Talk:Turkey

Guidelines for editing the Turkey article

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

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 Encyclopædia Britannica about Turkey: 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 - Archived on December 2, 2007 Archive 14 - Archived on March 31, 2008 Archive 15 - March to August 2008

Map

How about this one? I removed Greenland and cropped the excessive empty space at left

Turkey is an Asian country not European, so why does the map show Turkey as part of Europe? Signsolid (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkey is institutionally a European state (the same case with Cyprus). It is a founding member of the Council of Europe (1949) and an officially recognized candidate country to join the European Union, having been an associate member since 1963, and having reached a customs union with the EU since 1995. Turkey is also an associate member of the Western European Union since 1992; which will likewise automatically turn to full membership with eventual EU accession. Hamam Tellak (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Even though the modern state of Turkey since the First World War has tried to make itself as European as possible it is still geographically, racially, culturally, linguistically, religiously, and historically Asian. Signsolid (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree to geographically, racially, culturally, linguistically and religiously related to Asia but I beg to disagree about "historically Asian". Actually Anatolia has been massively of Greek culture for 13 or 14 centuries before it became Turk, and even prior to the Helenism it had always been mostly Indo-European culturaly (Luvites, Hitites, Micenians, Phrygians, Lydians, etc.) and some Old Mediterranean (Cretans, Pelasgians and Carians). Greek was nearly the universal language in Anatolia prior to the arrival of the Turks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.254.137 (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Geographically, Turkey is a Eurasian country -- part of it is in Europe and part of it is in Asia, so saying that it is an Asian country is geographically incorrect (as is saying that it's a European country, for that matter). Culturally and historically, I'd say it's just as European as many Eastern European countries. Linguistically, whether it's European depends on how you feel about the Ural-Altaic languages. "Racially" (in scare quotes because the notion of race is scientifically discredited), Turks are an amalgam of Central Asians and Southeastern Europeans. As for religion, I don't know that Islam is necessarily an Asian religion (though it's less widespread in Europe than in Africa and Asia). So while it may be somewhat controversial to call Turkey a European country, it's hardly less controversial to call it an Asian country. Klausness (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree Turkey is a mixture of both but I believe it is far more Asian than European for the reasons I stated before. As Turkey is a transcontinental country, which belongs to both Europe and Asia then maybe the map should reflect this rather than how at the moment the map clearly depicts Turkey as soley a European country. Signsolid (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't the map been changed yet to show Turkey is both European and Asian rather than soley European as it does at the moment? Signsolid (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got any maps that show Turkey between Europe and Asia? Signsolid (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This map any good? Signsolid (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't like it. I think the map should show all of Europe, since that will allow many readers to locate Turkey more easily relative to known locations. What I might change about the existing map is to scroll it to the right (that is, leave out that big chunk of the Atlantic ocean in the west and add a chunk of Asia in the east instead), and maybe down a bit (to include a bit more of Africa). Also, I might remove the highlighting for Europe (that is, leave the country outlines, but don't make the European countries a darker gray than the others). Keep in mind that the point of the map is to allow readers to see where Turkey is located, not to argue for or against the inclusion of Turkey in Europe; so the purpose of including surrounding countries it to allow readers who may not know exactly where Turkey is to locate it relative to known locations. Klausness (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the previous map:

Scusate se insisto (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the old map (Map of the Republic of Turkey.png) works better than the new suggestion (Europe Asia Location Turkey.png). Not sure whether I like the old one better than the current version (Location Turkey in Europe.png)... Klausness (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the map at the top which has had the large amount of space in the west cropped off. It would probably look better too if Asia was coloured in like Europe is and the caption below read 'Location of Turkey (red) on the European continent (dark grey) and Asian continent (whatever colour is decided). Signsolid (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the most accurate, as it shows Turkey according to the Earths contours and shape. The Earth is not flat and thus the other maps are wrong

Actually, all of you are misguided and mis-informed regarding Turkey's geographical location. The Earth is not flat, and thus the most geograhically correct maps is the one which shows countries according to their actual physical structure on the Earth. And to some proples dismay on this discussion, Turkey is more European according to the correct maps. Satellite images of Turkey by NASA also support this. Thus this map is the correct map. Thus, scientifically and geographically this map is the most accurate.

Tusas, There is no "scientifically accurate" two-dimensional map projection -- they're all inaccurate in one way or another. As for whether Turkey is geographically part of Europe, that's really a matter of convention. The Eurasian landmass has been arbitrarily divided into the continents of Europe and Asia, for mainly sociopolitical reasons. By convention, the Bosphorus and the Ural mountains divide Europe from Asia, which puts western Turkey in Europe and eastern Turkey in Asia. This doesn't imply that Tukey can or can't be in the European Union, the Eurovision Song Contest, or anything else with "Europe" in the name -- it's just the standard definition of the continents of Europe and Asia. The purpose of the map in the article should be to allow readers to locate Turkey with respect to other countries and to give an idea of the shape and relative size of the country. So I'd say some sort of equal-area projection (see the Map projection article), preferrably one that does not distort the shape of Turkey too much, would probably be most appropriate. And the map should include all of mainland Europe, a chunk of Asia, and the northern part of Africa. Klausness (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Turkey's map in this article should be changed. At least until the issue of whether it joins the EU and becomes a european country. Until then it should be used a map where it is shown as a part of Middle East.

Don't forget that the past 2 capital cities of Ottoman Empire were in Europe.--Ilhanli (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

EU is not a "must" for a country to be accepted as "European". Think about it, France suddenly falls into a revolution and becomes socialist (woahhh sounds good but impossible) and leaves EU... What would we call France then? Not European because it is not a member of EU?! Terminology is more complex than many ordinary people think it is. Deliogul (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And, since when is Turkey a european country?

Remeber sick man of Europe? From 16th century on, Ottomans were basically a Balkan (European) empire. They inherited the Roman institutions and much of the culture. In return, their impact on Europe, especially in the East and Mediterranean is more significant than most people think. In turn, Republic of Turkey inherited many of those institutions and not to mention the people. Frankly, Turkey is what it is and a definition here and there is mostly academic. Cyprus is called European, and Georgia is on a future list for Pete's sake, need I add more?--Murat (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Ottomans were more Middle East than Europe. And just because Ottomans took over some european institutions doesn't make them european. You have to look at were you are from and what you are. In my opinion Turks and natives of Turkey are not auropean. But if you really insist of being european, you are welcome to be, I just don't agree. I am not european but a middleeastern myself and proud of it.

Continued map vandalism

Users keep uploading new maps to the file where the consensus map had been, or placing altogether different map files onto the article. Is there a way we can stop this? Adlerschloß (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It is an ongoing project. Honestly, it is really just one guy in Italy/Germany/Turkey/Holland who was/is a professor/special forces soldier/imam/used car salesman/12 year old in a basement with an issue with the map, and with images in general. This whole thing got kicked off a few years back because he apparently doesn't see eye to eye with policy on image copyvios. He even impersonated you once so to answer your question, there is something we can do... just revert to the consensus version (which is something roughly centered on the country), but avoid edit warring over it... honestly, it is just a map. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing the impersonation to my attention.... I had no idea. Hilarious. Adlerschloß (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He's been impersonating me too. I just noticed his talk page there. Thank goodness he/she's banned. This is an editor that Wikipedia can definitely do without.

I didn't notice that Izmir Lee's sock had uploaded a different version. I wouldn't have reverted the map otherwise on the Turkey page, I would have tried reverting the actual map instead.Pureditor 07:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hiberniantears, if it is just a map, why don't you insisting on putting that centered map? But you have to know that there isn't a really consensus on it. As you see everybody is trying to change the map. And it isn't nessicery to put a centered map. For example, Cyprus is in the south of Turkey, but it hasn't a centered map on the article. We can't see Egypt, Israel and other countries surrounding it. --81.214.119.236 (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to everyone. The above ip address is from Izmir, Turkey, and is clearly a sock of banned user User:Izmir Lee. I removed the posting but he reverted. I shall be putting the account forward to be banned as a sock account.Pureditor 08:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Its a never ending edit war about this whole map thing, does it really matter, as long as Turkey is shown some where in the world, the whole point of the map is to show the location of the country thats it, but I think for Turkey it's a big thing isn't it - a bridge between Europe and Asia, as it wants to enter into the EU. I think the current map is all right, because it centered between the continents, but the color could be different i.e. RED. to match the flag and emblem. M Miah (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Example of a good map.

The current map actually isn't a very good example. The fact that it is orange unlike pretty much all other world maps which are either in red or green is one thing. However, the important thing is that it does not show which part of the world map the cropped area is. Someone with little knowledge in the region may not be able to figure out where it is on the world map. My example shows what I believe would be ideal; the country being the main focus, an indicator on a small world map on where the area cropped is, and a good colour contrast. It doesn't matter if the colour doesn't match the flag and/or emblem as long as it fits well. --Hamster X (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, because I protected the article to prompt some debate, I have no real preference for the map, and am not allowed to enforce any one version on the article. I locked the article on a version of the map that I wouldn't choose, and only locked because of the warring over the map. My Personal opinion is that I think either Image:Map of the Republic of Turkey.png or Image:LocationTurkey2.png are two of the better versions out there, but if consensus emerges that we should actually view a projection of Turkey that flips north and south, and colors the country in plaid, with a view from Siberia, then so be it. At the end of the day, it would still be an accurate map of Turkey. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The current map Image:LocationTurkey.svg is one of the worst, people probably will have no idea where the country is. I cannot believe people have agreed on this one in the last three weeks. A smaller world map on a corner is a must, and in my opinion the (larger) map should include Berlin, Tehran, London, and Moscow (no need to pin them), and some significant portions of their countries. I think we can change the scale, and cover about twice the area without losing important information, so unfortunately US should not be in the larger map, but Great Britain can be shown. It is not so needed but we can show more of North Africa. How do we do the svg version of Image:LocationTurkey2.png? 85.103.230.61 (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding a link of Yellow Pages Turkey to Turkey

Hi ,

Two days before, I added a new link of Yellow Pages Turkey on "Turkey" page. I dont know why it was removed. Because Yellow Pages is a popular brand for online directory search, I added it considering many will be helpful with that. Could you please add Turkey Yellow Pages link ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcaps (talk • contribs) 09:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

it should change the place of turkey. the biggest city in turkey is istanbul and it is in europe so turkey is european

What kind of a logic is that? Both Moscow and Leningrad (man I want to call it that way) are in Europe but I haven't seen a single map which depicts whole Russian Federation as a part of Europe. Traditionally, only the lands of former Grand Duchy of Moscow is given as "European". Whatever, I said many times before, it is not that simple to decide the fate of Turkey in this picture because Europe is a cultural term rather than an actual geographical one. People of the region should decide what we'll do with this confusion. Deliogul (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

to change the map which is turkey in europe, is an antiturkist movement. Cyprus is in Asia but it is in the europe map, also turkey was. Why did you change the first map. If we look the maps the map of Turkey in Europe is more logical than the last map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.28.42 (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion (2)

Hi, I have re-edited the section of Religion, because I have thought that it should provide a neutral point of view of the religious currents in Turkey. The current section summarizes mainly about secularism in Turkey. We all know that Religion recently has had a great impact, with the AK Parti winning a majority, Abdullah Gul for President controversy, and the headscarf ban - where the ban was lifted, but then upheld by the constitutional court. I believe that part of the section atleast should mention the active religiousness present in the country, particuly in politics and the headscarf. But however, these entries by me are reverted many times, especially by a banned user (referring me to as an Islamist). I have then re-edited this section. Please read below, and view/consider whether it provides a neutral perspective on Religion in Turkey. Or any suggestions. Thanks! Mohsin (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

- Version 1:

Main articles: Religion in Turkey, Islam in Turkey, Christianity in Turkey, Judaism in Turkey, and Secularism in Turkey

The historical mosque, The Sultan Ahmed Mosque in Istanbul.

Republic Protests during 2007, in support of state secularism.

Islam is the religion with the largest community of followers in the country, with 99.8% of the population or around 70 million people identified as Muslim, of whom over 75% belong to the Sunni branch of Islam. A sizeable minority, about over 20% of the Muslim population, is affiliated with the Shi'a Alevi sect. The remainder of the population are mainly Christians, estimated at 120,000 people (mainly Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic and Syriac Orthodox) and Jewish, estimated at 26,000 people (mainly Sephardi Jews at 96% and a few Ashkenazi Jews).

Turkey has a secular constitution, with no official state religion. The strong tradition of secularism in Turkey is essentially similar to the French model of laïcité, in which the state actively monitors the area between the religions. The Kemalist Ideology states the state should stay at an equal distance from every religion, not promoting or condemning any religious beliefs. The constitution recognizes the freedom of religion for individuals. No party can claim that it represents a form of religious belief; nevertheless, religious sensibilities are generally represented through conservative parties. The Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı) represents the highest Islamic religious authority in the country, established in 1924 after the abolition of the caliphate, where it is organized by the state, under the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam, which controls all muftis and mosques. Since 1586, Istanbul has been the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (unofficialy Fener Rum Patrikhanesi), which is one of the fourteen autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches.

Turkey prohibits the wearing of religious garments (including the headscarf) by law - banned in government buildings, schools, and universities, and is an ongoing debate in Turkish society. The headscarf (known as the Türban) is viewed as a 'symbol of political Islam' by secularists, and the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the law was "legitimate" in the Leyla Şahin v. Turkey case on November 10, 2005,, however also viewed as a 'religious freedom' by conservatives, which is worn by around 60% of Turkish women. The lifting of the headscarf ban was passed by parliament, however annulled by the Constitutional Court, illustrating the struggle between two different identities.

-

Let us once again remember that our goal is to describe things, not pass judgement on them. Having said that, I believe recent developments should be mentioned briefly, because this article should provide a whirlwind tour, not emphasizing the present to the past (or the reverse). We can go into detail in the Religion in Turkey article. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 14:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I am still unable to briefly summarize these developments of headscarf etc., because most users want large info. in the article ie. Secularism, which i have tried to summarize but reverted. Mohsin (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the section structure above is not that bad. The only problem I see is that some parts are unclear and looks like the statements of someone who already knows the situation in the country. You know many people see the article of Turkey in Wikipedia by chance and maybe without any rooted knowledge about the country. For example; "The role of religion in politics has been a much controversial debate most recently, with the rise of an Islamist-rooted government, feared that it would undermine the secular principles of the state, which caused controversy among the people, leading to many protests". This part is not good for a couple of reasons. First, what is "most recently" exactly refers to? Second, what do we mean by " Islamist-rooted government"? Third, who is exactly afraid of these religious guys? I know the historical background of the rise of tight religious conservatism in this country, I at least have some understanding of AKP (imho they are "uncivilized religion-freaks") and I'm an individual from the social segment that is afraid of/angry at AKP. You see, I know this stuff but foreigners don't. Deliogul (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to fix those passages of which you have highlighted, any suggestion or still not right? please say. Thanks! Mohsin (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an important thing that you have to learn before editing a controversial article like Turkey. I believe that part of the section at least should mention the active religiousness present in the country... these are yours Tangooman. Secularism is not religiousness. Secularists and Kemalists are not irreligious. They only support secularism in Turkey. You can't summarize secularism in the article how you want because secularism is the foundation of Turkey. Secularism in Turkey is the main article and secularism in this article is already a summarized version of it. AKP and its agendas can't mentioned in religion section. It's part of politics section. Also i realized you removed the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights which legitimates the ban of Leyla Şahin's headscarf in Turkey. Please tell me, why did you remove it? Ha? You are not a neutral editor like you say... And i also added the current version of the religion section of the article for comparison both of them.. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 18:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that one out, replaced it back into the section. I believe I have fixed the section, because secularism of Turkey is very well summarized, and it is not the AKP only mentioned, but the whole religiousness risen in the country. The aspect of politics is one of the key elements of the this 'conservatism' in society, in relation to the headscarf, which overall views the concept of conservatism of Turkey as well as secularism. This should be mentioned in the Religion section, because these are part of this rise in conservatism. And of course I know secularists are not irreligious and are still Muslims, they believe religion is a personal thing, and should not be involved in politics, right? And you have said religiousness should mentioned as well, well I believe I have done that. Mohsin (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say religiousness should mentioned . These are yours. I only put them into my paragraph as an evidence. I don't think we should mention AKP in religion section. Because in Turkey no party can claim that it represents a form of religious belief. We should mention about Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı) instead of headscarf controversy. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 04:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes the law says that, and the parties do not represent a religious belief, but however some of these parties do in someway represent a certain type of people (conservatives). I believe this should be mentioned, how can you not include this information in the article, because it is related to Religion. Currently there is a definite struggle between those favouring Religious identity, and Secular identity. You cannot hide this information, because there is a large religious part present in Turkey, and the secularism should not hide that. For example, say if someone was wondering what is going on in Turkey Religion in the media, they would come to Wikipedia and find there's nothing there, so the article has not really provided such information for the people, it is about providing this information. Headscarf is actually one of the main aspects of this, which part of the Religion of Turkey. All of the information is based on the significance of Religion in the country as a whole, viewing how Religion is present in the country of the people, not exactly politics. Mohsin (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think the current version of the religion section in the article is enough. The only thing that we have lack of is Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı). It should be added to the article. I don't accept your proposal. It's unneutral. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 15:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree because, I believe it is neutral because it views both sides of society. In my version it mentions conservatism present and the secularism present. But in the one below, it only views the secularism and thats it - how is that neutral? It does not make sense to say my one is 'unneutral', because I have tried the very best to balance it out between both of these ideologies. Please look at it, and you will see that there is more information of secularism present then there is conservatism, but in comparison to other revision, it is more neutral. Mohsin (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• As you can see, the main articles of this section are Religion in Turkey, Islam in Turkey, Christianity in Turkey, Judaism in Turkey and Secularism in Turkey. Not Conservatism in Turkey. So your version should be added in politics section with more neutrality. AK Parti is not a religion (like Islam and Christianity) or a religious group (like Muslims and Christians). --Turkish Flame ^☎ 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

??? This conservatism/secularism clash section presents the religiousness of the country, it is related to Religion, that is why the section is called that. It is also related to the articles of Religion in Turkey, Islam in Turkey and Secularism in Turkey, where these articles do in some way have these informations of political controversies, relating to the role of religion. Conservatism, is another word for religiousness', you can't create an article called that. These parties have been involved in some way in favor of religiousness' with the headscarf etc., this is one of the main topics of Religion present in today's Turkey. Mohsin (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Look! You wrote above political controversies. This is not about religion as you say. And there is no religiousness in Turkey except atheists. Secularists are also Muslim and believe in God. According to Eurobarometer's recent survey, 95% of Turkish people stated that religion is important. How can they be irreligious? And headscarf issue is part of politics. Because it is a political symbol of AKP. Remember, AKP's anti- secularist closure case which accepted by 6 (majority) of the 11 members of the Constitutional Court of Turkey but it didn't shut down because 7 members had to accept it according to laws. So it is an obvious political symbol. Not religious. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 16:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This section will never be complete unless it covers the Christian institutions properly also. Istanbul is the seat of Greek-Orthodox Church and one can not tell that from this article for example. Political commentary should also be not included. This is not the place to analyze current political party platforms and make judgements and worse, tie them to religion. Politics is NOT a religious activity.--Murat (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Murat. Politics isn't a religious activity. Also we should mention about Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı) and Greek-Orthodox Church in Istanbul which is still active from Byzantine period.

Religiousness does not refer to those who have a religion, but who are 'religious' - meaning devout. One who visits the article will only go away knowing the only fact that people are secular, but without taking knowledge that there are also many devout Muslims present in Turkey. With all the secularism info, and not 'religiousness' (devout Muslims) available, then that is biased. All are Muslims, but there are two sections. One secular Muslims, and one religious or devout Muslims. That is what I have included. And I have not mentioned AKP. This political information of headscarves and such, is information relating to the rise of conservatism/devoutness/religiousness of some of the Turkish people, which overall looks at the society as a whole, not just politics, but Religion in Society. Mohsin (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You have mentioned AKP as islamic rooted governments. As you see all users disagree with you. Politics isn't a religious activity. And islam is mentioned enough in the article. If you want to improve the article, add something about other religions in Turkey like Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and several others. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 18:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK i have added the Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı information, i'll try to improve this further. Mohsin (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to add it to the current version, not your version. Because nobody accepted it. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 19:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well first let me fix my version, and then we'll decide on that. I will move the politics information to the Government and Politics section. However I will add a few information of the headscarf, after the mentioning of the ban for a fair data. Mohsin (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Politics section sort: During the period of 2007-2008, the fear of Islam in politics began to be a very controversial debate, where conservative governments (mainly by the AK Parti) have been involved with non-secular activities, which many people believe could undermine the secular principles of the state, this has led to many protests against these non-secular acts, where the lifting of the headscarf ban was passed by parliament, however annulled by the Constitutional Court. The chief prosecutor then asked the court to ban the AK Parti (which has Islamist roots) for being involved in non-secular activities, however escaped the ban proposal by just one vote.

• I have re-edited the section again, please view and hopefully it is more suitable for the section. I hope you can re-consider if you can, or any problems please suggest these and I could be able to fix it hopefully. Thank you! Mohsin (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, add these Politics section to the current politics section in the article. But the religion section is still unacceptable. Stop trying to edit the religion section. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 15:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just added it now in that section, thanks.

• Is there anything wrong with the 'Religion' section then, please point out the negativities in that please. I don't think there is a real problem because, the only thing that is mentioned is that the headscarf is banned, but also worn by a majority. Is it the clash info or something? Mohsin (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have edited that section again, please view, thanks! Mohsin (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, headscarf is banned again, i know. But it isn't worn by a majority. It's according to Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation which is controlled by the government. See Think tank#Turkey. So it is unneutral. And headscarf and hijab are different. Headscarf which covers part of the head, not all head and hair, is a tradition among villager women. But hijab, which covers all over the body, is a symbol of islam and political islam. I think current religion section is good enough except Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı and Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople and Antioch --Turkish Flame ^☎ 16:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

But in Turkey the headscarf means the covering of the hair in any type of conservative fashion or Islamic fashion. Some women do not wear the full way of wearing the hijab, but do wear the headscarf, which in any way is viewed as a threat to the secular system (type 'Turkey headscarf' on Google, many sources appear, but 'Turkey hijab' a lot but moderate.) The headscarf is actually worn by a majority of women in Turkey, in many sources including American and British, do cite that it is worn by at least 60% of the women (type 'Turkey headscarf 60 percent' on Google). There are no other sources to view how many exact women where it, I believe if it based on many sources then it is reliable, but you have said it is not, I think that is original research don't you think ? Mohsin (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I know my country better than you :) So listen to me carefully. Hijab (Kara çarşaf in Turkish, literally black sheet in English) is very uncommon in Turkey. Türban is worn by AKP partisans and conservatists which is not majority. And headscarf (baş örtüsü in Turkish, literally head cloth in English) is worn by old villager women which is not a danger for secularism. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 17:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• 
  Hijab is very uncommon in Turkey
• 
  An elder Turkish villager woman wearing traditional village dress including non-islamic headscarf
• 
  Top-left: Turkish women wearing türban which is a political symbol and danger for secularism

Erm ok then I understand that know, knowing that you are Turkish and all, but I am probably viewing this 'headscarf' as from a western perspective, because the 'turban' is actually referred to probably as 'headscarf' then (because it is a Turkish word). I am coming from a western English perspective, rather than Turkish. Let me make changes. Mohsin (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ohh! At least you understood. But still we can't add your proposed version to the article. Because it is not reflects the truth. The current version is good enough and doesn't need any new version. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 17:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I think my version is better is because first, the layout of the section is considerably more neat, and is sectioned very well according to topic. It talks about not just the secular constitution, but also stating the Kemalist ideology of which I have added, more emphasis on the Religious doctrine info, more accurate statistics of populations, it goes more in depth into the headscarf (or Türban) stating that it is banned, also stating it is however worn by a lot of people, and is one of the main controversies of religion present in Turkey. If you compare both of these together, you would see a major difference. You would be able to read it more understandably, and gain more information, and atleast a distance away of balanced information at the end. Mohsin (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• As you see, all users are disagreed with you. Turkish Flame, Murat, Deliogul, Adoniscik (he said we can go into detail in the Religion in Turkey article, not in Turkey article) but you are still trying to edit it. No good can be achieved by force. Please give up your obstinacy. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 18:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

They haven't viewed or commented yet, but if they do not go in favor of my revision, well all I have to say I am trying to improve the article, by improving how it is presented for the users on Wikipedia, not for myself, it is about what information is provided, and I think the current revision of mine gives a fair look of Religion in Turkey, just trying to help out. OK. Salaam. Thankyou! Mohsin (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Your welcome. Have a good day and good editing! See you! --Turkish Flame ^☎ 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you be able to point out the reasons of why you are not in favor of my revision and in favor of the other one, please refer to the texts provided, and how they differ from each other. Thanks. Mohsin (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look bad. It can be better if we can specifically mention Istanbul being the seat of Fener Rum Patrikhanesi, which is one of the most powerful Orthodox churches of the world. I personally thank the one who mentioned it in the discussion. By the way Stephan Micus was at Hagia Irene just a couple of hours ago. He performed a great solo concert in which he made history with a Bavarian musical instrument as he sang an old Greek prayer about Mother Mary. I let you dream about it ;) Deliogul (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Just added that info in as requested, better now? Mohsin (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. Information about Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı and Orthodox Church of Constantinople (Fener Rum Patrikhanesi) are good. We can add them to the article immediately. Not your proposed version. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 16:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not my proposed version? Is there really such difference between these revisions, the only difference is the structure of it, more emphasis on Kemalism, more info on the organizations, more info about the headscarf, more comprehensive population statistics. I have improved the section of the article quite well. ??? Mohsin (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• No, i don't agree with you. Kemalism does not need your emphasis. Leave this issue to the Turks please. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 17:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well that just proves the only reason why you are against it because of me being a non-Turkish, Wikipedia does not say articles of a certain country are to be edited by a certain nationality. Regardless of your 'nationality', 'ethnic group' or 'religious beliefs', you should be able to edit anything you like. I find it very offensive. So therefore I believe your argument of this discussion is not valid due to these personal reasons. Mohsin (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• You have the right to edit Wikipedia's non-Bangladeshi articles too! But you are not well-informed about Kemalism, Islam in Turkey, Secularism in Turkey, Christianity in Turkey, Judaism in Turkey... I said Leave this issue to the Turks. Because we know it better than you and truth of the Wikipedia is the most important thing. Do it for Wikipedia and edit the articles which you know well. For example i have never edited Bangladesh because i don't know anything about it... --Turkish Flame ^☎ 17:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That information was not even present, so you cannot say 'leave it to the Turks' because no one has even bothered to enter in it, and when someone does, *that person* is attacked even though he is contributing for article, and they haven't. Completely makes sense. By the way how did you know I edit Bangladesh articles (which I don't), the only person who ratified that was the other Ayca somethin' guy. ? Mohsin (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• [1], [2], [3], [4]... are they enough to prove? --Turkish Flame ^☎ 18:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I make little contributions here and there (not significantly). And is not relevant I think of discussing this at all. Mohsin (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

- Version 2 (current):

Main articles: Religion in Turkey, Islam in Turkey, Christianity in Turkey, Judaism in Turkey, and Secularism in Turkey

The Selimiye Mosque in Edirne, one of the prominent historical mosques in Turkey

Republic Protests took place in 2007 in support of the Kemalist reforms, particularly state secularism and democracy

Islam is the religion with the largest community of followers in the country, where 99.8% of the population is nominally Muslim, of whom over 75% belong to the Sunni branch of Islam. A sizeable minority, about over 20% of the Muslim population, is affiliated with the Shi'a Alevi sect. The Bektashi belong to a Sufi order of Islam that is indigenous to Turkey, but also has numerous followers in the Balkan peninsula. Islam arrived in the region that comprises present-day Turkey, particularly the eastern provinces of the country, as early as the 7th century AD. Turkey also has numerous important sites for Judaism and Christianity, being one of the birth places of the latter. As of today, there are thousands of historical mosques, churches and synagogues throughout the country which are still active. The mainstream Hanafite school of Sunni Islam is largely organized by the state, through the Religious Affairs Directorate, which controls all mosques and Muslim clerics. The remainder of the population belongs to other faiths, particularly Christian denominations (Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant), and Judaism (mostly Sephardi Jews, and a relatively smaller Ashkenazi community.) According to a Pew Research Center report in 2002, 65% of the people in Turkey believe "religion is very important", while according to a Eurobarometer poll in 2005, 95% of Turkish citizens responded that "they believe there is a God".

Turkey has a secular constitution, with no official state religion. The strong tradition of secularism in Turkey is essentially similar to the French model of laïcité, in which the state actively monitors the area between the religions. The constitution recognizes the freedom of religion for individuals, whereas the religious communities are placed under the protection and jurisdiction of the state and can't become involved in the political process (e.g. by forming a religious party) or establish faith-based schools. No political party can claim that it represents a form of religious belief; nevertheless, religious sensibilities are generally represented through conservative parties. Turkey prohibits by law the wearing of religious headcover and theo-political symbolic garments for both genders in government buildings, schools, and universities; the law was upheld by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights as "legitimate" in the Leyla Şahin v. Turkey case on November 10, 2005.

-

I don't have time for a protracted debate, but it seems to me that there is disagreement over the meaning of some terms, such as "secularism", "hijab" and so on. I don't actually see a major difference between the revisions being suggested, but I may well have missed the fine print. Some people said that the issue is political and not religious, but this assumes the choices are mutually exclusive. The opposition to the AKP is based on their religious stance, is it not? That is what the closer case was about, after all. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have re-edited the section to present a neutral point of view of the Religion section in Turkey (Version 1), however is reverted continiously by other editors, re-edited even further, but still not accepted. Please add comments below whether you Agree with the revision of which I have created (Version 1) or Disagree with the revision (accepting current revision - V2):

- Consensus vote for Version 1 - Agree or Disagree?

Agree and accept it because, I have tried the very best to present a neutral section (between secularism and other details). Mohsin (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)