Template talk:Turkic-speaking regions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Turkic-speaking regions page.
WikiProject Central Asia Template:Turkic-speaking regions is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
NA This page does not require a rating on the Project's quality scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
Template This article has been rated as Template-Class on the project's quality scale.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Template:Turkic-speaking regions:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category
WikiProject Azerbaijan This article is part of WikiProject Azerbaijan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Request

Please put it all of the Turkic State's articles.

Sincerely,

Zaparojdik

[edit] Dagestan

I fail to see how Dagestan is a Turkic state. Turks account 19% of Dagestan's population (Kumyks, Nogais, Azeris). With that logic we could say Turkey is a "Kurdish state" because Kurds are about 20% of the population there. I think the criteria should should be if the government is run mainly by Turks or if Turks acccount most of the populations in these republics. Any thoughts? —Khoikhoi 19:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


  • The same problem with Kabardino-Balkaria - Balkars are only 8 % of the populations all others are not Turkic. I guess the same is with all the Siberian autonomies and Crimea, but there you can claim at least the Turks to be native abakharev 22:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Dagestani people are %31 Avars, and the Avars are Turkic Peoples. Now, Linguists grouped their language in Caucasian language family but it disputed. Avars are ancestors of today's Hungarian people but as we see Hungarian langauge grouped in Finno-Ugric Language group. Population's % 19 is definitely Turkic peoples. With Avars its %50 Turkic People of population. Also in Kazakhstan there are about %40 Russians but still Kazakhstan says that it is a Turkic state and state language is Kazakh. See Turkic states here; Turkic States Also see Turkic States template in Russian Wikipedia, for them there is no matter; Шаблон:Тюркские страны --Zaparojdik
      • LOL. I suggest you explain to Avars that they are in fact Turks. I would like to see their reaction :0 --Ghirla -трёп- 13:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
avars are not a turkic people. Dagestan is being taken out along with the other regions that are not autonomous turkic states. to the user who created this template, you cannot purposely mislead the readers of wikipedia when you yourself know the informtion is wrong.Khosrow II 19:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree when the entity was created for and by titular nation - (e.g Tatarstan where only 44% are Tatars). But what about double entities like - Karachay-Cherkes and Kabarda-Balkar. I have also added Khakas, who are Turkic ethnic group. ¬¬¬¬

[edit] Rationale

Please explain the criteria by which the state is declared "Turkic". `'mikka (t) 20:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello there! Unless I see any sensible discussion here, I am putting this template for deletion. What next: "Germanic states"? "Slavic states"? "East Slavic states"? "Niger-Congo states?" `'mikka (t) 09:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • First of all, it's not like you know. We are very close people to each other, for example an Altai people and a Turkish peope could understand each other easly but a German and a British can't! though they're Germanic peoples.

You can see same of this template in Deutsch Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, Turkish Wikipedia, Azerbaijani Wikipedia and Kazakh Wikipedia.

Zaparojdik

[edit] Interwiki

The interwiki links of the templates should point out to the templates, not lists or articles. I have fixed the tr and az links. The Kazakh and Russian links does not exist at all, what the point in recreating them? abakharev 11:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkic States vs Turkic-language countries

Turkic is not an ethos or a political movement it is just a language group.

Labelling something a Turkic State is a POV and I suspect an Original Research - show me any Reliable English-Language source that use this term for all of this states and territories. On the other hand nobody object that the state languages of all the countries here are Turkic, not that at least one of the official languages of the autonomys is a Turkic language.

Thus, the template with the languages is acceptable, template with the Turkic States should go as a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The choice is yours abakharev 11:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I added reference there.

Actually, there is the term "Turkic state" in reference to various historical Turkic states. `'mikka (t) 17:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I have protected this template from editing. Please discuss the changes that should be made. Once consensus is reached, the template will be unprotected. Please do not move this edit war to the articles which include this template.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I dont know why that User insists on calling non-Turkic regions Turkic simply because a Turkic minority lives there. It makes no sense. In that case, they should also include Germany as a Turkic nation. It makes no sense. Thank you for protecting the template for now.Khosrow II 14:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this template is that its ill-defined. Just how do you define "Turkic state" or even "Turkic" for that matter? You can call Kazakstan a Kazakh nation-state, but whether Kazakh nation-state translates to "Turkic state" is up for debate. If we're going to define a Turkic state as one where a Turkic language is official, Kazakhstan would meet the necessary criteria for inclusion. But then again, it would also qualify as a Slavic state using the same reasoning since Russian is an official language over there. Similarly, it would also mean that the (Greek Cypriot dominated) Republic of Cyprus and Kosovo are "Turkic states" since Turkish is an official language in those territories.--Kilhan 07:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


I think we should make it easy on everyone and just include regions where Turkic people are a majority. That is the way it is now and i think it should stay this way.Khosrow II 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is solved. We'll add Altai, Khakassia, Yakutia, Taymyria, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia plus Dagestan with small Turkic majorty. Zaparojdik 22:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
No the problem is not solved. This template is not about regions with Turkic minorities. You can create a new template for that, that would be better and it would be more on topic.Khosrow II 19:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I think that the header should read "Turkic-speaking nations" instead of "Turkic states and autonomous entities" and section of Turkic autonomous regions should be cut (I don't see a point in including this). Overall, it would look like this:

v • d • e
Turkic-speaking nations

This design would sort of make it consistent with my Slavic and Iranian templates. What do you guys think? -- Clevelander 01:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with this.Khosrow II 04:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
How about:
v • d • e
Turkic-speaking nations and Autonomous entities having Turkic as one of the official languages

This will allow for the autonomies abakharev 09:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats how it was before, and we had to change it because not all of those autonomous regions are Turkic regions. (yes Turkic people live there but they do not constitute a majority).Khosrow II 15:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Its not about the majority - in most if not all of Russian autonomies they do not constitute majority, but these autonomies are specifically created for these nations to have a "home". These therefore form ethnic homelands and thus Khakassia, where Khakhas constitute only 12%, is a Turkic autonomy, whereas Dagestan is not. Template is good as it is abdulnr 22:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A homeland for who? The republics with minority Turkic peoples were not setup for them, they were set up for the minorities that constitute majorities in that certain region.Khosrow II 22:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope you are wrong here. They were set up specifically for the ethnicities, as was the soviet Policy: i.e Gorno-Altay for Altays, Yakut Rep for Yakuts and etc.. otherwise they would be no need for republic. In most of Russian Autonomic regions Russians constitute the majority, sometimes overhelmingly so .In essense these are not republics with turkic majority, as none would qualify in that case, but republics that are ethnic "homelands" abdulnr 00:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

why dont we just make this template about the nations? why are you guys insisting that autonomous republics also be included? what use is that?Khosrow II 00:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyprus is not under Turkey occupation.

OMG guys, what are you trying to do? Greek Cypiots murdered Turkish Cypriots and Turks didn't want to live together with Greeks anymore. Please don't vandalize the page.Zaparojdik 19:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

UN Security Council Resolution 550 (1984):
  • Gravely concerned about the further secessionist acts in the occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus which are in violation of resolution 541(1983), namely the purported "exchange of Ambassadors" between Turkey and the legally invalid "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" and the contemplated holding of a "Constitutional referendum" and "elections", as well as by other actions or threats of action aimed at further consolidating the purported independent state and the division of Cyprus...
I rest my case.--Tekleni 16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is a different country, if Turkish military occupied it should be in Turkey. Zaparojdik 19:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but only Turkey recognizes the TRNC as a different country. Also, your logic regarding the Turkish military occupying the area makes no sense whatsoever. Keep in mind that the Soviet Union militarily occupied East Germany, yet it wasn't part of the Soviet Union. -- Clevelander 18:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, it makes obvious sense to mention the TRNC in this template in some way. It's a "de facto state", as its article rightly points out; there's no sense you starting to discuss its status here, let alone its (non-)legitimacy. It also makes obvious sense to add some sort of disclaimer about its non-recognition, but please keep that disclaimer as short and unobtrusive as possible. No need to have the Cyprus dispute spill over into each and every page where Cyprus must be mentioned. In my view, it also makes perfect sense to list the non-independent territories, as per abdulnr above. It's obviously interesting encyclopedic information. But of course these are not "nations". So why don't we just rename it into something more general? Vagueness ruuulez! "Turkic-speaking countries". Works just fine.

Please stop thinking of these issues in terms of affirming or denying some obscure points of international law or politics. Think about them in terms of what helps readers find information. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

v • d • e
Turkic-speaking countries
I quite liked this version of mine [1].--Tekleni 09:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Better one, since TRNC should not be listed along with the sovereign nations, and especially not in a template where Cyprus is also listed... It is like giving them same credit, id est 'internationally accepted partition'. and something more: Crimea should be excluded, cause the Crimean Tatars form a minority and their language is not official. Hectorian 09:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, no problem with me. I only find those disclaimers a bit long. I mean, the coverage of the TRNC is taking up half the template! I was trying to reflect the unequalness by putting it in parentheses after "Cyprus", thus not as a separate entry quite on a par with the others. And not in its alphabetic position under "T", but as an appendage to the "C" entry. You know, not just vagueness ruuulez, but subtlety too! :-) - As for which of the non-independent entities to include, I have no opinion, that's left to people who know more about each case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem placing TRNC next to Cyprus and in parenthesis (accompanied by a sort footnote, of course). as for the inclusion of subnational entities, i am not really sure... not only cause Russia will change its administrative divisions soon, but also cause it seems like a POV-fork to me... Hectorian 10:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I must be missing something. POV-fork of what? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. Hectorian 10:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but that didn't really address the issue of "forking". You only get a "fork" if there's something to "fork from". Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
TRNC-name. Remember the "unrecognized" or "recognized only by" remaks. What is the referenced item? which one is "recognized only..", N Cyprus/ Norhern Cyprus or Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. There is no any state which has a name "N Cyprus", otherwise there would be no complaint abot that state.In other word, there is a state, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus that somebody complained about its recognision.

Regards Mustafa Akalp 15:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just using "Northern Cyprus" to make it shorter. In boxes like this, we often use short names of countries, not the most official version. We leave out things like "Republic of..." What matters is that people will know what is meant. "Northern Cyprus" is common as a short informal term for the TRNC. The "not recognised" refers to both. It's not about recognising the name or not, it's about recognising the state or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Why not just call it TRNC for brevity?--Tekleni 16:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It is a good approach, lets take a step more "TRNC" more shorter and formal. I suggest TRNC.( Tekleni, thanks, When I suggesting this one, you were editing also here just one secon before me)

Mustafa Akalp 16:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not "TRNC", for the simple reason that nobody except a few insiders knows what it stands for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Well you can always click on it. And the only people who would care about the "Turkic nations", are a few pan-Turkists who would all be very familiar with the TRNC abbreviation.--Tekleni 20:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Seriously bad argument. This template is for all readers who happen to come across a page like Azerbaijan or Uzbekistan. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] template obtrusive

This is a navigation tool, not political manifesdtation, nor article about turkic speaking. It occupies more space than template "Administrative divisions of Russia". I am going to delete flags and notes: they serve no navigational purpose. `'mikkanarxi 18:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just restore it to this version - without all the irredentism.--Tekleni 18:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entities listed

If the template was about 'Turkic-speaking nations', we should list the 'nations' (or ethnic groups)... If the template should not have the entities with a turkic language as official, then, we should exclude some of the russian autonomous states, simply cause, apart from been official, a turkic language is spoken by a minority of the population. about TRNC, there is not a country recognised as 'Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus'. if this is reality for some, 'Turkish Occupied Northern Cyprus' is reality for others, so 'Northern Cyprus' is the only name that can be considered as NPOV here. Hectorian 11:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have other points. First, there are wiki-articles such as turkish-kurdistan, iranian-kurdistan, syrian-kurdistan, and kurdistan. They are not officially recognized regions. Furthermore, these regions are called with different names. For this reason, i do not see any neutrality problem related with Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Second point, if the Turkic-speaking minorities is to be included in the list, there are many countries with Turkic minorites such as Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Romania, Yugoslavia,... In my opinion, maybe better to rename the template as Turkic-speaking regions, cause i find it ridiculous to put the flags (which gives an impression that these are all Turkic-states or Turkic people. In this way, we may make it more neutral and also prevent nationalistic emotional edits. E104421 08:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The articles u mention do not have the same format with TRNC. In addition, they are talking about 'regions', not 'nations'. TRNC has been a matter of confict in real life between nations and in wikipedia between users... so, NPOV would be 'Northern Cyprus', for the reasons i've stated above. Renaming the template into 'turkic speaking regions', i think it would create more problems than the current name causes: would Western Thrace be included (note: turkish speakers do not form the majority there), or Southern Bulgaria, or russian regions (apart from the autonomous states where a turkic language is official)? and if this is going to happen, shouldn't we exclude 'turkish kurdistan' from that possible list? I think that this would lead to the opposite of your wishes (prevent nationalistic emotional edits), since it would legitimise users to create, e.g. Template: Greek-speaking regions, listing Northern Epirus, Pontus (see Greek Muslims#Greek Muslims of Pontus), Imbros, Tenedos and even parts of Syria and Georgia (see Tsalka). Hectorian 12:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but renaming as "Northern Cyprus" is the same as giving a "regional status". However, "Northern Cyprus" is totallly independent from "Southern Cyprus". I do not think renaming will solve the issue. Furthermore, major reference sources use the name Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. On the other hand, the name of the template "Turkic-speaking ..." does not imply that these are the places with Turkic majority. For this reason, in my opinion, there is no problem with including the places where Turkic-speaking people constitues at least a minority status. (Note: For the Turkish Kurdistan, almost everybody in that regions speaks Turkish either as a native speaker or bilingual). I think the same approach can also be applied to other templates, too. E104421 13:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, i think that a rename into 'Turkic-speaking regions' will become a povish battlefield and will open a "can of worms", that's why i won't support it (i made an example about 'Greek-speaking regions' above, and i think it illustrates exactly what i mean). as for TRNC, better leave the totallly independent from "Southern Cyprus" aside, for two reasons: 1. there is no "Southern Cyprus" for anyone apart from the turkish government, and 2. a "state" whose 25% of the population is made up by a foreign army is by no means "independent" (imagine UK having 15 millions American troops!). also, check Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria, all international unrecognised entities, that are mentioned like that, and not as e.g. Trans-Dniester Moldovan Republic. Hectorian 14:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Reverts

To all contributors;Please don revert any more.This is a Template not an article to discuss. Template represents where(recognised contries,unrecognised countries,dependent regions etc.) Turkish is spoken officially. Please be calm, Regards. Mustafa AkalpTC 17:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Turkish official in Cyprus? As such, should that state be listed? and since TRNC is a secessionist state, shouldn't be in a paragraph next to it? Hectorian 17:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You are partly correct. Cyprus must be take a place in template since one of Its official language. Also Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus with related remarks/tags.

Can you make this correction please? Regards. Mustafa AkalpTC 17:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, done under the previous format. Hectorian 17:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The template says entities, not recognised states, i see no need for TRNC to be placed in brackets. --A.Garnet 17:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The current title Turkic-speaking nations and autonomous entities with an offical Turkic language is too long, because the Navigation Template only has the purple background for one line. For small screen sizes, this title becomes two lines, and looks terrible. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What about "Turkic-speaking nations and regions"? --JW1805 (Talk) 18:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It's more correct to add " with an offical Turkic language " because Crimea is a Turkic region but have no official language status with Crimean Tatar, you see why I need to add explanation? Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 20:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to clear it out, Crimea is not a Turkic entity. it just has a turkic-speaking minority. thus, it cannot be included, unless we also add Germany! which has 10 times more turkic-speaking people... Keep the template simple ple. Hectorian 19:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Crimea is a autonomous region! Do Turks have autonomy in Germany? Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 23:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
If you want to include Crimea, then why not western Thrace?--Tekleni 21:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo should be included. Turkish is one of the official languages of Kosovo.--Tekleni 21:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I left it, although it does not qualify as an "autonomous entity" or "nation" (although I removed the map, since it's clearly not a flag). I won't argue if it's removed by someone else. I reverted your initialization of the TRNC, though, since it's not really that long. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 01:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
This is getting extremely ridiculous! some users try to include in this template entities where a Turkic language is just spoken or is official (without taking into account population figures or anything else...). If that's how templates shall be created, allow me to keep my "right" to create a 'Greek-speaking regions' template, in which, among others, i will include: Calabria and Puglia, where Greek is a minority language, Northern Epirus, which is de jure autonomous, according to the 'Corfu Protocol' (and which also boasts a large Greek minority), Imbros and Tenedos, islands that, de jure are officially autonomous, according to the Treaty of Lausanne, Pontus which has a native Greek-speaking population, Istanbul which has a "protected" (though history (or not) violated this repeatendly... Also, other places, such as Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Republic and so on, where the Greeks are a recognised minority... Keep it this way, add Kosovo, Crimea, and God knows what else, and a Greek-speaking template is coming... Not a "threat", but if 'Pan-Turkist' views can preveal here, same format can be used for other -speaking templates as well, and i will use this one as 'reason' and 'proof'... Regards Hectorian 02:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I will say again, why should the TRNC be the only entity placed in brackets? Both the RoC and TRNC have Turkish as an official language, both are entities in their own rights functioning independently of each other with their own governments etc, so what purpose does it serve to place it in brackets? --A.Garnet 14:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It does nothing except attempt to appease those who can't possibly stand the idea that the TRNC is real. If you want to change it, you won't hear any complaints from me.└ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Lol, where Turkey is? Zaparojdik 17:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
To A.Garnet and Osgoodelawyer: because TRNC is considered part of the Republic of Cyprus. placing it differently than in brackets, u give to the readers the impression that there is one turkish cypriot state with a turkic language as official, and one greek cypriot state that also has a turkic language as official... Of course, if TRNC will ever be officially recognised, the "greek cypriot" state will not have turkish as official. about how "functioning" and "independent" TRNC is, better leave it for another discussion... Also, the criterio of "official language", would exclude wellknown countries from other templates (e.g. the United States is not an english-speaking country, cause it does not have an official language... under the same pretext used here). since TRNC is a secessionist state, that the world recognises as part of Cyprus, i can't understand why some users can't stand the idea that this is the reality. To Zaparojdik: perhaps some wikipedians were too busy adding Xinjiang and Tuva (better not to try to analyse their reasons...), that they forgot to add the largest Turkish speaking country in the world... lol Hectorian 16:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It's ridiculous to include the Republic of Cyprus and the TRNC without brackets. Those two are inherently incompatible as there are two POVs: either there is the Republic of Cyprus governing the whole island, or there is the TRNC and the "Greek Sector of Southern Cyprus" as Turkey recognizes it. You can't mix and match. IMO there TRNC shouldn't be included at all, but as its existence is one of the foundations of Turkish chauvinism and pan-Turkism, we we have to give the TR Wikipedians something...*sigh*...--Tekleni 17:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise?

Ok, if someone tells me what the problem is, we may be able to come to a compromise that suites both parties. I am neither Greek nor Turk, nor do I care for the Greek POV nor the Turkish POV. If you guys are willing, I can try to be as neutral as possible and see if its possible to come to a conclusion that both sides can agree to.Khosrow II 17:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is this, the Greek editors here are insisting the TRNC be placed into brackets next to Republic of Cyprus flag to express the Greek pov that the TRNC is part of Cyprus. I am saying that since the template refers to entities and not states the TRNC has every right to be represented as Turkic speaking entity on its own independent of the Republic of Cyprus. --A.Garnet 18:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It's an oxymoron to place TRNC next to RC. See my comment above.--Tekleni 18:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, how about this, we only have TRNC, but in the description area, we say that its de facto part of Cyprus, and that TRNC only has recognition by Turkey. How about that? That way, TRNC can be shown on its own, so the Turks will be happy, and the description will keep the Greeks happy. Reasonable? This is just hte first proposal, its open to modifications.Khosrow II 18:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes that is fine with me. --A.Garnet 18:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] safety in teaching english in Kazakhstan or Kurdistan

My american daughter has the chance next summer to teach english in either of these places. As her mother, I am afraid for her safety. Could someone tell me what she really will encounter while visiting either place?

Should be ok.Khosrow II 01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Kazakhstan shouldn't be too rough, however I don't know about Kurdistan though.. It depends on what country you are talking about.. Syria, Turkey and Iran should be ok, for Iraqi Kurdistan I wouldn't be so sure. If I were you, I would think twice about sending my American daughter to Iraq to teach English :) Baristarim 05:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is very simple.

The TRNC is a Turkic speaking entity. Therefore it belongs in the template without brackets. It really is that simple. --A.Garnet 22:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Alf, we need to find a simple way to illustrate the sockiness/non-de-jure-ity of the state. The parentheses are ok. We don't need to split that template like some other now, do we? NikoSilver 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Look Garnet, placing "TRNC" next to Republic of Cyprus is an oxymoron. Either there is only the ROC, or there is "TRNC" and the so-called "Greek Sector of Southern Cyprus" (otherwise there is an extra 1,300 square miles on the island). As the non-existence of a Turkish Cypriot state is accepted by everyone but Turkey (they only acknowledge the existence of a group of people illegally claiming to be government of a state and are kept there by force of the Turkish military) it is undue weight. I suppose you are familiar with what all other English language encyclopedias say on the issue? Wikipedia is in fact unique in according too much legitimacy to TRNC and other separatist enclaves. Your proposal "entities" is nonsensical as every Turkish speaker qualifies as an entity, why don't we include yourself, are you not an entity? Normally, TRNC shouldn't be included at all, never mind included on its own. //Dirak 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
This has absoloutely nothing to do with recognition by anyone. This has nothing to do with legality or whatever the United Nations says. It is simply a template for Turkic speaking entities, of which the TRNC is more relevant than the RoC, because it is Turkic speaking and has Turkish as an oficial language. RoC on the other hand only has Turkish as an official language as a formality, it is not a Turkish speaking country. --A.Garnet 00:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
YES it does. Mainstream view = ROC covers all island with both communities + "TRNC" non-existent (only turkish illegal occupying forces). Anyway, see Template:Iranian-speaking to see how these things are done in relation to pseudo-states. //Dirak 00:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia does not base its articles on international law. It bases them on notability. The TRNC is notable because it is real, no matter what little games you play with brackets. --A.Garnet 00:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I think your defenses are null. International law is real and therefore notable. The international view = ROC covers all island with both communities + "TRNC" is a part of the Republic of Cyprus that is separatist (only turkish illegal occupying forces). In addition, there are Turkish Cypriots in the areas controlled by the Government and many of "TRNC" people have Republic of Cyprus passports and therefore citizenship, which is their birthright. (UNFanatic 00:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC))
So by comparison, do we erase Taiwan and Nagorno-Karabagh off wikipedia because international law does not recognise them? It is pointless me arguing with you people, i'll wait for an outside opinion. --A.Garnet 00:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, Garnet, "TRNC" is not reality, only turkish occupying forces are a reality. If we want to talk about the de facto situation, "TRNC" is more like part of Turkey than independent, or more like what it really is: part of another sovereign state under turkish occupation. Anyway, this was agreed above after all the edit wars (with the blessings of non-Greeks User:Osgoodelawyer and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise). Obviously turkish POV-pushing will never end. Also, you never told me what you think of Template:Iranian-speaking? //Dirak 01:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


It was agreed really? This is what oz wrote about the parentheses "It does nothing except attempt to appease those who can't possibly stand the idea that the TRNC is real. If you want to change it, you won't hear any complaints from me." This is what Fut. wrote "Please stop thinking of these issues in terms of affirming or denying some obscure points of international law or politics. Think about them in terms of what helps readers find information." So no, no one has agreed with this, it has been left like this because like now Greek editors jump all over it reverting anything which might suggest legitimacy. Now if you dont believe the TRNC is real, go to Cyprus, and keep walking north. As for the Iran template, it is wrong. The title says nations and entities, China, Iraq and Russia are not Iranian speaking entities are they? Like fut. said, think of it in terms of what is most helpful to readers.

You have to learn to read carefully. I did not say to erase but put it in parentheses. Besides the areas you mention also mention the fact that they are separatist in some way or another in the definition of the word. Besides, you are also playing games with words. Adding the word entity makes you assume that the TRNC should not be in brackets. But this entity is defined by international law as a separatist part of the Republic of Cyprus. I suppose in a different argument in another topic the word "enemy combatant" eliminates the Geneva conventions in the treatment of prisoners. Same sort of word game. (UNFanatic 01:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

Incredible how much energy is spent on idiotic petty disputes like this. Guys, it's a fr*ing nav-box. Write articles, please. If you need another outside opinion here, I personally like the bracket solution. The issue is not whether we mark the TRNC as existing or legitimate or factually a state or not, but to mark that the TRNC's "Turkish-speaking-ness" and the ROC's "Turkish-speaking-ness" are aspects of one and the same thing. These are not two states/entities/whatever with two separate Turkish-speaking populations, but one single Turkish-speaking population which both entities claim to represent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said. I'd only replace "The issue is not whether we mark the TRNC as existing or legitimate or factually a state or not, but to mark..." to "Apart from marking the TRNC as existing but illegitimate, yet factually an entity, we must also mark..." But then again, it could be considered POV that I share the UN's and all governments' in the world POV in this... (εκεί που μας χρωστούσανε, μας πήραν και το βόδι!) NikoSilver 14:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, redirecting users to the RoC as if it is a Turkish speaking country is simply wrong. It is Turkish speaking only in name. The title template should be "Turkish speaking nations and entities" with only the TRNC there, why? Because that is factually accurate, and we are here to represent facts, not international law. This is common sense, but the whole thing is reduced to a farce because of this bloody stubborn attitude of you people. All that is necessary is a footnote to explain its non-recognise status, that is all. Instead we have readers thinking the RoC is a Turkish speaking country, it is not! So it should not be here. I'm not about to sacrifice common sense and accuracy to appease a few nationalists Fut. Yes it is a petty dispute, but do we let these people get their way simply because they gang up on these things in numbers? You said yourself, dont think about reflecting international law, thing about it in terms of usefulness. Having the RoC there is not useful. You either have just the TRNC, or you have the RoC and TRNC together, not one in brackets. Do you people want to put Xinjiang in brackets next to China also, so people might think China is a Turkish speaking country? It is ridicolous. --A.Garnet 19:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Garnet, you cannot compare ROC with PRC on this issue (compare their constitutions). Saying ROC is turkish-speaking is about as accurate as saying Finland is swedish-speaking (both are cases of co-official languages). Territory of "TRNC" is part of ROC for the time being, end of story; turkish military occupation and thuggery changes nothing. Your personal attacks of "nationalism" also will not help you further your cause. //Dirak 19:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not a "revert warrior" whatever the hell that means. I revert when i see irrational edits baesd on irrational and stupid arguments. And yes, you are a nationalist. There is no other word for someone who removes the infobox from the TRNC article because it "implies legitimacy". These are the kind of idiotic reasons we have to deal with, and ones i will unrelentingly oppose. --A.Garnet 19:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
More personal attacks? It's not irrational, it makes perfect sense. "TRNC" is heavily disputed, can't you understand NPOV? It lies right in between not including it at all (which is what I prefer) or including it as equal to all other listed states and regions (your aim). People have tried to accommodate you by including the full title (instead of just "TRNC" or "Northern Cyprus") etc, but you won't stop short of full turkish POV. //Dirak 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
What pov?! I am expressing no POV. Writing "TRNC" is not a pov, writing TRNC is a Turkish entity is also not a pov. If i wrote TRNC is a legitimate Turkish entity then yes, we would have a pov. This you do not seem to grasp. This encylopedia is based on notability, not international law, but of course you would never accept such an argument because it means the TRNC can be freely written about, which you and your buddies here would rather not have. There is nothing being accomodated here, what a stupid thing to say, as if i hold an extreme position to write or represent something that exists and it must be "accomodated". There should be no compromise over accuracy and common sense.
For editors who think i am making a big deal over a couple of brackets. This is not the case. This goes beyond this, it is part of the whole attitude of a group of Greek editors who try to bully their nationalist views in articles. They are the same editors who stubbornly justify Pontian Greek genocide, the same editors who defend the laughable state of Cypriot refugee, the editors who defend that facist Mitsos, the editors who pushed for TRNC to renamed northern Cyprus and countless other examples. Perhaps i am the only one who will not just sit by and let these people reduce the standard of an encylopedia based on irrational and hypocritical arguments. --A.Garnet 20:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
"Accuracy and common sense"? As far as I can see, existence of "TRNC" is disputed. Compare that with the likes of e.g. Gagauzia or Xinjiang. //Dirak 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretending you didn't make those personal attacks btw (fascist Mitsos etc). //Dirak 20:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The existence of the TRNC is not disputed, no more than the existence of the computer you are using now is disputed. What is disputed = legitimacy. Writing TRNC is a Turkish speaking entity is not a pov, do you understand? Will you ever understand? Probably not. --A.Garnet 20:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Using that name implies legitimacy, that's why there is such a big deal over the name. Why do you think the UN uses scare quotes when they mention it? I guess you'd prefer scare quotes to parentheses! If we call it North Cyprus in the template or something else, then the case is different. //Dirak 20:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally I am sick and tired of this pompus above-all be-all arrogant pseudo-NPOV neutral-pretending attitude that tries to discredit all Greeks (and thirds apparently) as collaborating "buddies" "fascists" "hypocrites" "irrational" "stupid" and "nationalists" who "reduce standards". It is pathetic to aim to convince everybody that night is day and day is night all the time. TRNC is illegitimate per all. Law, international or otherwise does have a place in WP. E.g. we include official languages in infoboxes (not spoken). E.g. we put footnotes and brackets in all pseudo-states of the like of your favorite. E.g. we don't take into account what one country and its puppet have to say all the time. E.g. we use what the rest of the world says. Mr. A.Garnet, you are a revert-warrior, and you reverted 6 times in 48 hours. Your every edit tries to covertly and hypocritically legitimize the pseudo-state from which you say you come from. In templates, in talks, in articles about refugees, about the dead, about the pseudo-state itself, about the legitimate (and btw worthy) state, about Turkey, about Greece, about everything. You aim to bring us to a state where we have to... apologize to the bearer of the oppressor's POV, for bearing the international POV. This is simple audacity. Shame. NikoSilver 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Really, what nonsense. No one here is trying to convince people TRNC is legitimte. All i see is you trying convince readers it is illegitimate. I am happy to have TRNC with a footnote saying nonrecognised. But for you and other Greek editors, it must be placed in parenthesis next to a non-Turkish speaking country in a template for Turkish speaking countries! This is why i get so pissed off. For the umpteenth time, Wikipedia does not represent international law, it does not represent the UN, we can have articles on entities which are not recognised, because they exist, because they are real and because they have some worth to an encylopedia.
Now as for comments regarding Greek editors, i happen to respect some Greek editors, indeed i have asked for their help on contentious articles (macrackis, famelis especially) without appraoching any Turkish editors. I do this because i know they are serious editors who being Greek makes no difference whatsoever. The problem i have with you and other editors is not you being Greek, but the way you push Greek pov. If that discredits all Greek editors (which i believe you are doing) then that is your problem. Just i like i am ashamed of the Turkish editors who have absoloutely no intention of writing for an encylopedia, so too would i be ashamed of yours and other Greek editors exploits.
Now your final point, that you somehow are doing us a favour by letting us mention the TRNC, what self-righteous bollocks. Really no other words for it. I've already answered this to tekleni and wont waste more time. Good evening to you. --A.Garnet 23:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So you get pissed off because policy suggests that official languages are listed in country articles and infoboxes (which by extension means that they should be listed in templates). You're also pissed off that RoC has the... audacity of claiming that it represents all Turkish speakers up north. This is incoherent, the least. And you continue your rant about Greeks (oh, I see, you excluded two, how generous)! NikoSilver 00:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please listen dude. Whatever you say does not go all the time.

A.Garnet YOU made a point? And thus whatever you say goes irrespective to international law, treaties and resolutions. No one said about redirecting to the RoC page dude. Do not put words in other people's mouth.

First, inclusion of both "entities" using the word you use should be there - one legally has three languages English, Greek and Turkish, and the other has only Turkish. Because of the issue, it is required to say that the UN and the EU recognize the Govenment of Cyprus jurisdiction over the whole island and the "tRNC" as a separatist administration. (Your viewpoint will be at odds with this of course and this is to be expected)
Second, Adding the word "entities" and thus playing word games has allowed you to go forth and put the "TRNC" there in the list. This vagueness is well thought out but unfortunately one must mention the facts about the whole issue by saying it is a separatist entity as well.
Third, I think the real solution is to not include both the RoC and the "TRNC" at all until the Cyprus problem is solved by the diplomats. If you think that international law does not apply to wikipedia as far as to the inclusion of valid and truthful information (like the "TRNC" is a separatist administration and the territory of which legally is part of the Republic of Cyprus) then wikipedia will turn into the internet which is full of nationalistic webpages.
Bottom line, leave this to the diplomats to solve, take out both TRNC and RoC. Believe it or not a parentheses in the english language goes a long way in confering meaning to the reader. Unfortunately not too many people understand this in wikipedia and brush it aside. Your solution says according to your logic, that both the "TRNC" and the "RoC" are turkic entities or states. In terms of logic that is a false statement. Parentheses and words should state clearly that the RoC has turkish as an official language and that the "TRNC" is a separatist entity.
I Most emphatically do not support Mitsos. A poor defense from you unfortunately. Do not lump me in their company.

(UNFanatic 20:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

I don't get what the fuss is all about. TRNC is a seperate entity at the end of the day. Its status can be mentioned as a footnote, what is the big deal? In fact, let's mention both Cyprus and TRNC seperately in that case.. I am in the middle of fending off a vandal attack, but I will contribute to the debate later.. Baristarim 00:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entities listed

The entities listed do not make much of a sense... It seems to me that some users make whatever they can to make the template larger, for "unknown" reasons... Entities that shouldn't, are listed, and others who should be listed, are listed in the wrong way:

  • Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus: internationally unrecognised, considerewd by all, (but Turkey) illegal, however, it is listed next to Cyprus, with simply a dash... This, IMO, represents the extreme Turkish POV, id est there are two states in the island. if this was true, Cyprus would not be listed, since it would be considered a Greek-speaking, and by no means a Turkic-speaking state. This way, it seems that the Turkish users want all... both the "greek entity" and the pseudostate listed... However, the Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all (but Turkey) and indeed has Turkish as an official language. Nakhichevan, which is autonomous, and its autonomy is disputed by none, is in a footnote; but TRNC, which all consider invalid, is listed separately...
  • Karakalpakstan is an autonomous entity of a state with a Turkic official language. I see no reason of having it separately... To be honest, i see no reason for it been listed at all... Maybe as Nakhichevan would fit.
  • Xinjiang, itself an autonomous entity of China, has many autonomous counties, prefectures, etc... What will be next? to list Ili Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture and Kizilsu Kirghiz Autonomous Prefecture separately, so as to make the template larger? Lets be reasonable, please... Quality is not equal with quantity... Hectorian 14:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say one word about TRNC. Look, whereever TRNC is mentioned in Wiki, its status is also mentioned. There is no way that anyone will confuse it for what it is. This template simply lists seperate "entities". It cannot be denied that it is a seperate entity. In fact, what is for sure is that it is a seperate entity. A country/state/entity only becomes a "moral person" of international law when its existance is recognized by other countries, however, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It only means that it lacks recognition. This is not POV, this is simple physics: you go to Northern part of Cyprus, there is something there. And many organizations refer to it seperately too. International law can only refer to its status, not its existance. Reporters without Borders, for example, lists it seperately than Cyprus in its yearly report [2]. So, it is pretty certain that it is an entity.Baristarim 23:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
As for others. I think the point of the template that it should include "autonomous" entities, meaning that they are able to decide for themselves certain aspects of their political life. The fact that an entity has a different language is pretty important. That means that the language forms an important part of that country's autonomy. If that weren't the case, we can also list Germany, in which there are more Turkish speakers than the population of certain EU countries. That's all. However, if there are accuracy issues, they should be connected. Baristarim 23:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West vs. East Turkic

I think this distinction is a bit imprecise. I do not understand why Kypchak languages are grouped into western Turkic. If I do understand it, however, ther is certainly no ground in calling Chuvash a Western Turkic language. It is better not to distinguish western or Eastern groups. Oghuz, Qarluq and to a lesser extent Kypchak languages are influenced by Iranian languages. Those languages in Siberia plus Chuvash have undergone no or much less influences from the Iranian languages. Tha makes them different other wise these are all languages belonging to separate branches of Turkic. Something else is that in Iran still some kind of Turkic is spoken which has undergone infleunces from Oghuz Turkic and Persian, but nevertheless is not a Western Turkic language. That is Khalaj.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)