Talk:Turkey/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Comments

Correction required

While Prime Minister is required to be the Member of Parliament, there is no restriction for the ministers. Thus, the phrase "Neither the Prime Minister nor the Ministers have to be members of Parliament" uttered under "Government and Politics" subtitle must be corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.6.78.82 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not done since the page is not fully protected, please ask other users more familiar to this topic rather than an admin to edit. Thanks. --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Important Note

Posts that have nothing to do with this specific article, no matter which viewpoint they represent, will be taken down and moved to the talk pages of articles where they might be relevant, if there are any. This is not a forum or a blog of any kind. Debate and discussion is encouraged, however endless looping discussions that do not conribute to the improvement of this article and that only serve to create a hostile working environnement, or irrelevant posts that only create confusion have no place in this talk page. Please do not import disputes from the talk pages of other articles. There have been many interesting and thought-provoking posts, but please ask yourself how relevant they are to this article and if they could not be of more use in the talk page of a more relevant article. Thanks... Baristarim 00:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Article review

This article has been submitted for Good Article review. Baristarim 21:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Bribery in Turkey

Main article: Bribery in Turkey

Main article: Corruption in Turkey

Help me expand these articles. --Armanos 22:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

They should be the same article. However, I fail to see why you created the Bribery in Turkey article with only one sentence in the main, with no sources, that sentence being: "Turkey is a corrupt society".. Maybe when you have learned Wiki rules on sources and start to understand that Wikipedia is not a blog, then we can talk... Baristarim 22:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I merged the two articles, and put the neccessary WPTR and fact tags.. Baristarim 22:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Turkey

Main article: Turkey

There's a severe logical error in the "Religion" section of the article on Turkey, where it says:

"The remainder of the population belong to other beliefs, namely Christian (Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism), Judaism, the Bahá'í Faith, Yezidism and Atheism."
This wrongfully lists Atheism as a belief. Atheism is exactly the absence or opposite of religious belief, i.e.: Atheism isn't a belief but disbelief. (see the article on Atheism)

Thus, this sentence needs to be reformulated so as to get Atheism out of that list of beliefs and named separately.

--82.194.109.112 12:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC) NilsBauer

• There are many different definition of Atheism. Lets talk with your terms; "Disbelief" (letme ask, to what?) is also a "Belief".Must^TC 13:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"most atheistic philosophers and groups define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities", taken from the relevant article. Anyway, I doubt the people answering the census in question where all philosophers. I think that in this case it is relatively safe to say that those classed as "atheists" are those with no religious beliefs. yandman 13:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is the absence of belief in a deity. I believe that God doesn't exist: that is also a belief.. Baristarim 14:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the absence of belief does not imply the belief of absence. To quote Smith, "Atheism is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not a person who believes that a god does not exist, rather he does not believe in the existence of a god." yandman 14:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

True, but it is not the absence of belief that makes atheism a belief: since an atheist doesn't believe that a God exists, he, most probably, believes in different theories (definitely bordering on spiritual and philosophical) as to creation and life. That's why it is a belief; of course it would not be a religious "belief" per se, however it is a spiritual belief in the same category as religions. Because religions are also beliefs that try to spiritualize about creation and life, and so does atheism in a way. The only difference is that "religions" have decided to address those concerns by incorporating the existence of a "God". Some earlier religions try to incorporate other elements, like fire etc. It was me who rewrote that particular section in question, and that's why I chose those words carefully instead of simply using religion: they are all beliefs. However, I can see why atheism can pose a problem at that level since, by its nature, it doesn't have a uniform dogma, therefore atheists can vary widely in their beliefs about creation, life etc. Much less than Muslims etc in any case. Baristarim 17:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Atheists are also spiritual people too sometimes :)) Baristarim 17:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no logic error. Strong atheists express a belief that there is no god i.e. they have a positive belief that there is no god (or is at least god or gods are highly improbably (for example this is how Richard Dawkins views himself - See The God Delusion). I'm happy with how the current article reads and there is no illogic with it being in the "Religion" section if religion is used to simply mean some belief system. I must point out that I'm with Dawkins on this so potential bias on my part. Ttiotsw 02:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it matters much. It's true that strong atheists are "believers" (per Baris and Ttiot), but I'm sure there are "weak" atheists, who just can't be bothered thinking about it. Anyway, I doubt the census asked the question as precisely as we would have liked it... yandman 08:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

true :)) Baristarim 13:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How about the 99.8 percent of Turkey's being Muslim? Is there a reference for this? Kerem Ozgur 00:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

It's interesting that the history of TTTurkey in this article is somewhat thin around the year 1915... perhaps you might want to mention, say, the systematic, government-led murders of 1.5 million people? Just thought I would throw that out there...

And I would throw out that maybe you should peruse the archives of past discussions before head-diving just like that. Baristarim 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And I would throw out that you should maybe chillax, and maybe I thought that it deserves front-page billing - not archive status. Besides, what is it to you? I can post what I want where I want. And do not alter my posts - just throwing that out there. 168.122.83.129 23:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Anon. has a point. Why is there no mention of the Genocide, or even of "killings" or other such euphemisms? Was the consensus of the archived past discussions to sweep the issue under the carpet? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 06:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the most happy advocate of Turkey (mainly as I just can't see how so many Muslims will ever get on in the EU, secular or not) but Turkey was formed after the Armenian events took place. I have no doubts that the deaths do match any reasonable definition of genocide but it is unclear how such a crime could be placed on either modern Turkey (post 1922/23) and certainly not with Atatürk. This crime is fairly well at the hands of others (e.g. The Three Pashas, Young Turks, the Ottoman Empire, <insert favourity enemy here>) and is well documented in other articles on Wikipedia. Discussion on Turkey's modern position regarding the events is a matter for inclusion but it better be well cited and from notable sources if you expect it to stick here. Ttiotsw 10:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Turkish history should only be traced back to 1922-23? Interesting then that the history section of this article can mention the Neolithic period and the Hittites but not the events of 1915-19. As the article stands now, the period between the outbreak of World War I in 1914 and Kemal's landing at Samsun in May 1919 is a total blank, as if nothing noteworthy occurred during that time. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes modern Turkish history starts there and the article reflects that more or less. Your problem lies within the article Ottoman_Empire#Dissolution_.281908.E2.80.931922.29. I'd agree with you if the modern Turkish state was substantially the same as the Ottoman Empire but it very much isn't. Historical there is the Antiquity section to help show where the Turks as a people derive from. But Turks the people is different from Modern Turkey the political system and country and you cannot conflate the two. As an different example of where genocide is mentioned in a country history, look at Australia. The difference being that the current goverment of Australia is more or less the same one that started both in ideology and structure (i.e European and constitutional monarchy) from the British colonial goverment with slow transitions away from Britain and not the shock transition of Ottoman -> Modern Turkey. Ttiotsw 14:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But the Turks as a people derive far more from the Ottomans than they do from the Hittites, I think you'll agree. Your argument would be convincing if the modern Turks viewed themselves as a separate nation from the Ottomans. If they were indeed separate, Turks today would not have such a problem with the mere mention of the word genocide, as it would denote events they would not consider part of their history. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am way too tired of going over this every single week.. But if we have to, so shall we.. OK, first of all, many Turks do consider themselves as radically different from the Ottomans, and thats the precise reason why they get so offended when all this genocide thing is laid on them in various ways today (recognition etc). I really don't want to get into an argument about the events itself, however, the only reason we have these tensions today is the fact that this issue is thrown on modern Turks (Turkey technically, but who owns Turkey? Turks do). I suppose if the whole literature on this, along with all the political groups tied to this would only say "Ottomans did it" and left it at that, it would be much easier to make a headway into this issue. But we all know that it is not the case: it is always "Turkey should do this, should do that" or "Turks did this, Turkey did this and that". In fact, it is not the Turks that are confused about our identity, it is others who cannot comprehend the difference. Yesss, obviously many citizens of Turkey were also citizens of the Ottoman Empire however, any academic study can show you that the population movements of the era were so great that (even among Turks), at the time of the establishment of the Republic, nearly half the residents of the newly founded Republic were not residing in the same area before 1900. So, not only on the political level, but even a demographic level there was a huge change between Ottoman Empire and Turkey. Baristarim 15:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As things stand today, Turkey refuses to acknowledge that the Ottoman Empire, to which it claims to be the successor state, committed genocide. No one is asking Turkey to acknowledge that Kemal's 1923 Republic committed the Armenian Genocide because that would simply be an anachronism. In any case, there is no denying that the events took place on the territory of what is now the Republic of Turkey; that alone is enough to warrant a mention of the Armenian Genocide in this article, if necessary with the proviso that modern Turkey denies its historicity. For comparison, note that the Holocaust is directly mentioned in the article on modern Germany, not just Nazi Germany. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, country articles often give establishment dates of predecessor states in their infoboxes, e.g. 843 on France. I am opposed to this, after all, France isn't the article on the Frankish Empire. The infobox on this article shows why I am opposed: the infobox people stuff more and more material into what should be a brief factsheet, listing no less that six dates. This isn't a "formation date" entry, it is a brief summary of Turkish history. I agree we should discourage this sort of thing. You should, however, make your point at Template talk:Infobox Country or territory and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries for all entries, not just here on Turkey. dab (𒁳) 17:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide has nothing to do with the Holocaust: there are absolutely no similarities. There were no ghettos, no SS troopers, no gas chambers, no puppet regimes that constantly extradited Jews. Ottoman Sultan was not giving speeches in rallies about how Armenians should be annhilated and how Turks were the master race and all. There were tens of thousands of Armenians in Istanbul that didn't even have a scratch. Nor were there ovens or anything. But, I am sure there were Ottomans who hated non-Turks, but that's no equivalent to a regime that was elected on a racist platform like the Nazis had. The "Three Pashas" were not elected by the populace, whereas the Nazis were elected even though they had made clear of their racist intentions. That's why Holocaust is of such relevance to Germany today. However, AG had no such impact on the Turkish pysche in a similar way, let alone the debate over the numbers, methods etc... Nazis started the war with the sole aim of wiping away all non-German presence in countries around them to create a so-called "living space" for Aryans, there is absolutely no proof or indication that Ottomans entered the WWI with the sole aim of Turkifying anything, let alone annhilating the Armenian race. The fact that there were a few loony fellows in Istanbul doesn't change the fact that OE didn't participate in this war for any such reasons. That is the reason number one Shoah cannot be compared to this. This is seriously starting to bore me, all this comparisons with the Shoah and all.. If I were a Jew, I would really be giving you a good "talk" for doing so. One other thing, there is no such thing as "Kemal's 1923 Republic" - his last name is Ataturk.. We are not talking about someone's buddy George from college. Such political and historical people are always referred to with their last names: nobody says "Winston's England", but rather "Churchill's England", or "Josef's Soviet Union", but rather "Stalin's SU", or "Tony's England", but rather "Blair's England". Just on a side note... In any case, I had enough for a day about this. This article still has to master some of the basics, sources wise, so I fail to see the point of a nitpicking discussion as if this article is going for FA review. Baristarim 16:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You can deny the genocidal nature of the "killings" all you like, but the Armenian Genocide has a lot more to do with the Holocaust than you think. See Genocide#Coining of the term genocide for an overview of how the modern understanding of the concept of genocide came into being. And let's not forget Hitler's homage to the Genocide on the eve of the Holocaust. As for Kemal, its use is fairly common, especially amongst non-Turks and/or those not espousing his/your ideology. That's why we have Kemalist rather than Atatürkist ideology, for example. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Avoid the straw man: the day you show me proof that a party whose election platform was about annhilating all Armenians was elected before the WWI or that the Ottomans entered the WWI with the sole aim of killing someone particular, the psychological relation between the AG and today's Turkey will always remain obscure. That's the first thing. And no, Kemal is not a "common name" even among those not espousing his ideology: Nearly all the people who hated the communist ideology still say "Stalin's Soviet Union" and not "Josef's SU" - such usage of Kemal is only common among people who are trying to ridicule him: there is no "STUPID" written on my forehead, I know exactly who prefers saying Kemal instead of Ataturk... The word "Kemalist" was coined before he was given the name Ataturk, that's why it stayed that way, don't try nitpicking over this...

Calm down. I know very well that denying the Armenian Genocide is a basic tenet of Turkish national(ist) ideology, but please remember that this article isn't just for Turks. As for Kemal, I wasn't the one who brought up the issue of his name, so spare me the accusations of nitpicking. Let's not forget that Kemal himself had no surname until he decreed that every Turk should take one. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, just like it was decreed in the 1850s that every Swede (and Norwegians) should have one as well, read up on some history please. Why do you think they are all named -sen and -son, particularly peterson etc? Gees, where Swedes also a bunch of dictators??? Where do you think Ataturk had the idea? :))) And don't be putting words into my mouth to make a straw man.. I had enough of this tendency of being called nationalist every single time the debate gets hot.. I also know that calling Ataturk "Kemal" is a basic tenet of Anti-Turkism still present in many places, but please remember that this article isn't just for Anti-Turks. You still haven't been able to establish the pyschological link that links the AG with the TR of today, as Holocaust does with GR of today. Baristarim 16:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In any case, please feel free to continue, i am not going to spend my saturday night glued to my keyboard typing away.. However, please understand that this discussion has been going over and over and over again in a never-ending way. Pffff.. I hope that you can understand that as well. Type away :)) Baristarim 16:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder why you bothered to resurrect the Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board, if you're so easily offended by opposing views. My preference for Kemal over "Atatürk" is rather analogous to your preference for "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" over Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus. As for the Genocide, one would think that denial is in and of itself compelling proof of such a psychological link. Regards. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion, let me make two small points (background trivia): the Treaty of Lausanne makes the Republic of Turkey the successor state to the Ottoman Empire (so mentioning the Armenian Genocide and naming names is not that out of place in this article), and the modern Turkish alphabet (or the people who created it) copied the letter ö from the Swedish alphabet (there was a Swede in the team of linguists or something like that).--Euthymios 17:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Turks have a thousands of years old culture and background so we are not UFOs, we are here since the first known history datas were prepared. Baristarim said it right, go and look at the archives. We are really tired of this genocide discussion which was going on for a really long time in many Turkey releated articles. I mean, we have a real life, I crashed my car last week and actually if I would go a bit faster, I won't be alive now so enough is enough. With respect, Deliogul 13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your car accident and I am glad you are still alive. But you must understand that the Armenian Genocide is part of our real lives. We have no family history dating past 1915. Our grandparents, who are survivors, are still alive today and must live with the horrifying memories from their childhood of witnessing their father, mother, brothers, and sisters slaughtered before their own eyes...how's that for real life? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tano 06:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

I can understand you very well because we have a situation like that as Turks too. From the late 19th century to 1923, millions of brave men from Anatolia went to their deaths in three different continents to defend the empire. Not a generation but generations continuously died in endless wars. I, personally, don't say that we treat the Armenian subjects in the empire good. Actually, Armenian people faced really hard times and deaths but I can't agree with the Armenian vision and numbers. This is just a personal view. Deliogul 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Gallery

Should we cut down on the pictures in the gallery? And, is it just my computer, or aren't all the images in the gallery visible? I am never able to see four-five of the images unless I put in their wiki image address and vision their original page.. Baristarim 22:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see all of the thumbnails except for Mount Nemrut/Adıyaman, for which there is no link to an image file either. That applies both for Mozilla and IE. Which ones can't you see? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That one and a two others, ones from Side and Troy.. I wonder what is wrong... Baristarim 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've zapped 2 for blatant fair-use violations. I would suggest removing another two. Ideas? yandman 13:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Borders the Sea of Marmara"

Shouldn't we say that Turkey contains the Sea of Marmara, rather than "bordering" it? AnonMoos 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Done Baristarim 14:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

History of the Republic of Turkey

I think that this article should be renamed/moved to "Republican history of Turkey" per similar articles like Economic history of Turkey, Constitutional History of Turkey, what do you think? It only talks about history of Turkey since the foundation of the Republic in any case. Baristarim 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Republican" as an adjective in English has many meanings, while, "History of the Republic of Turkey" is unambiguous. (Could also be "Turkey's history as a republic", I guess.) AnonMoos 15:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There's that, and there's also the fact that irrespective of the alternate meanings of the adjective in question, "Republican history of Turkey" means the history of Turkey as relates to republicanism (just as "Economic history of Turkey" means the history of Turkey relating to economics), and not "The history of Turkey during its period as a republic", if you see what I mean. yandman 15:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the alternate meanings in question was about the meaning of Republican in the US, that shouldn't stop such a move. However, I can see that such a rename could give way to certain confusion.. I will try to think of another way of putting it in a concise manner. I just proposed it since, even after months, it still confuses me sometimes when I see History of Turkey and History of the Republic of Turkey, considering many recurring debates out there about Turkey, what it is, when it began etc., I just thought we might need a clearer timeline and structure for history. Oh well, we will see about it later then.. Baristarim 23:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Formation

What on earth are the dates of the Ottoman Empire doing in that infobox? Miskin 10:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"The region comprising modern Turkey is one of the oldest continually inhabited regions in the world", oh and that really sounds silly. Miskin 10:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok Miskin, since you asked for it, let's go back to History 101: Turkey is the direct successor state of the Ottoman Empire, that was founded in 1299, per the Treaty of Lausanne, thus making the founding date of the state that enjoys sovereign powers in Turkey as 1299. Per the same treaty and other established principals of international law, the foundation of the Republic in 1923 is considered as "regime-change", rather than the "foundation of a new state" (as opposed to the former provinces of the Empire who are considered to have declared their independence, and thus considered as "new" states) (btw name changes are also considered in the former category, a country can be renamed to anything, however what matters is the continuity of sovereign powers that a state is built upon). Turkey, from a legal point of view, was established in 1299 since the Treaty of Lausanne permitted a direct transfer of sovereignty from the Empire to the Republic... Under international law, only specific treaties or long periods of discontinuation of sovereignty can constitute a "break" in the line. For Turkey, that is not the case, as such the foundation of the state is considered as 1299. That is for this reason that there are still laws in Turkey, that date back to before 1923, that are still applicable since they have not been replaced (even though 98 percent have been under the new regime). This is a simple fact, similarly England is considered as having been founded more than a millenia ago since such continuity of sovereignty has existed. On the other hand, same cannot ba said of Egypt for example: the state of Egypt cannot be considered to be founded in 3000BC for instance. Similarly for ex-colonies of Africa and South America etc. Any more questions about this? Baristarim 12:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the other thing, pls read carefully: it says "continually inhabited" and not simply "inhabited". Per the evidence unearthed during archealogical studies that show continous settlements dating back to 5000 BC, the region is definitely one of the oldest continually inhabited regions in the world... Baristarim 12:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I argued above that modern Turkey cannot detach itself from such facets of Ottoman history as the Armenian Genocide. In other words, Turkey cannot claim only those parts of the Ottoman legacy that suit it and reject those that don't. That said, I too fail to see User:Miskin's problem with the current wording. It's not as if it's claiming that "Turkey is one of the oldest continuously inhabited countries in the world" or anything outlandish like that. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're wasting your time if you think you can change my mind on something as basic as this is. I'm not going to debate on how close Turkey is to the Ottoman Empire, but trying to convince me that there "hasn't been a break" is just ridiculous. This is an article about the Republic of Turkey, and anything that contradicts "Republic" or "Turkey" (nation) has no place in the infobox. Edits such as the "continually inhabited" sould be sourced. Avoid underestimating the reader's intelligence can only make your articles better. Miskin 14:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Errr...no. This is an article on "Turkey". Following your reasoning, the article on Germany should start in 1989? yandman 14:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in the same way that the article of Russia starts in 1991. It says "independence from the Sovien Union", just like this article should say "independence from the Ottoman Empire". The article of Germany mentions the "Holy Roman Empire" as its starting point, and proves once again that some stereotypes did not come out of the blue. The German article cannot serve as an example to imitate but to avoid. Plus I'm not very fond of the "I do it because they all do it" logic, it slows down improvement. Miskin 14:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Then that is technically incorrect. Russia did not become independent of the Soviet Union; it is the successor state to the USSR in a way that none of the other former Soviet republics is. In the same vein, Serbia is the successor state to Yugoslavia but Montenegro is not. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict - Then the Russia article is wrong.. Turkey didn't proclaim its independence from the OE like other states that were part of it before the Balkan and First World Wars.. Treaty of Lausanne explicitly transfers sovereign powers of the OE to Turkey, it is as simple as that. I was not trying to change your mind at all, you can believe what you want to believe, it was for other readers as well since it referred to a part of the article, not our personal opinions. And you don't have to change your mind, but know that what I just said is the legal fact, you have a right not to like it however... There has not been a break in the continuity of state, however there was a regime change (or break)... For the other thing: "continually inhabited" are sourced in their respective articles, that is an acceptable form of citation. Baristarim 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Baristarim. TR is both the direct successor state of the OE (parallel with Soviet Union/Russia is apt), and it is the continuation of a political/geographic/cultural entity that had been called "Turkey" for centuries, independently of its statehood (parallel with Germany). In both senses, treating Ottoman Turkey here - with appropriate explanations and disclaimers where necessary - is quite okay. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Armenian genocide is purely part of modern Turkish history, as it was conducted primarily by the Turkish nationalist, and to a lesser degree by the Kemalists. Those two groups were the enemies of the Ottomans at the time. Miskin 14:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Can we not start talking about the "G" word, please? You'll have ample time to discuss this in the future, don't worry...
2. The "Russia" article starts around the year 500, as far as I can see. yandman 15:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Baristarim according to your logic there hasn't been a single state change in the history of the world, since they all end up at some kind of treaty. Can you cite a source that backs up your claim about "passing the governement"? Only then you'll be allowed to call my objections a personal opinion. Same goes for the "most continually inhabited region in the world" remark. Miskin 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

USA is a new state that gained its independence after being part of the British Empire... Same for all African and Latin American countries... Belgium is also a "new" state that was created via treaties.. They don't all end up at a "treaty": states that exist today and are (more or less) founded on the same region as the states of antiquity are not "successor states" of each other: eg Rome, Greece, Egypt etc.. Montenegro is also considered a "new" state, it is not the successor of Yugoslavia for example.. Baristarim 15:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not debating on the wording "gained its independence from" against "was founded in". I'm debating on the formation of the Republic of Turkey as it appears in the infobox. You must cite a source in order to convince me that what you say is common knowledge to the english-speaking world. If you don't care about convincing me then you should care about convincing wikipedia. For example, in the Britannica article on 'Turkey' it is clearly stated:

The modern Turkish Republic, founded in 1923 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, is a nationalist, secular, parliamentary democracy. After a period of one-party rule under its founder, Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk), and his successor, Turkish governments since the 1950s have been produced by multiparty elections based on universal adult suffrage.

To think that someone else besides me would have imagined that the Ottoman Empire has been actually dissolved somewhere in the early 20th century is incredible. I guess my 'personal opinion' is shared with Britannica, wow what are the odds for that. I wonder what other sources might think. Miskin 15:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no contradiction here: the intro states "whose political system was established in 1923" AND the infobox states: "Foundation of the Republic: October 29, 1923".. Of course the Republic was founded on 1923, everyone knows that.. And that's why the same infobox makes clear when it uses OE instead of Turkey for the 1299 date. However, it is more than important and relevant to the reader that the Republic is the successor of the Empire.. That's all... The Brittanice article says: "modern Turkish Republic was founded.." First of all it doesn't say "declared independence" and secondly, it makes clear reference to the establishment of the republic, just like this article does in the intro and infobox as I pointed out a few lines above..Baristarim 15:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between the infobox and what you said about the fall of the OE and establishment of the republic. Please take a look at it more carefully... Baristarim 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

There is a contradiction in the following propositions:

1. the Ottoman Empire was dissolved,
2. the republic of Turkey was created,
3. the claim that the Ottoman Empire and Turkey are the same state.

It doesn't make sense does it? If you prove that they are regarded as the same state which simply changed its government, then the infobox makes sense. If not, the Ottoman Empire has no place in the infobox which concerns the formation of Turkey. As fas as I'm concerned, sources state clearly that the Ottoman Empire was dissolved, not evolved. Therefore the infobox is based on a POV and not on a consensus. Miskin 15:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop throwing around weighty words :)) What concensus? I will tell you how the Ottoman Empire was dissolved: It was disolved upon the ratification of the Treaty of Lausanne and was, at the same time, replaced by the new Republic (which was created). Nobody is saying that they are the same state: it is that Turkey is the successor state of the OE, obviously they cannot be the same since their coordinates in the fourth dimension are not the same. I am sorry to say but I am getting lost in your arguments, what exactly are we talking about here? First you said it should be that "Turkey declared its independence from OE" and now we are arguing how OE was dissolved and TR was created? In any case, of course one was dissolved and the other one was created, but that operation, from an intl point of view, happened at the ratification of that treaty. Also do not forget that the Turkish parliament passed a law in 1922 dissolving the sultanate and transferring its sovereignty rights to that assembly, which one year later proclaimed the republic upon the ratification of the Lausanne Treaty. Yesss OE was dissolved and yesss TR was created, but they are intrinsically linked by intl treaties, laws and declarations to the point that OE was dissolved simply to make way for the Republic that assumed the sovereignty of the former. If there is no continuity there, I don't know where there could be. Baristarim 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Reply to Miskin; if do you want to see POV based infobox please take a look to infobox Armenia, everything is included except Adam&Eva.Regards.Must^TC 16:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

true. lol.. Maybe we also should mention the "traditional establishment of the Turks" :)) Baristarim 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Turkey did gain independence from the Ottoman Empire since the Kemalists and the Ottomans were enemies, but I only brought this up because it is mentioned in Russia. Including the Ottoman Empire's dates in the infobox field "Formation of modern Turkey" makes wikipedia looks bad, that is all I'm arguing about. And I believe the same about Germany and all the articles that follow the same practice of pushing POV in the infoboxes, it's not that I have something against Turkey in particular. Miskin 16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, your alleged "contradiction" is a red herring. We are not debating whether the OE and the TR were "the same state". The infobox quite rightly mentions each of them separately, so it isn't making any such claim. We are debating whether both these states were manifestations of something we can call "Turkey". From that, it will follow whether they fall under the scope of this page. If you want to find out what experts understand to be covered under the scope of "history of Turkey", how about looking up the Cambridge History of Turkey, for one? ([1]) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What we call Turkey today is the "Republic of Turkey", period. The history of 'Turkey', i.e. the peninsula that took its name from the republic of Turkey, is inevitably the history of Ottoman Empire. The title of that book doesn't prove anything however, as a history of Greece or Serbia would have to treat in detail the history of the Ottoman Empire as well. The historical connection between Turkey and the Ottoman Empire is mentioned in the History of Turkey. It's an abuse of terminology to stick an Islamic state in the Republic of Turkey's infobox. And for some reason I think that Kemal would have agreed with me. Miskin 16:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the peninsula came before the republic.... I think that this is the crux of the discussion. I don't think that Turkey does mean the "Republic of Turkey, period". yandman 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

you are mistaken then. This is the article on the Republic of Turkey (which is larger than just Anatolia). If you want to discuss the peninsula, go over to Anatolia. dab (𒁳) 17:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Talking of "the peninsula" is indeed imprecise, but this is leading into another red herring. We are not talking about the concept of Anatolia, we are talking about the concept of "Turkey" - which existed prior to, and is still applied retrospectively back before, the foundation of the modern state. This article treats both, as befits common usage in the English language. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, country articles often give establishment dates of predecessor states in their infoboxes, e.g. 843 on France. I am opposed to this, after all, France isn't the article on the Frankish Empire. The infobox on this article shows why I am opposed: the infobox people stuff more and more material into what should be a brief factsheet, listing no less that six dates. This isn't a "formation date" entry, it is a brief summary of Turkish history. I agree we should discourage this sort of thing. You should, however, make your point at Template talk:Infobox Country or territory and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries for all entries, not just here on Turkey. dab (𒁳) 17:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(after 2ec) Miskin, you are caught up in a conceptual fuzziness that's not your fault and not Wikipedia's either but a common feature of the way we talk about countries in English: The same name ("Turkey", "Germany", "Russia", "Greece" etc.) is often indiscriminately applied both to a nation-state (a political entity), and to a cultural/historical/geographical entity, with the latter often transcending the former. Our Wikipedia articles with their "history" sections and subarticles are largely geared towards the wider perspective, and rightly so. It's true that the design of the infobox is focussed a little bit more on the purely political entity, but I don't think the Ottoman info is too alien in its context. It certainly isn't alien in the context of the whole article. The book I quoted proves exactly what I wanted to show with it: i.e. that historians use the term "Turkey" to refer to the history of the region pre-1920, and therefore so may we. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Future Perfect you're debating on something I never denied. I never said that articles such as History of Turkey, History of Germany and History of Greece should not treat older civilisations that were clearly their cultural predecessors. When it comes to defining the starting point of a modern nation-state however, things are different. Frankly I find your arguments on the use of Turkey irrelevant, since the article's topic is the "Republic of Turkey", i.e. the modern nation-state, and not the historical uses of that term. There's no reason to pretend that the infobox entry is referring to something else. The thing is there are some articles (like Russia and United Kingdom) that show encyclopaedic neutrality. Others, like Turkey and Germany do not. So it's not as if I'm trying to change the entire system here, I'm only trying to enforce good practice over bad one. I think in the case of the Republic of Turkey and the Ottoman Empire the paradox is even more striking, as we're assigning the foundation of a modern nation-state to a 14th century Islamic empire - which is plainly ridiculous. The Kemalist government didn't just steal the Ottoman throne from the Sultan, it marked the complete destruction of the Empire. They took up arms against the Ottomans, banned them from their newly conquered land and built a new country and nation from scratch. As far as the Ottomans were concerned, they couldn't care less whether they had been defeated by Kemal, Venizelos or Constantine; the Ottoman Empire had been dissolved. So much for a political continuity, and then you have Baristarim arguing that the rule was legally "passed" from the Ottomans to the Young Turks. Miskin 17:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This article's topic is not just the "Republic of Turkey"; this article's topic is Turkey, because that's what the article is called, with everything that term comprises in normal English usage. And if the Ottoman past is part of "History of Turkey", then it's also part of this article, because History of Turkey is properly a sub-article of this one. - I can follow dab in what he says about keeping some details out of the infoboxes though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"with everything that term comprises in normal English usage" - You have to be joking, do you actually claim that normal English usage of "Turkey" can refer to the Ottoman Empire? How come this escaped my dictionary? I never said that the Ottoman Empire doesn't have a place in the article, I said it doesn't have a place in the infobox field "formation of the Republic of Turkey", which has a standard and precise date. It's strange that you can follow dab but you disagree with me, because we've been saying the exact same thing. You're not being neutral on this one Future Perfect, for the simple reason that you're drawing a parallel with what's stated in Germany's infobox. "Turkey" does not refer to the Ottoman Empire in "normal English usage", nor does is it treated in history as the latter's political continuation. Miskin 18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Seperation between "Turkey" and "Republic of Turkey"

I propose we should MOVE THE CURRENT ARTICLE which is the STATE as "Republic of Turkey", and create another article for the CONCEPT OF Turkey, which covers an generates links to States and other issues related to Turkey.--OttomanReference 18:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This will solve many other (besides the info box) issues as PEOPLE REALLY have problem separating these concepts...--OttomanReference 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose that proposal because of its complexity. We'd have a field day trying to figure out the meanings of "Turkey", with some proposing to include Turan and some proposing to exclude the Arab and Persian influenced multiethnic Ottoman Empire.--Euthymios 18:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA can not solve conceptual problems. If we have REPUBLIC OF TURKEY seperated from TURKEY, atleast one LESS concept would be under constant edit wars.--OttomanReference 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Euthymios: too complex. We'd then have to do the same with Germany, Russia, Greece, Italy, Austria, Poland, Armenia, Iran, India... If natural language can bridge the gap between the "cultural-geographical entity" sense and the "political entity" sense by uniting both under a single term, then so should we. It takes some constant effort always staying aware of what we are doing in bridging this gap, but it should be possible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and worst of all, those new "concept of X" family of articles would end up as POV-forks. Miskin 19:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I oppose too, partly for consistency (we don't do it for other countries), partly because it's just too complicated to use and to maintain, and mostly because the "Republic of Turkey" article you imagine is already covered by various articles such as "government of Turkey", "economics of Turkey" etc. Anything else would belong in the "Trukey" article. And where would the geography go? The mountains are the same as in 1900, so presumably you'd put them in "Turkey", but what about the rainfall? And religion? No, not a good idea in my opinion. yandman 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For the people defending Turkey=Republic of Turkey; YOU have to remember that Republic of Turkey=!Ottoman Empire. Stop trying to link these concepts. These arguments are correct: Turkey=>Republic of Turkey and Turkey=>Ottoman Empire. If this article is about "Republic of Turkey" a Nation state; it is not "Ottoman Empire" a Millet (Ottoman Empire) state. These are apples and oranges. HOWEVER NEVER FORGET that these are TURKISH states build on LAND which Turks live called TURKEY. In 1822, TURKEY was 400% bigger than its current size.--OttomanReference 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, this will become subject to POV-pushing, edit-warring and original research. Miskin 18:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkey => Ottoman Empire is as correct as England => British Empire or Greece => Byzantine Empire. It's definitely not in wide use in the English language, only in POV context. 1822 Ottoman Empire was definitely _not_ Turkey. What's next? That the Balkans and middle east are stolen from Turkey? Future Perfect, I hope you see how such innocent infobox entries are interpreted and misinterpreted. Miskin 19:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkey in Europe?, Turkey in Anatolia?, Turkey in Middle East?

What's next? You have to change your ideas; Miskin. You need to invent time machine and tell Europeans that they have a misconception about what is TURKEY :-) :-).--OttomanReference 19:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no question that the word "Turkey" has had different meanings over time. Until its demise, Europeans did systematically call the Ottoman Empire the "Turkish Empire" or simply "Turkey". And the term "Turk" often meant "Muslim of the Ottoman Empire" in general, regardless of language etc. However, now in 2006, the term "Turkey" clearly means the Republic of Turkey, and "Turk" means either an ethnic Turk or a citizen/national of the Republic of Turkey. So I see no need to complicate things. --Macrakis 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Will have to agree, it would complicate things even more.. :) I just want to reply shortly to something that Miskin said: It doesn't at all mean that the Balkans etc were stolen from the Ottoman Empire/Turkey. Remember that we are referring to times when intl law didn't even truly exist, and historically it could easily be argued that it was the other way around: that Ottomans "stole" the Balkans in the first place. However, let's not forget that any of those approaches would be too anachronistic. The standarts of 16th century were definitely not the same as today, especially with religion and vassal relationships and all... It is simply that Ottomans conquered/invaded and thus controlled the Balkans etc for a while, and at one point those territories decided that they would be better off being independent. Kinda like Britain and the US for example: Nobody can claim that the US was "stolen" or "taken away" from the British. The territory was under the sovereignty of the British Empire for a while then its inhabitants decided to break that relationship. That's all.. However, I have to agree with user dab that this issue might need to be addressed at a wider Wiki level since there can be a tendecy to "exaggerate" things in many articles, but as this article currently stands, the infobox makes clear the diff between OE and TR, and gives the impression that it is providing a "background" info more than anything else.. Baristarim 22:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

expand and move this discussion!

As we have established, this discussion is not Turkey-specific, but applies to Germany, France, Italy, India, Japan and many other articles. It should therefore be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries for wider attention and input. Let me note Fut. Perf. and I agree with the analysis of the problem, but not entirely regarding what should be done about it. The unsatisfactory bit is that its distribution is determined by what a country is called in colloquial usage. It has three stages:

• a) overlapping geographical notion: Italy, India, Australia, Cyprus, Iceland, Maldives, New Zealand
  • already addressed: Korea, Congo, China
• b) predecessor states referred to with the same term: Germany, France, Switzerland, Poland, Spain, Russia, ...
• c) no ambiguity: USA, UK, Belgium, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan

be sure to note the exceptions we make for China and Macedonia, for political reasons. India is another candidate, and I would strongly recommend a China solution for India, since the term as in Indian subcontinent includes Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh, as opposed to the term as in Republic of India. This leads to confusion and outraged comments again and again. My approach is that all these articles should be about the sovereign state, with any treatment of predecessor states confined to the "History" section. In case (a) only, "China solutions" may be useful (India disambiguating Republic of India and Indian subcontinent; Cyprus split into Cyprus (island) and Republic of Cyprus and ; maybe Italy dab'ing Italian Peninsula and Italian Republic). dab (𒁳) 08:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

copied to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#articles.27_scope, please reply there. dab (𒁳) 08:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkey is a bird

I am sorry if this offends anyone, but where I come from most people think of the delicious bird Turkey and not of some country when one says the word turkey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.243.59.119 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Yeah, let me tell you couple of true stories from the heartlands of America: I grew up in Seattle, and when i was growing up I had many foreign friends, being a foreigner and all. One of them was this English guy from London. So one time we go to a party and start talking to people, you know, chit-chat and all. So at one point, one of the Americans says "so, where r u from?", he says "England".. The guy thinks for a while and says: "You know, my grandmother had an Irish terrier..." We were in a group of foreigners there, so we crack up obviously and even after all that, the guy was still not able to figure out why we were laughing: he actually thought that telling an English guy that his grandma had an Irish terrier was a very relevant thing to do..

Another one was with this Dutch guy.. We simply used to call him "Dutch" since he had a very long and complicated name.. And believe me, I cannot even tell you how many times people asked me, in class, in a bar etc "So, where is Dutch from?"

It would be an overstatement if I said I was just getting started. Once a girl from Yakima (real country place, u know, "deep" America) actually asked a Brazilian friend of mine if they had universities in Brazil..

I know you are flaimbaiting there, otherwise you wouldn't have dropped by and put such a comment, but it's ok.. If it is chit-chat we are looking for, we can go on for hours :)) Baristarim 02:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

to be fair, many people from outside the depressing USian backlands will not be able to tell you why the bird is called the same as the country, either. dab (𒁳) 14:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To be slightly less fair, most people from the USian backlands wouldn't know there is a country called Turkey... yandman 16:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Give them Hüseyin Nihâl Atsız's Bozkurtların Ölümü (Death of the Grey Wolves). They will understand who we, Turks, and our country are all about. With respect, Deliogul 18:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

si, barbari. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC).