Talk:Turkey

Motto

Turkey is a parliamentary representative democracy and Turkey's constitution governs the legal framework of the country. Due to that conditions, Motto of the Turkey should be rewritten again as "Sovereignty unconditionally belongs to the Nation". Please check the Wkipedia page: Sovereignty unconditionally belongs to the Nation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.255.97.45 (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2015

88.104.185.225 (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Turkey is responsible for helping the forces of Islamic state perpetrate genocide against the Kurdish people.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Banning the term 'Turkish Kurdistan' in this article

Turkish Kurdistan does not have to be an administrative division within the boundaries of today's Turkish Republic in order for it to be mentioned in the article. Turkish Kurdistan can simply have a geographical and historical connotation, and that's good enough for Wikipedia. Even the main page of Turkish Kurdistan calls it "unofficial name for the southeastern part of Turkey." So why should we prohibit in this article? Also, the map is a good indicator of the complex demographics of Turkey. I don't see why it should be removed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The map is important, and useful to our readers. We mention the Kurdish minority in the article so a map showing where they are located is useful. This region is also in the news a lot these, so it's doubly useful. I also see no valid reason to no include it. Btw "Heimdallr of Assir" whatever is a sock of "Lord of Rivendell", so no need to take him seriously. Athenean (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, Heimdallr of Æsir made this revert with the following edit-summary:

Is it Turkish Kurdistan or Western Armenia? Both of them have the same map. You guys should better make up your mind, or you will start fighting each other over your conflicting irredentist dreams, which will never become true.

Firstly, edit-summaries are not places to insult and inflame political tension. This is not a WP:BATTLEFIELD. Please refrain from doing so. I'd rather just comment on the substance of the edit-summary: the whole Turkish Kurdistan or Western Armenia debate. Both Armenian and Kurdish irrendentists view the Treaty of Sevres as their legal basis to the land found in Turkey. Kurdish land granted to the Kurdish delegation in Sevres is separate from the land granted to the Armenians. As you can see with a simple look at the map of the Treaty of Sevres, Kurdistan is just south of the land granted to Armenia. To put it simply, Armenians and Kurds do not claim land from one another. But I do not want to sway off-topic here. I would like to discuss my first comment, we can then move on. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The Treaty of Sevres (1920) was never ratified by the Ottoman Parliament and was later superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) following the Turkish War of Independence (1919-1922). Learn to live with this fact. Heimdallr of Æsir (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The so-called Turkish Kurdistan and Western Armenia have the exact same map. Which one is true? The definition "Turkish Kurdistan" is misleading, because in Iraq and Iran, there are official regional administrations with the name "Kurdistan" (Iraqi Kurdistan and Iranian Kurdistan have official status and defined borders; but no such region or administration exists in Turkey, with no defined borders.) 88.251.101.249 (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

A treaty does not have to be ratified in order for it to be legal. Any legal scholar would dispute that.

The Treaty of Laussane doesn't replace or rescind the Treaty of Sevres because not all of the signatories of the Treaty of Sevres were present at the Laussane conference, and that includes the Armenian and Kurdish delegations. The common misconception that the Treaty of Laussane replaces the Treaty of Sevres is a ploy made by the Turkish government to avoid land claims. However, this isn't something the international community believes. Turkey knows that. That's why its government tries so hard to have Armenia acknowledge the border between Armenian and Turkey. Also, this is one of the reasons why Turkey was the first country to acknowledge Armenia's independence so as to reaffirm its belief that today's Armenia is the only Armenia Turkey will ever put up with.

I've already said that the maps don't criss-cross one another. Again, the legal basis to Armenian and Kurdish land claims is the Treaty of Sevres which seperates both Armenia and Kurdistan geographically. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Your claim that the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) didn't supersede the never-ratified (it has no validity without the ratification of the Ottoman Parliament) Treaty of Sevres (1920) proves how DELUDED you are on this subject. There is a reason why the Great Powers of Europe signed the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, instead of insisting for the Treaty of Sevres to be formally recognized by the Ankara government. Anyway, good luck to Armenia with its population of 2.9 million and GDP of $10.3 billion for realizing its dream of "sharing the eastern half of Turkey with the PKK". Would you like to have some Turkish coffee for waking up? 88.251.68.205 (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

88.251.68.205 The Treaty of Laussane was nothing but a treaty to end war. It does not replace the Treaty of Sevres. The only institution that says it does is the Turkish government in order to evade legitimate territorial claims by Armenia and Kurdistan under the Treaty of Sevres. Unlike you, I don't believe in this Turkish government propaganda. No legit international law scholar does either. Nevertheless, you can call me delusional all you want, but in all legal aspects, the Treaty of Sevres is live and well. The Turkish government can't change that. Here's some more reasons why the Treaty of Laussane cannot rescind Sevres:

1. The Treaty of Laussane says nothing about Armenia or Kurdistan. The Treaty of Sevres, however, does. To that extent, it cannot be said that it replaces the Treaty of Sevres when all the parties of Versailles weren't even present in Laussane.
2. Armenia and Kurdistan were not a signatory party to the Treaty of Laussane. Under the Treaty of Sevres they both were.
3. Turkey cannot base its claim on conquest (i.e. Western Armenia in 1920). That's violation of international law in and of itself.
4. The Treaty of Laussane makes no mention of the Treaty of Sevres. It makes no mention of how it negates the Sevres Treaty either.
5. The Treaty of Laussane does not define the Armenian and Turkish border, therefore territorial claims by Armenia is still legally binding under the Treaty of Sevres.
6. Most of the provisions of the two treaties do not contradict each other, nor do they negate one another.

Again, ratification is not obligatory for a treaty to be legally binding or enforced. In the case of the Treaty of Sevres, this is entirely true. And since the Treaty of Laussane doesn't replace the Treaty of Sevres, as aforementioned, the Treaty of Sevres is very much a treaty that has enforcement rights. If you don't want to believe me, perhaps you should check out this source: [1].

I have never advocated a military solution concerning this issue. However, one thing is for sure. The Turkish government is illegally sitting on top of Armenian and Kurdish lands. That shouldn't come to anyone's surprise, since before the arrival of the Turks, Armenians and Kurds have been living on those lands for thousands of years. Today's geopolitical situation cannot change that, neither will the Treaty of Laussane. And by justifying the Turkish governments presence on those lands solely due to the prowess of its military doesn't give you rightful ownership of it either. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Lest there are any doubts that this seemingly new maniac is a sock of the demented Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs), here is a diff by one of his innumerable socks (Pantepoptes (talk · contribs)) that shows the same peculiar obsession with Armenia's 3 million people and 10 billion GDP [2] (though he has revised his figures somewhat). As this individual is banned, there is no need to engage him, and all edits, including to this talkpage, may be reverted on sight per WP:BAN, and are even exempt from WP:3RR per WP:3RRNO. Athenean (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's not mistake ought for is: Turkey's current borders are internationally recognized. The Treaty of Lausanne, which was signed by Turkey, is in effect; the Treaty of Sevres, which was signed by now long bygone Ottoman Empire, is not. Some may find these unfair, but facts are facts. Having said this, I'm skeptical of the term 'Turkish Kurdistan'; because unlike, say, 'Iraqi Kurdistan', it has no official status and thus its borders are inevitably imprecise. I'm not saying it should absolutely not be used at all, but we should be careful as not to create any confusion. Lastly, Armenian and Kurdish land claims in Turkey most certainly do overlap: You cannot find a map of a proposed 'Turkish Kurdistan' that doesn't include Van, for example. --Mttll (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A name does not have to have official status for it to be in used in Wikipedia. Turkish Kurdistan is a widely used term to describe a certain geographical part of Turkey. All we are saying in this article is that a certain part of Turkey is also known as Turkish Kurdistan. That's like saying a certain mountain of the United States is also known as Denali (think before the recent name change). Per WP:COMMONTERM, the use of alternative names is encouraged, as long as they are commonly used. That appears to be the case here. And again, Kurdish and Armenian land claims have never overlapped in its history. Don't get mixed up with demographic maps with political ones. As I have said, the basis of all land claims have always been the Treaty of Sevres (see here). I don't believe there's any other legal basis for them. Check out the United Armenia article as well and particularly this map [3] which shows the goals of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation in terms of land. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I did not say that 'Turkish Kurdistan' should not be used because it does not have official status, but because its borders are inevitably imprecise and would create confusion. And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but separatist Turkish Kurds don't care about Treaty of Sevres. Their argument is self-determination in regions where Kurds make up the majority. Treaty of Sevres was signed by an Ottoman delegation. Today, It is about as relevant as treaties signed by the Holy Roman Empire. Again, Turkey's borders are internationally recognized; the Turkish control of Eastern Anatolia is considered legal. This is not me being a Turkish nationalist. For example, I realize that the international community considers the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus an illegal occupation force of Turkey. It's just that they don't feel the same way about the Turkish presence in Erzurum or Van. Now you may find this unfair, which fine, I'm not here to convince you otherwise. But you can't push some agenda here. Wikipedia is about how the world is, not how the world ought to be. --Mttll (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what Turks, Greeks, Kurds, or even Armenians think about the Treaty of Sevres. Neither do I have a deep-seeded desire to suggest how the world ought to be. My simple two edits in this article shouldn't even reflect that notion. What ought to be, however, is what the Wikipedia community would like to see done. It is the simple guidelines of the Wikiproject that should be observed. This means setting aside Turkish Republic idealism and editing by means of consensus. In the case of Turkish Kurdistan, nothing is more appropriate than just adding a simple "...also known as Turkish Kurdistan", especially when thousands upon thousands of third-party sources that widely use that term. By the way, I didn't even mention the Treaty of Sevres to begin with. I can't see why a simple demographic map could ignite such an uproar about that. Sevres Syndrome perhaps?

P.S. Armenian and Turkish borders are hardly recognized. In fact, the recognition of the Armenian and Turkish border is one of the three preconditions set by Turkey for establishing diplomatic relations. The border between Armenia and Turkey is set by the Treaty of Kars, a treaty not considered legal under Armenia's view. This has made Turkish politicians uneasy because of Sevres' legality. Just another reason why the Treaty of Sevres is relevant even till this day. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, right now there is such a sentence in the article: "Kurds are concentrated in the east and southeast of the country, in what is also known as Turkish Kurdistan." Personally, I don't have a problem with this. It is not exactly precise as to where Turkish Kurdistan begins and ends, but I guess there is no need for absolute precision there. We can move on. As for the Turkish-Armenian border, it may be disputed by Armenia, but it is recognized by the international community. Just the Republic of Cyprus is disputed by Turkey, but recognized by the international community. Facts are facts. --Mttll (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If the facts were facts, Turkey wouldn't have made it a precondition for Armenia to recognize the borders between the two countries. If Turkey was so rest assured about its borders, it would just go along and make diplomatic relations with Armenia. But, as it appears, not everything is fact in the geopolitical world, especially in such a volatile region. There's a lot of grey area too. At any rate, this discussion has already digressed into another topic of discussion. This topic of discussion doesn't have much to do with the article. If you feel like talking about Turkish-Kurdish-Armenian relations, talk to me on my talk page. Otherwise, I feel that there's no point in furthering this discussion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Mttll, you are missing an important detail: The Treaty of Sèvres (1920) was signed by the Ottoman delegation led by Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha, but the Ottoman Parliament in Istanbul refused to ratify the treaty (the treaty was never put into effect on Ottoman Turkish territory, i.e. never attained legal status in Turkey.) Similarly, even if the Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras signs a new bailout deal in Brussels with the EU, if the Greek Parliament in Athens refuses to ratify it, the deal won't be put into effect (the deal will be annulled and become void if the Greek Parliament refuses to ratify it.) An international treaty must be ratified by a signatory country's national parliament (if that country has a parliamentarian system) in order to be enacted (otherwise, it won't attain legal status on that country's sovereign territory.) Heimdallr of Æsir (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have rewritten the map caption to simply and neutrally state what the map shows: "Areas in Turkey with a Kurdish-majority population" rather than "A map displaying the Kurdish-majority region of southeastern Turkey". Having a map showing where the majority-Kurdish areas are has obvious usefulness in the article so it should stay (though I think the map is very crude in its aim, a better map would define these and adjoining areas with greater accuracy, such as areas with 40%, areas with 70%, etc.) The "in what is also known as Turkish Kurdistan" text is highly pov and aggressive I think, and rather weasily too since its unqualified use implies the status of acceptance by all. Who says it is "also known"? I think either get rid of its use in that context (i.e. separate it from the same sentence as southeast Turkey, but maybe mention it elsewhere in the article), or reword it to something like "what some also call 'Turkish Kurdistan'" and give it a source showing who that some is. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the term "Turkish Kurdistan". That it is "highly pov and aggressive" is just your own opinion, which is not backed by anything. We happen to have an article by that name. Is that article title "highly pov and aggressive". If you think so, then you should put in a move request (good luck with that), and if it is successful, then come back here and we can talk. As for "weasily", you should consult WP:WEASEL. Wording such as "some consider" is the exact definition of weasel wording. The current wording is perfectly neutral. Athenean (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You present nothing. Present some modern commercially-produced maps that say "Turkish Kurdistan". Present a single political entity that uses "Turkish Kurdistan". You cannot because they do not exist. You have not even presented sources, not even a single source, proving the term "Turkish Kurdistan" exists at all! (I am not saying the term does not exist, but the fact you have not even bothered to find a source to indicate it exists reveals lack of substance in your arguments). The wording you advocate using in this article as correct is pov, aggressive and weasel because it has no sources and it falsely presents the "Turkish Kurdistan" definition as having equal standing and usage as the universally accepted "Eastern Turkey" definition, when it is actually a phrase very rarely used and used by persons/bodies advocating a particular point of view. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Turkish Kurdistan is a widely used term [4]. The only ones who have a problem with it are Turkish nationalists. Anyway, if the term is so objectionable to you, you should first try to rename or delete the Turkish Kurdistan article, then come back here and I'd be willing to listen to you. Till then, so long. The assertion that somehow mentioning it here equates it with "Eastern turkey" is in your head, no one is saying that. Athenean (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The text that you want in the article, "Kurds are concentrated in the east and southeast of the country, in what is also known as Turkish Kurdistan", implies unequivocal parity of usage between the phrase "Turkish Kurdistan" and all other phrases/terms that could be used, such as "the country" (i.e. Turkish republic) or "eastern Turkey". This is unsupportable in reality, so your "also known" is weasel wording because it gives undue weight to a minority terminology used by those holding a particular outlook. Or shall we also say "most north Americans are concentrated in the United States of America, which is also known as the Great Satan"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with "also known". It is not weasel wording in any way. Your analogy with the "Great Satan" term is a straw man. Athenean (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Just repeating "there is nothing wrong with also known" is just an empty "I'm right" statement. The "also known" wording you want implies parity of usage, but no such parity of usage exists in reality. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not think Turkey is a democracy

The reference to Turkey being a democratic state is very hard to maintain in current times: every month there are news of arrests and intimidation to people for expressing thoughts in Turkey in a way contrary to the head of state. I request this reference be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.32.232.185 (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A democracy is a country where politicians are elected by the common citizens to become MPs (Members of Parliament) for a certain period (in most cases, for a period of 4 or 5 years), among whom the Cabinet of Ministers (including the Prime Minister) are selected; and the Cabinet has to be approved by the President or the "Head of State" (such as the Monarch (King/Queen) in constitutional (parliamentarian) monarchies like the United Kingdom). This, of course, is the model in countries without an executive presidency (the President has more executive power in countries like the United States, Russia and France, but in countries with the parliamentarian system – such as Turkey – the role of the President is largely ceremonial.) Turkey is a country with numerous political parties and free, multi-party elections. Yes, the level of human rights (freedom of expression, freedom of the media, minority rights, etc.) in Turkey is low compared to the developed countries in Western Europe, but Turkey still qualifies as a democracy. Another problematic area in Turkey's democracy is the rule of law (the laws on paper and decisions by the courts are often disobeyed by those who hold political or economic power.) In this world, there is no such thing as a "flawless, perfect democracy" by the way (there isn't a single country which can claim to have a perfect, flawless democracy – simply because humans are not flawless. But some countries have succeeded in getting closer to it than others.) Heimdallr of Æsir (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Map caption

All right, now that the sock that was causing disruption has been blocked it's time to thresh out the issue of the map caption. I have added a source in the body text that fully supports the sentence "Kurds make up a majority in the provinces of Dersim, Bingöl, Muş, Ağrı, Iğdır, Elazığ, Diyarbakır, Batman, Şırnak, Bitlis, Van, Mardin, Siirt and Hakkari, a near majority in Şanlıurfa province (47%), and a large minority in Kars province (20%).". The source is of high quality, and the information is highly relevant to this article, particularly in light of the recent developments in the region. I also believe a map is useful to our readers to help visualize this. So I used the CIA-based map, as I find it to be quite accurate based on my knowledge of the issue. The problem is, even though these areas clearly have a Kurdish majority, the source doesn't explicitly say so, simply stating these are "Kurdish-inhabited" areas, which is vague. Now, I could make a map showing the above-mentioned provinces in a different color, and that would fully in accordance with the source I have added, but I feel that would be less accurate than the current map (e.g. it is well known that southern Erzurum province has a Kurdish majority, while southern Sanliurfa province does not). If anything, the current map with the descriptor "Kurdish majority areas" is more stringent and conservative, and also more accurate, than a map showing all of the above-mentioned provinces in a different color. Athenean (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)