Jump to content

Talk:Recep Tayyip Erdoğan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Dictator Erdogan Praised Hitler's Germany

During his speech about the debate on the presidential system, Dictator Erdogan praised Hitler and cited 'Hitler's Germany' as example of an effective form of government. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkey-president-recep-tayyip-erdogan-cites-hitler-germany-as-example-of-effective-government-a6792756.html


Turkey Says Hitler Comment by President Erdogan Was ‘Distorted’
On Friday, the office of the presidency said, “Erdogan’s ‘Hitler’s Germany metaphor’ has been distorted by media outlets and has been used in the opposite sense.”It said Mr. Erdogan had used the example to demonstrate that an executive presidency does not depend on a federal system of government. “If the system is abused, it may lead to bad management resulting in disasters as in Hitler’s Germany,” the statement said. “The important thing is to pursue fair management that serves the nation.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/02/world/europe/turkeys-erdogan-seeking-a-more-powerful-presidency-cites-hitlers-system.html?_r=0

Incorrect term

President in Turkish is "Cumhurbaşkanı" not "Reis-i Cumhur". Reis-i Cumhur is an Ottoman/Arabic/Turkish mixture and is gramatically incorrect (and seldomly used) in modern Turkish. --Diren (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it should be changed. Denizyildirim (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
It has been changed back to Reis-i Cumhur again, without any explanation by the fellow who re-edited it. Nevertheless, I won't start an edit-war with this fellow, I'm done fighting stupidity. --Diren (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I've changed it back again. I don't think there will be an edit war, because it's just too obvious. Denizyildirim (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Fascist Dictator

Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a fascist dictator. This is a well known truth. Even his supporters do not deny this fact. This must be mentioned in his biography page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.168.62.34 (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

cite it and add it. this is not constructive--OganM (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ethnicity

He is ethnicly Georgian? Are you sure about that?

I search this subject on internet. There is actual news about it. He says my ancestors moved from Georgia to Turkey. These are the links but in Turkish--Ugur Basak 02:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

He has a clear background compared to other politicians in Turkey such as Baykal and Bahceli.

He's not ethnic Georgian, his parents are from Rize and nobody in their fair minds would argue that people from Rize are ethnic Georgian, he could be Laz though and I don't think the Turkish nationalist groups would ever take issue with that. He was the only Istanbul-born mayoral candidate in the 1994 Istanbul mayoral race, which he won. Saglikserdar 06:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Living in Rize doesn't make you directly Turkish or a foreigner resident of Rize doesn't make all citizens in the city foreigners. Also, nationalist circles are using the term as I saw it in their magazines. Of course, this approach is the same with the approach of the leftist organizations which giving many religious oriented nicknames to Erdoğan. They are both subjective. Deliogul 16:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also not everyone from the Black Sea region or the city Rize is a Laz (Laz live more to the east, by the Georgian border). People tend to call almost anyone from the eastern Black Sea region a Laz, which is a major misconception. Can his parents or his other relatives speak Lazuri? (DvN)

I am sorry but reading your arguments about who is a genuine turk and who is not is laughable. If I have been reading my history books correctly only a small percentage of today's turkish population can accurately trace its roots back to the Altaic(?) nomads that entered eastern Αnatolia around 1.000 AD. The majority of modern Turks are the descendants of the indigenous peoples (Hettites, Romans, Hellenes, Byzantines, Armenians, Jews, Kurds, etc etc the list is endless some put this number close to 70) who have been converted (some forcibly) to Islam under the obscure notion of "Turkishness". What is Turkishness, can anybody define it? To me it sounds like the "Macedonicity" of the Slavs/Bulgars of Skopje. But this is of course another laughable story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.49.40 (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

When he visited Georgia (August 11, 2004) he said I'm Georgian too, my family is Georgian family, migrated from Batumi to Rize. (Turkish: Ben de Gürcü'yüm, ailemiz Batum'dan Rize'ye göç etmiş bir Gürcü ailesidir.) Bülent Sarıoğlu, "Kimlik değişimi!" Milliyet, December 13, 2005. Takabeg (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
cf. "Bahçeli: Hükümet kurumları baskı altına alıyor", NTVMSNBC, September 5, 2010.

Erdoğan is not ethnic Georgian. His family is from Batum which used to be part of Turkey but then given to Russia, now part of Georgia after the Soviet Union dissolved. Saying Erdoğan is ethnic Georgian is like saying that the German writer Günter Gras is ethnic Polish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seluckertan (talk • contribs) 23:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

He is a Potamya Greek. He is a Greek racist and works for Megali İdea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspectortr (talk • contribs) 13:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Greek of Pontus

His place of birth still has Greek name. Rize (root), the short of the original Rizounta (compare with Trapezounta, Kerasounta), or Rizaion in ancient Greek (Procopius (Προκόπιος), Περί Κτισμάτων, Haury, J. (ed.), Wirth, G. (αναθ.), Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia Libri VI, 4 (Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, Leipzig 1964), p. 99.). If you can read Greek, find here information about Rizounta Ριζούντα, in Greek Wikipedia and here about Rizaion Ρίζαιον. His village is called Potamya (River) Potamya (wrongly Potomya). His ancestors converted to islam because they were wealthy and this was the usual way to avoid taxation and harassment. His family name "Bagat" means the Greek guerillas of Pontus. All the rest is turkish nationalistic nonsense. Only a 10% of the Turks are real Turks.

Name pronunciation?

How is his name pronounced? – Kaihsu 11:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[Reh-jehp Tah-yip Ehr-dou-ahn] - something like this :) --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 18:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pronounce it directly as how it is written. This is the beauty of Turkish language :) With respect, Deliogul 23:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It might be special in other senses... I know at least three more languages that are pronounced as written. With respect ;-) Caribeando (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, Hellenic (a.k.a Greek) for example is read as written and vice versa. But now I have made my Turkish friends(?) angry by "bursting their bubble". The truth is Turkish is a beautiful language to those who speak it natively, e.g. the Turks. From a linguistic, purely academic perspective, Turkish, when compared with other, say European, languages, is a very simple, and to a certain extend limiting language. Not to insult, but it is well know that up until 1923 (or so) they had no written alphabet so they were using the Arabic one. Still today, they do not have an original alphabet, they are using the latin one with some necessary modifications. Sorry but this is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.49.40 (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
If you know how to pronounce Turkish letters, which many don't. denizTC 19:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Haha but I won't care if they call him Teyyap Irdogin or something like that ;) Deliogul 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the edits of ip: 206.47.249.252 which were absolutely made to insult. (http://www.seslisozluk.com/?word=takiyye) 88.254.81.202 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Erdoğan must be written as Erdoghan or something which makes English speakers be able to pronounciate the name easily. There is no Ğ in English as well as Ş, Ç, İ, Ü, Ö.--Tuleytula (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Mahmudmasri: I think the pronunciation is mistaken. It should be /ˈtɑjːip/, not /ˈtɑːjip/. The /j/ y pronunciation is the one which is doubled (long), not the /ɑ/ a. This name has an Arabic-language variant, anyway & it is pronounced /ˈtˤɑjːib/ Tayyib or /ˈtˤɑjːeb/ Tayyeb.

Numbering

How was the figure of 57th PM arrived at? From the list, it seems a few ways of getting there are possible (by individual, by government, counting military governments, not counting them, etc.). Biruitorul 07:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Turkey was in chaos for much of the time during the Cold War. Being a NATO member right next to the Soviet block was really hard. Turkey had different Prime Ministers for every different year. After Turkish people passed those critical times they faced economic crisis during 90's and again in 2001. Of course many times politicians had to left the Prime Ministry due to these repeating crisis. I don't really like Erdoğan but if he can manage to complete his 4 year term in the office, I think this will be the first complete term since the Adnan Menderes' term. That was a long time a go, long before even my parrents were born ;) With respect, Deliogul 23:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, but that doesn't really answer my concern: namely, if you go here, you'll find that 26 people have been Prime Minister of Turkey. So where did the number 57 come from? Biruitorul 02:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It might be the number of governments, several people have been prime minister for more than once, for instance Süleyman Demirel had been a prime minister for seven terms. denizTC 02:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

İsmet İnönü, Adnan Menderes, Süleyman Demirel, Bülent Ecevit and Turgut Özal served more than once. A little addition to what Denizz said before :) Deliogul 12:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

He is the prime minister of 57th government, he is not the 57th prime minister. There are several people who were in this position more than one term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.168.47.65 (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Subjectivity?

As much as I don't agree with Erdogan's neither domestic nor foreign policy, I think it's a bit far-fetched to assume that a prime minister has anything to do with the recognition of the so-called formation of a country such as Kurdistan. Governments are elected temporarily and Erdogan has so far, currently in his last year, failed to meet the majority expectation. Still, it is unfair and unbecoming to use virtually baseless and dyspeptic comments in an essentially neutral dictionary.Pearlsforswine 11:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Some fractions are angry to him because he generally says the same things which Barzani says and it is so clear that Barzani supports Kurdish activists (Ahmet Türk etc.) and PKK. Actually, Erdoğan won a huge majority and I started to think that Turkish voters love autonomous Kurds and their activities. It takes my breath away :) Deliogul 12:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Takes your breath away eh?!? Do you mean that wanting to live independent and free of foreign interventions is something you find just and wonderful OR illegal and terrible. If it is the first then Kurds should be given the right to form their own state. If it is the second then Turkey needs to be disolved to what it was before 1923. You choose my friend!

These things that he says that you say are the same things that Barzani says, why don't you give some examples so people have some idea about what you're referring to.Saglikserdar 06:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Barzani says that Turkey can't cross the borders of Kurdistan. Couple months later, Erdoğan easily gives up the right of hot pursuit of the Turkish Armed Forces. Deliogul 16:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And now the Turkish army is in Northern Iraq, what do you say to that? Saglikserdar (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Now Turkey is out of Iraq, what do you say to that? It happened so fast, didn't it? Deliogul (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If the writer of this article wanted to sell Israel as a mass of complete innocence fine but he can't put false information, I think this article is clearly in need of rewriting in a more neutral perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.77.80 (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Mhhh.... about vandalism and possible semi-protect

I've reverted some vandalism, and I also see the comment above as an indicator that this article could be targeted for some more. So I will be checking in the next days and semi-protect it if needed --Legion fi 08:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess semi-protecting the page for some time won't help, if this has been going on since forever? Gerald Jarosch (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please I beg of you for the sake of the integrity of wikipedia. Find Erdogan's Siirt speech -and I promise if I can find it on youtube someday I'll post a link- he started his speech with a poem as follows in Turkish: "Minareler sungu/ Kubbeler migfer/ Camiler kislamiz/ Muminler asker" And that was it he did not continue on with those made up lines as this article suggests. The source is also mistaken. I have watched that speech before and I very well know what he has said and what he has not said. Don't get into vandalism talk without knowing as good as I do. Find the speech and be ashamed of your bias. Saglikserdar (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision needed

I request that this article be revised intensively for the following reasons:

1- Contains bias at the scope of reaching to hilarious statements like "He does not shake women's hands" (must be vandalism of course, it is best to restrict any changes in the text first)

It doesn't say that.

2- Sources are not reliable. It is unsubstantiated that he has Georgian roots. Sites like turksolu (turkish left) are highy biased.

"Ben de Gürcü'yüm, ailemiz Batum'dan Rize'ye göç etmiş bir Gürcü ailesidir." isn't good enough for you?

3-The sources given do not match the inscriptions. The poem incident is highly inaccurate, although the BBC is given as the source.

Please sign your comments next time, like so: --~~~~ --Adoniscik(t, c) 18:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The palestinian section of the foreign policy section needs to be revised so that it is not a transcription of a single event. I am going to remove that part and leave the first paragraph as that is the only one relevant to his views towards palestine. Goalie1998 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A Turkish record in public votes

AKP (JUSTICE AND DEVELOPMENT PARTY) OF THE TURKISH REPUBLIC HAS INCREASED THEIR VOTES FROM THE LAST ELECTIONS IN 2002,THUS BECOMING ONLY THE SECOND PARTY TO DO SO IN 2006. TO GOVERN WITH A RECORD BREAKING 47.5% OF PUBLIC VOTE. Aslaningozu 01:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This or that way, he won the elections and crushed the opposition. Yeah, he is a bad guy but the people we supported against him weren't good enough either. Therefore, we must stop crying for today and work for the future. Just like Charles de Gaulle once said, "France has lost a battle, but France has not lost the war". Deliogul 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And I wonder if this KANAL TURK is anywhere close to the mainstream? And do you really believe that a ruling party can increase its votes from 34 percent to 46 percent given almost 5 years of track record through delivering gift checks to people. Even the opposition leaders could not pursue such arguments. Saglikserdar 06:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Politics is way more complex than food help, I can accept that. On the other hand, claiming that the only reason of the rise in the number of votes is the success of the ruling party is just absurd too. Internal support is just a portion of the picture (what do we understand from "internal", that's debatable too). USA declared that it is glad because of AKP's victory in the elections. As an IR student, I know that using the wind of USA to move your ship is generally a bad thing to do (see the concepts of neoliberalism and neoconservatism). Therefore we must think why Americans loved the situation and why EU delegates started to express their worries about the secularism in Turkey. Desperately defending AKP (or CHP, or DSP) is a useless thing to do, of course if we want to build some academic statements from the situation. Deliogul 16:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
???WHAT other reason "internal" are there for akp`s success in the elections apart from, them proving themselves in the governmental arena, pulling inflation rates down from hitting the roof to a standstill maybe it was the revelutionary acts in social securities, the 80% price reduction of general medicine, and the avalibility of these at not only the local pharmacy but nationwide(benefits for peple on benefit),maybe it was the financial help that was given to the agricultural sectors of turkey thus the rates of tractors bought by the farmers and the interest rates to the financial credits borrowed are phonominal.also it could be that over a 100 thousand girls whose parent were not willing to send their daughters were supported mentally and physically, not to mention parents could not afford books to buy for their children for the coming term of school, akp gives these books free of charge!how about that? or could it be the brand new built 6000 kms of dual carriadge ways, that made transport much easier and safer? hello my there are many, many more improvements akp has achived "internally" which other reason do you see for the rise of votes enlighten us please.. Aslaningozu 01:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, then they are not trying to destroy the University Hospitals in Turkey via their strategies. Money flows to Turkey because of the successful government of AKP and not because of the high interest rates and AKP's policy to create a neoliberal market by promoting FDIs. Don't forget that while the rich don't pay any KDV to diamonds, ordinary people can't buy any basic material without paying high KDV tax. I guess they are also successful in the field of agriculture because they are leaving everything to God and doing nothing about the effects of the false usage of the water in farms while the world is at danger because of the global warming and we nearly lost Konya, once the grain storage of Turkey. Those lecture books aren't produced without a cost and people still paying them by paying taxes and this "come on girls, lets go to school!" campaign is a success of Turkcell with the support of famous people rather than AKP. Finally, new roads.... In an age that the civilization cries for the public transport (fast train, metro etc.), they decided to bury our money into the ground with those highways. They should have been "weaving the country from top to bottom with iron wires" instead of doing those roads. I hate to oppose everything AKP supporters say but that wasn't my goal while I was talking about the "internal" support. That is why I put it in brackets. I was talking about the business circles and some NGOs rather than the citizens of the country. By the way, as I said before, blindly defending any political entity wouldn't help anyone. For example, I can also talk forever about how a useless person Deniz Baykal is but that would be a lost time of my life. Deliogul 13:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The poem that put him in jail

The article presents a version recited by Erdogan and another version published in 1913 but in reality what he recited in Siirt is this: "Minarets bayonets, Domes helmets, Mosques our barracks, Believers soldiers". He does not go on to reciting any other part from that poem. I have not checked the sources of this poem but it seems the two are different poems published in different books. What Erdogan recited in Siirt is a poem by Gokalp in which he portrays a fictional conversation between Alpaslan, the victorious Turkish leader at Malazgirt, and the Roman emperor. This point should be revised. At least if the sources of the poem or poems are not verified the part that says Erdogan's version is definitely wrong. It is written to mean that Erdogan recited a whole poem by Gokalp and he made several changes to the original. Erdogan only recited four lines as I mentioned above.Saglikserdar 06:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Erdoğan modified the poem that's for sure. Also, he used it for religious purposes rather than nationalistic purposes of Ziya Gökalp. Deliogul 16:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The question:"Erdogan only recited four lines as I mentioned above." If one person recites only 4 lines, which he already changed these four lines; HOW do we know which poem he recited??? He could have come up with this 4 lines and we would not even be talking about it. We are talking because the poem in question was very famous during Balkan Wars. It was claimed to be a war of "Christian - Muslim (caliphate sultan)" war (can not find this fact in high school text book). He replaced the SULTAN's army section with a pointer to his group. Poem does not refer to sultan's army but army of Is.. Radi.. of Turkey. Just something to crunch 4u guys.--Rateslines 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If Balkan provinces didn't support the Young Turk revolution, there wouldn't be a CUP rule in the empire. Therefore simply calling Balkan Wars a clash between the religions is wrong. Balkan Wars were like a bloody meeting between Ottomans and Millets where the half a millennium old Ottoman presence was on the table. Deliogul 10:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the differences based on the realities on the ground and behind the war zone. Lets look at a corresponding dualism: Is it war against ""Terrorism"" or war against "Western way of life, -Bush in 2003" (Is Western being Christian?). If it is against terrorists, why not go after .... But they do not, do they??. Turkey nicely defines this dualism as there is no "your terrorist" or "my terrorist", but "the terrorist". You use the same perspective. Without noticing that you are using it. If you define (you have already done it) Ottomans (Muslim millet) and Millets (All other millets), you would be saying what the poem was saying. Erdogan two days ago "Bu millet'e en buyuk kotuluk, icinde bolucululuk oldugunu ...". He sees Turkey as the Muslim Millet. The understanding of millet, as he was using, being what the Balkan wars left behind. He did not say "Bu ulusa..." Ulus being the nation what Ataturk Reforms brought (Turkish people). He also said "Ataturk Happaned", didn't he? If you look why Armenian Revolutionary Federation supported "Young Turk revolution", you would see the same perspective as DTP's congress resolution two days ago. It was a way to establish an escape route from "the half a millennium old Ottoman presence" for ARF and perhaps 80 years of Turkish for DTP. Will DTP stop at the point if their demands realized. Did Armenians stop even though they had their Armenian Reform look at the first couple result. Just something to crunch 4u. Erdogan is holding on what Ottoman Empire left behind. DTP deny this concept. Rateslines 15:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, there is nothing called Muslim Millet in the Ottoman imperial administration. The millet system traditionally contains Jewish, Armenian and Orthodox communities with late modifications like Protestants etc. It was a set of rights granted to non-Muslims to form fragmentation in the social and political structure of the empire. Therefore, these people were in different positions and this is the one key thing in the "empire" building process. If you have one cultural identity in your territory, your state is called a nation-state. All these mean that I used the dualism on purpose, not without noticing. I know that Erdoğan is using such terms for Islamic tendencies and I know that today we hold what is left of the "empire that ruled over three continents" but you have to understand that if we can go back to 18/19th century Ottoman Empire and tell Ottomans that they are going to lose Damascus, Sofia and Thessaloniki, they would treat us like some crazy man. Note that when I say "Ottomans", I refer to the whole population. Deliogul 22:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I do not get it why .....? There is no reason 4 me to discuss what Millet means. There is enough publication regarding Sheikh ul-Islam (Leader of ...) and what it represents under Ottoman civil administration (Millet of ...). Such as the Supreme Patriarch of All Armenians (Leader of ...) and Armenian Apostolic Church (Millet of ...). Even the Sultan which Christians named him "Blody Sultan" recognized the fact that "he was going to lose Damascus, Sofia and Thessaloniki" and began to use the title Caliphate more than any Sultan in the history of Ottoman Dynasty. We have seen how that turned out in WWI and Arab Revolt. By the way Ottomans has been a family designation (or the tribe (Turkish: Beylik) if you like), but never the "Nation." You and me are not children of Ottomans. I'm sure there is no familial linkage in my inheritance to Sultan Murat V. I know where my grand-grand parents grave is. They are sleeping at the same grave yard that my grand father and grand mother. It is being the Karamanogullari, not Ottomanogullari. I wanted my mom close where I live, she is not sleeping with them. I'm sorry that I was selfish. I'm a "Turkish" with a very strong "Turkic" origin. I can say: Erdogan is a "Turkish" with a very strong "Georgian" origin. I have friends who are Turkish with Kurdish origin. By the way "Turkish-Turkic" differentiation is also very established concept. I have not seen Erdogan using these terminologies once in his political life. He generally uses the term "Millet." When I sorted out all the arguments in your message, I had hard time getting out what you are opposing. Erdogan cited "Asker Duasi (Soldiers Pray)" which was used during a war time waged by Caliphate. He changed the pointers in the poem to ""a"" group located inside the Turkey. That was the reason court decided it was a speech of "religious hatred". The court asked "whose army is that?" and "where are they going to invade?" Rateslines 23:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
If you know some about Tanzimat Reforms, you must know the Ottoman citizenship system. I couldn't find another way to describe the whole population of the Ottoman territory. It doesn't mean that I'm talking about being a member of the House of Osman. Also, Abdülhamid II used Pan-Islamic policies after the disastrous Ottoman-Russian War of 1877-78 because suddenly a huge part of the western provinces were gone. If you think in the context of the Eastern Question, Abdülhamid was trying to form a more centralized and stable empire, both to defend his domain from western interventions and to intervene to other parts of the world by using Islam. I think there is a little confusion about the term millet. Its meaning has changed after the formation of the republic so when we say millet today, it is not the same thing Ottomans used then. At last, I wasn't opposing your opposition to Erdoğan but my problem is with “the way” you oppose because I think you use some false thinking to reach what you try to say. You know the saying "iki eğri bir doğru etmez". Deliogul 00:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Prologue

Look at http://www.memri.org/bin/media.cgi?ID=128705 and see Erdogan with Al Qaida

The above link is broken. So you might want to check the following:

http://www.ozgurturkiye.com/images/Tayyip-Hikmetyar.GIF

And a zoom shot ...

http://img.blogcu.com/uploads/ozgurce32_Taliban20Tayyip20erdogan20fetullah20gulen.jpg

There is also a snapshot with Fethullah Gulen (the greatest philosopher of century) in the second photo.

Excuse me but when you claim that "Fethullah Gulen [is] (the greatest philosopher of century)" should n't you provide some sort of backup references? "the greatest philosopher of century" by who's/what standards? And how was he awarded this recongition? And by whom? This is a very "heavy" statement! Are n't you risking being a little "ethocentric" here? Maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.49.40 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if the guys over there are Al-Qaeda or Taliban or worse.

But the point is, you can clearly see our (Turkey's) future "Prime Minister" over there with that just *beautiful glimpse* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onurgunduz (talk • contribs) 03:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

-- yawn! [12:25 Feb 14, 06]

Sadly, half of the Turkish voters foolishly think that he has changed a lot. Voters see him as a democratic and a charismatic leader and no more as an Islamist extremist. Deliogul 12:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The real morons are those who consider the will/decision of the public as foolish. You will have to respect the results of the elections in a democratic country if you are really democrat and republican. However, in Turkey, there are those who are blind to the realities and who are deaf to public's demand of democracy and normalization. At least, half of the public are not like the rest who drown in their ignorant secularistic bigotry.

Note this, if you control the words, you control the public who are in need of using those words. The public are nowadays informed enough to know who is using what words under what intentions. What is islamic extremist? how can you label Erdogan as an Islamic extremist? All these words, secularism, nationalism, extremisim, etc are discussed in minds who are open enough for the realities. The public do not buy the same old memorized slogans like in the past. They are more critical in pursuing the reality itself.

I didn't say that I don't consider the result as legal or legitimate. I only think that it is wrong and irrational. In a true democracy, nobody can stop me for expressing my view as long as I’m not violating the law. Therefore, I don't accept the Kissinger role you gave to me, in this situation, I'm Allende. Deliogul 13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever lived in Turkey? Most of the people live in poverty and cling to religion. They do not judge whether this will be ultimately good for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.241.65.126 (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Have your ever read the Turkish constitution? It is supposed to be democratic, it doesn't say that just rich and secular people is allowed to vote because they know how to "judge better"... Have you ever thought that the problem might be that the "awesome system" of secular, economic and military elites are leaving outside the people who is now living in poverty? they may be the real reason for the AKP's support. Caribeando (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
AKP's power comes from the struggle between the backward peasantry, who didn't used to know anything about personal liberties before the Independence War and who have also been migrating to the big cities because of the tuff conditions in their birthplaces, and the so called "elites" of the country. It is no secret that the republic was founded by a little group of highly educated military officials of the Ottoman Empire. You can form strong connections between the Turkish case and the French Revolution, where the Third Estate took over the control from the clergy and nobility. People were told to obey what the "ruler" says and they are motivated and manipulated by the clergy to stay that way. I don't want to call the problem in Turkey a battle between the future and past because I don't believe that the representative democracy is a good way of governing for the future of humanity either. Whatever, AKP plays to the crowds who think that they are forced to give up some aspects of their lives which are indispensable to them. Imho, such people can't see that neoliberal/neoconservative politics of AKP itself creates the poverty around them and they are put into a deep coma by pumping traditions and religion to their brains, just like Karl Marx said. Only the people who control the government seats and the means of production can benefit from such a system and God can't do anything about it. Deliogul (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The above sounds like the famous "Manifesto" of Marx and Engels. I was under the impression that it was proven to be false, null and void during the Soviet experiment of the last (20th) century. Are there still people who listen to (and feed upon) this empty jargon in Turkey ? Apparently not all "old guns" have converted to being "ulusalcı" (nationalistic socialism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.70.62 (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find a direct connection between the criticism of Marxism and the article of the PM. Still, if one has to look at the real life examples of efficiency to prove a political thought to be successful or failed, democracy failed couple of times more than the communism did. Also, I'm not an "eski tüfek" (the socialist activists of the 20th century Turkey), my parents were. As a young man who tries to be a qualified academician on the field of International Relations, I just learn as much as possible and combine the ideas of different political, economic and social thinkers into a coherent standing. Finally, I can humbly argue that regardless of which ideological scope you look through, AKP government is just a failure. Maybe not as clear cut as the failures of Reagan administration of 1980s or the Shah regime in Iran but the issues of Turkey can be handled way better than they handle them today. Deliogul (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

He also wrote a play on 1974 Mas-Kom-Ya (nothing about it on article). Please add details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.162.35 (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Çevrecilerin Daniskası

PM is back again with his new speech. He claimed to be an engrained ("daniska" in Turkish which has negative meanings) environmentalist and accused the global environmentalists for being unsuccessful. Greenpeace and other people issued comments criticizing the speech. I guess we need to add it into the article with a sentence or two. Deliogul (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to create a citation. --Adoniscik(t, c) 22:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Resources

While doing my usual cleaning, I removed the following links from the EL as they were not very general. Cite them if you are interested:

--Adoniscik(t, c) 22:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Public fight with the boss of media monopoly

I think a Turk should add a paragraph about the ongoing fight of the Prime Minister with the boss of the media monopoly in Turkey. Sounds like the boss wanted some freebies and after getting rejected he has started publishing articles about how the PM financed his political party. Thanks to these fights we laymen learn about the skeletons in the wardrobes of these public figures, albeit belatedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.70.62 (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Content

Erdogan's policy statements need to be structured and condensed and interlinked much more efficiently. At the moment they are all over the place, with one random quote giving away to another. It looks like a big collage of random quotes. 82.230.24.185 (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, why are there two different sections for his Prime Ministership tenure? It is hard to know which info should go to which section. Should the info on Palestinians be added to the "2002-2007" section or "since-2007" section? 82.230.24.185 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the structure has been cleaned up. It looks better now.. 82.230.24.185 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Incident in 2009 Davos

I believe that the incident in Davos should be more highlighted more. What do you think? Wisamsafi (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah why not? As long it is sourced, there is no reason why that section cannot be expanded. 82.230.24.185 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I have been doing a lot of work on this article for the last two days, clean-up, adding sources, formatting sources, syntax, grammar etc. I am primarily interested in style and structure, so if there is any political or contemporary dispute please don't confuse the structure of the article (like adding new sections instead of trying to fit them into an existing one) and do remember to bring sources since this is a BLP. Cheers! 82.230.24.185 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The quotations in this section are not needed - they do not add any depth to the section. It is sufficient to say, in this section, that Peres was highly criticized by Erdoğan without Erdoğan's direct quote. I will wait a few days to hear a response, but after that, I will remove the quotes assuming that there is no real opposition. Goalie1998 (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Armenia

If someone would add impartially sourced material regarding the reasons for the outbreak of hostilities between the two sides and the history of their relations, it would help to put this most contentious issue in a proper historical context for lay readers. Thanks (LycianFelix (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

This is a biography though. Probably not the right place for this content. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is my belief, that a link to such content, would go at least some way toward the education of the average Wikipedia user.(LycianFelix (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

Birthday

He is born in february!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sehzades (talk • contribs) 19:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Meeting with Sudanese vice president

I added the following statement to the "Israel and the Palestinians" section:

"Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted that shortly after the Davos incident, Erdogan hosted Salva Kiir Mayardit, the Vice President of Sudan, who is being indicted for his role in the Darfur genocide. Cagaptay brings up this fact to note that Erdogan's action at Davos were less about humanitarian concern than they are about what Cagaptay calls a "civilizational view."[1]

It has been reverted twice now by Falastine fee Qalby. Firstly, I warn him/her not to revert again, as that would be a violation of WP:3RR or I would have to report him/her. Secondly, I fail to see how a statement of fact cited to a reliable source could reasonably be reverted with the response, "who cares" and then be labeled as a violation of WP:SOAP.[2] --GHcool (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious why you want to place Cagaptay's opinion in - you simply don't like what Erdogan said. Thankfully, this is not your soapbox and Wikipedia is not your opportunity to rebut Edrogan or to expose his hypocrisy. If criticism like Cagaptay's criticism was echoed significantly to make it a notable reaction to Edrogan's statement, we might consider placing it in. But it wasn't. So I ask you if you care about maintaining a a neutral encyclopedia, please revert yourself. I reverted you twice justifiably, I am allowed 3 reverts in 24 hours so it is not a 3rr violation.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
If it is a sourced document, I think it should be left in - reworded, but left in. It is important to show Erdogan's relation to Israel. Goalie1998 (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Edrogan's statement and his actions are enough to show what his 'relation to Israel' is, if that is even important enough to show. I will reiterate, Cagaptay's opinion is not a notable reaction. One can certainly find many opinions from organizations less controversial than the Washington Institute for Near East Policy that support Edrogan in what he said and point out the hypocrisy in Peres' speech. But do you really want to open a door to that? There is no choice for that, please revert. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I encourage all significant views to be voiced on Wikipedia and would not mind one bit if other views are expressed. Cagaptay represents the Washington Institute, which is a notable and highly respected organization known for excellent scholarship and influential on American foreign policy. Wikipedia policy is clear: this information should not be removed. --GHcool (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, the Washington Institute is not a highly respected organization, but that is besides the point. I disagree with the inclusion of the opinion because it makes the article POV. Instead of simply reporting what happened, you want to offer biased commentary as well. Wikipedia isn't supposed to take a position, reliable news sources that reported this incident didn't take this position. Since we cannot agree and it is unlikely we will agree with continued discussions, I am thinking of opening a request for a third opinion. I will let you know when the request is submitted. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I made the request. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Thankfully, argument by assertion does not work on Wikipedia. The Washington Institute is notable by any reasonable standard. Take a look at their list of notable scholars. All of them—every single one of them—have written extensively on the Middle East and surrounding regions. Their articles and books on the subject are highly respected in the field of Middle East studies and their advice on foreign polcy is sought after by various people in the U.S. government. Many of them have served in some form of official diplomatic capacity. The claim that the Washington Institute and/or the scholars who are affiliated with it aren't notable simply isn't true.
The claim that the statement is POV does not hold water either. The statement is listed in a paragraph on the criticism of the Davos incedent. The statement is an accurate statement of criticism cited to a notable, reliable source. I do not put words into Cagaptay's mouth. I am completely open to ideas if somebody wants to propose a better way of phrasing the statement than I have, but I don't believe that censorship is the best approach here. --GHcool (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the third opinion tag as it is my opinion that the statement should stay. While I will say it probably needs to be reworded, I'm not sure how I would go about doing that. Sorry Falastine, but I hope this helps clear up any problems. Goalie1998 (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion is not a valid reason to remove the tag. Please don't remove the tag. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
So by third opinion, you really mean as many opinions as it takes until someone agrees with you. Goalie1998 (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I issued a request for a third opinion at WP:3 which would bring someone uninvolved in the article not with a bias unlike yourself. I am trying to settle this as fairly as I can, your removal of the tag and your recent comment suggests that you want to just force your way. We can keep edit warring if you like but I rather have an uninvolved party check if there is a policy violation here. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Because it seems that this issue is not going to be resolved by third opinion (not many active participants), I will withdraw my request and remove the tag. It is better that I report this at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard instead. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
LOL. So the way Falastine fee Qalby solves issues on Wikipedia is by asking the other parent, eh? Heads, I win; tails, you lose? How intellectually dishonest! Shame on you, Falastine fee Qalby. --GHcool (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Now now, be civil. There is not much going on on the biographies of living persons page. You can always post your comments there also, but I would wait a few days before hand. Goalie1998 (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
However, since I now see that you already did post there, be civil. Goalie1998 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I think both of you need to civil and just wait. It seems both you of you are fearing outside input. Bullying and attacking me isn't going to help. Just wait for outside opinion, there is no harm in that. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I am done waiting, I was being too respectful when you both were not and even though I feel the edits were policy violations. Section deleted. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not afraid of outside opinions. I am confident that any neutral person seeing the "offending" statement and its source will come to the same conclusions I did: that it belongs in the article. However, if there is a consensus against it, I will, of course, respect it. --GHcool (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Having been brought here via the WP:Israel page, I have to say that I don't see what the sentence brings to the article, and don't understand why such an effort is being made to include it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, it shows that Erdogan's concerns were not for Palestinian civilians as he had suggested during Davos, but for maintaining an image that he "cares" for the Palestinian cause. I could be reading the quote incorrectly, but if I'm not that's what I got out of it. Goalie1998 (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't show what Erdogan is concerned about... it shows that Sonar thinks that meeting with a man shows that you don't care about people in some other country. After taking some time to think about this I don't think this statement has the proven weight to be mentioned in the article as a connector for these particular dots. NJGW (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Shock Goalie1998 (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "Shock" has to do with the article's content. This page is only for discussing article content, not for commenting on the opinions of others. If you have something constructive to add it is welcome. NJGW (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah what a shock, someone reaching a reasonable conclusion through cogitation. Anyway, it seems that there isn't any consensus to keep the sentence so I will remove it until consensus is gained. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There is also no consensus to remove it. So I will put it back until a consensus is reached. Goalie1998 (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,
GHCool has left me a message asking I come and give my mind.
I am usually quite open to all wp:rs opinions and I may be biased due to that but I think this one is relevant and even important.
Israeli official speech uses much the comparison with Darfur when attacked about Gaza (for the number of victims, for the atrocities, or here concerning people who condemn his actions but doesn't do the same for Sudane authorities...)
Whether we agree or not with the comparison, I think it is a recurrent and strong ad hominem (don't do as I do just do as I say) argument of the Israeli and pro-Israeli commentators and therefore, it is relevant for wikipedia. Here, the origin of the information is notable enough to deserve a few lines.
If there are wp:rs sources stating why this comparison is / would be not appropriate, it could be added too.
My mind is that the only reason not to put this information would be that it is false and that Salva Kiir Mayardit would not be indicted in the Darfur genocide, which I don't know and don't have checked or that Erdogan condemned him openly.
Ceedjee (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ceedjee. To paraphrase the text being suggested: "Sonar Cagaptay considers Erdogan's action at Davos less about humanitarian concern than about what Cagaptay calls a "civilizational view" because Erdogan met with the Sudanese vice president." Listening to the segment (12 minutes in) again, I see that this is a mischaracterization of Sonar's statement. In reality, Cagaptay agrees that Erdogan's actions are "a clear human concern for human casualty." He then goes on to make the much stronger claim that "the foreign policy" (he is speaking broadly here about Turkey and does not directly implicate Erdogan in this) is selective about its human rights positions, in that it (again no direct implication of Erdogan's personal views) is concerned about Muslims being killed, but not about Muslims killing others. This is a very strong statement to include in Erdogan's article, especially since Sonar is not criticizing Erdogan himself but all of Turkish foreign policy. I'd like to see if there are other sources which criticize Erdogan along the same lines before something like this is added to this article. NJGW (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
NJGW, could I ask you to propose a wording of Cagaptay's statement that you believe may be more in line with Wikipedia policy than my original wording? Your comments are reasonable. --GHcool (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Given that I don't see Cagaptay attributing these views directly to Erdogan, this appears to me a BLP issue. I can't myself justify keeping any wording which attributs the "civilization view" to Erdogan using only the Capagtay source. It might be an interesting issue to explore in an article on Turkey's current foreign policy, but would need more sources to be a fully developed discussion there too. This of course is just an outsider opinion from someone new to this subject. NJGW (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not about including opinions but rather reactions in these type of articles. Though I will address your point about Salva and his role in the genocide being unclear. First of all, the Janjaweed/Sudan government was fighting against the rebel group Sudan People's Liberation Movement. The side that was accused of genocide was the Janjaweed/government. Salva was leading the Sudan People's Liberation Movement and became vice president as a result of a peace treaty between the 2 sides in 2005. I have not read anything of SPLM engaging in genocide, especially since genocide was committed against Southern Sudanese. BTW, Edrogan hosted Israeli leaders as he himself stated at Davos. Before the offensive happened, he was mediating between Syria and Israel. So Cagaptay's position is deeply flawed and can be easily countered with simple facts. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW it is most likely that Salva is a Christian. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Complex issue.
I really lack knowledge about what happens in Darfur except that I often see references to this in my field of interest which is the history of Israel and the I-P conflict.
  • I don't think WP:BLP is concerned here. If somebody (Capagtay) criticizes the actions of somebody else (Ergodan) and if that action really happened, whatever it is, it can be stated if the wordings respect WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:weight.
  • I don't have taken the time to listen to the interview. Per WP:V, if it was not Erdogan that was targetted by the whole Foreign policy of Turkey, then it should be stated elsewhere but anyway, I think it must be taken into account that Erdogan is the official representative of Turkey and Turkish Foreign policy.
  • If Salva was Christian and if he has really nothing to deal with the Darfur genocide, I think we can consider that we are in the field of "propaganda" and that we should not report this mind in justifying wp:undue. After reading Salva Kiir Mayardit, I think : - whether we should put on that article a pov-tag; - or the information we are talking about should be removed, because reading the wp:article, this guy is a peace negociator and in that case Capagtay's mind would be propaganda, and therefore wp:undue from our point of view.
Ceedjee (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

want talk with you.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.0.74 (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP/WP:OR violations

I removed the following passage because it is a clear violation of both WP:BLP and WP:OR and makes extensive use of weasel words.

But some suspect that Erdogan's virulent attacks on Israel are rooted in anti-semitism and hostility towards Jews. In Turkey, according to a survey in early October 2009, 53 percent of the population would object to having a Jewish neighbor. He has been accused of exploiting such prejudice for political gains: On October 8, 2009, he stated in a speech at the Yildiz Technical University of Istanbul that he has been watching "the Jewish model of success", pointing to "their [the Jews'] buisness instinct", and claiming that "Jews are able to make their money multilply while seated." (En Turquie, le premier ministre, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, exploite un sentiment d'hostilité vis-à-vis d'Israël (Le Monde, October 19, 2009))

Describing Erdogan's criticism of Israel as "virulent" is a NPOV violation (nor is it meaningful English). Quoting survey results about the opinions of Turkish citizens is WP:SYNTH and irrelevant to Erdogan's own beliefs. Also, nothing that is quoted is actually negative about Jews. Factsontheground (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That is good. It is also important to know that Erdogan is a leader who has said that anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity. Randam (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No mention of his internal policy with regards to democratisation incentives and Kurdish policy

Who's in charge of this bloody article? Where are the moderators? It's in dire need of an update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.199.235 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Deputy

Ali Babacan is not the Deputy Prime Minister. First Deputy is Cemil Çiçek. Second is Bülent Arınç, as written. I will correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.229.101.191 (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Georgian origin

According to Cezmi Yurtsever, it is Wikipedia which supports the thesis that he is of Georgian origin. Are there other sources?Kavas (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Kurd

Hes Kurdish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dersimli62 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

He was born in Istanbul. His ancestors are from Rize. There are no kurds in Rize. At most he can be Laz. But definitely he does not claim such an heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.84.178 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Succeeded by Isik Kosaner?

Order of his precedence is not before the Chief of The General Staff!== —Preceding unsigned comment added by Launvatar (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recep_Tayyip_Erdoğan/Archive_1&oldid=1212795595"