Talk:Turkey/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions about Turkey. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Article locked

I have fully locked the article for 3 days because of the unrelenting edit-warring over content. The editors involved are expected to respectfully work out their content differences here and hopefully reach WP:CONSENSUS. If not, WP:DR is available. Editors are reminded to focus on content - no personal attacks, broadly construed.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent and thoughtful guidance Bbb23. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Constant edit-warring over the two new sources: Have they delivered the goods?

In the rush to declare Turkey a "Major regional power" two new sources were added in the article per this edit. But have they delivered the goods? Let's analyse the sources:

Source 1: Western Balkans: is Turkey back?
One year after Turkey led Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina to sign the Istanbul Declaration on Peace and Stability in the Balkans, this article examines Turkey’s return to Southeastern Europe. By highlighting Ankara’s recent diplomatic and economic initiatives in the region, it shows why Turkey has pursued a more proactive foreign policy in the Western Balkans and assesses its successes and shortcomings.

and under the heading Great ambitions, limited resources:

Without a doubt, Turkey significantly stepped up its presence in Southeastern Europe over the past few years. Through diplomatic initiatives and mediation, strategic economic investments, and stronger cultural ties, Ankara has tried to establish itself as a key regional player. As such, the Western Balkans is the only area where Davutoğlu’s “Zero Problem” policy produced substantial results and increased Turkey’s EU membership credentials.
However, Davutoğlu’s Neo-Ottoman vision suffers from serious impediments. Ankara falls short of offering the same drawing power as Brussels or Washington, while historical mistrust and economic competition with other regional powers have so far prevented Turkey from achieving its “strategic depth.” As coined by a January 2010 U.S. cable, “with Rolls Royce ambitions but Rover resources, (…) [the Turkish] approach provides a relatively low cost and popular tool to demonstrate influence, power, and the "we're back" slogan” but fails to provide a substitute for long-term investment of diplomatic and assistance capital.

Source 2 Turkey’s Growing Influence in the Balkans
Over the past two years, Turkey has launched a massive political, social, and economic offensive across the Balkans, focusing primarily on Bosnia-Herzegovina. More than two decades after Turkey first formally applied to join the European Union, it now appears to be developing a two-pronged strategy: turning its attentions to its eastern neighbors (notably Syria, Iran and Russia), while at the same time seeking to enhance its prospects for EU membership by intensifying its influence in the Balkan countries, which are growing closer to Europe.
and
Thanks in large part to its historical role in the region, Turkey has succeeded in building up its diplomatic and economic influence in those Balkan countries still in the EU membership waiting room — places where the EU has failed to extend its authority, or has simply lost interest.

Now the question is: Do these two sources amount to reliable support that Turkey is a "Major regional power" in the Balkans?. The answer is simply: No. The sources never come near to declaring Turkey a regional power in the Balkans. Such reading of the references is pure, unadulterated original research and WP:SYNTH. In fact not even the existing sources, in the current version of the article, make such a claim even for the Middle East. As a minimum the WP:PEACOCK term "Major" must be removed as unsupportable by the sources, even for the Middle East. I would also propose further examination of the existing references in the protected version of the article to see if the whole "regional power" sentence should be removed as unsupported by the current in-article references. Also let's not forget that the in-article source http://www.stratfor.com/ "Turkey and Russia on the Rise" asserts:

The EU-led splitting of Kosovo from Serbia over Russian objections was a body blow to Russian power in the region, and the subsequent EU running of Kosovo as a protectorate greatly limited Turkish influence as well. Continuing EU expansion means that Turkish influence in the Balkans will shrivel just as Russian influence already has.

Finally the fourth citation by an outdated article in Heptagon Post "Can Turkey Be a Source of Stability in the Middle East?" states:

If the AKP goes on to win a third election in June 2011, Turkey’s involvement in Middle Eastern affairs will surely continue to grow and perhaps eventually become what some analysts are already describing as a potential “third way” for the region to follow.

It seems to me that its conclusion, outdated as it is, that: Turkey’s involvement in Middle Eastern affairs will surely continue to grow and perhaps eventually become what some analysts are already describing as a potential “third way” for the region to follow. is less than a ringing endorsement for the rather optimistic and forward-looking statement that "Turkey is a major regional power".

Conclusion: The preponderance of the examined sources does not support the statement that "Turkey is a major regional power" in the Balkans and they further make no claim that Turkey is a "Major power" anywhere. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Like I said above, I would be fine with removing the statement. It will have the added benefit of ending the dispute over whether Turkey is "Middle Eastern" regional power or a regional power period. Athenean (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Your sources confirm that Turkey is not a regional power in the Balkans. The threefold direction of AKP and Davidoglu foreign politics (Neoottomanism, panturanism and Islam) is very ambitious, but the country lacks the resources to fully accomplish it. I would keep "middle east regional power" though. After the Arab Spring, Turkey is seen as a model (the "third way" of your source) in all the states whose peoples overthrew the dictatorships, and its influence there rose dramatically. Economically, they are the first partner of the Kurdish state in Iraq. And don't forget the ambition of becoming an hub for gas and oil delivery to Europe (against Russian interest, and delivering central Asian hydrocarbons). This too is becoming reality. We could write "is a middle east regional power" forgetting "major". Alex2006 (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

After a bit of varied boolean googling, there seems to be many sources that indicate Turkey is a regional power, or has emerged as one, while others say it will very soon or in the next few decades become one. I definitely agree with removing "major", but hesitate to remove the whole thing due to the many sources noting it as such. CMD (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's generally accepted that Turkey is a regional power; I've heard it a lot, and not from Turks. But I think Athenean's solution is best. If you asked me to give examples of Turkey as a regional power, I'd think of the pressure on Syria, incursions into Iraq, erratic behavior regarding Israel, and attempts to isolate Armenia in the Caucasus, in other words: a West Asian regional power. But I agree that I've never heard of modern Turkey having any real influence in the Balkans, and Turkish influence in Central Asia is still really only cultural. (I don't think Turkey could even bring much pressure to bear on Azerbaijan, let alone the 'stans.) Just call Turkey a regional power and let readers who want to know more judge for themselves on the articles on Turkey's foreign policy. —Quintucket (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe in finding sources to support any statements we make locally at any articles. Sources are at best ambivalent about Turkey's regional power role in the Balkans, while emphasising that its power is based on soft, i.e. diplomatic and cultural, not military means. The current version in the lead mentions "military strength and a large economy" which implies it dominates its neighbours due to its military and economic status, which is simply not the case, especially in the Balkans. We need to rephrase that whole sentence to at least reflect some sort of consensus among sources. I also propose that we use the word "influence" instead of "power" as in "regional influence" if we must use "regional" without the qualifier "Middle Eastern", otherwise we mislead the reader by omission. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Even the sources which do note Turkey's influence in the Balkans note that it is jostling up against other parties in doing so. As noted at various points in the discussion above, Turkey's power is focused on the Middle East. Even before the Arab Spring, it was commonly noted that Turkey was turning away from the west and strengthening ties with its Arab neighbours, shown through means such as the agreement for a Turkey-Syria-Lebanon-Jordan free trade area. From the beginning of the Arab Spring, it has been noted many times that Turkey is stepping up its presence and spreading influence, meeting with the Arab League, diplomatic visits and all that. All of this independent of western allies, who it even voted against in regards to sanctions on Iran. I can source every bit of this if needed (as could anyone probably with a short google), but it's not here to be included, but to note that Turkey's power and influence are greatest in the middle east, where it has a very independent policy. It would be misleading to imply it is spreading the same influence to different areas, when much is going south. CMD (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Could we decide on some sort of phrasing? How about

Turkey is a regional power in the Middle East

.

and forget about the song-and-dance of "geolocation", "military strength" and "large economy" which are not referenced anyway. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think some note that it is a trend would be helpful, which is what almost all sources seem to agree on. "Growing influence has led to Turkey becoming a regional power in the Middle East" or something? CMD (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but where are our Turkish friends? It would be nice to hear something from them too. Maybe they disappeared because of Bayram :-) Alex2006 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with noting the trend as CMD suggests and with his phrasing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Since "influence" is difficult to measure and quantify, and since all this growing influence is essentially due to Turkey's growing economy, I would propose " A growing economy has led to Turkey being considered as a regional power in the Middle East". Athenean (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Good and fair points. I was actually thinking along the same lines. I agree, but I think we should add Turkey's diplomatic initiatives to the mix. How about:

Turkey's growing economy and its diplomatic initiatives have led to its recognition as a regional power in the Middle East.

or

Turkey is recognised/considered as a regional power in the Middle East due to its growing economy and [its] diplomatic initiatives.

This is just a first draft of course. Please modify as needed. The nice thing about this formulation is that if you are a regional power and you have a strong economy and you offer diplomatic initiatives you are automatically considered influential. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Reason before conclusion version makes more sense I think. I'd like to change the descriptors however, to reinclude the trend of increasing power:

Turkey's developing economy and diplomatic initiatives have led to its recognition as growing a regional power in the Middle East.

-- CMD (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I made the change. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request -UN Security Council Turkey?

Turkey is not member of UN Security Council

Delete the topic from international organizations list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.33.204.218 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

UN security council has a lot more than 5 members and every member apart from the permanent 5 serve 2 year terms. To this date Turkey served in UN security council twice IIRC. (It currently is not in there though.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.170.229.83 (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Kindly correct the map

In the map, the Republic of India should not be shown this way. There's a border line shown here between Indian administered Kashmir & the rest of India. This completely challenges the sovereignty of the Republic of India over Indian administered Kashmir. This should be changed. Wikipedia is a world renowned website. It should not make such mistakes.

EmperorBwood (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Demographics

Ask anyone in Turkey what their population is and they will tell you it is over 100 million. Some even say as high as 120 million. Given the huge discrepancy between the official figures and the perceived (and perhaps truthful) reality on the ground, and the political reasons behind the manipulations, I think we need some sources that give alternative figures - surely there must be some such sources. For example, in the case of the 2011 Van earthquake it was accepted for relief planning (even at offical levels) that the census figure for Van's population was laughably inaccurate and that the population was actually almost double the official figure. Meowy 21:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I recently had a conversation in a mixed group of yabancilar and Turks, in which all the Turks insisted that Chinese people eat fetuses (apparently inspired by this hoax, which I assume at some point either went viral or got picked up by the media here), and couldn't be persuaded otherwise. Given both the poor quality of Turkish public education and the well-known issue of source amnesia, I'm perfectly fine with believing the official government statistics, unless you can give me better evidence than "a bunch of Turks believe it." —Quintucket (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I live two years in Turkey now and have never come across somebody telling me that there are more than roughly 75 million people in Turkey (neither across people who believe Chinese eat babies). Everybody will tell you that Istanbul has 15-20 million inhabitants instead of the officially 13,5, but that doesn't mean that population statistics are incorrect as such, just that more people live (unregistered) in the city and less live in the countryside, which is a common trend for any developing country. About Van I missed the debate, but I've never seen so much as a halfway trusteable source putting in doubt the overall figure of roughly 75 million, in fact I've seen no source at all, not even speculations. Ilyacadiz (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Information I got from a census organiser in Van in 2010, several years before the earthquake, was that the unofficial population figure was 600,000. He considered the census figures throughout turkey to be little more than a joke, and said that in Van there was no real effort on the ground to make an accurate figure - all that mattered was to get the job done quickly and with as little hastle as possible. Various news reports about Van after the earthquake backed up his claim about the gross undercounting of Van's population, and I have no reason to doubt that a serious undercounting occurs throughout Turkey - though maybe not as bad as the Van example. I've seen plenty of texts giving a 90 million figure for the overall population - but as is often the way of things I don't have any to hand to cite. Outside of Turkey, only EU propaganda takes the 75 million figure at face value. Meowy 02:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Considering that without having one (and only one) No of Citizenship it is "almost" impossible to live in Turkey (you cannot go to the hospital, make a petition or have a telephone) and that for the same reason the country has put an end to "counting" people per head, physically, those claims are ridiculous. Next? --E4024 (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

languages spoken in turkey should be added to the side bar.

Please add Kurdish to the list as language spoken in turkey, although not offical about 6% of the population consider kurdish their mother tongue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.216.157 (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's more like 15-20%; I've never heard anywhere near as low as 6% except from a handful of Turkish nationalists (and I've heard as high as 30% from Kurds, I take both with a grain of salt). Kurdish isn't official though, and Turkish is still spoken by the majority. I've gone and added all languages spoken in Turkey, according the Ethnologue, with a population of more than 10,000. This seems to be what the Iran article did, though of course Farsi in Iran is probably the plurality, not the majority. I fully expect to be reverted by a Turkish nationalist (many Turks don't like admitting that other languages are spoken in their country) or a Kurdish nationalist who objects to treating Zazaki as a seperate language (though I feel that NPOV and V compel it), but hopefully we can use this as a point for discussion. —Quintucket (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and checked the articles of other G-20 countries (because I wasn't going to check the whole world), and indeed none of them had a "spoken languages" tab in the infobox, merely "the official language(s)" and sometimes "recognized minority languages" if there were any. I believe that formula is better, because the infobox, by its nature, is a compact collection of basic, undisputed facts about a given country. In my opinion, languages spoken in Turkey should be, and actually are, described in the main text of the article, as well as other relevant articles such Demographics of Turkey and Languages of Turkey. --Mttll (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

suffix -iye

and the abstract suffix –iye meaning "owner", "land of" or "related to" (derived from the Arabic suffix –iyya, which is similar to the Greek and Latin suffixes –ia).

This is a lie. Why on hell should the Turks derive their suffix -iye, related to a very old matter, from the Arabs? It's the opposite. Unless someone shows reliable evidence Turks copied their -iye from the Arabs, this claim should edited.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chonanh (talk • contribs) 23:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This is fully correct. "-iye" is a Calque from Arabic, and it means "place of". About reliable sources, you can read this in whatever source about Istanbul after the conquest (for example Necipoğlu, Müller-Wiener, Mamboury, Mantran, etc.) or in a good modern Osmanli Turkish Grammar book. About the "why on the hell", maybe you should read a good history of the Turkish language. Before the reform of Atatürk, the Turks spoke a language which was a mixture of Turkish, Persian and Arabic, both syntactically and semantically. For example, they used the "Ezafe", which is Persian, to build genitive forms. This construct was prohibited with Atatürk's reform. Alex2006 (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Enişte, I am afraid La Signora has not educated you well about the history of the Turkish language. Your reference to the "Osmanlı/Ottoman" language (a Turkish based "language" -so to call it- with a considerable Arabic and Persian contribution, but not only that, with some influence from other Indo-European languages also) was an artificial language used mainly in literature and sciences -and to a certain degree in written documents of the Ottoman State. It may have been spoken by an elite as a "confidential code" but not very widespread though. What I am trying to say is referring to the Ottoman "language" with the word "spoken" may be confusing and misleading. It is true that -just like the Germans- we kind of "cleaned" our language from the burden of foreign words in the Republican era but just like the Germans did with German we also have been speaking Turkish since centuries, before and after the alphabet and language reforms. --E4024 (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right that the Osmanli was spoken only by an elite, but Turkish before the reform was also full of Arab and Persian words and constructs. Otherwise the giant work to found the modern Turkish language would have been pointless, since it would have been enough to adopt the language of the people. I had the luck to find in our city library a great book about Turkish written in 1938. Two volumes: one about grammar, another about syntax, etymology, etc. The writer, an Italian university professor, explains in the second volume in hundreds of examples why the Turkish authorities in those years decided to change this or that form or expression trying to purify, sometime create ex-novo, terms and constructs. I gave the book to my wife (she got a degree in Languages at Istanbul University, so she knows something about the subject), she read it and was so amazed that she told me that we must find absolutely a copy for us. Alex2006 (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Literature, my dear Watson, literature, but only written. Even in that case I can find you some examples from Ottoman historiographers (vak'anüvis) about daily talk of Ottoman Sultans (for instance how they referred to some of their pashas in private or about foreign "dignitaries") if you promise not to share any of this with anybody -especially my sister in CH... :-) --E4024 (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sister in CH? Dangerous...I hope is not my wife, she always told me that she has no brother :-) Anyway, back to the roots, :-) the suffix comes from Arabic, do you agree?. I read it at least in five books, always dealing with Kostantiniyye. And, always according to the magic book, the path Turkish <=> Arabic and Turkish <=> Persian is mostly one way: while Turkish has been heavily influenced by these two languages, the contribution of Turkish to Persian and Arabic is limited to some words pertinent to the administration and military. To finish, a little quiz? do you know why you say "Koca mustafa Pasha Camii" and not "Camisi"? Alex2006 (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

@Alex -Beginning from the end: "Ayın gayın" etc are too small details concerning the influence of the former Arabic script on the modern day Turkish language to discuss here. Indeed I believe we should better accept "camisi" for all the mosques, accept those whose (first) names are not a noun but an adjective (like Yeni Cami-New Mosque). (Ask someone nearby about "isim tamlaması-sıfat tamlaması".) IMO, what is more important than those details discussed by linguists, for an imported son-in-law, is to learn the correct Turkish names of places, mosques, etc to use them in other languages adding "mosque" etc at the end in the spoken language (English, Italian whatsoever). I am trying to say as long as you say "Süleymaniye" correctly, you do not need to add "camii" or "camisi" in Turkish, say "mosque" or whatever it is in Italian. (If you already speak Turkish and want to learn the correct use in this language I recommend you to say -and write- "camisi" not to look old-fashioned.) --E4024 (talk) 10:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Camii was the usage, since Cami is an Arabic word, and after the -i there is a - now mute - consonant :-)

@@Alex (and upon request) -I incline to accept the mainstream scholar explanation about the name "Türkiye" coming from "Turchia". (See "Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire" by Agoston and Masters, p.e. Page: 574) As long as it has "Türk" at the beginning (not for nationalism :-) I am not very interested in where the suffix comes from. I am not a linguist, so take as a joke what I am writing after here: Does "Suriye" mean Land of the Surs? What about Iraq? Why don't we have many Arab countries whose name ends in "iye"? I see that the "iye" comes only in "feminine" when used with feminine words like "republic/cumhuriye" in Arabic; if not it is not much around. Got no deep idea... --E4024 (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This is another source...I don't konw it. Is it good? Alex2006 (talk)

o this bad article on behalf of the wikipadia. one-sided and bad propaganda.This is organized anti-turkey persons. statistical and survey maximum bad data are obtained by willful.. black propaganda used against turkey. maliciously manipulated the facts. Salako1999 (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC) The biased Greeks constantly writers of this Article.Salako1999 (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I propose that as with every other European country, the distribution of ethnic groups in Turkey per the CIA factbook be included in the infobox. Athenean (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the data should be consistent (using all the same source). Is the factbook reliable? If yes, OK for me. Alex2006 (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It is generally considered a reliable source, yes. Athenean (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's just consider World Factbook's take on ethnic groups in France where ethnic information in censuses are avoided for similar reasons as in Turkey

Celtic and Latin with Teutonic, Slavic, North African, Indochinese, Basque minorities

So I don't think it can be endorsed as primary source in this area. I'm not in favor of reasonably disputable sections in the infobox, but if there must be something, it's better to use the survey published in Milliyet newspaper. --Mttll (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A ridiculous non-argument. The CIA factbook is used throughout wikipedia. And it's also more up-to-date that Milliyet, and probably more neutral as well. Considering how sensitive the Kurdish issue is in Turkey, I think Turkish sources should be avoided with regards to this matter. Athenean (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If something is ridiculous here, it must be the suggestion that Turkish sources should be avoided in the article on Turkey. --Mttll (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What is ridiculous is the figure of 9% for the Kurds in Turkey http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=513375364&oldid=513341231. This is based on a dubious survey and clashes with every other estimate of the current Kurdish population, which is usually estimated at over twice that figure (18-25%). Athenean (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The word, dubious, should be reserved for guestimates from sources which are certain not to have conducted any field research or surveys on this matter. --Mttll (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Turchia

"Etymology" section could be developed using the source (James Bainbridge) in Turkish people (section: Origins).

This is not a reliable source (not even for restaurants :-)). I suggest the "Cambridge History of Turkey", Vol. 1 Alex2006 (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This is organized anti-turkey persons. statistical and survey maximum bad data are obtained by willful.. black propaganda used against turkey. The biased Greeks constantly writers of this Article.88.244.71.189 (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Percentages of ethnic groups in Turkey

I'll cut to the chase: I promised not to touch the infobox without clear consensus, so I'm leaving that out for now. As for the main article text, there are two paths we can take: (1) We can put relatively undisputed, middle ground estimates for all ethnic groups. (2) We can put minumum-maximum figures from sufficiently reliable sources for all ethnic groups. What we cannnot do is inflate the number of one group and deflate that of the other as much as possible. --Mttll (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The key word here is "reliable". I very much dispute that the figure of 9% is "reliable", seeing how it clashes with every estimate published by reliable sources. 9% would imply only some 6-7 million Kurds in Turkey, which would seem to be wishful thinking on the part of some. Athenean (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

They are the result of a relatively recent, large survey, certainly much more of a first hand source than other so-called reliable estimates out there. And the data isn't supposed to be adjusted to compliment whatever convention. --Mttll (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem might not be not how large or recent the survey is, but what exactly the study was measuring. So what exactly was the survey measuring?

People who speak Kurdish as mother tongue?
People who speak Kurdish as either mother tongue or secondary language?
People who call themselves Kurds?
People living in Turkish Kurdistan?
People who have at least one ancestor who was a Kurd in the 19th century?
Something else?

What was measured in the other sources that report different numbers?

How do you define that someone is a Kurd? You can likely trace the difference by a factor of 3 down to different definitions of who is a Kurd, and then explain that in the text.

Lumialover2 (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be mother tongue and self-declaration about identity, among many other things. --Mttll (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What I am after: Someone found in a study somewhere a number of 9%, and someone else is saying that this number is so low that it cannot be reliable. This discussion won't go much further that way. There has to be a reason why this study says 9%, while most other sources including the CIA World Factbook (that can usually be trusted on such data) list numbers twice as high. Find the reason, and there will be a more fruitful discussion. Lumialover2 (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My personal observation is, being Kurdish may have different meanings like just having some Kurdish ancestors (but not speaking the language) or speaking some Kurdish but not as fluently as Turkish or speaking Kurdish as the native language. How you count is important, that is why many sources indicate a range of percentage. How accurate they are, including CIA, is another question, in Turkish population censuses there are no questions of ethnicity. All figures have to be relying on either sampling or some sort of projections. Filanca (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like someone to explain to me why Wikipedia should feature one sentence excerpt in a book about Iraq and Saddam from 2002 over a fully verifiable, 60 pages long study on the demographics of Turkey that involved interviews with nearly 50 thousand people who were sampled from all around Turkey. Thanks in advance. --Mttll (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I possibly would not be able to do that, cause I believe KONDA is a very serious and prestigious research organisation. The problem is, if a user likes the content of a source very much you cannot convince him/her or them that their source is not the best. This is something different... --E4024 (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't put much trust into that source, but the CIA World Factbook is a source that can usually be trusted. Why is the number of Kurds in this study only half of what the CIA World Factbook lists?

For figuring that out, "KONDA 2007" as a ref was nonsense since you cannot find the exact study with that informatiuon. Where can I get the "fully verifiable, 60 pages long study"?

Lumialover2 (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Link --Mttll (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't seem to be able to find the ethnicity survey itself. Anyway, the claim that Kurds are only 9% is exceptional, as it contradicts every known estimate published so far, by a factor of 2 or so, no less. Exceptional claims require exceptionally good sources. I don't think this source is exceptionally good, certainly not enough to include it in the lede of a highly visible article without any qualification. It may be acceptable in the body text, suitably qualified ("According to a 2006 survey by the KONDA research agency...."), but not in the lede without qualification. Just imagine we had a Kurdish source that claimed 30% and included it in the lede in similar manner, instead of in the body text and qualified ("Kurdish sources claim..."). Athenean (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

So how exactly is a single, seemingly casual sentence from a book about Saddam and Iraq from 2002 is an exceptionally good or qualified source to feature in the lede of such a highly visible article? --Mttll (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I did warn you in the beginning: There is no easy way to deal with these percentages. I propose the following again: (1) Let the infobox will be a compact collection of undisputed facts, i.e. no percentages of ethnic group, since there is no official census in the country for that purpose. (2) Put undisputed, simple statements in the lede such as "Turks are the most numerous ethnic group, Kurds are the largest minority" and leave the various percentages and figures to Demographics section in this article as well as Demographics of Turkey article. Otherwise, this will be a long discussion, which is, of course, fine by me. --Mttll (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that resolves the issue and proves that the 9% number is simply a wrong reading of the source:

The table in section 4.2 states that 9,02% of the study subjects were Kurdish or Zaza. In other words, this is the percentage of Kurdish and Zaza people KONDA interviewed as part of this study. This number describes a characteristics of the study, not anything about the number of people in the country.
The same table states, that as rectified by KONDA, 13,4% of the adult population are Kurdish or Zaza.
The headline of the next section 4.3 is 15,6% of the the population is Kurdish (also taking people under 18 into account).
To summarize it: According to KONDA, 15,6% of the the population of Turkey is Kurdish. (or 15,7% if rounding correctly, KONDA itself is not even consistent on the rounding of 15,68% in section 4.3).

Lumialover2 (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If you read pg. 22-23 carefully (it's a bit more detailed in the Turkish version), you will see:

9.02% identify themselves as Kurdish or Zaza in the unguided survey.
11.97% speak Kurdish or Zazaki as mother tongue.
13.4% basically either identify themselves as Kurdish or Zaza, or speak Kurdish or Zazaki as mother tongue, so basically a union set. --Mttll (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't speak Turkish. Do you agree that KONDA writes in the study that 15,6% of the the population of Turkey is Kurdish+Zaza? Lumialover2 (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

They give various figures based on different methods which they explain. If we are looking for a legitimate minimum figure, it's 9.02%. By the way, I have seen your edit summary at Demographics of Turkey before my previous message. That table is not some a priori sampling. The following explanation is given for it: --Mttll (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Interviewers were asked to write down the subject's first response. Subjects gave over 100 different responses to this question. Later on, the frequency and similarity of responses were studied and grouped together in statistically meaningful groups. The question for the most sought-after findings of the survey was formulated as follows: “We are all Turkish citizens, but we may be from different territories and origins. What do you know or feel yourself to be?” The table below shows the identity groups according to subjects' responses and the percentage with which these identities were uttered by subjects.

This is not a legitimate minimum figure at all, picking that number sounds more like a deliberate attack on the Kurds. The study itself writes as a headline that 15,6% of the the population is Kurdish. You cannot pick some random raw data of a study and use that instead of the actual result of the study. Lumialover2 (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Lumialover2. I always thought there was something fishy about the 9% figure. Now we know why. To continue to insist that it is a "legitimate minimum figure" is intellectually dishonest at this point. Athenean (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not raw data, that table is published in Milliyet. As for accusations of dishonestly, I was very clear from the beginning:

(1) We can put relatively undisputed, middle ground estimates for all ethnic groups. (15-18%)

(2) We can put minumum-maximum figures from sufficiently reliable sources for all ethnic groups. (9-25%)

My standpoint was never any different.--Mttll (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Except that the 9% figure is incorrect, as has been explained to you, so the legitimate minimum figure is 15.7%. Athenean (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Fact: 9,02% of samples identified themselves Kurdish or Zaza and that, along with other self-declaration percentages, has been published in a newspaper. --Mttll (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You claim It's not raw data. But the English version of the study, to which you gave me the link, writes on page 20 about the column that contains this data (including the 9%) The table below summarizes the raw data. Lumialover2 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not unpublished raw data, let's not be stuck in semantics. They are labeled, categorized and published in a newspaper; so there is no reason it can't have a place in Wikipedia (which doesn't mean being endorsed as a sole source) except some people may not like what they say, I suppose. --Mttll (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It is raw data. And it is good that it is published for understanding the actual result of the study. But using it instead of the result of the study that clearly states a different percentage of Kurds is manipulative and wrong. Lumialover2 (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I never presented as an overall figure, just a minimum, which it is. See: Link --Mttll (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The excuse keeps changing. First it was that it was not "raw data", not it's not "unpublished raw data". The one who is playing semantics is you (Mttll). We are not going to add 9% anywhere in the article, let alone the lede. Athenean (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

My intention was to eliminate hypocrisy from the start not to insist on a singular thing. So Athenean, are you going to explain how an 2002 book on Saddam and Iraq with one sentence on the number of Kurds in Turkey is qualified enough to feature on the lede? While you are at it, can you show some other country articles where percentages of ethnic groups are discussed? Because it would be kind of ridiculous if Turkey where there is no official ethnicity census of all countries was the only one. --Mttll (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That 2002 book is rubbish as source for the 25%. Did Athenean add that, or why do you blame that on him? Lumialover2 (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, he saw fit to revert my removal of it: Link. You could say my point there was to illustrate a point (i.e. elimination of hypocrisy), but certainly not disrupt Wikipedia while doing it. --Mttll (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, so no matter who of you two started this, you were both doing wrong things. Lumialover2 (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what I did wrong. When I removed the 25%, I never added the 9%; when I added the 9%, I never removed the 25%. I am just against double standards. --Mttll (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Your insistence on the 9% in this discussion here and on the wrong table in Demographics of Turkey. I don't know how many wrong things Athenean did in the edits and editwar before the discussion here, and honestly I am more interested in a reasonable result than in discussing the past. Lumialover2 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Trying to get a result

Why don't we use 18% with the CIA World Factbook in both the article (can be written as around 18%) and the infobox? The CIA is for such data a well-respected neutral source with enough resources to properly research their data (they've surely also read that 2006 study from KONDA).

Another option would be to collect reliable sources and create a range. The problem I see with that option is the discussion of what is a reliable source - looking back at the 9% discussion above I am not too optimistic of what would happen if someone brings a reliable source that states 22%.

Lumialover2 (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

What about this source [1], which cites a well-known Kurdologist? Athenean (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I am still not convinced why there should be ethnic group percentages in either the infobox or the lead in the first place. Such a thing in the lead doesn't seem to have any parallel in other country articles, and the country infoboxes with ethnic group percentages seem to be exclusively the ones with official ethnicity censuses. Athenean is the one who brought it up in the first place based on that Turkey is a European country, yet I don't see such sections in France, Italy or Spain. --Mttll (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Greece and several other countries that do not keep official statistics on ethnicity include percentages in the infobox. I don't see why Turkey should be any different. You seemed to be perfectly content to have numbers in the infobox when the figure for Turks was 80% [2]. So much for being "against hypocrisy". Also, a percentage for the Kurds has been in the lede of this article since it became an FA. I see no valid reason for removing it. Athenean (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, just because something is FA doesn't mean it can be improved further. The argument for percentages would be precision and the current version of the article doesn't deliver such a thing with naturally large margins and a whopping 12% unbroken "others" category.

I always advocated against percentages in the infobox, but said if there must be one let it be KONDA rather than World Factbook. For the record, 80% would be a medium estimate for Turks (between 70/75% and 88%). As for the World Factbook, yes, I don't believe it's a source to be endorsed in this particular matter. See its entries on "Ethnic Groups" in France and Spain:

France: Celtic and Latin with Teutonic, Slavic, North African, Indochinese, Basque minorities

Spain: composite of Mediterranean and Nordic types

Add these to respective Wiki infoboxes and it's likely they would be reverted instantly (with good reason). --Mttll (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Noone has a problem with Germany stating in the infobox that there are 5% Turks in Germany, and the ethnic group percentages of a country are important information about the country. Lumialover2 (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Turks in Germany are immigrants, so it's a bad analogy in all aspects. --Mttll (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This book has a problem similar to the 2002 book: A random footnote from someone who writes about a different topic and who doesn't care much about the exact percentage is a bad source. Lumialover2 (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Greece

Athenean, I'm afraid your attempt to show Greece article as a role model for this article is futile.

No percentages in the lede.
The following is said as an explanation for the percentages in the infobox: "These statistics refer to nationality (υπηκοότητα) and not ethnicity (εθνικότητα), as Greece does not collect statistics on ethnicity and self-determination."
The following is said in the World Factbook entry: "note: percents represent citizenship, since Greece does not collect data on ethnicity"

So what you have there is a completely different case than this article. What did you even mean when you said there are other agencies collecting info? Even if there are, they are not featured in the infobox. --Mttll (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? The infobox does have ethnic percentages, or did you not see it? Nice try though. In one post you are against ethnic percentages in the lede (using other wikpedia article as arguments), in another you are fine with having ethnic percentages as long as Turks are at 80%. Athenean (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm serious. I don't know about you, but I'm seeing this in the Factbook which is referenced in the infobox:

population: Greek 93%, other (foreign citizens) 7% (2001 census)

note: percents represent citizenship, since Greece does not collect data on ethnicity

And I already said I see 80% as a medium figure for Turks. The difference between you and me is that you want to keep lowest possible percentage (70%) for Turks while casually deleting the highest possible percentage (88%), go to great lengths to keep the highest possible percentage for Kurds (25%) and avoid the lowest possible again (9%). I, on the other hand, am saying if we really must at all mention this figures (I would certainly rather have undisputed lede and infobox), let's keep medium percentages (78.8-80% and 15-15.7%) or full ranges (70-88% and 9-25%) for both groups, even though the latter is such an eyesore in the lede. --Mttll (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

let's keep medium percentages (78.8-80% and 15-15.7%) That is not not medium, that is the lowest possible for Kurds. 70-75% and 18% is what the CIA World Factbook as a neutral non-Turkish source says. Lumialover2 (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have yet to see the arguments why the World Factbook should be endorsed this much in this matter. As far as I can see, the World Factbook features official censuses of countries when there is such opportunity; if not, it finds some figures in ways best known to themselves and in some occasions, they seem to resort to the 19th century physical anthropology.

As for "third party = objective" line of thinking, do I have to remind you Wikipedia directly features government censuses about ethnic groups in the infoboxes in all cases? --Mttll (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Mttll, I think what you are writing here is a lie. When was the last government cencus in Somalia? Lumialover2 (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I said when there is official census about ethnicity in a country, Wikipedia features it in the infobox. Quick examples: Bulgaria, Poland, Russia. --Mttll (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not what you claimed. Wikipedia directly features government censuses about ethnic groups in the infoboxes in all cases is what you claimed, and that is a lie since the Somalia article has data from the CIA world Factbook about ethnic groups in the infobox. Lumialover2 (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and in order to disprove what I said, you are to find a country where there is official census on ethnicity yet it's not featured in Wikipedia. --Mttll (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not what you wrote. And it would be irrelevant, since just like in Somalia there is no recent official census on ethnicity available in Turkey . Lumialover2 (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, unlike in Turkey, there is no recent census on anything in Somalia, is there? Are you trying to find worst possible examples on purpose? --Mttll (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In both countries there is no recent official census data on ethnicity available, and in both countries data from the CIA World Factbook about ethnic groups is in the infobox. Lumialover2 (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, horrible analogy. Somalia is a failed state and everything in its infobox come from the World Factbook. Turkey chooses not to conduct ethnic censuses for unitary republican purposes, much like France, yet unlike France, there are World Factbook figures in its infobox for some reason. --Mttll (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not listing the available ethnic data due to the policy of the Turkish government of not doing an ethnic census would be wrong, just like it would be wrong not to have a Wikipedia article on the Armenian Genocide only because some Turkish nationalists don't want that part of their history described. Lumialover2 (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

@Theaboveandbelow: Anti-Kurdish agenda, policy of the Turkish Government, Armenian events etc. Are you all right? Maybe you worked hard today on these or other issues and are a bit tired. Why don't you give yourself a rest tonight and come back tomorrow with a fresh mind? If not you are at the brink of personal attacks and still you can avoid a complaint. Seriously... --E4024 (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You were one of those guys who defended that ridiculous claim of only 9% Kurds in Turkey where even the study you cited said differently - and Mttll cited it again and again even after I pointed out that the study itself said otherwise. How should I call his actions other than "anti-Kurdish agenda"?
Wikipedia is about presenting objective information, not about following the policies regarding whatever facts in history or ethnicity the Turkish government tries to hide. Not conducting ethnic censuses is an anti-Kurdish policy, and it should not be rewarded by hiding the available information in Wikipedia.
As you can see in my discussions and edits, I am not blindly following whatever is claimed biased towards the Kurds (like that 25% of the people in Turkey were Kurds). I am looking for the most objective available information.

Lumialover2 (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for trying to talk to you; I won't repeat it again...--E4024 (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not conducting ethnic censuses is an anti-Kurdish policy, and it should not be rewarded by hiding the available information in Wikipedia. -Lumialover2

You are overstepping the line there. It's not Wikipedia's business to "reward" or "punish" countries, but only present facts. Let's follow Athenean's method of comparing Turkey to her European peers. Russia (federation) holds census on ethnicity and it's presented in the infobox. France (unitary republic) doesn't and though you can find tons of estimates about the ethnic groups in France out there, no such section there is in the infobox. Turkey (unitary republic) doesn't as well. And that's all there's to it. --Mttll (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I never tried to reward or punish anyone for anything. It is you who is still trying to reward the Turkish government for not trying to figure out the percentage of Kurds by not listing it in the infobox. Lumialover2 (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

My original suggestion

Remove "Ethnic groups" section from the infobox.

All other information in the infobox are undisputed to indisputable. That section with the unofficial percentages stick out like a sore thumb.
Country articles with that section in the infobox seem to have official ethnicity censuses in all cases. That isn't the case with Turkey.

Remove the percentages of ethnic groups from the intro.

That Turks are the majority and Kurds are the largest minority is more than enough for the intro. Figures and percentages vary greatly to offer any kind of precision. And the intro can't afford the space to distinguish which source is claiming what figure.

It might have been a mistake on my part to "play along" with other editors and diverge from my original position, so instead of reminding me how I did so, please address the points I just made. --Mttll (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook numbers are non-varying figures from a high-quality neutral source. The fact that around a fifth of the population of Turkey are Kurds is very relevant information about the country that belongs to the introduction. Lumialover2 (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you at least agree that those percentages are not as certain as who Turkey's Prime Minister is? --Mttll (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that. Just like the 2011 estimate for the population not all information in the infobox can be as certain as who Turkey's Prime Minister is. Lumialover2 (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, population and say, GDP, figures are rather undisputed if not indisputable. But those percentages are clearly something else from the rest and a reader can't tell that by just looking at the infobox. --Mttll (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The population estimate might be wrong by several million people. Lumialover2 (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yet you won't find anyone who would passionately dispute them as if they were the percentages in question. Look, you just had to add "around" in front of the "18%" in your last edit. I think we are both aware even at the very best, they are not infobox material. --Mttll (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That you with your anti-Kurdish agenda dispute numbers with ridiculous claims like the 9% above doesn't influence the correctness of the data from a reliable neutral source. Lumialover2 (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I already explained my "point" with the 9%, editors aren't supposed to explain their past actions at every turn. If you are suggesting I am somehow barred from questioning the current infobox due to it, you are very much mistaken. Not all "reliable" sources are infobox material, especially in "country" articles such as this where common sense dictates parallelism between similar articles. It was by that supposed "parallelism" this change was introduced ("all European countries have it") and I'm showing evidence to the contrary. --Mttll (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if one or a few European countries don't have it in the infobox. Some European countries have their data in the about the ethnic groups in the infobox from the CIA World Factbook, just like Turkey. So there seems to be nothing strange about having the same for Turkey. Lumialover2 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It very much matters if European countries which don't hold census on ethnicity like Turkey don't have such sections in their infobox, because that's the pretext used to introduce this change in the first place. --Mttll (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

While I am very much aware of the inherent limitations of infoboxes, namely only to allow for practical reasons one set figure which is then, by virtue of its exclusive position, elevated to the "true" figure at the exclusion of rivalling estimates, I have to say that in this particular case this private KONDA survey cannot hold a candle to the CIA World Factbook in terms of source quality. The matter would be different though if we had a recent official Turkish census at our disposal. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting Factbook figures should be replaced with KONDA ones at this point, but that there shouldn't be an "ethnic groups" section in the infobox just like there aren't in France, Italy or Spain. --Mttll (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo, Bosnia and Croatia are examples of European countries where CIA World Factbook numbers are used for the ethnic groups in the infobox. It is hard to imagine that the government of Kosovo ever held any census at all in it's country. Lumialover2 (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, Kosovo declared its independence as recent as 2008. Even its population figure come from the World Factbook. The question is how is it analogous to Turkey? The most analogous country to Turkey out of the three in terms of stability in recent history etc. would be Croatia and the World Factbook actually quotes the Croatian census of 2001 in its entry. --Mttll (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

And once again you pick the one example you like best, and ignore the other ones that disprove your point... There was no census of ethnic groups in Kosovo so far and that country has World Factbook data in the infobox - that is like in Turkey. Lumialover2 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is more that the reality supports my standpoint. The partially recognized country of Kosovo with 4 years of independence isn't a reference for any other country. Croatia, on the other hand, might be, even if just by being EU candidate like Turkey. --Mttll (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The reality is that when there is no official census data available, like for Kosovo and Turkey and Somalia for the ethnic groups, then CIA World Factbook data can be used in the infobox. End of discussion for the infobox. Lumialover2 (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Both Kosovo and Somalia are very special cases, and not analogous to Turkey at all. --Mttll (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Question: Does the CIA realise opinion polls with thousands of people like KONDA does, and is famous for the accuracy of its polls, or does it employ another reliable method? --E4024 (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The CIA uses all available data, including official government data and KONDA data and whatever other studies and polls have been conducted. Lumialover2 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what data they used to reach this particular conclusion about ethnic groups in Spain: "composite of Mediterranean and Nordic types". Joking aside, the World Factbook seem to function similar to Wikipedia in terms of ethnic groups. They quote the censuses of 83 countries in ethnic groups section: Link --Mttll (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Section "Demographics"

A report concerning criticism of the Turkish Government's treatment of minorities (ref 118) from 2004! The report was prepared for submission to the EU, before accession negotiations were decided to begin. Let alone anything else, the European Council's decision to begin accession negotiations with Turkey and the beginning of the negotiations in late 2005 leave the report totally outdated. Until I find newer sources will only re-touch the wording not to give a wrong impression to the WP reader about the present situation in Turkey. --E4024 (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

thanks for noticing, I've fixed that Lumialover2 (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We should also refer the violent PKK terrorism as the major obstacle in front of the efforts aimed at reforming the situation regarding this section of the Turkish population. --E4024 (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the civil war between the Turkish government and the PKK is not not an obstacle for minority rights like school education in the languages of the Kurdish people. Lumialover2 (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not a civil war and I think you are not aware that PKK terrorism is aiming at teachers, doctors, constructers especially so that the people that these terrorists are claiming to represent will not have a better life and will lean on them. This much for forum, no more from me on this. --E4024 (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What you write is a very one-sided point of view. As recently as 1991 ago publishing a Kurdish language newspaper was illegal in Turkey. Can you imagine that? And it is a major achievement for the minority rights of the Kurdish people that such horrible policies against minorities were changed - due to the attentions the PKK brought to the bad situation of the Kurdish people in Turkey. Lumialover2 (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

When there is a sheer lie I return to write: When I was a university student much before that year the PKK militants in our campus would sell us their papers in Kurdish, by force! I leave you with yourself now. --E4024 (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no lie involved, we are talking about different things. I am not claiming that everything the PKK did and does is right (definitely not). But regarding minority rights for the Kurdish people, the PKK is a major fighter for them with huge achievements, not an obstacle. But I agree, let us stop this discussion here now. Lumialover2 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Ethnic groups" in the Infobox

Since we sort of reached a consensus for the lead, let's focus on the infobox. Turkey isn't a partially recognized new country like Kosovo or a failed state like Somalia, Turkish Statistical Institute is more than capable of conducting ethnic censuses, yet they choose not to. Actually that they choose not to do it is an important information about Turkey. World Factbook figures are already featured in the lead and putting them on the infobox as well make them seem like established facts which they aren't.

Article 66 of the Turkish Constitution defines a "Turk" as "anyone who is bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship"; therefore, the legal use of the term "Turkish" as a citizen of Turkey is different from the ethnic definition.

The term "Spanish people" (pueblo español) is defined in the 1978 constitution as the political sovereign, i.e. the citizens of the Kingdom of Spain.

Due to a law dating from 1872, the French Republic prohibits performing census by making distinction between its citizens regarding their race or their beliefs.

These are good analogies, unlike Kosovo or Somalia. And guess what, there aren't "ethnic groups" sections in the infoboxes of France or Spain. --Mttll (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You would convince the editors who are here to make an encyclopedia but not the others... --E4024 (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

When there is no official census data available, like for Kosovo and Turkey and Somalia for the ethnic groups, then CIA World Factbook data is the best available data and can be used in the infobox. End of discussion. Lumialover2 (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone with some common sense can see both Kosovo and Somalia are literally very special cases and Turkey is more analogous to France or Spain in terms of not conducting ethnic censuses for political reasons. --Mttll (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Many country articles include ethnographic information in the infobox. Many use the CIA factbook as a source (e.g. Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, and many others). If the TSI is prevented by official ideology from gathering ethnicity statistics, that is the TSI's problem, not ours. It is not an excuse for not including ethnographic information in the infobox. Luckily, the CIA factbook does collect such information, and as such can and should be used. Athenean (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Countries most analogous to Turkey in this respect don't have "ethnic groups" section in their infoboxes as I showed. --Mttll (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We have already focused on the infobox, remember? These cross-comparisons with other countries only take you so far and are discouraged on Wikipedia not without reason for becoming at a certain point repetitive and circular. We have this field in the infobox and for this we use the best available source which is the CIA Factbook. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

add this line

|national_motto = Yurtta Sulh, Cihanda Sulh (English: Peace in the country, peace in the world!) Comment: this times turks say "Yurtta barış, dünyada barış" too. it's the same meaning. but the bold writing is correct.

Türkiye etnic origin: Turkish % 81.33 , Kurdish-zazas % 13.4 ,% 5.4 Arabs-circassians-bosniaks-lazs vs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.90 (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Add motto please

Peace at Home, Peace in the World — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.240.37 (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Your Reliable Source for this is?HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Peace at Home, Peace in the World ....... The phrase has its own wikipedia page ...... I think you don't even need to source it at all, because as a Turk I can say we all have been grown up with this motto of the republic in primary school teachings. I am a living proof :) I will give you a "gov.tr" link with "yurtta-sulh-cihanda-sulh" motto anyway. http://atam.gov.tr/jeopolitik-tehditler-karsisinda-yurtta-sulh-cihanda-sulh/ 88.240.15.118 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

|national_motto = Peace at Home, Peace in the World (Turkish: Yurtta sulh, cihanda sulh)"

I did but someone removed it. Maybe they are against the idea of peace... --E4024 (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Add: I am afraid now you will get that article deleted... :-) (Laugh when you cannot cry.) --E4024 (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I have restored it with ref.--88.240.15.118 (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

please ADD spoken language, alot of us speak Kurdish as well, There are over 10 different langauage that are spoken in Turkey.

Zoroaster Religion and Ottoman Empire

It is my understanding that regarding Turan history, there was a Zoroaster religious organization within Turkey. That is, until the Ottoman Empire went North and many converts and reformists embedded the principles of Islam into society. As there is no mention in the article, are there any relationships between Turkey, Zoroaster, and Islam?

Twillisjr (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The twin peaks of Ağrı dağı

The pic of Ağrı Dağı (Ararat for some) in this version is much more beautiful than the current one. It shows the two peaks together. IMO, it should be re-installed, with a note on "Küçük Ağrı" and "Büyük Ağrı". Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. More appropriate to show together the "Büyük" and "Küçük" Ararat. Current satellite picture is not very clear.--Maurice (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a big white cat sleeping near the stove... --E4024 (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Emblem?

Turkey officially does not have an emblem. Maybe we should not add one to this article-- Iñfẽstør ^{T• C• U} 16:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)?

What do you mean by "officially"? The emblem that we see at the entrance of every Turkish diplomatic or consular mission is not an official one? Should we write in the Turkish Constitution what is official and what not?

read the Emblem_of_Turkey article. all institutions (consulates, ministries, parliament etc.) have their own variant. turkey does not have its own uniform emblem officially. get it?-- Iñfẽstør ^{T• C• U} 18:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Turkey's neighbours

I think Maurice07 is right to place TRNC or Northern Cyprus as a southern neighbour of Turkey. Turkey recognises the TRNC and we do not have a separate article for the island of Cyprus. Without prejudice to the Republic of Cyprus's claims to represent all the island (I wonder how they represent the British "sovereign" bases BTW), the reality of the island is to have two states on it. --E4024 (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The reality is that no one recognizes the TRNC besides the occupying power that created it. Besides, the current version just says Cyprus, meaning the island of Cyprus, nowhere does it say the Republic of Cyprus. Mentioning a puppet state not recognized by anyone seems really weird. Or we could just mention the "Mediterranean Sea", which the only thing truly to the south. Athenean (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Athenean's right in that the only body directly to the south is the mediterranean. Cyprus stretches across a small fraction of Turkey's length, and is just arbitrarily close than other countries such as Lebanon. CMD (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Athenean : Indeed, not surprising at all for the words of a Greek citizen!! Purely personal, nationalistic and biased an approach.

"occupying power" mentioned Turkey and 
"a puppet state" mentioned Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

As I said,International community does not TRNC, but Turkey officially recognize Northern Cyprus.I agree with the opinion of E4024. We dont have a seperate article of Island of Cyprus. If it were, it necessarily used. Mentioned herein, Republic of Cyprus and it's not recognized by Turkey. As a result,it will be used neighboor of Turkey, not Greece or Syria articles !! --Maurice (talk) 10:43, 04 December 2012 (UTC)

(ignores trolling) Now that we have a consensus, I expect everyone who has signed up to it to enforce it against all the IP disruption and newly created accounts (i.e. socks/meats). Thanks. Athenean (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The correct solution to this is the current state of the article, which doesn't mention Cyprus in any form in the list of neighbours. People, it's very simple. Turkey does not border Cyprus at all, neither the island of Cyprus nor the Republic of Cyprus nor the TRNC nor whatever else. Or, more precisely, it borders Cyprus about as much as Britain borders on Norway, or Italy borders on Tunesia. There's the high sea between them. Cyprus is about 50 nautical miles away from Turkey. Subtract 12 nautical miles of territorial waters on either side, and you still have international waters for half of the distance. So, even if we included sea borders and not only land borders in our list of neighbours (which we normally don't do, I think), Turkey and Cyprus still don't share any. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

With regard to neighbours, Future Perfect, I am expecting (or better hoping) you to visit the "Cyprus" page and remove "Greece" from its neighbours. For two reasons: 1. It makes the article ridiculous. 2. The article is protected, not open to simple users like me... --E4024 (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If Cyprus is protected, would that be because you were edit-warring on it, by any chance? I am afraid that even as an admin I am not supposed to go there and make potentially contentious edits through protection, even though I technically could. But I agree listing Greece there doesn't look very useful to me. Since I've been throwing loose analogies about already, let me add another by saying that it makes about as much sense as describing the situation of Ireland as being just north of Spain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I proudly announce hereby, Dear Future Perfect, that I was or am not edit warring neither in that article nor any other lately.--E4024 (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Page protected due to edit warring

This page is now protected due to edit warring. Resolve your disputes and then you may request unprotection either here or by contacting me. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Location of Turkey and Armenian Highland Issue

If you check the editors, you will find out that they are the usual suspects -either Greeks or Armenians- who are vandalizing this article and reverting the correct versions back to the "Armenian Highland" random nonsense. Some decent neutral editor has to take action and bar these enemies of Turkey from making edits with hatred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.74.189 (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Currently, the alleged Armenian plateau, is still within the territory of Eastern Anatolia. Part of Eastern Anatolia, an extension of the Anatolian Peninsula. Already,Anatolia were used at the location of Turkey. Armenian plateau, is not used by any official Turkish sources.Interestingly,this is an ancient geographical definition,the description of the location of the Armenia's main article unused.The purpose of this use, fully nationalist movement! --Maurice (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

"Eastern Anatolia" is the name of one of the administrative regions of Turkey. We're talking about the geographical location of Turkey. Western Turkey is the peninsula of Asia Minor (in Greek - Anatolia). East Turkey is the geographical Armenian Plateau! It is a modern international geographical term! Enough to remove the information from the source, it is vandalism! 46.162.201.212 (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The current official name is Eastern Anatolia Region. The historical name of the area was Armenian Highland, which "de facto" became obsolete following the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. This historic geographical name has survived mostly due to Biblical texts regarding the Great Deluge and the Ark of Noah. Just like Constantinople became Istanbul, Smyrna became Izmir, Antioch became Antakya, Chalcedon became Kadıköy, etc, the current official name of the historical "Armenian Highland" is Eastern Anatolia Region. Like it or not. Vecihi Hürkuş (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You're not addressing the main argument, which is that "Eastern Anatolia Region" is a (relative, obscure, and stuffy) administrative and political term, while "Armenian Highland" is an internationally-recognized geographical term that does not necessarily correspond to political control or ethnic presence. Shrigley (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"Armenian Highland" may be an internationally-recognized geographical term in an alternate dimension you live in but it is not in reality. This is a desperate attempt by Greeks and Armenians, which you are supporting so you must be one or the other, to show half of Turkey as Greek and the other half as Armenian. The nationalistic values of these two races assured that their countries remain as failures throughout history. This absurd attack at the article needs to stop which will only start after you enemies of Turkey are distanced from it, you are not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.190.212 (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Turkish nationalists do not forget that in Turkey still live in small numbers, Armenians and Greeks. And to call the Armenians and Greeks "enemies of Turkey" is fascism. The term "Eastern Anatolia" (translated as "Eastern East") was introduced in the early 20th century as the name of the province in the east of modern-day Turkey. "Armenian plateau" is a geographical term used in science. Anatolia is a peninsula, which is bordered on the east with Armenian Highland. If in 1915 the Armenian population in Turkey were "disappeared" this does not mean that the term "Armenian plateau" disappeared too. Rs4815 (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You are an Armenian therefore you entirely lack credibility. Names and terms change as the owners of the lands change, it is not only you who is entitled to changing names, and we would have to use the old names of everything and every place with your logic. Would you like to reverse names of countries too? The list would be far too long before the turn comes to Turkey and the Turkish geography. You are an enemy of Turkey and the Turks which is obvious from your post and your comments. The one-sided fabricated twisted version of history you mentioned is an obvious proof. There are two sides to every story. Armenians siding with enemy forces and attacking Turks was naturally responded to by the owners of the empire they lived in, any other nation would have given the same reaction to the enemy within. Stop acting like your grandparents were innocent and targeted for no reason, stop ignoring the initial part of the story and entirely focusing and exaggerating the outcome. The name "Armenian plateau" does not exist today, just like Armenia does not exist in that area. Turks do not attempt to call the areas they ruled for half a millenium Turkish anymore because they don't belong to them anymore. Try to face the reality and come to terms with it like decent nations as your attempts are pathetic. Try working towards good for once in your lives, only then you might accomplish something. Your pathetic attempts to add a bogus plateau to a Wiki article or spreading your propaganda online will not take you anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.100.111 (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you're a fan of Adolf Hitler is not? Armenian Highland is the historical and the modern name of mountainous regions in the east of Turkey. Admit this fact, my friend :). By the way Turkish sources also use the terms "Ermenistan Yaylası"^[1] and "Ermenistan Platosu"^[2]. Rs4815 (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't accomplish jack with word games. You are far closer to Nazi mentality than anyone else on here. You always stir up where you are, then act like you are the innocent side and the victim. In history, while living in peace for centuries, Armenians broke peace while Turks were at their weakest time with ambitions of creating greater Armenia, miscalculated, became enemy of the empire they lived in, brought the war upon themselves, and suffered the consequences like any side losing any war. You attempted to massacre Turks and got massacred instead because Turks managed to respond despite fighting against multiple nations at the time. Today, you repeat the same mistake as individuals, you show up at an otherwise peaceful article, stir things up, then act like the innocent side and victim. You never change, which is why your fate never changes either. Turks prosper while your country remains in African standards. Turkey is the world's 15th largest economy, thus a member of G20, Istanbul's economy alone is larger than that of 12 EU countries, they have the second highest growth rate after China. They are an official candidate of EU membership which comes with meeting high standards including human rights. You have never accomplished anything in your lives, you have never proven yourselves, don't flatter yourself and see yourself in a position to criticize anyone. Armenia can't keep up with the poorest village in eastern Turkey, you are a banana republic. The accomplishments (and failures in your case) of a nation shows the characteristics of its people. Otherwise words are cheap. Armenians are known to be the greatest liars, cheaters, and deceivers in the areas they live. Take Glendale, California for instance. It's one of the major welfare check recipient regions in the United States and also highest in all sorts of fraud due to the high Armenian population. Those that know you Armenians know what you are made of, you can only fool clueless third parties with your lies and propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.111.150 (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The official name is Eastern Anatolia Region. Just like Istanbul (and not Constantinople). We live in 2012 AD. Vecihi Hürkuş (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Read this —— WP:POINT, WP:Vandalism, WP:No original research, WP:Disruptive editing. You all only kept repeating "Eastern Anatolia", "Eastern Anatolia." This is your argument? "Eastern Anatolia" invented Ataturk in the 1920s. We are talking about the physical geography and geographical location of Turkey in Asia! Rs4815 (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I can not really understand why Armenian and Greek friends on Wikipedia have so much politically behaviors. I am here for years and i feel like there's a huge race of these friends about putting the words greece, greek, armenian and armenians in nearly every article. For example it is really comic to see the words armenian genocide in the pomegranate article. Best regards.Ozgurmulazimoglu (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

A neutral (non-irredentist) description would be "located mostly on the Anatolian peninsula, southern Caucasus and northern Mesopotamia in Western Asia, and on East Thrace in Southeastern Europe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.124.241 (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Irredentism

The name Armenian Highland is not "factually wrong", but it is clearly obsolete (like Constantinople, Smyrna, Lemberg, Danzig, etc.) The current "official name" is Eastern Anatolia Region. Insisting on "obsolete names" (like Constantinople, Smyrna, Lemberg, Danzig, etc) amounts to irredentism, especially in the case of the "Armenian" highland (suggesting that it belongs to Armenia, or it should belong to Armenia.) 88.251.118.106 (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Read this colleague WP:No original research :) The term Armenian Plateau does not obsolete. It is a modern geographical toponym used in science. Armenian highland, one of the three plateaus of Western Asia. Asia Minor (Anatolian) plateau, the Armenian plateau and the Iranian Plateau. Anatolia is the Greek name of the peninsula of Asia Minor. "Eastern Anatolia" (Eastern East - nonsense) is the local Turkish term meaning the eastern administrative provinces of Turkey. As well as the "Aegean Region" "Black Sea Region" "Central Anatolia Region" "Marmara Region" "Mediterranean Region" "Southeastern Anatolia Region". Rs4815 (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above IP and am very concerned that that irredentism has occupied many articles concerning Turkey. (See Elazığ for an example.) Who can explain me why we are using also the Armenian names of some cities where no Armenians live since a long time? Please do not bring again what is known, contraversial and already stated above by a passionate (WP is NOTAFORUM.). Only say if there is a real need for those names... Why do we not have the Turkish name of Yerevan in WP BTW? --E4024 (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Because the former names of the towns were Armenian and Greek. Because so many of the towns and villages in modern Turkey was founded Armenians and Greeks. Because in so many towns and villages in Turkey thousands of years (until the end of the 19th century and early 20th century), inhabited by the Armenians and Greeks. But for example in "Erzurum" despite the fact that this city was for centuries part of Armenia and the city (up to genocide) had Armenian population, the historical Armenian name is not specified in the preamble to that (in my opinion) is not correct. PS. The term is "Armenian plateau" is not irredentism. This is not only Armenian, an international geographical term. Who (though rarely) used as well in Turkish sources. Rs4815 (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Southeastern Anatolia Region corresponds to ancient Upper Mesopotamia, should we also add this to the "first sentence" of the article? The obvious intention is irredentism (Greater Armenia) which will cause many edit wars and destabilize the article. 88.251.71.40 (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The most precise and neutral (non-irredentist) definition would be "located on the Anatolian peninsula, the Caucasian Highland and Upper Mesopotamia in Western Asia, and on East Thrace in Southeastern Europe." (Eastern Anatolia Region is within the Caucasian Highland (Caucasus), while Southeastern Anatolia Region corresponds to Upper Mesopotamia.) 78.181.148.193 (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

An even better description would be "located mostly on the Anatolian peninsula, southern Caucasus and northern Mesopotamia in Western Asia, and on East Thrace in Southeastern Europe." 88.251.124.241 (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No my friend, "Caucasian Highlands" does not exist. There Transcaucasian highlands located outside of Turkey, and is part of the Armenian Highland^[3] :) If you do not like this name - it is your personal problem. Geographical toponym "Armenian plateau" is not irredentism :) Rs4815 (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

See the article South Caucasus, where eastern Turkey is located. 88.251.124.241 (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop now. User Rs4815 !! Your edits and contributions clearly POV. You trying to impose article of Turkey. Which was used in ancient times Armenian nomenclature does not correspond to present-day conditions. Currently,while Turkey's position is being described,use Anatolia, Southeast Europe, Eurasia, Western Asia,... This applies to all languages, wiki articles. Your claims about so-called Armenian highland is just Irredentism. It can not be another explanation. I want to ask you a question! Inasmuch , Armenian plateau covers five countrie fully or partially

Armenia,

Azerbaijan,

Georgia,

Iran and

Turkey;

Why the Armenian Highland, is not included in the aforementioned article states ? Isn't this a contradiction? Please be objective in a little bit.--Maurice (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Answer: From the article on Armenia:

The Republic of Armenia, covering an area of 29,743 square kilometres (11,484 sq mi), is located in the north-east of the Armenian Highland.

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the "Britannica" and "The Great Soviet Encyclopedia" territory of the Armenian Highland is 400,000 km2. Both encyclopedias said that most of the Highlands is located in Turkey. Armenia, Iran, Georgia and Azerbaijan parts of Armenian plateau is approximately 90,000 km2 (all of Armenia, and includes southern Georgia, western regions of Azerbaijan, and northwestern Iran). That is 310,000 km2 of total area of turkey 783.000 km2 = 40% of Turkey is located in the Armenian Highland. This is an important fact and that should be in the article. PS. The term "Armenian Highland" also uses Encyclopedia Iranica (example in the article about Urartu^[4]) Rs4815 (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's the true reason: In the Constitution of Armenia, there is a clause which states that the Armenians "will keep pursuing the goal of annexing Western Armenia" (i.e. the Eastern Anatolia Region in Turkey.) This, of course, will not happen without a war. The Armenians tried a type of "terrorist war" with ASALA in the 1970s and early 1980s, but when the international community started branding the Armenians as "terrorists" (especially after ASALA's Turkish Airlines bombing incident at the Orly Airport in Paris, which killed many non-Turks) the ASALA decided to dissolve itself, and through a "metamorphosis", transformed itself into the PKK, thus using the Kurds for their dirty business and cleaning the stain on the Armenians caused by ASALA's terrorism. It was the ASALA terrorists who trained the PKK terrorists at the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. 78.181.135.172 (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, only the Greek (Dr. K) and Armenian (Rs4815) editors are insisting on this name, for obvious historical reasons (feuds against the Turks.) While you're at it, don't forget to rename western Turkey as Ionia, Izmir as Smyrna, Istanbul as Constantinople, etc. 88.251.91.24 (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The Republic of Armenia, covering an area of 29,743 square kilometres (11,484 sq mi), is located in the north-east of the Armenian Highland.

Yes,you are right,it can be seen in the Topography of Armenia's main article.This is very normal,already,mentioned the name of the highland comes from here, Armenia. If you pay attention,the prehistoric term on topographical section,not introduction paragraph like Turkey's location description!! Well,Where are the other alleged Highlands countries

Azerbaijan,

Georgia, and

Iran ?? Here,you claim that several sources and figures. They are no validity in Turkey and in the international arena. Lokk at : The CIA World Factbook and Foreign Commonwealth Office of United Kingdom/Turkey There is no any concrete information in this regard. Because,this prehistoric, ancient geographic term can not be used article. As I said earlier,the only existing definition : Systematic Irredentism implemented by the Armenian users. In fact,any support in this regard,not out of the questionexcept for some greek users. --Maurice (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess we can also add this to the sources when the article gets unprotected. From the University of Southern California and published in 1991 with the title: Earthquakes of the Armenian Highlands. For a prehistoric ancient term as you describe it having been published in 1991 it's not that bad. And it refers to the earthquake of Çaldıran (District), Van in 1976. This place is in Turkey and the earthquake is not so ancient.

<ref name="KarapetovnaAgbabian1991">{{cite book|author1=Nadezhda Karapetovna|author2=M. S. Agbabian|author3=University of Southern California|coauthors=George V. Chillingarian|title=Earthquakes of the Armenian Highlands (seismic setting)|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=h0pRAAAAMAAJ|accessdate=28 December 2012|year=1991|publisher=University of Southern California|quote=2.5.1 THE CHALDYRAN EARTHQUAKE The Chaldyran earthquake, one of the strongest that have ever occurred in the Armenian Highlands, struck on November 24, 1976, at 12.22 p.m. (GMT). The epicenter was located in Eastern Turkey...}}</ref>

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The authors (Nadezhda Karapetovna, M. S. Agbabian, George V. Chillingarian) are all Armenian. 88.251.78.53 (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Southern California, especially places like Glendale, have a very large Armenian population, which inevitably provides an Armeno-centric look at events and definitions regarding the region (the famous "Turkish delight" is sold as "Armenian delight" in Glendale, where the famous "Turkish coffee" is sold as "Armenian coffee", etc. Similarly, they become "Greek delight" and "Greek coffee" in Astoria, the Greek neighbourhood of New York City. During elections for the U.S. Senate, the "Armenian view" always wins in California and the "Greek view" always wins in New York (against the Turkish view.)) 88.251.78.197 (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Aynur Özfırat is a Kurdish author, whose views and definitions do not reflect the general Turkish populace (I have never seen or heard the expression "Ermenistan Platosu" (Armenian Plateau) being used in Turkey.) 88.251.78.197 (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sources are confirming that "Armenian Highland" is contemporary and actual term used by authoritative encyclopedia and scientists. In the "Britannica" for example said that Anatolia is the only peninsula of Asia Minor. Eastern Anatolia is a local Turkish term that is used in Turkey as a common name for the eastern administrative provinces of the country (such as the term "Mediterranean Region" for the geographic Cilicia or "Black Sea Region" for the geographic Pontus). We are talking about the physical geography rather than political-administrative division of Turkey. Nobody in the world is called the south of Asia Minor "Mediterranean Region" except politicians in Turkey, or in cases when speak of administrative division of Turkey. Rs4815 (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Anatolia "is" Asia Minor. The current "official name" of the region is Eastern Anatolia Region, one of the seven Regions (Bölge) of Turkey. Britannica also has the Constantinople article, but this doesn't mean it's not an obsolete name. The definition "Armenian highlands" comes from Biblical texts (describing the area where Noah's Ark landed after the Great Deluge) and has continued to be used throughout the Middle Ages for the region due to the medieval Armenian kingdoms, until becoming obsolete starting with the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 (since this date, the region has been ruled by the Turks.) 78.181.141.38 (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This is purely your assumptions. See WP:No original research. Rs4815 (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

According to this source the two terms are interchangeable. Quote:"Eastern Anatolian Highlands" is, to others, the "Western Armenian Highlands"

<ref name="Khatchadourian2008">{{cite book|author=Lori Khatchadourian|title=Social Logics Under Empire: The Armenian 'highland Satrapy' and Achaemenid Rule, Ca. 600--300 BC.|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Ok2NRqbDAc8C&pg=PA357|accessdate=28 December 2012|year=2008|publisher=ProQuest|isbn=978-0-549-98573-0|pages=357–|quote=The terms "Anatolian" and "Armenian" highlands are both used at times to describe overlapping areas with the former defined in relatively recent literature in relation to the modern border of Turkey and the latter informed by ancient, early modern and Soviet Geography. Thus what some scholars refer to as the "Eastern Anatolian Highlands" is, to others, the "Western Armenian Highlands"}}</ref>

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

References

^ Elburz dağlarının güneyden gelen dağlarla birleştiği yere Ermenistan yaylası denir, Hürriyet Ansiklopedik Yıllığı, Hürriyet, Istanbul, 1974, p. 323.
^ Güneye doğru Küçük Kafkas dağları ve yüksek Ermenistan Platosu başlar. Bu plato topografik açıdan Doğu Anadolu yüksek yaylası ve İran Azerbaycanı ile birlikte bir bütün meydana getirir., Aynur Özfırat, Doğu Anadolu Yayla Kültürleri: M.Ö. II. binyıl, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 2001, p. 13.
^ The Great Soviet Encyclopedia: article Armenian Highland
^ Encyclopedia Iranica: article - URARTU IN IRAN

[1] Elburz dağlarının güneyden gelen dağlarla birleştiği yere Ermenistan yaylası denir, Hürriyet Ansiklopedik Yıllığı, Hürriyet, Istanbul, 1974, p. 323.

[2] Güneye doğru Küçük Kafkas dağları ve yüksek Ermenistan Platosu başlar. Bu plato topografik açıdan Doğu Anadolu yüksek yaylası ve İran Azerbaycanı ile birlikte bir bütün meydana getirir., Aynur Özfırat, Doğu Anadolu Yayla Kültürleri: M.Ö. II. binyıl, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları, 2001, p. 13.

[GSEnc-3] The Great Soviet Encyclopedia: article Armenian Highland

[4] Encyclopedia Iranica: article - URARTU IN IRAN

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]