Talk:Turkey

Archives: 1 * 2 * 3

Turkey's History

Hi... The history section of Turkey is very brief. There is discussion of the ottoman empire and neolightic period, but the pressence of the Roman Empire is completly ignored, as well as the role of christianity previous to the ottoman empire... The history of this country is so rich, the section on history here certainly needs to be expanded.... --- Isn't it a little bit odd that there's no mention of the Armenian Genocide in the history section. I can't imagine an overview of the History of Germany which didn't mention the Holocaust and link to it. Are people just afraid of starting an edit war with Turkish nationalists, or is there some other reason it's not mentioned?

• • I agree 100%. Most countries appear to recognise that a genocide occured.

• • Most countries DO NOT. Only a few do and they do it because of the presence of armenian lobbies , politicians greedy for armenian votes and hatred for Turks. The terrorist state Southern cyprus recognises armenian claims. just how surprising is that ?

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

• Thats because the Armenians have strong Armenian lobbies that persuades (lies to) the governments in these countries about the "genocide". The Turkish lobbies are not as strong, however, they need to be because it is immoral for the Armenians to change history and claim their was a "genocide" when in fact there wasn't. There is strong Armenian propaganda against Turks for the reasons as stated below.

• • Oh, the same way as Jewish Holocaust deniers claim that Jewish lobbies lies to governments in other countries about the "Holocaust"?Kuifjeenbobbie 10:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • This is typical armenian propaganda. They try to compare their geno-lies claims to the jewish holocaust to make it real, when there is no comparison. The jewish holocaust has been proved beyond doubt and will prove itself again and again based on the vast body of evidence. jewish holocaust denial is a tiny fringe view, nothing more. Funny how the armenian president refused to have armenian geno-lies claims evaluated by a neutral academic committee. Cant prove crap thats why. Scared that itll shatter your little revionist dream world eh ?

• • The genocide was an important event which deserves mention. If some people disagree that the genocide occured, they can add that it is not universally acknowledged that the genocide took place. It is also significant that Turkey denies the genocide occuredKuifjeenbobbie 10:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. Important to who? What the hell does it have to do with modern turkey? Your little claims are not even a speck in thousands and thousands of years of turkish history. armenians will do anything to spread hate propaganda against turks. their national identity rests on it.

• Kuifjeenbobbie: You are a great example of Armenian brainwashing. Because you were taught to hate Turks or perhaps because of all the false information you were feeded by Armenians on the "genocide" this is what you believe. It is really sad for me to witness this. There is no objectivity by Armenians at all! All they say/worship/think/eat/sleep is there was a "genocide", they are trying hard to convince themselves of their lies. We all know Armenians want to cover up the fact that they actually commited atrocities against Turks where hundreds of thousands of Turks were massacred before Turkey finally retaliated. Armenians just want everyone to feel sorry for them and get some Turkish land, just as the Jews got the creation of Israel after the holocaust. Its actually quite disturbing that Armenians would use the Jewish holocaust for their own selfish needs.

• • It's not mentioned because there wasn't an Armenian genocide but only a Turkish genocide committed by Armenians!! Isn't a bit odd that Armenians made up the "genocide" to gather sympathy from the international community and thereafter possibly getting some Turkish land???? To Armenians of course its not odd its perfectly natural, how Armenians get what they want in life is by lying! Armenians lie, lie, and lie and they actually believe their lies because it is a great way to convince people that their was a "genocide". There should be a link for the TURKISH GENOCIDE BY ARMENIANS. I cannot believe that Armenians have the nerve to declare a "so called genocide"! They keep on changing how many Armenians died in the "so called genocide". One day its half a million, then a million then who knows maybe they'll start declaring that Turks killed a hundred million! I guess they keep changing the number to get more support from the global community. It looks better that way........Firstly, Armenians slaughtered defenseless Turkish citizens for a chance to take over the Ottoman Empire because the empire was extremely weak so Armenians thought they would take over Turkey easily but to their surprise the Turks defended themselves, but it was too late since nearly a MILLON TURKS DIED!!! Secondly, they call Turkey defending themselves genocide?? Talk about adding insult to injury............of course claiming genocide like what the Armenians are doing has many advantages-the world feels sorry for them and politics react in their favor, if the Armenians say that they started killing Turkish civilians it wouldn't look so good for them and hence they wouldn't get world sympathy/support (and the benefits that go along with it) that they so desperately seek. What a shame! Armenians should get a F****N HOBBY and STOP SPEADING HATE PROPAGRANDA AGAINST TURKS! Armenians are racist! They are entitled to their sick and twisted opinions, however to change history is cowardly, unjust, and pathetic!!!

• • No one gives a rat's ass about genolies claims except armenians. Armenian diaspora should spend their money helping armenia's starving population instead of sitting on their asses in comfortable cali and spreadign hate against turks. It all comes down a centuries old inferiority complex that armenians have

Turkeys in Turkey?

Just a random question, perhaps ignorant on my part but I don't know very much about the country. So are there actually turkeys in Turkey?--J.a.f.a.c. 04:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes here are turkeys of course but with a small difference from there our turkeys do not use internet but i see your's do.

The name comes from "Turkish Hen" a kind of chicken looks like Turkey (we call it hindi in turkish) but smaller, the Britts probably mistaken by it.

Yes indeed there are. But the naming is other way around the common belief. Name of the bird comes from the country [1]. --þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 19:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems Wikipedia agrees: Turkey (bird)#Naming --þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 19:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

NO! the name Turkey was given by Britain when Ottoman Empire and Brithish Empire were two most powerful forces of Europe to have fun with Turks. Turkey has nothing releated with turkey the bird. Also as a Turk we never use word Turkey (Türkiye) to refer imperial times. So removeing Ottoman history is strongly recommended. --Mko 22:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The name Turkey is first used for Egypt of Mameluke(where almost all the soldiers and rulers were Caspian Turks) times again by Europeans Turque is a latin perhaps givven by crusaders or Latin merchants. And that should have passed to Anatolia when Sultan of Rum hired some Frank merchanaries against Karaman Kingdom and Babais (his soldiers didn't obey him because of higher rank in nobility of Karamans).It isnt easy to use name turkey at those times cos more than half of the known world was rulled by Turks from China to rumenia and Egypt where Turkestan(as saracens called) term appeared for central asia.

Even though "we" Turks never use the word Turkiye for the Ottoman times now, the words "Turk" and "Turkey" are definetly not invented in the republic era. Oxford English Dictionary (which is the definitive source for English language) says that "Turquie" is the medieval Latin name for the land of Turks. Above references clearly states (and OED agrees) that the bird took the name from Turkish land in the 16th century. It has nothing to do with 19th century European newspapers making fun of the "sick old man of Europe" that probably gave you the wrong impression. Can you give any references for the claim "the name Turkey was given by Britain......to have fun with Turks". BTW what do you mean by "removeing Ottoman history"? --þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 06:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Just an addition to the above: the terms 'Turks' and 'Turkey' were in use from much earlier than 16th century, when refering to the Ottoman or Seljuk Empires and their (muslim) citizens. As far as the Greeks are concerned, these terms were not 'invented' in the 19th century, and as far as i know, it had been used by the Austrians as well (even before the Siege of Vienna). The difference lays on what/who was described by tese terms. for example, a christian that converted to islam was named 'turk'. and the land were the majority of the inhabitants were muslims and turkish-speaking (id est Anatolia) was named 'Turkey' (or Turquie or whatever similar in each language). but places such as Arabia or Syria or Palestine were not called 'Turkey' not even by the Turks themselves... Lastly, these two terms, in the turkish republican era, got the meaning of an ethnic group and a nation-state, something very different compared with the era before 1922-23, or perhaps the time of the Young Turks. --Hectorian 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the first usage we know of the term "Turk" goes back to 6th century Göktürks. (See Turkish people#Etymology) --þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the word "Turk" can be traced to "Tou-kin", a word the Chinese used for the Xiongnu. Or so ive heard--Kilhan 23:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting stuff; thanks for the answer on the turkeys in Turkey question. But it seems as though there's a more pressing question here. When exactly did the terms Turkey and Turk appear? We've got some interesting points, but we need some solid sources. It would be a good point to add in the article-J.a.f.a.c. 04:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I remember from our history courses back in high school that the word "Türk" is a word meaning "strong" in ancient Turkic language. I don't know if it's true or not. It could be just a patriotic history book trash :).

The word "Turkey" probably comes from latin postfix "-ia" meaning "Land of...". "Turk-ia" (which is "Türkiye" in Turkish) meaning "Land of Turks". --EpiC-- 00:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Indeed the first usage we know of the term "Turk" goes back to 6th century Göktürk State.

Just as a state name it is the first use, in fact after Gokturk Tyrany over turkic tribes dissolved none of the white tribes used name Turk till islam or even after they were referring other tribes as Turks but themselves with the tribe name az Oguz, Ogur, Kypcak, Uighur, Tatar etc. Even when europeans first encounter with Ottomans they called them turks and had a serious reaction from them that "Turks are in the east we are Oguz our language is Oguzca" (as if they spoke something different they are almost same even today villager turkish speakers can understand and communicate to an uyghur)today even most distinct Sakha Turks cal themseves Turks but Tatars prefer the name Tatar to honor their alliance with Mongols.

Above is your answer(i agree with the author)

Notice

It has come to my attention that there is a concerted effort by a group of very motivated editors to portray Turkey and Turks in much of a negative light as possible.This is evident by the horrible bias reflected in many of the pages involving turkey. If there any people from turkey reading this talk page, I ask you to sign up on wikipedia immediately and help us counter the hatred being focussed.

Dear anonymous: looks like an unsubstantiated excuse for vandalism and censorship! i've seen many cases where objective and relevant facts were cut out, and that without any decent explanations, let alone authoritative external sources and references. I'm very much considering spending again some time overhere. --Rudi Dierick 22:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• • No Rudi hate propaganda against Turks was being cut out not facts. If you think those were indeed "facts" then perhaps you are a racist yourself and your concept of "facts" is not realistic. If you think those were facts then it seems to me that you would also support the Klu Klux Klans "facts" about African Americans, Jews, and so on and so forth. Everyone knows that racist comments and racist views are not accepted and does not need any explanations to be cut out, especially to you!

Removing POV

Just as A. Garnet removed some childishly partisan POV from Booby, it looks to me that Kilhan also introduced some partisan POV, namely cutting out some statements that are, altough critical about Turkey, quite objective as far as I can see. Moreover, neither Booby, nor Kilhan provided any the slightest external reference for their childish contributions, let alone any convincing authoritative sourcing. Therefore, i tried to re-establish some facts that apeear both relevant and corrent, and, as said, thanks to A. Garnet for similar efforts. --Rudi Dierick 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, dear Mr. Richards, it is not Mr. otto rehn, but 'Olli' Rehn who as an EU commissioner published those reports ciricising Turkey's attitude towards human rights. --Rudi Dierick 22:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate your stated aim to "objectify the article", rhetorical words like "so-called" are hardly what the article needs. That is exactly why you were reverted multiple times by a plethora of other editors. Keep in mind that this is an encylopedia article on Turkey, not an indictment:)--Kilhan 00:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you review Wikipedia's policy of No personal attacks before thinking of throwing out labels like "childish". I simply reverted Booby687's edits ([2][3][4]). Would you care to explain just how reversion of these edits is "childish" ? Btw, Checkuser has confirmed that you and Lucas Richards are sockpuppets. You are required to mention here which account you wish to retain. Regards--Kilhan 02:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help you very much. Somewhat yeah: verify more carefully who deleted objective information without allowing any room for discussion. On the other hand, I will continue posting my things here (mainly explanations on the discussion page as you certainly must know). And inded, I will try to objectify my wordings. But I can't help you about Mr. Richards. Just ask him and follow his later contributions. --Rudi Dierick 06:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The reasons why I felt that several reverts were childish (and I stress that I'm not doing any detailled verification here) is that it looks -and I stresss this 'looks' because it is very much an impression, perception you know- that objective facts were cut, and that the explanations I found on the discussion pages (if there were any, which is not always the case) were absolutely not adressing the accuracy of those facts. So, maybe I was wrong in attributing the blame for that un-Wikipedia-alike behaviour to you. Therefore, I offer my apologies. However, I will stick to my criticism of such hostile and very unencyclopedic behaviour. So, it looks as the coming WE, I will have to do some detailled verifications.

On the other hand, as you are so hugely eager to guard proper procedures, would you not like to join me in these verifications, and try to come up with:

:::: * Better ways of formulating whatever is good, accuarte and relevant in other person's contributions?  --Rudi Dierick 06:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

* Some explanations why you choose to revert, instead of first engaging in a discussion, and trying to seek consensus? --Rudi Dierick 06:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine and all, but its the admins, not me that you need to convince regarding sockpuppetry. As you know, Wikipedia has strict rules regarding usage of sockpuppets to win "edit wars", vote stacking and providing other forms of support for the views of another id. Maybe you could ask Lucas to answer at the case page because both you and Lucas seem to share the exact same computer according to the IP check and that seems to be the major problem. In addition, this is hardly the place to discuss this issue and other exchanges of a personal nature. A far more appropriate place would be a user talk page.--Kilhan 09:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Rudi, regarding this edit by you, saying "A major source of tension in its EU aspirations is Turkey's widespread human rights abuses" is hardly encylopedic. According to whom ? In what context? Is the person/organization who made the claim notable? What about the report that Turkey has managed to be one of the top 10 countries in the world that are in line with the European Union Human Rights Council ? What about the US State department's report about Turkey that asserted "The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens" ? "Widespread human rights abuses" seems heavily out of line in the context of those reports, and is most important of all, vague, unsourced and unverified. Besides, all this detailed information is best left to the specialised articles, which are linked to from the article. --Kilhan 09:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply according to official EU reports, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Freedom House, and many other such organisations. And if you don't like their conclusions, Ok, your problem! Both you and me should recognoise that some reports are 'generally favcorable', while others, from equally authoritative sources, are very much less balck and whiote, including several important criticisms of Turkey. So we can now both start throwing reports at each other. What will this help? Why not just agree that indeed Turkey make a huge progress, but that it is not yet there? --Rudi Dierick 17:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Democratic

I see your point, but one of the key stumbling blocks for Turkey joining the EU is its lack of democracy. How do we square that with calling it a democratic state? I think a more modulated turn of phrase is required that reflects the gap between Turkey's goal (to join a democratic EU) and its current standing. Politis 15:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkey is a parliamentary democracy, its people vote, they elect leaders, they are accountable. There is no dictatorship, no autocracy, no monarchy in Turkey. Democracy has a very specific political definition which Turkey adheres to, regardless of criticisms to its human rights or foreign policy. --A.Garnet 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkey certainly qualifies as a democracy as far as the definition goes - at least since the end of Kenan Evren anyway. What could be disputed about Turkey and any other democratic country for that matter would be their implementation of "democratic principles". But that again is open to plenty of interpretation.--Kilhan 16:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not such a clearcut case. Several sources say Turkey is 'largely democratic', but with some important remartks. Among these voices, Freedom House lists Turkey as only partially free (see also Freedom House's survey Freedom in the World 2006).

After some of the famous pro-Turkey contributors, and awaiting a stern reply from Lucas Richards, I feel more inclined towards Politis. Turkey has indeed many democratic institutions, and that should be correctmly described. however, it's procedues, and many practices of the Turkish state appear far less democratic (as its harrassment of dissidents, the privileges for Sunni islam over other religions), or even squarely undemocratic (as it's widespraed severe discrimùinations of minorities as Kurds, and to a lesser extent Alevi, ...). the rfeprots from HRW, Amnesty International and official EU reports are clear enough on this. These lesser points should also be mentionned. So, why not describe Turkey as "a country with democratic institutions, but with not (yet) all democratic procedures"? --Rudi Dierick 17:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Rudi have you ever been to Turkey? To say their is discriminations of Kurds and Alevis is down right hilarious - it couldn't be further away from the truth.

All those very authoritative organizations have a very differen opinion from yours. So who's probably right? An anonymous person, or them? --Rudi Dierick 21:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Authoritative organizations have opinions for all countries in respect to human rights. They are also critical in evaluating European and North American countries as well- Does that mean these countries have democratic institutions but not with any democratic procedures? All countries have some impairment when it comes to human rights. Turkey is a nation that is doing its best. It has to deal with constant terrorism from Kurds and hate propaganda from Armenians and Greeks. Considering the abuse it receives from these ethnicities, it is doing a miraculous job! All ethnicities in Turkey enjoy freedom! You will never see a Kurd being in prison for being a Kurd. Have you noticed how many Kurds are in Turkey's government infrastructure? If not you are probably blind!!
• Armenians/Greeks/Kurds and whoever else can open any business they want, speak their language freely, practice whatever religion they chose, travel wherever they desire, vote, etc. etc. etc. If you still don't get my point, take a trip to Turkey more specific Istanbul because of they large Armenian/Greek/Kurd population there. You have a higher chance of winning a $100 million jackpot before seeing any of these ethnicities being harrassed or discriminated against! Unfortunately Turkish human rights in Armenia, Greece, and Northern Iraq (known as Kurdistan) cannot remotely measure up to the human rights they receive in Turkey. Why don't you focus your efforts (if you are such a caring man about human rights) on Turkish rights in these countries. You will see that Turkish people have little or no rights in these countries!! Is that fair Rudi?? If you purpose that Turkey is not doing a good job on human rights, what do you suggest Turkey does when it suffers from terrorism by Kurds? And if Turkey is such a horrible country when it comes to human rights, why are these ethnicites living there??? Why are these ethnicities establishing businesses and getting their education in Turkey? Why are they raising there families in Turkey?? Why are they building churches and synagogues in Turkey?? The answer is simple: Because they are being treated just as every other Turkish citizen and have productive and pleasant lives in Turkey!!! Rudi it seems to me you a racist man that is just looking for an outlet to project your racism! You should make peace within yourself and let go of the hate! Life is short!

• • Kurds speak their language freely, are members in the government, own businesses, and have just as many rights as Turkish people.

However, many Kurds are also supporters of the terrorist group PKK if not a terrorist themself so obviously they have to be dealt with differently. Its a situation similar to the United States cracking down on all Al-Qaeda members/supporters but not against all Arabic people in the US, understand? Alevis practice their religion just as any other Muslim, Jew, or Catholic would in Turkey, in fact when their special holidays come Turkish television always show how they celebrate with Sunni Muslims! You also mention the priviledges of Sunni Muslims, how about the priviledges of Greek Orthodox priests having their special meetings in Istanbul in their Churches??? And to top it off they discuss hate propaganda against Turks!!! So what are you talking about buddy? Perhaps you are high on crack and have no idea of what you're mentioning!! ;) Why don't we discuss European countries idea of human rights, shall we? Did you know that if you are born in Germany of immigrant parents, the German government will discriminate against you and classify you as an immigrant when in fact you were born and raised there. France clearly discriminates against Muslims and is not shy to say so!! Its funny how the French empire went into Muslim countries, changed the language and the religion for the most part and then does not want Muslims in their own country!! Turkish people living in Greece CANNOT speak their language freely, must change their last name to one that is Greek and practice their religion usually in hiding for fear of persecution by the Greek government. In fact just in recent years Athens got its first Mosque (despite the Islamic population living there for hundreds of years) and unfortunately some Muslims were shot to death by Greeks, but I guess they are better at "human rights" then Turkey - yeah right! I suggest to get off that cheap crack you have been smoking and if you are going to examine Turkish human rights then you also must be critical in examining the human rights of every country!!

Flora & Fauna

Can someone add about Turkey's Flora & Fauna? I have tried several time but I don't know how to add the referance there and removed it.

I understand your view about the necessity of such a section, but the text you added seems to be directly lifted from here and would therefore constitute a copyright violation unless we can get confirmation of its copyright status (that allows usage of it on wikipedia). Regards--Kilhan 17:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Kilhan,

I just wanted someone teach me how to add the referance there. I think I have added the link to the external links. Turkey has very rich Flora and Fauna, we have to put them to Turkey page. See; USA

I'll be very glad if you can add it succesfully to the Turkey page.

Sincerely, Zaparojdik

If you mean reference as in citation, add < ref > add source here< /ref > (without spaces) after the text you wish to reference. The text will automatically appear in the references section at the bottom of the page. --A.Garnet 18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Try <ref>insert reference</ref> like A.Garnet suggested. If that still doesn't work out, take a look at how the other references/links are inserted and try to use the exact same syntax. Regards--Kilhan 18:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sections of ja:トルコ (Turkey)

• country name
• history
• politics
• military
• area
• geography
• economy
• traffic
• national (people)
• education
• culture
• sports
• See also
• external links

--Suisui 23:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ararat

I'm aware that it's Turkey's tallest mountain, but what's wrong with having images of Pamukkale instead? This is a section on geography, not mountains. —Khoikhoi 04:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mountains are part of geography, it is Turkey's tallest peak, and the image is good and clear - that is why it is there. I do not understand Clevelanders unexplained deletion of it, i could assume bad faith and cite the usual Armenian claims to it, but i hope that is not the case. --A.Garnet 12:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

True, Mt. Ararat is Turkey's highest peak, but I think its best to stay out of divisive things such as these although there is a strong context for inclusion in this case. It just causes too much conflict and invokes emotions thats really unnecessary above anything else. Similarly, the image of ararat in the Armenia article should be taken off and replaced woth something more appropriate. Its a real shame that all wowturkey.com images were deleted because I have this really nice image of Antalya's med coastline in mind that would look terrific in that section.--Kilhan 09:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is Kilhan, when i put this image, i did not even think of the political situation with Armenians, nor should i have. It is simply a mountain that is part of Turkey's geography, there is absoloutely no reason for its removal whatsoever. --A.Garnet 09:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of this image seems tactless----Clive Sweeting

Ottoman Emp. Map?

I think it's wrong to put "ottoman empire at its height in 1600s" map into the article. It'll be taken wrong by wiki users that they'll think that modern Turkey is a diminished, little Ottoman empire. When you enter "United Kingdom" page, yes, there is a map that shows old UK maps of British empire, ruling most of the world. And yes, UK is the same UK as it was 200 years ago. It was a large empire; now it's small. It's still a monarchy. But when you enter France's page, there's no French map showing a large french empire. Because French empire doesn't exist: you should check french empire pages for that.. Remove Ottoman map from history section. It's right place is "History of Turkey"... --JohnEmerald 22:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks for attention its wrong to put Ottoman map because turkey got independence from Ottoman Empire as mistaken by most Turks and foreigners. In Independance War sultan and his government was a harder foe than French, English and Armenians and turkey is not the successing state to Ottoman and didnt inherit any land the public fought for what is theirs now.

Yes, Ottoman map must go, this is not the place for it. But some people need to understand how each article has its own prioritiesPolitis 18:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Politis 18:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• • The Ottoman Empire was an important part of history. The map is a great way to see how large and how far the Empire expanded. So what's the big deal? When I studied about various empires in history, the professors always showed maps of the areas the empires covered.
    • But we're trying to say that, Modern Turkey is not a continum of Ottomans. Is there a "Roman empire" map at Italy page? ..or Charlemagne Frankish kingdom map at France's page?. ..Or Nazi Germany map at Germany's page? No..No.No.. --JohnEmerald 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Charlemagne Frankish kingdom is not even French as you say it is "Frank" who are Germanic not Latinised Celts.

A paragraph on Ottoman history certainly belongs, but the map is inconsistent with similar material elsewhere. It should be removed. Valentinian ^(talk) 07:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Too much history

There are relevant article on Kemal Ataturk and Turkish history, this is not the place. Some countries are loaded with uncecessary historical facts. This is an article about the country as it stands. Politis 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So what if their is too much history? Some countries have a richer history then others, it does not mean if it excesses a certain amount it has to be deleted. The Honorable Mustafa Kemal Ataturk is an important part of Turkish history and must not be ommitted!

I agree with Politis. This is not the place.--Ćele Kula 08:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Anyone that studied Turkish history, knows that Ataturk is Turkish history so cannot be excluded ,in fact it is imperative. Cele and Politis obviously don't know that so therefore their comments are irrelevant.

Bizzare, if not POV editing

User:Kilhan, how can you dismiss EU membership as, “Leave all that to the detailed article. There is only so much we can devote to this. There is a lot more to Turkey than some membership in a regional bloc)”. The emphasis is mine, but you are reverting important and sourced information. Namely:

Turkey's main political, economic and military relations remain rooted within Western Europe and the United States. An associate member of the European Union since 1964, Turkey is currently in the process of accession pending the completion of negotiations. A major source of tension in its EU aspirations is the reluctance of France, Germany and Austria whose voters are apprehensive about Turkey's accession [5],[6], [7], [8], [9]. There is also concern over its human rights record [10], including freedom of expression. Another, though lesser factor, is the issue of Cyprus, a member of the EU which Turkey does not recognise, but instead supports the de facto independent Turkish Cypriot north. Supporters of its membership point out that it acts as a bridge beween the West and the Islamic east. Based on what it views as lukewarm support for its accesion to the EU, and alleged double standards in its negotiations, the Turkish public has become increasingly euroskeptic in recent times. A mid-2006 Eurobarometer survey revealed that 43% of Turkish citizens view the EU positively; just 35% trust the EU, 45% support enlargement and just 29% support an EU constitution . Politis 18:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Politis, we already have an article devoted to that issue - Accession of Turkey to the European Union. Thats where all this detailed information should go, not here. Here, we provide a brief overview and move onto other things concerning Turkey, like Demographics, culture, education, religion and so on. Just how credible would this article be if a third of it dealt with membership in a regional bloc? Its just way, way too disproportionate to put it simply. A person interested in detailed information about turkey's acession can simply click on to the link to the specialised article thats listed at the bottom of "Foreign relations".--Kilhan 19:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, all the Ottoman stuff and history about Ataturk has definetly no place. But the EU issue is too central in Turkey's current state to be dismissed so swiftly; especially when we have direct quotes from French leaders, the Austrian presidency and other EU countries. That makes it absolutely central. If you are concerned about the image of Turkey (and my impression is that you are happier to edit out seemingly unfavourable facts and to emphasise the grandeur of the Ottomans), then we can suplement the quotes with official British and American views. That would make good sense. But even though you have a point please try to reconsider your editing priorities. Politis 19:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Simple. There is a little something called "Article size" and we cannot include every single titbit of information unless you want the article to become as long as the Epic of King Gesar. Honestly, a few hundred words about Turkey's Eu accession and just two sentences about Ataturk? This is clearly undue weight and disproportionate. Just take a look at other country articles are structured for a comparison. --Kilhan 19:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but the article as it stands is unbalanced. There is a special feature on Ataturk and the EU remains central to Turkey. Every country analyst, every Turk and most Europeans are aware of this. We have to revert and your skills can be exerted in other Turkish related articles. Politis 19:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but to say Cyprus is a lesser factor is completely wrong. It is the single most threatening obstacle to Turkey's accession. The enlargement commisioner Olli Rehn talked of a 'train crash' in negotiations specifically about the failure to resolve the Cyprus issue. --A.Garnet 08:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus will be the key of Turkey to get rid of EU membership and push the guilt on EU because Turks wont do anything before EU does its homework and EU cant do it because they(you know who) don't want to.And Turkey's forces won't leave the island till they are sure about safety of Cypriot Turks (non anounced genocide occured there between 1950-1974 worse than Crete). So it seems impossible to continue relation by both sides but no one wants to be responsible so they are passing balls to eachother insted of scoring.

Turkey doesnt wan't that membership we are a young, growing, healty nation once again and Europe is old, ressesive, sick countinent but some local ares like britain and ex-communist states. today some politicians on charge see Europe membership is nessecary for their terrorist purposes and in next election they will have a great failure as reported. 43% is told nowadays but no one asked me if they ask people infront of expensive discos and bars thats natural but in fact the real ratio is even lower than 20% and less than that among university students. So no govenment in Turkey can force the majority to membership only radical muslims and seperatist facists want that membership. Turks like the thought that they are alone and they really are to the West.

There is no such thing as an Armenian genocide

• If anyone believes there actually was a "genocide" they must also believe that pigs fly....I don't mean to be too sarcastic but thats what is ultimately comes down too. If Turkey actually committed genocide why would they deny it? They have no reason to! Look at how Germany is successful after the holocaust! Look at the Serbs after their genocide campaign of Bosnian Muslims - it occurred in the 90s and I'm sure nearly all of the international community forgot about it! Not to mention all the other genocides committed in history! And every country is continuing wonderfully with genocides and all! So why would Turkey do such a thing? Because they don't want to look bad - who cares? The only reason Turkey denies a "genocide" is because there never was one!! And its pathetic to see Armenians coming together trying to convince the international community about it - Where is the justice?? Can any ethnic group with the appropriate resources have the right to change history into their favor?? We live in a world, filled with all kinds of people. There are people who lie to get what they want in life, there are people who manipulate, there are people who are psychotics, etc. When it comes to the topic of genocide, should we just "believe" Armenians. They are a group of people who are making serious accusations against Turks so therefore serious research needs to be implemented in order for such accusations to be proclaimed as the truth. However, that is not the case here. Armenians are stating with no relevant unbiased evidence that there was a "genocide" against them. Why don't Armenians state the genocides they committed agaisnt Turks and Azerbaijanis, if there such a fair people who seek justice?? Why don't Armenians state that the only reason they want everyone to accept the fact there was a "genocide" is because they think its a great way of expanding its borders into eastern Turkey? They want eastern Turkey and it seems if the international community feels sorry for them about the whole genocide thing they can get it really easy without any physical effort or casualties. Very Clever!

A genocide in the 20th century and the fact that it is denied is surely significant.Kuifjeenbobbie 15:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a bit strange that there is not even a link to the Armenian genocide article. There should be a way to insert a sentence in the WWI paragraph. Kusma (討論) 15:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried as a new editor 6-8 months ago to JUST have it listed under "See also" and was shot down. The owners of this article won't allow it so it isn't even worth trying. I think the arguement back then was it happened during the Ottoman period so it doesn't belong ANYWHERE in here or something. I see history going back before the creation of the current State, so why can't it go in there. Anyways, I am sure I'll get ripped a new one and really didn't want to come back here, but couldn't help myself :) Anyways, carry on..--Tom 15:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have had the same problem as Tom. As soon as I try to insert an objective mention of the Armenian Genocide it is removed very quickly with no justification. I am surprised that anything negative about turkey on this page is not removed immediately either!Kuifjeenbobbie 15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If the argument is that it occured under the Ottomans and therefore has no place, then why is there any reference to the Ottoman past, at all? Perhaps its mention should go, unabiguously, in the Ottoman section of this article and we could state that the genocide question and its legacy affects the perception of modern day Turkey. Why are some editors so intransigent over this issue. A reasonable compromise can be found with a bit of good will (?). Good luck. Politis 15:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think that would be a good idea. However I suspect even the very suggestion would be edited out! I propose "The legacy of the alledged Armenian genocide at the end of the Ottoman period affects the perception of modern day Turkey". I will put this in tomorrow and see what happens, but I am not confident it will remain there for long.Kuifjeenbobbie 16:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont think its notable enough to warrant a mention in the history section, especially when an event with massive ramifications such as WWI is summarised in just one sentence. Actually the whole genocide issue came up in relation to freedom of speech/freedom of the press in Turkey and has nothing to do with whether such an event occurred. This article as it is, is overlong and could use some major trimming especially the "foreign relations" and "economy' sections. The table showing the demographical indicators for turkey also doesnt seem to serve any purpose other than regurgitating the information already present in the article--Kilhan 15:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Kilhan is right, there is also a question of freedom of speech. But how refreshing! An economy section that is too long! Personally, I thought there were too many pics at the end. Politis 16:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is complete bullshit because this geno-lies rubbish is not even a speck in thousands and thousand of turkish history. Proof that anything is a possible on wikipedia when there is an alliance between racist germans and armenian nationalists —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mactcel (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mixing up arguments

The fact that France and Austria have indicated they will hold referendums on Turkey's membership was mentionned as an indication of the suggested double standards against Turkey?. However, such referendums are part of the normal democratic process in those countries. referendums are held there for many other reasons, so this can not be mentionned as an indication for that lukewarm support. The support for Turkish accession to the EU is indeed very weak, but that's more a matter of lack of support among the populations from many current EU countries. If one wants to include double standards here, then (s)he should properly document that claim. --Rudi Dierick 21:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Turkey really The Republic of Turkey is a largely democratic, secular, constitutional republic?

Stating "The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular, constitutional republic" appears a gross, and unjustified simplification. There has been more then enough objective information provided in this and related articles that underline that this very general claim can not be seen as correct:

1. widespread persecution and prosection of anyone criticising the Turkish nationalism;
2. widespread discrimination of ethnic minorities and of other religions and other religious tendencies then Sunni Islam;
3. Turkey's signature under the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam;
4. excessive influence of the military.

Given the number and the severity of those non-democratic behaviour of the Turkish state, and because of its religious and ethnic discriminations, that should be reflected in the general description of the nature of the political institutions in Turkey. My proposal is to add a slight moderation by adding 'largely'; that results in: The Republic of Turkey is a democratic, secular, constitutional republic ... --Rudi Dierick 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's say Turkey is a democratic, secular, constitutional republic in an EASTERN style. It's shape and colour cannot be like a western Germany or France. Democracy is not a computer program that runs same on every computer; it's just something in people's brains, not in people's blood.. --JohnEmerald 22:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

John, Germany uses democracy for a shorter time that Turkey. Before that, they were also ruled by kings. Also, how many years passed since the France has an ideal democracy(they are trying since the end of the Napoleonic Wars). Of course we re-arrange things to fit the system to the nation. We love our traditions and in some ways, democracy can cause moral dilemmas for Turks. With respect, Deliogul 23:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's your full right to prefer to do thinbgs differently, but then accept also that we describe the 'Turksih' way of doing things as differently from 'our' (EU) style. --Rudi Dierick 21:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Formation of Turkish State

I have been seen France article of wikipedia, there were writes first state of France on formation, I added early Turkish state Ottoman Empire, please don't change.

Sincerely,

Zaparojdik

To those who delete any references to the "genocides"

• I would delete any reference on the "genocide", just as I would delete any other absurd comment! If not for deleting, imagine all the chaos with all kinds of psychotics just writing anything they want! It would be sheer madness! If we can't delete crazy comments and accusations than perhaps we should also take time and get some advice from a psychotic person living on a New York city street bench.

This editing approach of deleting anything that seems critical of the country is not very helpfull and not helpful to people who like Turkey and try to understand it. At best, this approach makes us focus on a prevailing inability in the country to discuss certain issues. That is a shame because there is much more to Turkey than this. This blank deleting approach goes against the spirit of its Ataturk heritage and against its declared aspiration to become a bridge of understanding between different cultures. Turkey is a powerfull country and there are some responsibilities that accompany such a status. Politis 12:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Politis. It seems to be a particular problem on this page. I have visited other pages which mention the Armenian genocide, but these are not continually deleted without giving a reason or with the unproven assertion that the genocide is a Armenian consipary. Kuifjeenbobbie 13:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi.. Although I don't consider myself as the prime recipient of your message, I did make an edit reverting the genocide topic so I'll state my reasoning. The (alleged, if you so wish) Armenian Genocide is marked as a controversial topic and I think the inclusion of any such topic shall be refrained from until a consensus is reached on the talk page. The same goes with any controversial topic as far as I'm concerned. Take care --Xasf 16:06, 16 August 2006 (GMT+3)

turkey has plenty of enemies who spread dirty propaganda like greeks and armenians. For them it is imperative to try to slur turks and they try to put stupid things like geno-lies in everything connected to turkey. But this is not even a speck in thousands and thousands of turkish history ! This is not even Ottoman Empire but modern turkey. Ottoman empire is not turkey! Roman Empire is not italy ! Soviet union is not russia! but to certain racists, ottoman empire is turkey because they need to spread hatred against turks

It has always been my opinion that the issue should be explained as part of a political dispute and not a historical narrative. --A.Garnet 13:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So do you suggest to mention it somewhere outside the history section (where?), or do you suggest not to mention it at all? Kusma (討論) 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that there is no racial slur intended against Turks when mentioning the genocide issue. It seems that A.Garnet has a good point by suggesting to include it as a 'political dispute' - because, if nothing else, there is no doubt that it is a political dispute. So what are the factors of that dispute? It involves the Armenian people and diaspora in the US and Europe, France, occasionally the European Parliament and even mentions in the European Council. One possibility is to present the issue in a few short lines and, of course, the position of Ankara (saddly, I do not have the time to propose a text in the near future). Politis 14:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Im with A. Garnet on this one, but im not sure how some armenian lobbying groups constitute a notable enough party to mention it as a dispute. It is also important to note that the temporary closure of the turkish-armenian border is over the nagarno karabakh dispute between azerbaijan and armenia and not the alleged genocide issue. Does it even have any relevance to the Turkish republic, which was established in 1923 and just one of the many states that emerged from the ottoman empire?--Kilhan 05:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The name is Türkiye

The name of our country is Türkiye, not Turkey. Turkey is the name of a bird that americans eat to celebrate holidays.

This is English Wikipedia. See WP:NAME. Bertilvidet 08:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a native Turkish speaker, and I find this "our country is named Türkiye" claim a nonsense. Each language has its own terms for countries, and Turks should respect English. After all, Turkish language has the same trick with this bird. Would you consent to call "Hindistan" as "Bharat" from now on? I won't. Filanca 09:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Its "Türkiye" in Turkish and "Turkey" in english. Turkey existed long before European explorers named the bird as such when they first encountered it in the new world--Kilhan 14:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Kilhan, that can not be proved. Etymology on this page of the name Turkey must be wrong. The name is "Türkiye". Türkiye was established in 1923. The Europeans went to the Americas much before Türkiye existed. Ottoman Empire was in place, not Türkiye. Regards, dog

Well I meant to say that the words "Turk" and "Turkey" (not the present state) were in use much earlier before the bird came into the picture. I just forgot to type the quotation marks in. Sorry about the confusion:)--Kilhan 15:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So, by that logic we should call China "中国" or Russia "Россия" or Egypt "مصر"? That's what their people call their country...--Fox Mccloud 17:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Greeks Never "Occupied" Smirni/Izmir

Why the author refers to "occupation"? The Greeks establish Smirni much before the Turkic people were in the area. Same as Constantinoupole. Please provide evidence. Pushing POV. It was liberation. Greeks returned to the area to get back what was theirs before. It can only be occupation through the Turkish POV and third parties. Regards, dog

Is this post meant to be serious? Bertilvidet 13:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree prove your argument and provide explanation why you have reverted the post. dog @ 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So Turkey don't occupy a part of Cyprus, because the island previously has been ruled from Istanbul? And Hitler liberated Alsace, since that region previously had been a part of the German Empire? Sorry, it really doesn't seem serious to dispute an occupation (however provided for in the Treaty of Sèvres). Bertilvidet 14:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bertilvidet. Izmir was part of the Ottoman Empire at the time. When the Greek armed forces (of the state of Greece) took over the city, they occupied it. Gee, whats there to dispute? --Kilhan 14:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, Allow me to add to the discussion. Nice subject. Solid argument.

"So Turkey don't occupy a part of Cyprus, because the island previously has been ruled from Istanbul? Bertilvidet 14:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)"

First of all Turkey was established in 1923, how can it has ruled Cyprus? Before its existance? What do you mean? Turkey ruled Cyprus before Turkey existed? Yes at the Time of Byzantium Empire, Greeks ruled Cyprus from Constantinoupoli or as Greekish-Turk you would say Istanbul "is tin Poli" meaning "to the town" as Constantinoupoli was also called Poli" before Ottomans came to the area or as i could argue before Ottomans existed. That argument of yours must be False. Turkey invaded Cyprus because Cyprus had been a Greek island much before the Turkic people were in the area. In fact through the Ottoman period the majority of the island were Greeks. Just because the poor population was changing rulers it does not mean that that people lost their identity. Otherwise how would you susbstantiate that the majority of the island in Cyprus right now speaks Greek and call themselves Greek-Cypriots even after the Ottoman empire and the British Colony. You seem to forget that people dont loose their identity even if you brutaly treat or sell them /lease them. However i do not think i should be discussing Cyprus in this article because the question is Smirni or as you will say Greekish-Turk say İzmir.

Allow me to say that your argument was terrible. Same with Smirni. Smirni was established and populated since antiquity by Greeks. Ottomans arrived in the area much later and Continuously attacked until they Conquered/occupied the land from the Greeks. I quote "Turks first captured Smyrna under the command of Chakabey in 1076". Which nation did Turks capture Smirni from? The Greeks of course. Then when the Greeks On 15 May 1919 took back the city with the aid of Treaty of Sèvres, that was signed in agreement by the Ottomans. "The nationalist government in Ankara rejected the terms of the treaty and resisted the Greek army's advance into the area although the Ottomans had signed in agreement". How on earth and why does the article state "invaded?" and not liberated or even took back what was promised to them? Bear in mind that the land had Greek inhabitants since antiquity and was____ lost?? in 1076? (Lost yes was lost in 1076). Although you attempt to minimize the issue "Sorry, it really doesn't seem serious to dispute an occupation" you understand that it is a substantial, solid argument "however provided for in the Treaty of Sèvres". A neutral article would say "liberated" or "took back what was signed in agreement with the Ottomans" and not "occupied" --Aristovoulos 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your views with us. I can understand that you think Greece did the right thing in occupying Western Turkey. This is a legitimate stand. It is however irrelevant for the editing of an encyclopedia. We need to state the facts in a neutral matter, not what you might think of historical events. Bertilvidet 18:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Invaded or liberated, it is not really important because as we all know Turkish Army decisively defeated Greeks in Western Anatolia and then took back the city of İzmir. We don't have to talk about Hellenic Army's "attack" on the city. With respect, Deliogul 20:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Crazy boy, this little particular discussion is not about how it ended. The question if is the article should tell that Greece for a period occupied Izmir, as provided for in the Treaty of Sevres, or if we should use a more propagandistic term in order to underline the opinion of some users who find the occupation rightful. Bertilvidet 07:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Bertilvidet, stop putting words into my mouth of what you wished i said and start proving your arguments instead of deviating the argument. I am demanding your solid argument on the issue. My case is clear. Since it was signed in agreement then how can the Greeks have invaded? I expect an answer and not your feelings. I can see you are passionate but you should prove your case and NOT accuse. I demand you also prove this: I can understand that you think Greece did the right thing in occupying Western Turkey.Bertilvidet. Is this what you do whenever you have no argument? --Aristovoulos 19:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I refuse to use Wikipedia to discuss our views on politics and history. The word "invaded" does not appear in relation to the treaty of Sevres. It is a funny argument that a country is not occupied if the central power collaborates or accepts the occupation. Then France was also not occupied by Nazi Germany, becuase the Vichy government approved it. Bertilvidet 20:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add ANY references to Armenia, be it genocide,current relations, ongoing disputes, ect...

The owners of this article have made it quite clear that this will not be allowed. Thanks! --Tom 20:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. Armenia is mentioned in the 2nd sentence. Disregard above note, thanks. --Tom 20:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've said before and ill say it again. This article is about the Republic of Turkey. That is why centuries upon centuries of pre-republican history is glossed over in a matter of paragraphs. The armenian relocation is encompassed in World War I and yes, the armenian relocation is part of World War I. To say that armenian relocation is somehow notable enough to be mentioned over stuff like the Russo-Turkish wars, siege of constantinople, and even individual battles in world war I is looking from a heavy armenian pov.--Kilhan 20:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

And to not mention it at all is neutral? —Khoikhoi 20:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that to mention it when there are infinitely more important things is heavily disproportionate and undue weight --Kilhan 21:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Britannica refers to the events as the "first significant genocide of the 20th century", see here:

The first significant genocide of the 20th century was directed against the Armenian residents of Asia Minor by the Turkish government. This deliberate slaughter began on April 24, 1915, under the cover of World War I. April 24 is still commemorated by Armenians around the world as Martyrs' Day. The numbers killed are uncertain. The lowest estimate is 800,000 and the highest more than 2 million. The Turkish government has consistently denied that this event ever occurred, but what happened had been carefully documented by outsiders.

Now I know this is a sensitive issue, but something like that has to be pretty significant. Would you object to mentioning the Ottoman Armenian casualties in the article, perhaps with the addition of a Turkish perspective on the events? —Khoikhoi 21:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it is pre-republican. If you take the time to read Ottoman Empire, you'll see the relocation mentioned in a sentence and rightly so because it belongs there. However, it holds very little or no relevance to the history of the Turkish republic (which exists since 1923) - long after world war I passed. In the country articles, we provide overviews of various aspects of the country and link the detailed info as a "main article". There are just too many way more defining/pivotal moments in the history of ROT--Kilhan 21:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• The "owners" of the article? There is no such thing here. Wikibofh_(talk) 22:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Forget ROT for a minute now. Just read Ottoman Empire and see how much space the armenian relocation takes up, as a measure of significance. It seems obvious that its pushing it to include it on a History of ROT (which didnt even exist back then and is the focus of this article), let alone an overview.--Kilhan 22:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of issues here which need urgently to be addressed----Clive Sweeting

The following line "Although PKK, Freedom Falcons of Kurdistan and some Armenian organisations regard Turkey as a terrorist state" was deleted from the article. Why? That's all true!

The short answer is that none of those are notable enough to mention it as such. The PKK on the other hand is proscribed by many states and international organizations, and that makes the difference.--Kilhan 03:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)