Talk:Turkey

Guidelines for editing the Turkey article

• Units in metric should be spelled out with the converted English units abbreviated in parentheses per Manual of Style.
• Only external links pertaining to Turkey as a whole, or official government of Turkey links are solicited on this page. Please add other links in their respective articles. For further information, please see Wikipedia guidelines on External links and Conflict of interest.
• All sections are a summary of more detailed articles. If you find any points missing, please add it in the section's main article rather than on this page to keep this page size within reasonable limits.
• Please provide references when adding new information.
• Please use the correct citation format when adding references. If you are not sure which one is appropriate, please see WP:CITE for a list of available citation templates.

Archives

Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 03:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Archives: Archive 1 - Archived on March 19, 2005 Archive 2 - Archived on March 25, 2006 Archive 3 - Archived on July 25, 2006 Archive 4 - Archived on October 5, 2006 Archive 5 - Archived on November 22, 2006 The article of 1911 Edition of Encyclopaedia Brittanica about Turkey posted by User:3210 Archive 6 - Archived on November 28, 2006 Archive 7 - Archived on November 28, 2006 Archive 8 - Archived on November 28, 2006 Archive 9 - Archived on November 28, 2006 Archives continued Archive 10 - Archived on December 14, 2006 Archive 11 - Archived on January 13, 2007 Archive 12 - Archived on March 20, 2007 Archive 13 - To be Archived on ...

Note: There have been contoversial issues in the past. Please check the archives on the right to overview the past discussions before making any substantial changes.

Comments

Timeline Broken?

Minor Technical thing, can someone with account fix it? There is this "time line" thing but when you click on it, well it look like cubist abstract art... no text no nothing. can someone delete that or switch it with an actual time line or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.69.231 (talk • contribs)

I think that cubic abstract art thing is like an icon of timelines. You should click the link next to it (History of Republic of Turkey) to go to the template, Template:Timeline_of_History_of_the_Republic_of_Turkey. The timeline is too wide, it may cause problems. deniz^T_C 05:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Turkey officialy an islamic or a secular country ?

My question is basically a question of intrenational law vs. the state's constitution.

Since: the OIC says that its goal is to: "promote solidarity among all islamic member states"

-Turkey officially appoints a foreign minister to the "Conference of Ministers" of the OIC, so it de facto acknowledges itself to be an islamic state,

-the Turkish representative, Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, is a Turkish official, representing the State of Turkey and acting on its behalf at the meetings of the OIC, and not on behalf of a private group (e.g. an Islamic Union of Istanbul, or something like that)

- The OIC is a group of countries, not individuals(by the way, the TRNC is not a full member of the OIC - and obvioulsy with no right to vote - but an observer state, as is the Russian Federation)

In a way, it is clear that Turkey admits, at least de facto if not de jure, that it is an islamic state - maybe not in the sense that (sunni) Islam is the state religion, but certainly not indifferent towards the religion of its citizens, as it would be in a 100% secular state. I agree that Turkey "has a strong tradition of secularism" in a kemalic sense, but that's not quite the same as being a secular state (I don't think that Italy or Spain are members of a Catholic Union).

Again, I think it's just a detail in international law not worth lingering on, but it is funny that Turkey always compains about the E.U. being a "Christian Club", while Turkey itself is a member of an islamic one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.1.51.216 (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

If it's not worth lingering on, why did you post it? In any case, any complaint including the term "Christian Club" most likely refers to a Turkish perception of the EU as being suspicious of Muslim nations. The EU, as I'm sure you know, is not a religious institution. 85.117.44.53 18:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Secularism is one of the building blocks of Turkey. The state has no state religion. England has a state church but they are still secular and democratic so Turkey can be secular and a member of an Islamic organization at the same time. It looks like a dilemma at first impression but actually it is not. Also, you have to analyze Turkey's position in OIC. It is not like "come on Muslim brothers lets unite and destroy the western civilization!". Actually, we are the window of those Islamic states (sadly most of them are not developed) to the Western world. We broke the chains of imperialism (by both getting rid of the British and our own monarch) and we are the first nation to fought and won against the harsh rule of the Islamic law and we formed a modern secular state from the ruins of a collapsed empire. Turkey is not a procedural democracy, it is more than that. I'm saying it both as a free citizen of Turkey and as a student of International Relations. See you, Deliogul 22:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What? Turkey never broke any chains of imperialism! Turkish imperialism ruled the Islamic world for centuries. Britian never successfully ruled Turkey. Britian ended *Turkish* imperialism at the Treaty of Sèvres. And that helped empower the nationalists who kicked Britian back out. Turkish nationalists were obviously secular then, although they are not secular today. I've no idea how the Islamic world sees Turkey today, but a "windows" seems ridiculously unlikely. How many Arabs learn Turkish? How many learn English?

To give a clear answer to the question: Turkey's constitution makes it secular, just like the US. Turkey has one dominant religion which oppresses all others any way it can, also like the US. Turkey has one enormously powerful & dangerous religious political party, again just like the US. Yes, "Islamists" are currently in control of Turkey, but these Islamists are not like the Talliban, they are much more like American Neo-conservatives.

Britian is a bad comparison since Britian is effectively far more secular than either the US or Turkey, even if less officially seclar. JeffBurdges 03:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep your "Operation Iraqi Freedom" dreams to yourself. And by the way, do you really think that learning english has ANTYHING to do with Britian, especially for Arabs? 88.245.72.166 01:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Sometimes I see that people and institutions in Turkey fuse Islam with national identity and the Principle of the indivisibility of the Turkish state, as defined in the Constitution of Turkey. Things that have to do with religion (e.g. Armenian Christians, the question of the ecumenical status of the Patriarch of Constantinople, conversions to Christianity or things like that) are classified as violations of Article 14. How so? Does the indivisibility of the State comprise religious indivisibility - i.e. is Islam a nationally "safe" or preferable religion ? How is this combined with Kemal Attatürk's secular and anti-islamic atiitude ?

Secondly, can anyone tell me if the Article 14 has an enforced status in comparison to the other articles (e.g. those granting the freedom of speach, religion and opinion) of the Constitution? Is that legally possible? In most European constitutions it's almost a dogma that all articles are equal amongst them. How is the term "indivisibility" defined ?

To JeffBurdges, Turkey defeated the so called "invincible" Great Britain (of course politically, because we lost the WWI). Turkish independence was the first crack on the walls of the Western imperialism. On the other hand, Ottoman Empire was imperialist (haha of course it was, look at its name :D ) and nationalists ended the Sultanate so Turkey won another challenge against imperialism. By saying "windows", I didn't want to refer to culture imperialism because the example you gave about the languages is clearly culture imperialism. I tried to show the role of Turkey among undeveloped (maybe rich but politically undeveloped) Muslim states because I guess we are the only one to reach such a degree in democracy among Muslim nations. And your comment about secularism... I can't reach to a statement as fast as you could but it seems like Turkey lost some of its notion and ambition about developing. In 1930's, Turkey was a success story, in 1950's it slowly became the frontier of the Cold War and after 1960's (with the help of military coups and social uprisings), Turkey slowed down a little bit and this situation gives hope to Islamists (fundamentalists etc.) in Turkey. Therefore, it is a tuff political issue and we can't form clear statements about it so easily. Deliogul 19:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

yes we were ruling the rest of the world but im sure we were better than Bush. we are a great nation and be sure that we will rule again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.212.144 (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Scientific output of Turkey

Turkey with its 70M population have the 60% science output of 1.5 Billion muslim world, besides its annual science output growth rate is even twice of some EU countries. I could not find any place to put these kind of scientific output information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.179.60 (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

The survey that we had been waiting for

Finally :) I just ran into this: [1]. This should put an end to it. It is a major survey done by a major newspaper and research institutes among 50,000 people about the ethnic repartition and identification of Turkey. I will slowly integrate the info in there to concerned articles. It also includes the first serious survey on language repartition since 1965 btw.

So, among adults, 82 percent of the population are Turks, 13 Kurdish+Zaza, the rest Caucasian etc (obviously this was about self-identification, not genetic testing) And no, half the Turkey is not Kurdish or Albanian :)))

As for assimilation:

• 4 percent of the population self-identifies as Turk even though their first language is Kurdish,

• 8.82 percent self-identifies as Kurd even though their first language is Turkish.

+ 1.38 percent has Arabic as first language even though 0.7 percent self-identifies as Arab, and there are more Arabs than Zaza.

There is more info in the survey, but those ones were interesting. Those percentages are included in the general self-identification survey. The info there can be used in many articles about Turkey, it is a pretty good source. It also includes info on Lausanne minorities. I will try to update this article based on that later today. Baristarim 17:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as the language goes, 85 percent have Turkish as a first language, 12 Kurdish, 1 Zaza, 1.38 Arab, Turkic and Balkan languages 0.25 percent each, Laz 0.12 percent, Armenian and Caucasian languages 0.07 percent each, Greek 0.06 percent.

The info in that survey can also help update articles on these languages and related. It is pretty handy. Baristarim 17:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I missed it when this article was on the front page!!! Baristarim 17:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is another article at [2] - It is a survey done by the European Union about languages spoken.. That survey lists 93 percent Turkish as first language, 7 percent others.. Baristarim 00:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Religion statistics

I noted that it's widely believed that 99.0% of Turkish population is Muslim. This percentage is getting upto 99.8% in some other sites. I tried to find a official or unofficial statistics in internet but I couldn't. I believe that this statistics don't reflect the reality. I've checked the talk archive of this article, and saw that there were some other people with same doubt, and asked for a citation. Current citation directs to a missing page. This page supposed to be in the site of an international development agency. It doesn't sound reliable. I added a 'citation needed' in this sentence. Please don't remove it until there's an official source of information. iyigun 20:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I added it, and that was the best one there was available. The link is there but there might be a typo. I have reverted you both here and in Religion in Turkey. I will try to fix the problem though. Baristarim 20:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And not quite. A survey by a newspaper in 2001 had found that 97.4 percent were Muslims. However I cannot remember where I had seen it. Will check back in. And why is it not "reliable"? Please try to raise the issues in the talk page before making substantial changes and particularly before adding fact tags. Cheers! Baristarim 20:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not reliable because they label people as Muslims right after they were born hehe :) I'm not the best Muslim around but my ID says that I'm one... This is the problem. See you, Deliogul 22:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I know :)) For one reason whenever I hear something like "99" or, even worse, "99.8" percent it just doesn't sound right.. There was a debate in another page sometime ago about Cultural Muslim.. Baristarim 23:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can use your percentage (97.4%) in the article but we have to mention that this is the legal status of people and doesn't have to be correct in real life. Deliogul 09:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not reliable because they don't give any source to the information in their site. Do you really believe that an agency which defines itself as "international development agency" can determine such statistics? If you find such statistics in "www.die.gov.tr" or from a respectful international organization which deals with statistics this would be reliable. Btw, the link in the citation doesn't work. Please either remove the citation or correct the link. iyigun 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As a second topic, if we're not able to confirm the statistics, we should write that this is not confirmed. In my opinion it could be written like "although it's not confirmed, it's widely accepted that..." I don't think wikipedia is the correct place to express such wishes or claims. iyigun 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this Muslim identity issue is more than claims in Turkey's case. Also, this 99% thing is not "widely accepted", it is "widely imposed"... See you, Deliogul 19:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, that info was sourced (and the sources are the best thing we have, unfortunately), I am still trying to figure out why the link is not working.. In any case, even though we know that the 99 percent figure is mostly imposed since nearly everyone is marked with a religious marker as soon as they are born, it is not for us to judge to what degree until the day there are major surveys about religion in Turkey.. I wonder why the link is not working, it was from a UN agency as well.. Baristarim 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Baristarim, don't you think that we should at least mention in the article that "99%" does not reflect reality because of this reason or that reason? You also know that this religion marker you're talking about is the reason of this high value in the statistics and there has never been a major survey. Can't we just tell it to other people also? If it's written here as 99% and reference a site, someone reading this may think it's actually reality. iyigun 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandals back again

User:Bush is vandalising the article. I reverted twice but he keeps vandalising. He should be stopped immediately.--Ugur Olgun 20:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What just happenned??!!! Man, some people are really going out of their way to be negative.. And now the article is full protected.. Baristarim 21:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, I was going to work on updating the demographics section tonight with the help of the survey above... :( Baristarim 21:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's no objections, I'll unprotect and set sprotection back again. The vandal is bound to run out of sleeper accounts at some point. El_C 21:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am ok with that. Baristarim 21:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And we can always introduce range blocks, or even contact its ISP and file an abuse report. El_C 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

They've tried range blocks did not work. Artaxiad 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Let's just see what will happen. If he is using proxies it could be harder to stop him, but I don't know... Baristarim 21:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't use proxies. Artaxiad 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That guy has got too much time in his hands to waste :) Baristarim 01:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't we all? (Despite being very busy at the same time, maybe) Did we not block the page before against new users? Did s/he have all of those user names ready? Man, people think a lot ahead. :) deniz^T_C 06:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Those sleeper accounts (and the ones at Armenia) involve really well-sought-out names, though! I find that somewhat amusing. ;) El_C 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

IP filtering..

I think we need IP filtering.. We shouldn't allow any IP to edit this page from Armenia. They do change more than us.. WHO LIVES IN TURKEY?? THEY OR WE??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.97.30 (talk • contribs)

Well, in any case I will second what Atilim said in one of his edit summaries and ask the anon what relation that addition has to do with this article. I mean, I read it and it can be of use in another article (I don't know the subject though), but it doesn't seem to have much to do with this page, let alone the need to have it all the way up in the beginning... Baristarim 23:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

He just wants attention no one wants that in the Armenia page because its BS to them, so he is trolling here. Artaxiad 23:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If you guys will be IP filtering, 63.43.36.* should be enough for now. Arin whois for the IP along with abuse-emails and phones.deniz^T_C 01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone. We don't exclude editors based on where they live or don't live. Turkish editors and readers do not own this article. IP filtering, blocking certain IPs from editing specific articles, is also technically impossible. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't own this article. It belongs to the universal knowledge. Yurttaşlar, Please be calm while expressing your ideas. Deliogul 12:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about my comment? I don't know about technical impossibilities, it does not seem impossible to me, it might just not be implemented in the wiki source code yet for some reason, though I have doubts about that; as far as I know there are bunch of IP's blocked (I know that some Yemeni Ip's are blocked at least). We exclude editors based on what they do. There are rules in every society and one needs to follow the rules. We are provided these Internet services under some rules, we should not abuse them. Anyway, if I was going to take some action, then I would just do that.

Now, giving information about vandal might keep the vandal away, hopefully. Once we write rv v , so claim that someone is vandal, this is not going that far, I think. Anyway, like Nasreddin Hoca said, What about the thief who succeeded to make some admin protect the article, now we can't improve it easily.

Also, if this vandal is really Ararat arev, he is already excluded'. Apparently now s/he hacked into people's accounts, so this is not simple vandalism, as having disturbed bunch of people, related, unrelated, attacking their personal accounts, etc.; but this is probably an easy to do action (as hacking accounts of users' with easy password, probably many people can do it), it is not like hacking and unblocking himself/herself. deniz^T_C 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about 88.233.97.30. I was sure that you can understand that. 88.233.97.30 has to understand that you don't have to live in a place to know something about it. Take care, Deliogul 17:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Delioglu, I didnt tell that filter all world except Turkey. I said it is better to filter Armenia. This is very well known technic used to prevent attacks: "Filter some region of world which is the origin of attacks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.97.30 (talk • contribs)

88.233.97.30, please understand that what you said was wrong (except maybe the first sentence). We should not care about countries of origins of editors. Let's try to improve all of the articles all of us. If you want to reply, please leave a comment at User Talk:Denizz. deniz^T_C 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

1. This goes against what Wikipedia stands for. Period. Origin of the editor doesn't matter. I have just as much right to add information to United Kingdom as a British citizen, and an Armenian has just as much right to edit Turkey as a Turkish citizen. If someone disrupts or vandalises this article, it needs to be dealt with on an individual basis. It is irrelevant to that disruption where the editor lives.

2. It is not possible to block IPs and accounts from editing individual articles. See Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 5#Can a user be banned from editing a single page? for more information. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

What happened to the pictures? Baristarim 18:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As You can see,deleted due to Copyright problems. There is a gap in our watchlist. Please check a way for watch to deletion nominated images.Must.^{T C} 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Broken link

Ocobot identified one broken link in this article: http://www.unfpa.org.tr/turkey/countryinfo.htm. I'd replace it with http://www.unfpa.org.tr/countryinfo.htm but I cannot as the article is protected against editing by normal registered users. Please take care of this. Thank you. — Ocolon 08:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have fixed it. But it's funny - it doesn't seem to be the same link which I had pasted a while back, even though it looks very similar. Did they take the info out since then? I will check into this asap, so in the meantime don't remove it yet please! Baristarim 05:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Motto

The motto of Turkey isn't unofficial. It's official. See also Turkish Version of Wikipedia.

hi

hi - why is the article locked?? grrrr.... --74.53.88.50 10:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess, it is locked because of some high profile! vandals. We can barely add new things to articles because all we do is to fix the articles after vandal attacks. Take care, Deliogul 11:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, Wikipedia has now a new(?) type of vandalism, Ararat arev vandalism. deniz^T_C 17:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Armenia ancient records" vandalism

It's getting annoying having to revert all the sock puppets that are vandalizing this article with the same text, over and over and over again. Honestly, WTF? --Kimon^talk 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's someone who's got a whole drawer of aged socks ready, obviously. I've just requested full protection, and hopefully a checkuser will get to the whole "Armenia-Azerbaijan" case sometime to try and clear this sock drawer out. (Though with the sheer insanity that's turning into, it's likely to take them a while to sort through.) Tony Fox (arf!) 19:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been doing nearly as much against it as you, but I agree. How many sockpuppets did he have in waiting for this moment anyway? They all had to be at least 4 days old to edit the article. He must have been running out of names, because Sock really sounds unimaginative. --LuigiManiac 19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The guy must've been planning this for a while. But, for so much preparation, this is pretty lame vandalism.

As for the name, "Sock" is rather dull. But, I'm surprised nobody had already used it before.

On another note, how would someone clear this "sock-drawer" out? Check the IP addresses? --Kimon^talk 19:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, over at requests for checkuser, this has been lumped into a case with about two dozen or so other users tied in with an arbitration case. It's an absolute mess. But, hey, it gives me something to do during sanity breaks at work... Tony Fox (arf!) 19:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And a cookie for Deskana for the full protection. That mean I have to go back to work now? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not only creating new user accounts, having gazillions of sock accounts ready, that is what I thought at first, too. According to Artaxiad, now a fellow banned editor who has connections to Ararat Arev, Ararat arev hacks into other user accounts as well, by guessing their passwords. Apparently there are bunch of wiki editors with easy to guess passwords. So, this case is bigger than it seems. Wikipedia really should implement that code to filter IP's, but the authority to filter IP's should be given committee's of administrators. deniz^T_C 19:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fully protecting the page might take care of the immediate issue, but damn! It just sucks to have to do that all the time. It's a wiki version of a DoS attack. In regards to the passwords, perhaps password rules should be implemented. That would take care of the "easy to guess" password problem. And on the the IP filtering, how would it be different to the current IP blocking mechanism that's in place? --Kimon^talk 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think with the current IP blocking, we can only block the anon's, here that is not enough. We need some IP filtering at least during account creation (just like proxy IP's). If the vandal uses bunch of different IP's, we might need to contact the service provider. I guess I am going to do that soon, as the person is really going overboard. I don't know whether that will help. It would help greatly if he were using some school account or something like that to access wiki, but he is not. deniz^T_C 20:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

editprotected

{{editprotected}} I wanted to make some (rather minor) changes, I will write them down, and that put the editportected tag if there are no objections. I was just going to make these edits, but due to Ararat arev's (or maybe Artaxiad?) disruptive edits, I cannot do it now

section Turkey#Pre-Turkic History of Anatolia: from

renaming it Constantinople (now İstanbul). After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it became the capital of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire.

to

renaming it New Rome (later Constantinople and Istanbul). After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it became the capital of the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman Empire).

please remove the blank space at the end of section as well (one byte gained one byte gained)

Since this page was very recently protected for edit warring, it wouldn't be appropriate for anyone to make this kind of change. The protection will likely be removed in a few days, at which point you will be able to edit the article to make the desired changes. CMummert · talk 12:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

The article says ...Turkey prohibits by law the wearing of religious headcover and theo-political symbolic garments for both genders in government buildings, schools, and universities... Does this mean: schools, universities and government buildings OR government buildings, government schools and government universities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.129 (talk • contribs)

That means all schools, unis etc. Turkey has a unified education system, which means all schools and universities, even though some are private, fall under the jurisdiction of one national education ministry for general guidelines on how they function. Nevertheless, I see where the confusion is coming from and I will move "govt buildings" to the end of the sentence. Baristarim 12:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I must add that such "ban" certainly doesn't include all the universities. Actually the university administration chooses whether or not to ban religious symbols, etc. Bilkent University is an example where there's no such ban (or any kind of problem for that matter), no one bugs anyone for their attire. The women who cover their heads do so with hats or wigs though.. In some other universities like Gazi University, the choice is mostly up to the instructors; they can take some action or they may just ignore it. Yet in some other universities the people sporting the so-called religious symbols can't even enter the campus. One last thing, there's no law explicitly prohibiting "the wearing of religious headcover and theo-political symbolic garments" Ozkaplan 12:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this is false. It is banned in all educational systems regardless of the ownership status (public vs. private). The university administration does NOT have any authority over this issue. Basar Kizildere 11:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is a "law" in the large sense: court decisions by the Constit Court and Court of Cassation which explicitly ban it. In law, jurisprudence (court decisions) are also considered as making up the "body of law".

Well, as for Bilkent et al - I really doubt it: The university administration doesn't have the legal prerogative to have the right to decide. Wigs and hats example is a good one since it shows that it actually is banned. The thing is, they cannot simply hunt down every single student - but what matters are the exams: they are banned during the exams and that pretty much means that it is banned in the uni. If you cannot pass exams, no diploma :) Baristarim 14:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Everybody is right, in a way. The headscarf ban for university students is unevenly enforced. Ditto for civil servants (visit the municipal offices in Istanbul and you'll get your confiration). As far as the law/regulation goes, it is for the univesity students, and civil servants -- the general public even inside government buildings can use headscarves unimpeded with some rare exceptions. 85.102.155.228 16:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is prohibited from entering the exams for covering her head in Bilkent. Where did you hear that? :) Yes it may be banned in a broader sense and the university admin. may not have legal authority over the matter but it certainly has in practice and that's what i'm talking about. And please don't get excited as if this is a debate on whether or not to ban the headscarf and such, we're just talking. Besides, my main aim was to inform non-natives that's all. Another example; I know for a fact that some instructors in Bilgi University allow students wearing headscarves to attend the lectures. cheerio.. Ozkaplan 10:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

Page protected to deal with vandalism once more. I'm still banging my head against my desk over this... it's amazing how persistant some users are, so we need to send the message clearly... "We don't care, go away". --Deskana (fry that thing!) 16:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion?

What religion status has Turkey? How many muslims (Shia/Sunni), christians and so on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.108.226.234 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

It is in the article, and is comprehensively covered and links to other articles which cover the subject fully is given as well :) Baristarim 01:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet attacks?

This page is getting vandalised a lot, dispite the semi-protection. What makes me point the finger at sockpuppets is the curious manner in that the attacks bring the page to a similar or identical state as other attacks I've seen. Either hunt the puppeteer or consider stricter protection. Bob f it 13:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

They are sockpuppets of User:Ararat arev (I hope I got it right this time). He has already been banned from editing either from an account or anonymously, but from what I hear he has been hijacking these accounts and using them to bombard the article. --LuigiManiac 13:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been happening recently today. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 16:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ararat arev.. He will eventually get tired and do something more worthwhile. :) Baristarim 03:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

False interwiki

{{editprotected}}

Please remove the Emilian-Romagnol (eml:) interwiki, which covers the bird turkey rather than the country. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done --ais523 17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Area

The information given isn't accurate. Please check tr:Türkiye.Mavromatis 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Add archaeology link

{{editprotected}}

Someone added this link at archaeology, for which it is too specific, but I thought it might be used here, either in External Links or under the prehistory section: Archaeological Turkey PaladinWhite 12:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe under Tourism in Turkey or History of Turkey (or History of Anatolia)? I am really wary that any additions of touristic ELs will break down the floodgates.. Baristarim 12:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

External links should not be put in the article body, and this one doesn't fit into the external links section at the end, which is carefully focused. CMummert · talk 13:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• shrug* I haven't done any work on this article, but the link looked potentially useful, so I just wanted to pass it on to those who would have a more educated perspective on it. PaladinWhite 15:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries! I will see what I can do with it, I will add it to one of the articles above. Cheers! Baristarim 17:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

External links in the article body are called "citations". If you want to stick an external link into an article, find some claim that the linked page makes and cite it. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

the vandal always wins

I started to hate this, whenever I try to edit this article, I find out that mr vandal, Ararat arev, or Artaxiad, or whoever else, with their hundreds of (suspected) sockpuppets, and gazillions of hacked accounts, managed to get the article protected once again. Please tell me on which administrative page I should mention this, so that we can possibly stop it. Apparently no one is going to do anything except reverting and protecting, and the vandal gets away with it. If we have similar vandals attacking other articles, this might be the doom of Wikipedia. deniz^T_C 00:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And what else can be done? I dare say every option has already been considered. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 21:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is about all we can do. But we do understand that this is a pain in the ass, too, and we will be very happy to make protected edits. Just put up {{editprotected}} and say what you want done. It sucks, I agree, but sooner or later the guy will get bored and go away. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Abdullah Gul

Just note there is no entry for Abdullah Gul, currently Foreign Minister and set to become President of Turkey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 57.67.177.33 (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Abdullah Gül deniz^T_C 03:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

section Turkey#Turks_and_the_Ottoman_Empire

I think the following sentence is not correct:

"Following their victory over the Byzantine Empire in the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, the Turks began to abandon their nomadic roots in favour of a permanent role in Anatolia, bringing rise to the Seljuk Empire.[20]"

If you have ref #20 (cyril mango, oxford history of byzantium), please check it, and if the sentence above is not correct, write down the corrected version below, so that an admin can edit it. Thanks. deniz^T_C 03:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Next sentence should also be fixed, 200 years is not a short time. deniz^T_C 03:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

section republican era

Turkish republic of northern Cyprus was established about 9 years after the invasion. we might need to revise the sentence. deniz^T_C 03:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits to chronically protected page

Feel free to outline your edits here and an admin may add these to the protected page for you. Thank you, and sorry for the inconvenience. El_C 02:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[Proposed edit 1]

minor edit section Turks and Ottoman Empire from

In its wake, one of the Turkish principalities governed by Osman I was to evolve into the Ottoman Empire, thus filling the void left by the collapsed Seljuks and Byzantines.

to

In its wake, one of the Turkish principalities in Anatolia governed by Osman I was to evolve into the Ottoman Empire, thus filling the void left by the collapsed Seljuks and Byzantines.

Thx deniz^T_C 03:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done--WinHunter ^(talk) 03:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[Proposed edit 2]

undelete the article, immediately, please deniz^T_C 16:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, the deletion was to remove the recent disruptive edits which has made the history not useful, it has now been restored and unprotected. --WinHunter ^(talk) 16:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)