Talk:Turkey/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

GA PASSED!!!

I am going to pass this article based on the following criteria:

1. It is well written.: It is VERY well written. The prose is easy to understand and flows very nicely!
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.: It is with regard to GA threshold: That is all assertions either challenged or likely to be challenged are referenced. This article is close to FA status, but further referencing is needed to meet the FA standard for referencing. See below for some more tips before you take this to FA review...
3. It is broad in its coverage.: Boy is it ever. This is FA material if I ever saw it!
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. With a nation so close to many of our cultutal and philosophical crossroads, it would be east not to be NPOV. This article seems to do a VERY good job of addressing all issues, even those that could be controversial, in a sensitive and yet comprehensive manner.
5. It is stable Looks like the only changes are improvements, and there does not seem to be any contentious edit wars...
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.: I spot checked the images included and they seem to be in good order WRT liscencing. Please double check EVERY image before going to FA as rules of liscencing images are very stringent there.

If you are going to take this for a Featured Article Review (and I STRONGLY encourage you to do so... I will endorse it!) then please consider the following checks:

• All assertions of fact (not just those deemed "controversial") should probably be referenced. This is nearly done here, and should be easy to pick up what you missed, things like Historical dates, geographic information, etc. etc.
• All images need to be double checked to insure they ALL meet proper guidelines for inclusion and compatability with GFDL/CC etc.
• There's a typo in the refs section. One of the dates is missing a digit. No biggie, but you might as well fix it.

Anyways, congrats, and let me know on my talk page when you nominate this for FA. Like I said, I will endorse its promotion if it looks as good as it does now! --Jayron32 03:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!!!! Made me smile after a long stressful day. I will fix whatever is necessary to make it FA. Cheers! Baristarim 06:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to all contributors and to Baristarim who initiated and undertook most of this effort. Thanks for the review Jayron! Atilim Gunes Baydin 18:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea wonderful job Baristarim :) Its been really good that you've been working on this article for so long. We all really appreciate it :) -- WiiVolve 11:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Locator map

Hi, during last October, I created and uploaded the map Image:Europe_location_TUR2.png to match the then newly launched map style used by Turkey's immediate neighbors (part of the "Europe location" map series created and maintained by User:David Liuzzo). The "Europe location" map collection is recently updated (see Image:Europe_location_ITA.png as an example), and unfortunately on the map depicting Turkey in this new series, Image:Europe_location_TUR.png, the country is half covered with a legend. This last update made Image:Europe_location_TUR2.png obsolete, as its design is no longer shared with any other country article. The other map suggested by David Liuzzo, Image:Asia location TUR.png also suffers from not following any established style and is very oddly cropped.

For now, I'm replacing the map with Image:LocationTurkey2.png, one of the two main designs currently in use. The article can also switch back to the veteran green Image:LocationTurkey.png, which has less detail. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 05:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we not get David Luzzo to move the legend to the left for the Turkey map? --A.Garnet 13:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I still haven't talked with him, but from some of his comments on his user talk page on Commons, and the fact that he nominated Image:Europe_location_TUR2.png for deletion [1], it looks like he is not happy to see his design used on this article and he only intends it to be used only when a country is wholly on the European continent. Actually, I sense that he purposefully put the legend there to prevent the design from being used by Turkey, Armenia, and Georgia, as it also conveniently covers the vague European boundaries in the Caucasus. But that's just my guess. Atilim Gunes Baydin 16:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

FA!!!

Pop the champagne! Baristarim 20:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent stuff, good effort. Great to see another Turkish related article at FA. Whats next? :) --A.Garnet 20:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Great news! Congrats! --Free smyrnan 21:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Baristarim, it is your right to drink all the champagne. Victory! Deliogul 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay. :-) Khoikhoi 06:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to Baristarim and all, who contributed to this result! CeeGee 07:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Tebrikler, Baris abi! Finally it is concluded! Caglarkoca 11:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Tebrikler & congratulations to all contributors..! :) --Xasf 11:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This was like a dream when I started editing Wikipedia in 2005 and it is mostly achieved by the complete dedication of Baristarim. So does any of you have a suggestion for the date of main page appearance (Wikipedia:Today's featured article)? I mean, it could perhaps coincide with a special anniversary for the Republic (the closest one seems to be April 23), or do you want it to make the appearance as soon as possible? Thanks for the champagne! Atilim Gunes Baydin 16:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As an important issue, I checked the suggested intro for the main page appearance, by Baristarim (Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#Turkey) and it's not as good as I expected (for this brilliant article). I specifically don't like the "one of the most populous of the Middle East" part, and it doesn't make sense to focus on this "most populous" and "Middle East" issue, when there is no mention of the European Union candidacy and accession negotiations (that's the primary issue in Turkey's government, politics, economy, reforms, and almost everything else). Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 16:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I filed a request this morning, and I said no particular date since nothing came to my mind. I suppose that if there are any proposals, I can modify it. Thanks a lot by the way, and I am just glad that I could help; It was also like a dream when I first came to Wikipedia :) And it was really sad that many of us were spending time in the talk page and on the article since the article's state was leading to a lot of disputes and POV problems. Many of the references in this article as it is can also be used to develop other related articles. I just thought that if WikiProject Turkey was ever going to be doing some serious work, we needed to start from the beginning with a solid main country article which will be the main article to englobe other Turkey-related articles in a clear hierarchy. And, by the way, it feels good to be discussing the date of a FA appearance rather than some hardcore political dispute for a change :)) Baristarim 16:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.. You are right.. It was way too late when I prepared that entry and couldn't put too much thought into it. It can still be modified, the next round of selections won't be for another week. Baristarim 16:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Tebrikler (congratulations) to all users.--Absar 16:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Tebrik ederim kardeşim. 85.97.15.153 01:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations everyone -- WiiVolve 10:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Tebrikler & Teşekkürler 139.179.28.18 11:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Map situation

Do we have any progress on a proper map? From what i understood the current map is a temporary measure until we sort out something more consistent with other maps on Wikipedia, any news on this? I think there is a more urgent need to sort this considering its FA status now. Thanks, --A.Garnet 01:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I can say that the current map is rubbish. I love the older European continental map. Deliogul 12:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

True. The problem is that this seems to be a wider Wikipedia thing that is affecting the maps of many country articles, so we are kind of waiting the resolution of the problem at a wider level. I think Atilim tried to contact the mapmaker for further clarification, but there is still no news. If there is still no news of a new brand of maps (that are supposedly being prepared), then we should revert back to the older European continental map soon.Baristarim 12:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There is currently no change in the situation. Since it seems no one likes the current map and it's not like there is a consensus for one definite map style (I mean, overall in Wikipedia), I'm changing the map back to Image:Europe location TUR2.png. Note that the map is currently nominated for deletion in Wikimedia Commons, but I do not believe the result will be deletion. Please feel free to change it back, if this poses a problem for the FA status. Also, if you have any suggestions for a new map (style, layout, everything) please share it with me and I'll do my best to create a better map. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, my last stance is to go with Image:LocationTurkey.png. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 00:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Europe location map is the best the rest look very bad. Nareklm 00:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There was another round of edit-wars in all country articles about the maps... Baristarim 07:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the beloved map comes back :) Deliogul 22:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Human rights

Human rights is a central issue mitigating against Turkish EU accession, as well as Orhan Pamuk trial and others against Turkish intellectuals and HR activists. I suggest that a Human Rights sub-section is needed - a short paragraph with all the relevant links. The issue is too important to be lost in the text. To those concerned, IMHO such a sub section is not 'anti-Turkish' (as defined in the Turkish Constitution) but reveals the HR movement in the country. Politis 23:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

We know what human right means for you... Protecting terorist and murders.. Turkey has the best human right.. For the terorists, I wish to kill them all myself.. See ass hole of World 'Belgium', they are protecting murderers, because of human rights (murder of Sabancı 'Fehriye Erdal' is living in Belgium.). Pardon me but get your human right and put it somewhere sun doesnt shine!!. You think we think to join Europen Union right?. No we dont want to join. First read the history then you will understand why.. Because we disgust Europe.. Go away!!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.101.5.191 (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

As for sub-sections, pls see other FA country articles like Canada, India, Australia etc. The structure of the article was copied from them. There shouldn't be any sub-sections. Again don't forget that the article is an overview of the whole country, not one particular topic. It is not the article about the TR-EU accession :) the accession process is not the only thing that needs to be known about Turkey. It is a main issue in foreign relations, but that's it. There are also other areas that need to be covered: economy, geography, culture, history, military, politics etc. The whole Ottoman years is talked about in a paragraph, talking about the case of Orhan Pamuk wouldn't make sense - particularly since the charges were annulled to begin with. It is already mentioned in their respective articles. It is all about context. :) Baristarim 00:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this doesn't make sense "such a sub section is not 'anti-Turkish' (as defined in the Turkish Constitution)". I rewrote the Turkish Constitution article, is there any mention of human rights being anti-Turkish?? :) I think that you are a bit fuzzy about the subject and I am guessing that you are talking about a particular article in the Penal Code that penalizes acts of overtly insulting Turkishness. They are not the same thing. And its jurisprudence and ramifications are still not clear. Orhan Pamuk was the editor in chief for one day of a major Turkish newspaper just two days ago, as a gesture by the newspaper. There is no anti-Orhan Pamuk hunting going on that you are making it out to be :) Don't get lost in the hype generated in the West about this sort of stuff.Baristarim 00:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

1922, just the one army

The text reads, "By September 18 1922, the occupying armies were repelled and the country saw the birth of the new Turkish state"... In fact, there was only one army that was defeated, the Greek army.

Greece re-emerged as a state by becoming the first people to defeat the Ottoman Turks and establish their own country; and Turkey became a Republic - the last country to emerge out of the Ottoman Empire - by defeating the Greeks. Now that, is symetry. Politis 23:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, not quite true. I see what you mean, but the Greek army was the last one to leave the territory of what is now Turkey. I think that's what you meant. Take a look at Turkish-Armenian War for example. There were also French, British and Italian troops in Istanbul until the Treaty of Lausanne for example, not to mention in various parts of Anatolia between 1918-1922, and etc etc.. :) It is quite a long story.. Baristarim 23:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

September 18 1922, Turkish forces entered Izmir, the last stronghold of the Greek forces. Actually the Greek army was not the only one Politis. You know, British were controlling Istanbul and Eastern Thrace but because we are talking about a specific date, you are right. Also, Greek people weren't the first nation to try it (it was Serbia) but the first nation to achieve it. Take care, Deliogul 23:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Zaferrr!

Turkcell Super League article is choosen as the football collaboration of the week! Please help expanding the article. Oy atanlara büyük teşekkür. Deliogul 14:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Good.. I left a note in the talk page of WPTR as well. By the way, WPTR pages have been undergoing some changes lately. Any interested editors are welcome to take a look, particularly at the [[2]] and article drives. Baristarim 09:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bounty

By the way, the FA earned the Wikimedia foundation 25 USD in donations [3] :) I had forgotten to mention this along the way; I actually ran into it right after the FA when I was perusing through some older discussions at WP Countries and contacted the user who made the offer before it was too late... Baristarim 02:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Map of Turkey includes Greek island

A mistake in the map of the Turkish provinces (Image:BlankMapTurkeyProvinces.png.) Just off Edirne Province it includes the island of Samothraki; it is on the top, left hand side of the map. Needs to be removed for accuracy - it does not come under any Turkish provice :-)

Baristarim, I found the reference to 'anti-Turkish' activities mentioned above. I actually meant the crime of 'insulting Turkishness'(!). Where does it stand now days? For instance, Hrant Dink was charged with it and received a 6 month suspended sentence. Politis 21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Case law (jurisprudence) is still being established because the law is fairly new, and the cases have to go before the High Court of Appeals for it to clarify its interpretation. By the way, you said that it was the Turkish constitution, that's why I had asked. Baristarim 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I could not figure out by whom the notice about Samothraki was added to the page and I don't get what you people are talking about under this heading :). After double checking the map again, I don't see Samothraki painted orange (I assume Image:Europe location TUR2.png was referred to). Are you perhaps mistaken because Gökçeada / Imbros? Atilim Gunes Baydin 23:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Baris. I assume it is not in the constitution then. But it's a strange, if not challenging offence to understand, especially since there are presumably no specific clauses defining Turkishness. Gunes, I think the designer of the map confused Gokceada/Imbros for Samothraki and Tenedos for Imbros. Tenedos is, in fact, too small to appear on the map; make sense :-? Politis 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Why haven't I noticed the reference to BlankMapTurkeyProvinces.png? Was it there before my first reply? You were right, Samothraki was accidentally included and I corrected the map now. I guess better late than never. Everyone please accept my apologies for the mistake (note: I made that map). Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Turkishness

Found it. Where? Wikipedia's front page, news section 2 days ago. It is called Insulting Turkishness or Article 301 (Turkish penal code). But what is Turkishness? When does it begin@ I ask myself because its cultural and political influence exists around the area, or is that Ottomanism? No immediate answers required :-)Politis 17:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The law was created to pretend people from insulting the Turkish roots. For example, you can't say rude and weird things about the traditions, culture, beliefs and the community of Turkish people. Actually it is a procedure and nearly every country has such a law but ours didn't meet with the standards and needs to be changed. See you, Deliogul 15:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The main point behind the statute is to avoid discussion of the Armenian Genocide... otherwise, what else would be an insult to turkey? Isn't this what Orhan Pamuk and others have been prosecuted under, SPECIFICALLY because of their references to the Armenian Genocide?

Why do all comments about this topic get deleted? I also noticed that the article pumps up the fact that Orhan Pamuk won a Nobel Prize... why not include his prosecution as well in this article? This goes to Tedblack's comments which get ignored... I'm not a big fan of this policy of covering up and deleting any comments that don't paint turkey and turks as God's gift to the world... I don't appreciate how baristarim and his posse are the final deciders of what's neutral and acceptable and then proceed to eliminate anything that paints turkey negatively... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MalteseKnight (talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

You can add data about the reactions Orhan Pamuk got from some part of Turkey, there is no problem about that. I don't like Orhan Pamuk's literature but this doesn't change the fact that he is a world reowned, award winning figure in his business. I and many Turks have no problem about Pamuk. Actually, MalteseKnight, you have to be polite. How can you write Turkey without the capital letter? For example now you are insulting my roots. Whatever people say, Göktengri Türk'ü korusun... See you, Deliogul 21:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

New Para

Someone added a (well referenced) paragraph in "culture" about radicalisation. I've reformatted and ever so slightly rewritten it, anyone think there's a better section for this to go in? It fits in "culture" because of the "insulting Tukishness" link, but it's not a perfect fit. Maybe moving it until after we've said who the Nobel guy is? Anyway, it seems interesting enough, the refs are top notch, opinions? yandman 10:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Baristarim has been busy chopping this paragraph (which I inserted ; the Nobel guy is the brilliant turkish writer Orhan Pamuk author of "Instanbul: Memories and the City"). Seems he likes NPOV as long as it is pro-Turkish. Yes this paragraph is based on well known coverage by reputable british newspapers that cannot be accused of perpetuating anti-turkish propaganda (in fact the Guardian is decidedly pro-turkish). Can anyone stop the multiple reverts imposed by Baristarim? This is not turkipedia after all... --Tedblack 16:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't see the posts here. I posted messages to your talk pages in the mean time. I will paste some of them again.

In this case, the addition, in the culture section that gives the overview of a millenia of Turkish culture, of a whole paragraph (on top of the existing four) that compares the Turkish youth to Nazis based on very weird analysis??? The fact that Mein Kempf sold 150,000 doesn't mean anything, and it definitely doesn't merit to be in that article by a longshot. I have Mein Kempf at home which I had bought in college, along with the Bible, Das Capital etc etc. You know we should actively stop the article from becoming a newscast. You know why? Off the topic, let me give you an example: Mein Kempf sold (in its first ever edition in Turkish in Turkey ~150,000 copies. (Before the only copies were in English) Well, there are 72m people. Anybody who adds this info to the culture section and try to make it look like Turks are Nazis is either a)doesn't know anything about the topic or b)is in bad faith with an axe to grind. Anyways.. So 150,000 copies eh? The latest Picasso exhibit in Istanbul in the Sabanci Museum (first in Turkish history as well) - drew nearly 1m visitors for the duration of the exhibit. So next time, if someone adds that Turks are Nazis because some book sold so many in its first addition, I think we can add that bit too :) Please try to sit back and think again about such additions. Turkey has been opening up to the world very fast since the end of the Cold War, and such fluctuations are normal. It is not like the book had been on sale since the 40s and suddenly people rushed to the bookstores to buy it.

This article is not a newscast on Turkey. It won't go to any other section in this article either. This article gives an overview, and is not some common article - it is one of the best FA country articles in Wikipedia. Ted, please cut down on the innuendo - this is not "let's bang on Turkey forum" either. Just from a Wikipedian point of view, I would say that any more additions to this article would have to be carefully scrutinized. And yandman, "references are top-notch" doesn't mean anything - the addition has to make sense and fit in with the article to begin with, then it becomes referenced - not the other way around. The Picasso exhibit drew in two months ten times more visitors than those who bought that book. Can I include in that section "Turks are extremely cultured and sophisticated people, and major art exhibits easily draw million visitors"?? No. This is an overview of the country in a historical timeline. I don't know how many times this has been said in the talk page... Baristarim 16:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Hi Ted. First, try not to make personal attacks, and assume good faith on the part of other editors. Baristarim is worried that the paragraph gives undue mention to a relatively minor statistic in a paragraph which is supposed to be about culture. According to him, the Mein Kamp statistic is because the book has only just been sold in Turkish, which means it's not that important. I think we need to mention (very briefly) the whole ultra-nationalist movement somewhere in the article, though. I know such movements are common in middle-eastern countries, but Turkey is also a developed, maybe one day European, state, so I think it deserves a passing comment in the article (maybe at the same place as we mention the demographics). Does anyone have an idea as to where it could be mentioned? yandman 16:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I will try to find a way to possibly add a phrase into the foreign relations section since most of that rise in nationalism stems from the problems encountered during the EU accession process + possibly northern Iraq, but that is relatively minor. I should get around to it soon but I got to run for the moment! Baristarim 17:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just in case Baristarim or Yandman think that I added the comments on the radicalisation of turkish youth by picking on minority views from anti-turkish newspapers or the last few years from a long (and impressive) history of Turks as a nation here are some more references that cover this trend: [4]; [5]; Ali Tuna Kuyucu "Ethno-religious 'unmixing' of 'Turkey': 6–7 September riots as a case in Turkish nationalism", Nations and Nationalism 11 (3), 361–380; Ioannis Grigoriadis , "Nationalism, Society and Culture in post-Ottoman South East Europe", 29-30 May 2004, Oxford Balkan Society South East European Studies Programme (SEESP) European Studies Centre, St Antony’s College ; wikipedias article on neo-fascism ; [6] ; [7] etc. If you guys still believe that I am adding "weid" views supported by writers with "an axe to grind" then god help the NPOV policy ! --Tedblack 16:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said that nationalism hasn't risen in Turkey in the last couple of years, but simply taking out the Mein Kempf stat and blending it with Dink's assassination and say that it has practically become a hobby for the Turkish youth is a bit weird, I am sorry to say. It is way too piecemeal and doesn't analyze the issue correctly. There have been many journalists assassinated in Turkey over the decades and the level of nationalism has always fluctuated depending on the status of Turkey's foreign relations and economy. Same goes for religion. The way you added the latest bit made it really sound like there was a huge Nazi revival among the young Turks, and it doesn't fit in well with the culture section at all. I will look into it soon and see if I can do another addition to the foreign relations section and contact you when I will get around to it. Cheers Baristarim 17:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

yandman a good place to add the new paragraph is under culture. As my references show current rise in authoriarian political currents (islamofascism etc) is part of a long trend in militant policies from the beginning of the Ottoman empire. --Tedblack 17:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for a new paragraph. You seem to be confused about what "culture" means. Your additions are extremely POV and unbalanced. I personally don't think that you are trying to improve the article actually seeing your history and contributions. Baristarim 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph? It doesn't deserve even a sentence!

Well, Milliyet the Turkish newspaper just the other day wrote that according to calculations done by an architect, it was actually 120.000 to 200.000 people that walked for Hrant Dink's funeral, shouting "we are all Armenians". This is around the number of mein kampf copies that are sold, if not more.(and I wonder how many of them are completely read) Consider that, it was on a relatively hard time to join the ceremony, a weekday morning plus the week for the final examinations in most of the 20-something universities in Istanbul. (To explain how this is related, university students are considered to be one of the most active community in such demonstrations, and a lot of my friends couldn't join the walk just because of this reason). Since it has been almost two years since the sales of mein kampf boomed (I just checked and the articles about that were from march 2005) I guess mein kampf helped to decrease the Turkish nationalism, if it did any effect on it.

I believe that Turkey is in an ideological transition period, exactly the opposite of nationalism. Yes, just recently a journalist was shot dead by an idiot kid, but have you seen the reactions for that?

Plus I just read this source [8] you have given and absoulutely terrified. Dude, I don't know where you found this and who wrote it but I am living in this Turkey and half of the stuff there is made up, and the other half is exaggrated. whatsmore that MHP party there got %8.5 votes in last elections and couldn't even get into the parliment. That essay talks about them as if they are in office.

And even if it was not so, what does that have to be with Turkish culture for god's sake? "Turks are culturally nationalist", that sounds... well, awkward is the mildest word I can use.

Now tell me. Who's POV?Ombudsee 18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Tedblack's addition about "Turk"

I'm removing the following addition made by Tedblack:

In the early Ottoman state (1259) the word Turk was used as a derogatory term for the lower classes by the ruling elite ^[1]

The source doesn't say that, at least not specifically about the "early" Ottoman period. As far as I know it may partly have been true for some later times. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact I had thought it was me who had reverted it - you beat me to it. "Turk" also meant Muslim in Europe. This is the academic etymology of the word "Turkey" - not the "history of the word "Turk"". That user is blatantly disrupting the article by adding false inflation figures, comparing the Turkish youth to the Nazis etc. Ted (or GreekWarrior or etc), if you have issues with Turks, please take it somewhere else. Thanks. Baristarim 18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In which way does The Economist produce "false inflation figures"? Have you lost all measure of objectivity? I have added a new source that supports the use of the term "Turk" as a derogatory term for the lower classes. Baristarim stop spreading lies about me using other ids. Unlike you I maintain a single id: --Tedblack 18:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What part of this is hard to understand: " the inflation has dropped to 8.2% in 2005, and the unemployment rate to 10.3%" reffed by an accessible World Bank release [9]???? You are adding an unaccessible figure and expecting us to buy it in the light of this? Whatever :))) That section is for the academic etymology of the word "Turkey" - not the "history of the word "Turk"". Please cease your blatant disruption of that article and go do something more useful. Thanks. Baristarim 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The figure quoted by the World Bank release covers only the last year. For economic surveys of a country -- as any economist knows -- a more accurate figure is a five year average. I am sure there are years when any economy has outstanding macro figures (for example lets pick Greece GDP growth just before the 2004 Olympics); but to avoid the impact of short term measures (monetary tightening is a good example for Turkey) a five year average should be used. You should get used to constructive debate instead of unilaterally imposing aggressive edits. --Tedblack 10:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen Ted (or User:GreekWarrior or whatever).. this article has been carefully scrutinized from every angle possible and every info in there is reffed rock solid to the smallest date. Take your harassment of the article somewhere else please. Thanks. Baristarim 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) God knows how many false ids you are using on a daily basis Baristarim or whatever you call yourself now. --Tedblack 13:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I just learned what Turk means in the early stages of the Ottoman Beylik in Hist214 lecture :D It means the majority of the Seljuk people who came to Anatolia but it's not about the roots. It is more like saying Muslim to someone. The term generally was used by non-Muslims at 13th century. There is a one more little detail. For example when a Byzantine soldier says "Turks are coming", he basically mentions the army of Ottomans which was mainly Muslim but there were many warriors from different beliefs and nations too. It is hard to see the picture but it is something like that. See you, Deliogul 15:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ultra-nationalist trends in Modern Turkey

My suggestions for the inclusion of a new paragraph on these trends have received fierce attacks by propagandists that seem to believe that such addition would distort the "truth". Baristarim is leading this assault and seems to believe that repeated assasinations and massive sales of Mein Kampf are side isssues that obstruct Turkey's march to political reform and human rights. It is all the more suprising then that the following article appeared today in Reuters:

Removed the copy-paste of this news-story as well. Please post the link instead and do not flood the talk page as I pointed out further down. Thanks. Baristarim 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It could be just another case of anti-Turkish propaganda by Reuters but this article shows that ultra-nationalist radicalisation is not the isolated reaction of unemployed sociopaths but has institutional support and only recently it has begun to be questioned. How can Baristarim and his entourage insist that this relevant piece of fact is excluded ? --Tedblack 13:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This kind of nationalism is a new thing for Turkey but Europe has been experiencing it for more than two hundred centuries. This is a fact but we don't see info about such situations in European countries' Wikipedia articles. You have two choices, make it a big deal for every country and add a part about ultra nationalism to every article or keep the pattern and don't modify the article of Turkey too. Deliogul 17:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Two hundred centuries ?? Esat Ibrahim Lodi.

Very good point. It is better to avoid a pissing contest between the articles. What differentiates an encyclopedia from a newsblog is that it gives a mature overview of the subject matter in its entireity in a timeline and not with patched up piecemeal analyses that only reflect fluctuating situations. Before AKP there was a socialist party in power in Turkey for example, and that doesn't mean that the whole article should be changed every single time there is an election to say "Islamists came to power" or "Turkey has taken a step towards Socialism" - just give the infobit and stick to the overview is what an encyclopedia should do. The rest of the analysis belongs to news sites like BBC et al. Baristarim 09:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please try to understand my position Deliogul: I have no doubt in my mind that there is Greek nationalism. And I know from having lived in France, Germany, the UK and America that nationalist attitudes are quite prevalent. What is worth mention, however, is the deadly face of nationalism, when people go to jail or are murdered for being anti-Greek, or anti-English or anti-whatever. If you have such examples from Greece or other european countries I would agree that they should be included. --Tedblack 17:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ted, please read the hidden notice on top of the main space code. This article is an overview of the country, and that in a timeline over centuries of history - It is the main article in a hierarchical pyramid of all Turkey-related articles, and there are thousands of them. Add any relevant info there. This article shouldn't be a newscast or a dumping ground for all Turkish related news or infobit - that's why it is FA. I just got back from a trip, but above cut-pastes of news releases like above are not relevant to this article, I am sorry to say. The whole article is referenced from top to bottom, and there shouldn't be any random additions except election or statistics updates of existing info.. That's all. If you would like to discuss the rise/existence of ultra-nationalism in Turkey, there are tens of thousands of forums out there you know :) Baristarim 21:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but the issue of nationalism is not merely a topical issue but part of a long historical trend that begins with the Ottoman empire. I can understand the sensitive nature of this topic and the discomfort it raises. But Turkey's long struggle between western ideas and traditional ottoman values continues long after the reforms introduced by KA. It is obvious to me by now that this article is out-of-bounds but for the interest of other users here is some additional information

--Tedblack 12:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Fascism, Nazism and ultra-nationalism are all originally "Western ideas" - so maybe Turks should have stuck to "traditional Ottoman values"of the multi-ethnic "milletism", eh? :)) You are also confusing nationalism and ultra-nationalism. Nationalism trends were born after the French Revolution and it was used by peoples of the world to forge a country for their own out of the remnants of empires - even though they sound similar, nationalism and ultra-nationalism are very different things. Your arguments are so confused that you might be as well arguing that Atlantis really existed. Cheers! Baristarim 21:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the copy-paste. This is not a news cast - please do not flood the talk page that exists to discuss the improvements that can be made to the article. Please give the link to the news story instead - other editors should not have to wade through flooded info to be able to discuss the article. Baristarim 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, "Ted", you can have any sort of idea about Turkey etc - that's your right. It doesn't raise any "discomfort", are you kidding? :)) You are not discussing the article, but rather using this talk page as some sort of a forum about Turkey - PLEASE DO NOT DO SO. I advise you to use Google or MySpace forums for that, not Wikipedia servers. Thanks. Baristarim 21:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"Baristarim" it sounds as if I have invaded your private turf. Apologies. --Tedblack 12:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tedblack, what the heck you are talking about?! We know Baristarim very well and we know his contributions. As I said before, there are more dangerous nationalist organizations in Europe. This is a featured article and we must be careful in our edits. Deliogul 21:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Tedblack give us some more examples by giving link.. We dont have any link now.. Pls also tell me about your nationality.. I suspect that you are a Kurdish fanatic ... Am I right?. Because you all speak in the same way.. I always know with whom I am talking to.. thankss.

economy of turkey

I wanted to make changes to the economy section, but the article is protected. In the paragraph it says: One of the biggest economic problems faced by Turkey is the distribution of wealth among the populace. This is a political problem, not an economic problem. Furthermore, the wording seems to imply income inequality in itself causes people to be poor. I find this hard to believe, and this is WP:OR assertion. PerLund 02:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear PerLund. The author of this article wants to underplay the real issue: the deprivation and poverty of Anatolia living side-by-side with a prosperous Istanbul. Income inequality is an ideological issue and does not make Turkey a special case; the US has a high income inequality but that is a political issue that does not affect its impressive economic performance. What makes Turkey a special case are the stark conditions of its Anatolian part that give rise to the high poverty rate mentioned (it took a long drawn battle to convince the Baristarim to include it).--Tedblack 12:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight: what PerLund said doesn't back up the bulk of your POV and harassing proposed edits to this article - he was just making a point about one sentence so cut down on the innuendo. And I disagree: US doesn't have an "impressive" economic performance. A country in which 60 million people do not have health insurance or where all the dirty jobs are done by underpaid illegal immigrants is not staging an "impressive" economic anything - if I used slaves I would also have a very "impressive" economic performance for my company. Of course if you are well off it might seem "impressive" but I doubt that the inhabitants of industrially collapsed cities such as Detroit feel the same way. Obviously since rich people can make their voice heard more easily, nobody even gives a damn about the rest. As for this article, it is still a "problem" - just the word "economic" could have been taken out if that was the issue.

What you just said is not the "real issue". In any given country there are poorer and richer regions. South and North of Italy? What "underplaying"? This is an article about Turkey, not a political debate - it is there to give an overview of the country, not include every analysis out there about it. You have been trying to include something negative into this article at all costs, que ça soit comparing Turkish youth to Nazis or including a sentence about how "Turk" is a denigrating word etc. Please stop harassing the article. Thanks Baristarim 09:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong in saying overall Anatolia, the main economic problem of Turkey comes specifically from southeastern Anatolia. rest of Anatolia is not too poor compared to Istanbul. 85.99.86.130 02:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction 85.99.86.130. I agree that citing Anatolia as the poor region is not specific enough. --Tedblack 10:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

AKP

There has been a small question that I have been pondering for a while and that is how to define AKP under the government section. It currently says "Islamic conservative AKP". Can anyone think of any other way of paraphrasing it or should we just leave it as it is? Islamist? Only conservative? It seems a bit weird on a closer academic look since in a predominantly Muslim country any conservative party is bound to be Islamic and in a Catholic country, well, Catholic. It might be too strong to call it "Islamist" since that word is generally associated with Mullahs et al in English, but "Islamic conservative" doesn't sound too right for one reason either. "Religious conservative" sounds weirder I suppose. So should we modify or leave it? Baristarim 05:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think AKP is similar to German CDU. See you, Deliogul 15:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I will remove "Islamic" and simply leave "conservative". I know that AKP has religious agenda (of which I personally am not happy with), but from an objective view I think that it is a given that in a predominantly Muslim country any given conservative party would be Islamic-based. It just seems redundant, that's all. Obviously the only counter-argument is that Turkey is a secular country, but there are no parties which advocate Christian conservatism, so I think that it will not pose a problem at that level. Baristarim 10:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "Conservative party with Islamic roots". --A.Garnet 10:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Seal of Ankara and Istanbul

While surfing, I recognized that in Germany and Greece articles' infoboxes, there are seals of Berlin and Athens. Should we include the seal of Ankara and Istanbul as capital and largest city?--Ugur Olgun 10:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have good images... Why not? Deliogul 15:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The geographical coordinates for the capital are wrong!

Can somebody find the coordinates for the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) and change the current coordinates that are on the infobox? The current coordinates refer to somewhere in Istanbul, not Ankara, which is the capital. Maestro 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a Minor Edit in "Administrative Divisions"

There is a section in the sub-article "Administrative Divisions" as follows:

Major cities:

• İstanbul - 9,085,599
• Ankara - 3,540,522
• İzmir - 2,409,000
• Bursa - 1,195,000
• Adana - 1,130,710
• Gaziantep - 854,000
• Konya - 743,000
• Antalya - 603,000

(Population figures are given according to the 2000 census)[63]

The population figures given for each city are not correct according to the reference, numbered 63. The correct population figures of the 2000 census have to be (according to the reference 63):

• İstanbul - 10,018,735
• Ankara - 4,007,860
• İzmir - 3,370,866
• Konya - 2,192,166
• Bursa - 2,125,140
• Adana - 1,849,478
• Antalya - 1,719,751
• Gaziantep - 1,285,249

Please do not hesisate to check for the correctness of the info I've given..

Kalkim 00:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the confusion, but the figures that you gave are for the provinces as a whole (il), and not for the city strictly speaking. :) I will still take a look to make sure that there are no discrepancies. Cheers! Baristarim 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

On a closer look you will see that the paragraph right above the cities gives the correct figures for the provinces with province wikilinks, and the cities figures are different along with the appropriate wikilinks. Ankara is not necessarily Ankara :) Baristarim 00:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean.. You're right.. However, the population figures of the cities İzmir, Bursa, Adana, Gaziantep, Konya and Antalya are still wrong. Please check the reference, numbered 63.

Kalkim 00:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The correct population numbers for these cities are:

Adana - 1,397,853 Antalya - 936,330 Bursa - 1,630,940 Gaziantep - 1,009,126 İzmir - 2,732,669 Konya - 1,294,817

pls check the reference number 63..

Kalkim 01:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no problems. I will try to take a look at it when I have the time as well. It is a complicated XLS file and it takes some effort to wade through all those tables :) Baristarim 01:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks:)

Kalkim 01:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think those are figures for entire districts. My understanding is that for cities that are not metropolitan municipalities, the city population is usually taken as only the urban zone of a district. --Polaron | Talk 02:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually I think Baristarim and Polaron is right. I am a native of Bursa, and the Bursa metropolitan municipality consists three districts (Osmangazi, Nilüfer and Yıldırım). And the sum of their population counts rounds up to the number that baristarim has given.Ombudsee 05:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, later I agreed with Baristarim about the differences between the meaning of "city(il)"(urban area) and "province"(whole area) as I stated above. Then I checked the reference number 63 again to see that the pop. figures were right or not. The pop. of Istanbul and Ankara were correct, whereas other pop. were not. Hence, I recommend you to check the reference 63 if you'd like to come to the right conclusion because the data for the major cities are given according to that reference..

Kalkim 10:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

See, the difference between Istanbul and the other cities are, all 32 districts (ilçe) of Istanbul are included in the metropolitan municipality area. So İstanbul City = Istanbul Province. There you have the link: (http://www.ibb.gov.tr/tr-TR/Kurumsal/YetkiAlani/Ilceler/Ilceler.htm) However in Bursa only 3 of the 17. The simpler way to explain this; when you're driving through istanbul you don't see any road signs that have a red cross over istanbul sign. You see them only when you set your foot (or wheel :) )in Kırklareli, Tekirdağ or Kocaeli. However in Bursa, you see them although you're still in the bursa province, because you are out of Bursa city. This is confusing because both the city and the province is called Bursa. But in case of Kocaeli, the city is called İzmit.

So to sum it up; İstanbul province is the same thing with Istanbul city. (I believe it is the same with Ankara) yet in the other hand Bursa city is different from the Bursa province. (Like İçel city is different from the Mersin province)

But I really don't think that it's that critical of a point. It's just a conflict of perception. we may leave it like this as well. It's more like a case of what "city" means. Ombudsee 12:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"World"

I wanted to ask which one is more appropriate: Cihan or Dunya? Dunya seems like more modern Turkish, however Cihan, as far as I know, is the more Turkic word (or ozTurkçe). Or maybe Cihan is Arabic, I might be confused.. Baristarim 19:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I should have noticed that footnote. A bit of research proves that the motto is the Dunyan one [10] (check next to Kemal). How do you pronounce Sulh by the way? I can't do it. Dirak 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Cihan" is persian, while "dünya" and "sulh" are arabic :). The Turkic word for Dünya is Acun (while an avearage turkish today wouldn't understand it :D ) Sulh is pronouced something like "Soolh" by the way Ombudsee 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Atatürk's original words were "Yurtta sulh, cihanda sulh". The Ministry is using a more modern renderung, "Yurtta barış, dünyada barış." I think that Geoffrey Lewis's book The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success (Oxford, 1999, ISBN 0-19823-856-8) documents this, but I can't find my copy right now to confirm. --Macrakis 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Macrakis is right about the wording; Atatürk's words were ṣulḥ (صلح) and cihân (جهان)—not barış and dünyâ. I brought this issue up before as the article was approaching FA, but was more or less ignored. Nonetheless, though I'll admit I had (and have) an agenda—since I think the Turkish language lost a hell of a lot in its reform—if a Turkish government website uses it, it may be best to keep the barış and the dünyâ.

Incidentally, Macrakis, a similar Lewis piece (with the same title) can be found here ... he doesn't mention this issue in that article, but I'm not sure about the book (it seems not, though, as the words "peace" and "sulh" are not found in a search of the book here). Cheers. —Saposcat 22:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Being a native Turkish speaker brought up in Turkey, I can share the following with you: Dünya is the definite equivalent of world in today's Turkish, with almost no one except the very old using cihan. Atilim Gunes Baydin 00:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

Turkey and the bird

What do you think about referring to this article in the etymology part? Talking Turkey: The Story of How the Unofficial Bird of the United States Got Named After a Country--Charlesriver 19:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I remember reading that same article last year and at last gaining a clear understanding of this country / bird issue. That's very useful information and I won't oppose parts of it being mentioned in this article, but don't you think that the Turkey (bird) article might be a more appropriate place for this? Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually.. Yes, you are right. Never mind:) --Charlesriver 19:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion among deputies about this English name problem. Maybe they can pass a law about it. You know, we wanted to be known as Türkiye in foreign relations too. See you all, Deliogul 20:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

When I was teaching English in Istanbul a year ago, I told my students Turkey was also the English name for the bird they called hindi. Many of them were furious and thought it was an insult. I then told them a lot of Indians were probably upset over what they called the bird. It was quite amusing! Anyhow, congrats again, Baristarim! I regret changing my FAC vote to neutral. Regards, --Jayzel 02:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Serial comma

The article cannot decide whether or not to include the serial comma — never has a mark of punctuated been subjected to so much ambivalence! I am in favor of implementing it everywhere, especially where the article looks ugly without it. At any rate, please decide and act accordingly.

Without the serial comma:

Turkey has manifested an Atlantist approach in many regional and international affairs since the Second Cairo Conference, its participation in the Korean War and its subsequent adhesion to NATO in 1952.

With it:

Turkey has manifested an Atlantist approach in many regional and international affairs since the Second Cairo Conference, its participation in the Korean War, and its subsequent adhesion to NATO in 1952. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brainmuncher (talk • contribs) 07:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Turkey: Today's Featured Article for March the 4th!!

Açtım ana sayfayı, baktım Türkiye makalesi günün fa'i olmuş. Başta Barış olmak üzere emeği geçen herkese tekrar tebrikler! English translation for those of you who don't know Turkish: "Comrades, I am done with the bombs an maps of those foreign embassies. We are ready to bomb our enemies into pieces!" LOL Okan 09:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ben de çok gurur duydum ya. Emeği geçen herkese çok teşekkür ediyorum aynen.

Here is the translation for those of you don't know Turkish: "Okay comrade, I will inform you if we change the plan but are you sure that you gathered enough explosives to destroy every foreign embassy in İstanbul?". Puhahaha Deliogul 21:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

ne saçmalıyorsunuz? translation "what the hell are you talking about?" 85.97.15.218 03:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Eğleniyoruz kardeşim sen işine bak". Translation: Don't you know English?! Deliogul 16:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cuban missile crisis

I removed the sub-section from foreign relations. I see no reason why this deserves its own subsection. We could create sub-sections on many aspects of Turkish foreign relations, for example relations with the EU, Greece, the United States, Israel, all far more relevant to contemporary Turkish foreign policy than what happened 40 years ago. --A.Garnet 11:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We can mention the crisis in couple of sentences, we don't need a special section about it. See you, Deliogul 12:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Should this be added to the template?

|map_caption              = {{map_caption |region=on the [[Europe|European continent]]}}

I think it should, but why wasn't it there in the first place? --80.63.213.182 14:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Turkey isn't in Europe. --– Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( shout! · sign? )} 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Then why are we trying to enter EU hahah :) Turkey is a Eurasian country, the actual continent which contains both so called Europe and Asia. Therefore Europe is only a political term. If Turkey can manage to satisfy EU rules, we will be a full part of that political term so you can't just say "Turkey isn't in Europe". See you, Deliogul 19:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

After a crazy day on the front page, where this was one of the hard-fought issues, I think that level heads can agree that this issue deserves a sentence with a link, but not its own subsection. --Homunq 15:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be mentioned: *most* nation articles need a small human rights subsection like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Israel. Such subsections should have three basic goals

1. Briefly sumerise that nations main "human rights in" article.
2. Inform travelers about current human rights problems.
3. Inform about really major historical human rights violations.

I find that this subsection normally does not exist unless the nation is known for current risks to travelers, i.e. Saudia Arabia. Israel obviously the main exception here.

Now nations without meaningful ongoing human rights abuses, and hence a trivial "human rights in" article, could merely mention the major human rights abuses in the nations history section, like Germany. However, Turkey has a bit too much going on for this.

So just create a small human rights subsection which mentions the Kurdish problem and the Armenian Genocide? Other subjects worth mentioning briefly are AKP's small negitive influecne on human right, and Turkey's historically good position on women's rights (especially among Muslim nations). JeffBurdges 13:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Armenian genocide thing is the biggest lie ever, it is a shame.. Give your strong proof and then you can add it. But there is no even a proof.. Can you show us anything that Kurts doesn't have but Turk have it?? In our identity card it is not written that you are turk or kurds... Also turk and kurds are getting married here... Kurds are talking in their language in streets and no one argues that... They have same rights as turks.. So what is the problem?? If the aim is to establish a kurdish country by taking half of Turkey, no one let you do it.. It is not freedom.. By the way if there is a tortune you are talking about, in Turkey tortune is a big crime, and some polices have been found guilty and arrested, don't worry my dear friend. Just prove something, prove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.102.53.191 (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Poor Human Rights Record: US State Department Report

An edit is necessary to inform readers on the poor human rights record of this country. The latest US State Department report [11] outlines several issues:

• Killings of civilians by security forces.
• Torture of detainees by security forces.
• Arbitrary arrests/detentions.
• Law court prosecutions against politicians for views expressed.
• Killings of demonstrators.
• Attacks on practising Christians.
• Violence against women.
• Child labor/prostitution.
• Discrimination against minorities.

--Tedblack 09:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We are giving many rights to minorities these days (more than anytime in the long history of Turks). You can look at the number of churches and you can compare that number with the number of mosques in a Christian country, I'm sure Turkey would win easily. I guess you are talking about the "Mr. Öcalan" incident. Abdullah Öcalan is seen as a terrorist by the whole mainstream political powers in the world and saying honorific things about him is clearly a quilt. What do you mean by security forces? Police force lost many of its legal rights and they can't even keep simple thieves in their hands because of the changes in law. Actually the Turkish Police force is formed by angels when we think about the things happened in Denmark recently. On the other hand, I agree that there is huge amount of violence against women and we must take care of our children because we are doing nothing about them now. Also, why we should accept everything US says as a "fact". "Discrimination against minorities", pehh first they have to find a good excuse about the bad treatment which black Americans faced during and after the Hurricane Katrina. Whatever, Deliogul 14:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of making assertions based on the fact presented in the aforementioned report, the more accurate means to present this information is to document well who is making the claims, based on what. Keeping in line with the notability criteria, only notable and reputable sources whould be used. The report above, for example, should be summarized in a manner similar to User:Tedblack's above, and you should mention who the author of this report is, that is, the State Department of the United States. You may offer an equally substantiated reference that documents the response to these charges by the appropriate Turkish authorities, not random people. In this way the facts are documented without prejudice, leaving the reader to determin the truth behind matters. Wikipedia is not to draw conclusions except in the rare instances where the facts overwhelmingly demand it. For example, the Holocaust is documented as a fact insomuch as there was a plethora of Nazi papers, eyewitnesses from both sides of the war, and camps exactly as documented still standing, with millions of corpses left behind. Allegations as mentioned above against the Turkish goverment is denied by them, and so without a similar overflow of corroborating and verifiable evidence, it is out of line for Wikipedia to state such allegations, no matter how truthful they seem to you, as cold facts. In this main article, it is inappropriate to discuss each of the actual incidences with refutations. A separate article would be needed, and only with the consent and cooperation of the Wikipedia community. - CobaltBlueTony 19:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just tried to show the standing of US in such cases with my humble sentences. I don't claim that Turkey is the best or something like that. We have many problems in many fields and that is not a secret but when I look at the main lines of the report, It look more like it is belong to Angola or something so it is harsh and I'm suspicious both about the neutrality and the role of US in such cases (as a International Relations student). Another important thing which we must pay attention is the quality of the current article. You know it is a featured article and people worked a lot to reach such a high point so we need to be really careful while we are adding new stuff to it. See you, Deliogul 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Reacting to skewed information by reverting it is just as bad as adding it in the first place, in terms of Wikipedia neutrality. The motivations of the U.S. are not relevant when you simply state that the assertions have been made, referencing the document. Equally, issues of culpability or accuracy are avoided by simply documenting the reaction of the Turkish government, instead of trying to determine intent, or reacting to how it makes your country look. All we are doing is recording the facts, not interpreting them. Fairly incorporating properly cited infomration in the right place and with a neutral tone, especially with a controversial subject or article, actually boosts the value of the Featured Article status, because it becomes evident to outside observers that the interested parties connected to the article are capable of holding strictly to the intellectual purity of Wikiepdia's ultimate goals. - CobaltBlueTony 21:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is extremely useful in how to edit. However, I would like to remind everyone that this article is an overview of Turkey. It already is 89 kbytes. It is impossible to mention every single event that occurred in the Ottoman Empire, list every kingdom that ever held land in Anatolia, mention every human rights issue pro-and-con, every single foreign relations event within this article. There are specific articles that go into in-depth discussions of various aspects of Turkey. The archives hold numerous discussions on the particular weight each topic needed to have and I believe the current mix is quite OK. Of course, personally, I am tempted to throw a fit since every single poet of the Garip movement is not mentioned in the Turkey article.... (this was an attempt at humor) --Free smyrnan 22:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is nearly what I am trying to say! We don't have to put something into the article just because US published it. Actually, the publisher could be Russia, Ghana or North Korea... It wouldn't change my standing about such reports. Deliogul 13:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify: the publisher of such a report does not have to be reputable (obviously an opinion from your perspective), but only notable. Obviously, any sovereign nation is notable enough to be included as the publisher on wuch a recognizable topic. We only report that a notable resource has published a report that gets its own notability for the topic and its source, and that's it. We don't question the reputation of a notable source. Since you do not seem to trust the U.S. State Department, let me illustrate in a way that you might get. Example: Britney Spears decides to publish advice books on child rearing. We may report this in this encyclopedia, since she's notable, even though many people would seriously question whether she is reputable enough to give advice on children.

Again, we only report facts in a completely neutral stance. See, this project is not to document truth, but what exists in the context of human knowledge and ideas, and the disemination of them. It is unscholarly to use Wikipedia or any encyclopedia as a reference in a serious research paper because such material is not first source. Wikipedia only collects existing information based on subject matter from established sources, and organizes them for someone looking for information. If it's truth you're looking for, you have to study directly the resources which disseminate certain ideas or concepts. It does not matter whether you think such reports are reliable, or the entity producing them is reputable in terms of truth. Does this makes sense as to why they should be included no matter what? - CobaltBlueTony 17:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, if you are not thinking according to the Platonic sense, it is already impossible to reach the truth because they are just illusions that we created sometimes ago. Therefore I'm still with Free smyrnan in this case. We can put such data in more specific articles. I think there are some articles about Turkey which are related to this US report. This report is a "detail" so it has to go with other details. Deliogul 17:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the details of the report, as Tedblack outlined them are too specific, but the existence of the report whould go into the main article, in keeping with WP:NPOV. Reacting to negative information like this about a favorite topic of yours skews your sense of neutrality and fairness, and Turkey's reaction to the report is likewise worthy of mention. The text could simply be two sentences, like this: "In (some year) the U.S. State Deparment released a report criticizing Turkey for (very very short two or three criticisms here). The government in Istanbul dismissed the report, citing their own clarifications of the matters addressed by the report." Then, only a couple more sentences maximum on this specific subject would have any more place in the article. It's called compromise. If you don't like it, and Tedblack doesn't like it, then it's a perfect balance! - CobaltBlueTony 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please realize that this is a pure bad-faith request by a newly registered user who has been blocked for disruption on similar topics. The same source (Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor of the U.S. Department of State) reports many similar instances of abuse for almost every single country of the world and this report is not cited, and there are no requests for it to be, in the main article of any other country. I reproduce only two examples below from the same source for a quick comparison (for more, see [12]):

France [13]

• Overcrowded and dilapidated prisons;
• Lengthy pretrial detention;
• Protracted investigation and trial proceedings;
• Anti‑Semitic incidents, including at least one killing;
• Discrimination against Muslims;
• Societal hostility toward immigrants;
• Societal violence against women;
• Child abuse and child marriage;
• Trafficking in persons.

Greece [14]

• Abuse by security forces, particularly of illegal immigrants and Roma;
• Overcrowding and harsh conditions in some prisons;
• Detention of undocumented migrants in squalid conditions;
• Limits on the ability of ethnic minorities to self-identify;
• Restrictions on freedom of speech;
• Restrictions and administrative obstacles faced by members of non‑Orthodox religions;
• Detention and deportation of unaccompanied or separated immigrant minors, including asylum seekers;
• Domestic violence against women;
• Trafficking in persons;
• Discrimination against ethnic minorities and Roma;
• Substandard living conditions for Roma;
• Inadequate access to schools for Romani children;
• Child exploitation in nontraditional labor.

Another important point making me think that this is a bad-faith request specifically for this article is that the user has been blocked from Wikipedia because of personal attacks and racial slurs for the Turkish editors ("Turkish bastards", "pack of turks", "your civilisation grey wolf"). Please see User talk:Tedblack (Under heading Blocked for personal attacks and disruption) for details. Having pointed out these, I think it would be appropriate to cite and use information from this report on Human rights in Turkey, and the corresponding human rights articles of the other countries. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How can Turkey be a secular country (i.e. with no official religion)and a member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference at the same time ? Isn't it a little incongruous - how is it settled in the Turkish constitution in relation to the international treaty that founded the Organisation ?

I think, because it's not an Islamic UN, or something like that, it can not 'dictate' anything. Turkish representative there is probably not selected or appointment by the government. It's just an organization of states with a big majority or large population of Muslim people (+90% of Turkish people are Muslim). The TRNC is a member, yet it's not recognized by any member other than Turkey.

Also, 144.137.91.191, I am moving your comment here from up there, I hope you don't mind. I could not find this coordinate info on the main page, where is it?

Bold text52°31′N 13°24′E, incorrect coodinates for istanbul.

52°31′N 13°24′E is Berlin

--deniz 18:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's a bit of a gray area concerning the relationship between the Turkish government and religion. Allow me to clarify a little. The Turkish government is, at least in theory, secular, in that its laws should not favor a religion over another, or any religious moral over law. In any case, since an overwhelming majority of Turks are Muslims (I think the official figure is something like 99 percent), it would make little sense for the country not to belong to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.85.117.44.53 18:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)