Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Turkey -> Turkish issues

Excuse me I did not write this page I just want to show that anyone can edit these pages easily and the information is not always true. Turkey is a reference to a "Land", or a bird. Republic of Turkey is a reference to a state, sometimes also called as (unofficially) Turkey. Turkish, Turks, etc is people. People build the "states". The common thing between the states is the people. Anatolia is also called as Turkey because Turks live in Anatolia. All these states (Ottoman, Republic of Turkey, etc) are states that has Turkish people in control. Not all of them centered in Anatolia or Turkey.--Karabekir 23:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In Turkish; Turkey and Turks may be used for the same meaning but that is not in English. If you use these concepts as same: Turkey -> Turks. or Turks -> Turkey. You will loose the conceptual lik to Turks -> Turkey + Middle East + Central Asia, etc. Also Ottoman Empire is not Turkey. It is at best "Turkish Empire". Please do not revert my changes. Ottoman Empire is not "Empire of Turkey". It is a Turkish Empire, at best Empire of Turks. This may not fit (or use in Turkish) to Turkish Language, but this is English, and this is how the concept is formed. Histories of the people extends periods (such as Ottoman Empire, selcuks, etc). The history of the states do not extend. This is simple conceptual mistake. --Karabekir 22:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dil

Ana sayfada Türkçe'mi kullanalım?

Bu arada hayırlı olsun. Taşın altına elini koyduğun için sağol ;)--Kagan the Barbarian 17:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Bu benimde aklıma geldi, fakat diğer benzer projeleri incelediğimde İngilizce. İngilizce olmasının bir avantajıda İngilizce konuşan Türkler ve hiç Türkçe bilmeyen kullanıcılarında projeye dahil olma ihtimali. Projede yer almak isteyen kullanıcı sayısı 7-8 kişiyi bulduğunda aktifleştirebiliriz. Ugur Basak 17:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Mantıklı, dışlamayalım Türkçe bilmeyenleri, sonuçta burası İngilizce Wiki. Sayfayı basitleştirerek iyi yapmışsın. Şimdi ihtiyacımız olan şey kalınca bir tarafsız Türkiye tarihi kitabı. Bu arada History of Turkey sayfasının geçmişine baktım, aslında ilk hazırlayan kullanıcı Selçuklulardan başlamış, bir iki cümleden ibaret olsada, sayfayı bu hale getiren Tommiks, amacı neydi bilmiyorum. Neyse oradan başlayalım.--Kagan the Barbarian 17:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ben başlamadan önce bir belli sayıda kullanıcının gelmesini ve daha sonra bir kaç aday koyarak ilerlemeyi tercih ediyorum. Kişisel fikrim olarakda en kolay olarak Turkey sayfasını FA yapmak güzel olur nede olsa History of Turkey, Turkey sayfasının alt sayfası olarak düşünülebilir. Ana sayfaya en hızlı koyabileceğimiz sayfalardan devam etmek daha mantıklı, tartışmalı maddelerden uzak duralımki yaptığımız işlerdeki verimliliğimiz yüksek olsun. WP:AID sayfasında Osmanlı Devleti ve Atatürk duruyorlar, belki onlar oranın sayesinde FA durumuna gelebilirler. Önemli olan aktif katılımcı sayımızın 5'den fazla olması. Ugur Basak 17:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Kullanıcaları beklemek konusunda haklısın, ikimiz varız diye düşündüm bir an. FA konusunda ise, sayfaların FA olması en büyük başarı Wiki'de, ancak bence önce bütün vücut ayağa kaldırılmalı herhangibir Türkiye sayfası FA olmadan önce. Örneğin Ottoman Empire sayfası her ne kadar büyük bir emeğin ürünü olsada şu anki haliyle FA olması yazık bence, büyük bir fırsat kaçıcak. Bütün sayfalar bir bütünlük içinde olsaydı, OE sayfası "distribütör" görevi görürdü diğer Türkiye sayfaları için. Yani su/ilgi kaynağını en verimli şekilde kullanamıycaz, her sayfayı besliyemiycez OE'ye oluşan ilgiden, anlatabiliyor muyum?

Demek istediğimin özeti, FA hedef olmalı ancak şu an daha önemli olan Türkiye'yle ilgili bütün konuları seri yada eş zamanlı olarak bütünleştirmek, düzeltmek, geliştirmek.--Kagan the Barbarian 18:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Bir sayfanın şu an FA olması veya ileride FA olması onun daha çok geliştirilmeyeceği anlamına gelmiyor. OE sayfasına bizim ilgimiz olacak anlamında söylemedim, WP:AID buradan bağımsız bir proje. Neyse uzun lafın kısası, hele aradan 2-3 günlük bir süreç geçsin ve ilgisi olacak kullanıcıları görelim daha sonrası kolay. Ugur Basak 18:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Ana sayfaya en hızlı koyabileceğimiz sayfalardan devam etmek daha mantıklı"

Buna cevap olarak söyledim. Dediğin gibi neyse, insanlar toplansın konuşuruz. Polemiğe girmeyelim de, en tehlikeli hastalık o.--Kagan the Barbarian 18:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ben de projeye katıldım. (Bu arada Türkçe ana dilim olmadığını söyleyeyim.) Tarihle çok ilgilenmediğim için o konuda çok şey yapamayacağım galiba (ama düzeltme/düzenleme gibi işler zevkle yaparım—aslında Ottoman Empire makalesinde böyle şeyler çok eksik, mesela dipnotlar falan koymak lazım, vs.). Ancak tarihin yerine kültürle çok ilgim var, özellikle edebiyatla (bildiğiniz gibi herhalde) ve müzikle (mesela Makam makalesini başladım). O yüzden, şimdilik en çok Culture of the Ottoman Empire ile edebiyatla ilgili (Orhan Veli, Fuzuli, vs.) makalelerin üzerinde çalişmaya niyetim var.

Neyse, ben bu mesajı sadece bildirim olarak atıyorum. (Bir de mesajın Türkçesinde hatalar matalar varsa, kusura bakmazsınız inşallah.) Kolay gelsin size. Beraber güzel şeyler yetiştirebilirsek ne güzel olur. —Saposcat 21:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Saposcat, anadilinin ingilizce olması avantajımıza. Küçük bir öneri olarak proje sayfasını izleme listene alarak takip edebilirsin. Tam çalışır duruma geldiği zaman, seçtiğimiz projeleri toplu olarak hızlı bir şekilde yüksek kalite seviyesine ulaştırabiliriz. --Ugur Basak 21:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
İzleme listeme aldım zaten; merak etme takip ediyorum. Genel olarak Türkiye'le ilgili makalelerin en büyük eksiklerinden biri dildir (öbürü sürekli POV oldukları). Ben, gerçek hayatta (Wikipedia'nın dışında yani) editörlük yapıyorum iş olarak—o yüzden burada da yaparım, ne olur. —Saposcat 22:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Benim bu proje ile ilgili temel fikrim az enerji ile çok iş yapabileceğimiz maddelere öncelik vermemiz (en azından bu proje içinde). Türkiye ve Türkiye tarihi ile ilgili en azından temel sayfalarımızı FA durumuna getirebilirsek geriside gelir zaten. --Ugur Basak 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dil. I think we should keep all the debate in English. First of all, this is an open English language site, where all the debate should be available and understandable for all. Secondly, non-Turkish speakers can be able contribute valuably to this article. There is a wide international interest for many aspects related to Turkey, and many people have a good knowledge without necesarily knowing the language. Bertilvidet 12:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Dil. Totally agree with Bertilvidet and how do I join the project? OzgurGerilla 03:09, 19 April 2006 GMT

Sign up at the Project main page and just keep an eye on the page to see where expansion/help is required. Bertilvidet 05:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

[edit] Template:History_of_Turkey

We need a template for History of Turkey. Can someone teach me or better make it for me ;)

In chronological order it should be: Seljuk Turks > Seljuks of Rum > Anatolian beyliks > Ottoman Empire > Modern Turkey

I don't know much about the making of templates, but I could give it a try (probably using Template:History_of_Turkish_Literature—which I did a bit of work on—as a foundation).
Also, although your basic outline of what should go in the template is fine, I do have a couple of issues: (a) though I am aware of your objection on Sultanate of Rum's talk page, I still think that "Seljuks of Rum" should stay as "Sultanate of Rum" because not only would it simply look better (two consecutive appearances of the word "Seljuk" would be a bit messy), but also it would adhere more closely (in my opinion and as far as I am aware) to the fact that it was, essentially, a sultanate in the definition of the term; and (b) I think that, rather than phrasing it as "Modern Turkey" (which could potentially be seen to contain a slight hint at a value judgement, "modern" being a quite loaded term), I think that we would do better to phrase it as the fully neutral and factual "Republic of Turkey".
Anyhow, let me know what you think. By the way, good idea, thinking of a template. —Saposcat 11:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Everything you said I can agree with. It is just that Sultanate of Rum sounded like, I don't know, Kingdom of Scandinavia? Anyway, after all, it will be a subcat of History of Turkey so "Sultanate of Rum" is fine and clear. After the template, we need to revise History of Turkey page itself, it is a disgrace if you ask me. We can use the template as the foundation for the page.--Kagan the Barbarian 12:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • IMO first we've to think from where we will start. Seljuk Turks or earlier. As we know Seljuks are from Oghuz Turks and in Oghuz Turks page it's written as "Gokturks, Seljuks, and the Ottomans". So we can start from Gokturks. Also, in Gokturks page it's written they are descended from Ashina tribe. If we start from Ashina tribe we can connect all of them and expand all articles with collaboration. Ugur Basak 12:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking, when I first read the template proposal, about the Oghuz Turks, Gokturks, et al. However, that would present a conflict with the template's proposed title, "History of Turkey", insofar as the Gokturks never ventured into what is known as Turkey (i.e., roughly speaking, Anatolia). Thus, were we to go as far back as—or even further than—the Gokturks, we would have to modify the template name accordingly, to something along the lines of "History of the Turks" or, better (so as to avoid the slightly pejorative tone that can unfortunately sometimes be spun into the word "Turk" in the English language), "History of the Turkish People". And if that were done, I would have some worries about fierce arguments and the like arising from certain users, since the history of Turkish people-related articles on Wikipedia has been fairly rife with such events. —Saposcat 12:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to add that I think that, overall, it would be better to start with the Seljuk Turks and call the template "History of Turkey", because—apart from the above-mentioned caveats—going back to the Gokturks starts pushing us a bit close to the territory of TurkIC rather than TurkISH. —Saposcat 12:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Then we've two choices; one is about Turkey's history: only geographically, going back to Hitits Sumers etc. and other one is following traces back to Ashina tribe or furhther back.
I wrote above before your second message. But thinking History of Iran or History of XXX's, most of them go back to BCs. --Ugur Basak 12:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Ugur, that's the catch of having a history that starts and ends with 10,000 km distance ;). The reason I started with Seljuks is exactly what Saposcat wrote. For before Seljuks, we can just link to history of both Anatolia and Turkic people (or Göktürks and the Ashina tribe). After all, Turkey is the fruit of both civilizations.--Kagan the Barbarian 13:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I think, Uğur, that covering Turkey's history geographically would be a cleaner way to go ahead with the template. But, even more than that—and along the lines of what Kagan seems to be thinking—a more geopolitical/ethnogeographical model would be possibly the best way to go. That is, if we are to call the template "History of Turkey", to start with approximately the time that Anatolia came to be alternatively known as "Turkey"; i.e. with the rise to power in Anatolia of the Seljuk Turks following the Battle of Manzikert.
The Hittites, et al., certainly are important to the history of Anatolia ... but, there is already the page History of Anatolia to cover pre-Turkish contributions. All this is, of course, a vexing issue in terms of terminology—but then, it always has been. —Saposcat 13:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually most of History of XXX like articles dealing with geographically. But there isn't a rule saying, you've to deal only geog. But when i think, why we've to start with Seljuks. If you say, there are more than one country descented from Gokturks. History of Azerbaycan can add it too. It is not a problem. Already, Seljuk Turks are in History of Iran as ruling dynasty. But IMO starting with Seljuks look like broken Ugur Basak 13:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Very provisionally, perhaps something like this?—

Image:27px-Turkey-Regions.png History of Turkey Series
Seljuk Turks | Sultanate of Rum | Anatolian beyliks | Ottoman Empire | Republic of Turkey

The picture is just borrowed from another template: very likely a better one could be found. Colors, too, could always be changed (see Web colors for the many, many choices). Also, a vertical, rather than a horizontal, orientation could always be chosen.

And of course, there is still no firm decision on whether the template will be "History of Turkey" or the "History of the Turkish People", etc.; hence, this template is just a provisional idea. Perhaps we should try getting others who have agreed to participate in the project to weigh in on the matter. —Saposcat 13:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My vote is definitely vertical, definitely without that picture. Also better if we can make the template in white and red font. Frame could be thick and red, inside white and on it the letters again in red.
Hopefully the others who agreed to participate will log in tonight. I'll send messages to their talk pages so they know we are here.
Thank you for sparing your time Saposcat.--Kagan the Barbarian 15:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your opion, but current opinion is more "Near History of Turkey" than "History of Turkey". Also i don't want to argue about this subject much, we must concentrate on improving articles. --Ugur Basak 18:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility, verticalized and kırmızized:

History of Turkey
By category
Pre-Ottoman Turkey

Seljuk Turks
Sultanate of Rum
Ottoman Empire

Rise - Growth
Stagnation - Decline
Dissolution
Republic of Turkey

War of Independence
Single-Party Period - Multi-Party Period

If red is used—as you can see—things get painful to read, and (as far as I know, which isn't especially far) the font colors of links cannot be changed, and I think links like these would be good. Moreover, just because the Ottoman (as per Ottoman Flag) and Turkish (as in, "Republic of Turkey") flags were red-based, doesn't necessarily mean that the template has to be red-based as well; there seems little need (to me) to stress any especial color that doesn't have any intrinsic connection with the land of Turkey (just as we wouldn't insist on red, white, and blue if we were discussing the history of the Americas, for example).

History of Turkey
By category
Pre-Ottoman Turkey

Seljuk Turks
Sultanate of Rum
Ottoman Empire

Rise - Growth
Stagnation - Decline
Dissolution
Republic of Turkey

War of Independence
Single-Party Period - Multi-Party Period

With other colors (the second example is just randomly chosen; many others are possible), the strain on the eyes is not quite so bad.

Anyhow, again, I'm just tossing potential ideas for the template's form around. These can all be expanded upon as per the consensus of those involved in the project. —Saposcat 19:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Blue one is much more better. Ugur Basak 19:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to agree the second is better although I like red, as you said it is too bright for reading.--Kagan the Barbarian 21:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the template should start from the pre-Islamic Turks (under a heading like "Eurasian Turkic Empires", with the 2 Selçuk states covered under a heading like "Settlement into Anatolia (or Near East, to put it better)" and then the "Ottoman Empire" and so on). The reason is (I checked the History of Hungarians and Bulgarians who can also trace their roots to the Eurasian geography) that, Turks, to differ from the two peoples mentioned, produced written records in their lands of origin, before the religious and cultural transformations that come with conversion and settlement into new lands, and as such, had a history (of their own telling). --Cretanforever 19:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I have the cure for this: Oghuz Turks We can make it start with Oghuz Turks then pass to Seljuks?
By the way, I went through Stagnation, Decline etc. pages of Ottoman Empire, they require serious work.--Kagan the Barbarian 22:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Take a look at the bottom of Oh My Goddess!, those are the navifation template style I prefer to use. I recomend something like that here. Infact Ill be bold and create. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I recall stories that Turks migrated from central asia. Is that not part of this history? --Cool CatTalk|@ 00:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Turkish history is quite a ride; it starts in Almaty, ends in front of Vienna ;). I think starting with Oghuz Turks then passing to Seljuk Turks is more appropriate. --Kagan the Barbarian 00:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I will make following suggestion for the Template:History of Turks: (Please note that I mean "History of Turks" rather than "History of Turkey". For my POV this title is more comprehensive.) CeeGee 10:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Good job, Cool Cat's version is pretty nice as well, it is a hard decision. And I think we'll have some debate concerning History of Turkey and History of Turks. If you claim this to be History of Turks: 1. Turks of Turkey are not the only people recognised as Turks 2. What about the history of Turkey?--Kagan the Barbarian 12:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Not easy. When we say "History of Turkey", I guess we must stay in Anatolia. CeeGee 15:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
We can say History of Turkey since (year). And another template for the history prior to anatolia.
As for "Turks" vs "Turkey" I have no opinions. I am mostly here for technical assitance with templates etc as I know little.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 21:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
History of Turks
By category
Pre-Ottoman States

Seljuk Turks (1000-1300)
Sultanate of Rum (1060-1327)
Anatolian Beyliks (13th century)
Ottoman Empire

Rise (1299-1453)
Growth (1453-1683)
Stagnation (1683-1827)
Decline (1828-1908)
Dissolution (1908-1922)
Republic of Turkey

War of Independence (1919-1923)
Single-Party Period (1923-1945)
Multi-Party Period (1945-Today)

[edit] template:Sultans of Ottoman Empire

I reconstructed this template. You may want to take at the bottom of Ottoman Empire how two templates appear. We can create a template structure like that. --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sultans and Grand Viziers

Şu adreste[1], ya da şuradaki[2] şık "preceded by" "succeded by" kutucuklarından Osmanlı sadrazamları ve padişahları için de yapılmalı diyorum. Padişahlar için bir şablon var ama o da hepsini bir arada gösteren kocaman bir kutu şeklinde. Şimdi soracağım şu: bu "preceded by" ve "succeded by" kutuları biyografilere tek tek mi koyuluyor, yoksa onların bir yerden bütün article'lara kopyalanmasını sağlayan başka bir yöntem mi var? Çok fazla teknik bilgi gerektiren bir şey değilse ben bu "succeded/preceded by" kutularından sadrazamlar ve padişahlar için olanlarını yapmak isterim, ne dersiniz, nasıl yapmalı?? Okan 12:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To-do list

It's time to make a to-do list. I don't know how will we choose priority, we must determine priorities and start working on article --Ugur Basak 19:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I will keep an eye on the article Battle of Manzikert (Malazgirt) and will try to improve on the "our Emperor's baggage train was lost" version. I have put some remarks in the talk page for that article. I think it is disturbing for some minds that Anatolia was taken over in the 4-5 years by the Selçuk Turks following that Battle (for a primary duration of 20-25 years). --Cretanforever 19:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I am willing to try and handle the articles (and sections of articles) related to literature and literary figures, at the least. Possibly also certain music-related articles/sections of articles (no pop/rock/etc., though: Turkish classical and, to a much lesser extent, Turkish folk music are more my cup of tea). Any sort of help from anyone in these areas, though, would always be much appreciated, of course.
Also, as a general to-do sort of thing, I think that the maintenance of NPOV should be a top priority, as the lack thereof has habitually plagued Turkey-related articles on Wikipedia (the history of the Kemal Atatürk alone could serve as proof of that, though other examples are numerous indeed). And though I realize that there has been something of a history of POV being introduced (sometimes as heavy as a hammer to the face, sometimes more insidiously) by Wikipedians coming out strongly against Turkey/Turks, it should not be forgotten that POV has been perhaps just as much introduced by those coming out for Turkey/Turks. Both faults should be avoided like the plague; this is an encyclopedia, after all. —Saposcat 21:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I am aware of the POV thing. But what I've realized so far on Wikipedia, Turks aren't really on the offensive in this, they are defensive right now. While Greeks are on every board related to Turks, supposedly fighting Turkish POV, I've seen some Greek pages that definitely require a NPOV hammer to straighten them, they run their horses as they please on Greeks related articles. Anyway bottom line is NPOV is important, if we write the truth with sources, we can always fight back POV pushers more efficiently. But of course we'll definitely have Armenians and Greeks knocking at our door, demanding us to add every single Greek or Armenian dead to the page.--Kagan the Barbarian 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • There is no ongoing war however there are pov pushers. Pov pushers are to be dealt with properly. Revert waring is often not the ideal way to deal with them. There is a Dispute Resolution process to deal with them. If they are only here to pov push (which most are), they will be sorted out at warp speed. --Cool CatTalk|@ 00:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I am certain that all of us who signed up for this project are here because we are interested in expanding and improving articles related to Turkey. We all have different approaches, and thus there will inevitabily be differing views on how to weigh and formulate things. So let's concentrate on doing a common effort for a better coverage of Turkey, and deal with POV problems when they appear. Herkese kolay gelsin Bertilvidet 01:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'd really like to see Turkey made a featured article. People can start by looking at other featured article countries: Australia, Belgium, Bhutan, India, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China, Nepal. This is the kind of quality we should be aiming for. --A.Garnet 12:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Turkey article is seriously in an awful condition and requires renovation from head to toe.--Kagan the Barbarian 12:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding the project

I am not sure about how to fill the project page...I have started several pages related to Turkey (links from my user page), which all are stubs that deserve more attention. Should I list these as New articles?? And where to propose new articles? Maybe we should try to define some sub categories and collaborate within the categories where each of us have knowledge. For instance, I have been thinking of starting as various articles as Semdinli affair, Pera Müzesi, Konya Kebab and Aynur Dogan. I look forward to the collaboration. Bertilvidet 15:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on the Ottoman Empire page

User Miskin is making redundant additions to the article, hurting its quality. Here it is (diff. in bold letters):

"Despite its extremely multi-ethnic character, the Ottoman state was commonly known in its days as the Turkish Empire."

I explained to him/her every recognised empire in history is multi-ethnic therefore that is a redundant addition to that sentence making it look like it was written by a retard, as if all empires aren't multi-ethnic and Turkish Empire is an exception. He/she is still reverting because he/she is a Greek vandal with twisted understanding of Turks and Turkish history. Please revert the article to my previous version (I can't anymore) and keep an eye on his/her edits.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Absolute priority

We need to create an article about Southeastern Anatolia. It is the geopolitical name for the region and should replace Turkish Kurdistan.--Kagan the Barbarian 09:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Or a simple move. For now let the nonsense on the vfd die a bit. Sockpuppets? Votestacking? oh my. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that we for a while leave these sensitive issues, that we know create heated debates, at a side and concentrate our efforts on actually expanding and improving Turkey-related articles rather than vasting the energy in fatiguing controversies. Bertilvidet 08:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wowturkey.com

I've recently been told Image:Istanbul levent.jpg will be deleted unless i can find the copyright holder and copyright status. As far as i'm aware, all images on wowturkey.com are free for use as long as the logo remains, since my Turkish is not so good, would someone be able to find and translate the relevant information on copyright from their website? This way we can make clear for any future wowturkey images that they are free for use. Thanks. --A.Garnet 21:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is free for use as long as not for commercial purposes. The summary of what they are saying: "We are very happy when our pictures are used and spread around the internet. It is our goal for this pictures to be seen by everyone. As long as not for commercial use, you can freely use these photos by asking permission and leaving the logo on the photo, if you remove the logo you should at least mention under the photo that its wowturkey property".--Kagan the Barbarian 08:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Discussion should continue at Image talk:Istanbul levent.jpg --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Place names in Turkey

Some Greek, Armenian and Kurdish POV pushers are trying to insert place names in their own languages in the opening line of Turkish cities, provinces etc. Turkish is the only official language throughout Turkey - even Vartholomeos fills out his census form in Turkish. I urge you all to remove such nonsense from the opening line of any turkish place name articles you may come across. Thank you

Either we talk to them and convince that it is unnecessary to give the Greek or Armenian name if there is no Greek or Armenian population living there or you add the Turkish name to certain Kurdish, Armenian and Greek locations.--Kagan the Barbarian 09:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
According to NPOV alternative names of the cilites are to be mentioned. We should prevent the purging. The ex-greek name of Istanbul is Constantinople and this is something no one is disputing.--Cool CatTalk|@ 18:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Parallel situations exist regarding cities of the former Poland-Lithuania and on the Danish-German border districts. In both cases, it is accepted to include historical names, so purges would be a very bad idea. E.g. the Lithuanian capital Vilnius was known for centuries as Wilno and Vilna, so it is relevant to include such information. The same is the case regarding Gdansk (Danzig). History often crosses modern borders. I don't think the history of the Ottoman Empire would make much sense if we only talk about modern Turkey :) Best regards. Valentinian (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mt Ararat

Our Armenian brothers declared Mount Ararat as WikiProject:Armenia. I thought we should help them a bit and and added our tag as well. Regards.--Kagan the Barbarian 12:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project is sleeping

Currently project is sleeping :( Let's make a to-do list. I don't want to be the one like ruler, but just a proposal. Everyone of us can vote for 5 articles and if that article is not listed below he/she can add it to list. Than we can start from most voted article. And try to edit that article at least 5 times a day.

[edit] Nominations

Turkey
  1. --Ugur Basak 13:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. --A.Garnet 18:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Kagan the Barbarian 08:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. We must get this to be a FA first. --Cat out 22:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
History of Turkey
  1. --Ugur Basak 13:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. --A.Garnet 18:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Kagan the Barbarian 15:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Atatürk
  1. --Ugur Basak 13:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. --A.Garnet 18:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Anatolian beyliks
  1. --Ugur Basak 13:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Saposcat 20:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Kagan the Barbarian 08:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 20:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Sultanate of Rüm
  1. --Ugur Basak 13:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Saposcat 20:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Ottoman Empire
  1. --A.Garnet 18:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Saposcat 20:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Accession of Turkey to the European Union
  1. --A.Garnet 18:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. -- In a horrible shape! Bertilvidet 11:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Politics of Turkey
  1. -- Acute! Bertilvidet 16:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Recent activities

I have (for those who knew I was briefly out of the project) decided to join back in. Apologies if it bothered anyone; what can I say but that I did what I did in a fit of pique on a bad day.

Anyway, since the project is concentrated on Turkey- (and Turk-) (and Ottoman-) related articles, I thought I'd mention that my latest "big" activities in that regard have been on Fuzûlî, Nedîm, and (to a much lesser extent so far) Bâkî. Any assistance from those who are willing and/or able would, of course, be most appreciated. —Saposcat 19:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back. Saposcat, most of us here are of Turkish origin, that's why your presence here is even more important for NPOV. Also your editorial skills and knowledge in Turkish literature are very valuable. Just know that, if there's a problem we can solve it through discussion, after all what's important here is compromise for the good of the project. That said, thank you for coming back.--Kagan the Barbarian 07:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help requested at Ziyarat and Ziyaret

The ziyaret article is basically a stub and needs more info. The ziyarat article is an attempt to list all the places of pilgrimage (tombs of Sufi pirs and the like). We only have one site for Turkey, the tomb of Rumi. Please help out with more sites and pictures, also info on government attitudes towards shrines (put in Ziyaret). Zora 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proje ile İlgili

Ne hazırlayacağımız hakkında bir bilgisi olan var mı? Inanna 20:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ottoman Empire

Seeing how the Ottoman Empire article is now part of the article improvement drive, I was wondering if anyone here in the project might be willing to help out on it: I've been doing as much as I can, but lately I've been about the only one, and the article is still quite a mess in a number of ways (reference-wise, organization-wise, writing-wise, etc.). Is anyone here willing to lend a hand? —Saposcat 07:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah you've done a great job saposcat, unfortunately i've been so inundated with work at the moment i've no time to contribute. As soon as i get time I plan to get involved. --A.Garnet 10:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:-Inanna-

Hello all. I am leaving this note to say that we might want to think about removing User:-Inanna- from the Participants list insofar as she (I believe that -Inanna- is a she and not a he) has been blocked indefinitely. I didn't want to do it myself just yet without at least bringing the issue up here first. —Saposcat 07:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Having received no response to the above note, I'm going to—in a manner of speaking—be bold and remove indefinitely blocked User:-Inanna- from the list of participants. —Saposcat 09:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal and introduction

The Turkey portal had been under constraction ever since it was created in December. I have re-designed it, filled it with content and I take the responsibility to keep it updated every week. I am also doing its sister portal in Hungarian wiki: Turkey portal in Hungarian. You can expect that to avoid extra work, each week I will put the same related articles and photos into both of them (that is, if the article exists in both wikipedias).

Also I would like to introduce myself, as a newcomer to the project. I hope you will take me :) (You can also view my profile :))

So my name is Timea, I'm a native Hungarian, I speak English, Russian and also Turkish. Türkcem hala pek net degil ama :) I've been learning it for two years now, tek basima, on my own, without teachers, from books and from MSN chatting :) I am devoted to Turkey, I consider it my second home and hopefully soon I will be able to call it my "first home". I took the task to make as many Turkey-related articles in the Hungarian wiki as possible because it has less then a hundred, and my major source is the English wiki, that is YOUR work, so I am grateful :) I thought to join you and help in the english wiki as well, I was so sad about the half-made portal I decided to take it. Herkese selamlar, -- Teemeah 16:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Turkey-geo-stub}} split

The Turkey-geo-stub category is probably ready for a split, considering that there are 997 stubs under the category. Before bringing it up at WP:Stub Sorting, I thought I'd mention it here to get input about what regions it should split by. Any ideas?Aelfthrytha 02:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Aelfthrytha Turkey has 7 regions as you can see in Geography_of_Turkey#Regions. And each reason has several ils(cities), and each city has some ilçes(district). I don't know your policy about splitting geo stubs, but i can try to help you. --Ugur Basak 07:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
heh that was exaclty what I proposed. Now we need to help stub sort... --Cat out 22:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Provinces and cities in South eastern Turkey

There are a wave of editors who seem to declare random provinces and cities to be kurdish dominant. Since there we do not even have a census or any reliable source of information regarding ethnicity statistics in Turkey, I feel this is a bad practice. Suggestions? --Cat out 22:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos from wowturkey.com

See also: User talk:A.Garnet#wowturkey.com, User:Paddu/wowturkey.com photo, and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Wowturkey.com images

Different photos from the website uploaded into en.wikipedia.org have different licencing tags. Image:Okhan de lan Antalya 20042.jpg says it is conditional use with the condition that wowturkey.com be attributed. Most other photos, like Image:Derwish small taslikburnufeneri.jpg and Image:Konyacity.jpg say the images are attributed under various Creative Commons licences.

The URL these photos refer to -- http://www.wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14278 doesn't seem to have the phrase "Creative Commons". (Is that also translated into Turkish in that page?) I believe all these photos should be tagged as "conditional use provided wowturkey.com is attributed". -- Paddu 05:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I just found Image:Ünlü cadde.jpg using {{attribution}}. I think that is the proper tag for these images. -- Paddu 06:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I was able to get some broken translation from Turkish to English of a sentence in http://www.wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14278 -- [3]. It looks like commercial use is prohibited unless permission is asked for and granted, which unfortunately means these photos cannot be used in Wikipedia per Jimbo's mail unless fair use can be claimed.

Most of these photos can be replaced by a free equivalent easily -- we just need someone in Turkey interested in free content to take such photos. Hence, in most of the cases "fair use" cannot be easily justified.

It would be great if someone could talk to www.wowturkey.com to release the photos under any one of the free licences listed at WP:ICT#Free licenses. -- Paddu 08:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The English translation of the copyright at User talk:A.Garnet#wowturkey.com images confirms that the images are not available for commercial use. :( -- Paddu 09:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
That guy on my talk page told me we could apply fair use templates to them, to be honest i do not see what the problem is. Wikipedia is non-commercial, and wowturkey allows images to be used for non-commercial purposes. So where is the problem? --A.Garnet 13:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course, we can apply fair use templates on any image irrespective of the copyright, if only we could have a proper fair use rationale for each use of the image. But as I said above, it would be difficult to give a fair use rationale for most wowturkey.com photos since many of those can be replaced easily (e.g. a Wikipedian with a digital camera in Turkey would be able to create replacement for a few of them).
Note that although Wikipedia is non-commercial, Wikipedia allows sublicencees to use/modify/distribute its content commercially as well (e.g. look at [4]). Please read Jimbo's mail that I have linked to above. Noncommercial licences are a strict no-no. Have a look at what Template:Noncommercial says. Note that most of the wowturkey.com photos which can't have a fair-use rationale would only be tagged {{noncommercial}}. -- Paddu 16:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Skimming through WP:IUP and WP:ICT might be helpful in understanding the rationale behind disallowing non-commercial-only images and allowing "fair use" content with a fair-use rationale in Wikipedia. -- Paddu 16:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
i had done this conversation with another admin about this photo's copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kaleicipanorama.jpg and he suggested this pictures copyright tag. i actually took permission from that website and im trying to use it for all the images although it says its allowed even commercially when you take permission from the photograph takers. Trust me all the images ive uploaded are permissioned from their owners. Also the website wowturkey allows them to be used in anyway as long as the photos represent Turkey because thats their main ambition. You can also check out the image for full translation of the website. Please contact me for anything about the copyright status, i can even get the disclaimer changed with something like its free in any way on wikipedia. thanx Metb82 23:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
See WP:IUP#Free licenses. The idea is to have media to be as free as the text (which is under GFDL). Hence for commercial use one shouldn't require the author to be contacted. For example, we would like our sublicencees like answers.com to reuse our images commercially. They believe all our content is available for commercial reuse and they use the Turkey photos on Wikipedia for commercial purposes (showing ads in their pages that contain these photos and making profit through them). It wouldn't be considered "free" if answers.com is required to ask wowturkey.com permission for their use of each of the wowturkey.com photos on Wikipedia. If wowturkey.com really would give permission to anybody to use their images commercially, they could state so when licencing the images to Wikipedia -- which is why I asked if anybody could persuade them to release at least a few images under a free licence.
Also, if a photo is really "free", there should be no restriction that it should be used only to represent Turkey. For example, one should be allowed to use these photos to illustrate "light house", "beach", "bridge", "sea", etc. One should also be allowed to modify the photo as one wishes. Hence for example, -- if you permit my imagination to run wild -- one should be allowed to modify a Turkey photo and use it to illustrate a fictitious land in a science fiction novel, as long as any required credits/history/etc. of the original photo are cited. This doesn't seem to hold good for wowturkey.com images, so they should be tagged as {{fair use in|article name}} + {{withpermission}}, and a proper fair use rationale is given.
Of course, if somebody is able to make wowturkey.com give permission to anybody to *COPY*, *MODIFY* and *DISTRIBUTE* as one wishes, we could really call them "free images". Otherwise whatever I told above about "fair use" holds. -- Paddu 21:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As expected, the process of deletion of wowturkey.com images has already started. See Image:CentralAnatolianTurkishHouse.jpg's listing in User talk:Ajda#Please STOP uploading photos from the web and WP:PUI#16_May. Once English translation is provided as requested in WP:PUI, the wowturkey.com photos would all be immediately tagged {{noncommercial}} and deleted speedily under WP:CSD#I3.

Those who want the images to stay should act fast -- either ask wowturkey.com to licence these freely or add fair use rationales to the images. I have actually waited for too long for this to happen. Others will not do so.

Thanks! -- Paddu 09:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've sent metb82 a message to see if he can contact them. --A.Garnet 14:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
One possibility is to ask them to licence lower-resolution version of some of their images. -- Paddu 21:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Meanwhile, let me tell what needs to be done for images that wowturkey.com doesn't licence under any of the licences listed at WP:ICT#Free licenses. This should also be done for images from any other site (many Turkey photos seem to come from trekearth.com) that has been uploaded into Wikipedia.
  1. Replace most images with images that have free licences, many of which can be found under commons:Category:Turkey (e.g. [5], [6] though that was not a wowturkey.com image) and tag the images for deletion, e.g. using {{noncommercial}} or {{orphaned unfree replaced}}. Note that we might not be able to get as many free images as nonfree ones so in some cases multiple images might need to be replaced by a single one.
  2. If there are (very few) important images with no free alternatives, for which a convincing fair use rationale could be given, e.g. (again my imagination running wild :)) because the photo was taken from a place difficult to reach and a free alternative is not easy to get, add
    • a specific tag from WP:ICT#Fair use, or
    • one of the generic {{fair use in*}} with a fair use rationale,
  3. Add {{fair use reduce}}, to each of such images.
  4. Add reduced resolution versions of each of the fair use images and tag those {{fair use reduced}}.
  5. Tag images for which free alternatives are not available now but should be easy to get with {{fair use replace}}.
  6. Try to photograph alternatives to some of the "fair use" images or get photographs that are free alternatives to those.
  7. Go back to step 1 for the images with free alternatives.
I hope people here are convinced with my arguments and trust what I am saying. That is part of the reason I wanted to take some time in dealing with the issue -- WP:AGF, WP:BITE.
I have to cut down on my time spent on Wikipedia and might not be able to go through these steps myself -- hence this message.
Thanks! -- Paddu 15:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey i was wondering if this tag: ==== "Any-purpose" copyright ====
  • {{ABr}}—A photo copyrighted by Agência Brasil, that can be freely reproduced as long as credit is given to the source and the reporter.
is also suitable for wowturkey? Metb82 19:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Phew! It looks like I've totally failed in making it clear that non-commercial-use-only images are unacceptable here whether they are tagged so or tagged in any other way. And it is very clear that wowturkey images are non-commercial-use-only from the English translation at User talk:A.Garnet. I should probably list the images for deletion since I've waited too long. The deleting admins might hopefully be able to explain things better. -- Paddu 19:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I've pasted your earlier response onto Met's page, lets wait for wowturkeys response before initiating deletion. Knowing that we are attempting to resolve this, i think it would be unfair to begin deletion. --A.Garnet 19:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
IMHO it is better to list for deletion and tell people we are trying to resolve this here instead of being caught napping when somebody else decides to list for deletion and things get deleted. Besides, I am not comfortable with not involving the numerous Wikipedians interested in image copyright issues who don't read this page.
Actually, first the issue has to be resolved (e.g. by asking for permission under a free licence, or thinking of a fair use rationale, etc.) before we make use of these images. We're currently doing things the other way round. What do you think sounds better?
  • "We have used these images from your site and misrepresented their copyright. Can you licence these under the misrepresented terms?", or
  • "Can you licence these under our terms so we can use these images in future? If you don't want to do so, we won't use them"
You can always upload the images later if the issues get resolved. Make a backup of all the images that you want to save from deletion in your hard drive and reupload later with the proper tag. In fact the images are supposed to give a link to the original image in wowturkey.com. If that is done, we only need to note the links instead of backing up the images.
Also, we can always ext. link these photos from Wikipedia articles instead of hosting them in our servers. IMHO ext. linking really good images can improve the article greatly without introducing licencing issues. Look at how so many articles on various places ext. link google maps and aerial images! -- Paddu 20:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The thing is paddu these images were uploaded in good faith with the permission of wowturkey, who as met has stated, are happy to have their images listed here. It is just the whole commercial aspect and Wikipedias sub-licensing which has confused people. I never even considerer the commercial aspect until you highlighted it to me, so there is no intention from mine or others part - we are just trying to resolve this to save a lot of unnecessary hassle. --A.Garnet 22:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Metb82. I misunderstood you. I now understood you wanted to propose {{ABr}} to wowturkey.com guys and didn't want to tag the images so right away. -- Paddu 23:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah sorry i had to ask here first, but just wanted to know what they would think about something like that and they said ok. So what do you say about what i wrote about the commercial lines? Oh dont get me wrong, im only suggesting something for them to change, not anything about changing any tag in wikipedia without a solid base from wowturkey. Metb82 23:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
As I have said in Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags, I'm not sure such tags allow free 'modification, though they allow free copying/distribution commercially or non-commercially. The real free images are GFDL and Creative Commons images listed in WP:ICT and loosely worded variants like {{attribution}}, {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, etc. -- Paddu 23:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Also see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006 May 10#Template:WowTurkey Image Copyright. -- Paddu 22:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Paddu, your knowledge on the subject is far more than mine so i am not able to follow some parts you say. forexample if i say: "We have used these images from your site and misrepresented their copyright. Can you licence these under the misrepresented terms?", or
"Can you licence these under our terms so we can use these images in future? If you don't want to do so, we won't use them", they will ask me how can we licence the images under the misrepresented terms?".
Metb82, that was just to illustrate what we are doing now. Using their content and tagging them with various inappropriate free licence tags, and then asking them for permission. What we should do is first ask them for permission to use the image under a free licence, and then use it. We are doing the opposite of that, which is wrong. Hence it is still a good approach to delete all the images replacing them with free images or external links to wowturkey.com images, then ask them permission and only if granted, use them later. We shouldn't use them before the permission is granted, only after.
Or you are saying "asking for permission under a free licence, or thinking of a fair use rationale, etc.". I understand the first one is them stating that they declare that they released all commercial rights to all pictures but i dont understand the second one.
See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Fair use rationale. If we are using a non-free image in Wikipedia, we have to give a detailed rationale about why that is allowed, e.g. because there is no free alternative, and the copyright owner of the image isn't affected by this use (e.g. because the image we have is a smaller resolution than the one the copyright owner is distributing).
Actually the link doesnt state very strictly that they dont allow any kind of commercial use, it just states we should take permission from photograph owners which draws the line not so strictly. So its not fair to say that they dont allow us to use the images because they will be used commercial. as you see, they dont care about how we use them but they care about declaring this in their site but i am trying to finalize this also Metb82 23:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
How strict they are doesn't really matter. You never know what kind of issues can spring up in the future. Hence Wikipedia wants to be very strict in what kind of content is allowed. Since we tell the reader they are allowed to copy/modify/distribute/sell our content, we are allowing them to copy/modify/distribute/sell these images without asking permission from wowturkey.com. If wowturkey.com doesn't bother about that, they just need to send you a reply saying it is OK for Wikipedia to licence the images for commercial use.
Note that as I have said earlier, if we could convince them to release only a few images at only a reduced resolution under a free licence, that might still be useful. -- Paddu 23:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Metb82, can we invite someone working on Turkey-related articles who knows Turkish but might also know more about copyright issues to talk to resolve these issues? Probably someone from the Turkish Wikipedia? -- Paddu 00:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

i will try dont worry. But for now, we can also use someone in english wikipedia and then i can translate. What i dont understand is, forexample the brasil licence doesnt allow to modify the link to the page, but it still has a licence. Im also still waiting for wowturkeys response. Metb82 00:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I can translate if I can get a link to the copyright page. --Cat out 17:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I already translated, its not about that. The current copyright page declares that it is not including the commercial use or includes with a permission and this will cause all the wowturkey pictures to be deleted from wikipedia. we are looking for ways to solve this in both sites and we need someone who knows the copyright issue very well. Metb82 00:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Paddu asked me to give you some advice. Here are some links that you might find useful:

Sorry if I cannot be more helpful. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be prudent for people to keep a list of the source wowturkey.com pages for the various images, so that if they get deleted and later wowturkey.com releases the image under a free licence, it is easier to reupload. -- Paddu 00:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think someone should ask them once and for all: do they accept one of our licenses or not. They should understand what a free license (such as CC-BY or GFDL) means:
  • usage by anyone without asking for permission.
  • usage for commercial purposes.
  • being able to make derivative images (i.e. to modify them)
  • any type of usage, for example I should be able to use modified images to make fun of Turkey. (I say this because the site said something on usage for "promotion" of Turkey only)
If they don't agree, we should simply delete all of them. bogdan 14:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Free license or kill with fire. - FrancisTyers 14:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think rather than ask that they apply this to all their images, that they instead release a certain number of images for us - this is what Paddu suggested, and what i think will be the most reasonable approach with them. --A.Garnet 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I have just uploaded some images of Istanbul, that I took myself. I have uploaded these images under the GFDL tag. I am posting them here for sample. If you like any of these, please feel free to use it for this article or any other article. RMehra 05:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The Sultanahmet Mosque, Istanbul
Enlarge
The Sultanahmet Mosque, Istanbul
The Sultanahmet Mosque, Istanbul
Enlarge
The Sultanahmet Mosque, Istanbul
Busy Istanbul Streets
Enlarge
Busy Istanbul Streets

Can anybody who knows Turkish tell what is happening at [7] and [8]? If at least a few photographers have agreed to a free licence, we can properly tag images taken by them uploaded here. -- Paddu 17:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is some discussion about this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Wowturkey.com images. It seems deleted images can now be restored, so the best way to deal with the images is to delete all of them per policy, and if some images are released under a free licence in future (or already released), they can be restored later. -- Paddu 13:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

WOWTURKEY photographs can be used by:
1. Getting in touch directly with the photographer (whose identity is shown each time with the photograph on www.wowturkey.com)
2. Clearly indicating that it is for use on wikipedia and by explaining what Creative Commons licence consists of, as well as what the different licences are. (It would also be helpful to indicate him the article for which the photograph will be initially used.)
3. Requesting and obtaining his permission (which seems fair enough to me AND I am sure the Turkish speakers here can help if there are language problems for the request OR We can perhaps prepare a standard text in Turkish).
4. INDICATING CLEARLY WHILE UPLOADING THAT THE SOURCE IS WWW.WOWTURKEY.COM.
5. Indicating clearly while uploading that the photographer has given his permission (I guess the copy-pasted text from the photographer's message that I placed in the file info for Image:DarioMorenoSokağı.jpg could serve as an example).
6. A distinct permission is required each time (for each photograph). Wowturkey photographs ARE used by media channels in Turkey, but under these conditions.

The relevant discussion in wowturkey (in Turkish) is at this address. [9] Cretanforever

[edit] High Court of Appeals (Turkey)

This article needs expanding. Since there has been recent events involving this bratch we should perhaps give improvement of this article a priority. --Cat out 11:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mergers

I propose these mergers. We do not need 5 articles talking about the same stuff. --Cat out 22:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

But Cool Cat, the demographics article also talks about birth rate, sex ratio, etc. The People of Turkey article is a sub-article of the former, and Turkish people needs to remain a separate article. —Khoikhoi 23:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with you merging the Caucasus article, but the rest need to remain how they are. —Khoikhoi 23:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Demographics is a shorthand term for 'population characteristics'. Demographics include race, age, income, mobility (in terms of travel time to work or number of vehicles available), educational attainment, home ownership, employment status, and even location. Distributions of values within a demographic variable, and across households, are both of interest, as well as trends over time. Demographics are primarily used in economic and marketing research.
Hence, Demographics supposed to talk about birth rate, sex ratio, as well as ethnicity.
People of Turkey provides no insight aside from demographics.
Turkish people articles content is not consistant with the meaning of Turkish (nationality) and it talks about Turcic people (ethnicity) only. We do not have articles explaining nationalities. Instead we link (redirect) to either the country of the nationality or to demographics page. See: American people. The article also provides demographics data which should instead be presented in the demographics article.
All of the articles I mentioned has political rant that often has no basis (source).
--Cat out 23:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
We have a People of Afghanistan article and a Demographics of Afghanistan article. We also have a Demographics of the Philippines and also a Ethnic groups in the Philippines. So should those be merged as well?
You're basically saying we should group Turks together with Kurds, however, if Kurdish people is a separate article, Turkish people can't? They're definately considered a distinct ethnic group apart from Kurds, regardless of the fact that the Turkish census doesn't base it off ethnicity.
Cool cat says the correct spelling is Turkic peoples, and Cool cat does not oppose having separate articles at Kurdish people and Turkic peoples. -- Paddu 06:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You don't understand. Look at the CIA for example on Turkey: for ethnic groups it says "Turkish 80%, Kurdish 20% (estimated)". The Turks of Turkey are only one of the Turkic peoples—you can see the whole list here. —Khoikhoi 14:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Columbia refers to them as Osmanlis:
The people of modern Turkey, which was founded after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, are called Osmanli Turks. The original Osmanlis had merged at an early stage with the Seljuks, and their descendants mixed extensively with Muslim converts from the many dozens of nationalities that made up their empire. [10]
—Khoikhoi 00:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Khoikhoi I am going to make this very simple for you. Kurds inside Turkey are Turkish according to the Turkish constitution, or so I am told. Khoikhoi we already discussed this and you are making identical arguments. I do not want to copy paste stuff from my talk pages archives here. On the same CIA page nationality is given as Turkish as well.
Türk in Turkish translates to both "Turkish" (nationality) and "Tucic" (ethnicity) depending on context of the sentence it is used. Without context it can be very confusing hence is inaproporate for being a duplicate article.
Why is grouping kurds with Turks problematic? Arent kurds people? Why should be kurds discriminated?
--Cat out 18:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The Turkish constitution is really not relevant as it is based upon nationalist ideals rather than how people identify themselves which is more important. The Greeks don't recognize ethnic division in their countries either, but that doesn't change the fact that there are Albanians, Turks, and Bulgarians (as well as Pomaks) in their country. CIA factbook lists the following: Turkish 80%, Kurdish 20% (estimated)[11], which creates the distinction right there. Your logic on the Kurds is flawed. Many feel that they are a distinct ethnic group and do not want to be considered 'Turks' as they speak the Kurdish language. In addition, the many different groups who are lumped as Turks also have various distinctions, but we don't have any reliable data and if we do it should be used I'd say. Taking out parts of the article on Turkish people will only diminish the information availability of said article and simplify the situation as simply a question of Turkic peoples rather than the more comprehensive view an encyclopedia should have which is to give as many details as possible on a particular group. Oh and I, of course, oppose the mergers for the aforementioned reasons. Tombseye 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Turkish constitution is a citable document and is NOT irrelevant. Turkish refers to a nationality not ethnicity. redirecting Turkish people -> Demographics of Turkey does not imply I am declaring kurds anything... Language people speak, their ethnicity is DEMOGRAPHICS data. What on earth can be problematic in redirecting then? --Cat out 15:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Turkish refers to both a nationality and a perceived ethnic group. One word can have more than a single meaning as in this case. Most people will not type in Turkish people looking to see the demographics of Turkey as that is what one finds on the country page where it is relevant. In fact if one were looking for the demographics of turkey it would make sense to actually type in demographics turkey. Turkish people, as defined in most encyclopedias and references refers to ethnic Turkish people. The redirect simply makes no sense given the preponderance of its usage in references. It's POV to support the Turkish govt.'s views just as it is to support the Greek govt.'s views that there are no ethnic minorities. Governments say a lot of things to promote whatever policies they want, but that's all besides the point. The redirect makes no sense unless you can show us that somehow people are thinking about demographics rather than an ethnic group when they type in Turkish people as I have yet to see any indication as such outside of Turkey itself. These articles are afterall for the world and should be rendered in an academic fashion and not just for Turkish views on the matter. Tombseye 17:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, the discussion looks confusing. It looks like both Cool Cat and Tombseye don't consider Kurds as ethnic Turks. Isn't nationality defined by the constitution of the nation involved, independent of ethnicity? So why is there any contention? If the only problem is redirection, we could have a disambig (or a redirect to one) pointing to all the relevant pages.
Here are my views (as a reader, not a writer since I know nothing about Turkey a priori):
  1. I would type Turkish people and People of Turkey interchangeably (referring to nationality) in the search box. So one should be a redirect/disambig to the other.
  2. Articles on Turkish nationality and on ethnic Turks should be separate. Probably a disambig at Turkish people pointing to People of Turkey and Turk (ethnicity)?
-- Paddu 10:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
How about Turkish people (ethnic group)? (Because People of Turkey ≠ Ethnic Turks). Also, "Turk" or "Turks", confusingly, also refers to Turkic peoples in general. This can include people like the Uygurs, Yakuts, Uzbeks, etc. —Khoikhoi 23:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW, in Turkish, Türk milleti (Turkish people) refers to ethnic Turks of Turkey, while Türk ulusu (Turkish nation) refers to anyone who lives in Turkey, regardless of differences in culture, religion, etc. —Khoikhoi 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm OK with that, provided Turkish people disambiguates between People of Turkey and Turkish people (ethnic group) and, the 2 separate articles talk about different things, with minimal duplication.
Now, if the pages you mentioned do refer to nationality and ethnicity currently, and the current spelling for the ethnic group is Turkish, then the following have to be set right.
  1. Turkish people starts of with "the Turkish people (Türk Halkı), are a nation (millet)"
  2. The list at People of Turkey#Turkish phenotypes and diversity does not include Turkish ethnicity.
-- Paddu 23:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Paddu, I feel the articles at their current state are poor in quality. I suggest People of Turkey be merged into Demographics of Turkey. I also suggest Turkish people be redirected to Demographics of Turkey while providing a link on top of the page to the other disambiguation (like Air).
Khoikhoi, Türk ulusu (Turkish nation) does not refer to ethnic turks. I do not know where you got that idea but the turkish constitution is pretty clear on the issue. Are we goint to base this on a citable document such as the constitution or not?
Tombseye wikipedia is an encyclopedia. How turkish goverment clasifies its citizens is very relevant. It is pov to suggest otherwise. On many sources an american refers to white europeans living in the US while american can mean brazilian.
--Cat out 12:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I am citing American, People of America (or the lack of it), and American people as an example of how this should be.--Cat out 12:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Well Americans are a nation of recent immigrants and there is no single American ethnic group of a comparable nature to the ethnic Turks and Kurds, not that people argue that there are. Actually, any nationality on earth could be analogized as an ethnic group or not. So you do agree then that there are no Turks in Greece as per the Greek government views then? My encyclopedia (Americana) has a section on Turkey with the People section. It starts off with a discussion of the Turkish speaking Turks and then talks about the ethnic minorities. Nearly every reference differentiates between the groups. Demographics are a general discussion of the entire population whereas when there are numerous groups, as in Turkey, there are numerous sections and articles. The Turkish govt. (and others like it) promote their own view of nationalism in order to maintain national unity and do not act as objective academics. It's like saying that the Soviet Union's old contention that they had invented everything from the lightbulb to the airplane is indeed a viable position. The Turkish govt.'s view has nothing to do with the reality of the groups as distinct peoples. Otherwise, why even have ethnic group articles? Simply eliminate all of them and discuss each group in the country then under demographics. As long as the Kurds and others don't view themselves as Turks, there is absolutely no reason to subsume these groups into some sort of demographics section and ignore their differences and self-identification in favor of a government view. I have yet to see references outside of Turkey that do not identify a distinct Turkish and Kurdish orientation as well as Arabs and other smaller groups. You'll have to convince a lot of people that there are no real ethnic groups before we go down this course of agreeing with what a government claims. We've all got a POV, but what we're going for is an NPOV. Can you prove that the government has a NPOV and if so how? Is there no distiction between Turks and Kurds (who are then Mountain Turks)? If so, prove it and then I'll agree with the merger. Tombseye 20:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks like there is more confusion of ethnicity and nationality. How could they be analogised to each other? There is something as "Indian nationality" but there is no such thing as "Indian ethnicity", for example. Can you be clear on whether you want Kurds living in Turkey to be considered Turkish nationals or not? If not, what nation are they citizens of? Are the answers to these NPOV, citable and verifiable? -- Paddu 12:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No confusion at all. The confusion is mainly due to the Turkish government's insistence that everyone is a 'Turk' and they have, in the past, referred to the Kurds as Mountain Turks to erase any views of them as a distinct group. People who type in Turkish people shouldn't be redirected to Demographics of Turkey as Turkish people is about an ethnic group. These words are interchangeable as that terminology can also be used to relate to Turkish nationals. Same with Iranian, which refers to Iranian peoples and Iranian nationals of Iran. I have no answer as to how to fix the quandry of myriad uses of the terminology. My point is that there is a Turkic-speaking group whom we call Turks and there is a Kurdish-speaking group we call Kurds. My contention is that a redirect defeats the purpose of ethnic group articles as it makes it seem as if everyone in Turkey is an ETHNIC Turk. The demographics of Turkey is where it belongs under the country of Turkey and people who read about Turkey can click on it as well as on the various ethnic group articles that discuss the different people who live in Turkey. And yes, they are NPOV. There are literally dozens of sources that will discuss the ethnic groups of Turkey as distinct from Turks.[12][13] Now what I would agree with is a disambiguation page that lists Turkish people and Demographics of Turkey with an explanation of the various usages as that would logically give the dual usage of the term as both an ethnic group and a national group. Tombseye 23:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
You didn't answer my specific questions -- "How could nationality and ethnicity be analogised to each other? Can you be clear on whether you want Kurds living in Turkey to be considered Turkish nationals or not? If not, what nation are they citizens of?" -- which are what I wanted "NPOV citable verifiable" answers for. But if you agree to having a disambiguation page (and a disambiguating paragraph at the top of the articles being disambiguated), these questions would probably be moot.
BTW, note that as I said above both People of Turkey and Turkish people touch upon both the concepts of Turkish nationality and Turkish ethnicity. We should either have one article that disambiguates and deals with both, or have a disambiguation page and separate articles on Turkish nationality and Turkish ethnicity. -- Paddu 15:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Inappropriate Participants

User named Ozgurgerilla is an active supproter of the terrorist organization, PKK. He mentions this himself in his user page, everyone can look at it. I'm offering to remove his name from the participant list. With respect, the son of the warrior nomads, Deliogul 15:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The aim of this project is to expand articles related to Turkey - not to push a certain POV. Any user is thus welcome to participate, irrespective of their personal convictions. I can see from your userpage, that not being a Turk is a reason to be hated by you. I hope, despite your hatred, that you are willing to collaborate with non-Turks on this global encyclopedia. Bertilvidet 16:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Deliogul, you are not helping by writing nationalist bullshit either. And if Ozgurgerilla supports PKK, he should join them instead of spending his parents' money in London. Actually there are quite a lot of things I'd like to learn about him.--Kagan the Barbarian 15:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Fuzûlî

To anyone interested in or knowledgable on the subject, I've tagged the "Work" section in the Fuzûlî article with an original research dispute tag. Though (or perhaps because) I wrote the section myself, I've realized that it needs references and support for its claims; without them, it's definitely original research.

If anyone is willing to flesh out (or rewrite) the section so as to make it not original research, it would be greatly appreciated (and in the long run, probably beneficial to this project as well). Cheers. —Saposcat 09:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Genocide

I wonder why no Turkish editor is participating in the Armenian Genocide article. I'm trying to add/improve the discussion on the position of Western Scholars [14] and defending it in the talk page [15], [16], and [17]. But some editors keep reverting the article [18] although they don't participate in any of the discussions. I'd certainly appreciate some help. Deepblue06 17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Bu ermenilere bir çare bulmalıyız. Türkçe Vikipedide de bu tartışıldı. Her il maddesine sözde soykırımla ilgili bilgiler yerleştiriyorlar. Bunlara karşı önlem alınmalı.--Absar 13:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Burada ingilizce konuşunuz lütfen. Aelfthrytha 15:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Bu konuda dialog ve iletişim kurmak çok zor. Sinir bozukluğundan başka birşeye yaramaz. (Translation: Establishing communication and dialog in this matter is very hard. It's just source for stress and bad for your nerves.) --Gokhan 13:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
From Iğdır to İzmir they are adding Armenian related stuff to the articles, mostly about Armenian deads of course. The way I see it is a propagandist tactic of theirs, they might even have schools for these things. So as the previous poster said any future conversation or edit war seems pointless.--Kagan the Barbarian 15:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I wonder why this master piece propaganda article has a "This is a Wikiproject Turkey article" on discussion page while it is impossible to add any information that proves that there was no genocide? If you people are really working for Turkey, then please remove it since it gives an illusion like the people that think the other way can also edit it. 85.97.143.100 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outdated Articles: Assistance Request

I am going through {{Turkey-geo-stub}} category for cleaning. I noticed that there are several articles which appeared there which reference outdated (i.e. Ottoman era) encyclopedic sources. Also, there are some articles which don't give enough information about the places referenced. However, because I am in the middle summer travel, I don't have enough sources to be able to deal with it right now. Here is a list: Euyuk, Dinar, Turkey, Enos, Turkey, Cebeci, Iskelib, Issus (town), Mar Bishu. Aelfthrytha 15:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed all except Euyuk and Mar Bishu. The first, I have no idea where it is. Höyük is mound in Turkish, but a name should come before the word (should be something + höyük). And Mar Bishu is obviously the Assyrian name for a place in Turkey, but there is no indication on the Turkish name. Cretanforever

Thank you! Aelfthrytha 20:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There is an article that needs attention.

For the ones that is interested in history, please check the article Van Resistance. Thanks.--OttomanReference 19:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Member

Selamlar, I've recently signed up on WikiPedia after some lurking, and decided to join this Project for... obvious reasons. ;p

I've done Ahmet Kanneci and some of his album and I'll be working on other Turkish musicians in a timely matter. I was thinking of doing groups such as Laço Tayfa, Tamburada etc, and if you'd like to see other Turkish bands - musicians on Wikipedia, just drop me a note. Kedi the tramp 09:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Done Tamburada and their album. Kedi the tramp 09:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Attention needed

I recommend that the members here add Turkification to your watchlist. It seems to be a magnet for many users who might want to insert some POV concerning Turkey.

[edit] RfC survey

Hey all, your input would be well received here: Wikipedia:Greek/Turkish naming conventions. - FrancisTyers · 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People moving Ottoman biographies into Arabic titles

Hi, it has come to my attention that there are some users systematically moving biographies of Turkish people from the Ottoman period from Turkish spelling into Arabic transliteration (like User:Cunado19 moving Abdülmecid to ‘Abdu’l-Mijid I), without any discussion. I know that some Ottomans used Arabic names, but I think these biographies should have Turkish titles because it is obvious that these are Turkish people and the standard should be how their names are written with the Turkish alphabet (this is also the standard in the majority of history books). I just wanted to let you know. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that was something that really pissed me off (God knows why), so I have brought the issue up on the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic), which deals with the matter in question—but has thus far given short shrift (i.e., no shrift at all) to the pecularities involved with Ottoman Turkish romanization. Hopefully, the matter can somehow be resolved soon, a standard will be put in place, and we can all sleep a little more soundly at night. —Saposcat 12:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Wikipedia

Someone from the Turkish Wikipedia left me a message [19] saying they'd had some problem with their recent changes page. [20]. I don't speak Turkish, and I'm not sure what the problem is, so I figured I'd pass it on here.--Cúchullain t/c 22:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decline versus Fall

The two articles Fall of the Ottoman Empire and Decline of the Ottoman Empire (abandoned) look like candidates for a merge. I do not know what was the reason to create the "Fall" variant but it is now abandoned. Pavel Vozenilek

[edit] Voting for Ottoman Turkish Wikipedia

Dear Wikiproject Turkey members, I want to bring to your attention the current voting on Meta-Wiki [21] for the creation of an Ottoman Turkish version of Wikipedia, which is held under this comment:

"The Ottoman language was the offictial language of the Ottoman Empire. This once great empire had it's origin in central Turkey, and made it's capital at Istanbul in 1453. It onced stretched from Morrocco to Iraq, and from Hungary to Yemen. The Ottoman Empire brought together many diverse peoples, and the language was important in the middle east, and has a rich cultural heritage. However, this wasn't enough to save it from Atatük's Turkish language "reform". Thanks to him, Turks today can hardly understand spoken Ottoman, much less written. It is very similar, though, and some Turks still study the language as part of their history. I don't speak Ottoman, but I want to see Wikipedia in this language. I will contact people who know Ottoman on English Wikipedia."

The brief introduction of the Ottoman Empire and language is followed by a highly POV statement regarding Atatürk's acts in 1920's and 1930's and I can't help sensing that the owner of the proposal has no knowledge of the circumstances of the time, how the Republic of Turkey was born from a dead empire, how the Turkish language and history was studied for the first time by institutions founded by Atatürk, nor has he an appreciation of the gains the Turkish people experienced thanks to the language and alphabet reform. Were it not like this, I would at least be neutral on this vote. I urge you to join the discussion there, because the voter group currently consists of individuals asking, while voting, if Arabic and Turkish are similar in terms of linguistics. Atilim Gunes Baydin 12:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination: Ahmet Köksal

The article on Ahmet Köksal, a Turkish author and project manager, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmet Köksal. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help Request

Hi. I'd really appreciate it if a native speaker of Turkish could try to perform two tasks that would help people like me, who aren't (and are terribly lost when confronting letters like those in "İsmet İnönü")

  • It would be tremendously helpful to have the IPA pronunciations for at least all Presidents of Turkey, and maybe later other articles with turkish titles
  • It would be even more helpful to have some .ogg pronunciation files (see for example Hồ Chí Minh)

Many thanks for anybody that undertakes this! --Storkk 15:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mert yucel

This article about a Turkish musician has been listed for deletion via PROD. The "Media" section of his homepage includes a large number of scanned clippings from various Turkish media sources, but unsurprisingly, none are written in English. Could you please take a few minutes to evaluate them and see whether they confirm the claims of notability made in the article? Thanks. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sözde Ermeni soykırımı

Slm arkadaşlar, WikiProject_Turkey ' e katılmak istiyorum. Ermenilerin hazırladığı sayfalara bakıyorum da gerçekleri bilmesem çok kolay yerim bu palavraları. Sizlerle ortak bir çalışma yapalım istiyorum. Ermenilerin sürgünden önce yaptıkları mezalimi tüm ayrıntılarıyla fotoğraflar ve videolarla burada anlatalım - tabi ingilizce olarak - Haklı olduğumuz bir davada elimizden geleni yapalım, onlardan daha fazla vatanımızı milletimizi sevdiğimizi gösterelim. Gerçekleri belgelerle yazışmalarla buraya taşıyalım. En azından bunu yapmalıyız çünkü haklı olan taraf biziz. Umarım bana destek olursunuz, saygılarımla. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obsteel (talk • contribs) .

Hatta Türk Soykırımı "Turkish Genocide" diye bir konu açmalıyız. Bu konuda Ermenilerin biz Türklere yaptığı işkenceleri belgeleriyle fotoğraflarla anlatabiliriz. Elimde bir kaç saatlik araştırma sonucunda bikaç fotoğraf bulabildim eminim çok daha fazla kaynak var bu konuda.Obsteel 10:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help requested with Izmit Bay Bridge

I am trying to find information about the status of this bridge. There is virtually no information available on-line in English. Has the project been cancelled? If not, when will construction begin? Any information will be appreciated. Either respond here, on my talk page, or by editing the article. Thank you. -- Samuel Wantman 18:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 16:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fake link being added to Turkish articles

Please see my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Esenboga International Airport. The link was added to Turkey and possibly another Turkish article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Almanca konusanlara

Merhaba und Hallo, wir würden uns sehr freuen, wenn wir Dich auf unserem neuen de:Portal:Türkei willkommen heißen dürfen - Schau doch mal rein!

Lust am Artikel schreiben? Dann hilf uns Türkei-bezogene Artikel zu schreiben und zu verbessern bei de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Türkei!

--Ferdi Öztürk 21:03, 16. Okt. 2006 (CEST)

[edit] Turkish coffe disputes

Hi,

I do not know it is a good place to mention the problem with the article, but Greeks are systemically corrupting articles to make them somwhow Greek products. Their additions do not have proper citations either. I know it is against wikipedia rules but I do not know the procedure to follow to prevent anymore vandalism. If you can help please make the stiuation to administrative process.

[edit] New participant saying hello/merhaba

Hi,

I love Turkey, its culture, and history, though I'm not an advanced student and haven't visited as often as I'd like. I've made a few changes to the Topkapı Palace page and am starting on some of the stubs related to Istanbul.

The wikipedia guidelines suggest breaking long articles into shorter, separate ones. I'd be glad to give it a try unless anybody objects. Afeeney 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ural-Altaic languages

Dear Turkey, some of You seem to have added this article to Your list of Turkey-related articles to be improved. I hope this will not result in a surge of edits propagating a linguistic postulation which is at the moment held to be non-existent. Furthermore, I fail to see how such a hypothetical construct would particularly be Turkey-related? The relationship between Turkey and the Ural-Altaic languages is comparable to the relation between e.g. England and the Indo-Uralic languages, i.e. not very direct, dubious even. Clarifer 15:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

dear Cléarifer it is quite unusual that you say it has nothing to do with Turkey when Turkey's population is 98% Turkish, and they speak the Turkish language which belongs to the ALTAIC group of languages... so I cannopt see how ural-ALTAIC langugaes are UNRELATED to Turkey?? Ok that this is a controversial topic as some linguists say Turkish i altaic some say it isn't but the fact that the topic is unsettled yet, doesn't mean that the THEORY cannot belong to a Turkish category, as the language is PART OF the disputed theory! --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 17:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Teemeah, please pay attention to what I wrote. Whether Turkish is an Altaic language and whether an entire LANGUAGE FAMILY is somehow PARTICULARLY country related has nothing to do with my notion. (Also please compare this to following strange claim: The article Indo-European languages is a particularly Iceland related article). We are talking about the speculative macro family of languages termed "the Ural-Altaic languages" (consisting of the family of the Uralic languages and the, itself controversial, family of the Altaic languages). Most modern linguists consider such a constellation NON-EXISTENT. How, then, could Turkey (a state) be particularly related to a completely speculative language family? Clarifer 15:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
that its inhabitants supposedly speak a language which supposedly comes from a speculative language family??? Till the issue is not decided by linguists fully, then I suggest we should leave this discussion. by the way, now the hungarian language origins as coming from the finno-ugrian group is now disputed by several linguists, so should we then delete the Hungarian languge from the adequate category just because the theory is disputed? until linguists decide FOR SURE, we should just leave everythuing as it is. my 5 cents..--Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. And because "as it is" in terms of the Ural-Altaic hypothesis is that no such a thing exists, we should leave the Altaic and the Uralic language families separate until there's some evidence of a special relation between them. Until this happens, such a constellation remains a mere speculation just as the macro family of Indo-Uralic languages does. If in the future Hungarian is placed into the family of the Altaic languages, then so be it. Clarifer 09:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

I have initiated a request for comment regarding the Turkish Van page. The discussion is at Talk:Turkish Van#Request for comment. Any and all responses are welcome. Badbilltucker 15:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koldang dog

I noted that the Koldang dog is currently under protection by the Turkish government on the Van Kedisi page. There is to my knowledge no content on the Koldang dog in the English wikipedia. If anyone has any information on this animal, the creation of even a minimal page would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Badbilltucker 17:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A timeline is asked to be deleted.

The timeline for Kurdistan Workers Party/Timeline is put into deletion; If you are interested, please check its page.--OttomanReference 19:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baristarim on turkey

He is trying to make turkey look like a country of stone age illiterates and worst of all attribute this to Kurds. in a very racist way. I have tried to revert his very poor additions, but he is very stubborn about it. Help save the image of Turkey, turks and kurds and stop this wacko

Watch for civility. That wacko spent tens of hours cleaning up that article and finding sources. I found 60 out of 70 sources cited in the article. Literacy figures are mentioned in every single country article, and they will stay. All that information is sourced. Do not touch them. Baristarim 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Turkey_2a2e.html"