Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:54, 23 March 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turkey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turkey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Western Asia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Europe High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Assyria High‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 29, 2005, October 29, 2011, and October 29, 2012.

	Turkey is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 18, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 21, 2006 Good article nominee Listed January 9, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted December 20, 2011 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

Edit reguest regarding GINI-index

According to the figures by The World Bank, the actual Gini Coefficient rate in Turkey was 39 for 2008, not 40. Please change, no need for it to be higher than it is.

Ethnic population

2007 Konda research 70,500,000 population of Turkey ]

55.484.000 Turkish , 11,445.000 kurdish-zazas , 3.000.000 other groups

Turkish % 81.33 , kurdish-zazas % 15.6, other (...)

I think you touched some button unexpectedly and your edit is unfinished. Let me calculate for you: According to the above data, "other ethnic groups" would be 4 % of the population (by 2007). However, we prefer the CIA's World Factbook which says 7-12 %. In other words, the latter "guess" of the CIA is almost double the former. Still we have preferred this source, who knows why; and of course I do not agree with such volatile "facts" and this choice of source. --E4024 (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

CIA's World Factbook cannot be accepted as a "trusted source" since it has been provided by a very political agency and it would be absurd to expect objectiveness from such an agency.

According to the "Türkiye'nin Etnik Yapısı" (Ethnic Structure in Turkey Ali Tayyar Önder, Fark Yayınları 2006 ISBN:9756424044) Kurdish population is about %5-6 of the population. Noting that you cannot fully seperate these people from Turks and define them as completely different nation.

It is very normal to see many ancestries in Anadolu because it was the maninland of Ottoman Empire which helt many nations, groups etc. But exagratting the Kurdish population serves to who or what? What do they want to do with these people on these lands? (Reminders: Greece, Armenia, World War One...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.128.177 (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Turkey consensus ethnic research 2011-2012

Turkish population : 57,089,942 people , Kurdish-zazas population : 8,693,000 people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.125.211 (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic structure of Turkey are incorrect.

Rate of 78-81% of Turkish,

Kurdish and Zaza rate of 13-15%,

5-7% in the other groups

Native Turkish speakers at the level of 85%.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.160.10.202 (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Main article notes

Regarding this revert, by "per talk page" I meant per my expiation on the talk page. In the six days that edit request was up no one objected to the change so there is consensus, and this is just a simple edit to update the main article notes to reflect the current scope of the articles. History of Turkey is not about the whole history, it's about the 11th century to present, correct article is History of Anatolia. History of Anatolia is not about Antiquity, it's about the whole history, prehistory-present. Correct articles are Classical Anatolia and Byzantine Anatolia. History of Turkey doesn't quite match up with "Seljuk Turks and the Ottoman Empire" because the article includes a section about the republic, but it's close enough. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of any reason given as to why the notes shouldn't be updated, or evidence of a lack of consensus I'm restoring my edit. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this revert how is showing the correct main articles "not appropriate an image for the article", as I pointed out the main article notes in their current state do not reflect the scopes of the target articles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of any expiation as to how linking to the correct main articles is "not appropriate an image for the article" I'm reverting. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many civilizations that have existed in Anatolia. Roman Empire, Lydia, Kingdom of Armenia, Karamanids and many more .. Why just Byzantine Anatolia articles? and about picture: can not be negotiated cartoonish. Meaningless to the section of history.For this section, there are dozens of media files.See: Misplaced Pages Commons Maurice (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I ment to get back to you sooner. The Byzantine Anatolia article is part three in our main Turkish/Anatolian history seares. Prehistory of Anatolia --> Classical Anatolia --> Byzantine Anatolia --> History of Turkey. Without it we're missing everything from the creation of the Eastern Roman Empire to the Turkish migration. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This page not objective

In Turkey %70 of all people votes to right partys but this page entirely writen by left people, they did very partisan job in this page and as an avarge Turkis person this is offends me. First Kemal Dervis accomplished notting all succes belongs AKP you can search it Second They talk about jornalist been arrested but they doesnt talk about military coup(s) which sapported by some jornalist and in this coups manny people (mostly from right wing religious people) sufferd inculuding me, i watch my muslims teachers fired from schools just becouse they use scarf for cover their hair, in turkey forbiden thing isn't only hijap it is simple scarf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.161.109.177 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

are you objective?--Qwl (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Turkey ranks "High" in the HDI Index, not "Medium"

Check out the article list of countries by Human Development Index and then please correct your mistake in the infobox of the Turkey article. 88.251.85.34 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Correction of the HDI level

I would like to inform you that HDI level of Turkey is set as 'medium' and in fact it is on 'high' level according to all HDI reports. The organisation will not be seen objective and trustable information source by Turkish public as long as current information remains. It is known that this is done deliberatly before tourism season.

Human development level of Turkey is calculated by UN development programme and can be seen below.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/map

http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/TUR.html --Msimsak (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Population genetics in the lede

The mention of the population genetics of the Turkish people does not belong in the lede, for the following reasons

1) This article is about a country, not an ethnic group. Such information may be appropriate for the Turkish people article, but it does not belong here, especially in the lede

2) Not everyone in Turkey is a Turk (only 70-75% are in fact)

3) We do not include population genetics in the lede of country articles. I can't find a single country article where we say "The inhabitants of X primarily descend from ancient X-ians", and there are many countries where we could do that, e.g. Greece, Iran, India, etc...

That the information is sourced is irrelevant. All kinds of things can be sourced. Does that mean we should add them to lede of an article? Athenean (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The current text does not accurately and completely represents what the sources are saying: "Although Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since ancient times, the Seljuk Turks began migrating into the area now called Turkey (derived from the Medieval Latin Turchia, i.e. "Land of the Turks") in the 11th century" suggests that Turks replaced native populations, similar to what happened in USA with respect to Native Americans. This is incorrect, not sourced, and misinforms the readers. You, yourself, said mention of pre-Seljuk area is justified. This mention should not violate Wiki policies.

Also, contrary to what you claimed, ethnic/ancestral origins is included in various leads. Eg: Denmark, "Originally the home of the Vikings, Norse seafaring explorers who invaded and settled in many parts of Europe and Russia, Denmark emerged as a unified kingdom in the Middle Ages.";Germany, "A region named Germania, inhabited by several Germanic peoples, was documented before AD 100.";Russia, "The nation's history began with that of the East Slavs, who emerged as a recognizable group in Europe between the 3rd and 8th centuries AD".

So, how about this. "Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since Stone Age, with Ancient Anatolians compromising the primary component in Turkish population today, despite waves of immigration and conquests." Cavann (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here. This article is about a state not an ethnic group. The examples you mention (Denmark, Russia) actually support my point. Notice they don't say that "the Vikings or East Slavs comprise the main component of the Danish or Russian people", rather they say that the Danish and Russian states have their roots in those tribes. We have separate articles for Danish people and Russian people where the issue of ancestry is discussed. Similarly, the roots of the Turkish state lie with the Seljuk Turks, not with the Hittites and Lydians. As such, I've actually changed my mind, I think it's fine to only mention the Seljuk Turks in the lede. We can mention that the Turkic tribes imposed their language and culture and did not replace the previous population, however that should be in the history section, not the lede. The lede is only meant to present a brief summary of the article's content. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the information you are presenting or the sources you are using, I am perfectly fine with it being included in Turkish people, it's just that this article is not about the Turkish people, it's about the Turkish state. Not all Turks live in this state, and not everyone in this state is Turkish. Athenean (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your response perfectly exemplifies why we need that information in the lead. The roots of the Turkish state does NOT lie with the Seljuk Turks. It's like saying roots of Mexican state lies with Spanish settlers, just because Mexicans speak Spanish. It's also like excluding following text from the Mexico article: "In pre-Columbian Mexico many cultures matured into advanced civilizations such as the Olmec, the Toltec, the Teotihuacan, the Zapotec, the Maya and the Aztec before first contact with Europeans."

Modern Turkey was founded in 1923 by Ataturk, and he -himself- emphasized Ancient Anatolian. Eg: Establishment of Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Another example: . As such, not only your claim that modern Turkey has nothing to do with these ancient civilizations is incorrect, it also misinforms the readers. Cavann (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You're not listening. This article is about a country, not an ethnic group. Regarding Mexico, again notice how the lede says that culture X and Y were located in Mexico, not that the Mexican people descend primarily from the pre-columbian population. Again, because that article is about a country, not a people. At this point I think I'd like to seek a third opinion via the wikipedia community. Athenean (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Btw I never "claimed" that modern Turkey has "nothing do to with these ancient civilizations", just that the claim that the Turkish people descend from the ancient Anatolian populations does not belong in the lede of the article. That's all, and nothing more. I don't even dispute the claim itself. You appear to not be hearing what I'm saying. Athenean (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

And entire paragraph is devoted to ethnicity stats and percentages, so your claims about ethnic information not belonging in the lead is ridiculous, especially when Ancient Anatolians and their connection is relevant when it comes to establishment of modern Turkey. I guess we'll have to go through dispute resolution. Cavann (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The information about the ethnic percentages in Turkey applies to the country as a whole, not to a single ethnic group. How exactly are ancient Anatolians "relevant" to the establishment of modern Turkey? Did they found it? Was Ataturk an "ancient Anatolian"? In case you haven't noticed, only 70-75% of Turkey's population are Turks. The remaining 25-30% are not, that's a pretty significant percentage. Not to mention that Turks have other ancestries in addition to Anatolian and Turkic (Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, Circassian, Arab, Georgian, Laz, Albanian, Slavic, etc...). The ancestry of the modern Turkish population is a complicated point - the lede is not the place to discuss complicated points. It is only meant to present a summary of the article. Athenean (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Learn to read. Primary component =/= Only component. Saying X compromises the primary component does not necessarily exclude A, B, C backgrounds. The point that there are other ethnicities in Turkey is already made in the lead, with an entire paragraph. Cavann (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the claim that the ethnic Turks of Turkey primarily descend from the ancient Anatolians be included in the lede of the article? Athenean (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not an accurate description of the dispute. This is the suggested text in the lead:

Modern Turkey was founded in 1923 by Ataturk, and he -himself- emphasized Ancient Anatolians in the context of roots of Turkey. Eg: Establishment of Museum of Anatolian Civilizations. Another example: . Plus Ancient Anatolians do not only concern Turks, but may also concern other ethnic groups such as Kurds (eg: shared ancestry despite linguistic differences).

Finally, the current text is misrepresentative: "Although Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since ancient times, the Seljuk Turks began migrating into the area now called Turkey (derived from the Medieval Latin Turchia, i.e. "Land of the Turks") in the 11th century" suggests that Turks replaced native populations, similar to what happened in USA with respect to Native Americans. This is incorrect, not sourced, and misinforms the readers.Cavann (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, the lead of country articles is definitely no the place to include various supposed ideas of ethnicity. There has, as noted in the quote, been extensive waves of immigration and conquest, as well as emigration, war, disease, and everything you could think of that affects the lives of people. In no area in this part of the world has demographics remained constant since the classical period. Ancient Anatolians actually make up none of the Turkish population today, as they're all dead. The proposed text is not an improvement. However, it may be worth changing the sentence currently in the text, perhaps to something like "Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since ancient times. The Seljuk Turks, after which Turkey (derived from the Medieval Latin Turchia, i.e. "Land of the Turks") was named, began migrating into the area in the 11th century." I personally see no indication that the Seljuks killed/displaced the pre-existing population. Migration is generally not an aggressive word. CMD (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I adopted this wording, with a slight tweak. Dropped "population genetics" (!).Cavann (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No you didn't adopt that wording, and your "tweak" was neither a "tweak", nor "slight". I have implemented the suggested wording. Athenean (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

So now you are opposed to mentioning Ancient Anatolians in the lead? Cavann (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am, and I'm not the only one. Look around. 5 editors are in agreement with the wording proposed by CMD, not yours. That's called consensus. If you continue to edit-war against conesnsus, you will be reported and blocked.

What? They are against the original wording, not necessarily against the newer one. The newer one is completely different, and ignores the descent aspect. Cavann (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Read the wording CMD proposed above. What does it say? That is the wording agreed upon by the other editors. Everyone except you is against mentioning the descent aspect. Athenean (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you an idiot? Read what the newer version says: "Anatolia has been continuously inhabited since stone age, including various Ancient Anatolian civilizations. The Seljuk Turks began migrating into the area now called Turkey (derived from the Medieval Latin Turchia, i.e. "Land of the Turks") in the 11th century."

There is nothing about descent. Just that Ancient Anatolians used to live there. Cavann (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per CMD. I also agree with his proposed alternative phrasing. Δρ.Κ.  19:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The popular idea that language indicates genetic history is very annoying, but this is a general interest encyclopedia, rather than Polemipedia. Any absolutist stance, like "Turkey's people are primarily Central Asian" or "Turkey's people are primarily Ancient Anatolian" should be quoted and quarantined as part of Turkey's internal nationalist power struggles over history, rather than presented as fact. Support CMD's wording. Shrigley (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons I have explained above, and agree with CMD's proposed wording. Athenean (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per CMD. I was watching this from the sidelines. The article of Turkey is not a place to talk about the genetics of Turkish people. CMD's wording is compatible because it gives a separate emphasis on "ancient" and "Anatolians" and displays the "migrating" patterns of Seljuks. I might also want to add that migrating is a term to say the least of what the Seljuks have done in Anatolia. I am sure that is compromising enough in and of itself. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC2

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The leads in articles for many countries mention historical inhabitants/cultures in their territories. Should Ancient Anatolians be mentioned in Turkey? Cavann (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Turkey articles
• Top-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• B-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• B-Class Western Asia articles
• Top-importance Western Asia articles
• WikiProject Western Asia articles
• B-Class Europe articles
• High-importance Europe articles
• WikiProject Europe articles
• B-Class Assyrian articles
• High-importance Assyrian articles
• WikiProject Assyria articles
• Selected anniversaries (October 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2011)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2012)
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment