and Erdogan was elected (with a significant percentage of voters supporting CP). There is no country in the world that has exactly the US system of government. This includes Britain, France, Germany, Israel and Turkey. Israel is especially problematic, because its claim of universal sufferage is disputed. The reality is that Turkey does not have this problem - the problem is that there is no limit on the majority rule (as in the US) - this is pretty basic American Politics 101 level stuff. Our encyclopedia should not be based on this kind of inexpert and unsourced reasoning. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 10:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Where is the word "secular" sourced? I recently deleted the supposed source, "CIA factbook", for the statement's words "secular", "unitary", and "diverse". Those words were not used in that source. Encyclopedias are never going to be the best sources for recent changes in countries. Seraphim System, why are you wanting to single out Turkey as the sole recipient of the "democratic" medal. You mentioned Britain, France, Germany, and America - but none of them are described as being "democratic" in their leads, despite their status as democracies being unquestionable. Are only countries with an arguable democratic status to be labeled "democratic" on Wikipedia? It suggests to me that this whole lead sentence is nothing more than an exercise in PR puffery, and so should be gone. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

America is correctly identified as a Federal Republic. Its system of government is not fully democratic. Many of the countries we refer to as "democracies" are actually multiparty republics. This would more encyclopedic then using an imprecise and widely misunderstood term like democracy. I would support changing it both here and on any other article that uses it. Your argument for secularism raises a WP:RECENT issue. We use sources like encyclopedias to judge WP:DUE for complex issues like this, and it is appropriate here. Seraphim System ( talk ) 01:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Funny definition of democracy
Could anyone in favour of keeping the current wording, which sounds suspiciously like something from the Ministry of Truth, name any other "democracy" in which at least 152 journalist are in prison? Or any other democracy where 173 media outlets have been forcibly closed by the government and 800 other journalists have had their press accreditation revoked? The "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" (North Korea) maybe but we don't parrot their bullshit about being a democracy. AusLondonder (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, they've all been charged with serious crimes, no? To be tried, no doubt, by the loyal and law-abiding judiciary and prosecution Turkey says purge of judiciary over after sacking 4,000. Freedom of press doesn't allow the press to commit crimes. In terms of parallels, I don't believe it reached this level in the democratic Russian Federation, but that may be due to an "understanding" of the "situation" by the players involved there. You might find parallels in terms of purge levels to Lustration in the Eastern Bloc following the demise of the communist regimes (though I'm not sure if they bothered lustrating the local Pravdas - it made more economic sense to open new outlets).Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Can I have your attention please
Heading de-shouted per WP:TPO and WP:SHOUT. &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  15:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

For all those who don't know me, i'm the guy who implemented major changes and elevated this shitty country's wp article status to 'GA'. Oh and i also wrote that sentence that you guys are currently trying to remove/improve/edit etc.

After reading your shitstorm, i can easily say that some of you have no single fucking idea about the Turkish society, history, culture or even the constitution. I'll throw out some dots for you to connect.

SECULARISM: This is one of the most delicate issues about the Turkish society. I'm saying society, not state, since the state of Turkey is secular by constitituon and civil code also there are no Islam-related laws (Part I, Article II). So officially or legally-speaking, the 'state' of Turkey is as secular as, lets say Germany.

Let's get to the 'society' part. Fristly you should read the 'Religion' section of this article. There is a note that i've added (not wrote though).

''The existing religion information written on every citizen's national id card, that is automatically passed on from the parents to every newborn, and do not necessarily represent individual choice. Furthermore, anyone who was not officially registered as Christian or Jewish by the time of the foundation of the republic, was automatically recorded as Muslim, and this label has been passed down to new generations. Therefore, the official number of Muslims also include people with no religion; converted from Islam to a different religion than Islam; and anyone who is of a different religion than their parents, but hasn't applied for a change of their individual records.''

My id card is an example of this illogical 'religipn-information-system'. Although both are my parents are atheists, they had automatically registered as 'Islam' since no one bothered to ask them about their religion. And you guessed it, i had 'Islam' also on my card's religion section. So i went to the population department requested a change, grind thru some paperwork and handled it.

But i have lots of friends who are simply scared to make this change because of the 'what if' scenarios suc as; 'What if my grandparents see it', 'What if they (gov't) are making a list of atheists and after a sharia revolution, they decide to kill us' etc. or simply don't give a fuck about what writes there.

Since there are shit-tons of research about secularism among the Turkish people. I'm not going to explain it all day long, just take a look at the Cultural Muslim article and refer to google. Majority of women doesn't wear veil and majority of the people doesn't follow Islamic rules like praying 5 times a day. You should take a look at Turkish TV shows. 1 out of 10 series 'might' include a veiled woman but i can guarantee that 5 out of 10 will strike you as a fashion show rather than a tv-drama.

Directorate of Religious Affairs was founded by the orders of Atatürk. He was trying to establish control over Islam (imo all governments should control how Islam is practiced since some fucked-up-shit like ISIS and Child_marriage can pop up). He also supported Autocephalous Turkish Orthodox Patriarchate. But to criticize these actions we must take a look at Zeitgeist of the 19th and 20st century. Every 'nation' was gathering or trying to gather under one flag and one religion. Leaders of these nations were frequently using religion as a tool and defining their religion as the core of their nation. For instance there are no genetically or linguistically difference between Bosnians and Serbians. But you guessed it, religiously different as fuck. So this ministry wasn't an act of low level Islamization of the state rather a strategic move.

Lastly, we should take a fact into account. The supporters of Erdoğan doesn't constitute the majority as general media thinks. They got the 40% of the parliamentary elections' vote. The remaining 60% voted for CHP,MHP,HDP (which all are secular by their regulations) and some communist parties. Even if we think that all the supporters of AKP are anti-secularists and the turnout is 100%, 60% of the population is secular (THAT WAS SOME QUANTUM LOGIC RIGHT THERE).

THAT CULTURAL HERITAGE THING: I'm gonna cut it short my friends are waiting.

Before we jump in:
 * Turkification
 * Turkish_people
 * Turkish dance
 * Turkish folklore
 * Armenian Genocide (i'm not propagating anything there, lots of facts about Armenian orphans and assimilation of Armenians)

Turkish language is a Turkic language but Turks doesn't look like the other Turks (namely Kazakhs, Turkmens, Uzbeks etc.). OH HOW COME? CUZ THEY (they includes 'me'. i'm 25% Georgian, 15% Azeri, 5% Armenian, 5% Persian, 50% unknown) ARE ONLY LINGUISTICALLY TURKS NOT CULTURALLY.

Ottoman Empire was a huge empire and consisted many peoples. As you may've or will read the article of 'Turkification', many ethnics assimilated willingly or unwillingly cause of some reasons like taxes, battles, sieges, boredom etc and they all contributed to the modern Turkish people. Even Atatürk, who tried to assimilate all the minorities, was of Albanian descent, like Enver Pasha.

Anyways those who assimilated, brought their culture with them, like customs, food, music and clothing. My GF for instance, she is of Bulgarian descent. Loves eating wafer as all Bulgarians do i assume. All those who claim to have Bulgarian descent seem to love wafers. I'm more of a cake-eater though, wafers taste like plain paper.

Oh and btw gov't of Erdoğan gave up on assimilating minorities and gave them permission to publish books, set up tv channels and get language education in state schools. Of course the churches or any non-sunni islamic instutuion doesn't get to get funding from the state treasury.

I just wanted to make some clarifications and state my thoughts. You guys are right about one thing though. Turkey isn't a democracy anymore. It wasn't before either but at least it resembled like one. kazekagetr 13:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Got a VPN running? Shouting for attention is a bad start, so is describing everything before your opinion as a "shitstorm". The point about the lead sentence that we are discussing is that is is there to describe Turkey as it is now. It is not there to describe the Turkey of the 1920s and 1930s, or the Turkey Ataturk in the 1920s and 1930s desired to create; or even what the Turkish State claims itself to be or what the Turkish State is according to the Turkish constitution. The lead is also meant to be just an accurate summary of the article's content and this sentence simply doesn't accurately sum up that content because it allows for no nuances as to the differences between Turkey in reality and Turkey on paper. An additional problem is that no other country article has such glowing lead text. You miss the point of the Directorate of Religious Affairs issue. What it was intended to do when established is not relevant to discussion about the lead sentence - its function has changed since then (it is now under the direction of the very people it was intended to make obsolete) and it is just what it is doing in Turkey nowadays that is relevant to this discussion. Erdogan supporters probably are the majority. MHP politicians may delude themselves int thinking they are a proper political party with voters who vote for them for legitimate reasons, but the average MHP voter will vote for whoever looks like killing the most Kurds, and that currently is Erdogan. The moment MHP distances itself from Erdogan, most of its supporters will just desert to AKP. Have you actually looked at the TV in Turkey available to the average person in the provinces. TRT spreads everywhere with its multiple channels. Many independent stations have been closed down, more have gone thanks to the economic downturn, the rest are mostly cowed, reduced to talk shows mouthing the Erdogan-line, or cliched family dramas, or 1970s Turkish movies peddling blatantly anti-Christian themes and racist stereotypes, or endless repeats of Kemal Sunal movies since they are for some reason considered uncontroversial (despite being delightfully full of small man usurping the puffed-up tyrant themes). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On a constructive note User:KazekageTR - could you summarize what you think about this sentence currently in brief? It seems you support striking democracy. If secularism is "delicate" - should it be in the lead unqualified (and not explained at length in body)? Regarding "diverse cultural heritage" - I wholeheartedly agree the Ottoman empire (and the Turkish part of it) was highly diverse - and that modern Turks aren't like other Turkic people - but should we state this in the present tense - some 100 years after various assimilation programs? Isn't this a little more complicated than what could be boiled down to 3 words (If we're looking at a 20 year old - then these are his great-grandparents or earlier)?Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield, dude firstly you should pay attention to my last sentence (I just wanted to make some clarifications and state my thoughts). IMO, that tea-talk you had there was a shitstorm, my eyes were burning after reading all of yous sentences (don't take it personally you guys didin't do anything wrong it wasn't a shitstorm in a bad way, just as in 'complicated'). and my comment about the Ministry of Religion-shit isn't a criticism of what you guys said, rather a statement of my own. Secondly i dont watch TV since my Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh days but i can guess that the situation there is really bad. With those marriage shows and poor girl rich boy dramas and some nationalistic talk shows and pop singers with shitty lyrics, oh man like i said i don't use my TV except for my X360. But im not talking nor denying these things. I'm just comparing Turkish TV to lets say more conservative or Islamist Pakistani or Jordanian or idk Syrian etc etc. My auntie was watching one of those boring-ask-fuck tv shows and the plot was just like that; a girl is pregnant but gets an abortion but she didin't know who was her father but then she digs deep and finds the guy, turns out that they were drunk af and had sex etc. anyways what im trying to say is that you can't find a fuckdup plot like that in a country with an islami(st)c mindset. im not arguing about the 'quality' just the content. lastyly, yes, of course i have a running vpn. those fuckers can't keep me away from reading just cuz they want the purge page removed.

@Icewhiz, shalom. whe could wipe out the whole sentence but we should mention secularism and multikulti in lede. america had the same assimilation programs (german-americans or irish-americans for example) but one can still say that america is a melting pot right? languages and religion is vastly affected but clothing, food, musical instruments and names of the local places are still on the use both in turkey and usa. cya. kazekagetr 15:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the comments here about multiculturalism would be intensely offensive to many Turks who consider themselves both Turkish and also having a mutlicultural identity. This is immensely important to many Turks. I don't think editors realize that these types of comments are not wanted or considered helpful by the Armenians, or Jews, or many of the Kurds who these editors are trying to speak for. I have read, for example, İshak Alaton's comments about this at length, and I would recommend it. The article is not only about Turkey's past, which is imperfect (but no state in history has been perfect). Turkey is multicultural, and this is widely supported by WP:RS. Saying Turkey is not multicultural is saying that everyone there is Muslim-Turkish, this simply is not true. The fact that there are some people in Turkey who want it to be true does not change this and should not be what the content of our lede is based on (as it gives undue weight to a minority opinion, and it is not an accurate statement of fact). Seraphim System  ( talk ) 13:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We are not here to placate the delicate feelings of Turks or Armenians, or Jews, or Kurds, or anyone. We are here discussing how to make a lead sentence accurately reflect article content, and what that article content should contain in order for it to accurately reflect the Turkey of today. The words multicultural or multiculturalism does not appear even once in the article, so why should there be a piped Wikilink to multiculturalism in the lead? I have removed that Wikilink. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What should have happened is that there should have been discussion prior to the RfC proposal where editors such as myself, GGT and kazekagetr could have made alternate proposals and tweaked the wording based on discussion. There are some problems with the current wording that should not be resolved through outright removal. If a dispute arose during the discussions then an RfC could have been proposed with two or three options, that was clear about the lines of the dispute (we have separate discussions in this proposal for each part of the sentence - the main ones are democracy, secular and multicultural). The sentence should probably be modified, but not removed entirely. Now what is going to happen is most likely a dispute will arise over the modified version that is going to be added after this sentence is removed, and this RfC will have been a complete waste of community time. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 03:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Parliamentary Democracy
I want to post an explanation of my reasoning here to gauge whether a second, more precise RfC will be necessary to resolve this. My hope is that reasonable editors can reach a consensus here. Seraphim System ( talk ) 08:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) One issue is that the discussion followed the above RfC, and there was no prior discussion, Many who commented did not read the full discussion. My feeling is that we should have a discussion before an RfC, so those who comment on the RfC can benefit from it.
 * 2) Moving on, I have tried to revise the content of the article based on my understanding of the RfC, and more specifically the concerns that were raised by the editors.
 * 3) I should add that I do have some degree of specialized knowledge on the subject of constitutions and political theory.
 * 4) I am proposing adding "Parliamentary democracy" because this is the precise wording used by Britannica and other sources.
 * 5) Parliamentary democracy is more specific then what we colloquially understand as "democracy" - editors are not wrong to be concerned that using the term "democracy" would be misleading, as it generally includes features that are not currently well developed in Turkish government - but we have not yet had any discussion on what to replace it with.
 * 6) I think for an encyclopedic tone, it is best to be more precise, not less.
 * 7) For these reasons, based on the above RfC, I have also removed "Constitutional Republic" from the infobox. Many (all) of the concerns that were raised by editors involved issues such as free press, rights of minorities and rule of law. While this is a technical point that does not need to be discussed in the article, these rights are generally protected by courts and/or constitutions (which are non-democratic).
 * 8) I think the term "Parliamentary democracy" side steps the technical aspects of this discussion, and it is supported by WP:RS.
 * We just had a protracted RfC. Support for democracy was limited, IIRC, to a single editor. While Britannica is a RS, it is a trietary source and not a secondary one, and may not yet reflect the changes to the Turkish system of gvmt - just as Wikipedia did not until recently. The existence of a parliament does not a "Parliamentary democracy" make if conditions necessary for a democracy do not exist.Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a hybrid regime per Democracy Index 2016 (Wikipedia cliff note version, actual report - ). Freedom house agrees as well .Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Updated link.Icewhiz (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And per recent coverage in RS - [      - it is unlikely to improve in EIU democracy index (where it has dropped 0.7 points (in a 1-10 scale) from 2012 to 2016.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
Full protection in place. Less reverting, more discussing.18:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment about above (stayed) Rfc
I oppose this putative RfC on procedural grounds. The previous RfC was very thorough and was properly closed, we absolutely do not need another RfC, especially something as convoluted as this. Just because one user did not like the results of the previous RfC, doesn't mean we should waste the community's time with another RfC. Khirurg (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Regretably, the community has unanimously endorsed my closure with calls for a future RFC as correct.So, the RFC needs to be done.Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 16:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Democracy vs. Neocolonialism
I am not the one who suggested taking Democracy out of the lede, nor am I the one who suggested closing the RfC against Britannica. I made every effort to resolve this in the simplest way possible by continuing to call Turkey a democracy, the way we continue to call many non-democratic countries democracies. However the alternate argument for what Turkey IS is a neocolonial government, one of many in the region, whose foreign policy/military/economy is not independent of Western interests. (This, incidentally, is why no one is rushing to update.) This has been published, BUT I am not going to directly engage with one editor User:IceWhiz and go back and forth I want other editors to have a chance to discuss this. I feel I have interacted with this one editor enough in the last little while, and I want some input from other editors who use WP:RS instead of a WP:FORUM like discussion. I rely heavily on WP:RS in my editing and if there continue to be problems with one editor who pushes me to have non-source based discussions I am going to have to ask for help from dispute resolution, because this is really ruining my editing experience. I hope other editors will get involved, thanks. It seems pretty clear that we need to agree on something to put in the "Government type" box, and neocolonialism has been floating around for a while, and is a fairly credible and well-regarded academic argument. Thank you, Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources are clearly lacking for Neocolonialism.Icewhiz (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If no other editors want to offer input or suggest helpful WP:RS I will add the sources directly to the article. (I can provide translated quotes for foreign language sources upon request.) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 22:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is completely insane. You are not making any sense. You should be topic banned for wasting everyone's time with this nonsense. Khirurg (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * --The ANI thread is going to be closed anytime from now-onwards and once it's closed, I will soon launch the above-drafted RFC.You are thus requested to specifically post any other option for the two infobox parameters, that you would like to see and I will add them as options (though the onus to source them, will be obviously on you, which you may provide after the RFC is opened).You may also post any general feedback about the draft-RFC but keep them concise and to the point.Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 16:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not participating in this RfC and I don't even have a proposal. I don't think a 5 part RfC that just went through a long dispute needs to have more things added to it right now. I just wanted some ideas from other editors and am still working on a proposal for this, but it is going to take months. I am still doing research to see if there are sufficient sources to justify a proposal/edit, and wanted to see if any editors wanted to discuss/help/make alternate suggestions based on WP:RS. I also think someone other then you should close the second RfC, if other editors still want to have one. I will propose when I am ready, Thanks, Seraphim System  ( talk ) 00:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I also don't support proposing RfC's before an issue has been discussed on talk, and this has never been discussed. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 00:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I will make one comment regarding the infobox. Removing democracy from the lede is one thing, but I don't know why that RfC was ever construed to cover the infobox in the edit warring that ensued. Why would you remove from the infobox something that is already in the article? Anyone is free to propose any RfC they want, but if I propose, it will be in my own RfC with my preferred format (fully sourced, written out in option 1,you option 2 format - I find this format to be the clearest and most helpful). Most likely I will work on creating a separate article first, to prepare. Seraphim System ( talk ) 01:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Languages
these new languages are not recgonised legally nor other than kurdish are they spoken widely. maybe if you put the languages in the respected Regions and not here it would make sense. Also a change like that SHOULD require a consensus. I make one tiny change on an NON RELEVANT photo and everyone goes mad
 * Well sourced to Ethnologue. Each of the mentioned languages are used by more than 1 million people. For the many other, the link to Languages of Turkey gives more detailed info. I see no problem. --T*U (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Then go to that page. this is the page for the country so I dont want to see these languages. You dont see this on Americas or Frances page


 * What you want to see is not of interest to Wikipedia. When there are so many languages spoken by more than 1 million people each, plus so many other languages, that is of interest. --T*U (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Emblem
Altough Turkey has no official emblem, the star and crescent is being used on passports, ID cards, driving licences, embassy signs, seal of the presidential office, seal of the TBMM and the seal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We can discuss here if it's suitable to add the emblem. Redman19 (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Do NOT add the emblem. Why do you exactly want to do that? What does an unofficial emblem have to do with encyclopedic content? Canada uses the maple leaf in the very same manner, but no conversation over there about this? It is not even classified as an emblem, it is a national symbol and a simplification of the flag.

highly disruptive recent edits
a couple people have made some really disruptive edits just now, changing up the introduction and even insulting Turkey in the summary. I am not going to engage in an edit war so please will one of you professional edits fix back the article? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 20:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)