Talk:Turkish Armed Forces/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Dual citizenship

Do the children of those with duel Turkish citizenship have to join the Turkish army through mandatory conscription? Is this affected by whether the children have applied for duel citizenship themselves?

Does country of residence make a difference? --SolDrury 08:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Children with dual Turkish Citizenship do also have to join the Turkish Army through mandatory conscription, when they reach the appropriate age. This is not affected by country of residence or whether the children have applied for dual citizenship.
The only option is if the dual citizenship holder is currently working abroad, in their other country of nationality. They can then defer their military and once they have worked for 3 years or more they can apply to pay a fee to the Turkish Military in order to have the right to do a reduced military service term of 1 month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.66.49.133 (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

I have removed the listings/nos of military equipment for Turkey, which were lifted off my website: European Defence (www.european-defence.co.uk), without prior permission. I'm afraid that reproduction of some of the content, including anything from the Armed Forces Guide, is only available for a fee. If you wish to again reproduce this information for such a fee, contact me via the website. Michael Fishpool, European Defence

I would be grateful if you could also remove such information from the earlier archive. In particular, the tables were lifted off my website without prior permission and with no acknowledgement. Some were also inaccurate/wrong, and "CeeGee" used these until they were updated on the European Defence website.

While I am always happy to see quotes or references to the European Defence website, I am not so happy to see people lift the material for use elsewhere.

I will continue to monitor Wikipedia over the coming months to ensure that no further information is lifted from my website without prior permission.

greedy, selfish.... Chochoto 16:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, a copyvio we should be aware of, and should have removed ourselves. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Human rights

How objective is it to talk about the human rights abuses of the armed forces? Is it prooved? (By European Human Rights Court for instance.) If there is such an abuse, it can be stated in the Human Rights in Turkey title.

  • PKK is a terrorist organization and our army don't have to show mercy to them. They may surrender or they may die. This is their choice. With respect, Deliogul 11:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • PKK is a political party which can't represent the 10,000,000 (and maybe more) Kurds in parliament of Turkey. John Skywalker 17:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • PKK is not a political party. PKK killed 4000+ security forces personnel and 26000+ civilian (mostly kurdish) in Turkey. None of political parties do this.
  • PKK is considered as a terrorist organization not only in Turkey but also worldwide. For example, it's in the list of European Union as a terrorist organization and United States and many other countries. Turkey will never discuss any issue with any terrorist organization.
  • If a terrorist organization names itself as "party" it does not cease to be terrorist. Besides, Turkey is a real democracy and there IS a legal party demanding some autonomy for Kurdish regions. They do not recieve 10,000,000 votes, in fact they were below the treshold to send any deputies to the parliament in elections.
  • You must be talking about DTP but still even if the DTP is a pro-Kurdish left-wing party(they got the %6 of the votes in 2002), they are not the same with PKK. PKK is a illegal terrorist organization which is also responsible for more than 30,000 murders. I don't like both of them but still you can't call PKK a party. They are just bloody murderers. With respect, Deliogul 20:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Article too large

I have broken the article apart -- Cat chi? 12:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seperatist groups

There had been quite a number of Seperatist groups in Turkey aside from the Kurds. TIKKO (Communist Party of Turkey's millitary wing I believe), ASALA (campaigns for parts of turkey to be merged with "great armenia"), Hezbollah, and many other groups exist. There are other groups too. -- Cat chi? 00:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Allright, thanks for the explanation. —Khoikhoi 00:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) and Salvation Army of Workers and Villagers of Turkey (TIKKO) are totally different. TKP is an active political party which is of course legal. One more point is that only a small group among the Kurds of Turkey supports separatist organizations. 7 September 2006(UTC) 11:55 e104421
Look, I know I have been talking about this a lot but, please let's think about what we are going to write thoroughly before and let's keep things scientific... Especially u catout: Can you explain to me how TIKKO or Hizbullah would be considered a seperatist group??? They seek to change the regime in Turkey as a whole, not SEPERATE it.. You see what I mean??? There is a BIG difference.. They are considered in Turkey as terrorist groups, but not as seperatists... For ASALA, I see what you mean, but it has been dormant for twenty years now, so that's history... So the only ones left are Kurdish groups, AND NOT ONLY PKK BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY SPLINTER GROUPS THAT HAVE SEPERATED FROM THE PKK.. So there you go, I am taking it back to Kurdish groups... Baristarim 20:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
BTW, this has nothing to do with the fact that a big majority of the Kurdish people don't support these groups, that I know.. So don't worry about that... On the other hand, I really would like you to show me a seperatist group other than them.. Let's not beat around the bush, Turkey doesn't have other seperatist groups threathening its existence other than certain Kurdish groups... Come on, am I wrong??? :))) That's the difference between terör, bölücü terör and irtica. This is an enycylopedia people, so let's stick to the facts. But just to keep people happy, i am going to add something about leftist groups.. Cheers! Baristarim 21:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
TIKKO and Hizbullah are not seperatists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.234.63.199 (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I am not so sure where the personal attack is here? If I fail to see it I am sorry but perhaps you can delete what you find as the attack sentence rather than the contribution. Perhaps you can clarify. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.139.10 (talk • contribs)

bertilvidet's vandalism

I would like to point out that I find the following previously deleted additions worthwhile contributions and I think they should be left here. At least, I have not been blocked by anyone ever and these are my changes that I endorse and would like to see here. I hope all parties agree. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.139.10 (talk • contribs)

bertilvidet you reverted factual information edit and contribution with a "POV" disillusion on 10/15/06. Read carefully, they don't reflect POV. (Personal attack removed) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.130.210.78 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 October 2006.

Specifically, the following legitimate edits put in the article were vandalized and deleted by BertilVidet on 15 October 2006 and on 00:28, 18 October 2006 by Alphachimp: "The Turkish military, by the constitution and law, is given the duty of protection of the constitution and the unity of the country, and therefore plays a formal political role via the National Security Council in the same functional way that exists also in the USA and Israeli democracies, as the guardian of the secular, unitary nature of the republic and reforms of Atatürk in the Turkish example. The Chief of General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) since August 28, 2006 is General Yaşar Büyükanıt. The President, as the Head of State, is the Commander in Chief, in times of peace. The Chief of the General Staff becomes the Commander in Chief, on behalf of the President, in times of war. The TAF that has the unequivocal and unreserved support of the nation in its functionality past and present has traditionally been a powerful institution politically and has intervened directly in political affairs on several occasions. The role of the military in Turkish politics, mainly through the National Security Council, is declining (factual reference needed)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.139.10 (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To E104421

What was that mass blanking in aid of?--Euthymios 22:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I see you are not answering me but are continuing to revert (i.e. blank sourced information), and you have the audacity to demand of me to "use the talk page"?--Euthymios 23:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The information provided by Bagramyan is not related with the context of the article, but related with other wiki articles. I already pointed out in the edit summary. These would be more suitable. E104421 23:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have to agree. The whole section was supported by the works of one author, and that is not enough to use sentences such as "TAF soldiers were stealing blankets". In any case, the correct form to use would have been "Robert Fisk has accused TAF soldiers of stealing blankets ...". What is wrong is the format used: We cannot use the claims of one author to convey an accusation as a 100 percent confirmed fact. Sorry but "sourced information" is not the magic cure, there is also something called "proper citation" and "correct use of sources". So if the section is made more contextual and sources are used correctly, then we can have a debate. In any case, please also remember that the current structural layout of the article doesn't permit the inclusion of such a section in context. So, if he is willing, Marshall should work on improving the structural layout and cleanup of the article first (no comments on if he would be willing to help improve the article of the Turkish Armed Forces, on a side note :))) Baristarim 01:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Robert Fisk is a very credible individual. I'm sorry if the material he reported sounds offensive, but he cites numerous American and British soldiers and officials to his credit. To claim otherwise means essentially that you are calling him a liar, the British embassy the American soldiers and British Marines liars who never challenged Fisk's account. If it is that troublesome if the structural context, I'll move it to its own separate article (and just wiki Main link it), but don't think that just because one journalist was there means he's biased or lying. But I agree, it seems more apt to put this in the Turkish Army article than here.--MarshallBagramyan 02:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
No need to jump the gun here. When there is one author cited the correct form should always be "Robert Fisk has accused the TAF of...". That's all I am saying: The claim of one individual cannot support a section where these claims are presented as being confirmed to 100 percent. This has nothing to do with the Turkish Army article, if the section does not include proper citation and nor uses its sources correctly, I will have to revert it there too. It doesn't matter if he is credible or not, what matters is that there is only one citation holding the whole section. And please avoid straw man, it was not a question of it sounding offensive. Baristarim 02:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The same rules will apply if you create a different article, you cannot cite one author and give his statements as 100 percent confirmed facts, doesn't matter if it is a sub- or super- article. Baristarim 02:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
:) Who ever stated this imaginary one source mandate? Read many of Wikipedia's articles, FA included, and you'll see many of them are supported by single sources. To put "according to" implies opinion when Fisk, a journalist, simply reported what he saw. Its funny, do we ever apply such a beginning to an article written by the Associated Press or the Washington Post, that their journalists maybe saw a car bomb explode in Iraq or that maybe President Bush spoke to someone in an interview? Of course not. The citations have nothing to do with this as you well know, as the elder of Wikipedia will affirm.
The European Commission and journalists from other news services supported Fisk's account. I know how sensitive it is to criticize the Turkish military but you're stepping on the boundaries of commentator Lord Hawhaw here by setting up these imaginary rules. Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not truth. You cannot say that "according to Fisk, he saw Turkish troops" when its not just Fisk who saw this.--MarshallBagramyan 02:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
While Baristarim has a point on claiming that the addition seems disconnected from the rest of the article, his argument on sourcing isen't, given the current state of the article. Here is how the article starts: The first systematic Turkish Army was formed in 209 BC. The history of the Turks whose political order developed in line with their military order dates back approximately 2,215 years. This long history, which started in Central Asia, spread to all the major continents of the Old World as a result of great migrations. Turks of the Oghuz (Oğuz in Turkish) branch who established the Great Hun Empire in Eurasia and Göktürk Empire in the East also established the Seljuk Empire in the West, which played an important role in the encounter between the Turks and the European nations starting with the Battle of Manzikert (Malazgirt) in 1071 and the First Crusade in 1096. No source ever provided, even the Hun Empire being Turks as established fact, etc. Fad (ix) 03:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok Marshall, if he wasn't the only one, fine, then cite them, that's all I am saying. There is no imaginary rule here, you cannot use the claims of one author to give the impression that the claim is 100 percent confirmed fact particularly if the other side is opposing this version. And yes, AP or WP reporters can, and are, cited as "according to.. " if there is a dispute over the veracity of the claim. It has always been like this, even during the Lebanon bombings, the BBC would say "according to our reporter, there have been xx number of deaths", r u joking? :))) And Marshall, please avoid straw mans here, I am not stepping on no commentator here (or his boundaries :)), the question was not the criticism of TAF. The problem is the inclusion of the statement "TAF soldiers stole blankets", supported only by one author's claims and presented in the section as 100 percent proven fact, in the History section of the TAF. Surely you must see the un-encyclopedic traits present in this?Baristarim 03:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Fadix, two wrongs don't make a right. As I said, please avoid straw mans, instead of saying that I didn't have a point with my argument on sources, you should have said "Baristarim's argument on sources also holds true for the intro etc...", right? :))) I wasn't around when the article was written and I haven't made significant contributions to this article, so don't be blaming me for anything. There are Turkish editors who are working on this article at the moment, I will contact them with your concerns however. Baristarim 03:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No I would have added more smileys if I was joking around. You know, the only reason Fisk was released from the Diyarbekir police station was that was because he invoked Kemal Ataturk in their conversation and what his apparent reaction would have been to Turkish soldiers' actions in Yasilova. The response by the Turkish government is present but its quite obvious why they opposed his version and why he was expelled out of Turkey soon after.--MarshallBagramyan 03:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the talkheader on top of the page please. How is how Fisk got released from Diyarbakir police station any relevant to the TAF article??? :))) Frankly, I don't care what TAF did, what Fisk did or said, what the TR govt said or did, this talk pages is for discussing improvements to this article. You still haven't said anything about the use of "according to.." even for AP and WP reporters. That's what is relevant to this article, please don't make this a forum on Turkey. Baristarim 03:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It has something to do with Turkey's armed forces doesn't it? Somewhere along the lines of its history and/or participation in humanitarian effort. This conflict caused quite a ripple in 1991, British and American forces were almost certainly going to be involved in a shootout with the Turkish soldiers. I'm surprised you don't understand what the implications and magnitude and what that could have meant, to say nothing of why it even began.--MarshallBagramyan 03:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I am also surprised that you don't understand that the US and Turkey will never fight in the medium-term, and would have never fought in the last 60 years. Individual one-off incidents would have never dented the underlying alliance. That holds true even today. In any case, fantasy theories about what could have happened if US soldiers started shooting Turkish soldiers have no relation with this article, maybe a forum or a book, but not with this article. Please understand this. With all due respect, this is not a Tom Clancy book. Baristarim 03:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Original research of any kind is UNWELCOME anywhere on wikimedia hosted projects including wikinews.
Any article's talk page is to discuss that articles content and only that article's content. Talk pages are not a forum where you get to discuss your personal ideas and theories.
-- Cat chi? 14:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yasilova story

Please sort it out on the talk page.

IMHO the story should go into a separate article. While this might be important it is absolutely out of place as a separate section the main Turkish Armed Forces article. The same way as a long section on the Abu-Graib Incident does not belong to the main USA Army article. Alex Bakharev 06:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. If there are no objections I'll unprotect the page... Khoikhoi 03:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Concur... Baristarim 03:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Me too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

dispute

The dispute is over the nonsense written about Greek Cypriots. It is POV and it has no essence of neutrality. I suggest you make it more neutral, since you don't allow anyone else to change it. Regards. User383739 22:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Armed Forces, Turkish Military

Two Artikels with the same subject.--85.105.213.115 16:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Turkish military redirects to this article.. :) Baristarim 19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

POW-issue

This article is very Turkey friendly. Much of the History-section reads like a praise to the Turkish military. --Merat 22:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please give us a few examples from the text?

If you're referring to the Cyprus issue (like the Greek military junta or Nikos Sampson or EOKA-B or the Annan Plan for Cyprus, you can check them out from neutral resources (such as the U.S. Library of Congress) and see that there's nothing incorrect in the article's statements.)

The truth is often sour, though. Flavius Belisarius 23:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Flavius, please do not ask to 'leave it to Turks'. Thanks. This was for your recent edit's summary. DenizTC 00:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I meant:

"Leave it to people who served in the Turkish Army and know the history, structure, equipment and military doctrine of the Turkish Armed Forces better than you do."

I'm sure Hiberniantears can do miracles in improving the Irish Armed Forces article, but this one is probably beyond his knowledge and expertise.

I served the Turkish Army as a blue beret mountain commando at Eğirdir Dağ Komando Okulu ve Eğitim Merkezi Komutanlığı, by the way.

Regards. Flavius Belisarius 11:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Flavius Belisarius POV Edits

I'm slapping an POV tag on this article based on the recent edit history and comments made by Flavius. This editor is clearly writing from an entrenched point of view, and with little regard to the knowledge of fellow editors, has been ethnically dismissive. In addition, this editor is attempting to turn the article into little more than tribute to the glory of Turks. Whilst such glory may in fact be warranted, this is not the article for it. Hiberniantears 11:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For violation of The Three Revert Rule, User:Flavius Belisarius has been warned accordingly. To avoid violating this rule myself, I will refrain from adding the NPOV tag to the page, or reverting the more recent edits from Flavius. I would appreciate if another user would add the NPOV tag back to the article in the mean time. Hiberniantears 12:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Anon Edits

I just find it interesting that as soon as both myself and Flavius hit the 3RR limit on this page today, two anonymous IP edits -both based in Italy- join the fray. I also find it interesting that both IP's are reverting in exactly the same manner as Flavius. As I have a sense of honor, I will refrain from responding in kind. Hiberniantears 18:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Hiberniantears

Hiberniantears, instead of deleting the article with "what you believe" is correct or incorrect, I suggest you to first show the parts (sentences, paragraphs or details) which you believe are factually incorrect, and let me make referenced explanations.

As a history buff, and a PhD in an Italian university who nevertheless did his obligatory military service as a blue beret mountain commando in the Turkish Armed Forces (and thus has a considerable amount of knowledge on issues regarding the TAF) I suggest you to write down the historic facts or details which you believe are incorrect before making any more arbitrary deletions.

I honestly don't think that you know Turkish history (in general) or Turkish military history better than I do.

Very few people in the world do, to tell the truth.

I am waiting for your response (please show in detail which parts you believe are factually incorrect).

Regards. Flavius Belisarius 08:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • To begin, each time you lose an argument, you simply pull another qualification out of the hat. First you are a former soldier in the Turkish Army. Next, when caught using anonymous Italian IP's to revert the article, you declare yourself a professor in based in Italy (but in no particular field). You have minimal credibility. To hide this, you have repeatedly denigrated my intelligence, my ethnicity, and my general ability to make logical edits to an article on a very cut and dry subject. Anyhow, addressing your issues... Very simple: the Republic of Turkey did not exist in 209 BC. The historical expanse of the Ottoman Empire has nothing to do with the modern Turkish Armed Forces. The history of peoples from which the people of modern day Republic of Turkey has nothing to do with the Turkish Armed Forces. The concept of Turks as brave, or born soldiers, has nothing to do with the Turkish Armed Forces. This article should begin in the 1920's, with the foundation of the modern Republic of Turkey, and the modern Turkish Armed Forces. Hiberniantears 11:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen dude, I never said "I'm a professional soldier", but "I served in the Turkish Army as a mountain commando" after graduating from university. Military service is obligatory in Turkey (every male Turkish citizen is obliged to serve in the Army). Right now I'm doing my PhD in Milan.

  • 209 BC exists on the badge of the Turkish Army (see for yourself, it's at the bottom of the badge), which itself describes this date as its founding year. It's not something I invented.
  • As for Turkish history, I'm far more qualified than you are. Who, do you think, edited all those admirals and added the naval history timeline, using Italian and Turkish marine archives?

As for the Turkish Armed Forces, as an "ex insider" who has served it, I also know many things better than you do in this area.

This is me during military service at Eğirdir Mountain Commando School by the way - the first day I wore my blue beret after finishing novice training:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b296/warsword/EgirdirDagKomandoOkulu.jpg

Regards. Flavius Belisarius 16:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolution of History Section

I have moved the disputed text in the history section to the Military history of Turkey article. In addition, I have added a link before the opening paragraph of the history section of this article which directs readers to Military history of Turkey. Please feel free to expand that article ad infinitum. Hiberniantears 13:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Disputed text"?

Disputed by whom?

Which fact/date in that text is inaccurate?

Flavius Belisarius 16:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The text over which you and I are disputing should be in this article. I am not disputing accuracy. Out of respect to your good faith editing, I moved you material to Military history of Turkey, which links to this article. Hiberniantears 17:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

@ Hiberniantears

Hiberniantears, Turkey never ceased to exist. Turkey only changed its political system (was a Monarchy, became a Republic).

Turkey didn't change its flag.

Turkey payed for the Ottoman debts until the 1950s, being the only legal heir to the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottoman Empire was actually called "Turkey" if you read the texts of 19th century treaties such as the Paris Peace Conference (1856) or the Congress of Berlin (1878). Just look at the 19th century caricatures on Punch magazine and you'll see that Turkey was always "Turkey". ;)

With your definition, the Turkish Air Force can't be founded in 1909-1911 (which is its official founding date). 1911 predates the establishment of the Turkish Republic. Similarly, the official founding date of the Turkish Navy is 1081, which also predates the Turkish Republic.

In short, "Turkey was always Turkey" - it only changed its political system. The flag and the institutions remain the same, but the ideology has changed.

Regards. Flavius Belisarius 17:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So, then, perhaps you could explain to me the precise year in which Turkey became Turkey, as a sovereign, Turkish state? Hiberniantears 17:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Circa 1369 in the English language :p

(Just kidding - you probably had enough of this for today, LOL) Flavius Belisarius 22:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Turkish Coast Guard Logo.jpg

Image:Turkish Coast Guard Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kkbrove yeni.jpg

Image:Kkbrove yeni.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinion deleted

I deleted the following sentence, which is an opinion (and we don't know whose): "Considering that the TAF may increasingly participate in peace support operations during the first quarter of the 21st century, it is particularly important for the TAF to further develop its current capabilities in this field." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.123.56.121 (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You are justified in deleting any unsourced addition, even if it is purportedly factual. --Adoniscik(t, c) 16:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

TAF site in the public domain?

The references currently contains the following note: "This article contains information from the Turkish Armed Forces Web site, in the public domain." I seriously doubt this, so I removed the notice. If you can prove me wrong with a RS, you may restore the text. Otherwise, if anyone finds any copyright violations from the TSK web site they should remove it (or paraphrase it). --Adoniscik(t, c) 16:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Air Forces Seal

The current image of TuAF is not its seal its only the insignia of TuAF which is using on planes. The seal must be corrected. It can be reached from http://www.hvkk.tsk.mil.tr/ or Turkish article of Turkish Air Forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.22.129 (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the silly disputes from the Cyprus related pages are seeping into this article

The turkish armed forces' programm of forcing a third of the island's Greek population from their homes in the occupied North, preventing their return and settling Turks from the mainland there, which in itself is a war crime, constitutes and example of ethnic cleansing.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

Keep it encyclopaedic..

Nothing silly about ethnic cleansing unless you happen to be the banned turkish troll user:laertes_d.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

POV trash about Cyprus

Large part of the article committed to portraying Greek Cypriots as evil. Not suprising really given the title of the page and the ethnic hostility of this conflict. Copperhead331 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Active troops missing

Should at least be in the infobox, I'm not that good at edeting, so could someone do it or I might try later... Jørgen88 (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Quotes

Could you please justify the rationale for including these quotes as part of an encyclopedia? They may well be appropriate, but certainly not in the way they're currently being presented. --Mcr hxc (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Turkish Army played a very critical role for the success at Korean War. I got the information i wrote from the website "www.korean-war.com". I would like to mention that this website is not a Turkish website. I find this as the most neutral way to mention the Turkish losses at that war and the role Turkish Army played on the battlefield. Another way to give same information could be writing combat details, which obviously would be hardly understandable by many readers. It is certainly better then writing "Turkish Army played an important role. " or similar, especially when it is written by a Turkish person. Encyclopedia's contain information from newspapers, quotes of people right? --Barbarvssa (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2009 (CEST)

Military budget

It,s faked turkey has never spend 30 billion us dollar in one year... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.98.103.28 (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

They spend 5% of the 900Billion GDP... STFU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.87.161.242 (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

TAF budget is ~$45 billion and over. Also Turkish GDP is over 1 trillion. Not 915 billion. (Source: Turkish statistics and also you can check turkish wikipedia)

Encyclopedia or advertisement

Dmermerci (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothroskon (talk • contribs)


Sidewinder1978 (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC) This article is about Turkish Armed Forces, not about Greek whining and propaganda. Please keep it clean.

Soapbox?!

Sometimes it is easy to label certain editors as POV pushers etc., but those who promote their supposed neutrality fail sometimes to realize that maybe unconsciously they are also conducting a POV-pushing of the worst type.

NPOV does not mean concealing the truth. Turkish army's invasion (especially the second phase; the first was within its recognized rights) and the forced uprooting of the Greek population, as well as the settlement program in Northern Cyprus (also conducted under the surveillance of the Turkish army) is beyond any doubt a violation of international law. So, why is Xenovatis's edit reverted as soapbox?! Isn't it relevant to the article and the particular section? Isn't it about the Turkish armed forces? Isn't it in accord with the UN's consensual decisions on this issue? Can you tell me any specialist on international law who denies that? What does the omission of this reality serve?

We can discuss on the phrasing but the information itself deserves mentioning.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, "Role of the military in Turkish politics" is totally out of date. There is nothing about the Erdogan–army relations (and its various ups and downs), and the recent involving of acting and former members of the Turkish army in the great scandal, which aimed at overturning Erdogan and the Islamist movement. In general, the article is in a pathetic situation.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Nothing about the recent phase of the Kurdish campaign; nothing about the Army's role in the Aegean's everyday crises ... etc.etc.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The invasion, the displacement, etc are still there, in the other two paragraphs, but written from a mildly toned down Greek POV. But the paragraph deleted is a short anti-Turk thesis, trying to show the criminality of the Turkish Armed Forces. "Beyond any doubt" is certainly not true -- it is disputed, and should be handled at full articles on the events. Jd2718 (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
The campaigns should be brief (1-2 paragraph) factual summaries. Cyprus is still too long. Kurds do need updating. The relationship with the government is there, but needs some updating. It is clear to me that one problem with the article is that much of it is written as puffery, this laudatory piece about how great the Turkish military is. There's lots that needs toning down. But it's also clear that anti-Turkish editors have had a go at adding near-defamatory information (I'm looking at the relations with the government, which has partially been written in an insulting way). The two styles don't combine to make NPOV, they combine to make a mess. Stick around. Maybe we should try hacking away at this one. Jd2718 (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Not true. The piece about it being labelled as ethnic cleansing is factually correct. They have been labelled as EC by several sources and these were all clearly cited. If you have issues with the way the sentence is written you can rephrase it.--Xenovatis (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
ethnic cleansing is factually wrong, should be out of the text. Too many cities and unconfirmed sources even some conflicts with the stated sentence 12:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC).

"Mehmetçik"

= Turkish soldier Böri (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You guys, 5% of the Army is the Budget... Some guy keeps changing to 21%... Its not true. It's at 46%... And CIA factbook even says it. So shush... 46 Billion....

46 billion military budget is uthopia.. maybe ten years later we can spend tahat money.it's no more than 20-25 billion dollars . and Yannismarou is too much emotional .like most of greeks  :)) but greeks must remember about who started the war. turkish army will always protect the lives of the turkish civilians in cyprus. Deal with that dude..


Omg weißt du was Türkei jährlich aufrüstet 46 Billion isn witz dagegen ihr Opfer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanyaksiker (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC) 

                —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.177.15.153 (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Active troop totals

I have, for now, at least, gone back to the earlier number and citation for the number of active troops. The Library of Congress is a reliable source, and the numbers appear accurate, but it doesn't have a listing for the Gendarmerie or Coast Guard, both of which apparently fall under the Turkish Armed Forces, so I concede that the number must be higher than the one given in that source when those two additional branches are factored in. Does anyone have a reliable source for the personnel breakdown of those branches? Or another, more recent breakdown of personnel? Thanks, - Jonathon A H (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Military Industry

Looked for sources regarding Turkey's military imports given any recent year, but couldnt find any. The one provided in infobox is quite outdated.--Cerian (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Peace Keeping

I was wondering, shall the page should have peacekeeping missions like Bosnia and Afghanistan? nickel for thoughts.. --Cerian (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think peacekeeping contributions are worth noting in general with a few details (no need for excessive detail) with the usual provision that it's well cited. - Jonathon A H (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted article

Reverted article to last time accurate figutres were given by the libary of congress (US). 194.46.244.181 (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No Vandalism please, and abusive speech will only get you blocked. True the article has been destroyed by various vandals editing totaly crazy figures for man power, but your Vandalism of the disscussion page wont help. Thanks. Recon.Army (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

EDIT THANKS MAN!-.-

FINANCES (USD) Defense Budget: $30,936,000,000 [2008] Foreign Exch. & Gold: $76,510,000,000 [2007] Purchasing Power: $853,900,000,000 [2007]

Population Available: 39,645,893 [2008] Fit for Military Service: 33,444,999 [2008]


ARMY Total Land-Based Weapons: 6,672 Tanks: 4,205 [2007] Armored Personnel Carriers: 830 [2007] Towed Artillery: 685 [2007] Self-Propelled Guns: 868 [2007] Multiple Rocket Launch Systems: 84 [2007] Mortars: 5,813 [2007] Anti-Tank Guided Weapons: 1,283 [2007] Anti-Aircraft Weapons: 1,664 [2007]


AIR FORCE Total Aircraft: 1,199 [2007] Helicopters: 336 [2007] Serviceable Airports: 117 [2007]


NAVY Total Navy Ships: 182 Merchant Marine Strength: 602 [2008] Major Ports and Harbors: 6 Aircraft Carriers: 0 [2008] Destroyers: 0 [2008] Submarines: 13 [2007] Frigates: 24 [2007] Patrol & Coastal Craft: 28 [2007] Mine Warfare Craft: 24 [2007] Amphibious Craft: 8 [2007]


Sources: US Library of Congress; Central Intelligence Agency

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Turkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.210.118.35 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible abuse of copyright

Takabeg (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Turkish Military budget

Recon.Army (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You may want to add citation for the figure which would be this. Also, perhaps the budget should be listed as $11-16 billion (varies by source) given that Jane's (given as a previous reference) has the budget estimated at $16 billion. Both sources are generally respected and accurate, and I suspect the difference comes Turkey's own policy of keeping it's defence budget opaque. - Jonathon A H (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

lol hahah $11 billion haha thats a small weak military budget. turkey is weak. 194.46.165.106 (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was remarkably unhelpful... And please do tell me of the 'mighty' Irish Defence Forces... Anyway, this isn't a forum, please keep it constructive. Also keep in mind that the Turkish defence budget doesn't include a number of things such as equipment purchase allocations or research and development. Also keep in mind that, due to conscription, recruiting is virtually unnecessary, and wages can be kept very low. $11-16 billion goes quite far that way. - Jonathon A H (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Turkish Armed Forces ACTUAL budget is not public knowledge. The Turkish Armed Forces has shares in many corporate entities. For Example, the OYAK group is wholly owned by the TAF and has revenues in excess of $50 billion. OYAK Groups has interests in cement plants, banks etc. The TAF also has income from the Turkish cow hide industry and lotteries. The officially announced budget of $11 billion is not enough for the expenses of the military personel let alone 116 F-35, 1 x 28,000 Ton LPD, 12 Corvettes/Frigates, A national fighter program, Satellite programs, balistic missile shields etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.241.156 (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Added budget info. Jzlcdh (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

File:TSK-emblem.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TSK-emblem.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Purpose, strategy and tactics?

I think there is too much here on its history and politics: they could be moved to the more specific articles which are mentioned and linked to.

But there is almost nothing on its main purpose, which is presumably to fight the PKK, or what strategy and tactics it is using now (not in past decades but in this one) and whether they are effective or not e.g. UAVs and cross-border raids. Nor on whether it has any role in fighting KCK urban terrorism or whether that is all done by the police. And there is nothing on how the modernisation mentioned is supposed to help with anti-terrorism. And nothing on NATO co-operation re anti-terrorism.

I do not mean that I want anything revealed which might help the PKK or KCK, but there is no point in keeping secret stuff the PKK know already and that they know the TAF knows they know.

Jzlcdh (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:MEKO 200 TN.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MEKO 200 TN.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Army Size

Army + Air Force + Navy = 452.675 and Gendarmerie = 201.118 and Coast Guard = 4.192 Total = 657.985. http://www.tsk.tr/10_ARSIV/10_1_Basin_Yayin_Faaliyetleri/10_1_10_Guncel/2012/guncel_1.htm 02/01/2012. Turkish Army Forces official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.212.101.120 (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


Army Size: 726.067 Budget: 19 Billion $ Reserve personnel: 3,000,000 not 378,700 Turkeys Population is 74,724,269!!!!!!!!! 300.000 Reserve?....omg Please CHANGE this fake stats! source: http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk_Silahl%C4%B1_Kuvvetleri http://www.tsk.tr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.196.169.94 (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Army ALONE: 402,000 Air Force: 60,000 Navy: 55.000 Gendarmerie: 250,000 Coast Guard: 2,200 = over 700.000...+(50.000 Special Forces)+ (40.000 Soldiers in Northern Cyprus) Sorry but 81.212.101.120 are "very" Stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.196.169.94 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

the Turkish Military budget

the military budget of turkey is $25 billion. source: http://globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Turkey 88.64.182.125 (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

But at the bottom of that source it says "Material presented throughout this website is for historical and entertainment value." Jzlcdh (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When Turkey Spend 2,7% Of His Economy On His Military Defense Budget Then It's Over $33 Billion. However..That's Not The Point. But It's Absolutely More Than $15.1 Billion Which Represents Only 1,3% Of Turkish Economy. So The Minimum Of Turkish Military Budget, Must Be $25 Billion Which Represents 2,2%. But Actually Turkey Grown His Military Defense Between 3-4%. 88.64.182.125 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

  • You may didnt realise that Turkeys economy grown in the last years. And that percent of Military budget is growing, too. XD While in 2011 it was between 3-4%. And the turkish Parliament grown it again to 4,8% since 2012 XD. So not only the economy is growing, the percent of Military budget is growing, too. It will may have over $50 Billion in 2012. 88.64.182.125 (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

disputed - Russian women flew CAP in World War 2

"Sabiha Gökçen, who served in the Turkish Air Force, was the first female fighter pilot in military history." - it's now well-documented that during WWII the Russians had female fighter pilots that flew combat missions. How to best restate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


Yes but Sabiha flew already before ww2 you twat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.29.66 (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

How to edit the military box

Hi,

I want to add more defence companies in that military box area, how can I do that? Thanks. TelusFielder (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

TAKM

nothing about TAKM? 95.114.18.35 (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

"2nd largest in NATO?

"In 2010, the Turkish Army had around 402,000 active personnel[2] making it the second largest army in NATO (after the United States).[28][29]"

OK, that is all well and good, but should the article not also mention that of those 402,000 troops only 70,000 are professionals?! As in terms of professional troops Turkey is ranked WAY down the list behind countries like Poland, Spain and even Greece!Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know your source but According to TAF website about 202.000 out of 700.00 military personnel are professional in May 2012. Yakamoz51 (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Im talking simply about the Army (which is ground forces) not the entire Armed Forces (which is Army, Navy and Air Force). It just sound a little like POV to say that the Turkish Army is the second largest in NATO, other military articles for other countries do not have a size comparison.Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What is it for and what is its future?

Is there anything which says the tasks and future of the military? Perhaps a defense review like that of the UK at http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzlcdh (talk • contribs) 19:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Active personnel

Armed forces has released an annotation in November 2013; Air Force, Land Forces and Navy have 410.418 personel in total, Gendarmerie has 180.890 man force. http://www.sabah.com.tr/Gundem/2013/11/03/tsknin-personel-sayisi-647-bin-939, Don't reverse it back!!! Temren (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Active personnel is: 717,686! From the official website TURKISH GENERAL STAFF: http://www.tsk.tr/3_basin_yayin_faaliyetleri/3_4_tsk_haberler/2012/tsk_haberler_49.htm

Sorry but where stupid guy edit this?................ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.115.47 (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The citation gives a figure of 455,653 military personnel, 203,783 Gendarmerie and 4,624 Coast Guard (excluding civilian staff). As the Gendarmerie and Coast Guard come under the Ministry of the Interior during peacetime and act as a reserve element during wartime - is it not best to use the 455,653 military personnel figure instead? As they are the ones actively engaged in everyday military tasking? I would urge you to use reason and not call people stupid. Thank you. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

YEAH WHAT IS "PERSONNEL"?....all Wikipedia languages: 717,686........Gerdarmerie is a branch of the Turkish Armed Forces. your change is incorrect and delete Reserve Personnel lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.115.47 (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Armed_Forces ....."Active personnel" ONLY ALL. not branch branch omg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.115.47 (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Role of the military in Turkish politics

I think the "Role of the military in Turkish politics" section would be better placed as a subsection in the History section. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Turkish Armed Forces for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Turkish Armed Forces is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Turkish Armed Forces until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_Armed_Forces/Archive_1&oldid=1187245199"