Talk:Turkey/Archive 3

Existances of main pages to clarify and not a pretext for deletion.


That a main pages exist that cover a subject with more detail, doesn't justify a deletion. If we were to apply this logic, we would delete entire section in most articles in Wikipedia because there are always other articles which includes them. Fadix. 19:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Fadix. My contributions to Turkish geography and the ethnic origins of modern Turks have been deleted altogether by User:Tommiks without any suggestion for improving the text or any reason why every single word was eradicated. In his talk page, I suggested that he himself should contribute valuable facts and perspectives instead of just deleting, but User:Tommiks then proceded to call my contributions "vandalism" and said that I "piss him off". --Big Adamsky 00:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

203.177.117.171 02:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC) hi i am just here... was just browsing thru Turkey site til i got here.... Just need help as to how i can get to Turkey... hope somebody cdan help me... I am a Filipina and really wants to go to Turkey to personally see the beauty of it... thanks. --esk

Komara Keran
Can someone explain what this is? Google gives exactly one hit to "komara keran" and that's this page. Thanks. --70.247.196.108 10:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This appears to be scribbling in Kurdish which appeared transiently on the page. Search engines examine Web pages on a schedule, and don't always have the latest version.  In this case, Google's crawler happened upon a version that wasn't live for very long. --Macrakis 18:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Images of Turkey
Hey guys, I have added some nice photos of Turkey and hope to everyone like them much. I'm requesting that please someone don't remove them and upload the oldest ones. Some people are want that Turkey seem like old and ugly country to everyone by images. Please be understanding! Thanks


 * Sorry but i've reverted it. The images in the city section should represent the whole city. People walking in a street doesnt show istanbul, or a train doesnt show Antalya if you know what I mean. Also there were just too many images in the gallery section, should be no more than 16 at the most. Thanks, --A.Garnet 16:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition of minority.
No one should take this personal. this is not about opening wars, etc. It is just about the facts. This is not my personal definition. Even I might NOT agree with the definition, but I Just trying to keep up with the facts. There is a legal definition of minority in Turkey. It is very detailed, very consize and it has been accepted internationally since the end of WWI. --tommiks 18:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If one believes they are minority, or do have another significant view, the democratic ways are open. Both in wikipedia and in Turkey. There is a Constitutional court that can be applied with the proof of arguments. In the wikipedia, no one is preventing anyone to develop a page that contradicts the legal definition of what is Turkish what is Turkic or what so ever. I would like to see an effort to develop such a page. However, this big discussion should not be covered on the main page. That falls into respecting others rights. --tommiks 18:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a note: One can feel they are not represented in the system. They might feel as a minor group in the Total. That is understantable, but the word minority covers other issues. For every problem, we work within the legal system and work that issue out. We do not delete things in a civil system, and than cry faul when someone reverts them back. Until the legal definition changes. --tommiks 18:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The position of tommiks is utterly unacceptable: the fact that the Turkish republic or the Greek republic do not recognize the existence of other minorities than the few ones included in the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 doesn't mean in anyway that no other minorities, as defined by international standards, do exist in both countries, like Kurds, Macedonians, Albanians and so many others. A limitation of the concept to the official definition in this article and the ones about Demographics of Turkey or Demographics of Greece would make wikipedia a mere appendix of the booklets distributed by Greek or Turkish embassies. Some contributors obviously would like it, as the numerous ill-advised and ill-meaning modifications on some related pages prove, but it would make wikipedia useless and without any interest for its users who, in the end, are those for the benefit of whom we are trying to write good articles and make them better if we can. Not the Deep Turkish State nor its Greek equivalent (Christodoulos & co.). --Pylambert 22:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * User Pylambert and tommiks at heart seem to be saying the same things. I also believe the value of an encylopedia is in it's collection of verified information, not simply personal views. However, tommiks wants to have a seperate page to discuss these issues. It seems there is a lot of info at the demographics of Turkey link. The idea behind a seperate page seems to work well, and generates a special discussion page. Why argue?--64.185.32.5 00:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

i'm not sure that can i write here my thoughts. in nationality part there must be Kurds. also in language part, there must be Kurmanci.


 * Sorry, I don't know who you are but Kurds are minority in Turkey. Of course people that live in the land of Turks must and only be called as Turkish. There is Kurdish in language part and it is enough. We are accepting the minority thing, don't expect more from us. If we leave you on your own, you would want the whole country! Deliogul 11:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Propaganda
On the Armenian page for Saint Mesrop Mashtots, it is listed that he was the inventor of the historic Albanian or old Azerbaijani alphabet. Since when was Mashtots the inventor of this alphabet? On the same page, it says that Mashtots was the inventor of the Ethipian alphabet too, which is hilarious.


 * In any case, there is no reason to refer to other pages which have no relation to Turkey. Your comments about the Armenian saint should be written in his page. Petros The Hellene 11:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

--A note to Armenians: Turks have suffered enough by you.....you lie and say there was a genocide against you when in fact THERE WAS A TURKISH GENOCIDE COMMITED BY ARMENIANS!!! TURKS DEFENDED THEMSELVES SINCE YOU ATTACKED THEM WITHIN THEIR OWN BORDERS!! The Turkish government instead of killing you deported you to other countries - TO STOP YOU FROM KILLING TURKS!! Any other government system in the world would not have bothered with deporting you, they would have killed all of you!!! So please have some shame and remember the horrible atrocities that your people committed and let the Turks live in peace and STOP THE HATE PROPAGANDA AGAINT TURKS - it's pathetic!!!
 * Armenians are doing a wonderful job of LYING ABOUT HISTORY!! They clearly suffer from some kind of psychosis because they actually believe there was a genocide against them when in fact they started ethnically cleansing Turks from their own country!!! To anyone who has read about history from that area (unbiased that it is) it will clearly stand out that ARMENIANS STARTED KILLING DEFENSELESS TURKISH CIVILIANS AS PLANS TO EXPAND ITS BORDER............WHEN TURKS FINALLY DEFENDED THEMSELVES ALREADY NEARLY A MILLION OF THEM DIED BECAUSE ARMENIANS COWARDLY MASSACRED TURKISH PEOPLE FROM ANY VILLAGE/TOWN THAT THEY WERE NEAR!! Mass graves of Turks who were slaughtered by the Armenians are still being found all over eastern Turkey today!!!


 * My friend you don't have to be this much angry. Armenia is nothing for Turkey. West wants us to spend time on this kind of issues. Every Turk knows that his/her noble ancestors didn't do such a barbaric thing. Just remember what Ghazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha once said "The stone can be broken, bronze can be melted but Turkism will live forever". With respect, the noble member of the Kayı tribe, Deliogul 15:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you however, Turkish people are too noble and people take advantage of that. Turks should not have to endure the B.S from Armenians, Greeks, etc. All Turks should speak up against all the hate propaganda and lies that these sick and twisted people are spreading!

European country?
Only 3,5% of Turkey is in Europe, I cannot understand the categories: [category:Europe] [category:european countries] Turkey is the traditional enemy of Europe, since 1453 they invaded Europe, and greeks, serbians, and other nacionalities don't like turks. Istambul must be a greek city, not turk. Turkey cannot will be a part of the UE, because is a islamic and asiatic country, he don't like Europe and the people, he want to invade Europe, conquist Vienna.

Recognize Armenian Genocide first

Of course racists has right to write in wiki but I think not the childish ones like the writer of above paragraphs

Hey, --85.102.159.77 20:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC) (Cem)
 * Turkey is a secular country, but not an Islamic one.
 * Europe has an history full of wars. You can see many examples like Russians killed Germans, Germans killed Britians etc. Or even Romans has butchered many civilians. Or pagan baltic states are forced to convert into christianism etc.
 * Viena topic has expired one age ago. Well call this expired age as "Medival".
 * since 1453 they invaded Europe: We are living in 2005.
 * Turkey is the traditional enemy of Europe: Remember the Turkish-German ally during first world war.
 * he don't like Europe and the people: i didn't know that we don't like Europe?
 * Turkey cannot will be a part of the UE: So what?
 * and greeks, serbians, and other nacionalities don't like turks: Actually, here's a great symptaty to Greeks in Turkey. I believe that most of Greeks or Serbs don't hate from Turkey eigher.
 * asiatic country: If you'll have a look to history, you'll see that Bulgars, Fins or Hungarians has some asian minorities too. Turkey still carries its Asian identify. You can easly see the Arabian, Iran, Mongol, Chianian, Caufcasian affects in Turkish tradition. But for about 1000 years, we are living inside of European people. So we also carry Serbian, Greek, Hungarian, German etc. affects in Turkish culture too. The empire of Ottoman was a multicultural political alliance that several European countries are trying to apply it today.
 * Only 3,5% of Turkey is in Europe: And %100 of Cyprus is over Asia.

And:


 * The 3% or so of Turkey lying in Europe covers an area larger than Cyprus, Luxembourg and Malta combined.
 * Geographically speaking, the 3% might be a correct figure, although I haven't checked it yet. Considering the population, however, that figure quintuples to 15%. (kutukagan 19:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC))


 * Clearly Turkey is NOT a European country. 220.238.54.210 22:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Some replies to the above:


 * turkey is not as secular as turks want to believe and make the europeans believe to...the honjas are getting paid (their salaries) by the turkish state and the mosques in germany,austria and the other places with turkish immigrants are built with the financial support of the turkish government.furthermore,the theological school of Halki(which belongs to the Ecumenical Patriarchate)was illegally closed in the '60s and the ecumenical status of the orthodox patriarch is not recognised by the turkish state...all these does not seem attitude of a secular country to me...
 * Yes. belive or not, in govermental scholls in Turkey, it is forbidden to teach how to pray god in islamic way to children in detail. It means, student can be christ so he doesnt have to learn this. And you have all rigths that muslims have. And more important nobody cares in Turkey what is your religon unless you try to marry :). So what is the problem?? Yes there is financial support because most of the population are muslim, that is why. It is not forbidden to buy pork for example. In Antalya it is turistic place, people are selling pork because european tourist are buying pork. Everything depends on money if you can sell it, then it will exist. 98% of turkish population is muslim. But Turkey is secular. It shows turkish people's quality.
 * Most of what you said is just patriotic blurb. I am Turkish and I know for a fact that still K-12 students have to take Religion as an essential part of their curriculum. The politicans are very dim in respect of the diversity of people living in Turkey. A fact that is concealed by false statistics, which is that Turkey is 99% Muslim; but all Turks, if not provided with a proof to contradict, are registered as Muslims on their ID cards. It's all make believe that we have a practicing majority of Muslims in the nation. We don't. So, why does the government have this insane belief that every year millions of dollars have to flow under the account of Ministry of Religion (and what is that? A democratic state should be religion-free) and new mosques have to be built? Even considering that everyone is a Muslim and a regular mosque-goer, three hundred and fifty people have one mosque they can easily fit in(1/350). Do we need any more mosques? Absolutely not. Also, don't even talk about pork, the government has control of the state channel and it recently banned Winnie the Pooh because the Piglet character was "against the well-being and ethics" of a growing child. All that above shows that Turkey is not secular, it might to you. All that above also doesn't show Turkish people's quality, it shows us what a terrible government we have and what kind of horrible transition Turkey will go through if not put to a halt immediately. So, consider your options before going all patriot over Wikipedia. (Linus)


 * we(greeks)do not hate the turks(people),and i guess that the other balkan nations have share the same feelings with us...what we hate is the turkish government,and i have to admit that we do hate it a lot!but in no way we hate the people there...
 * it is a shame and ignorance of history to say that the ottoman empire was a (multicultural)alliance!the ottoman empire was a state that enslaved the nations of the balkans and forcibly tried(and managed it in some extent)to turkify and islamize their people.it is evident:if it was any kind of alliance,the balkan nations would not rebel!if they had such a good time under ottoman rule,they would still have it.
 * Rebel? No!.. The reasons of ottoman empire's end are (1) neigbors of ottoman empire had become big empires (2) ottoman empire was too large to manage, and some reasons I dont remember. Can you answer me so why Egypt didnt rebel for ottoman empire?? When I was in egypt they were saying many good things about the ottoman history over there. Can you say me where is the turkish population in greece?? Maybe you forced them to be greek. And tell me why your religion didnt change after 400 years with ottoman empire. You only paid tax to ottomans and you say lies about the history. Shame on you!

(even more personal point of view:the french do not forget easily,so turkey must be prepaired for more involvement of france in her domestic issues(kurds etc)...and noone can blame france for that!)
 * the past wars is definately not a matter that should prevent turkey from entering the EU.but do not say 'Turkish-German ally during first world war'...it was the first too bloody war,and moreover a war that the germans and turks lost...so,i guess turks should have regretted joing in that alliance,rather than using it to demonstrate their 'european identity'
 * turkey should indeed join the EU,when she will be ready(a free,democratic,respective to minorities,cooperative state) and when she will stop 'playing her ottoman game'(as we say here),which simply means to stop assuming herself as the protector of the muslims in europe:just remember their aid to the albanians,kosovars,bosnians(it would not be something that turkey should be blamed for,if it was not aid during wars in order to establish muslim states),and also erdogans involment in the insidents in france this autumn,when he said that the french government should be blamed,cause she banned the islamic chandors from public places!

Turkey is not an European country and I don't think they should be allowed into the EU. Most Greeks I know including myself don't like Turks as someone mentioned before. Kyriakos 06:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

To the Greek above me: Ottomans never enslaved Balkanian nations, it hurts me to still hear those Russian provocations after a century :( If the Balkan would ever TRIED to be Turkified, than there wouldn't exist any Bulgarians, Greeks and Serbs after 400 years of occupation
 * I don't know what's wrong with a country that pay for hodja's... All European countries pay for their monks too (and give no 1 eurocent to an hodja) By the way, there is still an Orthodox church in Turkey!
 * The Ottoman Empires WAS a multiculturale nation. There were very much Kurds and Armenians at an high position in politics. For a century, Farsi (Iranian languague) was the official languauge of the Ottoman government.
 * Germ-Turks alliance: Yes, it was a bloody war but No, the Turks didn't lose. Because the Germans lost the war, the Ottomans were also considered as a loser of war. And then we got the unacceptable threaty of Sevres... the reaction of the Turks was an action which regretted the English to make such a thing as the threaty of Sevres
 * Oh please, Turkey respect any rights of minorities (YES, we DO). What's your problem with Islam? And what about the rights of Macedonians and Pomaks?
 * BY THE WAY: Did you know the majority of Turkey don't want to get into EU ?
 * To the gentleman above me:
 * What's wrong with a country that "pay for Hodja's" is that it is not fit to laicism. Turkey is not secular, it is a laicist country. Laicist European countries (like France) separated church and state and guess what, they are actually practicing it! Check your facts before making such a gutty statement. Everybody knows that there still is a Orthodox church in Turkey but the government is using propaganda to alienate Orthodox Christians and the school in Halki is yet to be opened.
 * Just lay off "Ottoman Empires", will you? It's been a hundred years, get over it. That empire as we know it collapsed into only the name of a furniture. If you want Turkey to become a modern country you have to forget about all these great deeds Ottomans were doing in the past and look into the future. I'm surprised you can even spell the Latin alphabet.
 * "Because the Germans lost the war, the Ottomans were also considered as a loser of war." OH MY GOD, did you actually copy your 7th Grade History book? That's the same sentence I read when I was 13. But then I grew up and I read some more books. What you echo is just a huge lie to conceal the facts. Please do us all a favour and purchase some European history books, and hurry.
 * BY THE WAY: Did you know that the AKP government couldn't get the majority vote but still governs the country? Did you know that if well-represented, the democratic majority could override your square-headed party out of the parliament? Did you know that what the prime minister did was so easy, but because nobody bothered before, they suddenly made him into a hero? Do you know that millions of people like you don't question anything that's why we are stuck in this mess? Do you now?


 * You can't classify Turkey about this topic.Formerly Turkey is in Europe.If you want to say it is in Asia but you won't get anything. Okar

--- Hello, Be sure that secularism in Turkey is heavily protected both by the state systems and by the Turkish army, and regardless of what the elected government is, the thin line between fundamentalism and secularism can never be crossed. It is, and has been the greatest threat to Turkey, and the Turks have taken the necessary precautions. Turkey is not -and will never be- an Islamic country.
 * about Turkey's classification as a "european" country: it is only a political issue. classifying turkey as a middle eastern country would push turkey to the middle east (hence islam), forcing it to assume an islamic identity. (see Charles Cooley's "looking-glass self") an islamic nation at its eastern borders would be a great threat to western nations. i can also assure you that Turks do not want to be European, nor do they want to be Middle Eastern. They're "Turkish," no strings attached, proudly.
 * about Turkey's EU membership: EU was formed as an -only- economical union between the countries that shared a similar cultural background (the Roman background). in late 70s, things changed, the union saw that they needed a population of greater economical variety (namely more middle and low class) to be able to compete with United States, Soviet Union and soon-to-emerge China and India. They started an expansion program. (greece was the first to be admitted, at the same time a proposal was given to turkey (claiming that once in, greece would reject turkey's membership) but turkey's prime minister (Bulent Ecevit's first ministership) rejected the offer, claiming that turkey would not prefer to be a market for producers) then the soviet empire showed signs of collapse, and American green-line (islamicizing afghanistan, iran and turkey) politics to prevent soviet movement to the south showed its complete effects, creating a huge cultural difference between the european and turkish population. (see Necmettin Erbakan) the eu saw no need to pursue the turkey adventure. With the invasion of Iraq in the second gulf war by the united states and the situation of the EU budget and member countries' social security deficits, Turkey got lucky. Now Turkey is the neighbor of the US (well, US-controlled Iraq..), passageway and loading point of western markets for major pipelines from central and west asia, has an extremely young population (i live in philadelphia, i see what.. 10-30 people in my age bracket (20-30) in the city within a week. i went to istanbul a couple of months ago, whoa. saw that many in less than an hour), a rapidly growing economy (7%+), and most importantly, a huge and powerful land army that will be very good protection against the rising eastern islamic threat. Now the EU has no other option. Believe me, neither the Turks want EU, nor the Europeans want the Turks. however for both sides, it's the utilitarian way. the only way.
 * about Turkey being a secular country: Secularism means that the government separates its ruling duty from religious duty. This means that the state cannot use religious symbols, cannot force religion, cannot discourage religion, cannot make decisions in the name of religion, and most importantly, cannot have any religious difference in its affairs both in action and in constitution. however, even the most secular government has the duty of providing some sort of funding for religious services, as it is a need of the state's citizens. and since 99 percent of the Turkish population is muslim, the turkish government funds islamic institutions far more than those of other religions that it recognizes (and all major religions are recognized). The tricky part with turkey, is that it is coming from the ottoman empire, which had religion embedded in its roots. you cannot isolate a nation that lived in such a religious community in a heartbeat. to tackle this issue, the turkish government has the "diyanet isleri baskanligi, ( a weird translation by me would be "the presidency of religious matters") which raises religious personnel for all religious institutes of islam within the country. mind here that the government trains these people as secular people who promote modern islam, to make sure that no outside force can impose wrong ideals to muslims in order to take the country back to fundamentalism. the institution is merely a protection against fundamental islam, rather than a promoter. for the hoja issue in europe, i can say this: turkish people who immigrated to europe between 60s and 80s were transferred directly from their villages. these people had not seen a city before they saw frankfurt, or vienna.. all their cultural ties were lost, and they had no aid in adaptation. therefore their only choice was to cling onto their islamic roots. hence the turkish people you see in europe, (most of them, especially those who have been there for more than two generations) are far more religious, and fundamentally so, than those in Turkey. The Turkish government did not employ any religious workers in these countries before, and they saw these bad effects in the last decade. So now they have just started to actually employ religious workers to undermine this fundamentalism.
 * for Ecumenical Patriarchate, well, that's a tricky one.. I have personally spoken, twice, to the current Patriarch Bartholomeov, and I believe that I have a firm grasp of the subject. The Turkish government protects him, the Turkish government funds him, and he has Turkish citizenship. There's your support. The heybeliada school that was closed back in the day for political reasons with Greece will be reopened soon, as seen from recent events. (however it is a bargaining tool in politics, so it will take time) Turkey cannot recognize an ecumenical patriarchate, particularly because Turkey is the country that abolished the caliphate. It cannot, and will not allow any religious leadership to rise to power within its own borders. Again, please bear in mind that Turkey is a country formed after a multi-religious empire, and such a history brings certain problems regarding religion.  To ensure religious freedom, Turkey must have secularism and religious equality, and by recognizing the patriarchate after abolishing the caliphate, Turkey will undermine its aims of freedom. (for more information on what i mean by freedom, please see "Development as Freedom" by Amartya Sen)
 * about the structure and formation of the Ottoman Empire: please see "The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire" by Alan Palmer, "Crescent and Star" by Stephan Kinzer, and most importantly, "The History of the Present State of the Ottoman Empire.." by Paul Ricaut (secretary of the british ambassador to the sublime porte) written in 1682. (original copy present in the rare books library of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA, USA.) I chose these three books because they are written by americans and europeans, and they use western sources. They will all tell you the same thing: Ottoman Empire was an "empire," that there was great religious and nationalistic freedom compared to any contemporary state, and that it did not force islam but encouraged it. also, please keep in mind that no ottoman sultan used the title "caliph" until the end of the 19th century (although they had acquired it in 1517), and none of them ever went to mecca for haj.
 * about the general discussion on the article: wikipedia is an online information tool that wishes to keep itself as objective as possible, for credibility reasons. this requires the authors to be able to separate political reasoning from ethical reasoning. countries are not run with emotions, ethics or wishes, they are run on utility, logic, and long-term benefit calculations. i see it as a waste of time to define why Turkey should be or not be in the EU, or whether Ottoman Empire was a tyrannical state or not. Everybody has different reasons for what they believe in, they are right to do so, and "have" the right to do so. Leave the emotions aside, focus on what matters the most, "benefit." We're all better when we're with each other, especially in times like these, when international cooperation is crucial in security and development.
 * with regards, 68.174.95.182 07:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

hi--some quick facts
 * Geographically, Turkey is in both Asia and Europe
 * Just because Turkey is in the Middle East doesn't make it an Islamic country. Is Isreal Muslim?
 * Turkish is an Altaic language--Asian--same as Mongolian and Japanese
 * Historically, Turks are Asian (see Turkish people)60.36.160.88 11:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

--Turkey is geographically in Asia AND Europe. You people have to be blind to not recognize that. And so what if Turkey has a big Islamic identity? Heck, if Turkey was a terrorist state, no matter how evil it had been in the past, it would still be part of Europe becuase IT IS IN Europe. It doesn't matter what the country is like, as long as it is geographically located in that continent. Otherwise it is like saying the United States is not part of North America because they killed Native Americans and came from Europe, or that Israel is not part of the Middle East because it is the only country there with majority Jewish population. The anti-ethnic sentiment that some display here amazes me. 128.163.224.198 12:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus
Seems like this article should mention Turkey's (fill in NPOV verb that won't piss anyone off) of Cyprus and occupation of whatever percent. Someone recently added a like about the babaric invasion; I took out 'barbaric', changed it to occupied, but someone deleted it all and said take my issues here. I really don't support Turkey, Cyprus, or Greece, here but the history of Turkey should mention this event, no?--Chinawhitecotton 03:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone explain to me how Turkey is an enemy of europe?????

Would you like to explain about the real barbarism? I mean the Greek Enosis ethnic cleansing program, the Eoka terrorists, Turkey using its Legal Guaranteur Right to save the Turks of Cyprus from extermination? JohnStevens5


 * We don't have to find a reason to reconquer the lands of us! Cyprus is ours and thank your God, we didn't conquer all of the island. Actually, I know that if European Cypriots wouldn't murder our people that live on the island, there won't be an invasion because in Turkey chivarly is still alive. If you do a thing peacefully, Turkey will accept it and also gives help for it. Because of European Cypriots' barbaric behaviors, Turkey went and saved the island. Turkey is an understanding country, if you hit the Turk ten times, he would forgive you but in the eleventh time, he would kill you. This is the situation. With respect, the son of the nomadic warriors, Deliogul 11:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article has to be written keeping in mind WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. It isn't owned by Turks. -- Paddu 11:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The island is ours and we can finish the invasion of it at anytime we want. Cypriots, Englishs and Americans can't stop the Turkish Army. (Arş ileri,marş ileri,dönmez geri Türk'ün askeri!) With respect, Deliogul 15:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide (no link?)
Countries should have active links to the horrific topics for which they are criticized in academic circles, such as the death penality in America. How promenent a mention is obviously up for debate among the editors of that country's page, but the presence of one active link is "not negotiable." It is disgraceful to wikipedia to hit "What links here" on a page such as Human rights in the United States only to discover that United States does not link there. Here it was trivial to fix the lack of an active link, as the topic was already mentioned, but I thought I'd mention the principle anyway, as people here might be editing other country pages. JeffBurdges 19:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Death penality in America is real But armenian genocide is lie.. That is why we dont put link. Armenians killed many turks in disgusting way and you want us to put a link of armenian genocide ???


 * Even if this genocide thing is real, it has nothing to do with the Republic of Turkey. In the year 1915, the mentioned lands that your "imaginary" genocide took place was in control of the Ottoman Empire. Do we blame the Republic of Germany for the Nazi crimes... No. Actually they really killed people but gentle Turkish people didn't do such a sick thing. With respect, the son of the nomadic warriors, Deliogul 11:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There should be a link for the TURKISH GENOCIDE BY ARMENIANS. I cannot believe that Armenians have the nerve to declare a "so called genocide"! They keep on changing how many Armenians died in the "so called genocide". One day its half a million, then a million then who knows maybe they'll start declaring that Turks killed a hundred million! Who knows....I guess they keep changing the number to get more support from the global community. It looks better that way........Firstly, Armenians slaughtered defenseless Turkish citizens for a chance to take over, the Ottoman Empire was extremely weak so they thought they would take over Turkey easily but to their surprise the Turks defended themselves, but it was too late since nearly a MILLON TURKS DIED!!! Secondly, they call Turkey defending themselves genocide?? Talk about adding insult to injury............of course claiming genocide like what the Armenians are doing has its perks-the world feels sorry for them and politics react in their favor, if the Armenians say that they started killing Turkish civilians it wouldn't look so good for them and hence they wouldn't get world sympathy/support (and the benefits that go along with it) that they so desperately seek. What a shame!

Coat of Arms
As far as I know Turkey is among the few countries that do not have a coat of arms, therefore I request that the accuracy of the coat of arms in this article should be checked and the present picture be removed if neccesary Yes indeed Turkey has no national Coat of Arms. If this picture is removed it would be better.

Grammar
I see that in the Foreign Relations section of the page, the following comment occurs:

Some of these conflicts extents to republics boarders from historical and cultural bounds that link to issues originated at dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.

What does this mean? I think this needs to be clarified, and I find my grasp of English insufficient to divine the true meaning of this sentence. Hinakana 13:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Turkey (country)
I think this article should be moved to Turkey (country), and the Turkey (disambiguation) should be moved to Turkey (this page). When you hear the word "turkey", there are many important definitions, not just the country. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think like you King of Hearts. I just use, "What links here"
 * Turkey (bird) has less than 500 links
 * Turkey has 6500-7000 links.
 * This is not a fact but mostly Turkey link is used for Turkey (country) in wiki.--Ugur Basak 18:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Until someone starts WikiProject: Turkey (bird), I don't think it makes sense to follow King of Hearts's advice. 130.85.168.45 18:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Mostly about Kemal
i would like to edit some recomentations for those who would like to impove the article a bit. firstly i want to say about an editing mistake in the Turkey article:not 7% of turkey is in the balkans,but the 3%.it is easy for everyone to see what is correct. mainly i want to refear to all the articles that mention Kemal Ataturk and i though that there is no more appropriate discussion page than this one. someone should add some comments about past and modern kemalism.also someone should make some referenses to similar -isms,e.g. stalinism.maybe most turks will think that what i am writing is offensive to them and i am saying that simply cause i am greek(which i am,but it is not the case). kemal ataturk created a country attached to his profile.the same did stalin.but u will not see such similarities in any modern european state.if someone goes to turkey will immediately see portraits of kemal in every street.their is no turkish school that does not have a huge picture of kemal above the main entrance(especially in the east of turkey,where the assimilation policy has not come to an end).same things did stalin also:portraits and statues of himself in every place of the soviet union.i am not sure if anyone understands what i mean:all the nations in europe had great politicians...all the nations of europe had a historic figure who they regard as the founder of the state...but in NO european nation this figure has become the ultimate national symbol nor his/her name has been considered 'sacred' in any sense.i cannot find the most suitable word in english,but what i mean in greek it is said 'προσωπολατρεία'>'prosopolatria'>'figure adorness'.it is an old policy of making the leader seem superior by his people.and surely it is NOT an idea that can fit in modern world.similar cases in other places in the world include:hitler,mao in china,that president of a turkmenistan(sorry,i cannot remember his name)who declared his birthday turkmenistan's national holiday,and that ex dictator of the ivory coast that made his hometown capital of his country.in the same way,in turkey,everything connected to kemal is considered 'sacred' in a sense,and people there tent to forget that he was just a polician involved in 'bad incidents'(like any other politician,in any part and in any era of the world),that include ethnic cleansing,genocide,civil attrocities(just remember that when he was in power everyone who was praying in arabic was excecuted),and forced asimilation. maybe there should be an article including all these definitions:stalinism,hitlerism,kemalism,maoism cause,in case some people do not know it,according to kemal's theory,the turks were superior than the other nations and it is their achivement the sprent of the world' civilasation.i would like to see any turk saying that he did not say that thing!!!! looking to see comments about that and want them to be in a polite and not insulting way.just facts... thanks--Hectorian 12:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's much better to put Kemal's picture everywhere instead of a caliph or a beardy sultan picture. Do not blame the modern guy, he tried to convert Turkey to an ally of Europe. Think about it; it's good for you my Greek friend. If he hadn't done this, now in 2006, Ottoman empire was definitely in war with UK, USA, especially Greece etc etc ;). "Peace at Home, peace in the world" he says --JohnEmerald 10:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

i absolutely agree with u!but i am not comparing kemal to the caliphs or the sultans...i am talking about that specific man,what he did and how his figure and ideas are used in modern day turkey,and also about the similarities between him and the others that i mentioned above.so,i guess that these things should be mentioned.i do not know where u come from,my friend,but u know that politicians are the same everywhere...they do different thing than what they say:"Peace at Home, peace in the world"->war,expulsions,religious persecution and ethic assimilation? if kemal had not existed,it does not mean that ottoman empire will continue to exist...of course,i may believe this cause i am greek...i do not know--Hectorian 12:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian I think maybe you should check your sources about the guy before espousing your ideas about him on this page. To compare Kemal to Stalin or Mao I think not only is very disrespectful of the man, but also completly and utterly false. If you want a good western source before you start saying things on this page, I would suggest you read British historian Lord Kinross' (John Patrick Douglas Balfour, 3rd Baron Kinross) book "Atatürk: A Biography of Mustafa Kemal, Father of Modern Turkey" (1965). Get your facts straight first.


 * Who oppened this headline! Was Ghazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha your family friend? Where do you find the right to call him just Kemal! Please be polite! With respect, Deliogul 15:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Gallery concerns
Please don't change the images of Turkey, cause it's my galerry.

The new gallery addition looks beautiful and I'm sure someone put some time and effort into adding it. I expect it will present problems in its current form. Per WP:NOT, the proper location for an image gallery is Wikimedia Commons. None of the images I checked contained copyright information and one image had text that appeared to come from a travel agency. Wikipedia copyright bots will probably remove this material in a few days unless new versions with better copyright data replace them. I suggest creating the new gallery within Wikimedia Commons and linking to it from various language editions of Wikipedia. Regards, Durova 03:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont know why, but some images I uploaded some weeks ago had been deleted without any warning. I placed the source and the copyright tag and it seems it was ignored. I know 100% that the images were free to use because wowturkey.com and worldturkey.com allow their pictures to be used anywhere as long as the name remains on the picture. Some of the recent pictures included by the new user are from wowturkey, the appropriate tag should be added to these images to say they are free for use. Unfortunately i never know which is the correct tag. --A.Garnet 18:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible POV edits?
After checking the edit history of user 81.212.172.97 due to POV changes made to other articles, I checked the edit of this article on 1/28/06 by that user. I'm not involved with it's editing and have no factual information, but I would suggest someone vet the accuracy of the changes made to population statistics and examine added characterizations to determine possible POV bias. Ben Kidwell 20:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Germany's frontpage and Turkeys
I was looking through Germany's frontpage, and it mentioned its own genocide many times. Why don't I see one refrence in the front page of Turkey about the Armenian genocide? Chaldean 18:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Because this article is patrolled by Turkish Patriots who will deny historical fact. See Holocaust Denial. 24.255.11.232 04:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The same reason Hamlet isnt mentioned in the history of Denamrk :p--KSK 16:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

the latter is tricky, as during the event, Turkey was part of the Ottoman "Empire", but also were most states in the Middle East and east Balkans. If it was possible to blame one successor state out of all these other states, then we would have no problems, and Turkey would already have accepted it. In the example of Germany, the Third Reich was successed wholly by modern Germany, hence there could be no dispute. If the United States performs a genocide today, would it be possible to blame only California? with regards, 68.174.95.182 08:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Armenian Genocide is not mentioned, since it is still a disputed subject on two terms: a- whether the deaths of the Armenians were intentional, b- whether the responsibility is the Republic of Turkey's or The Ottoman Empire's.

Although I agree with a *mention* of the Armenian genocide, it would, I suppose, be a lot like mentioning the persecution of Christians as part of Italy's history.


 * Hımmm... Think again. We can't accept a thing that has never happened. Ottoman Army only smashed the rebel guerillas of Armenians because they were attacking to Ottoman Army during the Ottoman-Russia wars. With respect, the son of nomadic warriors, Deliogul 15:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Armenian web pages should reference the Turkish Genocide, instead of "covering it up". They are trying to change history and make the whole world believe them. In the 1980s an Armenian civilian set himself on fire as a protest AGAINST ARMENIAN LIES! He ultimately died as a result of setting himself on fire, but until his last breath he said that Armenians were and are lying about the "so called genocide" to get their goal (eastern Turkey). He was so disgusted of what Armenians were doing that he committed suicide! There should be a reference of him in Armenian web pages as well, instead of all the hate propaganda against Turks.

Iranian peoples
Merhaba, There is a dispute ongoing in the article Iranian peoples. Some Pan-Iranist users are changing the defintion of Iranian peoples (an unknown and not widely used term) from its linguistic meaning to linguistic, cultural and racial issues. According to their wrong defintion many people are labelled as Iranian, including parts of Turkish population. If you have time and are interested in the issue I ask you to join the discussion. Thank you very much.  D iyako Talk + 22:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Turks are coming from a different genetic background and have no connection with Iranians. Iranian nationalists are really funny. I'm afraid, they will soon start to argue that Osman Ghazi and Atilla were Iranians too :) With respect, Deliogul 23:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Turkish Kurdistan"
As you all know, there is no region or province named "Kurdistan" in Turkey. However, some Kurdish nationalists on wikipedia are trying to coin the term "Turkish Kurdistan" for political purposes. Please join the discussion on Talk:Turkish_Kurdistan, your comments would be appreciated. --ManiF 09:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There wasn't such a region and also there won't be too. With respect, the son of nomadic warriors, Deliogul 15:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a Turkish Kurdistan! Unfortunately for the people of Iraq its a different story, they do have an Iraqi Kurdistan where Arabs are afraid to live in Northen Iraq (where most Kurds live) because of the harrassment they endure by Kurds! Most Iraqi Arabs are afraid to live in the North and live in central and southern Iraq. Its horrible that Arabs are treated like strangers in their own country! However, they can not retaliate because they are too weak from terrorists and the major fact that Americans are stong allies of the Kurds, so when Bush declares that Iraq is free from Saddam and independant is all lies!!!! Now they have the Kurds to replace Saddam. If Turkey had a Kurdistan it would decay just as Iraq.

Hi
Please support deletion of this category Kurdistan. Thank you very much. --Kash 17:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Map on the History section
Wouldn't a map of either Seljuks or Ottomans on the history section be nice? We should do it.--Kagan the Barbarian 09:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

MEVLANA RUMI TONT BELONG TO YOU, WHY DO U CONSIDER MEVALANA RUMI YOUR OWN? he is iranian and will always remain iranain, he even can belong to iraqi brothers despite of dont being of iraqi origin


 * Woahhh... You oppened a new century in the vandalism era! Don't write such silly things here. I won't delete this because it shows what a useless person you are to the all Wikipedia community! With respect, the son of the nomadic warriors, Deliogul 11:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Deliogul, please read WP:NPA. Your comment appears to violate the policy. Thanks! -- Paddu 11:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Name
I guess the name of "Turkey" was changed to "Turkiye" in English many years ago...Inanna 23:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
User:Globo is inserting anti-TRNC content into Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (diff). I'm not sure about the neutrality of his edits, so if you're interested in the topic, please come and join the discussion. -- ran (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide
Added internal link since this is part of Turkish history.68.99.154.144 02:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Well then, you should add Aladdin to the History of Iraq and Hamlet to the History of Denmark because theyre just as factually true:)--Kilhan 06:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, I will take alook and add when I can. The Armenian Genocide is a very important part of Turkey's history so link would be helpful for people looking for that info. Thanks!Tom 19:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is about the Republic of Turkey. The republic was only proclaimed in 1923. The so-called Armenian "Genocide" was supposed to have take place in 1915. If you want to, you could add it to the Young Turks and/or the Ottoman Empire, not here--Kilhan 06:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Armenian Genocide is still an important part of Turkey's history today even though it happen before the republic was founded. MAybe we can introduce a section on the ongoing contraversy into the article.Tom 12:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How it's an important part of Turkey's history? From whose perspective? --Gokhan 12:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Its important to ANYBODY who cares about the history of Turkey.Tom 12:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that you're totally objective and scientific about this issue? Because you have too much generalizations in your sentences? --Gokhan 13:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Objective?? You're kidding right? Most of the people who work on this article are from Turkey and thats GOOD since they know the MOST, HOWEVER, it can make for an overly focused POV article. I would be happy with ONE internal link rather than a whole SECTION devoted to the ONGOING contraversy. If you look at my talk page and the articles I follow, TURKEY is OFF the radar as far as I am concerned. I promise you I am not some radical Armenian POV pusher, not that there is anything wrong with those folks :) j/k. Anyways, IMHO, I do think there should be at least SOME mention of the ONGOING discussion of recognition of whatever the heck happened back in 1914 or whenever since it its an ONGOING event that effects Turky for better or worse.Tom 13:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You wrote a lot of things here but I still think you're not objective - at all. There are a lot of past/current issues each country faces today and not all of them are posted as links in their pages. Unlike armenians, we Turks do not define ourselves with hatred. Therefore I didn't want this link in my country's page. Anyway... not important. Have your way.  --Gokhan 13:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will add the link back in when I can. I have also asked a third party who is neutral to take a look. Its not thats its PAST history, its more that CURRENTLY, there is an ONGOING debate in the WORLD community as to whether or not to recognize what happen to the Armenian people. Like I said, I am surprised there isn't a full blown paragraph dedicated to the subject and I am sure that there probably was one in here at some time. I would again suggest that even a link to the contraversy(my spelling sucks) should be included since it is a current event issue that is/should be important to people whether you are Turkish, Armenian or from Rhode Island, USA. Would this be acceptable and is there one, I could not seem to find one. Anyways, this really isn't MY battle but I really have a problem with people who have an agenda on this site and use it for that purpose. Also, that shot at Armenians being define by hatred was uncalled for and IMO shows that you do have an agenda for removing that link even if it is by one of your supporters.Tom 13:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete the last time. As far as I'm concerned, your link can stay there.  You can check the rest with the person who did the actual edit.  If you have a problem with people with agenda, you should see all the anti-Turkish entries in wikipedia. We are used to it :)   --Gokhan 14:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Gokhan, I am opposed to ANY "anti" behavoir/posts on this site and it is full of them since ANYBODY and EVERYBODY does edit this project. There is also a TON of factually INCORRECT info. out there but this is still a VERY neat "project" IMHO. I will probably go quietly into the night after a few more days of editing since there are a TON more people who are FAR more concerned with this subject/issue and have far MORE energy than I do. I think I will go edit/work on something LESS contriversial like Jewish/Arab relations :) Take care!Tom 15:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For someone who claims not to be a "fanatic armenian POV pusher", you sure seem to be pretty zealous in wanting it in. The so called "Armenian genocide" only recently came into the spotlight and mainly because of a bunch of anti-Turk polemics, right wing christian and other groups opposing turkish eu accession. 5 years ago, did many of the people advocating the "genocide" thesis even know that a country called Armenia or a people called armenians even existed? Ill bet No, they didnt. If this belongs in a history section at all, it should go into Young Turks and/or the Ottoman Empire, not on the Turkish republic --Kilhan 15:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, Kilhan, I am pretty zealous. Also, please don't include the so called Armenian Genocide anywhere in any article to do with Turkey, its people or its history at any point in time. In fact, I want to start an article about how hairy armenians are, even their women have hairy upper lips. I am out and will NEVER post in here again. Thats how zealous I am. Have a pleasant day.Tom 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh my God... How you can say that the "imaginary" Armenian Genocide is an important part of the Turkish history! The term Turkish history refers to a thousands years of history so your "imaginary" genocide can't even be a single little dot in this term. Turkey is tired of discussions and we don't want to deal with such little facts and countries anymore. Be happy with your dreams... With respect, the son of nomadic warriors, Deliogul 15:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all - calm down, people, this is an encylopaedia - not a battleground! From an outsiders POV - yeah, the armenian genocide is one hell of an important event. It should get a mention in the article, not that I would devote even a paragraph to it. It is a big part of controversy surrounding Turkey, and events such as this are what hampers it's entry into the EU. A linked one-sentence mention somewhere will do. +Hexagon1 (t) 14:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ARMENIANS SHOULD ADD A TURKISH GENOCIDE LINK: Armenia commited huge atrocites against Turks and they conveniently fail to mention that. WHY DO ARMENIANS COVER UP OF THE HORRIBLE GENOCIDE THEY COMMITTED AGAINST THE TURKS????? Answer: Because it doesn't look good for them, they want to be seen as the victim because ARMENIANS SELFISHLY WANT A CHUNK OF TURKISH LAND! In order to achieve that they copied what happened to the Jews in the Holocaust only that occured AND AN ARMENIAN GENOCIDE NEVER DID!!!! The world felt sorry for Jews and hence the state of Israel was created.........Armenians see that as an opportunity. Armenians got the great idea that if they made up a "genocide" they could get easten Turkey and voila! the ARMENIAN GENOCIDE WAS MADE UP!! Very clever Armenians-bravo!!!  Its unfortunate for all the forgotten TURKISH GENOCIDE VICTIMS!!!
 * Look, no reasonably intelligent person questions that the Armenian Genocide happened, so sorry if no one takes you seriously. Go to this article - Armenian Genocide and read it. It's a sourced article, so take it up with the sources and references listed there. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That has to be the biggest load of bullshit ive heard in a long time. No one questions it? Why dont the armenians refuse to sit down and have it evaluated ACADEMICALLY ? Why dont they take it to court like the bosnian muslims have, if its so damn clearcut. That because its all fake. They cant prove crap. You must be one of those turk hating christian fundamentalists whose stance is "Armenians are upstanding people of the christian faith and Turks are evil muzzies, so it has to to be true". It just goes to show the extent of turkophobia that exists in the world. I pity your delusional mindset.

I ask this to every armenian, why is there not a single turk in erivan or armenia? What happened to them? There are plenty of armenians in turkey, both citizens and nowadays plenty of illegal immigrants. They go to their own special schools where they are taught to hate the very country they live in. Where are the turkish people and turkish schools in erivan or armenia ???


 * Keep it cool guys :) This debate won't be solved at all anyway.  --Gokhan 08:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, no one questions the genocide. Read the article and take it up with the sources if you don't like that. That is not an anti-Turkish sentiment, I have nothing agaist Turks, but denying the Armenian Genocide is just delusional. And if they hated the country they lived in, they wouldn't be there. That's a fundamental paradox. Oh, and I'm neither American, nor a fundamental Christian. I'm a person who has never set foot inside a church. Once again, read the article and discredit the sources if you don't believe they are correct. Wikipedia follows it's own articles. And I Gokhan, I disagree, this debate couldn't be simpler. A one sentence reference will do, and I see no reason why that should anger any reasonable person. As long as the sources of the Armenian Genocide article are thought to be valid, the article is thought to be valid. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your first sentence is not totally correct. There are a lot of people questioning this matter.  This debate is too much deep and it's not "simpler" as you put.  It concerns the last century, may have a history of centuries involving several parties of thousands years old.  It poisons today's regional politics and daily lives of a lot of people.  It also projects enormous problems towards the future, continous enmity, still existing territorial ambitions and millions of sad personal stories.  A wikipedia article shouldn't be the sole answer to this kind of problem.


 * I'm not interested in your nationality or religion. Just pls make sure you conform to Wikipedia policies by not making personal attacks to others as being "delusional", please read the policy. Thanks.  --Gokhan 11:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Gokhan, I was answering the annonym's accusations I'm a christian-loving American. As long as it might have happened, it is significant enough to be included in the article. It is very likely it happened, that is quite established here and it's part of the Amernian history template. And we're entitled to have the user reprimanded for racism, I choose not to and give his opinion a chance, so I'd appreciate if you didn't say that I attack people. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi- the discussion is not whether it's happened or not - the discussion is about the definition.  Our whole nation is being blamed for something horrible and there are also a lot of historical issues going on.  Anyway, I feel too tired to start over.  As you say, it is already established and supported here, so I don't see a need to make any efforts anymore.  I just want peace.  However if you think you are being attacked by that anon user, you should report.  Best, --Gokhan 11:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just thought that an outsider's opinion may be valueable, but I got caught up in this argument. I don't honestly think this is that important anyway. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To Hexagon-who cares about the F****N article that states there was a genocide against Armenians. I could also write an article that states I'm the richest person in the whole world - get me? THERE WAS A TURKISH GENOCIDE BY ARMENIANS - ARMENIANS STOP BRAINWASHING PEOPLE AND TRYING TO COME UP WITH "MAKE BELIEVE FACTS" SO IT COULD HELP YOUR SELFISH NEEDS! There are many Armenians that agree that there is NO SUCH THING AS AN ARMENIAN GENOCIDE, and they praise how wonderful the Turkish Republic is that is why there are so many rich and successful Armenians in Turkey today - they love it!! In fact they love Turkey more than Armenia! and to top it off they have all the freedom and rights that one could ask for. Is there such a thing as a Turkish person having human rights in Armenia?? Of course not!!!! ARMENIANS ARE RACIST! Why don't they discuss that!


 * That article wouldn't be sourced, that article is. And if you don't care about that article, why do you care about this article? I stopped reading after that, your opinion is worthless after that remark, sorry, good day to you. And unsigned posts have little currency anyway. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

ankara post
http://www.ankarapost.net/ ( 404 Not Found The requested file was not found. This may be due to a technical error. Please try again later. If repeated attempts to access the file fail, then the file had been removed. )

Orhan Pamuk
I am back, I guess I lied, go figure... Can this author be linked to the article? Is there a list of notable Turks?

Ferit Orhan Pamuk (born on 1952-06-07 in Istanbul, Turkey) is a leading Turkish novelist of post-modern literature. His long-standing huge popularity in his homeland dipped in 2005, but his readership around the globe continues to grow. As one of Eurasia's most prominent novelists, his work has been translated into more than forty languages. He is the recipient of major Turkish and international literary awards.

In 2005, lawyers of two Turkish professional associations brought criminal charges against Pamuk [1] after the author made a statement regarding the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1917 and the massacre of 30,000 Kurds in Anatolia. The charges were dropped on 2006-01-22.

Thanks! --Tom 14:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's a List of Turks article. And Pamuk is already mentioned via the Turkish literature article. Since the Turkish lit. article is already linked in the Culture section, I don't really see any reason to. But I guess if you see a place where he should be mentioned, don't hesitate to be bold. &mdash; Khoikhoi 18:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As much as I appriciate your enthusiasim, this talk page supposed to be for discussing the article Turkey. Article Orhan Pamuk has its own talk page. -- Cat out 22:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh? That's what we were discussing, the addition of a mention of Pamuk in this article. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Too many pictures in gallery
There are 28 pictures in the gallery, this seems too much to me. I propose we place 8 general images of the 8 largest cities in the Cities section, then reduce the size of the gallery to maybe 12 good pictures.

I'm open to suggestions. --A.Garnet 18:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * While at it, it would be better to have pictures of varying things in the different cities, e.g. something like a photo showing natural scenery, a photo showing skyscrapers, a photo of a historic building, one showing something about the culture, one about the climate, etc. so that the gallery can cover everything this article is about, instead of photos that just show skyscrapers in each city, for example. -- Paddu 14:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of these pictures can be uploaded at commons, and added to galleries at commons:Category:Turkey and its subcategories/articles under it. -- Paddu 14:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought for the cities section, it would be better to have general views of the cities, and then in the gallery section at the bottom, more specific pictures of architecture or geographic sights could be added. --A.Garnet 14:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Photos from wowturkey.com
These photos are tagged with different licences, and hence seem to misrepresent their copyright status. Please discuss about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey. Thanks! -- Paddu 14:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please dont remove the image of the skyscrapers in Istanbul
Looking at several country articles, many have similar pictures to showcase their economic prosperity( or capitalistic tradition?). It seems like a great addition especially considering the orientalist view many people (especially europeans) have when it comes to Turkey. Istanbul has the seventh largest number of skyscrapers in the world according to the Global cities study ( ranking between Tokyo and Rio de Janeiro)

There's a problem in getting a proper image because most of its highrises are scattered throughout the city (mainly the Levent and Maslak districts), not bunched together like in say New York or Seoul. But I think this particular one does a decent job of capturing most of those in at least the levent.--Kilhan 06:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Kilhan, problem is that picture is grey and smoggy - i'd prefer one of these two:

--A.Garnet 17:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO the greyish hue adds to the allure of the skyline. Im not particularly enamoured with the light overexposure on the current image. Time to go scouting on wowturkey and see what else i can come up with --Kilhan 18:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its a stunning image, especially the light rising above the towers. Anyway, we are having problems with wowturkey images at the moment. It seems they are not free enough for Wikipedia, User:Paddu says wowturkey has to change its policy to make the images completely free, otherwise they will be deleted. I've contacted metb82 to have a word with their admins but not received a reply yet. I would, but my Turkish is not so good. --A.Garnet 18:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Post world war 2
i removed most of this paragraph about the eighties as its just a collection of names and doesnt really add anything of worth to the article.

It basically goes ''Party A was defeated by Party B, whose leader Mr C became Prime minister. However Party B's government collapsed two years later and was defeated by a coalition of Party A and Party D, ...blah blah''

Just confusing to the average readerKilhan 16:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove the kurdistan part please


 * Thats nothing. Its just an anonymous kurdish editor who keeps on inserting something on "Kurdistan" being "occupied"--Kilhan 16:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

X-Y-Z 'District'?
In the Administrative Divisions section, Konya and Adana, unlike Ankara, İstanbul and İzmir, are referred to as "Konya district" and "Adana District." We don't say that way when we are referring to cities here in Turkey, the name of the city is used. Like Ankara, İstanbul, Çorum -and not Ankara district, Çorum district, İstanbul district... Worse than that, actually, Wikipedia articles about Konya and Adana are entitled with that 'district' addition. This is something incorrect, I wanted to add it here since I'm a little bit new to WP and not quite sure how to tidy up the mess with those "districted" articles Maokan 23:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Maokan

Images about Turkey
As we know wowturkey.com images has been removed and new images has very poor quality. They are full historical buildings. It makes someone so happy to show Turkey's old places though it has more modern face.

Please upload more quality images like old ones. I'm very confused when I see the images, it's not really Turkey's general view!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaparojdik (talk • contribs)

Demographics: More discussion in talk, less in edit summaries
It's bad form to revert and provide discussion in edit summaries. We seem to have a nice little revert spat brewing, so work it out here first, or I'll protect the article for a while to give you the opportunity. Wikibofh(talk) 22:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes your right, apologies for my last edit. If Hectorian wants to discuss it here his welcome. --A.Garnet 22:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary to give any figures at all in this article? In other countries where figures are uncertain, the demographics sections only mention that the minority exists and makes no representation on figures. The number of Kurds in Turkey can be dealt with on the articles Turkish Kurdistan, Kurdish people and Demographics of Turkey. Neutral sources such as and  can be used. --Tēlex 22:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I havent really given it thought Telex, but you cannot give alternative demographic figures to a government census (neutral or not) on the back of a Kurdish news article which simply states "A third of Turkey’s population have Kurdish blood." Simply stating that there are no accurate figures, and providing an estimate from the CIA factbook seemed neutral enough to me. --A.Garnet 22:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is that if we are about to give and to write a line about population figures, all POVs should be treated in the same way. it is such an unencyclopedic act to see the turkish government figures been 'praised', and in the same time to totally dispute the numbers given by the CIA. in addition, kurdish sources could be used, even if they are not official (well, noone expects to find undoubtably official and reliable sources from kurdish organizations-maybe some turkish users will call anyone of these organizations 'terrorist'...). i would agree with Telex, not mention at all pop. figures in this article. --Hectorian 22:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont see the Turkish governments figures being 'praised', or the CIA's being undermined. The fact is no accurate figures exist today, including from Turkey, but the CIA's can be used as an estimate, that was the jist of my edit. But you cannot in the sake of neutrality oppose a government census and the CIA estimate with a Kurdish news article statement. --A.Garnet 23:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering figures are not given for any of the other minorites, i guess Telex's edit makes more sense. --A.Garnet 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the misunderstanding... I did not mean an edit by u, but this one (which was the one i first reverted) . Anyway, u will agree with me, that a census from 1965, condacted by the Turkish government, cannot be considered as reliable as an estimate from 2006 by the CIA. i agree that the degree of neutrality between them both and a kurdish news article, cannot be considered as equal, but i believe that the Kurds also deserve to have a word on that (maybe another, more reliable, but kurdish, source would fit better). at the moment, i think Telex's edit is fine: no mentioning of numbers at all... --Hectorian 23:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How you can equate an official census and a nationalist Kurdish website is beyond me. People very often try to overinflate kurdish numbers to create an idea of some sort of imaginary ethnic war in Turkey. Analysis of the population on the ground (ie in Turkey itself) reveals a very different picture. The disclaimer alongside the CIA estimate also makes a lot of sense considering the CIA has no means of conducting a population census or headcount in the region - only the Turkish institute of Statistics does -- Kilhan 00:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How u can equate a census by the turkish government from 1965 with a figure by the CIA (and others) from 2006 is beyond me. do not try to underestimate situations and events that happen in turkey concerning the kurds, for the whole world now knows...! in most people's eyes, a nationalistic (as u call it) turkish website and the Turkish institute of Statistics, are both equally biased: the first tries to overestimate, the later to underestimate the numbers by all means. if u wanna a POVish article, i won't be bothered at this time... i guess there are fellow wikipedians who will try to make it NPOV (as A.Garnet, Telex and myself had agreed before in no mentioning numbers at all here). --Hectorian 00:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That, my Greek friend is your POV. The CIA and Turkstat both count as veriable sources under WP:V. The Kurdish site you keep on touting simply doesnt meet the criteria for inclusion. --Kilhan 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then, my turkish (?) friend, present the CIA as a reliable source, and not undermine it by edits like but the method by which the CIA arrived at this round figure is uncertain. or, if u continue (?) claiming that u are NPOV, say that the turkish census of 1965 counted the kurds only according to mother tangue, although their number is much higher according to independent sources, since many kurds are bilingual or have turkish as their mother tangue. but, i guess, this can't fit in your POV... --Hectorian 00:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The 7.1% and 8.4% figures are derived from an official census - we have exact bone-hard numbers here. The CIA gives an ESTIMATE and its pretty obvious from the round figure given. Its mentioned in the article that the question in the census was "What is your mother tongue?" and there's no denying that there is a correlation between mother tongue and ethnicity. Here's a compromise. Let's go back to Garnet's version which was....


 * The largest group of non-Turkic ethnicity are the Kurds, a distinct ethnic group concentrated in the southeast. The 1965 census determined that Kurdish was the mother tongue of 7.1% of the population and knowledge of the language was stated by 8.4% of the population in total . No accurate figures are available for the percentage of Kurds in Turkey today, though some estimates such as the CIA World Factbook place their population at approximately 20%. 


 * Is that fine with you ?--Kilhan 01:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is better to leave percentages to Demographics of Turkey where are a more detailed account of figures can be given. There are in any case no percentages for any other of the minorities, so would be unfair just to concentrate on Kurds, even though they may be the largest. --A.Garnet 09:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree will A.Garnet, for reasons i have explained before (and it would be stupid of me to explain again...) --Hectorian 13:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkic-but-not-Turk peoples
Turkic peoples indicates that Azerbaijanis, Tatars and Yörüks are different from Turkish people, but my edit was reverted in with an edit summary that seems to imply Tatars and Yörüks are all Turks. Which is correct? Is this another case similar to what I read elsewhere about Kurds being considered Turks by some POVs? -- Paddu 15:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's about what you mean with "Turkish" or "Turkic" people. In Turkish, there's no difference between them. Actually Azerbaijanis, Tatars, Yörüks, Khazaks, Turkmens, Kyrgyzs, etc. are all considered as branches of "Turks". We, Turkish people of Turkey are also a branch. I think the confusion originates because of our country name "Turkey". Citizens of Turkey are considered "Turkish", but it's also the name of race that includes people in Turkey. So when you say "Turkish", you actually include others.
 * Ah by the way, Kurds are clearly not Turkish or Turkic people. They originate from the ancient Median Empire. We Turks are originated from the Central Asia. --EpiC-- 00:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

List of minorities
From what I was told at User talk:Paddu, I gather that there are a few more ethnic groups in Turkey (e.g. Assyrians) but these apparently number only in the thousands in Turkey so aren't mentioned in the article (after this edit -- ). Greeks, Jews and Armenians in Turkey also apparently number only in the thousands, but are mentioned due to their special status in the Treaty of Lausanne.

I guess it would be best to state that only ethnic groups with population more than (say) a hundred thousand are mentioned and give a list of all such ethnic groups, and then state specifically that Greeks, Jews and Armenians are recognised minorities in the treaty. Also, I wonder if we could get NPOV population figures for these ethnic groups (or various POV figures all of which give more than the cutoff, say 100,000) so that every deserving group gets a mention. -- Paddu 16:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman Armenian casualties
I attempted to NPOVise stuff about Ottomon Armenian casualties during the World War I and the Turkish War of Independence in these edits but this was replaced with Armenian POV and subsequently removed (& re-added & re-removed & ...). Once the POV edit war was over I tried adding my text that I believe to be NPOV in this edit but this was reverted with the edit summary and a message on my talk -- User talk:Paddu -- stating that no notable encyclopedia mentions this in an article on Turkey. It was also mentioned that this stuff is interesting only to some nationalist Armenians, and that this article is only about the "Republic of Turkey".

My position is this (as mentioned at User talk:Kilhan): Hence I think (probably a more NPOVised/corrected version of) my text should be added to the article. But I thought discussing here and arriving at a consensus would ensure all future POV changes to what was decided here can be dealt with easily.
 * 1) According to the well-cited article Ottoman Armenian casualties all POVs agree that hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed, though the exact number and the cause of the deaths are controversial. This is definitely interesting to me, who is not an Armenian nationalist, and IMHO should be interesting to the majority of the readers of the English Wikipedia.
 * 2) When even the Turkish government accepts 800,000 Armenians were killed, I believe not mentioning the casualties is censorship.
 * 3) This article is IMHO not about "Republic of Turkey" but about "Turkey", or else it won't talk about prehistory, Ottomans, culture and geography of the region.
 * 4) The notable encyclopedia -- Encarta -- includes text on Armenian casualties in the years 1894–1923 (note my text only talked of 1914–1923) in this page --.

PS: I appeal to people (of all POVs) not to give vent to their personal views of the sensitive issue and attempt to discuss in a neutral unbiased manner. Thanks! -- Paddu 16:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It simply isnt notable enough to be mentioned in an article about Turkey. The armenian relocation is featured prominently in Ottoman Empire and thats where it belongs - The Turkish republic was only established in 1923. Especially taking into account the current state of the article where centuries of East roman and Ottoman history ae summarized into just a couple of paragaphs. Ataturk who is the founder of modern Turkey and who's influence is more than far-reaching is given only a couple of sentences in the article. The Russo-Turkish wars, Siege of Constantinople, Balkan wars etc. are infinitely more significant than this issue and they arent even mentioned at all. There's no need to cram every titbit into this particular article - a reader interested in the detailed history of the region could simply read up History of Turkey and also the Ottoman Empire and Byzantine Empire articles, which are linked to here.--Kilhan 22:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkey is the informal title for the Republic of Turkey. You can be assured that when someone says "Turkey", he/she means the modern state of Turkey (or the bird), just as "Austria" would refer to the modern state of Austria, not the Hapsburg Empire (as it was somewhat commonly called thosedays). In my opinion, Pre-republican history should be given treated in a concise manner. The Post-Ottoman era should be the focus of this article and that part needs a lot more emphasis.--Kilhan 23:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkeys in Turkey?
Just a random question, perhaps ignorant on my part but I don't know very much about the country. So are there actually turkeys in Turkey?--J.a.f.a.c. 04:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed there are. But the naming is other way around the common belief. Name of the bird comes from the country . --þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 19:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems Wikipedia agrees: Turkey (bird) --þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 19:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

NO! the name Turkey was given by Britain when Ottoman Empire and Brithish Empire were two most powerful forces of Europe to have fun with Turks. Turkey has nothing releated with turkey the bird. Also as a Turk we never use word Turkey (Türkiye) to refer imperial times. So removeing Ottoman history is strongly recommended. --Mko 22:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Even though "we" Turks never use the word Turkiye for the Ottoman times now, the words "Turk" and "Turkey" are definetly not invented in the republic era. Oxford English Dictionary (which is the definitive source for English language) says that "Turquie" is the medieval Latin name for the land of Turks. Above references clearly states (and OED agrees) that the bird took the name from Turkish land in the 16th century. It has nothing to do with 19th century European newspapers making fun of the "sick old man of Europe" that probably gave you the wrong impression. Can you give any references for the claim "the name Turkey was given by Britain......to have fun with Turks". BTW what do you mean by "removeing Ottoman history"? --þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 06:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just an addition to the above: the terms 'Turks' and 'Turkey' were in use from much earlier than 16th century, when refering to the Ottoman or Seljuk Empires and their (muslim) citizens. As far as the Greeks are concerned, these terms were not 'invented' in the 19th century, and as far as i know, it had been used by the Austrians as well (even before the Siege of Vienna). The difference lays on what/who was described by tese terms. for example, a christian that converted to islam was named 'turk'. and the land were the majority of the inhabitants were muslims and turkish-speaking (id est Anatolia) was named 'Turkey' (or Turquie or whatever similar in each language). but places such as Arabia or Syria or Palestine were not called 'Turkey' not even by the Turks themselves... Lastly, these two terms, in the turkish republican era, got the meaning of an ethnic group and a nation-state, something very different compared with the era before 1922-23, or perhaps the time of the Young Turks. --Hectorian 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed the first usage we know of the term "Turk" goes back to 6th century Göktürks. (See Turkish people) --þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the word "Turk" can be traced to "Tou-kin", a word the Chinese used for the Xiongnu. Or so ive heard--Kilhan 23:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting stuff; thanks for the answer on the turkeys in Turkey question. But it seems as though there's a more pressing question here. When exactly did the terms Turkey and Turk appear? We've got some interesting points, but we need some solid sources. It would be a good point to add in the article-J.a.f.a.c. 04:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember from our history courses back in high school that the word "Türk" is a word meaning "strong" in ancient Turkic language. I don't know if it's true or not. It could be just a patriotic history book trash :).
 * The word "Turkey" probably comes from latin postfix "-ia" meaning "Land of...". "Turk-ia" (which is "Türkiye" in Turkish) meaning "Land of Turks". --EpiC-- 00:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Indeed the first usage we know of the term "Turk" goes back to 6th century Göktürk State.

Above is your answer(i agree with the author)