Talk:Turkey/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Vandalsim

I'm not really involved with editing or reviewing this article, but when I got here there was simply a picture of a mutilated body in a ditch and the words "Turkey is Evil" were written under it. I restored the page to it's last "real" edit. It's sad that people resort to such tactics to make a point, justified or not. Please, don't let your feuds boil over to such a blatant use of vandalism. The credibility of the entire community suffers when someone, whether a wiki user or not, links to a page and finds something as useless as what I found. SimonSayz 02:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Secularism and Laicism

There is a difference between secularism and laicism (although wikipedia says laicism is secularism in English,which i believe is wrong).It would be easier to explain this with examples:Great Britain is a "secular" country,meaning that state and religous affaires are separated,but the Queen of England,who holds some administrative competences of the State,is also the leader of the Anglican Church.This is also common in Nordic states of Europe;their constitutions make clair referances to religion.On the other hand countries like France and Turkey who have adopted "laicism" as system.The state may have affairs with religous institutions (and even run them in a way or another) but cant make constitutional referances or state an official religion of state,meaning state and religion is strictly separated. Secularism in European democracies,of course,is a result of hundreds years of evolution and today the referances mentionned above are mostly symbolic.However in Turkey,being our subject,laicism is appilied in a very serious way (like in France) and is considered as a key to Turkish democracy.Thats way i changed "secular" to "laic (secular)". Cem-Paris

Free Press in Turkey

"Turkey has a vibrant free press ..." says the Media section, but Reporters Without Borders has consistently disagreed since 2002. I don't know enough about Turkey's situation to add to the article, just thought I'd bring it up. Kfor 19:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

The flag used is wrong (turkeys flag is not pacman eating 3 stars), i would change it myself but im a noob


"The Republic of Turkey is a wonderfull place turkish people are very kind,


Excuse me?! Someone get this cleared away as this is just downright disgusting and offensive! Common people, is this really necessary?

Alas, this sort of nonsense is common. Usually it is reverted quite quickly -- indeed, you can revert it yourself as soon as you notice it. --Macrakis 18:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there are a lot of real vandalist in England.

hey I am agree with you=_) guys I quess I can go one more time holiday is very cheep :))

Exports and Imports

The most recent change to the article alters the numbers for Turkey's exports and imports in the infobox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&curid=354097&diff=24770426&oldid=24712846

I could not find a source for these numbers or an explanation for the change. Does anyone have a pointer to the estimated numbers for 2005 total exports and imports for Turkey? --Zippy 01:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide Takes Too Much Space

Above all discussion on the alleged Armenian Genocide, I think this topic is taking too much space in pre-republic history section of the article. The more obvious Jewish Genocide in Germany is not even a paragraph in the Germany article. This seems pretty biased to me.

The Germans don't dispute the Holocaust, that's why. John Smith's 12:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
We don't admit because it is untrue. If the ottoman army didnt protect the ermanians during their immigration, none of them would be alive. They killed many defendless turkish people in a disgusting way. we will never admit this and we dont care whatever your brain minds.
Please dont compare with germans ever.!!
That is blatantly false! The Ottoman Empire and the Young Turks killed one million Armenians, and is recognized by almost everyone BUT the Turks! There is photographic evidence, movie clips, and heads of states (including Teddy Roosevelt) that have spoken out against it. Coincidently, I just watched a program about this very topic on the History Channel tonight. Let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of dead Assyrians, too. I cannot believe that the Turks are playing the part of the victim here. Okay, after saying that I should tell everyone that I am very fond of "modern day" Turkey. I don't have a personal gripe with any one single Turk, but it saddens me that other nations have come to grips with their genocides, yet these poor people have been denied that dignity by those in charge in Turkey. --Sean WI 05:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
You always give the numbers. Can you tell me the reason why Turks killed armenians??. If your answer is race why turks didnt killed kurd, greeks, arabians (By the way, my race is arabic and I am turkish citizen). If your answer is religon, why they didnt kill the other people who has same religon. For example greece was totaly ottoman land. German genocide's reason was race and religon. In our liberity war which france, italy, grece, england decided to envade us together(most probably to kill us), ermanian fought together with french army against turks and killed many turks (mostly babys children totaly unprotected turks because there was a war and every turkish young boy was in army.). France army lost the war, and ermanians beg to france to be able to imigrate to france, And france accepted them. Most of ermanians who live in france are origionly from adana. They escaped to france because they were so goddame guilty. After liberity war, turkish solders went their home and found their familly killed by ermanians. That is why armanians claims are just bug noise.
Playing the part of the victim again, eh? Yes, Armenians came storming in targeting any Turkish baby they could find. But the Turks valiantly used their extremly well equipped and well trained army that brought Britain, France, Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, and the Armenians to their knees. Thus the Turks, led by the spiritual Gray Wolf, did what Germany couldn't. I love the revisionist history books written by Pan-Turanism radicals. --Sean WI 05:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You are an ignorant person.In my personal famliy many people were killed in the first world war, and I am from Kahramanmaras, which is quite far (about 1000 kms) from the front with Russia and France. Who killed them? the russians? are you so ignorant? it was armenian gangs. my grandmothers and fathers from both sides were orphans because of these people. If you look at the massacres committted in anatolia, 99% of them were muslim citizens getting killed by armenian gangs, and maybe 1% armenians killed by muslims. At the end of the wars and independence, only 15 million Turks were alive, of which 90% women and children, and 6 million were refugees from other parts of the former Empire. Of course muslim lives arent worth anytin right.--Kahraman 17:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to hear an answer (if possible from Sean WI): Why Turks picked Ermenians? That is a simple very legitimate question. Was it not enough for Turks to cope with Britain, France, Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia... Why did Turks pick Ermenians, among all those turmoil? What was their motive? The thing that makes this question more Interesting is the fact that Ermenians were used to known as "Millet-i Sadika" (type at any web search engine, you will see entries), which means Faithfull Nation, people that Ottoman considered trustworthy. And, it is catchy to answer Turks' questions that they are playing the victim. It would be more productive to give an answer, and maybe take the converstation forward, help people to understand what is what... It is OK not to answer if you don't have any. --Arici.

I would like to say that I very much support the recent edit by A.Garnet. This is the amount of space that the Armenian Genocide should occupy in a very condensed section about the republic's history. A very bulky section describing the genocide seemed very biased and a NPOV mention of it with a link to the article with the neutrality warning is much more appropriate. This article should not be used to squeeze in a highly contentious topic under the radar.
It is already to a point that most of the section is about the pre-republican era and there is not enough of a synopsis of the post-republican period, which should include some mention about the one party system, Ataturk's reforms, multi-party system, military coup d'etats, the Kurdish question, and EU membership. Would adding some background of these topics really make the section too long? It would certainly make the section more about the "History of Turkey". Karma Heretic 02:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Turkey Page Taken Over

The Turkey page seems to have been taken over and is not protected.


My recent edit

We should add some pictures from this website. http://goturkey.kulturturizm.gov.tr/


Coolcat: To include obvious POV statements such as "the race-blind system is based on equality." and "everyone is considered to be the majority" is not acceptable here in Wikipedia or in any other serious encyclopedia. I just removed the POV. Stereotek 08:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What I said is what turkish goverment says, what you claim is what CIA factbook suggests. Lots of people dispute the factuality of CIA factbook and those numbers are unofficial according to the CIA factbook. I explained what the system of Turkey is based on. That is not a POV. Thats how they do things. --Cool Cat My Talk 04:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat: "I will be soon reproting your HUNT for coolcat posts". Good luck! My main reason for checking your "contributions" in Turkey related articles, is that I consider the vast majority of your edits to be of extremely low quality, and not suitable for an encyclopedia. Another fact is that I consider the majority of your edits in Turkey related articles to be POV. Stereotek 07:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You declared anything I added as POV. You reverted all my work. That may be considered as a personal attacks and as vandalism. You are welcome to make My POV neutral by rewording, you are not welcome to revert all my inputs. --Cool Cat My Talk 04:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

hiya! I have been away for some time, and I've seen that the demographic figures of Turkish people periodically vary from %97 to %70! Come on guys, both of you are too stubborn and your figures do not reflect the truth. I am changing the figure to %85-90 (and respectively ratio of the Kurds to %10-15). I have written the reasons before (you can find them in the archive), so before changing it again, please do state your reason like I did. --wanderer 13:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The CIA factbook suggests 20% Kurdish rest Turkish, the Turkish goverment Suggests all Turkish, considers Kurds as Kurds (somehow dont care about the politics behind it). So those are the official HIGH and LOW values I got, to suggests 70% I need a basis. I only care about .GOV or .INT or any other "reputable" organnisation that checks for demographics world wide. There is no official declaration suggesting Kurds being the largest minority in Turkey. National Concesus is over 10 years old, (last one was declined due to corruption) --Cool Cat My Talk 04:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no official concensus no official numbers so thats my case. --Cool Cat My Talk 04:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, you didn't just change the numbers. You also added your POV statements: "the race-blind system is based on equality." and "everyone is considered to be the majority" again. Anyway, I don't think Wikipedia should promote the Turkish state POV that the Kurdish people (and other minorities) doesn't exist. Stereotek 09:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat: First of all, Turkish goverment does not suggest that all Turkish citizens have a Turkish ethnicity. There is no clasification based on ethnicity in the turkish census. AND: You make Republic of Turkey look like a fascist country. I dont know what your intention is, but you are doing the propoganda in the reverse way. Stereotek: Turkish state doesn't suggest the Kurdish people doesn't exist. I understand you in a way that, if I were reading CoolCat's text and did not know much about Turkey, I would also think the way you do; but Coolcat's writings are Coolcats, its not the official policy of Turkey. They were the old (and wrong) policies of the old governments. Now, the Turkish policy is this: There is only one official language of Turkey and that's Turkish. Kurdish people are free to talk Kurdish, write (and publish books) in Kurdish, or sing in Kurdish, but they have to learn the official language as well. Thats all. They can even establish private Kurdish courses. -unsigned

All I am suggesting is all ethnic minorities are declared Turkish, sometimes they came up with a story. When I was there I realised that unlike the US people do not get special rights nor are punished because of their ethnic background. Its how the do things and should be clarified. Its called a race/ethnicity blind system. I will need resources I can check, I prefer it to be something .gov

Sparse?

I think a lot more content can be added to this, perhaps more on the decline of the ottoman empire (the balkan uprisings, joining Germany in WW1 etc) and there should definitely be more on the role Ataturk played in war of independence i.e. moving power to Ankara, the struggle against the invaders and way in which this gave them the upper hand over the Treaty of Sevres. There is more on its demography than its great history.

There should also be mention of its political setup as a multi party democracy, also inclide short profiles of its current leaders?

  • Hmm.. History of Turkey may have that and may be a more aproporate place o put info. Information regarding the serves has been declared POV I am inclied to not add material.--Cool Cat My Talk 07:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Genocide

It is not just Armenia which has a problem with Turkey dt the genocide and Turkish denial of the same. The matter ultimately plays a role in teh hesitancyy many Europeans feel wrt EU and Turkey joining. Refdoc 21:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not a solid fact either. Re writen with a level of uncertainty.

Added more info

Cleaned up beginning a bit, changed timeline to pre republic and post republic. Added info on Ataturk and independece as well as disintegration of Ottoman empire leading to WW1. Removed genocide sentence, doesnt fit in, feels like it was just stuck on to make a point. The article still feels sporadic, perhaps when i have time i will contribute more to it. If anyone wants to revert it to an older version please explain why first Thank you.--62.255.64.9 00:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Genocide or Rebel terrorism?

We have seen many past-Armenians who are neither living in Armenia, nor Turkey are trying to create a genocide out of nothing.

Armenians lived well and rich in Turkey and past Ottoman empire. They still do. There are many Armenian-originated Turkish citizens living in Turkey. They are happy, they don't want to go to Armenia, and there is no attitude against them. They can be easily interviewed in Istanbul where most or Armenians of Turkey live.

During WW1, some of those Armenians tried to rebel and to separate from Ottoman empire. They did this with support from Russia, both economic and military. Armenian men got weapon from Russia and attacked Ottoman officials and non-Armenian civilians to become an independent state. To overcome this, Ottoman empire rules and movement order for Armenians to keep control of critical part they live. To they moved to east. There was no massacre, no killing, nothing. Just move.

Indeed, those Armenians who used Russian made weapons to attack and kill Ottoman officials heve been killed. We do not call this genocide, but terrorism. There was no attack or killing on Armenian civilians.

Armenian people who still live in Turkey are very angry at those debates on genocide. Because they know what happened, wheter it is good or bad, it was not a genocide. They are turkish citizens and they don't want Turkey deal with these arguments because they are absurd.


Yes, Armenian citizens who live in Turkey are still angry at the way the Turkish goverment and people alike behave as if the Armenian Genocide never occured. Yes, Armenian citizens are still angry because a few months ago it was virtually impossible to teach the language and customs to the younger Armenians because of restrictions imposed by the Turkish goverment. Every coin has two faces...

First you should admit that armenian did genocide to turks.

Man, you have no idea about Turkey. The Armenians living in Turkey say they're proud of beeing Turks and living in Turkey and there never was such a "genocide". 84.190.74.73 13:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed entry:

History

Main article: History of Turkey

Anatolia (Asia Minor) of Turkey had been a cradle to a wide variety of civilizations and kingdoms in antiquity. The Seljuk Turks were the first Turkish power to arrive in the 11th century as conquerors (earlier Turkish peoples such as the Pechenegs had become allies and subordinates of the Byzantine Empire), who proceeded to gradually conquer the existing Byzantine Empire.

Their Turkish successors, the Ottoman Empire, completed this in the 15th century with the fall of Constantinople in 1453. At its peak under Sultan Suleyman the 'Magnificent' between 1520-1555, the empire stretched from the gates of Vienna to the Persian Gulf, from the Crimea to Morroco.

Throughout the 19th and early 20th century the Ottoman empire began to loose a foothold on its territories, first with Algeria and Tunisia, then Egypt, Libya and the Balkans in the 1912 Balkans war. Faced with territorial losses on all sides Turkey forged an alliance with Germany who supported it with troops and equipment. At the outbreak of World War I Turkey faced the choice of either supporting Germany and safeguarding its territories or placing itself at the hands of the victorious allies. Turkey entered the war on the side of the Triple Alliance (Germany, Italy, Austro-Hungary) and was subsequently defeated.

On October 30th 1918, the Mondros Armistice was signed followed by the the Treaty of Sèvres on August the 10th 1920. These sought to break up the Ottoman empire and force large concessions on Turkey in favour of its rival Greece. This led to the invasion of Izmir by Greece on May 15, 1919 and triggered the War of Independence. A nationalist movement led by Mustafa Kemal rejected the peace agreement, and organised an army which drove Greece from Turkey. By September 18th 1922 the country was liberated and the Treaty of Lausanne was signed in 1923, recognising the new borders of Turkey.

On October 29th 1923 the Republic of Turkey was proclaimed and Mustafa Kemal, taking the name Ataturk (father of Turks) would be its first President.


History Timeline (post Republic)

Since 1923, ...

Turkey intervened Cyprus, not invaded! Check it out in EU's official page (scroll down to the "History" section of the page): http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/cyprus/#countryprofile

Discussion regarding the entry

Removed Genocide

Doesn't fit in  ????!!!! No sure does not fit into teh picture Turkey wants to present to outside. Nevertheless it is accepted part of the history (But for the Turkish government and Turkish nationalists. IF teh rest gets expanded this has to be in. Refdoc 11:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This isnt an article for political accusation especially something only a handful of countries recognise, pick up any published encylopedia and look at Turkey, you will not find accusations of genocide because they simply arent the place for them. --62.255.64.9 11:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is obviously a pointless argument.

  1. Wikipedia is no paper, space is not a problem.
  2. The pre-republican history was fairly static until recent sudden expansion was started by yourself. I fyou feel teh article is too long why are you adding stuff otehrs might hold for irrelevant, while deleting the single largest crime Turkey has committed in 20th century? The majority of historians are clear about teh matter, it is only Turkey who objects. The deaths and the facts (deportation and deaths) as such are even recognised, Turkey disputes only that this was statesponsored extermination.

It is fascinating for me that Germany will punish Holocaust denial with jail, while Turkey has not even the guts to accept that wrong things were done by a previous government abolished by an internal revolution...

Refdoc 11:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not about space, its about removing opinion and allegations from fact and useful information. When you look at articles on USA, do you find mention of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Slaughter of Native Indians? Slave Trade? Racial inequality? Ku Klux Klan? All of these can be considered crimes yet the article remains neutral and concerned only with fact. Armenian genocide is too disputed in my opinion to include in a factual article. --62.255.64.9 12:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. I am not American
  2. In an article/article section about the USA's history these matters should very clearly be mentioned.
  3. Articles are not there to make countries look pretty and good but to report what there is to report.
Refdoc 13:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good E.A. This is a lot better. I have no problem whatsoever with this explanations, the dispute is in this form well displayed and we do not brush things under the carpet. Thanks. Refdoc 19:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A proposal

It seems some people are set on including genocide into this article, in the hope of keeping this article free of political views and accusations, i propose we integrate a section entitled "Foreign policy and disputes" and can therefore include any disputes under that. This section can include the Cyprus conflict, Armenina conflict, Iraqi concerns etc. --E.A 12:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) (i was previously 62.255.64.9)

A very poor proposal indeed. The genocide was massmurder of own population, albeit an ethnic minority. to put this solely into a "foreign policy section is a bad idea. I would though agree that we examine in teh foreign policy section how teh genocide has affected Turkey's standing in the world. Its denial is clearly one of the major influences on Europeans' hesitancy to allow Turkey to join the EU. I would like to warn you . You have absolutely no right to remove important information simply because it is disputed and because you do not like it, unless you have a clear community consensus. This consensus is not there and has never been there. Refdoc 13:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to be as neutral and compromising as possible within this article, which you and others are turning into a personal political mission. The fact is only 14 countries recognise the genocide and you yourself cannot claim to have the consensus of the community in including the claims. The sentence "according to Armenian and Western sources at least 1 million people lost their life in this episode which is called the Armenian Genocide" just wreaks of politics and is not constructive in the least to the article. You seem to want the sole purpose of the article to point towards genocide for your own personal views. Its like a black person going to the USA article and mentioning the slave trade, the ku klux klan, the segregation at every opportunity. To add further insult, you are deleting entire modifications by myself with no regard to the article. --E.A 14:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the personal political mission here is with you. The article had been stable for nearly six months until you came to delete the matter again. I have only expanded along the same lines as you expanded teh pre-Republican history. Nothing I wrote is new. I am not sure why a Black person should not mention these crimes, sounds quite fair to me, certainly when a history of teh same period is discussed. Refdoc 14:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


"Allegations regarding the disputed" is a bit too much denial. Allegations is sufficient to show that there is dispute against. Refdoc 16:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Armenian Genocide is not a fact as long as the very article is disputed that will be the case as far as wikipedia is concerned. This is the main article of Turkey, theire is a foreign relations section. There is also an Armenian Genocide article please do not clutter this article with your accusations, the very number of dead are disputed, everything about of it is disputed aside from the fact that lots of (unspesified amount) of armenians were asked to move a disputed number perished. Reasons, factuality is not my concern. There is no reason to turn wikipedia into a soapbox. There are 91 Armenian Genocide entries 167 jewish Genocide entries. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC).

I do not want to go into an armenian genocide article, I can acknowlege the existance of a dispute, I cant acknowlege it as factual.

Of course thats a neutral statement. Armenian Genocide is disputed. It could ba a fact or fiction. - Refer to NPOV article. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) You are welcome to discuss genocide matter in the aproporate article. This is not it, since the armenian genocide article is disputed. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Added section on sport

i'd like people to add a lot more to this article, especially on culture, politics and even more history. I look at the articles of other states and see great explanatations of their history, If its one thing Turkey has, its great History. Its up to you people really. --E.A 00:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To E.A

I won't take part in discussing with Coolcat, it is fruitless. I like your idea. The genocide can be considered as a dispute between Turkey and the West(not to be confounded with dispute among Western historians, which is not the cases). It is OK by me. If you want to get a vote about adding a new section and calling it what you've said, I'de vote yes. Fadix 01:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, i've had second thoughts on the idea. There are already links to Foreign policy/disputes and links to Armenian conflict. I dont want the article to turn into a political minfield. Just my opinion anyway. --E.A 09:20, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


NOTE: The following post is a response to a quite provocative and borderline racist comment which was, for some reason, erased.

I don't understand why you call people "greek lovers" but I find your attitude very provocative. If you can't accept some facts then don't bother posting here unless you feel the need to agitate people. The turkish invaded and brutalised unarmed civilians and this is one of the reasons the Europeans are reluctant of accepting Turkey into the EU. (Konstantinos)

Protected

Rovoam has gone beyond the pale and is reverting simply to make some kind of point [1]. Because he is virtually unblockable and rather obsessive, I have protected this article and quite a few others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected. Protected for long enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Spelling fix

Can a sysop fix "missle crisis" to "missile crisis" in the article, please? Thanks in advance! Sam Hocevar 09:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Armenian POV is facts, grow up people and embrace and accept anything armenians suggest.

DONT QUESTION THEM EVER! Seriously, these people declare their POV as facts and everything that does not agree as propoganda and lies. They go in to great lenghths to scare people away from wikipedia to push their POV. Such as annoying users until they leave their articles such as Armenian Genocide. Rather incivilised and distastefull in my POV. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

First quarter of 1900s.. Greece and bulgaria from the west, Russia and Russian supported Armenian gangs from the east, British empire and France from the south, allied forces from gallipoli... Countless Turkish soldiers and innocent villagers died and persecuted during the invasions. So, please tell me why dont we debate on these sometime? There are lots of papers that prove armed Armenian gangs persecuted Turks (similar as PKK is doing today) Ask to the 80 year old people in Turkey, let them tell the truth. How was the Turkish and Armenian villages boiling with anger at those years, how bloody years they were..


calling pkk terrorist is pure POV. most kurds see pkk as a freedom fighting force. also no mention is made of the disgusting and horrific persecution of kurds since 1921 ( law banning the use of kurdish in the streets, law banning kurdish names ), some of these laws still in use today ( interdiction to have political speeches in kurdish, interdiction to have education in kurdish before the age of 12 ). this needs to be done when the page is available for editing.

- Kassem 12:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating Kassem. It is a requierment to recognise PKK as a terrorist organisation to join EU or to join NATO. All EU and NATO nations recognise PKK as a terrorist organisation by default. US aside from NATO restrictions accepts PKK as a terrorist organisation. It of course is not limited to this I never searched for more. I lived in soulth-eastern Turkey for over two years, I am a foreigner. People around me hated PKK with a pashion. Kurds/Turks/<type ethnic minority here> as I observed did not remotely like PKK. So pkk is a freedom fighting force, 26 NATO nations and 25 EU nations are lying. --Cool Cat My Talk 07:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Do you have sources of the 1921 ( law banning the use of kurdish in the streets, law banning kurdish names )? What is the legal status of this law? What was exactly banned? How was this implimented? What political mesures did Kurds take over the years? --Cool Cat My Talk 07:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Ten years ago there were less conflicts about these. Now EU and USA are involved in this and it's said that a huge civil war is planend upon Turkey to divide it. This is said by an unknown european academic person. Thank you EU, thank you USA, you are Turkey's ally and friend!! --JohnEmerald 10:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I've added a little extra info on the Armenian massacre. Someone posted the Turkish POV, so I put the Armenian POV in. I also changed the word "deported", as they weren't kicked out of the Ottoman Empire. Exiled is better and there's nothing wrong to say they were sent into the desert - they were. If someone can tell me what's wrong with the edit, please do. But don't just cut it out because you don't like it.
By the way someone asked why we needed a bit on the Armenian massacre. Well as I said, the German government doesn't deny the Holocaust. It even has a law against revisionism. So this is a valid topic under the Turkish politics section. John Smith's 12:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Kassem, you have no idea! There are 10times more "köy koruyucusu" (Village protectors) then there are pkk-terrorists. And these protectors are all Kurdish people, if you ask them why they do this, then they answer
"We get no real money for this job, we risk our lives by doing this and there's nothing we get. Why do we do this? We do this because we don't want our loved Turkey, our loved fatherland to be separeted!" <---this is what they say!

Aquilion 19:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone above stated that the Greeks and Bulgarians were invading, the Armenians were invading, British and French were invading, all invading Turkey.

First, the Greeks and the Bulgarians fought Turkey in the Balkan wars to regain lost possessions. Turkey lost fair and square. That's what happens in a war. Then a decade later, Turkey sided with Austria-Hungary and Germany. They were then invaded again at Gallipoli, but repelled the British. They shouldn't have sided with the enemy if they didn't want to get invaded, again that's a part of war. Supposedly Armenians were rising up...maybe because they were suffering decades of Genocide? Maybe, there being so many of them, they ::GASP:: might've wanted their freedom? Turkey is a powerful nation surrounded by many weaker ones, yet, these weaker nations miraculously manage to bully the Turks around with impunity. Gimme a break. Those are lies and excuses depicting the disillusionment of Turkish propaganda. Turkey needs to accept certain facts and to stop justifying itself for killing millions and invading other countries. --Xenophonos 18:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Spelling fix

Hi everyone. I noticed a spelling error (or a typo, if anyone insists ;) ) in the Demographics section. Near the end, the text reads "asside" instead of "aside". I was wondering if some mod/op could fix it? Thanks in advance, Toon81

Pictures

Why aren't there any picture of Istanbul, Capadoccia or aegean coasts?? In every county's page i can see pics but not in this one. I think you should immediately add some pics.

Let's Talk:Turkey...

Heh, get it? Hehe.... Anyway, does the article need to remain protected? Should it be unprotected? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:45, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

when are the administarors are going to unprotect this article?

Templates

I suggest we add the following templates to the article;

Template:Mediterranean, Template:Middle East and Template:Southwest Asia.



--Gramaic 07:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Update: now that the protection is gone, I've just added the templates, that I posted above, to the article.--Gramaic 06:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Turkey Coat of Arms

where is the Coat of Arms of Turkey?

There are no official coat of arms for Turkey. For use in embassies, sort of coat of arms basicly in form of shield in red with crescent /star do exist. Also for presidential flag, there is the sun & rays symbol with 16 stars surrounding, which represent 16 Turkish states established during the history. But none of these are actually considered as coat of arms in Western style for the country. Jensboot 21:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are coat of arms of various govermental bodies but no coat of arms of the nation itself. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Geography

Is there a special word for the European part of Turkey (i.e.. Turkey minus Anatolia)? Everton 14:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Thrace. —Geraki 2005-06-16 T 15:32 Z

Thank you, but it seems that that term is mainly used by the Greeks, not the Turkish. Is there any Turkish word for that region? Everton 15:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The word used is "Trakya Bölgesi" or shortly "Trakya". The region west of Meriç River settled by the Turkish minority , which is under Greek administration, is called "Batı Trakya" (Western Thrace). Jensboot 21:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is also called as Rumelia.

Shiva

Protection

Two weeks is far too long to protect against vandalism. Unprotecting. --Golbez 03:59, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

FAO Wiglaf

Is there any reason you reverted my edit, is there a factual innacuracy? Do sources not place the toll at 600,000 - 1m? Does Armenia not campaign to get countries to recognise genocide? Does Turkey not mention the deaths of thousands of Turks against Russian backed Armenian conflict?

The reason i edited your version is because it was innacurate, western sources do not place the deaths at least 1m, all sources i read start from 600,000. Also to use the word state-sponsored extermination twice in one paragraph is too heavy for an encylopedia. --E.A 28 June 2005 18:07 (UTC)

E.A. I have not written the paragraph. When I started reading about this fascinating country with its great culture, I was surprised that this well-known event was not mentioned, and I checked the edit history. I then saw that someone had completely removed that part of Turkish history and took it for vandalism that the admins had missed, and reinserted the removed piece.
Now, I have never heard of Armenians campaigning in this matter. All I know is that figures like 600 000 - 1500 000 are often mentioned in newspapers and western history books, and that Turkey is quite empty of this people which had lived in the area for at least 2000 years. Now, for me as an uninvolved it looks quite suspicious when you change the figures and claim that the Armenians killed as many Muslems. It also looks suspicious when I look at your talkpage and see that you're involved in arguing with Armenians and Greeks about the conflicts during the last century.--Wiglaf 28 June 2005 18:35 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for replying. I dont think you should revert on the grounds of suspicion, i'll try and address some of your points.
Armenia does campaign for the recognition of genocide, any Armenian will tell you this. They want countries to recognise genocide. Infact im sure many Armenians would be insulted if their government did not campaign for the recognition of genocide.
As to the death toll, the figure of at least 1 million is inflated, most estimates begin from 600,000 which is what i wrote. It is either way a terrible death toll but for the sake of accuracy i felt it had to be included.
You say i am trying to claim as many Turks were killed by Armenians. What i actually said was 'Turkey maintains' hundreds of thousands of Turks were killed during conflict with Armenians. The important difference is i am reporting what Turkey says, not me. If you ask an Armenian what the Turkish government thinks of the genocide accusation, they will tell you what i wrote. Is it not our job on Wikipedia to inform readers of both sides of the situation?
As for my talkpage with the exception of one Greek Cypriot who is currently under request for arbitration, i havent argued with anyone. The only thing i take offence to on Wikipedia is people who use it for their own means to include their own views, this is something i have not done.
I take offence to you dismissing my edits because you see me as a Turk who argues with Armenians and Greeks, I suggest you dont dismiss users edits on the basis of their race, but look at what their contributing first. --E.A 28 June 2005 19:15 (UTC)
I DO NOT, dismiss your edits because of your "race". In fact, I am married to a woman of mixed Jewish descent. The problem is that I am quite tired of single-topic POV-pushers, and I mistook you for one. My sincere apologies.--Wiglaf 28 June 2005 19:37 (UTC)
No problem, at least we're both tired of POV pushers. --E.A 28 June 2005 20:39 (UTC)

Bush and Iraq

Bush made some quote about finishing the war on Iraq and starting on some other countries, and Turkey was one of the ones he made. What involvements does Turkey have that makes the US upset?

Heh, US is always upset about s.things, isn't she? But specifically you may check the 2003 invasion of Iraq for the rejection of the usage of turkish bases for the invasion. But speculating such an action would be too surreal since Turkey is a NATO member and EU member candidate. barfly 04:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding? He was talking about so called axis of evil which consists of Syria, Iran and Libya from the Middle East. Bush would never ever declare a war against Turkey. Shiva

About Armenian Genocide

I asked it to an administrator, if he says "no" to me about this I will stop, on the other hand until you show a primary source about any order or a plan about this thing to make it a "systematical annihilation" like I said in the Armenian Genocide Talk page and Armenians page (But you coludn't as I see) , I will continue to doing it. Armenian Genocide is not related with modern Turkey's history , like the Treaty of Lausanne and WW1 , you can write to Tukey's History to WW1, Treaty of Laussane , but you can't write there Young Turk Revolution, Armenian Genocide, because these events has no effect on today's Turkey's Society you can write this thing to Ottoman Empire History , cheers -- aozan

Armenian Genocide

Aozan has been continually removing this article, and states that it has nothing to do with Turkey's history. How could it not be a part of Turkey's history? Weren't the Turks involved in the Armenian Genocide? Can you please elaborate more on your argument. Thanks, --Gramaic | Talk 07:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes armenian killed my grand father and mother.. We all feel it in deep sence. dont worry..

Can you please show me primary documents about any order or a plan which belongs to Ottoman Government about to kill the Armenians, and Republic of Turkey is a different state from Ottoman Empire , Ottoman Empire was ended in 1923, Turkey is a new state , also it's capital is not Istanbul.-- aozan

Oh I am sorry, there was a word that "debated" about Armenian Genocide, in text of the Turkey's History article , so there is no need to delete it from there :-). -- aozan

anybody considered that i or whoever are not even responsible of what their father or brother did... relation about the article? there has to be. --proberos 23:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

So write then armenians killed 500.000 turkish people. First respect them..ok???

Armenian Terrorism - A Chronological Rundown

ASALA/Chronology

Oh I am sorry, there was a word that "debated" about Armenian Genocide,in text of the Turkey's History article , so there is no need to delete it from there :-). -- aozan

I moved the chronology to a different page. I think it should be converted to a timeline format and introduced to ASALA. I would also want to see a source for that. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Here the source: www.ataa.org , also you can find vast information when you used google about Armenian Terrorism and Armenian Terrorist activities in the past 1880-1986 , cheers -- aozan

Edip Yuksel

If anyone here lives in Turkey and knows something about Edip Yuksel, I would like to hear about it. He has crashed into Wikipedia aggressively promoting himself and his tiny Muslim sect, the Qur'an Alone Muslims, and after a long VfD battle, now has his own page. At the moment it's a fulsome tribute to him, saying that he's a best-selling author in Turkey. Is he really? Is he notable in Turkey? Zora 11:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

He is notable mainly due to two (or more) apearances on a known discussion program on TV, but i dont think he is a best-seller, and he does not have a noticable follower base. So as you rightly realized, he is preomoting himself by many means, and in my opinion his effect on people is not more than being known.Fethi 19:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

He is absolutely not a best seller. His claims are not true, he is not famous and notable at all. Shiva

Blatant POV

I see that certain elements in Wikipedia have magically removed any mention of the Armenian Genocide/Ethnic cleansing, and instead there are four lines about Armenian terrorism. I personally find this to be horrible POV and completely undefensible. Before I start adding info about the Armenian genocide/etnic cleansing I'd like to hear why this is considered NPOV.--Wiglaf 09:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Misleading informations.

“Between 1915 and 1917 large parts of the Armenian population were deported from the area constituting today's Turkey. Whether the casualties were the result of genocide or the turmoils of World War I is debated today (see Armenian Genocide).”

Casualties of what? The deportation? This part is ambiguous. Debated by whom? Claiming that it is debated, without clarifying by whom, is misleading and present the subject as something more controversial than it really is.

“Between 1970 and 1983, there were many attacks by the Armenian terrorist organisation ASALA. Attacks start with assassinating Turkish diplomats and bombing consulates in the USA and Europe, airports in Paris and Ankara, the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul, in an attempt to force the Turkish government to acknowledge the alleged Armenian genocide in 1915. The organization ceases to exist after the Turkish secret service assassinated ASALA leaders.”

The organizations goal was not only forcing Turkey to recognize it. It was as well forcing a press coverage of the plight of the Armenians as well as requesting the restitution of historic Armenia. The claim that the organization ceased to exist because of the Turkish secret service is what the Turkish government advance, but other more popular theses exist. Such as the fact that the organization had no support from the diaspora that started criticizing it very hardly in the Armenian press. Or the conflict inside the organization after the hard cores started targeting civilians. The Booklet: “Asala--Irrational Terror or Political Tool” by Ariel Merari, Jerusalem Post, Jerusalem, 1985, gives more clue of what was really going wrong in the organization, and this before the Turkish Secret Service did anything.

“Another issue which has caused debate are the allegations relating to the genocide against Armenians in the Ottoman era. According to Armenian and Western sources, at least 600,000 people lost their lives between 1915 and 1917 as Armenians were deported from what is modern day Turkey. Armenia has campaigned for the deaths to be recognised as genocide, 16 countries have formally recognised this. Turkey maintains that the Armenian casualties were the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I. They also state that hundreds of thousands of Turks and Muslims were killed in conflict with Russian backed Armenian militia.”

Ottoman Armenian casualties. Most sources contend to a million or over. Second, Armenia has not campaigned for the deaths to be recognized as genocide, this is wrong. There is no diplomatic wide scale publications regarding the topic. It is the Diaspora that has campaigned, and not Armenia. And the Diaspora did not really campaigned to get the event recognized as genocide, but rather campaigned against the Turkish government campaign of suppressing the uses of genocide. The Diaspora started campaigning after the 50nt commemoration year of the genocide, after that the Turkish government has decided to lunch a world wide campaign of suppressing the uses of genocide. The first major event was in the 70s, when Turkey pressurized the UN to delete the paragraph 30 of a UN resolution mentioning the Armenian genocide. The genocide was recognized already during that time, without any Armenian campaign. In fact, Raphael Lemkin the person that coined the term genocide included the Armenian cases alongside the Holocaust as parts of the definition of what a genocide is. The UN submitted a report in 1948 before the UN convention of the same year, regarding the massacre of Armenians, and this after Lemkin work to get it recognized. In fact, Lemkin himself lobbied to force Turkey sign the genocide convention because of the Armenian genocide. So, to claim that Armenia, or the Diaspora campaign to get the event recognized as genocide is misleading. The Diaspora campaign against the Turkish state suppression of the term and the reestablishment of what was already recognized before Turkey decide to campaign and suppress the uses of the term. To be more specific, there is no more countries that have a law or resolution regarding the Holocaust, since there is no state that deny and force others to deny... For those reasons states don't have to recognize officially something that is not denied. It is not for nothing that ASALA was born in the 70s, when the Turkish government sent diplomats around the world in a campaign to deny the genocide. The first ASALA crime was in this regard perpetrated by an elderly lonely man that was orphaned and only survivor of his family during the genocide, witnessing the Turkish government attempt to tell him and other victims, that his parents, brothers, sisters were never killed.

As for the hundreds of thousands of Muslim killed. This is not an official version, this claim was entirely forged by professor Halacoglu by using the Belge[ler] volumes, that most, even serious Turkish historians don't rely on. I already had a discussion regarding those files. For a quick analysis, check for Van, 1916-5-23, the three numbers, 8, 8,000 and 80,000. This forgery with the “8” is even reported by the League of Nations head and Nobel Peace prize at that time. Another series with a "1" before the “8”(or after, since Arabic script goes from left to right), an “18” that was made to look like 180,000 and sent to the Germans to be later used to kill the German public sympathy for the Armenians. I often refer to this example, because it is the most obvious. Ahmed Emin(publicist, and participated in the construction of anti-Armenian propaganda) propaganda book published in 1930, contend about 150,000 Muslim killed by Armenians during all the period, a figure exposed when he uses war propaganda materials and as a result finds fold higher figures for 1915, than 1917. Refik, himself working at Department II of the war intelligentsia headquarter(the same as Sadik, whom was charged to forge reports accusing the Armenians), admit in his booklet that propaganda materials were build to justify the decision taken against the Armenians. But even such propaganda materials give hardly over 150,000.

So, claiming that Turkey claim hundreds of thousands were killed by Armenians is misleading, I hardly see how Halacoglu could represent the Turkish state, when the official Turkish materials beside his works are short of giving, or advancing such figures. Even the 1,1 million killed Muslim once advanced are not used anymore and are thrown in an embarrassments garbage. Fadix 18:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem in making the article more accurate. With regards to the first section being ambigous, thats why their is a link there.
With regards to the 600,000 figure,Ottoman Armenian casualties states at the very beginning "Most estimations for the losses between 1915 to 1917-18 range from 600,000 to 1.5 million", therefore how is saying "at least 600,000 people lost their lives between 1915 and 1917" misleading?
You say the government of Armenia does not campaign for the recognition of genocide, but a quick search on google finds President Kocharian stating: "On September 25, 1998, the Republic of Armenia voiced its opinion on the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide from the UN podium at the highest levels. Last year, with the initiative of Armenia, the UN commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Convention on the Prevention and Condemnation of Genocide, and on that occasion it adopted a resolution.
Over the past few years, a number of countries, parliaments, as well as nine states of the United States of America adopted and passed resolutions condemning the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire. Work in this direction will continue."
http://www.armeniaforeignministry.am/htms/speeches/rk_genocide_%20ap1999.htm
To suggest that the view that hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed by Armenians is not the view of the Turkish government is innacurate. The website i provided is a government website, you will also see the same on the Turkish foreign ministry website and Turkish embassy in Wash DC website. Regardless of what you think of them i thought it only fair to include what the view of the Turkish government is.
Also you disagree with the word 'debated', but it must be said that only 16 countries still formally recognise what happened as genocide, for this to be the case one can only assume that their must be some kind of debate going on.
With regard to the section on terrorism, thats the first i've noticed of it today, i have no real knowledge of it to contribute. If you find innacuracies then please change it.
Overall i want to say that while I have no problem in including a statement about the allegations, i disagree with going into depth on it in this article. This is an article about Turkey remember, not an armenian genocide article - a link is already included for people who want to find out more. Even the article on Germany only makes a 2 line reference to the Holocaust with a link provided for those who want to find out more. I took the initiative to include more in the Politics and International relations section because the conflict of opinion undoubtedly creates political reprucussions. Let me know what you think. --E.A 19:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't think 600,000 is misleading(and I don't remember having said it was), the fact of the matter is that those that support the theses of genocide refer to a million or over as number of victims. “At least” doesn't really present the ranges of figures. On the other hand, I don't believe that an entry about Turkey really require to present Armenian casualty figures. Just that “according to different sources, hundreds of thousands perished, or a million or over.” Or something such.
Now about the campaign, again, this doesn't amount to campaign. Campaign require machinery, publication, lobbying etc., while the Armenian Diaspora has all of those, still claiming that they are in a campaign is a matter of debate, now imagine how far the Armenian republic is from a campaign. That there was few speeches or declarations from the Armenian government isn't enough. An indicator for if there is really a campaign, is how diplomatically the subject is handled through the foreign ministry. Most major referential works treating the subject in Turkey, are either from diplomats, ex-diplomats, political scientists hired by the foreign ministry etc. If you visit Turkish government websites, or even the Turkish foreign ministry official websites, you will read publications regarding the issue, in the past, they even had one of McCarthys book in its entirety. You can visit their sites, and read the Foreign ministry publications, and you will see that they have a section just for the “Armenian allegations.” They even have booklets that are distributed to politicians in parliaments on how to answer to a bill concerning the Armenian question and how to block it, such a booklet was used by a politician here in Canada to try to block a bill.
“Also you disagree with the word 'debated', but it must be said that only 16 countries still formally recognise what happened as genocide, for this to be the case one can only assume that their must be some kind of debate going on.”
Not quite right, this is a historical subject, that a country pass a bill or not doesn't change what is written in history books. In that regard, not more countries formerly recognize the Holocaust by bills and laws, still the Holocaust can not be considered a debated subject. Just to clarify, you possibly ignore that more people deny the Holocaust than there are people that deny the Armenian genocide. In the US, if I remember correctly, a poll indicated that 1/3 of the population doubt the Holocaust happened. In the Muslim world, most doubt it happened. While the Ottoman was a Muslim country, the Arabs are aware of the Armenian genocide and do not deny it the way they deny the Holocaust. Even in Iran a bill was to be voted regarding the Armenian genocide before Turkey and Azerbaijan made pressures to prevent the bill to be voted. The same happened in Syria and Lebanon. If you visit Egypt, you could ask the population there regarding the Armenian genocide and then, the Holocaust, and witness the reaction in both cases. So to claim that it is debated without saying by whom, is misleading and attach a controversy to the matter, that in reality does not exist.
“To suggest that the view that hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed by Armenians is not the view of the Turkish government is innacurate. The website i provided is a government website, you will also see the same on the Turkish foreign ministry website and Turkish embassy in Wash DC website. Regardless of what you think of them i thought it only fair to include what the view of the Turkish government is.”
I did not see this list at the Turkish foreign ministry website, this content came from a CD indeed prepared by the Turkish government, from the first year Halacoglu took the charge of replacing Ataov, in his quest. I don't know how to explain you how this view is not really the Turkish government view, and here I should be the one to be blamed. Those figures are death meat thrown as sarcasm over the death of people. I doubt that they are even thrown where serious debates are concerned. In this regard, Halacoglu is given the charge to be the laughing stoke and making speeches and being the dirt bag, permitting officials to wash their hands. Those figures are very recent ones to be even considered as the voice of the Turkish government, with the presentation of the CD, and the web-site “armenianterror” lunched by a company financed by the Turkish government to do the job, it has been updated continuously, and now the last count is 523,xxx something presented by no one other than our famous Halacoglu. For those reasons, I don't conceive how, this sarcastic figure thrown here and there as a defense mechanism, could be presented as an official version of the Turkish government, and even presenting a link to it, embarrassing the Turkish government and exposing the childish way it is done. If you want to present this figure, you should as well present the rest of it, since from the same token, it is claimed by Halacoglu same research, that something like 56 thousand Armenians perished during the time, and that fewer than 10 thousands were killed(only by Kurds, Arabs and other nomadic tribes, but not Turks). I don't know if you understand the ridiculous nature of those figures. According to those figures, the number of Armenians having died(not killed) is in the fifty thousands, and the number of Muslim/Turk(sometimes it is claimed they are only Turks, and other times, as Muslim) killed(not perished) in the hand of Armenians to be in the five hundred thousands. Is this what you want to be presented as the Turkish government theses?
Lastly, the Armenian genocide doesn't need to be included widely here,... just two or three lines would be enough, giving wide space would be abusing. I just request that there should be no misleading informations when referring to it. Fadix 23:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Armenian-Hellenic Genocide

In spite of the continuous effort of Turkey (since it became a republic) to cover up the massacres of the minorities in the early 20th century, those things cannot be forgotten by anyone. I might be Greek but I have read several objective (American etc) historical analysis so as not to believe the Turkish propaganda. Therefore, I suggest that not only should there be a detailed description of the Armenian but also of the Greek genocide. This would help the reader have several things of the past of Turks in his mind. Moreover this organized effort to exterminate the Christian civilisations from Asia Minor was procceeded by both the Ottoman government from about the 1913 as well as Mustafa Kemal who is said to have settled the modern Turkish state. Petros The Greek 09:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Mixing the Armenian cases with a Greek one isen't the best thing to do. While the Armenian genocide is generally agreed in the Western literature, crimes against the Greeks are more than often not called genocide. To respect NPOV policy here in Wikipedia, it would be wrong to present an Armenian genocide, alongisde a Greek genocide, as equally recognized. Furthermore, this is Turkey entry, and I don't think it would be the right thing to do to present paragraphs on minority abuses prior to the republic. Fadix 16:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The only place for the edits you suggested are a Greek propoganda website, not here. --E.A 20:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Aah, "Greek Genocide". That's a first. What will come next? "Kurdish Genocide", "Laz Genocide", "Zaza Massacre", "Black Sunday of Assyrians of Iskenderun"...By the way, "I might be Greek but I have read several objective (American etc) historical analysis so as not to believe the Turkish propaganda." What makes you think that what you had read is objective? A Turkish analysis can never be objective? Might it be your constant fear and hatred of Turks? I am only glad you are the minority (in the statistical sense of the word, as in the opposite of "majority"). Regards, filo. mu5ti/talk 22:09, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

My friend mu5ti/talk, i am obliged to inform you that there is no hatred whatsoever for Turks as far as I, personally, am concerned. A Turkish analysis can, of course, be objective if it is based on real fact and is not influenced by the (Turkish) state. The Hellenic genocide is an undeniable historical series of events (just like the Armenian one). Denyind stubbornly the historical events and altering them in fear of what happens if the world learns the truth is not going to be beneficial. I suggest in depth search of the events from really objective points of view. Petros The Greek 00:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah man, only you and some "Hellenic" ultra-natiionalist think like this. The Turkish Army or state never killed christians or Greeks. But look at Izmir. There never was a Greek majority but a Turkish. As your Army entered the borders of Turkey they started killing Turks. And the Greeks living in Turkey thought "Man, what we did wasn't good. What if the Turkish Army does the same things to us?". So they flied. And other minorities did the same. But there are a lot of Greeks living in Turkey and they get very angry, if you tell them the things you wrote here. They say they're prude of living in Turkey and so on. But let us look at West Trace. There's a big, really big Turkish minority which is getting kept down. And no one says a shit. You know why? Because no one cares! They are just Turks you know, you can do what ever you want with them. And it is cool to be anti-turkish, you know. 13:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

First, i suppose you should respect my views as i do respect yours. It is also improper to make the matter personal, calling me an "ultra-nationalist" when you are not mature enough to accept history as it is (and as everybody else accepts it). I think that Turkey's E.U. bid should alert Turkish people so that they are more open-minded to understand the mistakes of the past and try to avoid them in future. It common knowledge that before World War one, especially in Smyrna and Ayvalik, Turks were a minority. A tour guide of 1919 shows Smyrnas population as: Greeks-160.000, Turks-80.000, Jews-55.000, Armenians-40.000, Europeans-30.000, total-365.000 people. Ayvalik before Greek liberation had 45.000 people of whom 40.000 where Greeks and 5.000 Turks. This is a bit of evidence concerning the matter of population. It is not denyed that Turks where killed by the Hellenic army but as soon as our army left all Turks started to kill, rape and rob Christians (not only Greeks but also Armenians). To that, a whole extermination operetion was added and most of the Greek population of Asia Minor vanished even before the exchange. The Greek minorities of Constantinople have not be treated well since (we remember the pogrom of 1955) whereas the Turks of Thrace have multiplied. There are villages in Thrace that Turks are the vast majority, they have their own schools and cami and live as equal Greek citizens. Petros The Greek 14:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

So as to see that the Greek population was by no means negligible in Asia Minor you can all visir: Asia_Minor#Ethnic_distribution_in_Asia_Minor_in_the_early_20th_century_.28before_the_Treaty_of_Lausanne.29

Come on man, go home. This was a WAR! Do you know what this is? People are killed in a WAR and these people might be innocent. But no one planed to killed this people nor where there any genocides. You're just dreaming if you say that most of the inhabitants of this cities were Greeks, then this is only a lie. Where are your sources? Where do you get these informations? For sure, we killed Christians, tz. You Greeks have your own Church in Turkey, but the Turks in Greece have no rights, they can't even tell themselves Turks. They have to say "muslimazed Hellens". And no one cares! Come on, no one would beliefe this, not even the ultra-nationalists in Greece. Show me some sources! Tz, Greek genocide. What comes next? German genocide, Kurdish genocide, French genocide, American genocide, English genocide. Man, the Turks killed everyone! They wanted to kill the whole world! Aquilion13:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It is understandable that during a war a number of civilians is killed, but the extermination of whole national communities (even when they are not in war: Armenians) in an organized manner is called a genocide, arkandas. There are lots of neutral historical sources all of which prove that it was a genocide of the Christian populations: George Horton's "The blight of Asia" (American writter), Hellenic Genocide (site built by Brazilian historian) and lots of others I can present whenever you want. It is true that we do have our church in Turkey but it is not free: its schools, camps and property are under surveillance, some are forced to close (e.g. Religion school of Halki), and some times seized. The Muslims in Greece have all the rights the rest of the Greek citizens enjoy: religious freedom (some villages in Thrace have no church but more than one mosques), equality under the law etc. And, for Heaven's shake, stop exagerating and presenting the truth as something impossible and unheard-of! Merhaba arkandas, Petros The Greek 14:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh really! What about the hundres of thousands turkish people which have been massacred by the greeks in the balkan wars? What happened to tne turkish majority in Thesseloniki and its vibrant jewish community? Greece sgould first condemn these atrocities before saying anything to Turkey!


yeah right...have u ever read any historic book?the jewish community of thessaloniki was destroyed by hitler...the greeks had nothing to do with that,unless u mean that the polish,romanians,dutch are also responsible for the massacre of their jewish communities.and about the turkish community of thessaloniki,it was moved to turkey with the population exchange of 1920s...u get it?forced to leave yes,but not murdered,as the greeks in smyrni were...In any case turkey has a long and 'rich' history in ethnic cleansing and assimilation and everyone knows that...(don't u think that there are far too many nations who accuse turkey for this?-greeks,assyrians,armenians,kurds,etc etc-are all of them wrong and only the turks are right?).

  • any time that someone mentions that the greeks or the armenians who live in turkey say that they are proud 'for been turks' and that no genocide has ever been committed against them,must have in mind that not all people are so widely known like Parmouk,and that they may not want to go to trial for 'insulting the turkish nation'!--Hectorian 12:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No, Turkish majority is Thessaloniki did not move to Turkey with the 1923 pop exchange. The city was captured by the Bulgarians and then shortly afterwards by Greeks during the Balkan Wars of 1912. Most of them did not make it to Turkey - well Ottoman Empire...

Enough is enough

As a Turkish person I also would like to see the below information (in addition to above); Just the facts will be enough, no one needs to know the details of greek and armenian history here (as ignored by everybody);

1. The murder and violation of Turkish people in greece by greeks following the greek independance (with help of french and british)

2. The murder and execution of Turkish people in Girit (crete) by greeks when they wanted to merge with greece

3. The murder and execution and violation of Turkish people in Balkans after balkan wars in 1911/1912

4. What happened to Turkish population in Balkans and East Europe and Greece following 400 years of presence? How the number went down rapidly in each country?

5. What is the current situation of Turkish minority (or sorry islamized greeks right?!) in Bati Trakya in Greece (a EU member by the way)? Pls see Human Rights Watch article Are their lands safe from government, can they participate to social life, can they choose their own imams(priests), can they have ngo's using the name "turk"? And what does the EU do to correct their member?

6. What happened to Turkish population in Dogu Anadolu (east anatolia) when armenians decided to use the war environment to start their own civil war and take the armed revolt with russians' help and support?

7. How many Turkish people died and raped by greeks when greeks invaded Anadolu (asia minor) with the permission of their masters british, in 1919-1922? How many ottoman greeks joined greeks from the other side of aegean and took arms against their own turkish neighbours and friends and killed and raped them?

8. What did the greek army do when they started to lose and fall back towards Izmir in 1921-22? what did they do to Turkish villages and villagers on their way back?

9. What was the plan of cypriot greeks in Kibris (cyprus) in 1974 and who killed all those Turkish people in Kibris at that time, now a EU member with beaches and casinos? How EU let a country like that as a member, where it was clearly stated in the guarantorship agreement that cyprus couldn't be member to an organization where greece and Turkey weren't both members? Why greeks keep telling Turkey is invador, while thousands of Turkish people were destined to executed by themselves? What were they thinking, Turkish people would just watch annihilation of their relatives? GREEK CYPRIOT AUTHOR EXPLAINS GREEK CYPRIOT ATROCITIES

'If Turkey comes to intervene to protect the Turkish Cypriots, she will not find a single Turkish Cypriot to save…' Makarios, greek cypriot religious leader, 1964

10. What were greek parliament members were doing in northern iraq supporting the bloody PKK terorists, while bombs were exploding and innocent people were dying in Turkey? How those PKK terorists all had cyprus and greece passports? How the PKK terorists were spotted in Atina walking around freely? What was the head of PKK (Abdullah Ocalan) doing in greek embassy in kenya, enjoying uzo? Mr Ocalan's Kurdish supporters staged a string of dramatic protests at Greek embassies across Europe

If this website is an encyclopedia, which supposed to be objective, then the greek and armenian dis-information and propaganda efforts should be encountered. It's too easy to persuade ignorant people from EU and USA, who are ready to be negative, also there are a lot of greeks and armenians living in EU and USA. HOWEVER I hope there are still some people out there, who do not want hatred in their heart and who want only the truth.

--Gokhan 19:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be a reasonable request.
While those who decry their injustices at the hands of "the Savage Turk" are legion--where are they when responsibility is to be taken for the same actions they committed against the Turks? Is it to be assumed then that attacks by the Turks are crimes and those against them are not? When will the West progress from this Crusader mentality? 85.97.46.196 21:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

How poor, none answers here ... Very well done, Gokhan! 84.190.110.222 18:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Totally true mate, right on. MonsterOfTheLake 21:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Nothing to add these last two since they precisely define your way of thinking. I do not see any possibility of your thinking objectively on ANYTHING.

If you have nothing to add--then why did you? Do us a favor and stay on topic.


that user may have decided not to stay on this topic,but i would like to post some replies to u:

1.wrong!according to the Treaty of London which established the Kingdom of Greece,all the turks living south of Thessaly should be tranferred northern from the line Amvrakikos-Pagasitikos Gulf.and so they did...so,no need to kill anyone.

2.in democratic states it is usual to do what the majority says,,,since the greeks were the majority in the island of crete,crete should become part of greece.if the turko-cretans helped the sultan army to prevent this,u should not blame the greeks for what they did.afterall,crete was under turkish occupation,and as all people know,in rebellions innocent people die too.but i guess u are right in this topic there should be a sentence saying:'the greeks in crete killed many turks in their attempt to get rid of the sultan's occuping forces'!

3.if that was true,no turk would be left in FYROM,albania,greece,bulgaria,romania and so on.

4.i guess it happened what happened in bulgaria recently:they went back to their roots and accepted the fact that they are muslim-bulgarians(or pomaks in other words).

5.the muslim minority in western thraki has full rights within the greek state.in the last national elections in 2004 they elected 2 members in the greek parliament.their imams are not chosen by them for the single reason that according to the greek constitution all the people who have power to judge should be appointed by the greek government.and opposing to turkey,the imams in western thraki have the right to judge...so,the imams in greece have more power than those in turkey do.the muslim minority cannot use the name 'turks' for the reason that the 25% of them say that they are pomaks and a substantial number says that they are greek-muslims-according to the threaty of laussane there is a muslim minority,not a turkish one.better explain why the greek minority in Constantinoupoli is not called 'greek'(or hellenic,as we use this name for ourselves) but 'rum' according to the turkish government.ooops,i am sorry...i mistakenly refeared to the greek minority in Poli,whereas there is no greek minority anymore cause u killed and expelled them(by violating the treaty of laussane)!so,the muslim minority in greece is in much better condition.

6.i guess u refear to any group of people like the Hamsenis?cause this is the only why that 'a civil war' can be explained:a war withing a single nation.if u do not mean this(which apparently u don't)it can be called 'armenian independance war' with the help of russia.and in wars people die,as i guess u know.the problem starts when there is not a war and civilians die:this is called genocide,and this is what u did to the armenians in 1915...

7.british are not our masters!if they were,they would have allowed us to conquer Constantinoupolis in 1919.the greek army indeed killed turks in western anatolia in 1919-1922.but although i have searched the net a lot,i have found no information about a specific number of fatalities.it seems that the turks killed far too many greeks the following year,that their own casualties seem low comparing to the greek ones.

8.i have a better story:what did the turks did in their way to the aegean to the circassian villages?they were muslims too,but the turks killed them.in any case,it is known that the greek army did not move to the west as an organised army,but as individual soldiers:the war front had collapsed and there was not a scheduled withdrawl...just people running back.but the coming turks were organised,so organised that they burnt down villages and smyrni and killed the inhabitants...

9.the greek and greek-cypriot plan was union with greece.but do not forget that the coup-de-etat failed...so,there was no need for the invasion.and no matter what u say,when i foreign army attacks a country,this is called 'invasion'.and before u tell me to check the word used in the EU page,i have to tell u that if u accept what that EU page says,u also have to recognise the armenian genocide and the ecumenical status of the Patriarch...do not accept only what u like...!the dead,expelled and missing greeks are by far more than the turks.when the problems started in 1964 both greek and turkish cypriots were killed,but at least we had dictatorship,while u had 'democrasy'(as u say).do not forget that the UN has asked twice from the turkish government to get the troops out of cyprus.so?who is the guilty here?

10.u call PKK terrorist organisation...it is in your point of view...but the kurds have rights that the turkish government denies...greeks,cause of our long time under turkish occupation,feel sympathy for the nations who struggle for their freedom.i think i have made myself clear.perhaps we do not want the turkish elite to say for the kurds what what kemal ataturk said for the pontic greeks...

'We have finally uprooted them!'kemal ataturk,president of turkey,1923(after the pontian genocide of 1915 and after the expulsion of 1922)--Hectorian 12:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

John Smith

There is already a link to the Armenian genocide article, 2 infact. There is enough explanation there, this article is not the page for words like rape and slavery, especially when attrocities happened on both sides. This article has enough on the armenian allegations as it is. Let people follow the link if they want more. --E.A 12:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but why do you need to have the Turkish view on there, when it's also on the Armenian page? If there's no special reason, then it's also acceptable to have the Armenian link in. John Smith's 12:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The way i see it, i placed a link to the armenian POV and a link to the Turkish POV. That is enough. It would be nice if people had more to contribute to this article other than massacres which happened 90 years ago. --E.A 13:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I didn't see your link to the Armenian POV - the Armenian massacre page is currently under dispute. Also a few small changes. Since was Lebanon in THE WEST (as if such a place exists)? Also why do you have to say deported? Deportation is when you're kicked out of a country. They were moved inside the Ottoman Empire. Exile is a better word, even relocation. But deported is misleading. John Smith's 13:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Just to reiterate, the Turkish government's position is also on the Armenian massacre page. There's nothing wrong with saying they have a different view, but I don't see why you can have a link to their views and not the Armenians on the same page. John Smith's 13:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Order of Subarticles

Why is the demographics the second subarticle? As far as I know there is a well accepted convention about the order of subarticles in the articles for countries. I think we should use that one, or if there is not any convention what is used for most eauropean countries.Fethi 14:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

armenian genocide for turkey like holocaust for germany

If you are writing about turkish history, you can not ignore the armenian genocide, because this is a (of course ugly) part of the history. It has the same importance for turkey as the holocaust for the germany. But in contrast to germany turkey never admitted this.


You really think that? Let's take a look. The 3rd Reich killed over 6,000,000 jews in an industrialized, highly specialized way. And now let's take a look at Turkey. How many Armenians died? No one knows, the highest number is something like 1,500,000. And they wouldn't have been killed in the way the jews were. First off: This is very disrespecting and stupid. The next time think before you write something! 13:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what a campaigning is

E.A. I have yet to read a rectified version of the article, after I have specified to you how Armenia could not campaign to get the Armenian genocide recognized. Just to make the differences, that is what is campagning, and I hope you will support the same way the claim that Armenia is campagning.

Turkey determined to clarify Armenian genocide claims - foreign minister

Anatolia news agency 4 Aug 05

Ankara, 4 August: "We have been carrying out multi-dimensional works to reveal the truths about the Armenian issue," Turkish Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Gul said on Thursday [4 August].

In response to a question motion of Motherland Party (ANAP) parliamentarian Muhsin Kocyigit, Gul said, "both the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and Turkish embassies have been carrying out multi-dimensional works to reveal the truths about the Armenian issue.

We have published a number of books refuting the allegations of Armenians, and sent them to decision-making mechanisms, parliamentarians, academicians, journalists, universities, libraries and the other relevant institutions in the world through our embassies."

"Also, books and articles of both Turkish and foreign academicians were distributed to the relevant circles. The MFA holds a series of seminars and conferences with the participation of Turkish and foreign scientists in countries where Armenian lobby is active, with the aim of informing public opinion," he said.

Gul noted, "as a member of the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and as a regional actor in southern Caucasia, Turkey has been making active contributions to efforts to resolve the Upper Karabakh dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia from the very beginning of the dispute."

"Turkey closely monitors developments about Azerbaijani refugees who were forced to leave their homes due to the occupation of Upper Karabakh by Armenia. In addition to our aid, we pursue an active policy in order to draw attention of the international community to the issue," he said.

Another thing on the same direction, is now the recent accusations against Hastert, and his corruption by Turkey. Allegations point him a finger claiming that he recieved at least 500,000 $ from Turkey to redraw the Armenian resolution in the congress. Also, there aren't 16 countries anymore, two other countries have recognized it just recently. Regards. Fadix 13:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Turkish ministers, historians and academicians are all working on this case; trying to reveal the truth to the world. All their efforts are futile because nobody listens to them. All EU and USA are programmed to protect Armenians because of the inner Armenian lobby inside of them. Of course they will support them because they are Christians like them and they try to divide Turkey and enlarge Armenia to get the hidden Huge oil reserves beneath Turkish East --JohnEmerald 14:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

My mistake for having answered your stupid comment. But it keep me wondering, why would a common Western atheist or agnostic(mind here NOT Christian) historian would take or even consider a position, that is nearly mostly defended by a government and diplomats? Is history not supposed to be apolitical? Fadix 22:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


Sorry, but i refuse to believe the Armenian government is not lobbying countries to recognise the genocide. This quote is taken from http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/:

"Hamlet Gasparian, Spokesperson of Foreign Ministry, answers a question by ArmenPress News Agency on international recognition of Armenian Genocide November 09, 2004

Q: The foreign policy section of Armenia's state budget draft for 2005 does not contain provisions related to international recognition of Armenian Genocide, which caused speculation in the mass media, particularly in Turkey and Azerbaijan. How would you comment on this situation?

A: Armenia's policy for international recognition of the Genocide has not changed. Like before, Genocide recognition continues to be high on Armenia's foreign policy agenda; it does not depend on provisions of the state budget and does not require a specific reference in the government's explanatory note to the draft budget.

International recognition of Armenian Genocide is a matter of concern not only for Armenia and Armenians, but is a challenge facing all mankind. As such, this recognition cannot be packed into a budget line or any other financial estimate." --E.A 17:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Provide me any cases of countries being lobbied by Armenia to get the genocide recognized, any single cases please. All Armenian manifestations, organizations, publications to support such bills without any single exception were Diasporan and not Armenia in nature. The booklets, articles, distributed to politicians originate from the Diaspora. Gomidas and Zoryan institutes, the biggest Armenian publishing houses and the only that publish works regarding the issue distributed through the world by their distribution compagny, are Diaspora, nothing to do with Armenia. Taking the word of politicians is not evidences to support that Armenia is campagning to get the genocide recognized, when there are no any infrastructure pointing to a campagn. The best you'd get from Armenia, are those produced by the Armenian Academy of science, but they're published in Armenian language, I hardly see how Armenia could campaign by producing works in Armenian language. What has the Armenian foreign ministry produced regarding the topic internationally? What is the budjet? Considering that the Diaspora grant Armenia millions of dollars per year, and not the opposit.
You can refuse to believe, based on the words of politicians, but I refuse to believe, as someone that has read over the years any works I could get about the topic, and whom has found nothing really relevent produced by the republic of Armenia, that Armenia is campagning without real clear cut evidences. While Turkey is represented by booklets that are loudly read in the congress, or parlements of countries, I have yet to accounter any instances where the same has been done with the cases of Armenia. Another point, I just wonder the reason why you have ignored my other relevent answer. When I can't answer someone, I tell him why(moslty lack of time), because it is important, critics of articles are very important for Wikipedia, and I expect to be answered, if not, at least to be told the reason why I will not be answered. Fadix 22:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, when a spokesmen for the foreign ministry of Armenia says "Genocide recognition continues to be high on Armenia's foreign policy agenda" and the President of Armenia says "work in this direction will continue" then you can say what you like, but that means the Armenian goverment is actively seeking out recognition. With regards to me ignoring your other relevant answer, are you talking about the Hastert thing? To be honest until doing a quick search now i didnt know anything about it. --E.A 22:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

What has the Armenian government done beside addressing the cases through its representations during UN sessions, like any other countries do to present a subject they consider important for them? The prime minister of Canada tell us continuisly about how work should be done to improve the quality of life of people living in under developped countries, and I will easily find foreign ministry sharts and panflets about the condition of these people, still claiming as a certainty that Canada is campaigning for this, would be way far from being neutral in any articles in Wikipedia without addressing it as a claim. Campaigning is an interpretation. If some rock fall from a tree and I witness this rock, I report this as fact, in the cases that I have no oposition, this might be OK, but if I interpret this falling of a rock by claiming that an asteroid has blown somewhere in the stratosphere and as a consequences there are rocks falling from trees, I am interpreting my observation and presenting it as a fact.
Wanting recognition of the genocide is something, giving few speechs about it is also something, but to use this as to claim that Armenia is campaigning, is simply unwiki. You are interpreting, and this is a personal opinion presented as fact, and in this cases it is even worst, when the other party involved spend millions per year, and publish various works through its foreign ministry, and uses its diplomatic personals activaly to implament a position, and this as far as in the internal affair of governments by threats, corruptions. You are taking few little insignificant sparks to interpret by, in the same time, entirly ignoring a huge fire from the other side. This is clearly anti-wiki, since it is a misrepresentation of positions, which will mislead the reader. As for my unanswered answer, no, I was not refering to that one, but the other one I have posted few weeks ago. Fadix 00:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the word campaign and replaced it with reference to foreign policy agenda. Also if you could proved me with a link to an impartial website which lists the countries that recognise the deaths as genocide, i am all too aware of websites which skew certain statements or resolutions as formal recognition. As for the link to the death toll, as i said earlier considering these are from a government website, then we can only assume the government supports these figures. I find it hard to follow your argument that these figures are "death meat thrown as sarcasm over the death of people" --E.A 13:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The figure of 16 has been quoted in many newspaper article, besides, this would be lower than the actual figure if one consider that the European Parlement has already officially recognized it. http://www.armenian-genocide.org/current_category.7/affirmation_list.html Count yourself, you'll find 17, and there is just a recent one not included in the list. This is just beyond certain statments. The way the link to the death toll is presented is misleading, because the same said "research" that came to those figures, also mention that only 56 thousand Armenians perished, and that from this, fewer than 10 thousand were killed. If you want to present the link, you should at the same time add the complete claim. It isen't because the figure of 56 thousand expose the nature of the 523 thousand Turks "calculation" allegedly killed by Armenians, that it should be hidden and not mentioned. The same source say, half million Turks were killed by Armenians, and in the same period, half of a hundred thousand Armenian died as a consequences of a Turkish genocide perpetrated by Armenians, and from them, lesser than 10,000 were killed. This is how an article should be written in Wikipedia. I can not hide or delete a part of the claim, just because it will discredit the other part of it. I can present here Halacoglu booklet, and the origine of this research that appeared in the last 5 years when Halacoglu was highered at the head of the Turkish government propaganda "production." As my argument that you have difficultyunderstanding, ask yourself a question. Why would those figure not included in serious works, or why they are taken back, everytime serious lectures are concerned(Halacoglu doesn't, but that's an entire different story). Fadix 15:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Demographics

I find it difficult to believe that anyone thinks that only 10% of the Turkish population is non Turkish ethnically - 15% would be an absolute minimum, 30% an upper bound of estimates I've heard.

Also, while the kaleidoscope of minorities listed gives a feeling of Turkey's diversity, it does rather ignore the fact the Kurds are by far the largest minority in the country and no appreciation of Turkish history in the Republican period can be had without acknowledging the size of the Kurdish minority and its complex relationship with the Turkish state, and the importance of the "Kürt soru" (yes, we can call it that now). Gerry Lynch 12:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the CIA factbook, 80% Turkish, 20% Kurdish. --E.A 14:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
That is inaccurate - no mention at all of the Arab population, must be at lest 3%. Gerry Lynch 15:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I clarified the Demographics section on the minorities issue by adding a comment on the Kurds, the largest ethnic minority, complete with referencing for verification. The Kurds in Turkey today are 20% minimum and ought at least to be mentioned seperately. Colossus 22:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
There are data about ethnic minorities in Turkey on the page Demographics of Turkey (+ discussion page). I wonder if a full article on Minorities in Turkey would not be better than to limit the matter as a mere demographic question. This is an observation valid for all country articles (thus including e.g. Greece, Armenia and Bulgaria), not only for Turkey. --Pylambert 09:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Stray piece

The following piece removed from "Demographics" section:

The major regional diversities depend on culture, economy (industry and cash crops in coastal regions), and precipitation (Black Sea littoral where summer drought is unknown).

I assume it wandered there during cut'n'paste. Experts, please find a proper place for it. mikka (t) 02:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Cuisine

"It is ranked the third best cuisine in the world, after French cuisine and Chinese Cuisine. It is known to leave the most sweetest kind of aftertaste".

POV. Who ranks cuisines? Tearlach 02:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And why is English food not up there?

Who ranks cuisines? Try every cooking book or magazine known to man. And, no--not POV, just no source sited.
I'm sorry that I can't site *my* source, but my recollection is that world cuisines fall into combinations of 3 categories: French (e.g. sauces, cheeses), Chinese (e.g. noodles, stir frying) and Turkish (e.g. meat roasted on a scimitar).
Oh, and English food is on the "Top World Cuisines" list -- it's listed under "bland lump of boiled meat." 85.97.46.196 21:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

English what?

Layout needs rethink

The article has become very fractured and cluttered in some places. The Geography section especially needs a rethink, perhaps we should scrap or relocate some of the images/templates etc. I think there are too many subtitles and links, especially when there are only one or two lines on the subject eg. Foreign Relations, Military Provinces, Cities, Climate, Industrial sector etc. They should be placed into their larger groupings. So Climate, Provinces and Cities would all be under Geography with their relevant links such Provinces of Turkey placed at the top of the page. --A.Garnet 17:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


Executive Power Mistakes

There are some mistakes about Executive Power. PM is appointed by president amongst parliamentarians. PM selects ministers -whose are don't have to be parliamentarians- and goes to Grand National Assembly for vote of confidence if cabinet can get more than %50 of parliamentarians' votes then they can be announced as new cabinet.

You are right about "PM selects ministers -whose are don't have to be parliamentarians- and goes to Grand National Assembly for vote of confidence if cabinet can get more than %50 of parliamentarians' votes then they can be announced as new cabinet" part but PM in not appointed by the President. President can give the duty of establishing the cabinet to anyone but traditionally, he/she gives the task to winning party leader of elections. If he/she can not do it, President gives task to Second Party Leader. Shiva