Talk:Turkey/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30

De Jure democracy?

I am confused. What makes Turkey a "de jure" democracy. its the only par. system in europe with general and presidential elections. an authoritarian government does not make it a "de jure" democracy. and the government may take the press issue too far, but many arrests are for propoganda for the pkk. so I dont care if you think the pkk is some freedom fighting army, your country calls it a terror org. I wonder if anybpdy would care if britain started shutting down IRA media or if iraq did the same for ISIS. this is the same thing

I've replaced the phrase, as it's the constitution I believe that was meant to refer to [[1]]. Therefore, it says that now. Hope that's acceptable. --Calthinus (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that "de jure" should not be used unless there is a very good reason to use it over plain English. Seraphim System (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Establishment of the state

The empire was founded in 1299, many events transpired, the important ones worthy of the infobox are really just the empire foundation, the dissolution of the empire (1919) and the declaration of the republic (1923). lets do that. Turkey has signed dozens of treaties over centuries so these two kars/lausanne are not for the infobox but the history section

I agree that 1299 should be mentioned, but it has to be named as "Ottoman Empire", not only "Empire". The Republic of Turkey has never been an empire, and there is no continuation from OE to Turkey. Turkey is a successor state, but not the same state. --T*U (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I did change to Ottoman Empire and also linked in the lede Seraphim System (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

sourced content

Ottoman empire was a world power according to source, you all removed it. who is a "pov pusher"? absurd! why should languages of minorities be in infobox, thats intro section information Ottoman empire was the previous regime of Turkey, france uk germany all do the same, hypocrisy there! 

can anybody justify?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
In general I would appreciate it if everyone could maintain basic civility in their edit summaries, and follow WP:BRD - the justifications for many of this reverts have been specious at best. This tactic of wearing editors down is part of WP:ADVOCACY, and basic civility is a minimum requirement for discussion and collaborative editing. I suspect editors are aware of this, and this is causing the edit warring problems on this article (and several others). Seraphim System (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent disputes

As these don't appear to be discussed on the talk page, I will start sections to discuss them.

Should Ottoman Empire be included in the infobox as an "established event"?

Discuss. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No, because it's a separate state. Khirurg (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be included. Seraphim System (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

PLEASE go ahead and delete UK, Germany, France, and all european countries previous states from the info box. cause they all have empire this and republic that on there. Hypocrites! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs)

At Succession_of_states#Ottoman_Empire.2FTurkey, it says "There is some debate over whether the modern Republic of Turkey is a continuing state to the Ottoman Empire or a successor." power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I checked United Kingdom and I don't see any previous states listed but I checked Italy and it does have a formation section, which could be appropriate here instead of "established event" - with the caveat that putting this section together is unlikely to be straightforward, as the history is varied and long. Seraphim System (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Seraphim System. Ottoman Empire should be in the infobox - but not as an "established event".Icewhiz (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Looking at other countries, I've added a header field; the inclusion of pre-20th century dates should make more sense with the right header text. I think that something for the Ottomans should be included; the other question is whether any dates for the Byzantine Empire or Sultanate of Rum should be listed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
In the start I had a weak support for including "Ottoman Empire 1299", but with the heading "Formation" I would change that to a strong support. If we accept it as a continuing state (which I disagree with), it has to be mentioned. But even as a successor state, it is quite natural to include the state it succeeds. As for the Rum Sultanate, I am more doubtful. Certainly not continuing, and not really a successor, just another state in parts of the same area. As for the Byzantine Empire, no way! --T*U (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
None of these states should be included in the infobox imo. Too controversial, wikipedia's voice shouldn't say anything on the matter let alone in an infobox.--Calthinus (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It should be there. why? Because It Is So On Every State On Wikipedia. Italy has the year 894 or something. You are all trying to belittle Turkey and make it look unhistoric. I request you remove the previous states on ALL country articles. or you are all hypocrites. no insult. thats the truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 17:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
If Italy has the year 894, that might be a candidate for removal. But at least there was a medieval kingdom, ruled by Goths, called Italy, that people like Dante and Garibaldi drew inspiration from. The same is not really true of Turkey, and whether Turkey has continuity from the Ottoman Empire is a debate among historians, with many Turkish historians passionately disagreeing with you, so aside from civility issues, it makes no sense for you to accuse everyone else of "trying to belittle Turkey". Indeed Kemalism has always prided itself as being a forward looking ideology which disregarded the past. --Calthinus (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I am truly amazed that you claim historians have been debating the succession. Most, if not all Turks see the Ottoman as the State of Turkey? Where have you been? Many historians disagreeing with me? Who! Half of Turkey today has actually become neo ottoman under that fool erdogan. You just do not want Turkey to look like it is a historic state, just some country founded last century. I am a Kemalist and I see Ottoman as the past state. pretty much 99% of Turkey does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 12:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I am truly amazed that you claim I have some agenda to make Turkey not "look like it is a historic state". Yes whether Turkey is the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, or if it is instead one of many nations that declared independence and fought against the remnant of that empire (as well as Western powers) in the Turkish War of Independence is debated between historians and political scientists, including Turkish ones. Here's Emre Öktem: [[2]]. --Calthinus (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I am afraid you do. how is it that MKA fought a war of independence, against Turks? The ottoman empire was called Turkey from the 1800s onwards? The "turkish genocide against the armenians"? it wasnt called ottoman genocide? The armenians are not against the ottoman empire, they hate Turks? It is almost ridiculous to claim that Turkey fought a national campaign against Turkey. It is the Empire of Turkey for christs sake. We have the same flag?! Damn it I am putting it on the info box. Italy, France, Germany, they all have the same, even though these loser countries have had about 25 different republics and monarchies and whatnot over the last 5 centuries, when Turkey has had just one empire and one republic over 700 years

Should Kurds be discussed in the lead?

There are still some disagreements here, but none of them appear to involve the phrasing in the lead of this article. Closing this before it goes too far on a WP:FORUM tangent. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A pre-edit war version (Special:PermanentLink/785179050) includes the sentence "Kurds are the largest ethnic minority group, making up approximately 20% of the population." power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Considering Kurds are the largest minority (when they are recognized), and are involved in an on-going internal armed conflict against Turkey as well as cross-border conflicts (notably Syria (recently), Iraq (on-going), and Iran (less in the news at the moment).20:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs)
That's a no brainer, considering they make up 20% of the pop. What we have here are some POV-pushers trying to use various gimmicks to hide or minimize their mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khirurg (talk • contribs)

I've re-added this to the lead; it was removed in the latest revert. I'm not sure why it was removed initially. If anyone objects they should discuss their reasons here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, I think the CIA is not a WP:RS for this or anything else in which they have political involvement and interests. They are fine for some things, like who the current President is, but the consensus at RS/n where this is discussed is that editors need to show good judgment in using this as a source. Other sources have been added for this which I have not yet checked to verify. As long as it is sourced in a way that is credible, it's not a huge problem - I think we would have to look at whether it is WP:DUE, not whether it should be featured in the WP:LEDE per WP:NPOV Seraphim System (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not certain the 20% number is accurate (and agree that the CIA World Factbook is not the best source here), but I believe it is non-controversial that the Kurds are the largest minority, and I feel it is WP:DUE to mention that in the lead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Pody removed two additional references for the 20% figure, which I had provided yesterday. I have readded them. Dr. K. 21:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Separately, I don't think being "legally recognized" in the 1921 Treaty of Lausanne is relevant or WP:DUE for the lead. Currently, it reads: Kurds are the largest ethnic minority group. Legally recognised ethnic groups include the Armenian, Greek and Jewish minorities. Unrecognised ethnic groups include the Kurdish, Circassian, Albanian, Arabic, Bosniak and Georgian minorities. I'd like to reduce this to one sentence that makes clear what the largest current ethnic groups are. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The figure of 20% is in fact quite reasonable and well sourced. There are even reliable sources that say they are 25% of the population [3]. Khirurg (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The distinction between "legally recognised" and "unrecognised" is not relevant for the current situation. The well-sourced number of 20% should be in, since Kurds are a much larger group than any others. Or if other sources have other numbers, make it 17-22% or 20-25% or whatever the sources say. --T*U (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Of course Kurds should be in the lede, and despite apparent attempts to delete it the 20% figure seems exceedingly well-sourced so I don't understand (?) why there is a dispute here. Also, why are the Laz people, indigenous to the eastern Pontic region, not mentioned at all?--Calthinus (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Calthinus: The explanation would be that the only languages mentioned are the ones that have more than 1M users according to the Ethnologue source. All others are covered by the link from "various others" to Languages of Turkey. It would be possible to add other languages that have more than 1M users according to other sources, but it might easily be a problem of WP:SYNTH. --T*U (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
TU-nor that's not what I meant, but thanks for fixing that sentence so that it excludes Bulgarian which has less than 1M speakers, I was about to mention that. There's no way Laz has over 1M speakers, they are quite assimilated and the language is endangered. I have my doubts about Circassian (Kabardin wtv) having over 1M in 2017 and Ethnologue says the source for that is a Circassian activist organization in 2005... Ethnologue also says Pontic and Armenian (Hemshin) are "non-indigenous" so at this point I wonder if we should be looking for other sources to replace it with.
I meant this sentence : Ethnic minorities include Armenians, Greeks and Jews, Kurds, Circassians, Albanians, Arabs, Bosniaks and Georgians-- surely the Laz deserve mention there, as there are more of them there than some of these, and unlike five of the nine, they are indigenous. Every other indigenous group (except marginal Assyrians and debatable Bulgarians) is mentioned. Anyways WP:NOTSYNTH#SYNTH_is_not_mere_juxtaposition.--Calthinus (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The Minorities in Turkey page needs significant improvements and gives no guidance. Demographics of Turkey suggests the absolute number of Laz is low enough that it shouldn't be in the lead, but (as noted above) that's purely a linguistic measurement, not an ethnic one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
power~enwiki For measuring ethnicity not language (thanks to Turkification policies by the Republic of Turkey many Laz no longer speak their language, as is the case with Irish people), we have 0.3 million to 1.6 million. That's taken from Laz people. That's larger than some of the groups currently listed. Actually it's the same rough scale as most of them except Kurds (who are much more). --Calthinus (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a specific proposal to replace Ethnic minorities include Armenians, Greeks and Jews, Kurds, Circassians, Albanians, Arabs, Bosniaks and Georgians.? I don't like the current version, but just adding Laz to the end doesn't fix it. Without some table of the most-populous minorities, I don't know what else should be included. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring the first three (which are largely historical in nature and possibly should be removed), the list appears to be the largest five groups, note [4] and [5] which say that (after Kurds) Circassian, Bosniak, Albanian, Georgian and Arab are the five largest minorities. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well I got rid of the unnecessary "and" that I think formerly separated the recognized minorities from the (larger but Muslim) unrecognized ones. As for the sentence I don't really like it either but I know better than to open that Pandora's box on a page like this. All I propose is adding the Laz, because I think it's wrong to exclude Turkey's currently second largest indigenous minority (I'm considering Zazas to be Kurds) from a basic list. Fix what you can. --Calthinus (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Re the newer comment: as I understand it, the reason Greeks, Armenians and Jews were included was because they were officially recognized as minorities, and that the former two are indigenous. Personally I am also of the opinion that indigenous status should also be a consideration, not just size, and that the margin of inclusion should be lower for indigenous minorities because their homelands lie at least in part within Turkey, so obviously their presence is more significant. --Calthinus (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be minimal objection to the current version of Approximately 70-80% of the country's citizens identify themselves as ethnic Turks. Kurds are the largest minority at about 20% of the population, and other ethnic minorities include Circassians, Albanians, Arabs, Bosniaks and Georgians. As far as Laz are concerned, Wikipedia has a bunch of conflicting information; Template:Demographics of Turkey suggests that Laz are a subset of Georgians. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If we've excluded the other native minorities save Kurds, and are going solely by (poorly estimated) size, then I'd rather leave the page as it is then risk reopening a touchy issue. I think it is important to open the Laz but not at any cost. Yes wiki has conflicting information. Laz in Turkey do not identify as a subset of Georgian, Muslim or otherwise (but do recognize Georgians as kindred); those in Georgia do identify as Georgians just like Svans and Mingrelians, if that clears things up a bit. --Calthinus (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I am reminding editors to consider their comments here carefully - "thanks to Turkification" makes it sound like someone other then our editors is complaining. I think the insight that is missing here is that many Turks of different origins love the Turkish language, and self-identify as Turkish. In fact, if you read primary sources and testimonies you will find that the complaints center around not being accepted as Turkish for religious reasons, not denial of Turkishness. I am once again, in good faith, urging you to exercise some restraint in making these kinds of comments on behalf of other peoples. Seraphim System (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I know someone is going to say "Well what about the Kurds, they don't love Turkish language" - let me address this. The Kurds are a special case, and I see in the comments a tendency to generalize from this and make broad sweeping generalizations. This is poor reasoning. That said, it is an important case and deserves consideration. Significant work that has been done on this subject has looked into whether or not Kurds were assimilated as other groups were - in other words whether they were given the same access to education and why the "Turkification" policies in the Reform era failed in this one instance (where they were tremendously successful everywhere else.) Second, Kurdish language was not banned until after the 1980 coup. This was generally a product of the Cold War politics of the 1970s. The brief version is that the way that it is being represented in the comments here is not in accordance with the views of serious scholarship on this topic. Seraphim System (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System this is devolving into WP:FORUM but please quit attributing behavior to me against my will. I am not trying to "speak on behalf" of any people -- actually if I was that would make me an WP:ADVOCATE and would not be good editing practice. I am speaking only for myself and what I view as good policy. --Calthinus (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How should World War I genocides be discussed in the lead?

Please discuss in the open RfC instead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A pre-edit war version (Special:PermanentLink/785179050) includes the sentence "During the war, the Ottoman government committed genocides[III] against its Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek citizens." power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes - at least as long as consensus in Assyrian genocide, Armenian Genocide, and Greek genocide doesn't change - these were major events in forming the Turkish nation state out of the Ottoman empire.Icewhiz (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
A clear consensus formed in favor this in an earlier discussion (maybe 1-2 years ago.Khirurg (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
What is the problem with the version in the text now? It is more neutral and encyclopedic. The fact that Turkey has denied the genocide has been added, because it was previously in a footnote. The Pontic Genocide is disputed by a significant number of scholars,including recognized experts on the Armenian genocide, so it can't be stated this way. I wasn't involved in any previous consensus discussions. Seraphim System (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree with Seraphim — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 20:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The current version (as of Special:PermanentLink/808256516 is: It is widely accepted by scholars, the international community and legal experts that the Turkish government committed genocide against the Armenians during the war. The government of Turkey denies there was an act of ethnic cleansing. Significant scholarship has been published discussing genocide against the Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek citizens of Ottoman Turkey. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The text highlighted in green was in fact sneakily added by Serpahim System using a deceitful edit summary [6]. There is no consensus to include it and in fact it is undue for the lede. Also, would people proeprlu indent their comments? Khirurg (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The genocides are undue for the lede? Seraphim System (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Sigh*. No, the way you turned the original sentence into three sentences is undue. One sentence is all that's due, period. Not three. Khirurg (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Turkification be discussed in the lede?

Removed by Seraphim System, re-instated by Icewhiz. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, this is a major topic for Turkey. How the former Greco-Roman civilization came to identify as Turkish, and of course subsequent Turkification in later eras had a major impact on Turkey and Turkish society.Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree it is a major topic, but this isn't a sandbox, and I checked the sources - they fail verification. It is WP:OR. You need to find sources for this specific analysis and jargon, and all the other things you want to add. We just talked about this. The main Turkification article itself is in extremely poor shape. It said that Turkification and Islamification were the same thing ("becoming Turk" and "becoming Muslim")- it further said this was the etymology. It's fairly clear that this is preposterous. Is Turkification a major article? Like Hellenization, and Latinization, yes it is, and I am trying to work on it. This is not helping improve the articles. It's easy to want to add things, it's harder to do the work to add them. Seraphim System (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Your personal opinions aside, Turkification amply meets notability guidelines and there is no lack of sources. Turkification and Islamization overlapped (and conversely - being a Greek Orthodox, etc.) to a large degree (with the exception of Muslim areas (mainly Arab)) and the two are used interchangeably in some sources. Your opinion on the state of Turkification is not grounds for removal here.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Icewhiz. This is just WP:JDL disruption. Khirurg (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It is unsourced and as long as it is unsourced it can not be in the article. End of discussion. Seraphim System (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Do you know what Turkification is? Khirurg (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems incredibly odd that Hellenization would be mentioned but Turkification would not. That said, I don't know what the term means, and thus I'm not certain that the attribution to the 11th century is accurate. The Seljuk Turks began migrating into the area in the 11th century, starting the process of Turkification, which was accelerated by the Seljuk victory over the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Turkification describes exactly the process by which Anatolia went from predominantly Greek-speaking and Christian to Turkish-speaking and Muslim over the course of several centuries. The process had already started in the 11th century, before Manzikert, and greatly accelerated afterwards. Khirurg (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree, and most likely Turkification should be mentioned but I could not verify that it began in the 11th century or was accelerated at the Battle of Manzikert in the sources that were cited. It is an academic jargon term and like Hellenization, it requires a serious amount to work to improve this content. When does it start, when does it end? It is a complex phenomenon that spans regions and centuries, and unless there is a source that says "X marks in the beginning of the Turkification in Region Y" adding it to the article is WP:OR - I reviewed the citations and could not find such a source. But the article is not written according to the Authoritative Khirurg. The next step is to post some sources on this page. Seraphim System (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
We do not have to marry Turkification to the 11th century in the lead. While the exact start may be debatable, the end result is not and the process itself is quite important for the article.Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Where is the source that connects Turkification to Islam? I thought it was linguistic (as Hellenization in Israel for example) ... and more complex then the Greeks are Christian and the Turks are Muslim. Unfortunately this strong POV-based editing is disruptive to editors trying to do constructive work in this area. Seraphim System (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It is pervasive, and some choose to look via A, some via B, and some via A+B. Note that Hellenization in the Judean context was also similar in that it was a (often)Lingustic+(often)Religious shift. Prior to the age of nations, these often went in lockstep.... For Orthodox populations this often went together, see for instance Greek Muslims and the sources there.Icewhiz (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
There are also Crypto-jews, and Crypto-christians and Bektashi who "don't believe in the trinity" - in Israel there was a schism, as there was with Latinization. These things are complex, and discussing them is fascinating, but without sources, it is not helping us add it back into the article. Seraphim System (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Support inclusion The demographic transition process from Byzantine Greek to Ottoman Turkish had repercussions all over the place, of course it deserves mention of some form. --Calthinus (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I think there is consensus to include, but no one seems to want to do the work to actually any WP:RS. I will do it eventually but am in the middle of some things right now. Seraphim System (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Some brief Google searching gives some sources (such as [7]) that use the term Turkification to refer to actions in the 1920s; as long as the context and the WikiLink target are clear that shouldn't be relevant. This web forum discussion mentions some reference materials. This book declares Manzikert to have "a key symbolic role as initiating the process of Turkification of Anatolia", but the full context is more mixed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This is a review of a book by S Vyronis on the topic, which says "The basic premise, which is generally accepted, is that the Turkish conquest of the area began in 1071 with the battle of Manzikert." It (citing the book itself may be better, if somebody has access) should be sufficient as a reference for including this in the lead, though the existing wording may need to be improved to make clear that this was a centuries-long process. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Current massive changes

JimPody has made massive changes to the article. While some of the edits may be fine, they also include disruptive removals of consensus material. There already is a series of discussions going on about the lede, and several of the edits go into just these discussions. This is a GA, so massive changes has to get consensus before they are implemented. I have restored the changes made by Seraphim System. I have also changed the population data in the infobox from census to estimate. --T*U (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. This behavior by JimPody needs to stop. Khirurg (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Yo I didnt do the census. I dont care what you guys think I am bringing the truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 15:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
JimPody, Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth, actually. It just matters what sources say, not what users deem to be "true". --Calthinus (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that unilateral changes to sections that are currently under discussion makes things more confusing, and especially because it is GA dramatic sweeping changes are more likely to be reverted. Seraphim System (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

formation

Hello fellow editors

Here is what I hope we can agree on for the formation section on the infobox

-Turkish Empire (1299) -Dissolution (1919) -War of independence (1919) -Treaty of Lausanne (1923) -Turkish Republic (1923) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 14:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Well since no one has any objections I will go ahead and make the change, one which every european country on wikipedia has anyway. austria has been about 10 different countries, you europeans cant keep together. france probably went from republic to dictatorship to nazi land every few years and germany, well lets not get into that one. Turkey has been one empire one republic. so simple, yet you all insist that Turkey gets different treatment for some reason. How is it that a country (ottoman empire) which was informally called Turkey since the 18th century not actually the predecessor to the republic? Absurd! the same flag, same language, continuation of courts and even the recognition of sultans as previous heads of state but somehow not a successor state?!?! very crazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 09:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

JimPody: Well since no one has any objections I will go ahead and make the change. No, you will not! Firstly, you need to wait longer before you can say that no one has objected. Secondly, as you know, there is already a discussion above about the same thing, where there are arguments both ways. I happen to agree with you about the Ottoman Empire (but not Turkish Empire), but we have to wait until a consensus has been formed. Also: Please learn how to sign your talk page postings. See WP:SIGN. --T*U (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we can call it Turkish Empire, and the addition of a formation section to the infobox would have to be sourced. Seraphim System (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Turkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing

JimPody has again repeated edits that have been challenged before.

1) There is still an open discussion in the talk page about mentioning the Ottoman Empire in the "Formation" section. I happen to agree that it should be there (not with the text "Empire Formed 1299", though, but "Ottoman Empire 1299"). However, putting it in while the discussion is still open is disruptive, bordering on edit war. "Dissolution 1908" is directly misleading. It would be wise to read WP:CONSENSUS before you try anything similar.

2) the ethnic groups section in infobox was unsourced and unprofessional. here is a professional list form with proper source The ethnic groups in the "unprofessional" list were perfectly well sourced in the main text. And your "professional" list are numbers from just one of several sources. You have no right to assume that this source is more accurate than any of the others, so there is no foundation for putting numbers to the different groups. Using one source and ignoring others is called WP:CHERRYPICKING. Also: Your list of percentages has been reverted earlier. Per WP:BRD you should then discuss it on talk page in order to gain consensus before readding it. Just putting your numbers back in without discussion and consensus is to start an WP:EDITWAR.

I suggest taking a break from disruptive editing and reading some of the Wikipedia guidelines mentioned instead. --T*U (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Thank you T*U. This account has singlehandedly converted this article into an edit-warring field in recent weeks. This disruption must stop, otherwise the next stop should be ANI. Dr. K. 21:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
And again: JimPody has changed the list of ethnic groups and the list of languages in the lede in contradiction to the sources, even to the source they have presented themselves. Restoring lists per sources to include ethnic groups over 1%, speakers over 1 mill. Still ignoring WP:BRD and other guidelines. --T*U (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
After his edit-warring block, he has apparently learned his 3RR lesson and he doesn't edit-war fast enough to violate 3RR; instead he does it at a slower pace. This can best be solved by a report at ANI. But someone has to file the paperwork. Dr. K. 17:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Unlike many of the other countries in the region, Turkey-related topics are not under discretionary sanctions. I don't see any specific diffs that are actionable on their own, it's a general pattern. If he does it again, I'll file the WP:AN report. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Power~enwiki for offering to do the paperwork. AN is also a better choice in this case. Dr. K. 00:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. Per WP:SNOW and WP:BOLD. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 22:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


– I am interested in moving the country of Turkey to either Turkey (country) or the official name Republic of Turkey and moving the disambiguation page to Turkey. The reason why I am requesting this is because the country Turkey can be confusing to the bird Turkey. It is just like how the city of New York can be confusing to the state of New York. 2601:183:101:58D0:A437:7718:6C0A:3965 (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is workable at this point unless you are also willing to manually change all the links to the article. Seraphim System (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose and I plan to file a complaint at WP:ANI about this user's persistent filing of spurious Requested Moves. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The bird is named after the country; one obviously holds precedence as the primary topic with just a cursory reading of the article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Can we remove this from the lede?

This is not well supported by the sources - none of the sources discuss "Freedom of the Press" (all in caps) or "Legislative System of Checks and Balances" (all in caps) being in place "since the founding". "religionist government" is not even proper English. Badly written and mis-sourced content has no place in the lede of a GA article. Additionally, there is also discussion of expanding the lede, which is already very long, much of it devoted to political background history. Significant sections of the article dealing with culture are not discussed. Post WWI history is also not discussed, but the lede should be balanced with some politically neutral content as it is currently a poor reflection of the article content.

"Turkey's current administration headed by president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has reversed many of the country's earlier reforms which had been in place since the founding of the modern republic of Turkey, such as Freedom of the Press, and a Legislative System of Checks and Balances. A set of standards for secularism in government, as first enacted by Atatürk have also diminished in favour of conservative religionist governance, to the grievance of much of the Turkish public.[1][2][3]"

Seraphim System (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Turkey Jailing the Most Journalists New York Times. By Hannah C. Murphey. December 18, 2013. Downloaded April 19, 2017.
  2. ^ Turkey's Vote Makes Erdoğan Effectively a Dictator The New Yorker. By Dexter Filkins. April 17, 2017. Downloaded April 19, 2017.
  3. ^ Who are the two drunks,’ Turkish politicians ask after PM’s remarks Hurriyet Daily News. May 29, 2013. Downloaded April 21, 2017.
Should be in the lead. Poor grammar/English should be improved. Considering that Turkey is undergoing significant changes in character under Erdoğan and that portions of this article (and elsewhere) might not reflect current situation given the flux, we should note said flux in the lead. Sourcing for the existence of the state of flux is widely available.Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I think this could be rewritten to link to the coup attempt, purge and the referandum and possibly FETO. I don't think Turkey ever had freedom of press, and it is not the main point of the articles, it is the extent and degree after the coup that has attracted attention. Seraphim System (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Freedom House unfortunately uses a non-stable metric (I think), but Democracy Index has a nice info-graphic and a stable metric policy - see here Democracy Index infographic (click on Turkey) - when you can see that Turkey was stable on a 5.70ish score in 2006-12, and from 2013-6 has a reduction to 5.04 (CYRSTALBALLING their 2017 isn't out yet (will soon) - but isn't likely to improve and might be a further drop). So yes - there have been changes recently at least per outside observers.Icewhiz (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I understand that and I didn't even need Democracy Index to help me. I don't really want to argue about how unreliable Democracy Index is as a measure. It certainly doesn't help here. For example, Israel, a country with actual anti-miscegenation laws that bans books and has been in a state of emergency since 1945 has a 7.85. I don't know what they are measuring, and I don't care. Seraphim System (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Well I looked into it and Turkey got a 3.75 for political culture, which from the EIU's vague explanation presumably is because there was a coup. Israel got a 7.5 - political culture meaning the losing side accepts the peaceful transfer of power. It says more about the perception and insight of the people who answered the survey, then it does about democracy. And it is based entirely on survey responses, so it is not a serious index. The way this section is written now links to completely random things that are unsourced like "Freedom of the Press" - there has never been Freedom of the Press, 301. Madde has been on the books my entire life. It isn't new. And according to the EIU study you have cited at least 6 times, the only thing not democratic about the current regime is the people who supported a coup to topple it. Seraphim System (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Israel does not have anti-miscegenation laws - you are confusing state recognition of religious marriages (which are by-passable by the local equivalent of common law marriages) with anti-miscegenation (that is racial, not religious based, that actually criminalizes). While other countries do ban books (e.g. Mein Kampf in Germany until recently), Israel does not ban books (you might be confused by sensationalist headlines regarding a Dorit Rabinyan book (that increased sales) - that was removed from an approved school literature curriculum - not banned). Other countries have been in a state of emergency. In any event - Democracy Index is generally well regarded.Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Please stop. Anti-miscegenation is widely in use to describe Israel's marriage laws, yes Israel does ban books [8] and yes Germany should lose "freedom points" for criminalizing any kind of speech, even if that speech is Holocaust denial. These are all concepts that are firmly and deeply rooted in the concept of Democracy in the post Civil Rights era. "Generally well regarded" is entirely meaningless. Survey responses by an undisclosed sample are not WP:RS and it certainly doesn't source the content we are discussing. The only reason I am replying to this is because I am hoping that it will convince you to stop bringing it up in every discussion on this talk page. Seraphim System (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Anti-miscegenation is only used by POV sources. Your link to "Israel: Forbidden books" is about the military government in the West Bank. Democracy Index is cited widely by RS - it appears their methodology (which includes surveys - which is social sciences in often an accepted tool) is not questionable per those who cite them.Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Stop. I am not going to debate this with you. The source has nothing to be with the current section, which was added by a banned sockpuppet and needs significant revision. I only replied in the hopes that I could convince you to stop disrupting discussions on this talk page by posting the same source over and over again inappropriately, especially for discussions where it is not even remotely relevant, like this one. Seraphim System (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Please move the sentence to the history of the republic section, next to the gezi protests sentence. it is clearly a part of the history of the republic, if you can count it that, than a part of the lede. the lede describes turkey as a whole, not the wrongdoings of some imbecile islamist — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
It appears no one is objecting so I shall move it to the history section — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 16:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
JimPody: It appears no one is objecting so I shall move it to the history section. No, you will not! There is already one editor that has objected in this same thread. I happen to agree with Icewhiz that it belongs in the lede.
And for the last time: Please learn how to sign your talk page postings. See WP:SIGN. --T*U (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@JimPody: Please stop these sloppy ultimatums. I agree with Icewhiz and TU-nor that this belongs in the lead. Dr. K. 21:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Which part? I'm going to rewrite it but what exactly do you think should be in the lede? GA articles have a certain standard for higher accuracy, and I don't think it's appropriate with major factual errors in the lede (that were added by a blocked sockpuppet, for what it's worth). Icewhiz supports revision as well, though he didn't say more then that. I should probably ping GGT as well since he was a major contributor on GA. I am willing to revise it and source it, but I would like to know what points editors think it should cover. What I think it should cover:

  • the attemped coup, the post-coup purge, FETO
  • the decline of Press freedom and the referendum
  • If religion is going to be discussed, the sourcing needs to be imrpoved. One issue is he has approved the first new Church construction in Turkey since the Republic was founded, and this should also be mentioned
  • Turkey has had a constitutional protection for free press since 2004 (not the founding of the Republic). I also think the link should be to Censorship in Turkey and obviously the sources improved

Seraphim System (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

What you propose is a good start. I think, with the proper supporting RS of course, the lead should also include the tens of thousands of arrests, the mass shutdowns of television stations critical to Erdogan, and the ongoing transformation of Turkey from a parliamentary system to a quasi-dictatorial presidential republic. I also think that you are an expert in this area, as I noticed you created the 2017 March for Justice, which I find to be an excellent article. Dr. K. 01:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Seriously? A "quasi dictatorship"? what has this fool erdoğan turned turkey into? cetainly not a bloody "quasi dictatorship"? How can there be opposition justice marches, opposition parties, opposition press, opposition protests, opposition meetings, opposition media coverage, and opposition everything in a dictatorship? God damnit a journalist who supports terrorsim can go to jail in any country. imaging germany starting to shut to down neo nazi press. I wonder what you would all say. Imagine the police brutally beating peaceful Catalan protestors, what youd say, oh wait THAT HAPPENED!. no word. the people of catalonia just got crushed by a monarchist government and nothing about dictatorship there! hypocrisy is rife. I hate the turkish government but turkey is one of few old democracies in this world, from 1877. 30 elected premiers, and the AKP was, surprise surprise, elected four times. some dictatorship! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 05:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi @Seraphim System:, sorry for the late response. You raise valid points; unfortunately, although we all know what sort of things are going on in Turkey, I find it frustrating that often a sensationalist rather than an encyclopedic approach is employed to reflect that. This is one such instance. I think you could just do a rewrite based on your proposal per WP:BOLD and we can work on that if we judge there to be any insufficiency to it. The only thing I'd like to note is that there is plenty of scholarship out there to endorse the increasingly religious nature of the government and frankly the approval of the construction of churches is in pretty small print when compared to that. Otherwise your proposal seems fine to me. --GGT (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Can you tell me what some of those sources are - we have some OR in the the main articles regarding secularism and I am looking for secondary sources to help me sort it out. (It would help me with this edit also) - there is a theory floating around about the ministry and its funding, but it is entirely primary analysis. Secondary sources would be a big help here. Seraphim System (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC--lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This has been a tough close to assess. Most of the comments are from only two opposing users, meaning there has been less discussion than would ideally be desired. However this RfC has been open for months now, with no sign of any other interested commenters. In the circumstances, closing is the best option. Due to the lack of !voters I have taken into account arguments from the previous RfC that led to this one. I have also taken into account the instructions in User:Godric on Leave's close on restoring the previous status quo if necessary.

Should Turkey be described as a Democratic and Parliamentary republic?

Democratic: No, Parliamentary Republic: Yes User:Seraphim System highlights Britannica's use of the words "Parliamentary Democracy" to describe Turkey. Tertiary sources like Britannica are useful for assessing where the consensus of the reliable sources lie. However, this does not mean we are strictly bound to follow what a tertiary source like Britannica states if the reliable secondary sources indicate otherwise. User:Icewhiz has highlighted numerous sources questioning Turkey's status as a democracy. He draws an important distinction between describing what Turkey "is" and what Turkey "is not." Failing to use the word "democracy" to describe Turkey in the lede, is not the same as the article denying that Turkey is a democracy. It is merely taking the position that there is sufficient uncertainty in the RS's to justify not stating it as an outright fact. This issue of uncertainty was also emphasised by other commenters in the previous RfC. As such I believe there is a consensus for not describing Turkey as a de facto democracy in the lede.
There was no opposition to the use of "Parliamentary Republic" to describe Turkey in this RfC. In the previous RfC there was some opposition, but no sources were provided and the arguments were based instead off of WP:OR. As such there is no consensus to deviate from the original status quo of describing Turkey as a parliamentary republic.

Should Turkey be described as Secular?

Yes Icewhiz has put forward an argument for why Turkey should not be described as secular in the lede. However, as Seraphim System points out, the argument is one based on WP:OR as opposed to the putting forward of reliable sources. There are sourced descriptions in the body of the article describing Turkey as secular in Wikipedia's voice. In the previous RfC, much of the discussion on secularism was again just people giving their own opinions and arguments, rather than providing sources. As such there is no consensus to deviate from the original status quo position of describing Turkey as secular.

Should Turkey be described as Unitary?

Yes Nobody objects to this one so finding consensus there is pretty straightforward. Turkey is very obviously not a federation.

Should Turkey be described as having a Diverse Cultural Heritage?

No No sources have been provided in this RfC or the previous RfC indicating otherwise. In the previous RfC people raised the issue of "diverse cultural heritage" being more puffery than an informative statement. In this RfC Icewhiz provided reliable sources showing why such a descriptor in the lede may be innapropriate. Seraphim System has stated that Icewhiz' argument here is WP:OR, but I can't really see why. Either way the issue is irrelevant, because the burden is on those who are trying to include the statement to show that is reliably sourced, not the oppposite. Brustopher (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


Per the discussion and close in Talk:Turkey#RFC regarding a sentence in the lead and a subsequent mini-discussion in Talk:Turkey#Parliamentary Democracy, this RFC broadly reflects on:

Should we state in Wikipedia's voice that:--Turkey is a democratic, secular, unitary, parliamentary republic with a diverse cultural heritage or something alike in the lead?

There are 4 sections, corresponding to each of the 4 describers, with individual poser(s).

Thank you! Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Democratic and Parliamentary republic

  • Specific Poser--
    • With reference to the Turkey#Politics section, can Turkey be stated just as democratic and parliamentary republic or parliamentary democracy" in the lead in WP's voice?
    • If not, do we omit any information rel. to the concept from the lead or shall we specifically mention and differentiate between the de-juro and it's current de-facto condition (w.r.t to concerns about democracy in the state, shift to presidential system after the referendum et al.)?
    • If, it is the second choice, how do we frame the sentence?
    • Can parliamentary democracy" and/or constitutional republic be used in the government type field at the infobox in the lead?Also see another parameter proposal for the same field at the Unitary sub-section
    Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Survey (Discussants, please just !vote, with desired phrasings(if any) under this header.For discussions, approach the discussion sub-header(s).
    • Omit Democracy (in any form in lead or body, sole exception being de-jure or self-declared status not in wiki's voice). While de-jure a democracy, the de-facto status is presently not supported by current RS. While it is relatively easy to pin down what Turkey IS NOT, it is complex (with possibly differing opinions) to state what it IS. If De-jure status is stated, we should also state the accepted current de-facto state of democracy in Trukey. Turkey is a hybrid regime per Democracy Index 2016 (Wikipedia cliff note version, actual report EIU democracy index (where it dropped substantially in its score in the past 5 years - some 0.7 points)). Freedom house agrees as well [9]. Trajectory per recent coverage in RS shows this is unlikely to improve (and quite possibly will decline) in the next yearly reports - [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15][16].12:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


  • Discussion

Secular

  • Survey (Discussants, please just !vote under this header.For discussions, approach the discussion sub-header(s).)
    • No, or at the very least this needs to be qualified. To begin with the original concept is not quite aligned with other uses of secular state in that the gvmt always contained a Directorate of Religious Affairs (so it was not a separation of church and state, but rather a state of "active neutrality"). De-jure, it still is. However Erdoğan and the AKP are pursuing Islamization, as may be seen here (and the sources therein): Secularism in Turkey#AKP political agenda of Islamization. In addition the strict policy of Laïcité, which included civil servants, public university students, etc. not displaying Islamic affiliations, has been modified (as may be seen here and the sources therein - Headscarf controversy in Turkey). When we add to this the Directorate of Religious Affairs (see sources in lead there) ballooning to 150,000 employees, a 24-Hr TV station, Quranic education, and on-request Fatwa issuance... And of course the ruling Justice and Development Party (Turkey) (in a non-democratic system - (see democracy section)) openly pursuing an 'Islamic-oriented,' 'Islamic-based' (and per some - Islamist) agenda... The 2016–17 purges in Turkey of Gülen movement supporters and others... Describing Turkey as secular requires some qualification or explanation.Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Discussion

    Unitary

    • Specific Poser--
      • Can Turkey be stated as unitary in the lead in WP's voice?
      • Can unitary" be used in the government type parameter at the infobox in the lead?Also see another parameter proposal for the same field at the Democratic and Parliamentary republic sub-section
      • It may be noted that in the prev. RFC that out of all the words, this garnered maximum support for it's inclusion.
      Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Survey (Discussants, please just !vote under this header.For discussions, approach the discussion sub-header(s).)
      • Yes. Turkey is described as unitary in sources I see (and Erdoğan is in favor of this presently (e.g. [17] [18]). So it can be stated as such, the sole question is phrasing/editorial.Icewhiz (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes I think this is the only one of these four adjectives that would work at this time thanks to developments over the past few years. The only question really would be regarding Turkish Kurdistan. South Nashua (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Discussion

    Diverse cultural heritage

    • Specific Poser--
      • In reference to the Turkey#Culture section, can WP's voice state Turkey to have a diverse cultural heritage, in the lead ?
      • If not, do we omit any information rel. to the concept from the lead or alter the wording to some other expression?
      Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Survey (Discussants, please just !vote with desired phrasings(if any) under this header.For discussions, approach the discussion sub-header(s).)
    • Omit. There are two problems with the statement - for starters the "heritage" qualifier is puffery (which may be applied to many cultures) and is not quantifiable - the original sentence in the lead further compounded this by pipelinking "Diverse cultural heritage" to Multiculturalism. If we leave the history of culture on the side (since most non-isolated cultures claim various historical influences), in the quantifiable sense - Turkey is not presently (self-perception aside) multicultural or diverse culturally. This may be seen in this source - Fearon, James D. "Ethnic and cultural diversity by country." Journal of economic growth 8.2 (2003): 195-222. or in the wiki-version (that also contains Alesina's ranking) - List of countries ranked by ethnic and cultural diversity level - where Turkey ranks low in diversity. - and this fully includes the Kurds (who are suppressed/in-conflict with the gvmt to various degrees - and per the metric in the cited paper contribute most of the existing diversity). The text in the body may need to be updated to reflect the discussion here regarding the lead.Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Struck aside comment, which is mostly irrelevant to the !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Discussion

    General Discussion

    Comment I'm not partcipating, but as my input was invited I will leave a comment here, hopefully this will be useful to those who are participating:

    1. Democracy - Britannica is current. If an update were appropriate, I think Britannica would have updated. This is the online edition, and I don't think we should be "ahead" of them on an issue like this. I have read the new Constitution. The discussion right now is whether Turkey is a parliamentary democracy. Maybe it isn't, but the current sources still support it. It could be a Presidential democracy, but that is an update that had not been made in any legitimate WP:RS yet. BTW, our article on Iraq still calls it a "Federal parliamentary republic" and our article on Syria still calls it a "Presidential republic", anti-Erdogan WP:ADVOCACY is really not an excuse to make a change like this and then misrepresent the sources as "not current" - I suppose no source is "Current" unless is supports the editorial changes being pushed here, including Britannica. "Hybrid government" is not actually a thing, we don't write our articles based on one primary source study, and there is a clear and bolded request to avoid WP:OR in the proposal.
    2. Secularism again following the WP:RS Turkey's government is considered secular. General comments about inconsistent features like religious education, or state funding of religious institutions Directorate of Religious Affairs is all WP:OR. Once again, editors pushing these changes are not following WP:RS and are making things up. Despite the clear and unambiguous request to avoid WP:OR, I see the same WP:OR from the previous RfC being repeated here. The editor who first made this arguments has been indeff'd as a sockpuppet, but his argument is still being repeated here, and it is still unsourced WP:OR. (Problems like this are why I have stopped editing. That is all I have time for.) Seraphim System (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

    ADD also this comment from Icewhiz The text in the body may need to be updated to reflect the discussion here regarding the lead - This is not how we write articles. After all he has said here and on other articles, he should be topic banned for repeated WP:OR like pushing Fearon to support his thesis on multiculturalism ("per the metric in the cited paper"). Obviously the article does not need to be "updated" to reflect one editors WP:OR. If the article needs to be updated, Icewhiz should wait until scholarship is published that supports the theories he has been trying to push here. Seraphim System (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

    Please cease WP:NPA. Regarding "The text in the body may need to be updated to reflect the discussion here regarding the lead" - this was said in regards to the RfC, and was qualified with a may. Regarding "per the metric in the cited paper" - This was an aside, in parenthesis, noting that Fearon's low multicultural score includes the suppressed ethnic groups, and is if at all generous. My comment on Turkey's multicultural status is based directly on the ranking by Fearon, without any OR.Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    It is in fact WP:OR. It is a primary source "metric" that you are using to support your own analysis, there is no secondary analysis in the paper. The fact that do not understand that it is WP:OR and that this is now an ongoing issue on multiple critical articles and seems to be connected to a identifiable POV is why you should be topic banned. There is nothing ad hominem about it. Seraphim System (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    You are cherry picking and misquoting me, however I struck this aside comment as over-verbose and not relevant to the actual !vote. Fearon is a widely cited source ([19]).Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    Where did I misquote you? Fearon may be widely cited, but the way you are using it is still WP:OR - a secondary source is based on analysis of primary sources, Fearon is a primary source for his own study. Once again, all I am seeing from your comment is that you still do not understand this. This is not the first time I have taken the time to explain this, and I think that I have been patient. It has not helped. Even assuming good faith, it is starting to be a problem. These articles are not supposed to be ahead of the current scholarship. I think that is enough back and forth, it makes it hard for other editors to follow the discussion.Seraphim System (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    External links modified

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 3 external links on Turkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey/Archive_26&oldid=1114987337"