Talk:Turkey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turkey article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Guidelines for editing the Turkey article
  • Units in metric Manual of Style.
  • Only external links pertaining to Turkey as a whole, or official government of Turkey links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles. For further information, please see Wikipedia guidelines on External links and Conflict of interest.
  • All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits.
  • Please provide references when adding new information.
  • Please use the correct citation format when adding references. If you are not sure which one is appropriate, please see WP:CITE for a list of available citation templates. KELLI WAS HERE!!!
 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Featured article star Turkey is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2007.
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh
Archive
Archives

The article of 1911 Edition of Encyclopædia Britannica about Turkey:

Archives continued

Contents

[edit] Why the only word should be added right beside CIA when it comes to developed classification of Turkey

The reason that I add the only right beside the CIA, when it comes to classify Turkey as developed is because ONLY the CIA classifies Turkey as developed. By the way the same agency doesnt classify Turkey as an advanced economy. Who knows what the real meaning is. Of course NO other major organization i.e. World Bank, IMF, UN, OECD classifies Turkey as a developed country. Turkey has a GDP per capita of around $9,000 and an medium HDI, around 82nd in the world, behind countries like Albania, Colombia or Uruguay. Also it has a relatively high infant mortality and low life expectancy. In essense I dont think that with those stats a country could be classified as a developed other than what the CIA says. So that is why I stress it. That ONLY the CIA classifies it so.Hope that helpsAee1980 (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Only" is redundant (therefore unnecessary) because the CIA is already mentioned in that sentence (it is already stressed that the definition is made by the CIA.) Please, let's keep the Greece versus Turkey pissing contest outside of Wikipedia. 151.57.199.32 (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
A good reason why "only" is redundant is that only the CIA has a classification involving the notion of "developed country". I wonder, though, what the criterion is, if Hungary and Slovenia did not make it to the CIA's list. A problem with classifying specifically Turkey is the high disparity in development between the industrialized urban centres, mainly in the western parts, and vast rural areas, in particular in the east and southeast. In such a situation taking averages is not very informative.  --Lambiam 23:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The CIA's criteria for defining Turkey as a developed country are mainly based on three facts: 1) Turkey is a founding member of the OECD since 1961. 2) Turkey is a member of NATO (i.e. First World) since 1952. 3) Turkey is a founding member of the G20 industrial nations and has a highly developed industrial base, especially in the western regions of the country. Turkey of today is a bit like the Austria-Hungary of 1908-1918, after the annexation of Bosnia-Hercegovina. It's a large country with highly developed parts and considerably poorer, backward parts. But it's still a country with a strong industrial base and powerful armed forces. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Making a point to say that the CIA lists it as developed means, as per WP:NPOV, we must also mention that the IMF and World Bank consider it developing. So either keep the whole thing or delete the whole thing, don't cherry pick the parts that you like and remove what you don't like. Krawndawg (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The link to the CIA Developed Country list already shows that Turkey is NOT in the CIA's, the World Bank's and the IMF's Advanced Economy list. Developed country and advanced economy are two different concepts. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

208.126.113.10 (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You're missing my point completely. There is a difference between "developed" and "developing". The CIA lists Turkey as developed, but the IMF and World Bank list it as developing. Only mentioning what the CIA says is POV cherry picking. I've reported you for WP:3RR. In the future, please use the talk page before edit warring, because there is a clear miscommunication going on here. Krawndawg (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
"Developing AMIN ULLAH KHAN is not a fair description for countries like Turkey, Brazil and Mexico; that's why economists and political scientists had to coin the term newly industrialized country in the first place. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Countries like Turkey and Mexico shouldn't be grouped with countries like India and Nigeria in terms of developing, but regardless, if you're insisting we don't use the terms "developed" and "developing", why did you revert my removal of the sentence in the first place (that the CIA considers Turkey "developed")? If you're going to mention one, you must mention the others. All or nothing, as per WP:NPOV. Krawndawg (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's remove them. Tomorrow (March 31) Turkey will become a trillion dollar economy anyway, because the new Eurostat standard GDP figures will be announced, with an instant 32% increase in Turkey's GDP figures. Afterwards, who cares if you call it an "apple" or "pear"? Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to stir up a hornet's nest here now that it's quiet, but I was hoping that we could summarize all the analyses in a short paragraph. The CIA says this. World Bank & IMF say that. With the intro that "The state of Turkey's economy is evaluated differently by different observers." I don't think we have to conclude anything. And the information you all have found during this discussion would be important to this brief paragraph. It's not up to us to "conclude" anything. That would be violating WP:OR.Student7 (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Official figures of the new Eurostat GDP measurement system announced today

http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=1949

Nominal GDP: $ 658,786,000,000 (2007 official) Nominal GDP per capita: $ 9,333 (2007 official)

The GDP-PPP figures are not announced, but GDP-PPP in total will be between $ 1,001,000,000,000 to $ 1,020,000,000,000 (2007) while GDP-PPP per capita will be around $ 15,000 (2007).

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/8582422.asp?gid=229&sz=3084

http://www.cnnturk.com/EKONOMI/GENEL/haber_detay.asp?PID=40&haberID=443237

http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/441040.asp

151.57.183.205 (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Res Gestæ Divi Augusti is on wikibreak this week; otherwise, I'm sure, the new data would already have been incoporated in the article.  --Lambiam 13:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Turkey, as general, is busy at the moment with more "important" things that changing numbers which doesn't have any effect in the real world. AKP's possible closure and all that stuff is the main theme in the news these days :) Deliogul (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
We've qualified a perfectly valid historicl amount for GDP. I don't understand why we are casting aspersions at it when it is the current figure. Just like saying that the Turkish census is wrong because a lady down the street had a baby yesterday. I don't think we should be questioning official figures. When the new ones are available, we can report those. We don't need to be quite so breathless about it, so we? "News at 11?" Not really encyclopedic questioning our own figures IMO. Let's either delete the figures entirely if we don't like them or report the ones we have. Where is it written, that we must anticipate every change? Student7 (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emblem No

[1] real emblem ... go web site Turkey Emblem

Following the link gives us the president's standard. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oval shield at the center of the Ottoman Crest, the source of the oval ambassadorial emblem which was used by the Ottoman Empire since the late 19th century, and continued to be used by the Republic of Turkey
Oval shield at the center of the Ottoman Crest, the source of the oval ambassadorial emblem which was used by the Ottoman Empire since the late 19th century, and continued to be used by the Republic of Turkey
But does anyone have a source for the oval-shaped emblem? Our article Emblem of Turkey states that it is used by many government institutions, but the only place where I've seen it is on Wikipedia.  --Lambiam 01:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Oval emblem of Ottoman/Turkish Embassies, in use since the late 19th century
Oval emblem of Ottoman/Turkish Embassies, in use since the late 19th century
It's the emblem of the Turkish Embassies and has been in use since Ottoman times (19th century), the first examples being the Ottoman Embassies in Paris and Berlin. After the foundation of the Republic in 1923, the name on the emblem was changed from "Ambassade Impériale Ottomane" to the current "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti - Büyükelçilik" over the years. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The origin of the "oval" shape of the emblem is the oval shield at the center of the Ottoman Crest. The shape of this shield was used by the Ottoman government for the Ottoman Embassy emblems in the late 19th century, and these "oval" ambassadorial emblems continued to be used by the Republic of Turkey after 1923, with the simple difference being the letters "Ambassade Impériale Ottomane" in the former, and "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti - Büyükelçilik" in the latter. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Except the similar design of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, current emblem in Wikipedia is not used anywhere. It can not be accepted as a national or governmental emblem.

Every ministry and/or government institution has its own logo design.

The symbol used in Turkish passports is simply the crescent and star. The logo on passport is very important, as almost all countries use their emblems on passports. Crescent and star is also used in national ID cards and exists in different forms in all of governmental logos.

I strongly support the change of current emblem with this one. Kaygtr (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Writings accusing Turks

According the what articles I read in Wiki about the Turkey and Cyprus, I saw that most of the writings accusing Turks of being violent and killers. This made me almost cry and I really lost my faith anything relayed with west. Because I just saw that they will NEVER accept us and they will keep believing the thinks Armenian, Greek, Kurdish anyone opposite to Turkey says. We are trying for nothing because they never accept others. For example Nazi movements at 40's and now, movements against Afro-American people now and before(I saw that they are calling Katrina hurricane survivors refugee,these are American citizen for god's sake!) Indians, Algeria , India(Below Afganistan one) .... and many other stuations. If there is any western people thinks that we can still be united, please tell me how it will be. [email deleted to protect poster from spam] . I only see more confilicts and I just want peace. But not irregular one, because the one without justice creates more. And your system works on freedom, and ours on justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.211.192 (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the above about? There is nothing in the Turkey article on "killers." The only word on "violence" talks about intercommuncal violence on Cyprus. I suggest that the above be deleted, along with my comment, as being political spam and not on topic. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
A more appropriate spot for this thread is on the talk page of WikiProject Turkey.  --Lambiam 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
turkey people are killers cuz theyre white muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.35.239 (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The Turks are sometimes very un-civilized. An example: In 1991, Turkish prezident Turgut Ozal had a visit at Bucharest, Romania and adressed to the Romanian prezident Ion Iliescu with the words: "Halal Bashtan". In Romanian language "Halal" means "bad quality / dubious quality" and "Bashtan" means "Mafia boss or Goodfather". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.123.228 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am a Turkish engineer educated at MIT, living in Istanbul, and I have travelled extensively in Europe. I find it interesting that a Romanian is accusing us Turks for being un-civilized (at times). "Helal Baskan", which in Turkish means "Hi President" is probably what was said to the Romanian President by ours in 1991. I have been in Eastern Europe and have seen the children left on the streets by their "mothers" because they do not want to feed them and raise them. It was on BBC news as well just a few weeks ago. I have not seen any other people doing this kind of inhumanity anywhere I have been, not even in much poorer countries and cities. Does your HDI measure this ? EU can now be proud of this process happening inside its "borders". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.46.59 (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IMF data

If we want to insist on IMF data as reference, I think we do not need other countries' data save for rankings.

My suggestions for references:

rankings: either the way it is now (so no reference, but a wikilink to the relevant wikipedia article, which is well sourced. I think this is not Wikipedia self-referencing), or that bulk list of all countries' data, which is but not sorted on the IMF webpage.

2007 figures are not estimates, 2008 ones are estimates, we can have 2008 data only (just change sy=2007 to sy=2008 in the html links above) 128.211.202.45 (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Since the infobox says "estimates" as a standard, we should change them to the 2008 figures. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope not having the subject descriptor is not a problem. Regarding the Gini coefficients, etc:

  1. If it is not something automatic related to the infobox, can we please change the color there from yellowish to black?
  2. Please give sources. I checked some relevant wiki articles. They use, what seems to be the most up-to-date, UN and CIA data there, and they give 2003 data for Gini. Is that 2005 figure based on Turkish Statistic Institute's data? The reference for the HDI index is Human Development Report 2007/2008 (page 230). There on page 282, we have the 2003 data for Gini index, not 2005 data. The 2003 figure is higher than the 2005 figure, and I can understand that, as Turkey might have had greater income inequality in 2003.
  3. 3 I'm not sure about Gini being "medium". It seems to be that HDI is medium. On Human Development Report 2007/2008 (page 281), the Gini indices are given, but the countries are sorted by HDI index, so being "medium" there is about HDI index, not Gini index

Another thing about the infobox is that 3rd footnote seems to be wrong. The population data does not seem to based on 2005 figures. I can understand having footnote 2 (where is the first one?) and footnote 5 in the infobox, but I think the reference for Gini and HDI indices should be listed at the end of the article. So let's have (at most) those two footnotes there, and also let's not use numbers for labeling, let's label them as A and B, or † and ‡ (dagger), or something like that. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I believe we have some Turkey related featured pictures on Commons, we should use them whenever they would give about the same information. Most pictures we have here seem to be somewhat featured picture material though. Probably I am not the one with the best of judgments when we talk about the "featured picture material"ness of a picture.

  1. There is this issue with the emblem. Turkey does not have coat of arms. I believe we should not use that picture at all.
It's the emblem of the Turkish Embassies and has been in use since Ottoman times (19th century), the first examples being the Ottoman Embassies in Paris and Berlin. After the foundation of the Republic in 1923, the name on the emblem was changed from "Ambassade Impériale Ottomane" to the current "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti - Büyükelçilik" over the years. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. Do we have a north-south oriented world map?
I think let's leave the map alone - this is by far the best compromise that we could get. Let's not revive a settled issue which was once hotly debated. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. The image of Blue Mosque should be changed in my opinion. Another building is obstructing the view. I believe we have better pictures of the Blue Mosque. Also, if we do not have such an image, we can have the pictures of other buildings like Topkapi Palace there.
I think the view of the Blue Mosque through the cupolas of the baths and imarets nearby is somewhat exotic, but it can of course be changed with an image which shows only the Blue Mosque. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. We do not seem to have a section about Transportation. Having the high speed train picture, or the airport picture would be relevant in such a section. I don't see why it should be relevant in the economy section. This might a matter of taste but I don't think they are featured picture material, either.
It's partially covered (though not extensively) in the main article Economy of Turkey that's linked at the top of the Economy section. Any new additions should respect (and be considerate of) the "100K" maximum limit of the article. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. I love the colors of whirling dervishes picture (and the flu'ness help in this case), but we might have a problem with the copyright. We might need to contact the author. He has released the image into the public domain (so probably no copyright problems), but he also says: "I allow this image to be used by the wikimedia commons" We need permission to be used worldwide, non-Wikipedia things as well. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yazdanism?

Please check this diff. I checked the source, searched for "Alevi" and "Alevite" there, no hits. Apparently Yazdanism is a Kurdish thing, and most Kurds are Sunni, even if we include Zazas, and most Alevis are not Kurdish as far as I know (ratio might be around 90%). Alawis are different from Alevis. That might be the source of confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.202.45 (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics bias

"This low figure is mainly due to prevailing feudal attitudes against women in the Arab- and Kurdish-inhabited southeastern provinces of the country.["

This is not a NPOV. To say this is to suggest the ethnic Turks living in south-eastern Turkey do not share the same views as the Arabs and Kurds, which simply isn't true. This part of the country is largely undeveloped and unindustrialised - most residents still live in villages and work in agriculture. Healthcare and Education are underprovided and in some areas non-existant compared to primarily Turkish, western parts of the country. As far as views of female education in these provinces go, the Kurdish, Turkish and Arab views are homogenised. There is no distinction, therefore no such distinction should be insinuated. The line essentially attempts to wash the Turks hands of any similar views and blames the Kurdish and Arabic populations for the Turkish Governments ignorance of and, if you will, hesitation in developing the South-East.

This attempts to imply Turkish cultural supremacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.166.60 (talk • contribs)

Did you even check the reference and read it? Click here to read it, and please read it completely I believe it's rather a Kurdish supremacy thing pushing away vices (sometimes not universal vices, but what Westerners think as vices) (in this case male's supreme dominance over females, to the extent of honor killings, and this is a universal vice save for a few cultures). Instead of putting the blame away onto 'Turks' whomever they are, let's try and fix the situation. 128.211.202.45 (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


As a matter of fact, I did check the reference. The BBC is not a divine infallible source. The line clearly directs any blame for uneducated and backward views of women away from Turks, and turns it into a Kurdish and Arabic problem. How is that fair? How is it Kurdish supremacy to ask for collective blame? I don't recall asking for the blame to be centred on Turks, that would be wrong - as would centering the blame on any specific ethnic minority in Turkey, such as the Kurds and Arabs, which is what has been done. Turkey is a country which has collectively voted in a socially conservative, Islamist government. Yet, when "cultural conservatism" becomes a problem, suddenly it's a minority issue. Wtf? Simply saying the southeastern part of the country is unmodernised and backward would suggest Ataturk's great Turkish Republic put a foot wrong and didn't do its job, God forbid anybody ever suggest that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zannyvespertine (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Those who are keen to stress that southeastern Turkey is "predominantly Kurdish" in every occasion should not be ashamed of this fact when they face the local Kurdish traditions of that region, such as not letting the girls to go to school, "honor killings", fixed marriages from birth, "berdel" (fixed cross marriages between siblings of two families), etc... Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


Lets get something straight. I'm an Armenian-Australian, and on no occasion have I declared the southeastern provinces of Turkey as being "predominantly Kurdish", true as that may be. Your assumption that I'm a Kurdish supremacist of some sort simply because I concerned myself with a Kurdish-related issue is offensive. I'm sorry to inform you that those actions which you listed occur in every province of Turkey. They are not particular to Kurds or Arabs - they occur among ethnic Turks as well - how much clearer can I make this? That line in the Demographics section is still biased, pro-Turkish, and anti-minority. I've been to Turkey, my parents lived there for most of their lives. I've encountered ethnically Turkish women in Aegean Turkey who cannot read, have never stepped on a beach in their lives and were arranged to marry from birth. Are you telling me this is a Kurdish and Arabic problem? This is outrageous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zannyvespertine (talk • contribs) 06:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC reference attributes those cultural traits to the Kurds and Arabs though. If you believe this argument is flawed, you should support your arguments with alternative references. Your personal opinions, experiences or family background don't count very much in Wikipedia as a reference. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I removed "Arabs and Kurds" from that sentence: It's ethically not correct to single out specific ethnic groups as the cause of this problem; even though the argument might actually have some truth in it. The Turkish state also has its fair share of responsibility in dealing with this issue since 1923, as well as the PKK which kills teachers and doctors who are appointed to the southeastern provinces. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we came to agree. And yes yes, I'm not trying to argue over Turkey's internal conflicts. Both sides hold a lot of responsibility for the atrocities that've taken place. But as you and I now concur, attributing illiteracy to ethnic groups for perceived cultural traits which, in fact, are not specific to those cultures is wrong.

Thank you :] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zannyvespertine (talk • contribs) 08:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Turkish rate of 88% considered "low" when countries like Malta and Portugal which are usually considered "developed" have rates of 92% and 93% (not mjuch higher) ? By the way, rates for people below 40 is well into the 90s. It's the older folk who drag the figure down. Real demographic problems faced by Turkey would be the rapid urbanization of the country as a whole and de-population of the east because of migration to the much more prosperous west. These are very much discussed in Turkey. Why isnt this discussed here instead ?

[edit] 2008 figures

The 2008 estimate is the estimate for what will happen by the *end* of 2008, not the beginning, you don't give an end of year estimate in May. It has yet to occur, we are in May, not December 31. As for your Greece, Bulgaria comparison, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not an argument, and they are not featured articles, they are not examples to go by. Featured articles like Australia, Germany, India use the 2007 figures. With regards to your "fat" ref claim, that is an inherently inane argument, it makes no difference what years it covers as it is a url link, the information is all in the link, however a new query can easily be created.--Miyokan (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Keeping a "featured article" below the 100K limit is important, and your IMF link is "fat" because it includes all GDP figures from 2006 to 2013, which is totally unnecessary. The current IMF link has the 2007 and 2008 GDP figures, which are enough. Also, I can give you numerous other countries which use the 2008 estimates for GDP figures as an example, not just Greece and Bulgaria. As I said before, all GDP figures are "estimates" by nature, including those for 2007. There's no such thing as "precise" GDP figures (measuring GDP is different than measuring population or area.) Even so-called "official" government figures for GDP are merely "estimates". Therefore, if we're going to have an "estimate", let's keep the "estimate" up to date. Everyone knows that the "2008 estimate" is for the end of the year. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have already explained that the "other stuff exists argument" is not valid, and Greece and Bulgaria are not featured articles, they are not examples to go by, while most if not all featured articles like Australia, Germany, India use the 2007 estimates. This "other stuff exists argument" also completely avoids the question of why. Once again, you come back to the estimates/precise argument. Nobody is arguing that they are not "precise". The argument is that you don't write GDP figures that have yet to occur. We do not write "future GDP of Turkey". The 2008 estimate is the estimate for what will happen by the *end* of 2008, not the beginning, you don't give an end of year estimate in May. It has yet to occur, we are in May, not December 31.--Miyokan (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
And what makes you think that the 2007 figures have indeed occurred? They are likewise merely "estimates". Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Bangladesh is another "featured article" which uses the 2008 estimates. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Pakistan is also a "featured article" and likewise uses the 2008 estimates. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want "EU members" which use the 2008 estimates, there you go: Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, etc... Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
New Zealand also uses the 2008 estimates. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat it again, WP:Other Stuff Exists is not an argument, I am not concerned with those articles, their figures can easily be changed. It is clear that English is not your native language so I will explain it again. The IMF published its estimates for what it thinks countries GDP reached in 2007. No one is saying they are precise, that is why it says "2007 estimate". The 2008 estimate is the estimate for what will happen by the *end* of 2008, not the beginning, you don't give an end of year estimate in May. It has yet to occur, we are in May, not December 31.--Miyokan (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan (or should I say Mikoyan?) The 2007 figures are likewise "estimates" (they are not the "real deal") therefore what's the use of having old "estimates" when they are not the precise truth (unlike population or area figures, for example, which can be measured precisely.) Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are completely on the wrong page, I will repeat again, why on earth are you talking about the figures not being precise or the "real deal", I have not mentioned anything about this. The 2008 estimate is the estimate for what will happen by the *end* of 2008, not the beginning, you don't give an end of year estimate in May. It has yet to occur, we are in May, not December 31. We do not publish GDP estimates for 2009, do we? The 2008 estimates the IMF released are their estimates for the entire year of 2008, it is their estimate for how large the economy will be by January 1 2009. Seeing as we are not at the end of the year, we use the 2007 figures. That is also why the CIA FactBook uses 2007 GDP figures.--Miyokan (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
And who claims otherwise? Why do you think people give money to buy The Economist's "The World in 2008" which is loaded with "estimates for 2008", in December 2007? As I said before, the 2007 figures are likewise "estimates" and not the precise truth. It's impossible to precisely calculate GDP figures. Therefore, what's the use of having old "estimates" when we can have new "estimates"? Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Because we do not put figures which have yet to occur, the 2007 figures might be estimates, but that has already occured, while the January 1 2009 estimate has not occured. This is not "future Turkey GDP".--Miyokan (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Mikoyan, I'm sorry, but unless you don't change the figures of other countries to 2007 as well, I will continue to believe that you have a "special purpose" for your fixation that's exclusively for Turkey's figures - and for obvious reasons. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Resorting to ad hominem arguments and avoiding the issue is an act of desperation and means that this issue is resolved, it will be changed to the 2007 figures. I will change the other countries when I have time.--Miyokan (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
As long as a "third opinion" doesn't come, the case is open. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Especially an Administrator who has worked for the Turkey article should tell his/her opinion first. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Map

How about this one? I removed Greenland and cropped the excessive empty space at left
How about this one? I removed Greenland and cropped the excessive empty space at left

Turkey is an Asian country not European, so why does the map show Turkey as part of Europe? Signsolid (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkey is institutionally a European state (the same case with Cyprus). It is a founding member of the Council of Europe (1949) and an officially recognized candidate country to join the European Union, having been an associate member since 1963, and having reached a customs union with the EU since 1995. Turkey is also an associate member of the Western European Union since 1992; which will likewise automatically turn to full membership with eventual EU accession. Hamam Tellak (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Even though the modern state of Turkey since the First World War has tried to make itself as European as possible it is still geographically, racially, culturally, linguistically, religiously, and historically Asian. Signsolid (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree to geographically, racially, culturally, linguistically and religiously related to Asia but I beg to disagree about "historically Asian". Actually Anatolia has been massively of Greek culture for 13 or 14 centuries before it became Turk, and even prior to the Helenism it had always been mostly Indo-European culturaly (Luvites, Hitites, Micenians, Phrygians, Lydians, etc.) and some Old Mediterranean (Cretans, Pelasgians and Carians). Greek was nearly the universal language in Anatolia prior to the arrival of the Turks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.254.137 (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Geographically, Turkey is a Eurasian country -- part of it is in Europe and part of it is in Asia, so saying that it is an Asian country is geographically incorrect (as is saying that it's a European country, for that matter). Culturally and historically, I'd say it's just as European as many Eastern European countries. Linguistically, whether it's European depends on how you feel about the Ural-Altaic languages. "Racially" (in scare quotes because the notion of race is scientifically discredited), Turks are an amalgam of Central Asians and Southeastern Europeans. As for religion, I don't know that Islam is necessarily an Asian religion (though it's less widespread in Europe than in Africa and Asia). So while it may be somewhat controversial to call Turkey a European country, it's hardly less controversial to call it an Asian country. Klausness (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree Turkey is a mixture of both but I believe it is far more Asian than European for the reasons I stated before. As Turkey is a transcontinental country, which belongs to both Europe and Asia then maybe the map should reflect this rather than how at the moment the map clearly depicts Turkey as soley a European country. Signsolid (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't the map been changed yet to show Turkey is both European and Asian rather than soley European as it does at the moment? Signsolid (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got any maps that show Turkey between Europe and Asia? Signsolid (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This map any good? Signsolid (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it. I think the map should show all of Europe, since that will allow many readers to locate Turkey more easily relative to known locations. What I might change about the existing map is to scroll it to the right (that is, leave out that big chunk of the Atlantic ocean in the west and add a chunk of Asia in the east instead), and maybe down a bit (to include a bit more of Africa). Also, I might remove the highlighting for Europe (that is, leave the country outlines, but don't make the European countries a darker gray than the others). Keep in mind that the point of the map is to allow readers to see where Turkey is located, not to argue for or against the inclusion of Turkey in Europe; so the purpose of including surrounding countries it to allow readers who may not know exactly where Turkey is to locate it relative to known locations. Klausness (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's the previous map:

Scusate se insisto (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the old map (Map of the Republic of Turkey.png) works better than the new suggestion (Europe Asia Location Turkey.png). Not sure whether I like the old one better than the current version (Location Turkey in Europe.png)... Klausness (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the map at the top which has had the large amount of space in the west cropped off. It would probably look better too if Asia was coloured in like Europe is and the caption below read 'Location of Turkey (red) on the European continent (dark grey) and Asian continent (whatever colour is decided). Signsolid (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the most accurate, as it shows Turkey according to the Earths contours and shape. The Earth is not flat and thus the other maps are wrong
This is the most accurate, as it shows Turkey according to the Earths contours and shape. The Earth is not flat and thus the other maps are wrong

Actually, all of you are misguided and mis-informed regarding Turkey's geographical location. The Earth is not flat, and thus the most geograhically correct maps is the one which shows countries according to their actual physical structure on the Earth. And to some proples dismay on this discussion, Turkey is more European according to the correct maps. Satellite images of Turkey by NASA also support this. Thus this map is the correct map. Thus, scientifically and geographically this map is the most accurate.

Tusas, There is no "scientifically accurate" two-dimensional map projection -- they're all inaccurate in one way or another. As for whether Turkey is geographically part of Europe, that's really a matter of convention. The Eurasian landmass has been arbitrarily divided into the continents of Europe and Asia, for mainly sociopolitical reasons. By convention, the Bosphorus and the Ural mountains divide Europe from Asia, which puts western Turkey in Europe and eastern Turkey in Asia. This doesn't imply that Tukey can or can't be in the European Union, the Eurovision Song Contest, or anything else with "Europe" in the name -- it's just the standard definition of the continents of Europe and Asia. The purpose of the map in the article should be to allow readers to locate Turkey with respect to other countries and to give an idea of the shape and relative size of the country. So I'd say some sort of equal-area projection (see the Map projection article), preferrably one that does not distort the shape of Turkey too much, would probably be most appropriate. And the map should include all of mainland Europe, a chunk of Asia, and the northern part of Africa. Klausness (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkey's map in this article should be changed. At least until the issue of whether it joins the EU and becomes a european country. Until then it should be used a map where it is shown as a part of Middle East.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahatma2008 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that the past 2 capital cities of Ottoman Empire were in Europe.--Ilhanli (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prime Minister and Parliment

It states in the article that "Neither the Prime Minister nor the Ministers have to be members of the parliament", while this is true for ministers, prime ministers must be members of the parliment according to Turkish Constituion article 109. http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/Anayasa.htm 88.235.44.208 (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Ugras

You are correct. It is the president who doesn't have to be a member of the parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cansilgure (talk • contribs) 01:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cyprus problem

There is no reference being made in the article about the promblem of Cyprus in which Turkey invated Cyprus in 1974 and occupies 38.2% of the country territory. Turkey refuses to remove its troops and return the land to its rightfull owners. The name Turkish Republic of Northen Cyprus which refers in the article in the section military should be removed. There is no such state and no country regognise it as a legal entity except Turkey. It should be refer to as the area that Turkey is iligally occuping after the invasion of 1974.

and27sav —Preceding unsigned comment added by And27sav (talk • contribs) 10:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Then we shouldn't write Republic of China in any part of Wikipedia. One can see that there are many other countries all around the world which are either partially recognized or not recognized at all. Recognition is de jure and governing power is de facto. On the other hand, UN resolution states that invading forces must leave the country but that is another chapter of the issue because the problem reached to a deadlock in 1980s when both parties, Greece and Turkey, aimed to give secondary importance to Cyprus issue and keep the status quo. I also want to remind you that it was the Greek Cypriot side which both broke down the London-Zurich Agreement of 1959 and rejected the Annan Plan of 2002. Your words are like the shadows of the words of Nikos Sampson and his puppeteers, the Junta of Colonels. Deliogul (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)