Talk:Turkey/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Dubious

I noticed that the climate section has been revamped to include new paragraphs. Most of this new information is fine, but some of it, though sourced, is misleading at best and is outright contradicted by data at worst.

• Some of the characteristics of Turkey's climate include warm to hot summers with milder winter temperatures compared to other middle-latitude areas,

This is misleading. Compared to much of Europe, Turkey's winter temperatures are cold for its latitude. Istanbul is colder in winter than Rome and Barcelona, and in total is quite similar in winter temperature to London and Paris, at much higher latitudes. Ankara is colder in winter than Madrid, Izmir is colder than Valencia etc. The same is not true, of course, for climates open to polar air in winter, like those in eastern North America (NYC being colder in winter than Istanbul, for example), but for its latitude Turkey's winters are average at best.

• intense sunlight in summer

Another horribly vague statement. Relatively speaking, all climates have "intense sunlight in summer"; that's what causes summer. And in dry-summer climates, you see a lot of the sun in summer, yet not more intensely than you would otherwise. But that Turkey's sunshine is somehow anomalous for its latitude is not correct. Istanbul's sunshine hours are comparable to Seattle, one of the cloudiest parts of the United States. Ankara's sunshine values are miles below Madrid, Burgas, Skopje, etc. Izmir (and also Antalya by extension) is somewhat of an exception, it is sunnier than Naples, Barcelona etc. But this is what makes this statement not entirely false: the immediate coast of the Mediterranean in Turkey is quite sunny. Venture out a couple dozen miles inland though, and suddenly Isparta, Manisa, etc. get fairly cloudy. Hell, there are parts of Turkey that have less sunshine than Reykjavik or Bergen!

• winters having around half of the annual precipitation

This is incorrect, and you can count how clearly it is incorrect. Of the four largest cities in Turkey, only Izmir comes close to this achievement, and even then, only just, with about 50.1% of its precipitation coming in winter. In Istanbul, this value is around 35%, In Ankara 28% and in Bursa 34%; nowhere near close to half. Turkey is a country with four wet seasons happening in different parts of the country. Summer in the highlands of Eastern Anatolia, fall by the coast of the Black Sea, winter in the Mediterranean regions, and spring in the Central Anatolian steppes. It is highly innacurate to treat Turkey as having a single wet season.

In fact, it seems to me like these statements are picked from a place describing the Mediterranean coast, as for that purpose they are reasonably accurate. Otherwise, I believe they should be removed. Uness232 (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Uness232, please read the source, it is available in the Wikipedia library. You can use the SpringerLink database.

The Soils of Turkey, Climate chapter, p. 27:

Based on all these explanations above, the climate of the region have following five distinctive characteristics (Türkeş 2010): (1) about half of the modest annual precipitation amount falls in winter, whereas summers are mostly virtually rainless, (2) winter temperatures are unusually mild for the middle-latitudes except some eastern and inland regions, summer air temperatures vary from hot to warm, (3) cloudless skies and intensive sunshine (shortwave solar radiation) are typical particularly in summer months, (4) the seas (Mediterranean and Black Seas) have major influences on the climate of the region and land distribution and the interactions between sea and lands, in addition to the ocean–atmosphere interaction (Bozkurt and Sen 2011, Turunçoğlu 2015), during the year particularly in the ‘true’ or ‘actual’ Mediterranean macroclimate region, and (5) The major characteristic of the Mediterranean climate is of high temporal variability varying from seasonal and inter-annual to centennial scales due to following factors (Türkeş 2010):

It's in the section called "Present Climate of Turkey", which starts with (p.26):

The Anatolian peninsula is mainly characterized by subtropical climate, similar to other regions in the Mediterranean, except for minor differences arising from the fact that the region is surrounded by water bodies, the Black Sea in the north, the Aegean Sea in the west and the Mediterranean Sea in the south.

It's clear that the source is referring to all of Turkey or Anatolia from "except some eastern and inland regions", which is in the next sentence in text in this article Exceptions to the milder climate are some of the interior and eastern parts of Turkey,. I tried to paraphrase the source without WP:CLOP.

If you have no more concerns, please remove the dubious tags.

Note that I am also not sure if you tagging this was justified per Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute#Disputed_statement. The Soils of Turkey is a high quality source in line with WP:Scholarship. It is available in Wikipedia library, so it is easily verifiable. Bogazicili (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili First of all, I did not doubt that you sourced the above claim. I am saying that it contradicts other sourced data that we have. I can find more if necessary. Secondly, now that I read the source, the source seems to contradict itself, if we are to take the approach of interpreting the first statement as applying to the entirety of Turkey.

In the very next page, the source claims:

Temperate rainy or humid temperate west coast climate without dry season (emphasis mine) Cf (mostly Cfa and Cfb—humid mesothermal) is dominant in the Black Sea coastal region of Turkey with the exception of the western subregion.

and,

A cold snowy forest climate with dry summer (humid microthermal) Ds (mostly Dsa and Dsb) takes place over a relatively large zone (emphasis mine) lying in the mid-northern parts of the continental central and eastern Anatolia regions of Turkey, whereas a cold snowy forest climate, humid in all seasons (humid microthermal) Df (mostly Dfb) exists

The first statement contradicts points 1, 3, 5

The second statement contradicts points 2 and partially 1, 3 and 5

The statements are indeed decently correct for the region described as Cs on the map, which the author repeats on the next page.

This author also makes plenty of mistakes in his writing otherwise, (such as claiming that Csb climates in Turkey have an average winter temperature of 13C -- no part of Turkey has winter temperature averages of 13C) but I am certain that you will find me pointing out other sources more persuasive instead.

Here:

And here's a good, Turkish-made, non-Koppen climate classification for Turkey:

I am not giving these sources to demonstrate that they should replace the current text, by the way. These are simply texts that do not make the blatant misrepresentations (or perhaps just vagaries) that the current source delves into. Therefore, I am not arguing for the source's replacement, I am arguing for its removal, not only due to these sources but due to it contradicting data presented in reliable sources such as MGM, NOAA and such. Uness232 (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Uness232: Sorry, but your answer is too long.

If you have an alternate text suggestion, feel free to make it, as long as it has high quality WP:Secondary sources. You can use multiple high quality sources in line with WP:NPOV.

You said I did not doubt that you sourced the above claim. Please review the uses of {{Dubious}} template per Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute#Disputed_statement.

You also said These are simply texts that do not make the blatant misrepresentations (or perhaps just vagaries) that the current source delves into. This is not how Wikipedia works. "The current source" is a high quality source in line with WP:Scholarship. I tried to paraphrase parts that can be considered a summary in the source. It's not up to you to reject the source just because you think "the blatant misrepresentations (or perhaps just vagaries) that the current source delves into" Bogazicili (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili It's not up to me, absolutely. But if a high quality source contradicts multiple high quality sources, is that not an argument for its removal? Seems counterintuitive otherwise. I am not saying I alone make that decision, but isn't discussion about sources directly "how Wikipeda works"?

Anyhow, I'll come up with a preliminary text within the next day and remove the tags. Uness232 (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Uness232: If multiple high quality sources contradict each other, you can try to include all of them using WP:NPOV with WP:DUE weight. If it is getting too long in a high level article such as this, I guess you can leave out some of the contradictory parts. For example if it's getting too long to summarize annual precipitation in Turkey overall, you can leave it out here but include it in Climate of Turkey

As I said in Istanbul page, I do not really care what the text says. I just want a good summary using high quality WP:Secondary sources in line with WP:Scholarship, and in line with core content criteria (WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV).

You are free to suggest changes to the text here in the talk page, or you can change the text in the article page. I'll take a look when I have the time. You do not have to give lengthy explanations to me, I only look at the sources you use and how you paraphrased them.

If you can provide a summary using more sources but without the text getting too much longer, that'd be great. It means more comprehensive and more well-researched (Wikipedia:Featured article criteria)

Can you also add something about the annual temperatures, since you removed this part out ? It'd be great if the climate section doesn't get too much longer than it currently is.

Also I was thinking about using the graphs in the article you found in Istanbul page , Figure 4 and 5, but haven't gotten around to it yet. It has an acceptable licence for upload to Commons. If you want, you can do that as well and replace the current images in Turkey#Climate section. Bogazicili (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili I've made my changes and also added Figure 5. You're welcome to look at them and discuss if necessary. I will say though, Figure 4 is superfluous as all the information it has is covered in Figure 5, and single letter Koppen codes mean basically nothing. Uness232 (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

You can add something like "in general", or a qualifier like that to the article text if exceptions are noted in the source. Make sure to adjust page numbers accordingly.

Once again, this part is already in the article text: "Exceptions to the milder climate are some of the interior and eastern parts of Turkey". You can note some of the other exceptions noted in sources as long as it's concise. Bogazicili (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Uness232: Thanks for the edit, I made several changes. I like Figure 4 because it groups climate types by Arid, Temperate, and Cold, which is easy to see even in a thumbnail image. Bogazicili (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili Thanks for your revisions, especially for reflecting the source better for the temperatures. About Figure 4, it is problematic as single-letter Koppen zones have very little explanatory value, and could even be misleading.

About the statistics comment; I would appreciate you to have asked a question if you do not sufficiently understand the issue at hand, though I admit that the text might be a little bit advanced for a top-level article.

Of course most studies use statistics, but in climatology, statistical clustering is a form of climate classification that better represents diversity as it tries to "solve' variation. I believe it is a good nod to people that view the Koppen climate classification as a bad measure of climate diversity (which it is), and therefore I think it should stay. Long story short, it's basically saying, "it's not just Koppen (which often inflates climate zone types), statistically, Turkey's climate variation can not efficiently be solved in less than 12 zones". It's a little advanced, but it's not full of jargon and it doesn't hurt the flow. Uness232 (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

You can add the cite after "Turkey's climate is highly varied" if that's what study says, I haven't looked.

I think both Figure 4 and 5 are useful.

Can you add something about average temperatures?

The annual average temperature values for Türkiye are 13°C (max. 20°C and min. 4°C). While the average temperature in January is 2°C, this value rises to 24°C in July.

Bogazicili (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili I disagree that Figure 4 is useful, as someone who has been editing climate sections/pages since I got here. The Koppen classification is misleading when used with one letter, and no serious usage uses it as such. Two letters I have seen, but one has no explanatory value.

One value for average temperatures I would advise against. It makes no sense for a country with a climate as varied as Turkey. We can do a range based on Figure 7 (I'll actually do that right now). Uness232 (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

You can add the cite after "Turkey's climate is highly varied" if that's what study says, I haven't looked.

Not what the study says, but don't appreciate the tone. Uness232 (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

What tone?? I am actually confused. I try to give concise answers because my answers may get longer, especially when I quote sources. You can see this discussion has already become lengthy in this topic.

I'll remove the average annual temperatures in the country range from −15 °C (5 °F) to 20 °C (68 °F), and precipitation ranges between 250 millimetres (10 in) to upwards of 4,000 millimetres (160 in) since you said you did this from the graph.

If the source is saying

The annual average temperature values for Türkiye are 13°C (max. 20°C and min. 4°C).

but you are adding to article average annual temperatures in the country range from −15 °C (5 °F) to 20 °C based on your reading of a graph, this is probably WP:OR.

However, I like the new images. I think it was a good idea to add Average temperature and precipitation.

But I don't understand why you removed the source from images Bogazicili (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I would have appreciated some waiting time before you went ahead and made drastic changes to the article.

1) So, the 4 to 20 and -15 to 20 comes from different types of data, both from the article (Figure 7, which is readable with basic math literacy). Station data exists for a fraction of the country (with a range between 4 to 20C), which is then filled in by model data (which has a wider range as it is for the entire country); therefore a discrepancy is formed. If you're uncomfortable with selecting out of two contradictory statements in a source, you're welcome to delete it, or we can just switch to 4 to 20C.

However, the precipitation (which also comes from Figure 7), I don't see any reason not to keep. To read a range from a graph is not WP:OR, and the content is very clearly verifiable.

2) The removing source thing was just an oversight. Thanks for the fix. Uness232 (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

You didn't say it comes from Figure 7 in your citation. I didn't know where you got your numbers.

Also looking at figure 7, the lower range comes from ET and EF climate types. These are Köppen_climate_classification#Group_E:_Polar_climates.

Looking at Figure 5, ET and EF climate types are a very tiny part of Turkey (seems to be few mountain tops).

The text also doesn't put it that way, but says:

In relation to the altitudes of the climate types, there is a temperature difference of 6°C between the average temperatures of the two climate types (BSh 18.4°C, BSk 12.3°C). The monthly temperature values of BSh are higher throughout the year than those of BSk (Figure 7a, Supporting Information 1). While the low difference in altitudes causes the average temperature difference to be low in BSh, average temperature differences are high in BSk. While there is a difference of 0.8°C in BSh between 90% of the data, this difference increases to 4.6°C in BSk. In terms of monthly values, in July, the highest temperatures are 33°C in BSh and 24°C in BSk, while the lowest temperatures are 5°C in BSh and 0°C in BSk in January (Figure 7b, Supporting Information 2).

So I think your summary misrepresents the study. It's not just about basic math literacy

Also the results of one scientific study is WP:Primary. You ignored the part in "2 Study Area" section in the study, which can be considered WP:Secondary because it reviews literature, but included your personal reading of a graph from the results of the study, which is WP:Primary. Bogazicili (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Uness232: This is also a WP:NPOV issue. You are ignoring what the text says, and cherry-picking Figure 7 with ET and EF climate types that are just in a tiny area of few mountain tops. Bogazicili (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili We can replace it with 4 to 20, but I am not interested in talking about this issue with somebody who does not know how this data works. The blurb you selected from the text has nothing to do with the temperature differences in Turkey in general, you don't understand why we have two different lines of data, and most importantly, you seem to believe that extremes would not be represented in the range? It doesn't matter if they are tiny areas of Turkey, they are parts of Turkey and must be included in the range of a dataset if the topic is temperature in Turkey. I am not misrepresenting anything, I am also not cherry-picking anything. I even conceded that if necessary we can switch back to 4C to 20C. But it seems you are unable to assume good faith in any situation. Uness232 (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith. Pointing to areas where I disagree with the text you add does not mean I assume you have a bad motivation.

I am explaining where and why I disagree with your added text in line with WP:PAGs. Bogazicili (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

You said I would have appreciated some waiting time before you went ahead and made drastic changes to the article.

Sorry but you are the one who is making "drastic changes". You switched to WP:Primary sources and your text has cherry-picking problems. You also restored a giant unnecessary template on top of the page, and removed several names references. Bogazicili (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Uness232, can you tell me where According to the Köppen climate classification, Turkey has 14 distinct climate zones comes from in the source ?

Where is the 14? Bogazicili (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

That was unfortunately left as the wrong source when we were editing. It should be the Turkey specific one. Uness232 (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

So you switched to a WP:Primary. You are aware that Wikipedia should mostly use WP:Secondary, right? I am not necessarily opposed to it, but can you explain why you switched to WP:Primary sources when a lot of the previous version was based on WP:Secondary sources? Bogazicili (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Because I believe the information contained within is more helpful to the betterment to the encyclopedia. Much of what I wrote is from secondary sources as well, that is to say, the literature review sections of articles. Exceptions apply of course, but I didn't necessarily make a change to primary sources in any conscious way. Uness232 (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

You are summarizing from a graph of a result of study. It's a primary source and its problematic. Please read what is says in WP:Primary

You said: you seem to believe that extremes would not be represented in the range

If the author of the study does not point out to that, it's not up to you to analyze that from a graph when the author of the study explicitly writes something different in the text in the source.

Adding your own personal interpretations is not more helpful to the betterment to the encyclopedia Bogazicili (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bogazicili Why are you so keen on making the claim that something is my "personal interpretation"? The data is there, I did not analyze the graph, I looked at it, and nothing I did violates WP:Verifiability. We can certainly switch to 4 to 20C, that's fine, I from the start said that was fine, but your insistence is surprising. That's all I have to say on this matter. Uness232 (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not the only issue. You have made a massive revert, which you still haven't undone.

You looked at the graph, but you only included that and not the text in the study. That's why I am criticizing it. And the outliers in the graph are tiny mountain top areas.

I also did not say there is a WP:V issue. The issues are WP:NOR and WP:NPOV Bogazicili (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Just leaving Wikipedia:No original research#Acceptable media here. Others can be the judge of NPOV. again, I have reverted and will re-add that section with 4C to 20C. Uness232 (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:Primary: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself

If the source is specifically saying: "The annual average temperature values for Türkiye are 13°C (max. 20°C and min. 4°C)." but you are reading from one graph from the primary source part, yes it is an issue.

Also, by WP:NOR issue, I had also meant how this sources was was cited after the Inland areas, meanwhile, feature more severe winters, sharper temperature swings, and relatively low precipitation sentence Bogazicili (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Does Inland areas, meanwhile, feature more severe winters, sharper temperature swings, and relatively low precipitation come from both sources cited? This one seems to be about precipitation only? Bogazicili (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Both, yes. The first two are rather loose paraphrases of what's directly in the other article. You can change the wording as you wish. I do not see a reason for "relatively lower" precipitation, though. Relatively already means lower: relatively low covers it. Uness232 (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

You already undid my edit. Please provide the quote from this source that justifies that sentence. I don't see it in the article.

"loose paraphrases" may be WP:OR. I noticed this in Talk:Istanbul#Removal_of_sourced_information as well. Bogazicili (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

1071 battle of manzikert or 1077 establishment of the Sultanate of Rum should be added to the establishment section

It would be clearer to show the roots of today's country, as in some other country pages (e.g. France). ~2025-31084-55 (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The date of establishment of Seljuk sultanate in rum isn't even clear. 1071 is a stretch. The reason why the Ottoman Empire is included because the current regime is a direct continuation of the empire. Beshogur (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2025

Could you please also mention that the founder of the Republic of Türkiye is Mustafa Kemal Atatürk? M BARTU G (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done It was already stated once, but only in a photo caption. Largoplazo (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)