Talk:Blue Homeland

Recent removals

Stop saying there were no sources when anyone can go and confirm that there were; they were all bundled in a note (last stable version). Michail Angelos Georgoulas then added more. The hypocrisy is reflected on the fact that you didn't even attempt to rephrase the content by attributing the so-called POV; you simply removed both the text and the sources because you disagree with them, and only kept an article by Cem Gürdeniz, who is the originator of the 'Blue Homeland' concept.

Wikivoice should be based on properly weighted and analyzed reliable, independent, secondary published sources. Just because the official Turkish position might contest these terms, it doesn't mean we cannot use them in wikivoice. Turkish official sources—and, I would argue, much of the Turkish mass media as well—are not truly independent sources. If we were to consider the official position, we wouldn't have pages like Western Azerbaijan (irredentist concept), Russian irredentism, or Megali Idea for that matter. Just because we define a concept as irredentist and expansionist, it doesn't mean there is a violation of WP:NPOV. The cited sources supported the content. More can be added, such as the following ones:

1. "The "Blue Homeland" and Erdoğan's Rhetoric: State Doctrine or Populist Narrative?" by Anthony Deriziotis, in Convergence and Confrontation: The Balkans and the Middle East in the 21st Century (2021)

• p. 9: The [Blue Homeland] doctrine represents a nationalist, irredentist approach to Turkey's maritime position that lies within the neo-Ottomanist narrative that has emerged since the Justice and Development Party has been in power.

2. Turkish Irredentism and the Greater Middle East (2021) by Hay E. C. Yanarocak

• p. 3: Under Erdoğan, Turkey adopted a new naval doctrine called the "Blue Homeland" (Mavi Vatan), which rejects the status-quo that was established by The Treaty of Lausanne (1923), replacing it with Turkish maritime borders that expand into Greek and Cypriot territory.
• p. 18: This [Blue Homeland] military posture advocated by the navy also rejects Lausanne borders, replacing them with Turkish maritime borders at the expense of Greek and Cypriot sovereignty.

3. Turkey's Neo-Ottomanist Moment: A Eurasianist Odyssey (2021) by Cengiz Çandar

• p. 102: From the definition of the chief ideologist who coined it, it will be accurate to define the Blue Homeland Doctrine as the strategic principle of Turkey's irredentism and expansionism within the all-embracing context of neo-Ottomanism.

– Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Nothing more to add (other than my comment on this user's talk page) - thank you for acting on this! Michaelangelos (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

~2026-18044-25, there is no WP:NPOV issue; you have a flawed understanding of the policy. Gürdeniz is not an independent source; the terms irredentist and expansionist are perfectly fine when they are supported by numerous reliable, independent, secondary sources that aren't contested by other numerous reliable, independent, secondary sources. We have plenty of articles that use them to introduce or define similar topics, like the ones I mentioned above. A doctrine that doesn't even allow the typical territorial sea boundaries (forget the established six nautical miles; not even a single meter of sovereignty) for half of the Greek islands in the Aegean—as shown in the official Blue Homeland map—is certainly irredentist and expansionist. You are not even attempting to attribute the so-called POV. Also, remain civil (diff). – Demetrios1993 (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed in reliable sources about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

"Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source." ~2026-37348-83 (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-37348-83, it seems unfair to tell me to go to this talk page when you are the one to have edit-warred across 2 accounts. It doesn't look like consensus has gone for your argument, so why are you still goïng for this without discussing further? toby ^(t)(rw) 17:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

~2026-37348-83, yes, there is also the paragraph directing us to "avoid stating facts as opinions", which is what this case currently falls under. These terms are supported by numerous reliable, independent, secondary sources that aren't contested by other reliable, independent, secondary sources. It is not prohibited to use the terms irredentist and expansionist to introduce a topic. If that was the case, we wouldn't have introductions such as "irredentist propaganda and revisionism concept" for Western Azerbaijan (irredentist concept); or "Greek nationalist and irredentist concept" for Megali Idea. It is also not extraordinary to introduce this concept as such, given that it clearly encroaches on the established six-nautical-mile territorial waters of the Greek islands in the eastern Aegean. Furthermore, if you truly cared about WP:NPOV, you wouldn't keep removing all of the content and sources instead of trying to attribute the so-called POV. Also, you keep replacing these reliable sources with an undefined inline citation, creating an error. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)