Want to help improve the guide? Create an account now to get started!


From Wikitravel
Revision as of 20:09, 7 April 2009 by Peterfitzgerald (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

For future reference the Wikitravel:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Turkey/CIA World Factbook 2002 import.

An annonymous user claims the following destinations do not exist. I disagree. I have used the English names I know these places by. They may be known by something else in Turkey, but the English speaking world seems to use the names I have used. -- Huttite 19:41, 4 Jun 2004 (EDT)

too many cities!

In my opinion, theres far too many cities in the other cities part that someone has put in the cities section. Most of these don't actually have pages, and it's far too confusing! It serves no purpose just to have a list with no description in a travel guide!

I have gone ahead and linked them all to pages, but we should cut these down to a list of the best/most interesting cities in Turkey. I would do this, but I have precisely no knowledge of Turkey, so if someone knows which of these smaller cities are worthy of a link then please put them in the cities section and we can delete the others. TSandell 19:19 3/3/06

We should indeed cut them down to around 5-10 cities. We should find places for the other cities that don't make the cut. Thanks for getting this started. --Evan 14:26, 3 March 2006 (EST)
As no one has edited the list (I proposed it 2 weeks ago), I have taken the initiative and deleted the whole list. I've put the links to the cities which actually had pages in their respective region articles. I'm figuring that when people make decent pages, they'll just put a link to them back up on the Turkey page.
Here's the original list of cities:

Adana, Adiyaman, Afyon, Agri, Aksaray, Amasya, Antalya, Ardahan, Artvin, Aydin, Balikesir, Bartin, Batman, Bayburt, Bilecik, Bingol, Bitlis, Bolu, Burdur, Bursa, Canakkale, Cankiri, Corum, Denizli, Diyarbakir, Duzce, Edirne, Elazig, Erzincan, Erzurum, Eskisehir, Gaziantep, Giresun, Gumushane, Hakkari, Hatay, Icel, Igdir, Isparta, Kahramanmaras, Karabuk, Karaman, Kars, Kastamonu, Kayseri, Kilis, Kirikkale, Kirklareli, Kirsehir, Kocaeli, Konya, Kutahya, Malatya, Manisa, Mardin, Mugla, Mus, Nevsehir, Nigde, Ordu, Osmaniye, Rize, Sakarya, Samsun, Sanliurfa, Siirt, Sinop, Sirnak, Sivas, Tekirdag, Tokat, Trabzon, Tunceli, Usak, Van, Yalova, Yozgat, Zonguldak

If anyone disagrees with this edit, revert it back and let me know why!Tsandell 15:26, 19 March 2006 (EST)
I think what you did was just fine, except some of the cites are now orphaned. They have infomation on them, but have nothing linked to them. They should be listed on the Region pages, sub-regions or maybe other city pages, but I am not sure I know where to put them. Thank you for your edits. -- Tom Holland (xltel) 15:44, 19 March 2006 (EST)
No problem! I've sorted the orphaned pages Tsandell 17:47, 19 March 2006 (EST)

baghdad and tehran by train?

no way there's a train to baghdad or tehran from anywhere in turkey...there used to be to Syria and Jordan and perhaps Tehran, though I don't even think there is a railroad between Turkey and Iraq. Also, given the bitter history between Armenia and Turkey from many years past, I doubt there'd ever be rail service (passenger or freight even) for quite some time. The only foreign destinations from Turkey now include Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania (as far as Bucharest), with onward services from there to Budapest and thus the EU.

To anonymous above: that's not what the Turkish Railways website says. Could it be outdated then? Ricardo (Rmx) 15:39, 19 March 2006 (EST)
Well, not concerning Iran; I met a guy in Istanbul who took a train from Iran, had to cross lake Van Gölü by ferry, and enter Turkey with the next train -- 12:55, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

Bus comfort

I'm translating parts of this article into Portuguese and came across the Get around/by bus section, which says "ask for the number of seats in the buses you compare. Roughly, a larger capacity implies a greater comfort." It's normally otherwise - a smaller capacity (less seats) usually means more leg room, therefore greater comfort. Or is it about bus sizes? Can someone please clarify? Thanks, Ricardo (Rmx) 09:26, 29 March 2006 (EST)

I have edited the page to answer your question. What the seat number implies is you are getting a large, comfortable bus, possibly with an attendent who will offer tea, coffee and snacks, rather than sitting in the back of a bumpy Dolmus.

Ramadan in Turkey ...

Hi, this year Ramadan will start september the 24th, meaning ın about three days - should there be some kinda travel advice on Ramadan somewhere ie. on all islamic/arabic country pages a link to an page with travel infos on Ramadan? freeflo

Thanks for the warning. Please feel free to note that on the Understand section of the article, where that kind of information fits best. --Ricardo (Rmx) 22:00, 21 September 2006 (EDT)
I've added the {{ramadandates}} box, which is meant precisely for this kind of thing. Local info on how it's celebrated in Turkey should be added though, the details vary quite a bit from country to country. Jpatokal 11:27, 23 September 2006 (EDT)
Hi, in the text, it was said that the most important holiday is the Ramadan Holiday. As a Turkish citizen, I personally do not believe so. Would you please tell me what is the reason that such sentence is added here? Thanks 16:42, 22 January 2007 (EST).
What is more important than Ramadan? And if you're objecting because you think "holiday" means "vacation", well, you're wrong -- it also means "holy day". Jpatokal 07:31, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

on Respect section

Pretty good article, and it looks like a Turk has written it. But "resting your hands on your hips" advice does not make any sense to me. I'm Turkish and never felt like that. Anyways good information for foreign people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 17:42, 1 December 2006


Can someone give me an indication of the prices of living in Turkey? What does an average person spend on shopping in a month? What does, for example, a bottle of (real) Coca-Cola cost? What does a falafel (they eat that there?) on the street cost? I urgently need to know this information for someone else. If somebody knows more about this, please write it in the article also! --Daniel575 16:59, 4 January 2007 (EST)

Yesterday I went for shopping to a supermarket in Istanbul and a real Coca Cola in a 1-litre PET bottle was 1.19 YTL (less than US$ 1.00), so I decided to buy a Turkish-brand soda in a 1.5-litre PET bottle which was 1.20 YTL, and no, Turks don't eat falafel, most of them don't have any idea about what it is (except those living in the areas near the Syrian border probably), but 5.00 YTL (about US$ 3.00-3.50) should be enough to appease your hunger, plus a soft drink in a cheap restaurant (though restaurants owned by American-origin fast food chains are much more expensive). -- 12:57, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Who's your daddy?

Should we include Turkey in Mediterranean Europe or the Middle East? It's been on both pages at times, and is partially on the map for Med Europe, but that's not very traveler friendly. So let's make a decision on where we should put it, in whole. I would lean towards Middle East, but if it gets accepted into the European Union, then... – cacahuate talk 02:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

It would be silly for either Mediterranean Europe or the Middle East not to include Turkey; both should definitely link to it. I suppose Turkey can only have one isIn tag, though, so we have to choose. I'd go for Middle East, but that is somewhat arbitrary and not something I feel strongly about. Pashley 03:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I just changed the isIn to Middle East for now, I think it swings a little more that way. If someone objects, let us know here! – cacahuate talk 17:44, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
The big disadvantage to changing Turkey's breadcrumb to the Middle East is that there will be an unending line of anonymous Turkish users who will put it back into Europe for mildly political reasons. For that reason alone, I would suggest putting it back into Mediterranean Europe--it will save time and won't needlessly offend anyone. But another good reason is that while the biggest chunk of Turkey is Asian, the most popular destinations for the traveler are decidedly European. While personally I'd rather hang out in Middle Eastern Kars or Van, most head to the very European Istanbul and to the very Mediterranean beach resorts... on the Mediterranean. Or, for that matter, they go to see the Greek ruins. --Peterfitzgerald Talk 17:39, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Good point(s) indeed, Mr Fitzgerald... I won't argue against that... – cacahuate talk 02:32, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Dear cacahuate please visit to Eu offical(http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm) web site and (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public.do?language=en) UN Regional Groups/WEOG/europe or nato in europe,please learn to hisory of ottoman empire(Turkey) and please dont edit Turkish stuited in europe,i am sure u know europe is not continent,europe is historical and cultural continent u can visit Council of Europe oficial web (http://www.coe.int/T/e/com/about_coe/member_states/default.asp) Turkey is member of Council of Europe since 09.08.1949 if its not enough for u please contect with Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey,European Council or with me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

No problem my friend. – cacahuate talk 01:42, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, I think we have consensus. The isIn points to Mediterranean Europe for reasons above. The "Nearby Regions" section of Middle East covers the partial Mid-East-ness of Turkey. Pashley 23:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Dear Pashley Turkey it isnt in mid-east because mid-east is Arapic region and Turkey not even israel firstly Turks are secular and Turks dont have any religion and Turkish race belong europid/touran race accordingly Turkey isnt in mid-east please visit to http://www.ozturkler.com/data_english/0001/0001_01_02.htm and United region page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_and_Others_Group) or official web(http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/ece.pdf) or(http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/) and Turkey official candidate contry for eu and will join 2015(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union), finaly Europe is historical,racial,cultural continent and Turkey is in Europe sice 3th centry,Turks and Hungarians have same race(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Hungarian_script) so Turkey isnt in mid-east regions.Thanks for ure understanding and for ure effort. by :aegeanfihter

Yes, Turkey is very much a European country. The isIn link to Europe is correct.
Turkey is also very much a Mediterranean culture; not just Istanbul or Byzantium which has always been one of the Med's greatest cities, but also the South coast and areas like Trabzon on the Black Sea which has been trading with the Med since before the Roman Empire.
However, as I see it, it is also very much a part of the Middle East. You could not talk about the history of the Arab states without mentioning the Turkish Empire. Or talk about the modern politics of the Middle East without considering Turkey as one of the important powers in the region. Or discuss the Islamicist/secular conflict in various countries without mentioning Ataturk's reforms as an example many consider important. The list could go on and on.
So I think mentioning Turkey in Middle East is quite appropriate. Pashley 04:06, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

"Black Sea Turkey"

"Black Sea Turkey" is very awkward English. Could we just call this "Karadenız" and let the maps and articles speak for themselves (in letting readers know this part of Turkey is on the Black Sea)? Or we could call it "Black Sea (region)", but that might set us up for difficult disambiguations. I would even prefer a long-winded "Turkish Black Sea Coast" to the current title. Any thoughts? If no one responds in a couple weeks, I'll go forward with a move to Karadenız. --Peter Talk 02:00, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

  • I'm happy with it as it is. The structure is parallel to "Agean Turkey" and "Mediterranean Turkey", does not seem all that awkward to me. Making Karadenız as a redirect seems sensible, but policy is to use the commonest English name. Do English-speaking travellers call it that? Pashley 00:10, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

The Turkish for Black Sea isn't "Karadenız", it's "Karadeniz". Runningfridgesrule 06:48, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Çanakkale absent

Çanakkale was taken out of both the cities and the other destinations lists. I think it should be mentioned one of these lists because it is the hub for both Gallipoli Peninsula and the ancient city of Troy, each of which thousands of people travel to. You may think it makes sense to mention Çanakkale in the seperate article of Marmara region but I guess there are many people around the world who plan or dream to travel to Çanakkale area but don't have any idea about which part of the country it is located in.


Should this article contain a warning against attempting to discuss the Armenian Genocide, seeing as how the Government of Turkey has convinced its people that it never happened? Seems to me that a discussion could lead to anger pretty quick. I've never been to Turkey, but I assume its a sensitive topic. -- Colin 15:33, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

"Convinced its people that it never happened", huh? You might wanna rephrase that, buddy, because there isn't any consensus on the topic, so how do you know that it really happened? You're not a historian, are you? Anyway, to answer your question, it depends on how you approach them about it. They would be willing to have a historical debate about it, but don't come down all Armenian-lobby on them. You seem to have been brainwashed by the Armenian lobby, have you actually studied the topic yourself? I didn't think so... Runningfridgesrule 06:47, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Nice tone there. And ah yes, that ever all-powerful omnipresent Armenian lobby... </snark> --Peter Talk 14:21, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
  • OMGosh, Peter tried to make me look stupid by using fake HTML, ooh I'm so offended. </geek> Runningfridgesrule 19:12, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

I think it should, but remain neutral in tone. Your wording should maybe say that people "should avoid discussing the killing of Armenians during World War 1"(the Turkish government DOES agree that many Armenians were killed, but they point out that even more Turks died during this period and that the deaths were not a genocide) and that this "is also known as the alleged 'Armenian Genocide' ". I think any discussion should also mention that while this is a sensitive subject for many Turks, relations have warmed between Armenia and Turkey in the past year or two. (Recently the Turkish president visited Armenia to watch a football game between the two countries and took the opportunity to meet with the Armenian president. A new road being constructed in eastern Turkey is believed by some to soon be a link to Armenia in the near future when the two have finally opened the border). Again, please be very neutral when discussing this. AHeneen 21:07, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Proposal for a small change at other destinations section

I propose to replace Beypazarı with Gallipoli at Turkey#Other_destinations.


  • Gallipoli is much more famous around the world.
  • We already have another “old town with Ottoman architecture” in the list (Safranbolu, which is also better-known than Beypazarı, and also not very far from Beypazarı).
  • Beypazarı is already listed in Ankara, which is the most likely place where a trip to Beypazarı originates, and also at Central Anatolia. Gallipoli is also listed at one or two region/subregion/city#get out articles, but I guess many people don’t know anything about Gallipoli’s geography except that it’s in Turkey, so they have to click quite a few times until they find it down in the hierarchy.
  • Beypazarı article is nothing more than a couple sentences at the moment, while Gallipoli article, although I accept is not very good either, at least gives more info.

Why not?

  • Only argument I can think of against replacing Beypazarı with Gallipoli in the list is that Gallipoli is important especially for travellers from Australia, New Zealand, and maybe a little from UK, but, although interesting, it isn’t that much important for people from rest of the world. This can somewhat be balanced by the fact that this is English-language WT, and those countries are predominantly English-speaking.
  • And maybe the list will be too much western Turkey (i.e. Marmara and Aegean Regions) oriented (well, it already is).

Opinions, please.--Vidimian 07:03, 21 November 2008 (EST)

So I'm implementing the change. Opinions are always welcome if anybody has a thought either way.--Vidimian 09:37, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Sounds like a good change to me. --Peter Talk 15:48, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Bird flu

There haven’t been any reports of bird flu cases since Feb 2006, so I’m hiding relevant info from stay healthy section for now.--Vidimian 12:09, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Region borders

In order to have a regions map of Turkey, region borders should first be clearly defined. This shows exact semi-official region borders with some of the provinces straddle the region borders, while this is how it looks like when whole provinces are moved to the region in which their capital cities are located. I'm not sure either is exactly what Turkish regions at Wikitravel should look like since we try to serve travellers. Here is a list of the problems I see at those maps: (And here is a useful Wikipedia article on semi-official Turkish regions with maps showing whole provinces in one region or the other, and this is a blank Turkish provinces map without names)

  • Both Afyon and Kütahya provinces are shown in Aegean Region. However, they are far from the sea, very cold in winter, and have mainly conservative folk, which means they have next to nothing to do with the Aegean, and they are essentially not any different from Central Anatolia. (Kutahya's breadcumb already shows it in Central Anatolia by the way)
  • Balıkesir Province's northern shore is in Marmara Region for sure, but its western shore is actually what many people think when they hear the word "Aegean". And so is Çanakkale Province's southernmost coast. I think Balıkesir Province should be divided in two, with central and northern two-thirds going to Marmara Region, and the western one-third to the Aegean. (I also think we should scrap Balıkesir Province from the hierarchy altogether by the way, with its messy content reshaped and moved to the appropriate region articles. I also have an idea on how to divide Marmara (region) into subregions without using provinces but that's another discussion's issue).
  • Kahramanmaraş Province is shown in Mediterranean Region, but, like Afyon and Kütahya, it too has nothing to do with Med as how travellers see it. It geographically more resembles Southeastern Anatolia (similar climate), while culturally more aligns with Eastern Anatolia (not many Arabic or Kurdish-speaking minorities, for example). Both would do well but I'm more inclined to put it in SE Anatolia.
  • Çorum, Amasya, and Tokat Provinces are shown in Black Sea Region, but again they have nothing in common with Sinop or Trabzon for example, and are a natural part of Central Anatolian Plateau (similar/same climate, culture, and the Hittite sites for that matter, which are remnants of a Central Anatolian civilization).
  • Gümüşhane and Bayburt Provinces are likewise problematic, but rather than being a part of E Anatolia, they may best stay in Black Sea Region. (although away from sea, there are many historical Pontic Greek sites there)
  • Isparta and Burdur can also go into Central Anatolia instead of Med, but can also stay as a "continental" section of Med Turkey. They are generally defined as "Lakes Districts" section of Med Region locally and we may use that too (when we have articles for those).

Hmm, I think that's it. This climate map can also be useful, especially regarding where to divide Balıkesir and Çanakkale Provinces between Aegean and Marmara.--Vidimian 01:27, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

I almost forget this, eastern parts of Sivas Province more resemble Eastern Anatolia rather than Central Anatolia. Do we really have to follow the provincial borders to define regional borders by the way?--Vidimian 01:35, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
I drafted an (unacceptably) ugly map to see whether I understand your proposal correctly. Unfortunately, the selection of Turkish provinces maps on Commons is very poor, and none of them are compatible with our license. Hence I won't publish the image here, but rather here [1]. I am only familiar with the northeast and northern coastal regions of Turkey, but I agree wholeheartedly with your proposal re: the regions I am familiar with. We don't have to follow administrative divisions, and when they make little travel sense it is indeed good to choose different boundaries. It is important, however, to come up with some sort of well-defined borders, so it is clear where cities/towns will belong. I find that overlaying translucent region colors onto an image from OpenStreetMap [2] can be a really effective way of doing this. --Peter Talk 23:00, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
TR regions draft.JPG
How it looks when Mugla Province is divided between Aegean and Med
I meant something like the first map to the right.
However, I see a problem with that one, too. There, Muğla Province is completely shown in Aegean Turkey, but locally the boundary between Aegean Sea and Mediterranean proper is considered to lie on Datca Peninsula (the northern shores of it is on the Aegean, while the southern coastline is on Mediterranean proper), so Bodrum is on the Aegean coast (thus in Aegean Turkey), while Marmaris is on the Med (i.e. in Med Turkey) (see the second map). But this division carries the risk of messing Mediterranean Turkey sub-regional hierarchy, because currently its westernmost subregion is Antalya Province, so to include Marmaris, Fethiye, etc in Med Turkey, we’ll need a somewhat-arbitrarily-named subregion, such as Southern Mugla Province or Southwestern Mediterranean Turkey or Western Lycia (historically this and the adjacent areas in Antalya Province was called Lycia, but we can’t name here simply “Lycia”, ‘coz it partially overlaps with Antalya Province, already an article).--Vidimian 10:05, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
Both Southern Mugla Province & Western Lycia sound acceptable (Southwestern Mediterranean Turkey starts to seem convoluted)—I'll follow your lead on choosing one. Kudos on finding that PD map—I could make a SVG map out of that one. --Peter Talk 16:05, 7 April 2009 (EDT)



Destination Docents

In other languages