Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
[[User:Dousis|Dousis]] ([[User talk:Dousis|talk]]) 17:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC) |
[[User:Dousis|Dousis]] ([[User talk:Dousis|talk]]) 17:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
:How about improving the Economy section of the [[Greece]] article? I can personally give you a hand on that one. [[User:StanStun|StanStun]] ([[User talk:StanStun|talk]]) 00:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:14, 24 April 2010
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
- Units in metric Manual of Style.
- Only external links pertaining to Turkey as a whole, or official government of Turkey links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles. For further information, please see Wikipedia guidelines on External links and Conflict of interest.
- All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits.
- Please provide references when adding new information.
- Please use the correct citation format when adding references. If you are not sure which one is appropriate, please see WP:CITE for a list of available citation templates.
Turkey is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2007. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
Discussion of Armenian Events
By not even mentioning the events around WW1 involving Armenians, or linking to other Wikipedia pages discussing it, this article is not presenting a neutral point of view, and so should be flagged as a biased page. There has been discussion and accusations of bias on the talk page so presumably all mentions of the events that have been added have afterwards been deleted. A Stalinist approach to history. 194.80.178.1 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Turkey was not founded until 1923, and therefore there is no requirement for this page to have links to any of the events that took place before that. --82.109.84.254 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Emblem
Turkey does not have any official or semi-official emblem, coat of arms or symbol. The oval emblem used on this article is not this: [1] (reads: Republic of Turkey - Consulate General) or this: [2] (T.C. for Republic of Turkey - Ministry of Foreign Affairs). These emblems represent just ministry of foreign affairs and embassies of Turkey, and are not the emblem(s) of Republic of Turkey. There is no statement about coat of arms/emblem for Turkey in any entry of its constitution. For this purpose, emblem section on article must be left blank. Kaygtr (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that we should provide some explanation in the article why Turkey doesn't have any emblem / coat of arms; may be something like in Turkish wikipedia (they have link to emblem page in infobox but don't have any image above it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins (talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Turkey hasn'T got an emblem but This embliem is Cumhurbaşkanlığı flaması (presidental emblem) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.11.54 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Presidential seal should replace the current emblem Vsyncie (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since the Republic of Turkey – which is what this article is about – does not have an official coat of arms or national emblem, it is misleading to present the emblem of some other entity (such as the Presidency of Turkey) as the national emblem. I have removed the current fantasy emblem (a creative derivation of the seals seen on Turkish embassies). I am all in favour of providing some explanation why Turkey doesn't have any emblem or coat of arms (presumably based on Afet İnan's account that Atatürk did not like the proposed design; does anyone know if this was the design by Namık İsmail Bey?); in fact, that should be recounted in an article Emblems of Turkey to which Unofficial emblem of Turkey, Emblem of Turkey and Coat of arms of Turkey should all redirect. --Lambiam 12:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Oval design is just fantasy, which is derived from the emblem of Turkish embassies. I suggest its removal. Kaygtr (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just thought I'd point out that if an emblem is used by embassies and ministries, that HARDLY makes it a fantasy, and Lambian should stop refering to it as such. Turkey doesn't have an official emblem, this is true, but the unofficial ones should be mentioned and linked to the main page. Fry1989 (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Please read this article: Unofficial emblem of Turkey. Kaygtr (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oval design is derived from the Emblem of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (it is not the Emblem of Turkey). Creator of image changed the colours and removed Dışişleri Bakanlığı (M.F.A.). Such emblem is not used anywhere. Kaygtr (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Turkey is not a secular, democratic state, it only sees itself as such
Turkey is already secular and democratic country. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_Turkey#Part_One:_General_Principles
- The theory of official declarations is one important source of information, but it appears against the Wikipedia spirit (and guidelines) to believe every official declaration with any critical analysis. The constitution of the former Sovjet Union also presents it as a democracy, but in reality ir was a totalitarian dictatorship!
User:Uber-Star005 04:37 9 June 2009 (UTC) where is Islam in this history of turkey,it was the motive behind the great Ottoman Empire,it was demolished by European because of its religion, you can not change history,all turks (99.8%) are Moslims and they are nowadays returning to Islam dont lesson to Billy dancers or a witter who dreams to be some thing he shouldn't be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.234.217 (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Pretending that all Turks are Muslims is a political program, which is in contradiction with the reality of the known existence of the many individual non-Muslim Turks, e.g. Hrant Dink! And so many other, known, Turks from Armenians or other Christian denominations. There is indeed a strong emigration of those non-Muslims, who report severe persecution because of their belief! This, also, is a solid reason why Turkey cannot be considered as a secular state.
Another reason is the fact that the huge budget of Diyanet goes entirely to Sunni imam's and other sunni's, and nothing to Shia, Alevi or Christians!
Also in the text, an article in the constitution regarding freedom of religion is mentioned: "Turkey is a secular state with no official state religion; the Turkish Constitution provides for freedom of religion and conscience."[102][103] Which gives an impression as this law is abided, yet there are lots of complaints coming from minority religious groups; for a long time Orthodox church is complaining about the clousure of Halki Seminary, Alevis also recently protested against state's policy of disregarding religions other than Sunni Islam. So a note about that should be added to the article, which is giving a false impression at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabadam (talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The government keeps a record of your religion and that percentage is based on the statistics of that records. I am a completely materialistic person but my record says that I am Muslim. Don't be too hasty. --88.240.87.93 (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
- The government keeps a record of your religion; Oh yeah? Which government on the earth does not?! (At least for the sake of stats) USA and EU countries do the same, as well. I guess you don't want to imagine a country without any statistics/information on the religions of the people living in, do you? --Deksar (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
pezza and a bagel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.16.135 (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Where is the map?
Where is the Turkey's map in this article??Please add it.User:Uber-Star005 04:32 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Absence of Proper Coverage
There is an absence in the article of coverage of two vital issues. The Armenian genocide of the 1st World War Period, and the occupation and ethnic cleansing of Northern Cyprus. These both need to be properly covered per Wikipedia policy. Xandar 21:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
There is much to write about this subjects, but from the views of people whom lived, whom killed and whom forced to leave their lands, but seems like someones' point of views lack of objectiveness as we are talking about wars here. I totally agree with what happened in the Cyprus and East Anatolia must be covered with it's all aspects, and even more of it, in Crete, in Balkans, in Caucasus....maybe then it would be clearly understood what a genocide and ethnic cleansing have happened in those days... Yunus.sendag (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The article does not appear to refer to the Armenian genocide at all – not even to mention the controversy. I think the article should note the basic facts and the controversy and link to the existing Wikipedia page on the subject. The article does at least refer to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and links to the Wikipedia page on that topic. Brachiator (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I propose the following language to cover the Armenian Genocide with a minimum of angst—and especially as this omission from the Turkey article has gone without remedy in the 7 months since we discussed it. The omission is important, because someone reading the article would not gain so much as a hint of the events or even that there's any controversy over what happened. Therefore, at the end of History > Turks and the Ottoman Empire, I'd add:
During the last several years of the Ottoman Empire, the events that have become commonly known as the Armenian Genocide occurred. The particulars of these events, and the use of the term "genocide," are a subject of significant controversy.
I'm tempted to simply insert these sentences now, but I thought it better (especially as a relative noob), to submit them for at least a few days' consideration first. Brachiator (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I am guessing you are either an Armanian or a Cypriot Greek?..
If either of the above is true your comments should not be taken seriously. You are obviously very biased and the facts would not concern you as it never concerns anyone with a sinister agenda. You are obviously trying to discredit Turks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.204.67 (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
If you are referring to me, anonymous commenter from unsigned IP 86.145.204.67, then you are wrong on two counts. First, I am neither Armenian nor Cypriot Greek. Second, even if I were, my ethnicity or national origin would be irrelevant to the "truth." More importantly, the truth at issue here is whether the article adequately covers the debate over the Armenian genocide and Cyprus. Therefore, I am neither "obviously" biased nor "obviously" trying to "discredit Turks" (whatever that means). Also, your implication, that Armenians and Cypriot Greeks "should not be taken seriously" and are possessed of "a sinister agenda," is quite racist and has no place here. Brachiator (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Geographic location 8 way template
This template was not designed for countries, it was made to be placed onto cities or towns articles, the use here is not recommended
Add for central role of Turkey
Add for central role of Turkey 99.29.187.54 (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The pictures taken by John Elder between 1917 and 1919 constitute a rare photo documentation of the conditions in Armenia during some of the most trying years in the history of the Armenian people.
John Elder was a witness of the Ottoman invasion of Armenia in 1918 and experienced the trials of the Armenian people during the month of May when the struggle for survival reached its critical moment. His photographs capture the conditions of the Armenian population, especially those of the refugees to whose care he committed his energies. Elder traveled throughout Armenia and took photographs in all major points of refugee concentration and where relief work was being conducted. His images of the destitute and of the orphans are specially compelling. Captured unobtrusively, they testify to John Elder's sincerity as a humanitarian.
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/photo_elder.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.52.89 (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, maybe only partially humanitarian since he has not recorded any of the suffering of the non-Christians, whose very country was being ripped apart at the time. These must be the refugees the Armenians usually claimed to have been "genocided".--Murat (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Şu 1,500,000 Ermeni öldürüldüyü Casualities of Armeniansdaki gibi 600,000 yapıp; 527,000 de Türk mahvoldu diye yazamıyor musunuz ? Beni yasakaldılar, düşünsenize adam tursit bir şeyler öğrenmek için gelecek bir anda ne görsün. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.184.239.121 (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Göktürk
Current English translation is "Sky Turk." This could mean "Blue Turk." It needs confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.3.60.205 (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
No it means Celestial Turks; Turks that know the sky or sometimes interpreted as sky {God} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.77.28 (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Turkery
Turkey is border by eight countries Bulgana to the northwest: Greece to the west; Georgia to the northeast; Armenia, Azerbaljan (the exclave of Nakhcnivan) and Iran to the east; and Iraq and Syria to the Southeast. The Mediterranean Sea and Cyprus are to the South; the Aegean Sea to the West; and the Black is to the north. --165.29.181.28 (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Mariah White
Turkey or Istanbul?
Many of the article photos are related to Istanbul. It would be better if we could change them with photos of different regions of the country. 88.239.228.216 (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
History of Turks
Sky Turks were not oldest anchestors of Turks..Turks and Turkic people came from Afanasevo and Andronovo Culture.
http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasiyevo_k%C3%BClt%C3%BCr%C3%BC
--88.236.142.171 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC) (talk)18.08, 25 March 2010
- This issue is not discussed at all in this article, which is specifically about the Republic of Turkey (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti). The oldest ancestors of the modern Turks are, depending on whether you believe in evolution or not, the last universal ancestor or Adam and Eve. Or was it the she-wolf Asena and an unnamed boy? There is considerable genetic evidence that the modern Turks of Anatolia largely descend from the earlier inhabitants of Anatolia from the time it was part of the Roman Empire, and thus ultimately from the Bythinians, Phrygians, Lydians, and so on. Your observation would better fit with our article History of the Turkic peoples. However, I wonder if there are reliable sources that clearly state that the Afanasevo and Andronovo cultures were Turkic. --Lambiam 21:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Turkiye on the map
Can you change the colour of Turkiye to red on the map? --Kirov Airship (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
- Done. --Lambiam 20:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Why was this necessary, every territory on wikipedia is green on the map, there is no reason why it should be otherwise.--84.104.37.107 (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the Halki Seminary (some background information for Dousis)
In 1971 the Turkish government issued a law which made it obligatory for all institutions of higher education in Turkey to become nationalized and operate under the supervision of the Ministry of Education.
The law was tailored almost exclusively for Robert College in Istanbul (the university section of which was nationalized and became the Boğaziçi University in 1971), but it affected another institution of higher education: The Halki Theological School at the Heybeliada Island in the Sea of Marmara, to the southeast of Istanbul (the Greeks still call the island with its historic name Halki.) In those days the Cyprus issue was tense and the Turkish authorities wanted the Heybeliada Theological School to likewise operate under the Turkish Ministry of Education. The Patriarchate refused, claiming that the Treaty of Lausanne gave them special minority rights which would allow such an institution to operate independently from the supervision of the Turkish government on its educational curricula.
But the main reason, of course, is that the Church sees itself as a "divine authority" that's responsible "only to God"; so any form of control or supervision over the Church's teachings by a "secular authority" such as the Turkish government is regarded as "blasphemous". To give an example, the Orthodox Church in Greece is largely independent from the Greek government's jurisdiction. Places like the Mount Athos monastic complex are almost totally independent from the control of the Greek government's authorities. The Patriarchate desires a similar form of independence in Turkey, hence the clash with the Turkish government. The fact that Turkey is a secular but "largely Muslim" country, governed by "Muslim Turks", makes such a "blasphemy" even more unacceptable for the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate.
Another important factor is a popular suspicion among the Turks that a largely independent Christian theological school of higher education will pave the way for similarly independent Islamic schools, which is perceived as a threat for the secular education system in Turkey. StanStun (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Church property such as the Halki Seminary have not been "expropriated" as User:Dousis claims, they still belong to the church. StanStun (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
As for the role of the Patriarchate according to the Treaty of Lausanne
Even though the Patriarchate is historically and traditionally called the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Ankara government made sure during the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 that it should be recognized merely as the "Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Istanbul" and be responsible only for the affairs of the local Greek Orthodox community in Turkey. The treaty also implies that the Patriarch can only be a Turkish citizen (he should be chosen among the Turkish citizens, i.e. the local Greeks living in Turkey.) The Russians still don't recognize him as the "leader of the Orthodox Church", but merely as a smybolic primus inter pares, i.e. the spokesman during the synods. In short, he is not an Orthodox Pope, and therefore not the leader of the world's Orthodox Christians. StanStun (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Response to User:StanStun
StanStun, let me help you get your facts straight. In your own words, my edit supposedly contained "too many errors," so let's go through it sentence by sentence and analyze where my supposed "errors" are.
"The Orthodox Church has been headquartered in Istanbul since the fourth century AD."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure even you agree with this sentence. The reason this is worth mentioning in an article on Turkey is that Orthodoxy is a major world faith, and it has a long association with the part of the world that is now Turkey.
"However, the Turkish government does not recognize the Patriarch, Bartholomew I, as the primary bishop of Orthodox Christianity, and forces the Church to operate under significant restrictions."
State-sponsored discrimination against a religious organization is noteworthy and belongs in an article about a country; the articles on Saudi Arabia and the People's Republic of China mention their respective lacks of religious freedom. In your comments, you wrote, "in short, [Bartholomew] is not an Orthodox Pope, and therefore not the leader of the world's Orthodox Christians." Nowhere in my edit did I suggest that Bartholomew is an "Orthodox Pope." He is not. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are organized differently. As you correctly asserted, he is a primus inter pares among several Orthodox Patriarchs, including that of Russia. I even linked the words "primary bishop," the title that best describes his status, to the primus inter pares article. However, as Ecumenical Patriarch, he asserts direct leadership over Orthodox Christians in Turkey, the United States, Latin America, and other parts of the world not governed by autocephalous (independent) Orthodox churches. He is also widely looked to as the Church's main (hence primus) spiritual leader by Orthodox Christians worldwide. This explains the title "ecumenical," which means "universal." The fact that the Turkish government does not recognize him as such, and limits his successors to Turkish citizens, is part of a longstanding effort to discredit the Patriarch and the Orthodox Church. As an Orthodox Christian and a free American citizen, I will never allow any government, especially a hostile one, to tell me who the leader of my church is. Furthermore, I ask you, StanStun: if Bartholomew is not the leader of the world's Orthodox Christians, then who is? The fact that you will be unable to answer this question further validates my point.
"Most of the Church's properties and schools have been expropriated, while Christians remain widely persecuted in Turkey."
Your main objection seems to be with the fact that I linked the word "expropriated" to the article on the Halki Theological School. I'll ignore your scare quotes around "divine authority" and "blasphemous," which are intended to make the Orthodox argument look irrational. Since the 1920s, the Turkish government has progressively taken over (or as you put it, "nationalized") many schools, hospitals, and land owned by the Patriarchate. Though they have done this with ostensibly benevolent aims, the real motive for these actions is to deny the Orthodox Church a presence in Turkey. As you correctly point out, "In 1971 the Turkish government issued a law which made it obligatory for all institutions of higher education in Turkey to become nationalized and operate under the supervision of the Ministry of Education." But you imply that the Orthodox Church is still free to do as it pleases with Halki, since it "still belongs to the church." "Nationalization" is equivalent with "expropriation." When a government "nationalizes" something, be it a copper mine, an oil well, or a university, it takes its ownership away from its private owner and transfers it to the government. StanStun, I have been to Halki. The seminary has sat empty for forty years, not having trained a single new priest. The "nationalization" essentially shuttered the school. You claim that the Church still owns Halki--technically, they may still have title to the land. I'm honestly not sure if it does or doesn't. But whether or not they do doesn't matter, since the Turkish government has taken over the seminary, even if it did so unofficially. If the Patriarchate were still free to operate Halki, why haven't any new priests been trained there since 1971? Why would President Obama, in his speech to the Turkish parliament, ask that Halki be re-opened? To re-open something, it would have to be closed in the first place. The Turkish government closed Halki in order to deny the Patriarchate new clergy and bishops. This is the same motive behind the Turkish law requiring Patriarchs to be Turkish citizens. If the church can't train new Turkish bishops, eventually there will be no Turkish-born bishops to become Patriarch. Then, the Turkish government will succeed at its longstanding effort to force the Patriarchate out of Turkey forever. This is religious persecution, and if you would only watch the CBS 60 Minutes special that I linked to in my edit, you'd see it for yourself.
I bear no malice towards Turkey, its civilization, or its people. Although I strongly disagree with the actions of Turkey's government towards its Christian minority, I have defended my edit for the sake of accuracy and not to promote a political viewpoint. StanStun, all I ask is that you do not allow whatever personal beliefs you might hold about Greeks and Christians to bias your editing of the Turkey article.