Talk:Turkey

The article is too long

It's currently 13,585 words or 87kb.[1] Will aim for under 9k words per Wikipedia:Article_size and Wikipedia:Peer_review/Turkey/archive3. That means multiple sections will need to be trimmed. Although some areas need expansion. For example, coverage of earthquakes, faultlines etc are ridiculously short. Bogazicili (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Trimming is certainly a good thing, but you should ensure first that the child articles are in an appropriate shape. E.g., Turkey#Republic_of_Turkey is much better writen than History_of_Turkey#Republic_of_Turkey; the latter trails off into a mere timeline (but then child-child article History of the Republic of Turkey is looks better). This is relevant because History of Turkey in its entirety is the child article of Turkey#History. So anyonw jumping straight from the section Turkey#History to History of Turkey will have – as of now – a worse reading experience at the bottom of the latter than at the bottom of the Turkey#History. I only mention this because I have seen cases trimming of main articles without brushing up the child articles. I think @CMD can be of much help in the challenge of how to create best structure and best content in article hierarchies. –Austronesier (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Trimmed lengthy part about branches of government.[2] This is already in Government of Turkey. Bogazicili (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  After 13.5k, the article is finally 11,518 words. Bogazicili (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The article is still 11,402 words. I'll rewrite and shorten the Foreign relations section, which is one of the longest sections now. Other parts of the article will be trimmed too, although I might add a few things as well. I don't think the article can get below 9k words, but below 10k will be my goal. Bogazicili (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Bump Bogazicili (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want an easy word removal, remove the Science and technology subsection. It's a level 4 section in Economy of Turkey, totally out of relative proportion here. CMD (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm still going over the article. There are lots of places to remove and trim before Science and technology subsection. Some parts still have very poor sourcing.

For example, one paragraph in climate is redundant. LGBTQ rights needs to be trimmed and merged into Human rights section.

The child articles are also very low quality. So we can't asses DUE with respect to other Wikipedia sources.

I have been sidetracked with other Wiki articles

By the way, we are at 10,746 words now. Much better compared to 13,585 words Bogazicili (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

10,641 words at the moment. There are lots of places to tighten and get below 10k. I'll be doing that over the next several weeks. Also note that there's an actually an article: Science and technology in Turkey.

I won't be aiming for under 9k though. I think under 10k is ok, even for Featured Articles. Bogazicili (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Bump Bogazicili (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Turkey changed the country name to Türkiye in June 2022

I wonder if this has been discussed before.

The name of Turkey has been officially changed to Türkiye, such as-is recognized by the UN and EU - or to be more clear, as-from 2 June 2022, the country requested that their name be changed at the United Nations to this. The EU immediately recognized this change and reflected it in all official communications, as did the U.S. evidently The U.S. Embassy in Ankara recognizes this name as well.

Has there been a discussion about this on Wikipedia? Does there need to be one?

Comments would be appreciated, and if anyone can flag this for discussion, I would be grateful. I'm not familiar with which discussion boards this would go to. BlueSapphires (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Burma changed it's name at the UN in 1993, to Myanmar.

Wikipedia doesn't call the country Burma. Just to say.

BlueSapphires (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia moved the article from Burma to Myanmar in 2015. We don't care what the UN, EU, or even the country itself uses. We follow common usage in independent reliable sources in English. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The very top of the page shows all the previous discussions for moving the article. The last one was in February with consensus against moving. Mellk (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This is addressed in the FAQ. Wikipedia uses the most commonly used name of subjects of articles, not necessarily the official one. If reliable sources start consistently calling the country Türkiye instead of Turkey, then a move would be considered. At present however, English-language reliable sources have not started using the new name, so a proposed move would be doomed to fail (and there have been many such failed proposed moves). Bowler the Carmine | talk 16:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Czechia is still Czech Republic. The English usage is still Turkey even if Turkiye is the preferred official version. Metallurgist (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Of importance, English doesn't have diacritical marks as part of its language generally speaking (Yes, they do show up, as noted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_terms_with_diacritical_marks). As mentioned in the article, words with diacritical marks tend to come from other languages (they aren't natively English) and those marks tend to disappear over time. It is quite likely that at some point all the college / high school textbooks and even many of the elementary ones will include the new spelling—even then, it seems unlikely that the common usage will change. It just isn't English. It is unfortunate too that the request by the Turkish government was made to create a new English word with diacritical marks only used in a handful of cases (but the title of the article cares not for the whims of politicians but for practical usage). eleuthero (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The name of the country didn't change. Türkiye is Turkey in English. This is the same as the USA requiring Spanish speakers to use "United States" instead of "Estados Unidos". The Impartial Truth (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

No, the whole push was for "Türkiye" to be adopted as the usual name for the country in non-Turkish languages like German and English. Your example isn't really comparable at all. The adoption and use of "Türkiye" by English speakers is what makes it an English-language name. Remsense ‥ 论 04:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It did and your USA example is nonsense. I am tired to give this example but please look at Ivory Coast. Beshogur (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Turkey has been Türkiye in Turkish for quite some time. They didn't change their name. They said that English speakers should change the name that we use. Which is beyond their power. The USA example would be an exact parallel of this situation. As nonsensical as you find the idea of the US making that request of other countries, that is how nonsensical I find Turkey's request. And your example of Ivory Coast is a perfect example of us not following the language of the country itself. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

If, at some point in the future, the general consensus among English-language sources would be to call the county "Türkiye" (or "Turkiye" to avoid diacritics), English Wikipedia will be likely to follow. However, as of now, this is not the case. Animal lover |666| 17:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Infobox and constitutional change 2017

Shouldnt the infobox list in its history breakdown the 2017 constitutional change to presidential system? Nsae Comp (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Post-RfC changes in the lead

Now that the recent RfC has been closed, I'd be implementing the changes into the lead in the next several days. It'll trim some parts of the lead as well. Bogazicili (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I finally got around to updating the lead following the RfC. Let me know if there are any issues. Bogazicili (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2025

The National Anthem should be instrumental, just like the one in the Northern Cyprus article. VARSLAN2010 (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2025

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. The purpose of a protected edit request is to request a specific edit, one you would have made yourself if the page weren't protected. So you must have had in mind a specific file that you would have swapped for the one currently in the article. If there isn't an available file to swap in, then your request can't be granted.

Aside from that, why? Is it that you feel all the anthems presented on Wikipedia should be instrumental and, if so, why? Or is it only that the one for Northern Cyprus is instrumental? In that case, why do you feel that Turkey should match Northern Cyprus in that detail? Largoplazo (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

"State of the Turks" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect State of the Turks has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 23 § State of the Turks until a consensus is reached. — Anonymous 21:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Türkiye changed english name

English user must use TÜRKİYE instead of old one. good morning for wikipedia. it has been changed long time ago and all government bodies use the new english name. 78.148.128.115 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Your use of the word "must" is misguided. See the many discussions about this that have already taken place on this page, summarized at the top (on a phone, you may have to click a link to "learn more about this page"). Largoplazo (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

You have to say someone name is correct. If my name is John, you must say it John not Jonathan. It is for being respectful opposite side when their name is said by others. I think it’s crystal clear largeplasa. ;) 78.148.128.115 (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem to understand what "must" means. No one is forcing us to change what we call it. There are no penalties. Largoplazo (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Don’t be obsessed and stuck one word. No-one gives you a penalty.

must means must. wikipedia must provide correct and updated information to its users or shut it down if it cannot do that. It means that wiki misleads people with incorrect info. Therefore, it makes wiki untrustworthy and info junk. I know there are so many wrong information wiki published.

Every thing has own capacity. I cannot blame wiki with its low capacity. 92.17.223.153 (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Shall we start a new moratorium on similar discussions again? This talk page has several similar queries leading to the same. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It would certainly make life easier for a while. In the October 2024 "snow" closure, BarrelProof "requested" a moratorium till this month, but no one pursued it. During the last full discussion a year ago, there was a lot of support for a moratorium, some (including me) requesting that it be for two years, and no one opposed it, but it wasn't mentioned in the closing statement. But I'd argue that there was certainly a consensus for it. Unless there's substantial disagreement, I'd say a moratorium is already in effect, set to expire a year from now. Largoplazo (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Whole countries use Türkiye now. If it's the diacritics then just keep it as U. But keeping it as Turkey is purely disrespectful. Arjunullas (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

It's the reasons that were given up and down the discussion, not the one you made up. What's more concretely disrespectful is wasting others' time by making them repeat themselves over and over. Remsense ‥ 论 22:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

We go by the usage that predominates in reliable sources in English. If you consider it disrespectful, go yell at them. Largoplazo (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

the fact that they changed their name has no relevance.

for example, Czech Republic officially set their informal name as Czechia, yet Czech Republic is still more common in english sources, therefore the page remains as Czech Republic.

other examples of wikipedia article titles not matching the official name are: Taiwan, North Korea, South Korea.

Wojtekpolska1013 (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Confusion with Turkey (disamiguation)

I really I think this page should be moved to either “Turkey (country)” or “Türkiye”. It feels wrong that this page is just called “Turkey”, especially with the existence of these pages. 86.13.247.51 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the word. Disambiguation is not necessary. DeCausa (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

You are certainly free to open an RM to Turkey (country), Türkiye (this one has previously been on moratorium, but currently isn't) or any other title you think you can justify, but I doubt it has any chance of passing. Animal lover |666| 17:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

What’s an RM? 86.13.247.51 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Lead sentence

In December 2021, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan called for expanded official usage of Türkiye, saying that Türkiye "represents and expresses the culture, civilization, and values of the Turkish nation in the best way". In May 2022, the Turkish government requested the United Nations and other international organizations to use Türkiye officially in English; the UN agreed.
So change the lead sentence to something like "Turkey (formally Türkiye), officially the Republic of Türkiye, ..." AimanAbir18plus (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Using both the words “officially” and “formally” would make the first sentence too clunky I think and thus less likely for readers to read the second sentence. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

In the English variant I speak it's not "formally Türkiye". We don't have that concept. Everyone calls it Turkey. [3] And Wikipedia goes with whatever reliable sources (one of which I have just given one) say. Bazza 7 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Article title should be changed to Türkiye

The official name is Türkiye now. The article title should be updated. 80.56.206.98 (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

English Wikipedia doesn't necessarily use "official name." See latest previous discussions at

• Talk:Turkey/Archive_39#Requested_move_15_February_2024
• Talk:Turkey/Archive_41#Requested_move_4_October_2024

If you wish to start a new such discussion, see guidance at WP:RM#CM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Btw, does anyone know if there is a moratorium on move-discussions in place, and if so, when does it end? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking at this move discussion in November 2022, there was a moratorium until December 2023. Looking at this one in February 2024, there was some support for imposing a moratorium but it does not look like it was actually imposed. Some suggested imposing one until 2026 or simply one year. Mellk (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support I strongly support this. I just don't get it why everyone say that "Turkey" should be the title cuz it's English Wikipedia, while Türkiye itself is the official English name widely used in recent English media. But if the title remains the same, at least a clarification should be added, like "Türkiye" is the official name of the country (used in English). AimanAbir18plus (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  @AimanAbir18plus: Who says it's the "official English name"? Bazza 7 (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

  Official government of Türkiye. Read the references mentioned above. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Read the first six words of the article. DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  @AimanAbir18plus: Sorry, I should have been clearer in my question. With what authority does the official government of Turkey have to direct speakers of English to make this change? Bazza 7 (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  In May 2022, the Turkish government requested the United Nations and other international organizations and speakers to use Türkiye officially in English. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  That doesn't answer the question. Government prefers =/= Wikipedia follows. Sometimes it does, but the reason will not be "government prefers", WP has other priorities. "Court says WP has to" has been met with occasional success. However, this thread will not change the title, WP:RM#CM is the way for those who want to try that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Read the previous discussing and their closing statements. Largoplazo (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Does this fall under WP:SNOW? Usually I would be able to tell instantly, but not today! Google's switched to Türkiye too! Drats! Kxeon (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Let's see, Google results for Turkey include stories from: ABC News (the US network, not the Australian), New York Times, Reuters, BBC. Google results for Türkiye include stories from: a bunch of international organizations that always use the name the country tells them to. If we want to reflect actual, independent usage in English, which do you think we should follow? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

strong oppose! "turkiye" name is not common use. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 10:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not against any policy or official moratorium to open an official RM, but I doubt it would pass. Animal lover |666| 17:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I strongly oppose changing the name. It would be silly and set a terrible precedent. The common name is Turkey in English, and Wikipedia is under no obligation to abide by Turkish government diktats or PR operations. The same thing applies the other way around, of course. Turkish Wikipedia calls the United States "ABD," instead of "USA," and that is as it should be. If the United States tried to impose an English-language standard on Turks, that, too, should be rejected. The article is currently locked, but the first paragraph should be changed to "Turkey, officially Republic of Turkey or Republic of Türkiye," so as not to imply that "Türkiye" is somehow more official in English than "Turkey." It is not, regardless of how the Turkish government and some Turkish citizens may feel about it.

RfC on massacres and genocides in the lead

In my personal opinion, the lede doesn't really need to include the genocides. For example, Japan's featured article doesn't mention the events in WW2. At least we should only say "Christian" instead of listing all the ethnic groups for the ones commited by the Ottomans. Perhaps even the ones committed to the Muslims are unnecessary. So, here are the options:

Option 1: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction and in the Russian Empire resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey from the Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian subjects." (it will stay as it is)

Option 2: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction and in the Russian Empire resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey from the Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Christian subjects." (shortening)

Option 3: "In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed massacres against its Christian subjects." (more shortening)

Option 4: "Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914." (all the migration, massacre and genocides are removed from the article.)

Other: something else I missed. Youprayteas ^{talk/contribs} 17:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment, review of some of the country articles in English-language Wikipedia:
  • In the leads, United States doesn't mention Native American genocide in the United States.[4][5][6][7] Australia doesn't mention Genocide of Indigenous Australians.[8][9][10] United Kingdom doesn't mention genocides by Anglo settlers in North America and Australia. These articles do not even mention genocide in the body of their articles, which is a massive oversight. UK also might have had genocides in medieval times [11]. Overall, coverage of indigenous topics in English Wikipedia, such as those related to Unites States and Australia, could be problematic Wikipedia’s Indian problem: settler colonial erasure of native American knowledge and history on the world’s largest encyclopedia (also see Signpost response: [12]) [13][14]
  • In the leads, Canada doesn't mention Canadian genocide of Indigenous peoples. China doesn't mention Persecution of Uyghurs in China. Belgium doesn't mention Atrocities in the Congo Free State[15][16]. Spain doesn't mention things like Taíno genocide.[17] Russia doesn't mention Circassian genocide[18] or Holodomor.[19] Japan doesn't mention Japanese war crimes.
  • In the lead, France doesn't mention Algerian genocide[20], just notes defeat in the Algerian War.
  • In the lead, Germany mentions the Holocaust. But it doesn't mention Herero and Nama genocide. Israel mentions Nakba, but it doesn't mention Gaza genocide (see: Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate)
  • In the lead, India notes "large-scale loss of life and an unprecedented migration" during the Partition of India without specifying loss of life among Hindus and Muslims. Bogazicili (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC) (added some of the potential sources, these do not necessarily show WP:Due Bogazicili (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC))

  These oversights are arguments for changing the leads to those country's pages, as I have recently done at Japan. It has no bearing here, except as cautionary examples of what not to do. Also, comparing the Herero and Namaqua genocides to the Holocaust in German history doesn't make sense. In the same way the lead does not mention every fact about a country, but does selectively mention the important ones, it also does not need to enumerate every genocide a country has perpetrated in it lead, only the ones that are especially significant. You would be hard pressed to argue, using only reliable sources, that the various genocides and population transfers of the early 20th century did not play an absolutely pivotal role in the formation and genesis of the modern Turkish state as we know it. In most of the examples you list, that is not so obviously the case, with the notable exceptions of the Nakba and Holocaust, which are both mentioned in their corresponding leads, and the ethnic cleansings and genocides in North America, which are not mentioned in the articles for Canada and the USA, but certainly should be. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Genocides were not even mention in the body of United States and Australia. That is more problematic than the lead. It seems this was fixed in US article [21]. And I do think it's helpful to look at other articles for hints, especially FA ones. But we of course go by reliable sources for the actual content.

Now, for the lead of this article, please provide tertiary sources so we can assess WP:Due. You can use Google Books, Google Scholar, or the Wikipedia Library. Oxford Reference Online has access to lots of tertiary sources. Bogazicili (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

comment removed, extended confirmed status required. See:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard topic

• I'm against option 3. "mass migration into modern-day Turkey" sounds too vague without saying "from the Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea". It's only 6 more words. Bogazicili (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Option 4 .... Should simply be removed. As other FA articles do.... It's a topic that needs further explanation then the lead can provide. On a side note should trim some of the random stats out of the lead WP:COUNTRYLEAD. Love the lead here....if ever a GA review is needed ping me will help.Moxy🍁 23:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy I think WP:COUNTRYLEAD could be expanded to give guidance on the history paragraphs of the lead, something like: There should be a summary of the history sections and events important to the national consciousness, as the latter isn’t covered by MOS:LEDE Kowal2701 (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Germany is a featured article that mentions the Holocaust in its lead, even though no one pretends a lead can do any real justice to covering the entirety of the Holocaust. It doesn't follow from that fact that Germany should avoid mentioning the Holocaust in the lead. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4, Ottoman Empire is plainly a separate entity than modern-day Turkey.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Infobox needs cleaning up in that case. CMD (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Are you saying you also support removing all other mentions to the Ottoman Empire from the lead? Should Italy fail to mention the Italian Renaissance or anything else that happened in the Italian peninsula before 1861? Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment it should absolutely be covered in the body, not removed from the article. It's the phenomenon of genocide denial that makes this more due than others (Armenian genocide denial). The Bangladesh genocide isn't mentioned in Pakistan, Russia doesn't include the Circassian genocide, China doesn't include the Dzunghar genocide, yet Guatemala includes the Maya genocide, Germany the Holocaust (Holocaust denial), and Israel the Nakba (Nakba denial). I'm inclined to go with Option 1, it flows well and is due weight imo. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Kowal2701, this is RfC is about the lead. It's already covered in the History section. See: Turkey#Ottoman_Empire. Also, Israel doesn't mention Gaza genocide in the lead.

There is also Denial of genocides of Indigenous peoples. English-language Wikipedia seems to have issues too when it comes to covering genocides of indigenous people in English-speaking countries such as the United States. An example journal article: [22] Bogazicili (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The point that it's covered in such detail in the body sort of supports its inclusion in the lede, but it does take it out of context. I'll impale myself on the fence. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 4 per MOS:LEAD, and crucially MOS:LEADREL, which states clearly "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy."
  In the body, there is a paragraph on the Ottoman-era genocides; that means, per MOS:LEADREL, that there should be a sentence in the lead. There is no need for more detail than that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 If you think that there should be a sentence about it, wouldn't Option 3 be a more logical choice? Alaexis_¿question? 19:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  The quoted material says that emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, not that the emphasis in the lead should follow any strict ratio with its emphasis on the body. It is categorically undeniable that the genocides, ethnic cleansings, and population transfers towards the last decades of the Ottoman Empire played a crucial role in the formation of Turkey as a state today, and this is supported by all the reliable sources. If you feel the emphasis given by the body does not reflect [the] relative importance to the subject of these events, that is an argument for improving the body. At any rate, as has been pointed out by Alaexis, if you felt it should be a sentence, then why not support option 3? I would like to note, though, that option 3 has a problem that isn't just about its length: it fails to use the word genocide. However much your logic fails to hold up to scrutiny, if we were to apply this logic consistently anyways, the correct conclusion would be a shorter version of 2 (with the word "genocide"), not 3. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2. The comparison with other countries is one way of looking at it but it's inconclusive. However the lede also contains plenty of stuff that is less notable than the early 20th century genocides. Alaexis_¿question? 11:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 The genocide of Christian minorities is crucial to understanding the formation of modern Turkey and its national identity, aligning with Wikipedia's policies of presenting significant historical events in the lead. The systematic removal of a major Christian minority during the late Ottoman and early Kemalist periods, aligns with neutral POV by not omitting widely acknowledged historical facts in the lead. Moreover, the ongoing destruction and re-appropriation/re-purposing of Armenian cultural heritage sites, is seen as a form of cultural genocide. Thus Armenian genocide is not only a historical matter but continues to have significant geopolitical implications today. The EU has placed Armenian Genocide recognition as a condition for Turkey's ascension to the EU, and it's also complicated normalizing Armenian-Turkish relations (see Zurich 2009 protocols). KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  The claim, The EU has placed Armenian Genocide recognition as a condition for Turkey's ascension to the EU, is incorrect. [23] Bogazicili (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The EU has not officially put recognition of the Armenian Genocide as a condition for ascension to the EU; however, numerous EU officials have stated the converse previously.

In addition, the very article you shared supports the idea that the Armenian Genocide has significantly affected Turkey's regional relations with Armenia and also its own internal civil society. From the article you shared: "In Turkey, public debate on the issue [of Armenian Genocide Recognition] has been stifled. Article 301 of the penal code, on "insulting Turkishness", has been used to prosecute prominent writers who highlight the mass killings of Armenians." KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 followed by Option 2. I would like to point out that the key difference between 1/2 and 3/4 here is that the former use the word "genocide" whereas 3/4 do not. Summarizing the difference between 2 and 3 as simply "more shortening", as the requester does, is fundamentally dishonest. It is the choice to discard the word genocide, and not the length per se, that is the reason why we should prefer 1 or 2. If OP were truly only interested in shortening the length of this text, they would have offered an equivalent to 3 that still uses the word "genocide" instead of "massacres". The former is actually the shorter word! Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  The word "massacres" is more general and can include everything that has happened during WWI. Meanwhile genocide is used strictly for Assyrian, Armenian and Greek subjects. And massacres is a more neutral term to use for the lede. I know Wikipedia uses the word genocide but for the lede of a country I think massacres sums up the situation without causing trouble. Youprayteas ^{talk/contribs} 07:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment, WP:Tertiary sources to assess WP:DUE. The relevant Wikipedia policy here is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight (also specifically MOS:LEADREL as AirshipJungleman29 identified). WP:Tertiary sources can be used to assess WP:DUE. Below are 8 tertiary sources. 6 of them do not mention these issues. One (The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World) has a very short intro section where it doesn't mention these issues, but notes demographic change in a subsection. One (A Dictionary of World History) mentions in a very different way. There is also a timeline which I am not sure if it counts as a tertiary source.

Tertiary sources

Britannica has a very brief lead [24]. These issues are not mentioned: A long succession of political entities existed in Asia Minor over the centuries. Turkmen tribes invaded Anatolia in the 11th century ce, founding the Seljuq empire; during the 14th century the Ottoman Empire began a long expansion, reaching its peak during the 17th century. The modern Turkish republic, founded in 1923 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, is a nationalist, secular, parliamentary democracy. After a period of one-party rule under its founder, Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk), and his successor, Turkish governments since the 1950s have been produced by multiparty elections based on universal adult suffrage. Encyclopedia of the Developing World pp. 1575–1578 has 3-4 pages of entry about Turkey. These issues are not mentioned. Here's the relevant history part: World War I witnessed the Ottoman Empire’s last gasp as its alliance with Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914 proved to be a fatal gamble. Even as the Ottoman Empire disintegrated, the Young Turk Movement and its founder, Mustafa Kemal (later dubbed ‘‘Ataturk’’), spearheaded a Turkish Nationalist revival based on a Turkish ethnic identity rather than a multiethnic empire. Following the disastrous war, the Turks were given harsh terms by the Allies: not only were the lands not populated by Turks divided among imperial powers, but the Turkish majority areas also were to be partitioned by the Allies. Ataturk, who had emerged as a national hero, rallied the Turkish resistance and pressured the Ottoman government to relinquish its authority in 1921. ... I guess Library of Congress Country Studies can be considered a tertiary source. This is the book for Turkey [25] [26]. Neither the history overview[27], or the intro section[28] mention these issues. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World (accessible through Wikipedia library). These issues are not mentioned. Below is the relevant part from history in Turkey entry: ... Only with the rise of nationalism did these communities—which were never seen nor saw themselves as “minorities”—begin to chafe under Ottoman rule and struggle for independence. With the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the very existence of the Turks was in doubt. The victorious Allies did not honor the armistice borders that came to define Asia Minor or Anatolia and intended to give territory to the Greeks, the Armenians, and the Kurds, while having spheres of influence. Treaties signed during the war had already assigned the Arab provinces—Iraq and Syria—to Britain and France. Thus the Treaty of Sèvres (August 1920) left the Ottoman dynasty a small state in the center of Anatolia. However, national resistance emerged in response to the Greek invasion in May 1919, and General Mustafa Kemal (1881–1938)—who took the surname Atatürk in 1934—turned sporadic resistance into a movement. The national struggle against the Greek army ended in 1922. Ironically, the sultan opposed the nationalists, leading to the abolition of monarchy in 1922. The Islamic World: Past and Present (accessible through Wikipedia library). These issues are not mentioned. Below is the relevant part from history in Turkey entry: Ottoman Collapse and Independence. ... In the early 1900s, a group called the Young Turks rose up, overthrew the sultan, and restored the constitutional government. They held their power only briefly, however, as they joined the group of countries that lost in World War I. With the defeat of the Central Powers in 1918, the Ottoman Empire collapsed. Over the next five years, Turkish nationalists led by Mustafa Kemal fought the victorious Allied forces and the Greeks to establish an independent Turkish state. By 1923 Mustafa Kemal, who became known as Atatürk (Father of Turkey), had driven out all foreign forces and established the Turkish Republic. Atatürk believed that the new state could only prosper with the adoption of secular and modern reforms. He abolished the caliphate and sultanate in favor of an elected president and legislature. World Encyclopedia. (accessible through Wikipedia library). These issues are not mentioned. Very brief history part in Turkey entry. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World (accessible through Wikipedia library). These issues are not mentioned in the very short intro part. Below is one of the relevant parts. Turkey One of the successor states created from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, Turkey became the first secular state in the Muslim world. The new state was declared a republic in October 1923 after the defeat of the Greek army and of the sultan 's forces in a bitter civil war. The abandonment of the sharīʿah and the adoption of a secular legal system based on Western codes of law, as well as the declaration of a secular republic in 1928, were radical departures from tradition. The new Turkey was predominantly Muslim, with non-Muslims accounting for only 2.6 percent of the population in 1927. The source is close to 5k words, and mentions demographic change under The Early Republic section: ...The Islamic component of Turkish nationalism was bound to be strong because the majority of the new nation 's people were Muslims. The composition of the population within the borders of the new republic had changed dramatically between 1914 and the census of 1927; the non-Muslim population had declined from 20 to 3 percent and continued to decline thereafter... A Dictionary of World History (3 ed.) (accessible through Wikipedia library). Similar issues are mentioned, but very different from the lead of this article Below is the relevant part from history in Turkey entry: Modern Turkey evolved from the Ottoman empire, which was finally dissolved at the end of World War I. By the Treaty of Sèvres at the Versailles Peace Conference parts of the east coast of the Aegean around the city of Izmir (Smyrna) were to go to Greece, and the Anatolian peninsula was to be partitioned, with a separate state of Armenia created on the Black Sea. The settlement triggered off fierce national resistance, led by Mustafa Kemal. A Greek army marched inland from Izmir, but was defeated. The city was captured, Armenia occupied, and the new Treaty of Lausanne negotiated. This recognized the present frontiers, obliging some one and a half million Greeks and some half‐million Armenians to leave the country (July 1923). In October 1923 the new Republic of Turkey was proclaimed, with Kemal as first President. His dramatic modernizing reforms won him the title of Atatürk, ‘Father of the Turks’. This is a timeline, so not sure if it counts as WP:Tertiary. It's also from HistoryWorld, which seems non-academic.[29] Some of these issues are mentioned.

• • For the above analysis, I did keyword searches and read some of the relevant parts, but I didn't read the entire thing. Feel free to double check my work. The sources are accessible through Wikipedia Library. Or Google Books might give you page views for those that aren't.
  • The above analysis is also not comprehensive or systematic. When you type "Turkey" into Oxford Reference Online (which has access to lots of tertiary sources), there are lots of results. Obviously, I didn't go through all of those. I also had some of the other sources before, such as the Encyclopedia of the Developing World. Oxford Reference Online is a database available through Wikipedia Library. Editors meeting requirements of Wikipedia Library can find more sources.
  • More WP:Tertiary sources can be provided, so we can assess WP:Due. This was also not done in previous RfC 7 years ago.[30]. Because these events were more than 100 years ago, there should be enough Tertiary sources covering these time periods by now. This can be contrasted with the lead of Israel with respect to Gaza genocide. An argument can be made there for the inclusion of Gaza genocide into the lead without tertiary sources since the events are too recent to be covered by tertiary sources but they are important enough to be in the lead.
  • I had previously expanded this part of the lead with respect to loss of life among Muslims (and migration into modern-day Turkey)[31], because I believe mentioning loss of life only among Christians is biased.
  • Another relevant guideline is MOS:LEADLENGTH
  • TL;DR: Given I have 43% authorship of this article (which will probably increase as the article goes through GA and FA review), I'll refrain from making a strong preference. But given sources above, my weak preference would be Option 4, or Option 4 and another sentence noting overall loss of life and demographic change ("The dissolution of Ottoman Empire was accompanied by a large-scale loss of life and demographic changes"). Bogazicili (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  In light of this, Support option 4. It’s given good weight in the body, but not WP:Due for the lede. I don’t see how anyone can argue the genocides we’re crucial to the founding of Turkey. It was the entry into WW1, which is due for the lede Kowal2701 (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Just the clarify, the above wasn't comprehensive or systematic. But editors can feel free to find more sources. Bogazicili (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment in regards to this. Tertiary sources aren't given priority in comparison to WP:Secondary sources on Wikipedia. Wikipedia largely is based on and prioritizes reliable secondary sources, especially when those are available in large quantities which is the case here. Due weight may be determined by WP:TERTIARY sources, though as the policy says tertiary sources "may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." I haven't seen contradiction here and because we also have so many secondary WP:RS available, we should use those to determine weight. Just a couple examples:

• Time magazine: : "Not only did that atrocity scatter Armenians across the globe but it continues to define regional dynamics. Turkish denials have effectively blocked Yerevan’s efforts to normalize relations with Ankara, which has backed Baku in its recent offensives, even holding joint military drills last October in Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhichevan, another Azerbaijan-controlled region to Armenia’s west."
• Quoting from The Making of Modern Turkey by authoritative and specialist on the topic Dutch-Turkish historian Uğur Ümit Üngör: “The first set of population policies launched were forced assimilation and expulsion, but the outbreak of the First World War radicalized these policies into physical destruction. The genocide of the Armenians developed from this radicalization. But reducing the Armenian genocide to 'mere' mass murder would downplay its complexity. The genocide consisted of a set of overlapping processes that geared into each other and together produced an intended and coherent process of destruction. These processes were mass executions, deportations, forced assimilation, destruction of material culture, and the construction of an artificially created famine region."

The modern Turkish state is founded on genocide. This is something which happened only 100 years ago. The Genocide is notable for influencing regional dynamics and is such sticking point in Turkey. Even to this day it's highly relevant to Turkey, see Armenian genocide denial for many more sources - from the lede:

• A critical reason for denial is that the genocide enabled the establishment of a Turkish nation-state; recognizing it would contradict Turkey's founding myths.[32] Since the 1920s, Turkey has worked to prevent recognition or even mention of the genocide in other countries. It has spent millions of dollars on lobbying, created research institutes, and used intimidation and threats. Denial affects Turkey's domestic policies and is taught in Turkish schools; some Turkish citizens who acknowledge the genocide have faced prosecution for "insulting Turkishness". Turkey's century-long effort to deny the genocide sets it apart from other historical cases of genocide.[33]

In conclusion, there is nothing "undue" about keeping the genocide in the lede of this article like it was for years, as Wikipedia is based on secondary sources which we prioritize and which are ample for the topic of this RfC. And just because some tertiary sources don't mention something, we can't take this and imply conclusions, that's not how it works on Wikipedia per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Particularly as I said when we have an ample amount of secondary (highest priority on Wiki) sources to go from. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s very difficult to determine due weight with secondary sources as they don’t tend to summarise Turkish history in a single paragraph. Could a compromise be to just include the Armenian genocide in the lede? Kowal2701 (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government perpetrated the Armenian genocide. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind your suggestion, out of all it's the most notable and relevant to modern Turkey. Maybe that should be another RfC after this one closes. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If it’s no consensus Kowal2701 (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

"The modern Turkish state is founded on genocide."

No. Youprayteas ^{talk/contribs} 08:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

KhndzorUtogh, if you want to look at WP:Secondary sources for WP:DUE, you need overview sources about Turkey. For example, this Time magazine article you provided is titled "In the Shadow of War, Armenia Tries to Make Its Economy Indispensable". We are talking about the lead of Turkey article here. None of the other sources you provided are overview sources about Turkey. The closest is Üngör's book, but even this is not an overview source, such as History of Turkey. Other sources might say similar things about other countries:

The Cambridge World History of Genocide Volume 2: Genocide in the Indigenous, Early Modern and Imperial Worlds, from c.1535 to World War One p. 10 (chapter Introduction to Volume II). Bolding is mine:

This volume offers, besides other imperial expansionist cases such as those from early modern China and Japan, empirical evidence for Barta’s observation across five centuries of European settler colonial history. In Part I, ‘Settler Colonialism’, three chapters collectively survey the colonial histories of the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Southern Africa from the sixteenth to the early twentieth centuries. These chapters bring the many differences between these colonies to light, but it is what connects them that determines their histories as genocidal: the goal of imposing a new settler society on Indigenous lands. Further, these chapters articulate how genocide has shaped the nationalist historiographies of settler colonies.

Yet I do not see lead of above countries mentioning this. Bogazicili (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Kowal2701, so you think we should drop the following part: In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction and in the Russian Empire resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey from the Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea.? This is highly biased, I am strongly against mentioning loss of life only among certain group of people. Millions of Turks and other Muslims died, and millions fled to modern-day Turkey as well.

Kaser, Karl (2011). The Balkans and the Near East: Introduction to a Shared History. Berlin Wien: LIT Verlag Münster. ISBN 978-3-643-50190-5. page 336:

The emerging Christian nation states justified the prosecution of their Muslims by arguing that they were their former "suppressors". The historical balance: between about 1820 and 1920, millions of Muslim casualties and refugees back to the remaining Ottoman Empire had to be registered; estimations speak about 5 million casualties and the same number of displaced persons

Paul Mojzes also called some of these "unrecognized genocide" [34] Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century page 25. Should we also expect the above to be in the lead of every Balkan country?

The above is why I had suggested Option 4, or Option 4 and another sentence noting overall loss of life ("The dissolution of Ottoman Empire was accompanied by a large-scale loss of life" Bogazicili (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment, WP:Secondary sources to assess WP:DUE. This is also in response to above comment. If we want to use WP:Secondary sources, we should look at overview sources about Turkey, such as History of Turkey or Handbook of Turkey. We should also look at introductory chapters or summary paragraphs. Below are some examples.

WP:Secondary sources

The best example I can find is The Cambridge History of Turkey Volume 4: Turkey in the Modern World. It has an introduction chapter [35]. These issues are not mentioned. Some examples: The post-1908 period was also marked by the rise of the military in Ottoman politics, which, along with the strong state, would become a key feature of modern Turkey. The struggle for independence and Atatürk’s leadership during and after this war provides the link between the empire and the Republic. A close look at the crucial years of the 1918–23 period, however, shows that, until the very end, the outcome of this struggle was unclear and its unfolding was shaped by the contingencies of these tumultuous years. The degree to which this history was constituted through multiple negotiations among the representatives of many different groups, including an election that was held in 1919, when the empire was all but finished, is indeed remarkable. I said Library of Congress Country Studies may be considered a tertiary source above. But I guess it could also be considered a secondary source, as there is an entire book for Turkey [36] [37]. As I said above, neither the history overview[38], or the intro section[39] mention these issues. The History of Turkey, 2nd Edition. This source doesn't have an introduction chapter. I don't think it counts, but there is a Turkey Today section. These issues are not mentioned. Some examples: Perhaps better than anything else, Ankara epitomizes both the newness and the antiquity of Turkey. Although its roots reach back before the classical age, in a sense, the city itself has, like the country, emerged out of the momentous changes brought by the violence and suffering of the First World War. Turkey established its separate destiny through a bloody war of independence (1919–1922). In those years, General Mustafa Kemal led a movement of national resistance to an imposed peace settlement that would have divided Anatolia into foreign occupied zones. The Routledge Handbook of Modern Turkey. This has an introduction chapter [40]. I don't think it counts, because it talks more about the book such as The main objective of this Handbook is to serve as a major reference work that provides an overview of a subject area based on the findings of the latest research. The Handbook is not an encyclopedia or a collection of essays on a broadly defined topic.. In any case, these issues are not mentioned. The only WP:Secondary source I found with an intro chapter that mentions these issues is The Routledge Handbook on Contemporary Turkey (edited by Jongerden). The intro chapter is 8 pages and mentions these issues. I think now we can consider WP:Secondary sources to contradict each other and look to WP:Tertiary sources.

• • Again, for the above analysis, I did keyword searches and read some of the relevant parts, but I didn't read the entire thing. Feel free to double check my work.
  • The above analysis is also not comprehensive or systematic. Bogazicili (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment and response to [41]. There are at least three reasons to include the persecution and genocide of Christians in the lead section:
  • As per WP:LEAD: "the lead...should identify the topic, establish context... and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The issue of Armenian Genocide recognition is a notable controversy that continues to shape Turkish identity and its geopolitical relations with Armenia and the EU. This is evidenced by the fact that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide has been a sticking point in both Turkey's ascension to the European Union and in the 2009 Zurich Protocols. The Denial of the Armenian Genocide is so controversial that it has also shaped Turkish domestic policy, as evidenced by Turkish Penal Code 301. This is all summarized in Armenian genocide denial and in Armenian genocide recognition.
  • As I already said, Wikipedia largely is based on and prioritizes reliable secondary sources over tertiary sources, especially when those are available in large quantities which is the case here. WP:TERTIARY sources "may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." There is no contradiction here and because we also have so many secondary WP:RS available, we should use those to determine weight. Secondary sources are in vast amount about this topic, see a list here [42] (in oder to save space, I won't copy paste all them here)
  • And even if we just ignore all the secondary sources that are the highest priorty sources on Wikipedia, there are even multiple Tertiary sources that include the genocide of Christians when discussing Turkey:

• Yenen, Alp, and Erik-Jan Zürcher. "Fragments from a Century: A History of Republican Turkey, 1923–2023." A hundred years of republican Turkey (2023): 11-27.

The editors of this volume written by Yenen and Zürcher, both renown Turkologists, includes the Armenian Genocide

• Kanner, Efi. "Christine M. Philliou, Turkey: A Past against History." The Historical Review/La Revue Historique 18.1 (2021): 275-278.

The Armenian Genocide is mentioned as a "key date" in Turkish history within the first few pages of this book

• Historian and expert on genocide topics Uğur Ümit Üngör dedicates multiple chapters in The Making of Modern Turkey that a consistent thread in the history of the modern Kemalist Republic of Turkey is the persecution and genocide of the original Christian inhabitants.

• Finally, as specified in the chapter on Turkey's origins in this TERTIARY source "Most Turks have to wait until they reach university before they hear anything about those who inhabited Anatolia prior to the arrival of the first Turkish outriders. Peoples who pose an ideological challenge to the Turkish Republic—Greeks, Armenians, or Kurds—receive only a brief mention in historical narratives...Small wonder that Turkish versions of history sometimes appear as though the pieces have been forced into place." (page 16) There is a huge number of sources both historical and contemporary which emphasize the importance and effect that the the persecution and genocide of Turkey's original inhabitants had on the modern Turkish Republic. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for providing sources.

1) I think the first two can be considered solid WP:Secondary overview sources for history.

2) I don't think Üngör's work is an overview source, see the full title: The Making of Modern Turkey: Nation and State in Eastern Anatolia, 1913–1950.

3) This source is not a WP:Tertiary source. It's just a book review published in a journal. Tertiary sources are things like encyclopedias. Wikipedia is a tertiary source.

To find tertiary sources, you can use Google Books, Google Scholar, or the Wikipedia Library. Oxford Reference Online has access to lots of tertiary sources.

If you are unsure what counts as a tertiary source, you can ask it in places like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Teahouse. Bogazicili (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Brusquedandelion and KhndzorUtogh. – Olympian ^loquere 05:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3, followed by options 2 and 1. I don't believe the ethnic cleansings inside and outside the Ottoman empire need to be discussed at great length, but they do need to be mentioned, as they shaped the ethnic composition of modern Turkey in a major way (far more significant than most of the examples provided of colonial powers engaged in ethnic cleansing in what is now another country; by the same logic, I would say they should probably be mentioned in the leads of the US, Australia, and Canada). In other words, the question of whether it is lead-worthy is not whether genocides happened, but whether they are an important part of the modern shape of the country. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Compassionate727, not sure what you mean here.

  Turkey is not a settler colonial country like the countries you have used as examples. There are no sources that suggest this as far as I know.

  Modern-day genetic studies also show modern-day Turkish people have significant ancestry from populations going back thousands of years ago in Anatolia.[43][44][45] This is quite different than the non-native populations in the countries you gave examples of.

  Can you clarify what you meant? Bogazicili (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn’t saying they are. Somebody early in the survey argued that genocides aren’t mentioned in the leads of many former colonial powers, e.g., France in Algeria. I was arguing the examples aren’t analogous because French genocide in Algeria is important for understanding Algeria, but not France; meanwhile, Turkish genocide within Turkey radically altered the ethnic composition of Turkey, and is important for understanding it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'll add to this that Turkey is a settler colonial state:

  But that's beside the point: Turkey underwent massive demographic changes as seen by the proportion of Christians versus Muslims before 1900 and compared to now. It's important to mention when and why. It's as simple as that. Vanezi (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have a reliable WP:Secondary source that says "Turkey is a settler colonial state"? I also see your sources were challenged in Talk:Settler_colonialism#Sources. Bogazicili (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  What is wrong about those sources that you're asking me for "WP:Secondary source"? And the discussion I had in Settler colonialism involves that article section specifically, not something universal (the discussion still hasn't finished btw, temporarily put off by me for now).

  You made the claim Turkey isn't a settler colonial state, I've shown the opposite with WP:RS. I then said it's beside the point, which I still stand by, it's clearly beside the point for the same reason that the user you replied to agreed with me [46]. Vanezi (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  The sources you provided do not say Turkey is a settler colonial state.

  They also seem low quality sources such as newspaper articles like Washington Post or Le Monde.

  Or they are WP:Primary journal articles. Provide a source such as this: The Routledge Handbook of the History of Settler Colonialism

  If this is besides the point, do not respond any further then. I had only asked for clarification to Compassionate727 about what they meant. Bogazicili (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

  comment removed, extended confirmed status required. See:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard topic

  Aren't you topic banned? And why are you hounding me? You should find better things to do. Vanezi (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Compassionate727, have you read the quotes from WP:Tertiary sources above before making this !vote? Bogazicili (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I had not, but now I have. I notice that while they don't specifically mention genocide, several of them mention related issues, including the Young Turks' and new state's emphasis on ethnic nationalism and the demographic changes. So I think that option 4 says too little. I'm not entirely persuaded that option three says too much—we aren't obligated to follow other tertiary sources—but could be satisfied with something intermediate, especially (although not necessarily conditionally) if the portion of the lead devoted to history was reduced from two paragraphs to one. I suppose I'll retract my second- and third-choice votes for options 2 and 1. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Compassionate727, I don't think it's possible to reduce history to one paragraph. Pretty much everything there is in tertiary sources, except what is being discussed now and Göbekli Tepe part. For examples, Hattians and Hittites are mentioned in Turkey entry in Encyclopedia of the Developing World. Göbekli Tepe part probably needs to be removed, but it still won't be enough to condense everything. I had added Göbekli Tepe part myself, but it was before I reviewed tertiary sources.

As for option 3, I think it is too vague. Where did Muslim migration come from? It came from Balkans, Crimea and Caucasus. And the second part about massacres could be bad for article stability. People might edit war saying these were genocides, not massacres. As for the demographic change, there were other factors such as Population exchange between Greece and Turkey.

I guess we could say "The percentage of non-Muslims in modern-day Turkey was 19.1% in 1914, but fell to 2.5% in 1927". But this suggests only Christians died, which is simply untrue.

My previous suggestion was "The dissolution of Ottoman Empire was accompanied by a large-scale loss of life" in addition to Option 4. This would be similar to the lead of India. Maybe we can also add that Turkey emerged as a nation state or a more homogenous nation state. I am not sure. Maybe, we can mention Rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire. This is indeed mentioned in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World.

Kowal2701, what do you think? I think you are one of the few people who are not very involved in Turkey or Armenia-related articles. You also expressed concerns before [47]. What do you think of the above, and what do you think a fair solution would be for the lead, in line with the sources?

I'd also recommend both of you to read all the sources and quotes in this RfC (and not just the ones I provided). Also here are some of the full entries about Turkey via Wikipedia library: The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World (genocide only mentioned as a link under "See also") and World Encyclopedia Bogazicili (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

For a summary of a summary (which the lead of an article like this is), I don't think we omit too much by leaving out the places of origin. That's what we have wikilinks for.

Currently, I'm considering a sentence along the lines of In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Ottoman minorities and immigration of persecuted Muslims contributed to the emergence of a nation-state in modern-day Turkey. (The part beginning with "emergence" feels clunky and poorly integrated with what currently follows, but something to that effect.) World War I feels unimportant apart from its proximate causation of the Ottoman Empire's collapse, and could probably be left to the next sentence. (Following Ottoman defeat in World War I, the Turkish War of Independence …). Honestly, that whole paragraph could probably be trimmed; there's currently five sentences devoted to the past 100 years, and a lot of it is wrapped up in details. (Do we really need to mention the Treaty of Lausanne by name? Is Turkey's participation in Korea, or neutrality in World War II, really of major continued significance for Turkey?) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd say your suggestion is WP:SYNTH. Lausanne is mentioned by name in tertiary sources. Bogazicili (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Most tertiary sources are longer than four or five paragraphs; I would say that inclusion in tertiary sources is not necessarily a strong argument for inclusion in the lead, unlike how exclusion from them suggests something is probably undue, just because they have more space to fill with details.

I have no immediate response to the synthesis question. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

These are mentioned in WP:Secondary sources and WP:Tertiary sources. So that is a strong argument for inclusion. Per MOS:LEAD, we also need to summarize the body of the article.

Several editors also thought history paragraph had too much emphasis on the pre-Republican era, so that is why things like WW2 were added. See: Talk:Turkey/Archive_40#Too_much_emphasis_on_the_Ottoman_Empire_in_the_lede

As for WP:SYNTH, it wasn't a question. Your suggestion is simply WP:SYNTH and inappropriate. Bogazicili (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. Annoyingly, I can't access [48] which looks super helpful. The sources generally omit mention of the genocides in a short history, however that seems unlikely to gain a consensus. I like In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Ottoman minorities and immigration of persecuted Muslims contributed to the emergence of a nation-state in modern-day Turkey. a lot as a compromise. It is also very educational and appropriately high level yet easily understood. I'd be surprised if there was any staunch opposition to that. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say that's WP:SYNTH in its current form. Wikipedia:Consensus should be based on sources. Bogazicili (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it'd be best to base this sentence off of Formation of the Turkish Nation-State, 1920–1938.

With the migration of the Muslim populations out of these lands, the religious composition of the empire’s subjects became more homogeneous—the Greeks and Armenians now constituting no more than one-fifth of the popula tion (ibid.).

The Balkan Wars (1912–1913) were certainly a watershed in the radicalization of the Young Turks’ ideas and policies. Faced with mas sive territorial losses and the wave of Muslim refugees from the Balkans, Ottomanism came to be seen as a less attractive and less powerful alternative. Even though it was not completely dismissed, following the Balkan Wars Ottomanism was increasingly relegated to the background while Turkist ideas came to the fore. The atrocities committed against Armenians reveal the tragic consequences of this radicalization.

On the whole, the atrocities committed against Armenians could be understood within the context of the process of imperial decline rather than as a long-term strategy that had been in place and that was metic ulously engineered.11 At the same time, it is equally important to emphasize the “long-standing affective dispositions and attitudes that had demonized the Armenians as a threat that needed to be dealt with”

Overall then, as Suny concludes, “the The Ottoman Empire 31 Genocide did not result primarily from Turkish racial or religious hatred of the Armenians . . . or from long-term planning by militant nationalists. The Genocide was, rather, a contingent event, initiated at a moment of imperial near-collapse, when the Young Turks made a f inal, desperate effort to revive and expand the empire” (1988: 17).12 The building of the Turkish Republic would follow from this violent history of homogenization.

Kowal2701 (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

These are good quotes. My reading of this is that the collapse of Ottoman Empire should be a separate sentence than proclamation of the republic. Merging everything together is very WP:SYNTH.

As far as I know, Young Turks wasn't part of Turkish War of Independence. Of course I'm hesitant in providing Wikipedia links since all these Wikipedia articles seem problematic.

If you look at The Routledge Handbook of Modern Turkey, these are separate chapters: The Young Turks And The Committee Of Union And Progress and World War I And The Establishment Of The Republic and The Turkish Republic

Kowal2701, also what about Population exchange between Greece and Turkey? 1.6 million people is a lot, given the population numbers at the time Bogazicili (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

How about covering the Young Turks in From 1789 onwards, the empire saw a major transformation, reforms, and centralization while its territory declined.? I'm afraid I'm not informed well enough to make a proposal.

The population exchange could be mentioned along with the genocides and Muslim immigration which all led to a more homogenous nation state, however it isn't mentioned in the above source as far as I can tell. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather see the lead shorter, and would therefore prefer not to see the population transfer explicitly mentioned; I believe discussion of immigration and persecution includes that. Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction (which my proposed sentence links to) mentions and links to the exchange in the lead.

@Bogazicili: would replacing contributed to the emergence of a nation-state in modern-day Turkey from my proposal with "led/contributed to national/ethnic homogenization" (something along those lines), with the above source as a citation, address your synthesis concerns? Or would we need something more explicit? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Will respond to this tomorrow. Bogazicili (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@KhndzorUtogh, what do you think of the above proposal, where persecution of Ottoman minorities is a link to Late Ottoman genocides, given the coverage of this in short form sources? Kowal2701 (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Compassionate727 and Kowal2701, sorry for late response.

Compassionate727, your suggestion is against WP:NPOV. Specifically it is Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. This should be obvious, just read your response again. Kowal2701 suggested something, and you rejected it based on your personal opinion. I agree the lead should be shorter but what is added or removed shouldn't be random or based on personal opinions. I believe your earlier suggestion was also based on personal opinion.

Kowal2701, see the response above. Both In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Ottoman minorities and immigration of persecuted Muslims contributed to the emergence of a nation-state in modern-day Turkey or led/contributed to national/ethnic homogenization are against WP:NPOV due to Wikipedia:Cherrypicking.

From the source Kowal2701 found, Formation of the Turkish Nation-State, 1920–1938 p. 4:

The narrative that follows reveals the multi-faceted nature of the nation-building process. The examination points out that the conditions of imperial exit are of central significance

Emergence of a nation-state in modern-day Turkey is complex, why should we randomly mention one or two factors in the lead? Why the randomness?

About the demographic change, here are some quotes:

The Cambridge History of Turkey Volume 4: Turkey in the Modern World

p. 16 The territorial loss averted in 1856 occurred in the 1870s. Revolt broke out in Herzegovina in 1874 and spread to Bosnia, Montenegro and Bulgaria by 1876. The Ottoman government, having just suspended payment on its foreign debt, had to face this crisis without European support.10 Ottoman efforts to contain the situation raised European outcries against massacres of Christians, even as counter-massacres in the Balkans began to flood Istanbul with Muslim refugees, whose plight Europeans ignored. p. 175-177 Introduction: from the late Ottoman period to the Turkish Republic The Turkish Republic and its predecessor state, the Ottoman Empire, have been deeply shaped by migration in its many variations. The end of the Ottoman Empire was particularly marked by the forced displacement of people. As nationalism set out to establish homogenous national identities, the multi-ethnic and multicultural order of the Ottoman Empire was undermined.2 The collapse of the empire and the rise of nationalism, especially in Eastern Europe and the Balkans,were characterised by the ‘un-mixing’ of peoples3 and the dislocation of large numbers of Christians, Jews and Muslims.4 These displaced people came from a great variety of ethnic groups, including Armenians, Bosnians, Bulgarians, Circassians, Greeks, Kurds, Pomaks, Tatars and Turks. The population shifts of the Balkan and First World Wars were followed by a compulsory exchange of population between Greece and the new Turkish Republic, which saw the arrival of almost half a million Muslims.5 ... The loss of the Armenian and Greek communities, accompanied by the deaths of an estimated 2.5 million Muslims in the wars, left the new Turkish Republic considerably depopulated in comparison to the Ottoman Empire.9

The Routledge Handbook of Modern Turkey

p. 35 Following its losses in the Italian and Balkan Wars of 1911–13 Turkey found itself in a precarious strategic position. ... The demographic transformation of the empire had major political implications. With endless waves of refugees fleeing the war zones in both directions—mostly Muslims arriving in Turkey and Christians leaving—the Muslim proportion of the Ottoman population was approaching 80 percent p. 50 Long-term consequences of the wars and economic nationalism in the republic After 1912 the Ottoman Empire and its principal successor state, Turkey, were engaged in a series of wars that lasted for a decade. The Balkan Wars of 1912–13 were followed by World War I and the War of Independence from 1920 to 1922. Demographic changes were an important and long-lasting legacy of this decade. The population of the areas later included in Turkey was close to 17 million in 1913. Total war-related deaths, military and otherwise, among Muslim Turks and Kurds during this decade are estimated at close to 2 million. Moreover, the Armenian population of Anatolia declined ... Finally, in the largest-ever peacetime population exchange agreement, signed between Greece and the Republic of Turkey in 1923, approximately 1.2 million Greeks left Anatolia, and, in return, close to half a million Muslims arrived from Greece and the Balkans ... As a result of these massive changes, at the end of 1924 the population of Turkey stood at around 13 million, a decrease of approximately 20 percent from a decade before. In terms of its religious composition, the population of Turkey emerged as much more homogeneous than the Ottoman population of the same area, with Muslim Turks and Kurds making up close to 98 percent of the total.

Based on above, I'm going to recommend adding a footnote into the lead. It's clear there are WP:DUE concerns and we've been trying to condense things, but these are leading to WP:OR or WP:NPOV (Wikipedia:Cherrypicking) issues. I think the solution is a new footnote. We can put all of Option 1 into this footnote. The footnote should also include large loss of life among ethnic Turks and ethnic Kurds between 1912 and 1922. It should also note Population exchange between Greece and Turkey. Finally it should include that modern-day Turkey's population declined 20% between 1913 and 1924.

I think the footnote could be included after a sentence such as "The end of Ottoman Empire was accompanied by large-scale loss of human life and mass displacement". We can also add another sentence into the lead (addition in bold): The Republic was proclaimed on 29 October 1923, modelled on the reforms initiated by the country's first president, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Turkey emerged as a more homogenous nation state.

The last sentence is based on above (homogenous part) and below. Note that there are no cherrypicking issues since it doesn't say Turkey emerged as a more homogenous nation state due to random X and Y factors.

source

The Cambridge History of Turkey Volume 4: Turkey in the Modern World, p. 112: An investigation of modern Turkey’s roots, of its political traditions, socioeconomic transformations, and cultural heritage, can reasonably start in the early centuries of the Ottoman Empire. The emergence of Turkey as sovereign nation-state, though, occurred late, when its new boundaries were determined with international recognition in 1923

Rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire can be added into the sentence at the end of second paragraph (addition in bold): From 1789 onwards, the empire saw a major transformation, reforms, centralization, and rising nationalism while its territory declined

Compassionate727 and Kowal2701, what do you think? Is this footnote idea a fair solution in line with the sources? Bogazicili (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think a footnote is a good compromise, and addresses WP:Due. The end of Ottoman Empire was accompanied by mass displacement and large-scale loss of human life would be better syntax imo. The footnote should probably cover each point in chronological order, so a sentence on Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction, then one on Late Ottoman genocides, then one on the population exchange, and avoid WP:Weasel words Kowal2701 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with your suggested wording.

The footnote would include all of Option 1 and the things I mentioned above. Note that loss of life among ethnic Turks and ethnic Kurds in modern-day Turkey is separate from Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction, although some of the numbers may overlap. Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction happened in Balkans, Caucasus, Crimea etc, with 5-5.5 million deaths from about 1820 to 1920. The other is 2-2.5 million deaths in modern-day Turkey between 1912 and 1922. That's why I suggested "large-scale loss of life among ethnic Turks and ethnic Kurds", without giving numbers. The precise dates and numbers can be explained in the body.

And again, the footnote would end with 20% reduction in population, covering everyone. Bogazicili (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of a footnote in the lead; it seems like a tacit admission that its content is undue for the lead but we want to include it anyway. Nevertheless, it might be the best obtainable outcome. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 - was going to vote option 4, but fundamentally the academic question is what built Turkey from its predecessor, the ottomon empire? We don't need a full overview of Ottoman history, but we should consider 20th centure nationalistic furor that created Turkey. Similar to the fact that the Holocaust is mentioned in Israel's lede as instigators for its development, and World War II is mentioned in Germany's lede as the instigator for the modern day state, it could probably be argued that exclusion and denigration of non-Turkish and non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire was the predecessor to create Turkey. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Bluethricecreamman, have you read the quotes from WP:Tertiary sources above before making this !vote? Bogazicili (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 Per WP:LEDE, the lede should summarize the key points of the article, of which this is one. Perhaps no other event in Turkish history is more discussed. The mere fact that this topic keeps coming up over and over again in the talkpage, more than any other topic, points to its significance. The genocides of the early 20th century were pivotal to the foundation of modern Turkey, permenanently altering its demographics in a major way. As for the arguments that other tertirary sources do not cover these events, we are not obligated to follow what other tertiary sources do, Wikipedia has its own policies, and is also generally much more in-depth and detailed other tertiary sources. Lastly, the claims made about the leads of other countries fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and have no relevance here. Users that take up issue with the ledes of other country articles should go to the those articles and make their case there. Each country has its own unique history and there is no one-size-fits-all. That said, the case most similar, that of Germany, does indeed mention the Holocaust in the lede. Khirurg (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Khirurg, WP:LEAD says we must encapsulate the main points of the article, and this is certainly one of them. The genocides that occurred in the early 20th century played a crucial role in shaping modern Republic of Turkey, significantly transforming its demographics. Vanezi (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

I think it'll be hard to find consensus when RfC is asked this way. It'd have been easier to ask this with two options, if there is need for change or not. If there is consensus for change, whether it's removing or trimming etc, a follow up RfC can be conducted to clarify.

Youprayteas, the other option would be some sort of merge, similar to India: "The dissolution of Ottoman Empire was accompanied by a large-scale loss of life" Bogazicili (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you open a RfC then Youprayteas ^{talk/contribs} 13:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

No you already opened, so that's not necessary. Bogazicili (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you for bringing to our attention the fact that Japan does not mention the war crimes of the Japanese Empire in its lead. This is misleading and would be akin to omitting mentions of the Holocaust from the lead for the Germany article. I have gone ahead and WP:BOLDly corrected that error over at Japan. For future reference, the correct place to note such a problem would have been at Talk:Japan, not Talk:Turkey. We do not make other unrelated page worses along the same lines of anotber bad page simply because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; that's just not how Wikipedia works. Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is just an essay, it's not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. What we don't do is to use Wikipedia as a source per WP:V. I don't think getting tips from other articles, especially FA ones, is an issue. I think it's also useful in identifying Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Bogazicili (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Following convention is valid. I suggest you focus more on the body of country articles covering these rather than the lede, which is not the place for moralisms or holding countries accountable for their history, it’s for events crucial to their history. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

If something is notable and relevant enough, then it should be in the lead. Undue doesn't come into concern here imo. See my comment above for more if you're interested [49] KhndzorUtogh (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course WP:UNDUE comes into concern. You are trying to add Time Magazine article about Armenia into the lead of Turkey [50]. A relevant discussion is also at Talk:United_States#No_mention_of_"ethnic_cleansing"_or_"genocide" Bogazicili (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

See my response. [51] KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Reopening discussion

Per a request on my talk page, I am reopening the discussion in the hopes that editors will be willing to compromise with further discussion. The prior close was:

There is a rough consensus for the footnote option. MOS:LEADREL and WP:DUE require us to analyze relevant sources and determine the massacres' and genocides' relative importance to the subject: in this case, the history of Turkey and its development as a nation state. Thus, I gave significant weight in this discussion to arguments that addressed the sources, and discounted arguments that were based on opinion or original research, as well as WP:OTHERCONTENT !votes. Of those editors who engaged with the sources, there was a fundamental disagreement, leading to a compromise measure that there is a rough consensus for. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Editors should notify participants in this discussion of the reopening and make any other notifications they would like. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

comment removed, extended confirmed status required. See:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard topic

@KhndzorUtogh would you like to add another sentence on the genocides to the note? Maybe something giving the total death toll or methods used. My reasoning is that out of the three things in the footnote, it’s the most WP:Due so could be expanded on a little Kowal2701 (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I am opposed to the "footnote" option as a whole for multiple reasons. First of all, there was never any consensus for it and it was never a proposed option. In addition, the problem with the footnote itself is that it primarily exists to censor and trivialize the Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian genocides. "Accompanied by mass displacement and large-scale loss of human life" sounds like something straight out of a genocide denialist source, both for its intentional vagueness and suggestion of a "civil war" in which the Turks were also victims. Wikipedia is not meant to compromise for every single viewpoint, it is the due weight of reliable sources, which genocide denying revisionism does not fall under. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

100% agree with this on all counts. There was indeed no consensus on the footnote., which is itself a fairly transparent attempt to hide the genocide of ~3 million people in the space of a decade, and the wording is a typical attempt at equivocating. I also find that replacing the explicit mention of the genocides with a simple "large scale loss" of life to be problematic. Khirurg (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no genocide revisionism here? You've made a strawman. This is not an article on the genocides, and reliable sources don't mention the genocides when summarising Turkish history. Pinging previous participants for their thoughts: @Youprayteas, Brusquedandelion, Bogazicili, Moxy, Compassionate727, and Bluethricecreamman: Kowal2701 (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

What is being proposed here....footnote where? Moxy🍁 20:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The footnote after The end of the Ottoman Empire was accompanied by mass displacement and large-scale loss of human life in the third paragraph of the lead. Compare status quo with this version Kowal2701 (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

That would be a no for me..... this would be the opposite of what we're looking for in a lead.... that is no need for references or random statistics with zero context. WP:COUNTRYDETAIL. This is clearly something that should be reserved for the body as in stating a number doesn't give us an overall feeling of the severity of the acts.... as in is this 10% of the population 80% of the population. This is why the fa article Germany doesn't randomly give us statistics. Simply a link and further explanation in the body of the article. Moxy🍁 21:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how the footnote can be construed as denialism. If anything, it was a compromise to keep mention of the genocides in the lead despite strong arguments that it isn't due there.

Despite my personal opposition to the footnote as an ugly shoehorn, I thought Voorts's finding was a reasonable bartender's close. But if we want to rehash the whole RfC again, I guess we can. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The previous wording, before the footnote was implemented, was agreed upon by RfC [52]. It cannot replaced unless there is a new consensus, of which I see none. The footnote wasn't even one of the options of the RfC, so I'm not even sure how that was inserted. As for Kowal's claim that reliable sources don't mention the genocides when summarising Turkish history, that is just not true [53] [54]. A new RfC is indeed needed. Khirurg (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Not only that, but the recent RfC where the footnote was suggested was not even a properly formatted and filed RfC, nor was it ever listed at the page where active RfCs are listed. It's just a regular talkpage thread with "RfC" in the heading, not a proper RfC. Khirurg (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Those are books hundreds of pages long, not two-paragraph summaries of Turkish history. Feel free to make an RfC on the two versions Kowal2701 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The footnote was probably your only option here. If you think this is going to go anywhere other than no consensus without some compromise, you are incorrect. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of equivalence, I’d be okay with condensing the other events and expanding on the coverage of the genocides in the note. But that’s the most I can see happening Kowal2701 (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Kowal2701, thanks for the ping. I'll have limited participation in the rest of this RfC. All the arguments, sources, and quotes are in above sections anyways.

Would you mind pinging everyone else who commented or !voted in the RfC per voorts instructions above? [55] voorts, we are supposed to ping everyone right? Bogazicili (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

If your goal is to reach consensus and work towards compromise, I recommend pinging editors who were previously involved in the discussion. Otherwise, I would just request another close and let the cards fall where they may. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Other editors here can decide on one of those two options and proceed accordingly. Bogazicili (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Question for everyone: In the event of no consensus, what is the status quo ante to which the article stays at? There was no real consensus for the footnote. Would it be the version that existed before the footnote was added? Khirurg (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

If there is no consensus for a change the status quo would be the norm... or what is retained until consensus changes. I think we should work on some wording in the body ... as in giving a scale of things.... right now we give a whole bunch of different numbers for different genocides and massacres... was this a large portion of the population at the time? The Holocaust does this well by saying "One-third of the Jewish population worldwide, and two-thirds of European Jews, had been wiped out." Do you have numbers or percentages on the amount of the population? And an article like Canada says about its Indigenous population "As a consequence of European colonization, the Indigenous population declined by forty to eighty percent". I'm looking at the sources in the article and they're quite confusing. I see the ginormous footnote below this is sort of said do we have numbers for all the other atrocities? Moxy🍁 06:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The RfC was closed on 26 December 2024. The lead was changed on on 18 February 2025. The RfC was reopened on 24 February 2025

The previous RfC was in 2017. It includes multiple blocked editors, including long-term abuse ones.

This is a complicated case, and would probably proceed to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Bogazicili (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

People at AN will probably say it's a content dispute and we need to work it out ourselves. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Since the RfC is still open, and there was no consensus for the footnote, shouldn't the lede be restored to the status quo ante (i.e. no footnote) while the process is ongoing? Khirurg (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I think so. Given that the RfC has been reopened, status quo cannot be the recently implemented version [56]. The term status quo means long-standing version [57], lead should be restored to that before RfC concludes. Vanezi (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Just because the RfC was reopened doesn’t mean the close was wrong, per WP:DETCON it’s the quality of the arguments, and the closer gave more weight to arguments that were based on sources and policies. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

As @KhndzorUtogh highlighted, the close was premature; only two members responded to @Bogazicili's suggestion for a footnote prior to the content change. Per WP:DETCON, consensus between a small group of editors is insufficient to instigate such a content change. It should thus be restored to the long-standing version as @Vanezi Astghik and @Khirurg pointed out, and discussions on this RfC should continue with a footnote option in addition to the past Options 1-4. Calculator22413 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

You have a remarkable knowledge of policy for someone who joined 58 minutes ago! Kowal2701 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I've been following this thread for a few months now, agreed with what I felt was the consensus to keep the discussion at option 1. I then discovered a couple months later than the footnote had been added, and I thought I could bring value to the community by bringing my two cents to the conversation.

By Wikipedia policy, I am aware that my vote as a new user counts for less, but my ability to raise logical arguments is not limited by my account's creation date.

My above comment isn't a vote - it is a substantiated point. Instead of making ad-hominem attacks, let us please engage constructively with its substance. Calculator22413 (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

They didn’t have to reopen it either, they only did so because a compromise looked plausible, but apparently not Kowal2701 (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The footnote text

The footnote currently reads In the 19th and early 20th centuries, persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction and in the Russian Empire resulted in large-scale loss of life and mass migration into modern-day Turkey from the Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea. Under the control of the Three Pashas, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I in 1914, during which the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian subjects. There was large-scale loss of life among ethnic Turks and ethnic Kurds between around 1912 to 1924. A population exchange between Greece and Turkey was agreed during the Lausanne Treaty. Turkey's population declined around 20%, from 17 million to 13 million, between around 1913 to 1924.. However, the sentence There was large-scale loss of life among ethnic Turks and ethnic Kurds between around 1912 to 1924. is already covered by the opening sentence of the footnote (since it mentions the early 20th century) and is thus repetition. The two sentences on the population exchange and the population decline are not lede material and better suited for the body of the article. There is thus no need for the footnote, and replacing the sentence The end of the Ottoman Empire was accompanied by mass displacement and large-scale loss of human life. currently in the lede with the first two sentences of the footnote (condensed, is length is a concern, e.g. by removing mention of the Three Pashas) seems preferable to the footnote. Khirurg (talk) 06:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

These are all explained above:

The footnote would include all of Option 1 and the things I mentioned above. Note that loss of life among ethnic Turks and ethnic Kurds in modern-day Turkey is separate from Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction, although some of the numbers may overlap. Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction happened in Balkans, Caucasus, Crimea etc, with 5-5.5 million deaths from about 1820 to 1920. The other is 2-2.5 million deaths in modern-day Turkey between 1912 and 1922. That's why I suggested "large-scale loss of life among ethnic Turks and ethnic Kurds", without giving numbers. The precise dates and numbers can be explained in the body.
And again, the footnote would end with 20% reduction in population, covering everyone. Bogazicili (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Bogazicili (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The Republic of Turkey was not established until 1923, so the loss of life among Turks and Kurds between 1912 and 1924 that you refer to took place during the last years of the Ottoman Empire, so it is repetition. The footnote is too long and contains material that is not suitable for the lede. Khirurg (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The footnote covers demographic changes which contributed to the emergence of Turkey as a nation state Kowal2701 (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I have not seen such a detailed footnote describing demographic history in the lede of any other country page. This level of detail is not ideal for the lede. Khirurg (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The reason for mentioning demographic changes is because Compassionate727 identified "the demographic changes" mentioned in WP:Tertiary source.

The discussion and the sources are above.

It's not repetition because Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction (an article which you !voted to be deleted in its AfD discussion by the way) led to influx of Muslims into modern-day Turkey, changing the demographics. Bogazicili (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

It reads large scale loss of life...large scale loss of life. If that's not repetition, I don't know what is. Large scale loss of life among Ottoman Muslims is mentioned twice and given more weight than the genocide of the Empire's Christians. That's not going to work. Khirurg (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

References

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2025

Add Balkans and Middle East. 204.85.209.214 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Already in the article. Remsense ‥ 论 14:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2025

I propose the following changes, mostly for the images. I already edited the captions, only the alignment parameter should be fixed before implementing.

Ottoman Empire

Current image of Dolmabahace isn't even the picture of the palace, rather the gate. The following image fits better imo:

Topkapı Palace and Dolmabahçe Palace were the primary residences of the Ottoman sultans in Istanbul between 1465 and 1856 and 1856 to 1922, respectively.

Miltary

Currently there are two pictures, both representing only the Air Force, instead we could go like;

The TAI TF Kaan is produced by Turkish Aerospace Industries for the Turkish Air Force.

TCG Burgazada of MILGEM project.

Altay tank.

Infrastructure

Instead of Keban Dam, Ataturk would be much better representation, an aerial image could be used for the airport as well with adding the fact of being one of the busiest;

Atatürk Dam is the third largest dam in the world.

The main terminal of Istanbul Airport has an annual passenger capacity of 90 million and is the world's largest terminal building under a single roof and the 7th busiest in the world.

Religion

The fact about the Camlica being the biggest mosque is missed. Also, the seat of Orthodoxy - the Patriarchy is a much more important representation of Christianity.

Left: Çamlıca Mosque, the biggest mosque in Turkey, was designed by two female architects. Right: St. George's Cathedral, Istanbul is the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Literature, theatre, and visual arts

Orhan Pamuk is a spot on example. Though instead of 'Sureyya Opera' I beleive there should be an example of something of more historicity;

'Two Musician Girls' of Osman Hamdi Bey.

Architecture

Images are too vague, there are better options with details.

Built by Mimar Sinan, Selimiye Mosque in Edirne is an example of classical Ottoman architecture.

Grand Post Office in Istanbul, an example of the first national architectural movement.

With its traditional Turkish houses, Safranbolu is a tentative UNESCO World Heritage site.

Sports

Instead of the Euro 2016 team, the 2002 World Cup team is a better example. They've finished the torunament in 3rd place, which is the highest Turkey got in the history, and also scored the fastest goal in any FIFA match. Also, national women's volleyball team is much more relevant to this subsection. They are in the top 3 world stansings and scored a perfect season.

The Turkish national football team has notably secured in third place at the 2002 FIFA World Cup and the 2003 FIFA Confederations Cup, and reaching the semi-finals at UEFA Euro 2008. The team scored the fastest goal in a FIFA World Cup match.

Turkey women's national volleyball team won 22 consecutive matches in 2023. In that period, they completed the Nations League, European Championship and Olympic Qualification Round / FIVB World Cup matches undefeated. Being the first team to do so in history.

Media and cinema

For this part, I don't think 'Beren Saat' fits here at all. She didin't caught international fame to begin with. Turkan Soray is a staple of the cinema so she can stay mos def. Instead of the sentence 'Filiz Akın, Fatma Girik, Hülya Koçyiğit, and Türkan Şoray represent their period of Turkish cinema' we could go like 'Yeşilçam was the period of initial growth in Turkish cinema.'

Nuri Bilge Ceylan (left), Türkan Şoray (right)

93.105.184.3 (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Some of the images you suggest are old (2002 Turkish national team and 2014 Safranbolu).

Beren Saat is an example for TV. Turkey is a leading TV content exporter.

An image you have has an unacceptable copyright [58]. Will request removal in Commons.

You are also suggesting adding too many images, like 3 images in military section.

See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Bogazicili (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm ok with changing Dolmabahçe image, and infrastructure images. Bogazicili (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Did not realizes image talks going on...not a fan of minni images in clusters as outlined at WP:COUNTRYGALLERIE Moxy🍁 19:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

We also talked about images in Talk:Turkey/Archive_41#Review_of_images_in_the_article. The reason for 2 images in religion is to show some variety per MOS:PERTINENCE. One mosque and one church. Is it that bad for accessibility? Bogazicili (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense it is a comparison.... always find it weird how many country articles use architecture to represent religion over educational graphs or religious imagery. Moxy🍁 19:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Different surveys give different stats, so a graph would be messy for religion. And then there is always licencing issues for nice looking graphs. Bogazicili (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili, I believe 'recency' in pictures regarding historical places is irrelevant, hence the historicity aspect. The content matters more. Current Selimiye pic is just showing the mosque even, Tayyare pic is low quality and too busy whilst Odunpazari picture has bad lighting. They aren't appealing at all. Next up, this page should be covering any given timeline of the country, so why not use the 2002 - the most successfull team in country's history? I still insist that the national teams should come before than privately-owned teams in sports. You can you use this(File:Turkey women's volleyball are the winners of the 2015 European Games 5.JPG) for the volleyball picture as well.

Also, instead of Beren Saat, you could go for somebody like Haluk Bilginer who is even more internationally known and acclaimed. She is just out of place here. Please do check out my other suggestions. Like in religion. The seat of whole Orthodoxy is in istanbul but we are showing the 'past' seat of Assyrian Church...93.105.184.3 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I was scrolling thru the talkpage and voila, I would like to suggest a change. Would've been much better replacing Anıtkabir with 'File:Festival of Youth and Sports, 1939, Turkey.jpg' for a glimpse in history. The picture is taken right after his death, so the pic and the timing are both noteworthy here.KarsVegas36 (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

References

References

Image changes

Moxy made a number of image changes, including removing the gallery in Geography section. [59]

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I personally think a gallery does not place an UNDUE weight on that section, and could be useful in explaining geographic diversity in Turkey, per WP:GALLERY. Bogazicili (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Its in climate section - WP:COUNTRYGALLERIE outlines why the vast majority of country articles dont have them reflecting protocols such as WP:GALLERY " Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of image..." and "Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text" and " Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article". WP:WEIGHT "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. " MOS:ACCIM "Avoid indiscriminate galleries because screen size and browser formatting may affect accessibility for some readers due to fragmented image display". Moxy🍁 19:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The thing is Turkey has a lot of climate variation, I'm still working for re-write of climate section.

But as I said, I don't have a strong opinion and will wait for others to comment.

I did think the Latin Empire map was WP:UNDUE though, given its short duration. Bogazicili (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I see images are a long standing problem Wikipedia:Peer review/Turkey/archive3 - will be hard to fix I guess? Moxy🍁 19:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

We cut a lot of text and images since then. Look at May 2020 version of the article. Still not ready for WP:GAN though. Bogazicili (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

The gallery is pretty but I'm not sure it conveys that much about geographic diversity. That might also be conveyed by other images in the article, of which a fair few are landscapes. If there is a link between the Geographical regions and climate, this should be explained in the text. CMD (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: the above linked peer review from 2020 is from you by the way. What do you think about the current number of images in the article? Bogazicili (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The multi-images may interfere with mobile slightly, but I'm not seeing any sandwiching or overflow on the standard Vector2022 display. CMD (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there are any Wikipedia policies about multi images. I am seeing them in Canada, Germany, India etc.

Featured articles such as Climate change also use galleries by the way.

Given the concerns about removal of images below, maybe 3 of them can be restored in Turkey#Biodiversity in a multi image format, replacing the cat image. Turkey has 3 biodiversity regions. Bogazicili (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

India is the example we use of what not to do (text sandwiching all over.. full article horizontal scrolling implemented because of gallery that is overwhelming certain sections... rotation of images so that the best images isn't always shown etc) and as for Canada and Germany is because there's a comparison being made....as outlined at WP:COUNTRYGALLERIE. On a side note "Articles that have gone through modern FA and GA reviews generally consists of one image for every three or four paragraph summary section, as per MOS:SECTIONLOC.Moxy🍁 18:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I think Wikivoyage page of Turkey has actually some decent images.KarsVegas36 (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2025

Turkey (Türkiye) have officially changed their name. It has not been updated on this page yet. 78.145.163.242 (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the FAQ at the top of this page EvergreenFir (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Anti-Turkish sentiment attacks

This page needs protection. Some seething persons trying vandalise it ! Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it has the same protection as Israel and Palestine for example - which I think is enough.

However you are free to request here Chidgk1 (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Will do. Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know whether by "this page" you mean this talk page or its associated article, but I see no malicious edits on either in the past month. And the page is protected and has been since 2021. User:Elazığ Ahmet, what vandalism are you talking about? Largoplazo (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

This ARTİCLE is under intense hate crime attacks by seethers. Same story with Israel and Palestine articles. Im talking about that. Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide an example edit by one of these "seethers". It's unclear what problem you are seeing. DeCausa (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Instead of answering my question, you merely repeated your original complaint that I already said I see no evidence of. Largoplazo (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary deletion of the images of Turkey's 7 geographical regions and the addition of the "drying Lake Marmara" image

Turkey has 7 geographical regions based on climate and landscape, and these regions used to be well-represented with images. User:Moxy, without seeking prior consent of others in the Talk page, deleted them and inserted the "drying Marmara Lake" image, which may be misleading (many people will think that the Marmara Sea has dried - don't underestimate the ignorance of the masses). People will think that Turkey is a hot desert country in the Middle East with water shortages. Interestingly, this also happened today - can it be a coincidence? 188.58.111.244 (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

We are talking about this above..that said pls see WP:COUNTRYGALLERIE Moxy🍁 06:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

You are of course right that different regions are very different. Re water shortages it seems from your ip address that unlike me who lives in a wetter place you might be in the Istanbul Region. It seems few people who edit Wikipedia have time to look into reports such as https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20250219-what-happens-if-istanbuls-water-supplies-run-dry If you have time and are interested you might like to create a user-id so that after a few edits you could improve the Istanbul article perhaps for that or anything else you think important about your city Chidgk1 (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with anon on this one. Water stress is a real deal but I believe that presentation is a bit too unnecessary and fuels the classic misconception of. There should be an image with a snowy environment to showcase Turkey's varying climate.KarsVegas36 (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2025

The star and crescent emblem that stated in Emblem of Turkey article is actively used nearly everywhere. Passports, gov't buildings and so forth. Why isn't it placed in the infobox? KarsVegas36 (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2025

Since the country name change, from Turkey to Türkiye, Wikipedia contents should change too. Mmd2626 (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the FAQ part on top of the page. If you are on mobile, click 'Learn more about this page' on top. Warriorglance(talk to me) 14:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

About the religion selection part

In Türkiye, the religion of the majority of the population is written as Islam and this creates the perception that the majority of the population is Muslim in the statistics made by TÜİK (Türkiye's State-owned Official Statistics Institute), but today the number of people who believe in Islam in Türkiye is decreasing and Turkish citizens who do not want to deal with official documents appear as Muslims officially and this gives false information in the statistics. (It is assumed that the children born believe in that religion if their mother and father also have the same religion.) Zileli Yiğit (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

There are results of multiple surveys in that section. Bogazicili (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

GINI Data is Outdated (And Wrong Even For The Year It Displays)

I don't have the extended user access, but GINI data on the side panel is for 2019 despite there being 2021 data present in the very same citation given, and the figure is wrong even for 2019.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=TR AuronSavant (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - I updated Chidgk1 (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)