Talk:Turkey/Archive 29

terrorist groups in kurdish conflict
so the respected editors have decided to add the kurdish conflict in the lede, in a paragraph where it seems completely out of place. already some have decided to put erdoğans problematic policies as part of the lede, when no other country has any detail regarding the last few years about their leader in the lede. now there is the pkk conflict. I put the sources for how its a conflict between terrorist groups and the Turkish Republic, from turkish, eu and american sources. all recognise the pkk as terrorists and its subsidiaries like tak are too by turkey. so why am I being charged with edit warring? im putting in credible sources. who is denying this and why? why is this irrelavant topic in the lede, right after Atatürk and his reforms too? its so irrelevant and its not fluid. it should be in the history section. so you say im edit warring. then you go put my sources?!? they are sources. they are credible. they show that the kurdish "insurgents" are terrorists. countless countries recognise it. it is also a criminal organisation which deals in drug trafficking across europe. i think we should make that clear in the lede too before some kind of pro pkk editor decides to expand this silly little addition and promote the organisations even more — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) 12:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere
 * The balancing content from the state department will have to be added but the question is how. The only reason I haven't added it yet myself is because I prefer to work on the article content first before adding content to the lede. The new content in article needs to be source checked also. It has been mostly cherry picked from media sources. Media sources should not have been used at all for the conflict, since academic sources are available. The newly added content should probably be organized more coherently with content about the conflict and coup separated into clear sections. Lots of simple issues that become a chore to fix because of the climate on this talk page. Just lazy editing all around, imo. Seraphim System ( talk ) 15:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I respect that and these are the most credible sources. We have the EU, NATO, North American countries, Japan, Turkey and many other organisations recognising the kurdish groups as terrorist organisations. So what is the reason for not allowing me to put these sources? There is no edit war. I think this is almost crazy. I will put those sources back unless someone can find a true reason for me not to. Its incredible that this is even the case.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) 12:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere
 * The stricken "Template:Unsigned" was manually copied (with wrong timestamp). --T*U (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) 12:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The two sentences about the Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) should stay as they are with 'insurgents' rather than 'terrorists'. The reason is that these two sentences merely provide a very short summary of the situation. The conflict is a significant part of the recent history of Turkey but the details of the conflict are shown in the linked article where more detailed information and a balanced explanation of the conflict are shown. Having briefly looked over that article I believe your efforts should be aimed there. It may be the case that the relevant references you want to put in the Turkey article are best placed in that article with suitable text. I would suggest you do not revert the text in the Turkey article until more editors have reviewed it. You could always ask for a Request for Comment (Rfc). Robynthehode (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it's not a very short summary the second sentence Various Kurdish groups demand separation from Turkey to create an independent Kurdistan or to have autonomy and greater political and cultural rights for Kurds in Turkey. describes only PKK's stated position and it does so in Wikivoice, which is a subtle POV distortion of the sources in the article. PKK's splinter group TAK was responsible for March 2016 Ankara bombing and they've been responsible for many attacks on civilians. They are both insurgents and terrorists, there is no rule that they can only be one or the other. Certainly there is an armed insurgency in the South, and certainly the Ankara bombing and other bombings are widely considered terrorist attacks, enough that we can use the WP:TERRORIST label. If the Kurds are mentioned in this much detail, then balancing content will have to be added, which is why I initially supported adding only a very short summary. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If we delve into Turkish government views on the PKK, we might have to delve into Kurdish views of the Turkish Army. Sticking to the facts other than labelling is more straightforward.Icewhiz (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"If we delve into Turkish government views on the PKK"

I think you are overlooking that Turkey's allies also treat the Kurdistan Workers' Party as a terrorist organization. Per the main article:
 * The military alliance NATO has declared the PKK to be a terrorist group; Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952, and fields the group's second-largest armed contingent. Closely tied to NATO, the European Union—which Turkey aspires to join—officially lists the PKK as having "been involved in terrorist acts" and proscribes it as part of its Common Foreign and Security Policy. First designated in 2002, the PKK was ordered to be removed from the EU terror list on 3 April 2008 by the European Court of First Instance on the grounds that the EU failed to give a proper justification for listing it in the first place. However, EU officials dismissed the ruling, stating that the PKK would remain on the list regardless of the legal decision."
 * The PKK has never been designated as a terrorist organization by the UN, though two out of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council treat it as such on an individual basis. The PKK is designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the US State Department and a Proscribed Organisation in the United Kingdom under the Terrorism Act 2000." Dimadick (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help regarding this fellow editors. It seems the majority are in agreement with the inclusion of the term terrorist, and the sources all point to the same fact. If the respected editors would like to confirm we can add these sources and term the "insurgents" as terrorists then we can continue. Georgepodros (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere
 * It's not the Turkish government's view and finding academic sources for this is trivial. Despite it being trivial, editors have sourced this to news sources, which they are not supposed to when academic sources are available. The cause of the current imbalance is POV re representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. and that some editors want to add cherry-picked unbalanced content without doing the heavy lifting to check sources other the first news articles that pop up in a quick Google search. Seraphim System ( talk ) 21:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

edit warring on the geographical location of Turkey? Really?
So we have a new editor persisting on putting his/her own view on Turkey's geographical location by writing "Turkey is a transcontinental country in Eurasia and the Middle East, located mainly in Western Asia, with a smaller portion on the Balkan peninsula in Southeast Europe". This is rife with errors. as per my edit summary regarding the change back to the years old sentence regarding the country's position: many points regarding this recent edit on Turkeys geographical position. 1: it has been written as europe and asia for years now 2: A country can be in Eurasia and the Middle East but putting both renders the point moot since they are both part of the same region. 3: putting middle east then saying it is in western asia and southeast europe makes even less sense. 4: countries like iraq dont even mention middle east in the lede. 5: this is clearly an attempt to make turkey look non european. Maybe you might not agree with some of these points but you can understand what I mean. Apparently with my justified edit back to the original version which makes so much more sense and is much more appropriate, I am putting my own view ahead of everyone elses. What is this? Am I actually in the wrong? Even Iraqs page doenst mention the middle east in the same section. This new sentence is so incorrectly structured I feel the person who wrote it has no idea of it.

Can we please reach an agreement regarding this? I am sure everyone agrees that the previous version was far better and had no faults. This new edit from whoever it was is clearly hastely done and makes no sense, western asia and the middle east are the same thing, and they say eurasia which comprises of the entirity of two continents. Its just an attempt to make Turkey look easternised. Whoever did it changed a years old definition of Turkeys geographical position and claimed that my revert was my point of view? It wasnt even a revert, just a new edit, upon which I am branded as an edit warrer.

Georgepodros (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere
 * For once I agree with : The description "Eurasia and Middle East" is nonsense. Actually, the Middle East part was added in this edit just over a month ago. There is just no valid reason for adding "Middle East", since ME is part of Eurasia. However, the consensus before that addition seems not to have been "Europe and Asia", but "Eurasia". That makes sense, since the next sentence specifies Western Asia and Southeast Europe. There is not much point in first saying Europe and Asia, then Western Asia and Southeast Europe. I have reinstated the former consensus version with just "Eurasia". --T*U (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an improvement but not correct. Two reasons. Firstly, 'Eurasia' is a lesser used term than its constituent continents of 'Europe' and 'Asia' and for the casual reader it makes sense to use the more commonly known continental terms. Secondly the sentence is still confusing because the second statement 'in Eurasia' doesn't follow from the first 'transcontinental country'. It is clearer to state 'Europe' and 'Asia' - two continents (although I know Europe is a continent by convention only but widely accepted as such) because Turkey has land in both making it 'transcontinental'. The latter clause in the sentence that mentions 'Western Asia' and 'Southeast Europe' just further refines the initial statement that Turkey is transcontinental. I would suggest having 'Turkey is a transcontinental country in Asia and Europe located mainly in Western Asia, with a smaller portion on the Balkan peninsula in Southeast Europe' (Asia first because the Asian part of Turkey is the greater landmass). Seems much more accurate and logical to me. Robynthehode (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly I thank TU for his edit and agreement on the matter. Second, I happen to agree with you too. It is not a problem either way for most readers interested in Turkey but for some who do not understand what Eurasia is then yes your point is valid. I am not against it if you change it. As long as this middle east nonsense is out of the way. This is just a term created by the british to refer to former colonies of the Turkish Empire. western asia is the proper geographical term. thanks in advance for you and TUnors help. Georgepodros (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere
 * I have to agree with your comment about the conflict between "transcontinental" and "Eurasia". That does not work well. Thinking a bit further, I think I see an even better solution: The mention of Asia and Europe is actually redundant, so why not just say 'Turkey is a transcontinental country located mainly in Western Asia, with a smaller portion on the Balkan peninsula in Southeast Europe'. We have "transcontinental – Western Asia – Southeast Europe". That is sufficient and precise (and shorter). --T*U (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes that looks good to me. Robynthehode (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that OK for you, too? --T*U (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason for stating a "smaller portion on the Balkan peninsula in Southeast Europe" instead of just mentioning East Thrace? It forms its borders with Bulgaria and Greece. Dimadick (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really, more concise would be better. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that there is good reason to mention "Europe" as an explanation to the term "transcontinental". And "smaller portion" or something similar seems relevant to me. But I am open for suggestions. --T*U (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Both Asia and Europe have to be mentioned otherwise 'transcontinental' hangs as a word used but not justified. We have got rid of one clause in the initial sentence and the nonsensical 'Middle East'. What is left and suggested by is a good solution. And definitely not East Thrace as that does not explain to the casual reader the transcontinental elements to the countries geography (Many readers wouldn't know East Thrace is in Southeastern Europe). If you were to include East Thrace why not Anatolia? (Many readers wouldn't know Anatolia is often used as a term to describe the Asian part of Turkey) So we would end up with something like 'Turkey is a transcontinental country located mainly in Anatolia, with a smaller part in East Thrace' Such solutions merely confuse the meaning of 'transcontinental' and make the description of the geography of Turkey far too complicated. Robynthehode (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"Many readers wouldn't know East Thrace is in Southeastern Europe"

That comes as a surprise to me. I live in Western Thrace and occassionaly visit East Thrace for shopping. Thrace receives its fair share of depictions in popular culture due to notable Thracians, such as Orpheus, Democritus, and Spartacus.

"Many readers wouldn't know Anatolia is often used as a term to describe the Asian part of Turkey"

The readers who have never heard of the Hittites, Troy and the Trojan War, the Iliad, Midas and Phrygia, Croesus and Lydia, the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, Paul of Tarsus from Cilicia, Saint George from Cappadocia and Saint Nicholas/Santa Claus from Lycia> Somehow I doubt that they are that many. Dimadick (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Either way is fine, the country/geography articles are the right place to link this stuff though I think we could use pipes to link to the more specific articles without compromising comprehensibility. Something like: "Turkey is a transcontinental country located mainly in Asia, with a smaller part in Southeastern Europe" Seraphim System ( talk ) 03:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No way. That sort of non-transparent piping is not recommended per WP:EASTEREGG. --T*U (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with T*U having links like the ones suggested by Seraphim System  cause confusion. And a response to Dimadick: no the average reader may not know about all the things you list. The assumption has to be they don't and that they wouldn't know where East Thrace is or Anatolia. It seems to me that you are making assumptions based on your knowledge. Therefore the best option is the one already suggested Robynthehode (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm a bit confused, doesn't your suggestion keep the non-transparent piping already in the lede sentence (smaller portion)? Can you please post the version you want with all the piping the way it would appear in the article? I see two suggestions above so I'm not really sure which one we are talking about at this point. Seraphim System ( talk ) 10:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I had not noticed that piping. It is significantly better than the ones you suggested, since the text at least indicates that you can click yourself to info about a "smaller portion", but it is still Easteregg, so I do not want that link. There are actually three links in the Europe part of the sentence, which is kind of overkill. I feel that the "East Thrace" link is more important than the "Balkan" link, so my revised proposal will be: Turkey is "a transcontinental country located mainly in Western Asia, with a smaller portion, East Thrace, in Southeast Europe." I am not sure when and why the transcontinental link was removed, but I think it is relevant. --T*U (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's too clunky. I think it would be better with a variation of what was discussed above " Turkey is "a transcontinental country located mainly on the Anatolian peninsula in Western Asia with a smaller portion in East Thrace" - Seraphim System ( talk ) 01:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree Seraphim System . I think T*U's suggestion is the best yet. Namely: Turkey is "a transcontinental country located mainly in Western Asia, with a smaller portion, East Thrace, in Southeast Europe. It is important as I have argued before that Asia and Europe are mentioned. Merely putting 'East Thrace' begs the question of where East Thrace is located. We have to assume that not everyone knows where it is located so it is essential to locate it in Europe.Robynthehode (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You said that already, but I agree with Dimadick. East Thrace is a basic geographical term, it is not a complex or advanced jargon term. That's what wikilinks are for. TU's suggestion is not an improvement over the current version. When I agreed with the initial inquiry to make it more concise my intention wasn't to take a well-written sentence and turn it into a badly written one. Seraphim System ( talk ) 03:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the only thing we have consensus for is to remove Eurasia? If there are no objections to that portion I will do that within the next few days. Otherwise I think the current sentence is ok. Balkan peninsula fits naturally into the current sentence so I don't think the link should be removed. I'm open to looking for a more natural place to link East Thrace so the Easteregg link can be removed without compromising prose quality. The Eurasia link is important and we should find a place for it, but it is a bit of a political term of art and does not need to be in the very first sentence. Seraphim System ( talk ) 03:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I just noticed we actually have Anatolia, Europe and Thrace and Asia all covered in the third sentence, which I think addresses everyone's concerns. The best thing would be to figure out a way to merge these sentences, instead of having two long sentences that say the same thing. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 03:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Seraphim System : Yes 'East Thrace' is a basic geographical term but that is not an argument as to why it should be included without reference to its continental location. I would suggest that most people do not know where East Thrace is. The danger as editors is that we make assumptions about the knowledge of the average reader. A reader comes to an encyclopaedia to be informed not to be confused nor in this case to have to click links to other articles to find out where East Thrace is. Secondly thanks for pointing out that the information about East Thrace and Anatolia is already in the third sentence. Clearly it is not useful to repeat information. However, after a brief check, I think we can just remove the clause in the third sentence that refers to East Thrace and Anatolia without it affecting the meaning. Happy to look at alternatives as well. Finally I don't think T*U's suggestion is badly written and would suggest we go for that. Robynthehode (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Seeing that my attempts to simplify and clarify are regarded as "too clunky" and "badly written", I should probably not be doing this, but I cannot resist making one more try. The first sentence could be reduced to say that Turkey is "a transcontinental country located mainly in Western Asia, with a smaller portion in Southeast Europe". The end of the third sentence (which is essentially about surrounding and dividing waters), could say "divide East Thrace in Europe from Anatolia in Asia". If that, too, is too clunky, remove "In Europe" and "in Asia". --T*U (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Great T*U. Your suggestions are definitely not badly written or clunky. I support your new suggestion.Robynthehode (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They don't have to know where East Thrace is, it's clear that its a geographic term and its explained in more detail in the third sentence. The requirement is that the reader be able to understand the sentence; they don't need to know where East Thrace is to understand the sentence. The other requirement of WP:LINKSTYLE is that the article make sense in published form without links; it does because these terms are explained later in the paragraph and the article text. Second, the sentence that I said was badly written was: mainly in Western Asia, with a smaller portion, East Thrace, in Southeast Europe. Nesting commas this way is definitely not recommended, especially for the lede sentence of a GA article. As we are concerned about readers, I think we should be similarly concerned that most readers who know how to use commas will scan and find that Western Asia is in fact not in Southern Europe. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Seraphim System : Yes the reader does need to know where East Thrace is. As I said before having 'transcontinental' as a descriptive term for Turkey without defining the continents in question is confusing and inaccurate. Your argument also doesn't hold re the third sentence. It is better to go from the general (the continents) to the more specific (East Thrace and Anatolia). Therefore 'Europe' and 'Asia' should be in the first sentence and the country areas in the third. I can understand your objection about nested commas so why not go with T*U suggestion above namely: Turkey is "a transcontinental country located mainly in Western Asia, with a smaller portion in Southeast Europe". The end of the third sentence (which is essentially about surrounding and dividing waters), could say "divide East Thrace in Europe from Anatolia in Asia" Robynthehode (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I sort of agree with this last comment, but I think it would be better organized and easier for readers to understand if we rearranged the sentences so the discussion of the straits would follow immediately after transcontinental.


 * The paragraph current reads:

Seraphim System ( talk ) 17:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Proposed version:


 * Yes looks good to me. Two small refinements: One would be a Wikilink for 'Southeast Europe' as there is one for Western Asia. 'Southeast Europe' is a geographic term and there is an article for it. Second would to have 'European' before 'East Thrace is separated...' etc. This links the first sentence to the second. However unless other editors agree I am happy to drop this suggestion if it means we get the change done rather than leaving the article with the nonsensical 'Eurasia' for another day. Robynthehode (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"Aegean Sea to the west, the Black Sea to the north, and the Mediterranean Sea to the south"

The Aegean Sea is "an elongated embayment of the Mediterranean Sea located between the Greek and Anatolian peninsulas". It is also included in category:Marginal seas of the Mediterranean. Dimadick (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I find Seraphim's proposal fine, with one exception: "Minor Asia" should be changed to "Anatolia", which is the name of the article. I also agree that "Southeast Europe" should be linked. --T*U (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

languages in the info box
I am not a fully skilled editor like the respected editors Sherapim, Tu-Nor etc. Can someone please kindly convert this table into the infobox for spoken languages? It has the proper percentages and such. thank you fellow editors.

The following table lists the mother tongues of people in Turkey by percentage of their speakers.

Mother tongues in Turkey Mother tongue	Percentage Turkish	84.54 Northern Kurdish	11.97 Arabic	1.38 Zazaki	1.01 Other Turkic languages	0.28 Balkan languages	0.23 Laz	0.12 Circassian languages	0.11 Armenian	0.07 Other Caucasian languages	0.07 Greek	0.06 West European languages	0.03 Jewish languages	0.01 Coptic	0.01 Other	0.12 Ethnologue lists many minority and immigrant languages in Turkey some of which are spoken by large numbers of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere
 * The numbers for the largest of the languages are given in the "Language" section further down, and all the numbers are given in the main article Languages of Turkey. We might consider giving more details of the numbers also in the "Language" section here, but the whole table would imho be too much. And it would surely be far too much detail for the infobox. --T*U (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

KONDA Study
I am very disappointed, after all we have been through with this line, to check the citation and find that it is an inappropriate use of a primary stastical survey: Approximately 70–80% of the country's citizens identify as Turkish.[9][10] Kurds are the largest minority at about 20% of the population. According to the Konda study it is 81.33% who identify as Turkish, with adittional percentages for "Asian Turks" and something illegible that I think is "Muslim Turks". The study for Kurds and Zaza together gives the figure as only 9%. The CIA gives the figures as "Turkish 70-75%, Kurdish 19%, other minorities 7-12% (2016 est.)", but we would need a better source. Despite the refspamming that has since been cleaned up, the most authoritative sources on this give ranges that are not reflected in the lede. I'm not even going to bother looking for the source again because it didn't help at all the first time I posted it. Seraphim System ( talk ) 18:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I found it in Archive 27. The article itself says 18-25%, cited to a passing remark in Sandra MacKey in a book about Iraq. The book doesn't provide any citation for this number, so this is not a secondary source. This Cambride University Press Source gives the figure as 12-20% and is clearly cited to a well-known journal article. I'm replacing the current content with the CUP source. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 18:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The book by Sandra Mackey is a reliable source, you can't just remove it because you don't like it. Ditto the CIA factbook, which has been there for ages. Khirurg (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I haven't removed the World Factbook, I only replaced it with a secondary source. (See, for example, MelanieN's comment at RS/N - However, most of the time the question is moot, since there will certainly be secondary sources reporting the information, and the secondary sources can be used as references for the article.. I don't think I did anything wrong here.) It would help if you could articulate clearly what you are objecting to or what you want included instead of just posting attacks against other editors. The justification for removal was clearly stated on this talk page so I consider comments like you can't just remove it because you don't like it to be personal attacks/WP:ASPERSIONS. WP:JDL only applies for removals for which no justification is given. (I believe you were already issued a warning about personal attacks/civility by on this talk page.)    Seraphim System  ( talk ) 19:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My bad regarding the CIA factbook, I was under the impression you had removed it because of this edit . Anyway, there are numerous sources that give much higher figures for the Kurds, not just Mackey . The figure of 12% is based on the 1965 census and is heavily outdated because of the much higher Kurdish birthrate. Khirurg (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources all confirm that the numbers are speculation. That's why I previously argued it was too detailed for the lead. I still think it would be better if we just removed the completely speculative numbers from the lede and just said Kurds are the largest minority. Per the excellent Routledge source you provided There is considerable discrepancy in these figures because they are based on intuitive guesses. That is what the secondary source says about Izady's 25% figure. (The other estimate that same year is 18%) How are we supposed to use that in the LEDE? It can go in the body, but it's too detailed for the lede. Seraphim System ( talk ) 19:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Removal of the figure is a non-starter. Yes, there are widely varying estimates, but they all center around 20%. You can't include the 12% estimate in the LEDE, without including the higher estimates. Can't have it both ways. Either it's 12-25%, or 20%. Khirurg (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We definitely should have an estimate - a range of figures in the lede. The Turkish state's attempts to obfuscate and minimize the amount of Kurds does not make this any less significant - if at all the opposite is true. Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

discrepancy in the Religion section
Both the text and pie chart cite the same source but have different numbers. For example the text says 82% of the population follow Islam and 2% are Christians, but the pie chart has 98% Islam and 0.2% Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akahh (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

GAR
Any thoughts on putting this article up at GAR? I am not even watching it anymore because of the constant instability. Seraphim System ( talk ) 16:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree huge portions have no sources and instability and image formats all over the place and sandwich problems. Lots of one sentence paragraphs etc. ...--Moxy (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also recently added sentences like this As of 2017, the CPJ identified 81 jailed journalists in Turkey (including the editorial staff of Cumhuriyet, Turkey's oldest newspaper still in circulation), all directly held for their published work (ranking 1st in the world, more than in Iran, Eritrea or China);[164] while Freemuse identified 9 musicians imprisoned for their work (ranking 3rd after Russia and China), which fail criteria well-written/concise. Incorrect use of semicolons for example, (while being a conjunction). It really isn't possible to fix when any change on the article sparks major instability and requires hours of discussion to resolve. I don't really have the time or energy for that (sorry). Seraphim System ( talk ) 01:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've requested that the community review this article to see if GAR is appropriate. I agree with Moxy, I've counted at least 3 or 4 paragraphs without any sources cited, and the article suffers from routine vandalism/disruptive socking and instability. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 04:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I occasionally go through these GAR requests. Personally I take a practical approach to unstability, i.e if the article is unstable then it is impossible to assess it. This usually applies when an editor is overhauling or expanding an article. I have found very little mileage to be gained in delisting an article for instability as many articles get bouts of edit warring and we have policies and systems in place to deal with this. Sourcing is a concern though and a valid reason for delisting. However the GA criteria does not require everything to be sourced and the one source per paragraph standard is more DYK than GA. Direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons need cites (although I admit likely to be challenged is deliberately vague). GAR is fundamentally broken and if this is opened to the community you will either get no response or a lot of partisan response (I am pretty sure where this one will fall). There are very few GA knowledgeable editors (I count one other besides myself) who actually look through the reassessments. I am not convinced that taking this for a community reassessment is a great option, but there is nothing stopping someone from dong so. I generally recommend individual reassessments where I can, but I can see major issues there given the subject. Not much help I know, but that is the reality with GAR. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2018
add this Template:Middle East to the bottom of article because turkey is a middle eastern nation. 188.158.84.206 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Motto is false
Republic of Turkey does not have an official motto. But here is something widely accepted by people: Yurtta barış, Dünya'da barış (peace at home, peace on the world) same on Turkish Wikipedia. Egemenlik kayıtsız şartsız milletindir, is just an article from the constitution. And it is motto of the TBMM (parliament) just like "adalet mülkün temelidir" is for independent courts. Besides citation of "egemenlik kayıtsız... " here is just a page from ministry of culture explaining one of the many principes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entuluve (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2019
Bruhbasketball (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Turkey is in Europe
 * Turkey is a transcontinental country. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 01:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

first para detailing kurds as minority
Should we not include all minorities in the first para, or at least the major ones. just putting kurds is taking away the importance of zazas, bosniaks, cicarssians and other large minorities. this sentence, with any edits you respected editors would like to make, is a good start:

"Approximately four fifths of the country's citizens identify as Turks, while Kurds, Zazas, Circassians and Bosniaks make up most of the minoritiy population"

70-80% is such a vague thing to say. fractions make more sense. if only nationalistic tendencies did not get in the way of proper census'

GeorgePodros ( talk ) 13:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere

If no one objects to this then I see no reason why we do not put this sentence instead. Thank you kind editors. GeorgePodros ( talk ) 15:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere
 * There has been several discussions about this, see Talk:Turkey/Archive 28 for the last one. The consensus is to mention the Kurds in the lede (since they are by far the largest ethnic minority, many times as many as any of the others), but not to mention any others (since that would be to put undue weight to the minorities). To change this, you would need to start a formal discussion through WP:RfC or similar, but I would not recommend it, since the consensus is very clear and also very recent. --T*U (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not believe I need to start a formal discussion. This is a requested change. This current sentence is largely the product of pro kurdish elements. You know it very well. I however believe in equal representation. How about we mention the kurds role in the armenian genocide which partially resulted in the large kurdish minority the Turkish State has today? Oh no that would be too much for some wouldnt it. You are a respected editor. There are minorities with populations larger than many European countries. And many countries have there minoritie-s listed in the lede. Have a look at afghanistan, and then look at almost ALL other countries, as they have little to no mention of any minorities in the lede. Why France actually mentions that one group of people inhabit the country, ignoring the large minorities that are not even the immigrant populations from Africa but peoples who have lived in present day France for centuries. No, no, this is just some attempt to dazzle a bit of kurdishness onto this page, which I am not against, but I want all major minorities like Zazas, bosniaks and Circassians to have a mention too, or whoever is stopping me is a hypocrite. GeorgePodros ( talk ) 18:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere
 * The sheer size of the Kurdiah minority and geopolitical significance merit special attention. And Tu-nor pointed out we recently discussed this.Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with the proposed sentence. Rather more informative.  Disagree that the Kurd minority "deserves" any "special attention."  The only reason the Kurds are particularly prominent today is an accident of history.  Did not largely emigrate, like the Jews, did not largely get evicted, like the Greeks, did not largely get pogrommed, like the Armenians. So, the proposed para is much more encyclopaedic. XavierItzm (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No need to metion any group in the lead. And despite what was mentioned above the norm is not to list ethnicities in the lead .This is a country article not a ethnic linguistic article. Hopefully a GA reassessment will catch this and all the other problems. This poor article has been pillaged over the last few years. --Moxy (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with both Xavier and Moxy. Both extremely valid points. This whole Kurdish inclusion in the lede thing is an element of pro Kurdishness and perhaps Kurdish nationalism. We don’t have to mention any ethnic groups in the lede or we can mention all major ones and not give special attention to a group that is only so far strecthed in eastern Anatolia due to theirassistamcd in genocides. Either we remove it all or mention all major minorities please. Moxy is right, this article has beeen ruined because of political and nationalistic elements. So has Turkey over the last few decades. GeorgePodros ( talk ) 08:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere

For the record, I disagree. The Kurdish minority (at least 12 percent per sources, perhaps much more per other sources) is by far larger than all other minorities combined, so it is not an "all or none"-situation. My main point, however, is still this: This was discussed as late as in September–October 2018 with a clear consensus to move the details of the long list of minorities from the lede to the "Demographics" section and to keep a short mention of the Kurds in the lede. Any change to that will have to be made through a WP:RfC or similar. --T*U (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How would we proceed with a WP:RfC or something similar, what is similar? Thank you. I feel that we must take action on this because it does not seem right when most other countries dont have ethnic groups mentioned, and then the damned conflicts with Turks and Kurds? what is that in the lede for? Pointless, how about I move that to the history section? Its just an attempt to Kurdify the page. I dont care for this ethnic nationalism in this page.  GeorgePodros  ( talk ) 12:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere
 * I will start a GA reassessment next weekend and we can all go over the article as a group and trim the fluff. I see the last few RfC were dominated by a banned user..best get new input.--Moxy (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You will find everything about how to start a "Request for comments" described here. By "similar", I meant that it might be possible to start the discussion by giving notification to all editors that participated in the earlier discussions, but that will probably be more complicated, and the result might be challenged as less binding. If you want to discuss both the mention of minorities and the mention of the Turkish–Kurdish conflict, it should be done in two different discussions, since it is quite possible that some will support one, but not the other. Whether you should start the two discussions a the same time or take one at the time, is up to you.
 * A word of advice: Both these questions were discussed recently with rather clear outcome, so some people may resent that you start the same discussions again so soon. Please take time to read the discussions at Talk:Turkey/Archive 28 before you start new discussions. Unless you come up with any new arguments, it will probably be a waste of time.
 * Just FYI. The editor in question is not banned, but has been blocked by their own request. --T*U (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand. Well I would like to start with the conflict. This type of thing isnt mentioned in other country pages. one conflict with one terror org? this is clearly something that belongs to the history section. It seems unclear why we had to put this now after a decade and a half in the lede. It is so obvious that some pro kurdish elements want this in the most read part of the page. we dont need to mention any turkist or pro kurdish nationalistic things here. turkey is a country, a republic in eurasia, it has big cities like istanbul and ankara and izmir, it was once an empire and now a republic, it has a large economy, its developing, etc etc... like any other country. whats up with these kurdish and turkish things? you know very well there are people who just want to dazzle the page up with kurdish nationalistic things. GeorgePodros  ( talk ) 16:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere
 * It is not true to say that no other country article has information such as a civil conflict included in the lede. Just checking three countries with relatively recent conflicts which have been termed as terrorist conflicts: Tamil Tigers and Sri Lanka - in the lede; 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland - not in lede of UK but in lede of constituent country of UK, namely Northern Ireland; ETA and Spain - not in the lede. This seems to indicate that such information is included based on editors consensus rather than the statement GeorgePodros  ( talk ) is making. Robynthehode (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So Spain does not have such things in the lede you say. N. Ireland is a constituent country, similar to how the conflict in turkey is located in the constituencies of the southeast, so why mention them in this page, and Sri Lankan history as a republic is so small and insignificant that this conflict is more worthy of mention, and is not an element of some pro Kurdish and anti Turkish editor. This page has been ruined by some Turkist and many many pro Kurdish and possibly pro pkk editors and you know it, we all do. Turkey has much more important things to mention in the lede than a regional conflict with a Terror org. It’s so obvious that the people who put it here just want to Kurdify the page, they’re hypocrites because they don’t want to mention any other minorities because “they don’t deserve special mention”... disgraceful and hypocritical, since the whole conflict by the Kurds is in the name of equal rights. Where’s the equal mention here? Pfff.  GeorgePodros  ( talk ) 21:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere
 * GeorgePodros ( talk ) You seem to have misunderstood my previous post. I was countering your blanket assertion that no other country articles have mention of conflicts such as these mentioned in the lede in the Turkey article. My brief checking based on knowledge of conflicts led me to looking at Spain, Northern Ireland (UK) and Sri Lanka. What I described above is the case for these article's ledes. I included all these in my comment because a comparative analysis is required here to be able to assess your blanket assertion. Your assertion does not hold up. Moreover your dismissal of Sri Lanka as a country and its 30 year civil war to try to serve your own point of view is both biased and underhand. The conflict in Sri Lanka was reported extensively in international media. Likewise the conflict in Turkey re the Kurds. I made my post to inform myself (because I like check blanket assertions for veracity) of the situation of inclusion of conflicts or otherwise in ledes NOT to take a side in this discussion. My brief assessment shows your assertion to be incorrect. If it had been correct your desire to exclude information about the Kurdish conflict from the lede may have held more purchase. But as the other editors have said above this had been discussed very recently. I would suggest letting it be for a while and come back with better reasoned arguments. Robynthehode (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m not wrong, the Turkish Republic is a state with a century of history and before that six centuries of imperial history. Sri Lanka was called Ceylon and was a colony not half a century or so ago. It has a smaller history and this is reflected by the size of the lede in certain countries. Not all countries are equal. Not all histories are equal. This conflict in Sri Lanka is a nationwide conflict, it has engulfed the state. The country has little to no history, some relations with Southeast Asia, some economic information, some demographics and not much else. So don’t pull the equality card on me. Turkey has this conflict centred in the southeast, turkey has a problem with one minority. It belongs in the history section. Spain doesn’t have anything of the sort in the lede according to you, and Northern Ireland is a constituency just like van or hakkari so put it there not here. Don’t be a hypocrite. It’s just obvious that people want to spout out nationalism on the lede, some pro Kurdish and possibly pkk lovers fighting’s with a couple turkist nationalists. The page is being ruined by the lot of you. This dumb conflict had no place in the lede for a decade an now you all decide to put it here? Ha. Then you all say Kurds have “special mention”, disgraceful, this is bias. I don’t need a consensus to add all major minorities to that sentence, even Afghanistan mentions minorities and not the one special darling minority everyone supports. I’m sick of this hypocrisy and pro Kurdishness. GeorgePodros  ( talk ) 10:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere
 * GeorgePodros ( talk ) You are wrong about your assertion that no other articles have mention of conflicts in the lede. That is just a fact. Read your own statement. History etc doesn't matter in this case related to your assertion. You clearly do not understand the reason for my comparative examination of this issue. I was partially on your side before you decided to rant at me and called me a hypocrite. I wanted to fairly examine the issue and help improve the article. I won't be taking this discussion further and the lede should stay as it is until consensus of editors decides otherwise.Robynthehode (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Official name only in Turkish or also in regional languages?
Should we only use Turkish for the infobox and lead, or also include regional languages such as Kurdish? I have started a discussion here as it would be good to be consistent. If we use Hebrew and Arabic for Israel, it would make sense to include Kurdish here (or to decide to only go for the official language). To avoid splitting the discussion, I suggest discussing at the discussion under the link above. Jeppiz (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Turkish only: It is not possible to make any "general rule" about this, since the situation is different from country to country, it is not a question of black or white. It is ruled by existing guidelines and local consensus. In this article, me thinks No! --T*U (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Establishment section in the infobox
Something has caught my attention. Every other country with Turkish imperial traces or history has some kind of mention in the infobox section. Hungary simply mentions the Battle of Mohacs while Albania says it gained independence from the Ottoman State. Why does Turkey not have any mention of Ottoman History?It just says establishment then war of independence. Am I the only one confused by this? GeorgePodros ( talk ) 18:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere
 * This has been discussed several times earlier, but has usually drowned in other discussions, so it has never been brought to a conclusion. See Talk:Turkey/Archive 26 for some of the latest discussions. Like then, I am still not negative to adding "Ottoman Empire 1299" or similar to the "Establishment" section of the infobox under certain conditions. However, in order to get sufficient input and a clear consensus to such a discussion, I think it needs to be formalized through a WP:RfC. --T*U (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand where you’re coming from but you should see some of these countries on Wikipedia, they seem to make it look like some countries have existed for centuries of thousands of years with their establishment sections in the info box. Take some of the former Turkish dominions, they may not even mention Turkish conquest, and other countries seem to have no mention of any invasion or their defenuct status over the centuries, I’m just saying let’s do what France or Spain has in the info box, I mean I’m not asking to put Seljuk or any other history, because that’s not continuous, and even though many countries have establishment sections which make non conintious history look continuous, I just want it to be continuous. So we could do ottoman principality established 1299, and then maybe whenever turkey became the Ottoman Empire, perhaps 1453, then of course allied occupation of parts of anatolia, war of independence and declaration of republic. Maybe just ottoman state 1299, and the same info in the info box as we have now. Do we need to go through the process you mentioned sir? Most if not all countries have non continuous history as if it was continuous, I just want to say turkey was here before 1923, not some crazy thing like Seljuk and maybe even mention manzikert lol. Just ottoman state, which has continued throughout till 1923 then turkey became a republic. GeorgePodros  ( talk ) 22:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019
Inaccurate statement under Tourism section: "This number however declined to around 36 million in 2015, deteriorated to around 25 million in 2016[305][306] and still further in 2017"

Tourism saw a drop in 2015 and 2016, but started recovering in 2017 and continues to recover.

Refer to page 4 (Visitors) and 12 (Revenue) on this Turkish source http://yigm.kulturturizm.gov.tr/Eklenti/62462,2018turizmgenelistatistiklerpdf.pdf?0

Refer to latest report "Number of ArrivinDeparting Foreigners and Citizens,January 2019" found in this English source link http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN-153018/number-of-arriving-departing-visitors-foreigners-and-ci-.html

Best, Tangowhisky Tangowhisky2 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for links - I changed it slightly different to your request as I thought you could put the individual years in the main article if you want as that seems a bit too detailed for this article. But as you have a user-id and can edit this talk page you probably will have access to change this article yourself after you have made a few other edits I guess.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I've closed the edit request as a change has been implemented to the article. I do agree that a year-by-year breakdown of tourism numbers is probably best suited to the Tourism in Turkey article, as opposed to this one. NiciVampireHeart 22:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 2013 Taksim Gezi Park protests (15th June).jpg

Too Many Photos, too many details?
I do not know why there needs to be a photo for Camlica Mosque or Armenian Genocide (which is unnecessarily graphic for the scope of this article). I do not think architecture part needs 4 photos for instance, as there is already a page for Turkish architecture.

Another thing is on the country box there are too many details that is not present at other countries' pages, for instance the spoken languages part seems unnecessary and distracting. Or at the very least it can simply list the three most common languages... It is misleading to list languages that are spoken by a couple thousand, if this was the standard for the article on USA we would have to list 100s of languages.

Overall someone really needs to tidy up this article. And also there really needs to be clear-cut standards about these country boxes, in every country there are different sections, some lists race, some lists ethnicity, some lists nothing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:8300:997:6CCA:8913:524F:66F7 (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Turkey De Facto emblem
I had previously made an edit that was undone. I added the emblem although it is not official for all intents and purposes it acts as one. Please let me know if you disagree and why. Flags200 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with it to be honest, it's the emblem used on the Turkish passport. Redman19 (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The current consensus is not to mention the non-official emblem of Turkey, see Talk:Turkey/Archive 24. If you want to add the emblem to the article, you will need to create a new consensus, preferably through a new Request for comments. --T*U (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Establishment section in the infobox
With this edit, has added several dates to the "Establishment" list, dates not relating to the Republic of Turkey, but to the Ottoman Empire and even before. This has been discussed several times earlier, but has usually drowned in other discussions, so it has never been brought to a conclusion. See Talk:Turkey/Archive 26 for some of the latest discussions. I am not negative to adding "Ottoman Empire 1299" or similar to the section under certain conditions. However, in order to get sufficient input and a clear consensus, I think it needs to be formalized through a WP:RfC. --T*U (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

In October 2019, Turkey invaded the Kurdish-controlled regions of Syria.
This sentence is the last sentence of the Turkey section. It is dubious because the invasion did not begin in 2019, but in 2016 and in 2018, it was against ISIS (mainly Arab) and SDF (Kurdish and Arab). Though the sentence says Turkey invaded in 2019, skipping the past 3 years. And says Kurdish Controlled regions, which is false and the citation given of it is a failed verification. There ought to be some changes into how this sentence is written. The 2019 operation was not aimed at the Kurds neither since SDF claims it is an Arab and Kurd 50-50 armed group, the area invaded on the other hand is Arab majority. KasimMejia (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Armenian Genocide image
, . What are your arguments for inclusion of this image per your reverts. It sounds perfectly logical per, that it shouldn't be included since other countries much larger genocides, Germany Holocoast 6 million, is not included. Neither are British genocides, such as Irish Famine 2 million or those in India 100 million or Native Americans millions. Discuss. KasimMejia (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The standard response can be found at WP:OTHERCONTENT. William Avery (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna go with WP:IGNORE in response to this. There may be a rule about WP:OTHERCONTENT yet there is a rule called WP:NPOV, the rules are cancelling out each other meaning they should be ignored. KasimMejia (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s not how it works. And if you’ve read NPOV, I suggest you re-read it. Most of the policy has to do with neutral editing in the sense that we support what receives substantial coverage and representation in reliable sources, not about watering down the text. It’s to protect articles from an undue POV and fringe viewpoints. My main concern is that this seems like an attempt at censorship. The fact you changed “killed” (as supported by the source) to “died” is what really raised alarm bells. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument anywhere on Wikipedia. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no point of that picture. No country page has "look at this sad picture of a person dying" photo. China doesn't, Germany doesn't, UK doesn't, Russia doesn't and why should Turkey have it? If you want to add Armenian genocide part? Go ahead even though I'm not in favor of that either. Considering the person who added the picture and the content is a greek/hellenized anatolian, I don't think he had good intentions concerned only about contributing to the page.Buhedyar (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * First, please stop edit-warring. Secondly, please refrain from making accusations toward other editors based on perceived ethnic allegiances. This warrants discussion, not repeated reverts. For the record, other country articles have pictures related to unsavory parts of their past, such as Nazism and the Holocaust in Germany. Whether another picture is more suitable is certainly a topic for discussion. So far, the arguments made are not supported by any editing policy. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you show me where in Germany's article there is a photograph of genocided Jews? The only reason why this photo has been added to this article is to create an emotional response for readers. Also the use of "Turkish State" in the caption is not showing the facts at all. It was orchestrated by Young Turks, an Ottoman government after all. --Gogolplex (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. KasimMejia (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice ad hominem there. William Avery (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Contentious image must be removed to be consistent with other countries' articles. Khestwol (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no agreement that articles have to be consistent in that way. And in any case, the answer might be to add content to other articles, rather than removing it from this one, might it not? William Avery (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If we start to add genocide/deportation pictures to every country's page, i'm especially thinking about Westerners, It will just create bloated talk pages. As I mentioned, the only purpose that the picture serves is to rile people up. And the picture isn't even too credible anyway (even if it is, not related to the discussion). And I don't think we should add every single very very sad very tragic not staged pictures to every country's wiki page, rather, create wiki pages for their atrocities or add the pictures to the existing ones Buhedyar (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Principle of least surprise is a good argument. The pictures on Human are kept pretty low key. William Avery (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The comparisons with Germany or the UK overlook the fact that Germany has apologized repeatedly for the Holocaust and tried to make amends. The UK also recognizes its actions. In contrast, there is an almost complete genocide denial by official Turkey, making the inclusion all the more relevant. Yes, pointing out atrocities is more relevant when the perpetrators actively try to deny them than when they openly admit and apologize for them. Jeppiz (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This smacks of "righting great wrongs". Additionally, facts are covered in the text, but the picture is too emotive. William Avery (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with the removal, it looks 100% fake.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That wasn’t part of the original contention editors expressed over the photograph. As far as I know, it’s part of a series of documentary prints housed in the Library of Congress. I don’t think anyone has ever denied their veracity. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The arguments (if we can call them that) against inclusion of the pics boil down to: WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and should be ignored. The Armenian Genocide is a major event in Turkish history, and is nowadays very frequently mentioned in the news with regard to Turkey, especially in light of the recent ethnic cleansing campaigns by Turkey in northern Syria (against Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians, and others). Khirurg (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Khirurg. I think you about summed it up. There’s no valid reason for the removal of a photograph about the Armenian Genocide based in policy, though as I said (and Jeppiz also stated), we could certainly choose a different photograph(s). It clearly needs to be illustrated per coverage in the top-level article. I also agree with Jeppiz that this photograph is likely overly emotive. While I’d prefer some photographic diversity on the project, pictures of one of the forced marches are fairly closer to that objective, as opposed to people mourning over the corpse of a dead child. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that pictures which depict atrocities and/or the results of those atrocities can be ascribed human psychological reactions. A picture is inherently a mechanical reproduction of a fact. Humans may react emotively to this reproduction, but this is neither here nor there. The depiction of the historical fact is important.  The mother crying over the body of a dead child captures the horror of the Armenian Genocide very well. A picture depicting a march tends to neutralise the death toll since I don't think there are dead victims depicted in such a picture. This neutralisation of such a central factor in the Genocide, is not NPOV. If this picture has to be replaced by another, it should be a picture such as Morgenthau's.  Dr.   K.  03:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Which genocide did the UK recognize. Furthermore, does the recognition of a genocide make it OK to do so? Say lets kill millions of people and say we are sorry! It should be OK. ? Yet Turkey's disputed genocide, which killed 1.5m people is worse than those which killed 100 of millions because Turkey refuses to deny it? And lets place a picture cause why not? West are the good guys, they apologized for their genocide we should not write a word about their atrocities! The bad easterners should be portrayed worse even though their alleged crimes is 1 in 100th in scale. KasimMejia (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Just a note, User:Buhedyar has been blocked at ANI for persistent disruptive editing. They’ve threatened to sock as well, so keep an eye open. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Fertility map
This has got to be the most absurd definition of WP:SYNTH I have ever encountered. The map is sourced to a single source; there is no SYNTH whatsoever. The "juxtaposition" is merely coincidental because of the short section length. Are we allowed only one map per section with this logic? Khirurg (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Coming here following the discussion at the ANI. I double-checked the map, it is just one source. Now regarding the "juxtaposition" thing, there is no problem, from what I can tell. I have seen hundred articles with sections containing more than one map and this was never a problem before. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 16:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You do not try to understand. I wonder if you ever checked the source itself. The source does not mention anything about ethnicities, it is your own research. Beshogur (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you actually checked, you would see that the caption has been modified and any mention of ethnicity has been removed. Khirurg (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine, why did you revert my edits at the beginning where I asked citations for it? Edit warring? Beshogur (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is the fertility map needed? It is not even mentioned in the text. AIRcorn (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The majority of these maps have been removed from most country articles. Firstly not sourced or part of prosr and secondly not a major stat....something for demo article's. We had a big chat about this but I forget where but they were removed all over.-- Moxy 🍁 22:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is the map needed? Because it is informative, and highly so. The purpose of the article is to inform readers after all. I find such maps very useful. Regional variations in fertility are potentially very important and far more informative than just an average for the whole country. And that information is much better conveyed in a map than in text form. In this case, a picture is definitely worth a thousand words. Khirurg (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Status of membership of the F-35 JSF program
Regarding:


 * "Turkey is one of nine partner states in the F-35 JSF program"

Is that still the case? What about the change in July 2019 ("until its removal from the program in July 2019")?

--Mortense (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Including of accusations
What's the point of putting an unproven accusation to this article? Also why is literally one person's comment "bordering on genocide" so important. Too much POV pushing. user:Symmachus Auxiliarus, can you explain. About what "general consensus for inclusion" are you talking about? Beshogur (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not "unproven", it's reliably sourced. Anything else besides WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? Khirurg (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Wait for consensus to include. If there is no consensus there is no inclusion. There is a NPOV and UNDUE problem here . It is you who just dont like that fact.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, the guy who called the operation "genocide" is a US politician and yet we say "the offensive has been described as "bordering on genocide"" and without attribution because if it is attributed it would like like "Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn said that the offensive is bordering on genocide" something that would obviously look like POV and UNDUE--SharabSalam (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's certainly notable to be included. Also, why did you remove the other stuff about white phosphorus and other war crimes? There is an amnesty international report about ? "No consensus" is not an argument, it's WP:STONEWALL. Khirurg (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , A U.S random politician comment is WP:UNDUE especially without attributing. . user:Symmachus Auxiliarus said there is consensus to include I said there isnt any consensus and inclusionists should seek consensus.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing UNDUE here, just some WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behaviors. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Just like calling somone's edit vandalism without sufficient evidence is personal attack. Calling them JUSTDONTLIKEIT is also personal attack. Are you willing to bet that my intention was I just dont like it? Because I am considering taking this repeated accusation from you to the WP:ANI.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't see any personal attack here, feel free to go to ANI if you want. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , so you still stand with your accusation that my intention was I just dont like it?--SharabSalam (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, as this is how i interpret sourced content removal. As i said, if you really want to go to ANI, then feel free to proceed. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  22:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove For WP:Recentism if nothing else. This is an overview article of a country with a long history. Nothing from October 2019 has reached the required level of lasting impact to deserve being included in the history section. AIRcorn (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It probably is recentism for the history section, but definitely due in the Human Rights section. Khirurg (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:EVIDENCE. Beshogur (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS Khirurg (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a claim made by SDF. As I said, even it was cited by The Independent, does not make the CLAIM proven. Also please provide a reason why we would include "bordering on genocide" stuff? Beshogur (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

user:Timtempleton, can you please explain why an US senator's opinion about Turkey is so important on Turkey article? Beshogur (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm an ANI page stalker. The report you filed and this edit war piqued my interest. I saw that the concern was that the statement was too vague, so I made it more specific and fixed the quote. No horse in the race otherwise. To answer your question, when a US Senator voices his or her concerns, it makes news in the US, which is why it was reported.  Even more so, Senators are the ones who vote on sanctions and other retaliatory measures to stop bad behavior by foreign countries.  If a Senator thinks Turkey is behaving badly, and he or she acts on it, that could have a significant future negative impact on US Turkey relations. Unlike me, this isn't just some random person commenting. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  23:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Compromise
I have recently made a compromise edit to help resolve the issues aforementioned by various users.


 * I have removed Blumenthal's quote as it may be WP:UNDUE
 * Replaced the Blumenthal bit with the Amnesty International report.
 * Moved all the Human Rights abuses concerning Syria from History to the Human Rights section.

I hope this will address much of the issues brought forth by various users here. Let me know if this works for you all. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Much better. Looking at that section it still suffers very much from recentism. The last three paragraphs are; On 20 May 2016...., On 29 April 2017 and then this 2019 one. Wouldn't this all be better summarised here with the extra details at Human rights in Turkey. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me too. Thank you very much . Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  11:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You said There is nothing UNDUE here, just some WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behaviors.
 * Isnt it time for you to admit that you made a mistake by accusing me of having no argument? This isnt the first time you accuse me.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No. I agree with the compromise, not with what you said. By the way, you really need to grow up and cool down when you interact with other users. You already made a report, let's wait and see, no need to keep harrassing me with your irrelevant requests of apology. Drop it, i mean it. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  02:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , you have literally said There is 'nothing UNDUE here, just some WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behaviors. accusing me of having no argument and the above comment says that it removed Blumenthal's quote as it may be WP:UNDUE. I am not really asking for an apology, I am asking for an acknowledgment of your mistake. And this isnt the first time you drop this accusation against me on a talk page. If you still have not acknowledged your mistake then the issue is still there.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Build a bridge and get over it, bro. What the other guy said was the mildest "attack" one can see on the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Wrong. I don't care about how hard the attack was. The editor reverted me and went to the talk page saying that I have no argument and that I just dont like it, and still doesn't acknowledge his mistake. This is no less than calling a constructive edit, vandalism. And this is not the first time I had a "JUSTDONTLIKE" problem with this editor. --SharabSalam (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Enough. This is misusing the article talk page. You have an Incidents report open already. Please restrict comments about this to it. El_C 04:10, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , This article content is the problem we are discussing. This editor popped up reverting my edit and came to the talk page and said that I just don't like it assuming that I have no argument. If this isnt related then what is related?--SharabSalam (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you got me wrong, i said i agree with 's compromise since the war crimes claim, white phosphorus and random killings claims, etc ... are still in the article, they have just been moved to the right place, even if the word "genocide" from the US senator has been removed and this part reworded. Please read 's first comment here on the talk page, he wanted to remove any mention of war crimes and to be honest, my JUSTDONTLIKEIT comment was first directed toward him, not you, but you were the one who escalated the matter. On my end, i'm sorry to say so, but i have no time for these kind of childish games. This will be my last comment about this issue here. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  16:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)