Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:39, 30 September 2004

I think we should spin off Turkey (country) from the other meanings, at least once it becomes time to update this information in accord with the WikiProject Countries. -- April 14:14 Sep 3, 2002 (PDT)

Given the fact that most of the inbound links are meant from the country (judging by the titles of the articles), I'd say there should be a block-format disambiguation at the top, with a link to Turkey (disambiguation) which lists the other meanings (actually only the bird, the others are merely dictionary entries which do not make an article). Jeronimo

• That would also work. I just based int on the Georgia (country) link. -- April

As Turkey just redirected to this article at Republic of Turkey, I moved Republic of Turkey back to Turkey. Others, e.g. Turkey, North Carolina, can easily be found with Turkey (disambiguation). -- User:Docu

I'm not entirely sure that Atatürk's slogan of "Peace at Home, Peace in the World" can really be considered the Turkish motto. It most likely isn't the official national motto as one would normally understand it, but it does seem quite prevalent. Indeed, the Foreign Affairs site opens with it. I'll leave it in until hopefully someone more knowledgeable can clarify. -Scipius 20:57 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

As long as I know, that is the Turkish motto.--Alessandro Riolo 14:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Although it is widely accepted as a national motto here in Turkey, it has no official status. Zfr 14:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For the message of the EU countries and candidates please read the Talk:Romania page.--Alessandro Riolo 12:00, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The introduction states that "until 1922, Turkey was known as the Ottoman Empire." I don't think that this is accurate. I would say that "Turkey was the center of the Ottoman empire", but I'll leave the actual editing to someone who knows more than me.

This matter can be disputed. It is a fact that the Ottoman state evolved into the Republic of Turkey, however the republic was as a state so different from the Ottoman that it can be said to be as much known as the Ottoman Empire as for example Bulgaria. From another point of view, the name Turkey is still referring to the same country after undergoing some serious change.

However, many still use the term Turkey when they are referring to the Ottoman Empire. The use of Turkey for the Ottoman state was very common before the fall of the Empire, both by foreigners and the Turks themselves. After the declaration of the republic, the official status of name Turkey was changed so that it would refer to the republic, and only the republic. In the west, however, the name Turkey can still mean both the Republic and the Ottoman Empire. The line at the start of the page is simply stating that if you have followed a link from an article about a subject dating before 1922, you should probably see the Ottoman Empire article instead. —The Phoenix 16:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be something wrong with this article. It can't be edited. —The Phoenix 18:05, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

The problem seems to have been fixed somehow. —The Phoenix 16:41, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

True or false??

True or false: a page link that is meant to be for the bird is likely to point here. 66.245.29.74 20:24, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

True! I just made one yesterday. Most of the present incoming links do seem to refer to the country however. Still, "Turkey" should redirect to "Turkey (disambiguation)" and all of the plain links to "Turkey" should be fixed. -- SS 17:30, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Demographics?

"The majority of the Turkish population (around 99%) is of Turkic ethnicity, who speak the only official language of the country, Turkish."

This is severely at odds both with the dedicated demographic page and everything I've ever read about Turkey. The demographics page, which uses the CIA Factbook as its source, lists 80% Turkish and 20% Kurdish--obviously approximations, but clearly more accurate than "99% Turkic", which is just silly. I'd hazard a guess that this line was put in by someone with an (anti-Kurdish) axe to grind. I bring it up here so as not to cause trouble by simply editing it.

Another user: But actually the first one is the true one in the sense that Kurds are also considered Turks or Turkic, that is they are not in any means minority. For example, if you ask a Kurd his/her nationality the answer would be "Turk" or "Turkic". But if you ask where s/he was from you'd get the "Kurd" or "Kurdish side of Turks". Form this perspective it doesn't look "silly". People outside Turkey suppose that in Turkey there is really a distinction. But it is actually forced as a political matter rather than a public one. Yet imho it should be better to discuss. Note- it was not me who edited the article but I do not think that the s/he had any aim to offend anyone.

Unknown user: This is just out and out bullshit! does the writer even believe this crap.

Calling Kurds a branch of Turkic people is propaganda and factually incorrect. I would imagine it would be offensive as well. IMHO it is fair to call the Kurds of Turkey Turkish Kurds, but this is only for nationality, not ethnic origin. The culture of Kurds living in Turkey is not fundamentally different from the other ethnic groups living in their area, I think this is because culture was shaped heavily by the land and religion (which is mostly common), and strong interaction over centuries homogonized things. However, the languages, apart from some vocabulary overlap, are very different. ato 18:14, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Turkish propoganda

What is it with wikipedia and its proturkish antikurdish agenda. I'm kurdish and it seems to me that not only do i have to put up with discrimination in real life but i have to log on and face cyber fascism. Most articles relating to the kurds are just plain anti kurd propoganda such as the previuos zaza article which said that its insulting to call a zaza a kurd. for your information the dimli (zaza) people are great kurdish patriots who have had many martyrs in the figt for an free and independent kurdistan.

1) Please sign your posts to Talk pages. You can do this by using four tildes ~~~~. 2) This page is not the place to raise objections in Zaza or any other page. Please complain there. If there is a dispute there and you want people who may be reading this page to comment then say so. 3) This is not Turkish propaganda, I am Turkish and an ethnic Turk, and I never spread this kind of thing. I do not understand how distinguishing Zazas from Kurds favors Turks anyways. ato 23:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well you said dont raise objections here but since you asked a question i will answer it. By saying that zaza people are distinct from kurds you are robbing the kurdish nation of 2 million people who see themselves as kurds. obviuosly this means nothing to the zaza of which i am one who see themselves as kurds but this is just another strategy bu the turkich ruling elite to fragment the kurds so much that kurdish opposition to assimilation will become impossible. Dont get me wrong i love the turkish people as they truly are our brothers but i must speak up for my people in the face of non existance, be honest think how much of a relief it would be for the turkich government if kurds started fighting tribal wars again (e.g zaza vs. kurmanc) instead of uniting to protect our millenia old culture.user:avenger

I don't get this, why does a mistake about Kurds have to be called "Turkish propoganda"? ProTurkish does not mean in any way antiKurdish, like proKurdish does not mean antiTurkish. The Turks and Kurds are friend communities living with each other for thousand years, so why is someone trying to make/call them as enemies? And why does someone think do the tribes have to fight each other because they are called as "distinct" tribes (Zaza vs. kurmanc)? Also why would Turkish government relieve if there is a war/conflict between tribes? For example wasn't it the Turkish government who reconciled Talabani and Barzani (the heads of 2 different Kurdish tribes in Northern Iraq) when they were fighting each other?user:kunefge

history

do you think is is entirely relevant to have the link to armenian genocide (an article whose neutrality is disputed) while that part of this article is generally outlining turkish history? i think it should be included in a context where the history of turkey is discussed in more detail.