EtienneDolet (talk | contribs) →Lede: cmt |
|||
Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
::::If you're ''genuinely'' worried about "overburdening" the lede, you can start by removing the [[WP:RECENT|recentist]] stuff about Erdogan, which is [[WP:UNDUE]] for the lede. But for the ethnicity stuff, the only way to remove that would be obtain a new consensus. [[User:Khirurg|Khirurg]] ([[User talk:Khirurg|talk]]) 11:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC) |
::::If you're ''genuinely'' worried about "overburdening" the lede, you can start by removing the [[WP:RECENT|recentist]] stuff about Erdogan, which is [[WP:UNDUE]] for the lede. But for the ethnicity stuff, the only way to remove that would be obtain a new consensus. [[User:Khirurg|Khirurg]] ([[User talk:Khirurg|talk]]) 11:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
::Had moved this to the proper section....as we don't normally have demographics stats in the lead text... because the infobox has it for the lead already and statistics are not desirable in leads.. Topics now covered 3 time 2 times in the lead.--[[User:Moxy|Moxy]] ([[User talk:Moxy|talk]]) 12:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC) |
::Had moved this to the proper section....as we don't normally have demographics stats in the lead text... because the infobox has it for the lead already and statistics are not desirable in leads.. Topics now covered 3 time 2 times in the lead.--[[User:Moxy|Moxy]] ([[User talk:Moxy|talk]]) 12:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::(ec) There is a long standing consensus to include the material in the lede, per the RfC last November. No amount of elaborate explication and bs like "overburderning the lede" can overcome this. I will be restoring the material. [[User:Khirurg|Khirurg]] ([[User talk:Khirurg|talk]]) 11:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::::There's a long-standing consensus, formulated some time last year, to have information concerning Turkey's demographics included in the lead. This includes the Kurdish stuff. I see just one user complaining about this on this TP as opposed to three others in favor of its inclusion. It will take much more than that to build a consensus around this bit of information in the lead. And the reason why it's being removed now is rather odd. We don't just move vital information out of the lead and into the body. Rather, we should provide a summation of the body in the lead. The demographics of Turkey being in the lead serves just that purpose. [[User:EtienneDolet|Étienne Dolet]] ([[User talk:EtienneDolet|talk]]) 12:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC) |
:::::There's a long-standing consensus, formulated some time last year, to have information concerning Turkey's demographics included in the lead. This includes the Kurdish stuff. I see just one user complaining about this on this TP as opposed to three others in favor of its inclusion. It will take much more than that to build a consensus around this bit of information in the lead. And the reason why it's being removed now is rather odd. We don't just move vital information out of the lead and into the body. Rather, we should provide a summation of the body in the lead. The demographics of Turkey being in the lead serves just that purpose. [[User:EtienneDolet|Étienne Dolet]] ([[User talk:EtienneDolet|talk]]) 12:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Neolithic/Paleolithic == |
== Neolithic/Paleolithic == |
Revision as of 12:09, 20 August 2018
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Turkey has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2007. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
add to main article
Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2018
Under "Economy," Turkey is listed as having the 17th highest GDP. However, according to the 2018 figures from the IMF, as listed on the Wiki page for countries by highest GDP, Turkey is now 18th in the world. 173.2.36.12 (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia does not cite itself. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Lede
Though there are perennial efforts to remove this from the lede I strongly support its removal:
Approximately 70–80% of the country's citizens identify themselves as ethnic Turks.[10][11] Kurds are the largest minority at about 20% of the population; other ethnic minorities include Circassians, Albanians, Arabs, Bosniaks, and Laz people.[11][12][13][14][15] The official language is Turkish, which is the most widely spoken Turkic language in the world.[16] Minority languages spoken today in Turkey include Kurmanji, Bosnian, Arabic, Zaza, Kabardian, and several others.[
This is excessive detail for the lede of an article with this much ground to cover and it duplicates information that is more effectively presented in the infobox. There is additional content editors want to add that needs to included for this lede to be a representative summary of the article, but there is no room for it (literature, cuisine, and some other issues were mentioned in previous discussions, as well as links to the unesco sites which are usually included in the lede for country articles.) Seraphim System (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- I tend too agree that there is too much detail in this presentation. However, there was a RfC about this as recently as last November, so the only possible way to change it, would be to start a new RfC. Given the way these discussions usually takes, it would be advicable to take great care in formulating the RfC. Regards! --T*U (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- That was not an RfC, it was a discussion that was closed by the same editor who opened the discussion without addressing any of the substantive issues I raised (See Talk:Turkey/Archive_26#Should_Kurds_be_discussed_in_the_lead?) I think Kurds should be included in the lede, but I'm not convinced that disputed population studies from the 1990s convey the most critical information about this topic, and the space in the lede is limited. (See also this Cambridge University Press source noting two 1990 studies from 12.6% - 24%. [1]) - what was clear to me from the discussions last year was that editors have a lot of knowledge about the Turkifcation era, but there is generally a poor understanding the critical Cold War and post-Cold War period. In fact, some of the comments in the various discussions that took place around that time indicated that at least some editors working on this article connect the ban of the Kurdish language in 1980 with Kemalist era Turkification policies (50 or 60 years prior). I've never seen a single reliable source supporting this and no editor on this talk page has produced one, despite multiple requests. If there is such a source, I would definitely like to see it. Adding to this, the rest of the list is an incomplete list of arbitrarily selected "ethnic minorities" and "minority languages" - (I know we don't count German Turks as an "ethnic group" for example - maybe it's because German just isn't very ethnic? - or the French language isn't "minority" enough?) Seraphim System (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Demographics statistics like this almost always requires further explanation that would overburden the lede of this article. It doesn't even tell you what that particular study defined as "Kurds" (there are mutiple possible definitions - it could mean Kurds who identify as both Turkish or Kurdish, it could include Kurds who speak Turkish as their mother tongue but identify as Kurdish, it could mean only Kurds who speak Kurdish as their first language, or who don't speak Turkish at all. Just saying "20% of the population are Kurds" is entirely trivial. If this is a percentage of people who self-identify as Kurdish we have to make that clear. Seraphim System (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- That was not an RfC, it was a discussion that was closed by the same editor who opened the discussion without addressing any of the substantive issues I raised (See Talk:Turkey/Archive_26#Should_Kurds_be_discussed_in_the_lead?) I think Kurds should be included in the lede, but I'm not convinced that disputed population studies from the 1990s convey the most critical information about this topic, and the space in the lede is limited. (See also this Cambridge University Press source noting two 1990 studies from 12.6% - 24%. [1]) - what was clear to me from the discussions last year was that editors have a lot of knowledge about the Turkifcation era, but there is generally a poor understanding the critical Cold War and post-Cold War period. In fact, some of the comments in the various discussions that took place around that time indicated that at least some editors working on this article connect the ban of the Kurdish language in 1980 with Kemalist era Turkification policies (50 or 60 years prior). I've never seen a single reliable source supporting this and no editor on this talk page has produced one, despite multiple requests. If there is such a source, I would definitely like to see it. Adding to this, the rest of the list is an incomplete list of arbitrarily selected "ethnic minorities" and "minority languages" - (I know we don't count German Turks as an "ethnic group" for example - maybe it's because German just isn't very ethnic? - or the French language isn't "minority" enough?) Seraphim System (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- There's a long-standing consensus, formulated some time last year, to have information concerning Turkey's demographics included in the lead. This includes the Kurdish stuff. I see just one user complaining about this on this TP as opposed to three others in favor of its inclusion. It will take much more than that to build a consensus around this bit of information in the lead. And the reason why it's being removed now is rather odd. We don't just move vital information out of the lead and into the body. Rather, we should provide a summation of the body in the lead. The demographics of Turkey being in the lead serves just that purpose. Étienne Dolet (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Neolithic/Paleolithic
I checked the citations and found that Oxford Handbooks and the Greenwood book only verify Neolithic. Paleolithic (earlier period) was cited only to a primary archeology paper with 43 cites. The article also currently says Neolithic so now the lede is consistent with the article text. I removed the list of nationalities for conciseness and because I don't think there are any sources that will verify this type of national differentiation in the Neolithic era. Seraphim System (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, i was self reverting but you were faster. Sorry. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. The removals are unacceptable. The material is sourced to a peer-reviewed journal paper. It is not "primary" or any such nonsense. Can you also explain the "43 cites" bit? That makes absolutely no sense. Also, the text does not say the various nationalities were "differentiated", so please don't make stuff up. Khirurg (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- This revert does not seem it was done in good faith [[2]] due to an assumption of bad faith in the edit summary and the restoration of information contradicted by multiple other cited sources and other unverifiable information (like the area was inhabited by Greeks since the Paleolithic period) - there are no sources for this because its not true.Seraphim System (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. The removals are unacceptable. The material is sourced to a peer-reviewed journal paper. It is not "primary" or any such nonsense. Can you also explain the "43 cites" bit? That makes absolutely no sense. Also, the text does not say the various nationalities were "differentiated", so please don't make stuff up. Khirurg (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- The revert was actually made to improve the article. I can see that Khirurg makes a good point regarding the sources. It's peer-reviewed and is not Primary. What makes you think it's Primary? Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- This source doesn't say anything about continuous settlement - (inhabited since). There is established archaeological evidence of continuous settlement dating back only to the Neolithic period. This may be why the Oxford Handbook and other secondary sources have chosen Neolithic instead of Paleolithic—there may be other reasons also. There may not be consensus about whether the Paleolithic sites are human or Neanderthal. In any case, what matters here is that we should not just override Oxford Handbook's choice with our own. This paper is a primary source, but not for settlement—it a study comparing Paleolithic ornaments from different places. It's been improperly interpreted here to imply continuous settlement by various groups since the Paleolithic era (even though there are strong secondary sources already cited in the article that contradict this). And Greeks didn't settle the Anatolian mainland until the 8th century BC- that's thousands of years after the Neolithic. Seraphim System (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- The problem with your edit is that you removed specific mentions of minorities when it is reliably sourced. Now, the sentence says SINCE the paleolithic age. This can encompass the Neolithic period as well. Or, as you mention, the 8th century BC. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Minorities? Like the Phrygians? Do you see anything in the lede that you would agree to remove? Seraphim System (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- The problem with your edit is that you removed specific mentions of minorities when it is reliably sourced. Now, the sentence says SINCE the paleolithic age. This can encompass the Neolithic period as well. Or, as you mention, the 8th century BC. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- This source doesn't say anything about continuous settlement - (inhabited since). There is established archaeological evidence of continuous settlement dating back only to the Neolithic period. This may be why the Oxford Handbook and other secondary sources have chosen Neolithic instead of Paleolithic—there may be other reasons also. There may not be consensus about whether the Paleolithic sites are human or Neanderthal. In any case, what matters here is that we should not just override Oxford Handbook's choice with our own. This paper is a primary source, but not for settlement—it a study comparing Paleolithic ornaments from different places. It's been improperly interpreted here to imply continuous settlement by various groups since the Paleolithic era (even though there are strong secondary sources already cited in the article that contradict this). And Greeks didn't settle the Anatolian mainland until the 8th century BC- that's thousands of years after the Neolithic. Seraphim System (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- The revert was actually made to improve the article. I can see that Khirurg makes a good point regarding the sources. It's peer-reviewed and is not Primary. What makes you think it's Primary? Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Greeks didn't settle the Anatolian mainland until the 8th century BC
- You have some reading to do. May I suggest [3]? Btw the article is not claiming the Greeks settled in the Neolithic. Care to explain how you came up with that? Khirurg (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)- I know it may seem trite, but it's important for the reliability of Wikipedia overall that we get these things right - you really have to use reliable sources on Wikipedia. I don't appreciate being lectured that I "some reading to do"—I shouldn't have to be a subject matter expert, the content in the article should be verifiable. Most mainstream sources say its been inhabited since the Neolithic. Sometimes it's necessary to simplify (without dumbing down) - especially in the LEDE of a country article. If you are very interested in Greek pottery and prehistoric periodization, this is not a good article for it. There are a lot of problems with the chronology and pinpointing when you can start calling the inhabitants "Greeks", as well as problems with the periodization during the Chalcolithic. The lede of this article is not the place to introduce these theories. It should be a concise summary that links to more detailed articles (many of which are badly in need of improvement).Seraphim System (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Some issues to think about
The article text itself needs a bit of work. The lede should be the last issue. I'm not sure if I should nominate it for GAR first - some issues like discussing emigration to Israel and the Wealth Tax in the Christianity section (uncited) are pretty dismal in terms of organization/well-written - maybe we should consider discussing GAR at this point, until these issues are fixed.
- Varlık Vergisi (The Wealth Tax on non-Muslims in 1942) is discussed only in the section about Christianity. Also discussed in that section is 1948 emigration to Israel. (Also uncited).
- The lede is not summarizing the article. 20% Kurdish population is in the lede cited to 5 different sources, while the article text says 18-25% and it cited to different sources. Most of the disagreements about the lede in the article stem from POV editing of the lede that contradicts the article. (Changing Neolithic to Paleolithic, the demographics studies, the RfC about removing secular/democracy from the lede without bothering to improve the article content first, etc.)
- The lede says the Ottoman Empire became a "world power" during the early modern period. This isn't discussed in the article, it isn't verified by the cited source and editors removed the quote needed tag instead of supplying the quote that I requested.
Seraphim System (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- What? None of these are "issues". Of course the Varlik Vergisi is going to be in the Christianity section, since it targeted Christians. And of course we're going to mention the Kurds in the lede. I do not recommend trying to remove that. As for the Ottoman Empire being a world power, that's kind of WP:BLUESKY, though we can change it to "major power". Khirurg (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, they are issues. The prose style, poor organization and citations that fail verification are serious issues. It's not WP:BLUESKY, there is disagreement in sources about this term — I don't think you should be telling other editors they "have some reading to do"—the content in the article needs a citation that actually verifies it.Seraphim System (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
World Power
The conquests or Selim I are identified as the starting point of Ottoman "world power" by sources that are already cited in the article.[1] Other sources say Suleyman and some say it was never a world power. The link to "early modern period" doesn't provide any critical information either. In any case, the best way to proceed is to trim the content about the Ottoman Empire as much as possible, so content that is actually about the subject of this article can be added. Seraphim System (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Howard, Douglas Arthur (2001). The History of Turkey. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-313-30708-9.
Recent changes
Boccadasse Welcome to Wikipedia. I see you have made a lot of changes to this article recently, please use edit summaries to explain the changes you are making. This article is GA so it has to comply with certain standards and more experienced editors might want to look over the changes and verify the sourcing. Georgepodros, the line about Erdogan can not be removed without a discussion as it's inclusion was the result of a lengthy discussion involving multiple editors. This isn't the first time and I think you've previously been informed about the RfC, so please don't try to remove it without starting a discussion. Seraphim System (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Etymology
I've sourced the Etymology to OED. It should not be replaced with unsourced content or OR as recent edits have done. This section has some history of disruptive editing from what I have found. I think Boccadasse should explain why he has restored it, and that he should explain his edits with edit summaries.
The problems with the previous section are as follows:
- "The name of Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye) can be divided into two components: the ethnonym Türk (Old Turkic: 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰰 Türk[28][29][30]) and the abstract suffix –iye meaning "owner", "land of" or "related to" (originally derived from the Greek and Latin suffixes –ia in Tourkia (Τουρκία) and Turchia; and later from the corresponding Arabic suffix –iyya in Turkiyya (تركيا).)" -Entirely unsourced.
- Etymonline is an SPS. I checked the 3rd edition of the Bartleby dictionary cited and it doesn't have any of the etymology information it was cited for in the article, but perhaps the 4th edition is different? Can someone check?
- 'The Turkic self-designation Türk is first attested in reference to the Göktürks in the 6th century AD. A letter by Ishbara Qaghan to Emperor Wen of Sui in 585 described him as "the Great Turk Khan." - I checked multiple RS about this and none discuss it as etymology, all the the reliable sources consider this significant to the debate of simultaneous kingship. The source cited in the article does not seem reliable.
- The source about Old Turkic inscriptions for Turk is cited only to a low cite, inaccessible work published by a little known publisher. It seems to be more about the etymology of Turk than Turkey.
- The content about the Greek name Tourkia should probably be added to Name of Turkey. This is not etymology either, as none of the sources I checked draw any links between this term and the English language.
Seraphim System (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
GAR
I am planning to nominate this article for GAR either today or tomorrow. A new editor Boccadasse continues to restore unsourced/poorly sourced/badly written/unverifiable content to the article. It is effecting several criteria including NOR. I don't see any other choice as long as this continues. Seraphim System (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I noticed that over the last couple days. @Boccadasse: you seem to be ignoring the editors trying to give you advice and restoring sometimes years-old revisions with your edits. Can you please explain what you're doing? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm simply adding sources (books) published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, including the URL of the specific book pages so that you can click on them and see the written content for yourselves. Boccadasse (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- No you are not, your edits have removed sourced content, restoring unsourced content that was added by an editor with a history of disruptive editing on this article and undoing other changes that have already been discussed on this talk page. I'm not going to continue edit warring with you, but my opinion is that this article no longer meets the GA criteria. It probably has not for a long time but there was so much disruption and rapid fire undiscussed editing that some of it seems to have slipped by unnoticed until now. Seraphim System (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm simply adding sources (books) published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, including the URL of the specific book pages so that you can click on them and see the written content for yourselves. Boccadasse (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The obvious attempt to blacken the image of the Turkish Republic
This stupid rubbish on Erdoğan and his policies has no place in the lede, what other country has such a dedicated paragraph on the lede regarding their current leader? Do we see the same case for Poland or Hungary, countries with autocratic leaders? NO. This belongs in the politics section. Its mostly true Im not against that, but its not lede worthy, youre all trying to blacken the image of the republic. Fools like erdoğan win thanks to you people because he tricks his supporters into thinking every western country other than Turkey is somehow an enemy. You people show yourselves as haters of Turkey trying to blacken her image. This is why that erdoğan is winning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs)
- I added a POV statement tag to this line. There is consensus for this from a previous RfC. I think the line is mostly fine and supported though perhaps a Wiki-link should be added to clarify the earlier reforms. It still makes it sound a bit too much like freedom of the press was a Kemalist policy, when it was actually much more recent then that. But I'm not sure what other problems there are. Georgepodros, please comment here rather then continuing to remove this line against the current consensus. Seraphim System (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Circumcision
Should circumcision be mentioned?
Recent reverts
- Please do not restore unsourced content to the article. This was stated clearly in the edit summary. If something is removed because it is unsourced, it should not be restored without a source. This should not lead to edit warring, but restoring unsourced content is completely unacceptable.
- Per MOS:LEDECITE -
editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.
- avoid redundant citations in the lede. This is not controversial, it's not likely to be challenged and it doesn't need a citation in the lede. Following WP:BRD means leaving a comment on talk explaining why you restored the content and addressing the justification that is clearly given in the edit summaries. That did not happen here and I have restored the content. Seraphim System (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't agree with your position here, as i said in my edit-summary, given the revision history of this article, i think (unlike you) that the information is quite controversial and requires a cite for it in the lead.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- What information is controversial? I don't know what you mean by "the information". That citation was added after the GA review, and the content it was added to verify has since been removed. There is already a source for it in the article. Seraphim System (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the territorial share of Turkey between Asia and Europe. In Europe, this is a controversial question to find out whether Turkey is or isn't a European country. Therefore, according to me, this needs a cite in the lead.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining. That content is clearly and unambiguously sourced in the article. Citations in the lede are usually not preferred for GA-class articles. I am planning to clean up the rest of them at some point. However, while following up on this I found that Eurasia was not sourced, so I have added a source for this. Seraphim System (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the territorial share of Turkey between Asia and Europe. In Europe, this is a controversial question to find out whether Turkey is or isn't a European country. Therefore, according to me, this needs a cite in the lead.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- What information is controversial? I don't know what you mean by "the information". That citation was added after the GA review, and the content it was added to verify has since been removed. There is already a source for it in the article. Seraphim System (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't agree with your position here, as i said in my edit-summary, given the revision history of this article, i think (unlike you) that the information is quite controversial and requires a cite for it in the lead.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)