Template:Vital article

	Turkey is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	Turkey has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 18, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 21, 2006 Good article nominee Listed January 9, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted December 20, 2011 Featured article review Demoted August 11, 2014 Good article nominee Listed September 15, 2014 Peer review Reviewed March 6, 2015 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Former featured article, current good article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Countries to-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Western Asia GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Caucasia GA‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Europe GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Assyria GA‑class (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Assyria, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyria articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Eastern Europe Unassessed (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Template:WP1.0

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely agree.:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.158.236 (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Athenean, I looked into the source and found it compatible with the map. The source appears to be a RS and it can easily be verifiable with other sources as well. Excluding provinces like Urfa and Kars makes it more convincing. The whole 'inhabited' wording needs to go since its simply too vague. Moreover, my only issue with this map is that it's too old (1992). A lot has changed in Turkey over two decades and if we're going to provide a more accurate picture of the current demographic situation, we'll have to search for something else. As of now, I have found this map by the Kurdish Institute which depicts Kurdish majority provinces. What do you think? Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also have another update regarding the current map. This source on page xv says the following: "The outlines of the map of Kurdistan were taken from two sources: first, a map produced by the CIA in 1992 depicting areas with a Kurdish majority". We can find more sources that directly state that the CIA map depicts not just lands 'inhabited' by Kurds, but a majority as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. I can't view the source myself, but I'll take your word for it. Athenean (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I'd rather the current map be replaced with a newer one. The demographics in the southeast provinces has changed so much, especially after decades of conflict. Let me see what I can figure out here. I'll work on a new map and I'll lay out the options soon. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's unlikely to be a reliable source though, is it? Hardly a source that we'd trust to know better what a CIA map represents than the CIA itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise As of this point, we don't know what the CIA says because the original publication by the CIA of the map cannot be found. I think it's been handed over to the depositories of the University of Texas. You can find it here [5]. That link is also the source of the image at commons, so it appears that the uploader was in the same situation I'm in now. Many sources also refer to the Texas University map collection as their reference point (for example: [6][7]). As you can see from the link provided, the map itself is referred to as "Kurdish lands". And as discussed before, inhabited seems to be a bit vague. There's no doubt that cities like Istanbul, which is nearly 1/4th Kurdish, is inhabited by Kurds. So this leads me to believe that only Kurdish majority areas were highlighted in that map.

As for the source, it was written and published by researcher Edgecomb. But the "Introduction: A Brief History of the Kurdish People" section was written by Mohammed Ahmed (pages xxiii-xxx). The map is found in that section. His biography can be summed up as follows:

So it is Ahmed's inference of the map we are looking at here. And based on his biography, I don't see how he can be considered unreliable.

But more importantly, the map is too old. I'd like it to be replaced. I'm working on making a newer map as we speak. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the demographics have changed that much. It's not like there has been an influx of Turks in those areas in the last 20 years, if anything the opposite. If we look at the map of the recent elections, the areas where the HDP won correspond almost exactly with the areas the CIA map shows are Kurdish. This includes the areas in eastern Kars province and southern Erzurum province that the CIA map shows as Kurdish. Also note how south-central Sanliurfa province went to the AKP, right in the area where the CIA map shows no Kurdish majority. The only deviation from this are Elazig, Adiyaman, and southern Bingol provinces, which though Kurdish, went to the AK because they are dominated by Kurdish clans that hate the PKK and HDP [8]. Since it is extremely unlikely that many Turks voted for the HDP in those areas, and many Kurds don't vote for the HDP, I find it extremely unlikely that those areas that went to the HDP don't have a Kurdish majority. I know we can't use this information in the article, but we do have a relatively recent and high quality source I added in the article (Nicole Watts) that we can use to make a map. However, she doesn't go to a finer resolution than the province level (i.e. leaves out southern Erzurum, eastern Kars, and so forth). Athenean (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing: Those election results maps show plurality, not majority. For example, HDP won the city of Ardahan, but only with 39%. So even with the assumption that all who voted for HDP are Kurds (which, I will admit, is not a particularly bad assumption as far as eastern Turkey is concerned), one can't conclude that Kurds are a majority (>50%) there. --Mttll (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, though in other places like Agri, HDP got well over 70%. But note how southern Ardahan is shown as Kurdish in the CIA map, and how the HDP won the two southern districts of that province, right where the CIA map shows Kurds. In any case, we can't use the electoral map, I'm just using it to point out that the ethnic demographics can't have changed that much in the last 20 years. It's very hard to find quality sources on this issue. Frankly, the best one I've found so far is the one I added to the article (Nicole Watts). Athenean (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, all of this is OR speculation and not a path we should follow further. Fact is, we don't know what criteria the CIA authors were using for determining what places are or aren't "Kurdish-inhabited". We also don't know what kinds of data any other source might have for any claims about "majority" status in any given locality – given the lack of official demographic data, how would anybody go about finding out whether one particular town has 55% of Kurdish inhabitants or only 45%? The authority Watts is implicitly citing here is Servet Mutlu (1996), 'Ethnic Kurds in Turkey: A Demographic Study', International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 28: 517—541. Maybe somebody can dig that one up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A related publication would seem to be: Servet Mutlu (1995), "Population of Turkey by ethnic groups and provinces", New Perspectives on Turkey 12: 33–60. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This [9] might also be worth consulting. It seems to imply that Mutlu's study was an estimation extrapolating from 1965 census data (which was apparently the last census that explicitly recorded ethnicity.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map 3 on page 157 is from Mutlu 1996 and seems to match the description in Watts. That seems like something we can use. I see two possibilities here: 1) We make a map similar to that in Mutlu 1996, and use that, or 2) leave everything as it currently is, with the CIA map and "Kurdish inhabited areas" in the caption. Athenean (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to lay a couple of options soon. I'm personally quite fond of the Britannica map I found here: [10]. I'll have to transcribe the data on the Brittanica map over to the blank province map of Turkey. I hope that'll be successful since the Britannica map doesn't have provinces. But then again, neither does the CIA map, and yet the data was still placed onto the blank Turkey province map. So that's why I'm also working with Goran tek-en on a draft here: [11]. The source is here: [12]. And now Nyttend made a map here: [13] which is nicely map. Nyttend's map is a great start. We can perhaps place his map into the article for now and see if its would be best to keep it as time goes on and different choices will be available to us. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues. (1) I apologise for messing up everything; as I've said elsewhere, I failed to see that there indeed was sourcing about the CIA map itself that says that it depicts Kurdish-majority areas. Had I seen this, I wouldn't have done anything. (2) Since we have the CIA map and know that it shows Kurdish-majority areas, I don't think my map ought to be used to depict that topic. It's good for a rough approximation, but given the large areas of Kurdish majorities in provinces that are overall majority non-Kurdish, it's likely to cause confusion for many people. It's not meant for anything except province-level analysis, such as the demographics of each province, or electoral matters by province, or Kurdish nationalism by province. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that it'll be great for electoral matters. I like the map, it's very useful. Let's see what other users here have to say about it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS, let me use some US examples to expand my reason for opposing this as a depiction of the distribution of Kurds. Look at [14] and [15], a couple maps from the last US presidential election: the first by state, and the second by localities. You can see that several US states are blue on the overall, despite having largely red localities, and the opposite is true for at least one state; in most of these states, the bigger cities are different from the rural areas, and the city voters outnumber the rural voters. The first is good for depicting final results and would work to depict the distribution of "red" and "blue" voters if we didn't have another map, while the second is much better for depicting the actual distribution but not for depicting final results. In the same way, Kurds are the majority in most parts of certain provinces in which they're not the overall majority (perhaps they're predominately rural and non-Kurds are in the cities?), and regardless of the reasons for this being the case, the province-level map is much better than the CIA map for depicting "final results" and much worse for depicting actual distribution. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. Check out this new map. Let me know what you guys think. In my opinion, it's much more detailed and much more new. Pinging: Nyttend, Athenean, Future Perfect at Sunrise. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good from a graphics standpoint, but do we know why the two maps are so radically different? When two reliable sources yield such different results, I'd suggest that the best course would be to present both, being neutral between the two, although my ignorance of the sources may mean that I'm missing something significant. Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have my own opinions about that. For one, the new map is more recent. The conflict had been well into its second decade by then. There's no doubt that this created an influx of refugees towards the west of Turkey and into the interior provinces. It's also no secret that many Kurds were forcefully relocated by the Turkish government itself (See: Kurdish villages depopulated by Turkey). Secondly, the CIA map focused on the middle east (i.e. Syria, Iraq, Iran). The Kurdish population of southeast Turkey appears to be a continuum of the middle east Kurdish population. Also, if you didn't notice already, there's a box on the map which centers its focus on a specific area. On the bottom of that box it says: "Area of block diagram". I can't seem to figure out what that means but I'm sure it's to emphasize in some way that the Kurds that live in that specific area for some purpose. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that there had been major population movements comparatively recently in Turkey; I knew that there had been conflict between the government and Kurdish separatists, but I had no idea that it would have affected the distribution of population to a significant degree. Nyttend (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not confuse two different things. That map doesn't show Kurds who moved to western Turkey in recent decades. Those Kurds wouldn't show up in 'Kurdish-majority' maps anyway, because while their numbers are in millions, they live in very high and densely populated metropolises and do not make up the majority in any single district. You will notice how Istanbul, the city with the highest Kurdish population in the world, doesn't have any green on that map. What that map shows are the Kurdish exclaves in Central Anatolia, which date back to the Ottoman era, with some massive exaggarations. --Mttll (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. And the map on the Kurds of Central Anatolia article does reflect the new map. I'm glad to see it's quite accurate in that regard as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, it's not exactly accurate. I think it is too maximalist to be featured in the article Turkey as the best overall map of Kurdish-majority areas. Maybe it can be used in Turkish Kurdistan and/or Kurds in Turkey articles among many other maps with the caption that it's from the Kurdish Institute of Paris. --Mttll (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that assessment. The "green" map, while showing the Kurds of Central Anatolia, seems to exaggerate. For example it shows Corum province and Ardahan provinces to be almost entirely Kurdish, which we know is not the case. Mttll is also right that recent Kurdish population movements have been to big cities, and not the countryside. Frankly, it seems like so far the CIA-based map is our best bet, other that it doesn't show the Kurds of Central Anatolia. Athenean (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can keep the current map for now then, assuming good faith with the sources as provided. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article "Minorities in Turkey" contains a very detailed and up-to-date map, covering the percentage of Kurds in all of Turkey's provinces, including Istanbul, according to a research by KONDA. 88.251.88.161 (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page on 'Turkey' includes an audio of Turkey's national anthem as the anthem's lyrics scan. This is where I came across a problem. Listening to the anthem's audio as my eyes scanned the song's words, a vulgar word (f******) is included! Thank you for your time amending this! Have a very good day. God bless

AnnaPrayed (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thank you for spotting this. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Political part of this article is very small in comparison with Turkeys current activity. Its like non-existent here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.158.236 (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persian invasion was for a relatively small period of time. Why is it in the lead? Maybe you should mention it was occupied by Brits during WW1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.179.195 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a common agreement between some Wikipedists on removing facts about the Armenian issue. Why are my additions removed several times? I gave references from trustable sites that there are historians and scholars who do not agree with the narrative of a genocide.

Please note that there are two sides to any issue. If Wikipedia is to remain a neutral online encyclopedia, both sides of the story needs to be represented. Stop showing the "POV card" at facts you do not agree with. It is not convincing and reeks of bias. -Dominator1453 (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The side you would like to present is a minority opinion. In other words, very few academics and scholars, along with just one government (i.e. Turkey), deny the Armenian Genocide. On the other hand, most academics and scholars, along with about 30 countries, acknowledge the fact that the Ottoman government wanted to annihilate its Armenian subjects. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the political clout some Armenians have, the fact remains there are people who deny it ever happened and THIS needs to be mentioned. On a side note, it will never be acknowledged because it lacks archival evidence. The majority opinion is just that: a hypothetical opinion. -Dominator1453 (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is very badly worded. I have just deleted the claim that Armenians were deported from Eastern Anatolia Region. No such region existed in 1915, and Armenians were deported from all parts of the Empire, including areas well outside that modern regional definition. The remaining wording "During the war, the empire's Armenians were deported to Syria as part of the Armenian Genocide" is not adequate and risks being weasel since it could suggest that the genocide resulted from deportations alone. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the other narrative, the idea that many scholars and historians deny a genocide was ever committed, needs to be mentioned with the inclusion of reliable sources, that I had previously provided. -Dominator1453 (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Official evidence that no genocide was ordered, intended, or committed on the part of the Ottoman State during the events of 1915: Turkey opens Ottoman archives over 1915 incidents on 100th anniversary Plus, an article in a journal that encourages the need for researchers to examine Ottoman archives, if they are truely impartial and are interested in discovering the truth: Will Untapped Ottoman Archives Reshape the Armenian Debate? -Dominator1453 (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, unless an objection with logical reasoning isn't made within three days from my previous posting, I will add the fact that some scholars and historains object to the one-sided account of the massacres. -Dominator1453 (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a "one sided account", and fringe or material derived from Turkish embassies is not suitable for sources. The text "The Turkish government denies that there was an Armenian Genocide" is already in the article and is wikilinked to the main article on that subject - that seems sufficient for a general article, especially since (excluding that sentence) the content on the Armenian Genocide is only two sentences long. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This coming from a user who does not respect Wikipedia rules and has been warned and banned numerous times regarding improper editing. Thanks but no thanks for your opinion. I disagree with you and still do not see credible evidence (accusing Turkish embassies does not count) not to mention this.-Dominator1453 (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid personal comments please. Let's keep this discussion WP:CIVIL. I agree with Tiptoethrutheminefield. The Armenian Genocide is a well-accepted fact. Having a short sentence about it in this article is WP:DUEWEIGHT and it is ok. The small minority of denialist scholars is dealt with in a separate article. No need to add minority denialist claims in this article. Dr. K. 16:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's quite enough with the denialism. The Armenian Genocide is a major historical event, and as such should definitely be mentioned in the article, and denialist literature is WP:FRINGE, so it has no business in the article. It's as simple as that. Athenean (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does that make you on the right? All your above comments are beside the fact that there are deniers out there. Please do not try and portray me as making personal comments or being in the fringe, as I am not. I will go ahead and add it. Feel free to take it up to the judges. -Dominator1453 (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a declaration of edit-warring on your part I strongly advise you against it. Dr. K. 07:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dr.K. Rest assured it is merely a declaration that I will provide the necessary missing info in this article with relaible references in accordance with the unbiased and imparital views of Wikipedia. Hope you support what is right. -Dominator1453 (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I see a lot of Armenians and Greeks here. Is this a coincidence? :) -Dominator1453 (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's a coincidence I did not speculate about your country of origin? Dr. K. 17:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No speculation needed really. Dominator1453's sig makes his origin quite clear, as does his Erdoganesque everyone who opposes me is an "Armenian" or a "Greek". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was exactly my point buddy. I am a Turkish-American just like many people on this discussion are Armenian-Americans or Greek-Americans. Your talk pages give it out. I come with facts and references while you deny facts and get edgy when faced with an opposing view. "Erdoganesque"? I like that. Yes, I love Erdoğan but it does not effect my ethics for being just. This counts as a WP:NPA by the way. But let's not get off topic please. -Dominator1453 (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dr.K., Athenean and Tiptoethrutheminefield, and take the opportunity to warn Dominator1453 that any further WP:NPA violations will be swiftly reported, as will edit warring. Jeppiz (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeppiz, what exactly do you agree with? Which point? Have you even read my argument? -Dominator1453 (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alewite population is 5% (4.5 million) according to this research (and Shia is 0.71%).^[1] Do not only provide us European research. Different questionnaires (eg. TESEV 6%^[2] and KONDA 5%) in Turkey show us Alewites are lower than mentioned in this article. Even the Alewite friendly party, CHP, whom Alewites commonly vote for, mentioned lower numbers than described in this article (12.5 million).^[3][4][5] It could be that TUIK said that Alewites numbered at 7 million. I have never seen higher than 15 million from Turkish sources, except from Alewites. (Coriff (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coriff (talk • contribs) 23:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC) (Coriff (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)) Coriff (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Coriff (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Coriff (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recep Tayyip Erdogan should not be shown as President in government section. Officially he is not part of the government. He should be the president of the republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esenkaya (talk • contribs) 19:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]