Talk:2007 Turkish presidential election

Comments

Baykal?!

The guy has been trying to be the Prime Minister since my childhood :) I didn't see anybody who offers Baykal as a possibility. Also he didn't give any speeches about the stuff. He only argues that Erdoğan shouldn't be the President. Give me a source, otherwise I will erase Baykal's name from the list. Deliogul 16:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a couple of citations. This section is going to be disappearing in any case as the election approaches and the candidates become apparent. The preamble before the section makes it quite clear that it is a list of potential candidates. Mikedaventry 18:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

President being guardian of anti EU block!

This statement is totally incomplete and misleading. As a turkish citizen who lives in Ankara I can say that the president's recent remarks in media and mentioned opposition to Mr. Erdoğan is mostly based on the perceived threat to the secular structure of the Turkish Rebublic. This threat is also perceived by many other factions of the society and universities and was a main issue in the recent (14-15 April) protests. So i will edit the section in the main article as guardian of the secular constitution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thalion Hurin (talk • contribs) 08:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

President only did what his world vision, secular republicanism, tells him to do. Just like Tayyip Erdoğan's actions are shaped by his conservative-liberal-Islamist vision.Deliogul 17:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Candidates

I do not understand why there aren't other candidates for the presidential post, such as people from other parties. Having an election with only one candidates seems.. weird? The article does not say anything to answer this question, can someone more acquainted with the situation help out? Thanks. 89.186.195.79 11:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

AKP, the ruling party, has a healthy majority in the parliament (about 65%), Abdullah Gul is like number two in the party. There was one other candidate (from the same party), but he withdrew his candidacy. I guess nobody wants to fight a war s/he will lose. Deniz^T_C 11:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is because of the political status co. CHP, the main opposition party, is against the election at all so it would be weird if they offered anyone to the parliament. ANAP and DYP, two of the popular right wing parties, are also didn't support the election and they claimed that the President must be elected by the popular vote. So they protested AKP’s decision to choose the President and didn't take part in the process. Also, we saw that even 65% is not enough to select Abdullah Gül ;) Take care, Deliogul 17:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Constitution?

While I seem to get an idea of the political background I get now answer what the constitution or the supreme court tell about the number of people needed for the election. The Article only states that "It is claimed that at least 367 members presence in TBMM is needed." Can anybody write a section on what this claim is based on and what the supreme court exactly decided? 146.50.17.30 09:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You need 2/3 of the parliament ready at the election according to the Supreme Court's decision. AKP already needs 367 votes (2/3 of 550) to choose Abdullah Gül as President but after the courts decision, they also need to gather 367 deputies for the election day. So voting is not enough. Deliogul 17:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i understood this. But the decision of the court has to be based on something? I mean, does the constitution say that you need the 2/3 of members present at the election, or does anything else demand that? My problem is, that in all news (and wikipedia) I never found any reasons the supreme gave for this decision and I hoped there are some turkish speaking people here who know more. It would be nice to have that kind of background information in wikipedia. 146.50.17.30 07:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well see, it's not you. it's a legal loophole. Constitution states both "The minimum amount to open up the discussions in parliment is 1/3 of the representetives" and "The president is elected at least with the 2/3 of the representetives". See the opposition boycotted the elections, and this 2/3 was not present during the election. So, Although 1/3 criteria as fulfilled, the court decided that election should be recalled because 2/3 of the representetives were not there, so the elections could not be hold in the first place... It's kinda confusing. Even the judges of the court couldn't fully agree on it. And I think the official publication is still not done. Kerem Özcan 07:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the judges of the court strongly agreed on the issue. 9 of the 11 members of the Supreme Court used their vote to support the 2/3 claim. Their main reason was Kamu Vicdanı (public conscience) but actually the main logic is, if you need 2/3 of the parliament to elect the President you also need that 2/3 present at the election. Deliogul 08:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Public conscience was the key word I needed to understand the result. And the exact result of 9:2 is an interesting information as well. I tried to include it into the article. 146.50.17.30 10:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see "Kamu Vicdanı" at any news site. I think Kamu Vicdanı is not verifiable. Ayasi 17:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I heard it all day long on TV when the court announced its decision. Maybe it was the general understanding of the participants of the news shows that I watched. Actually, even if Kamu Vicdanı is an important thing for the court, they can't conclude their opinions by showing it as a reason for their decision because it would be pure subjectivity (people would question which “public” that the court is talking about etc.). I still think that Kamu Vicdanı (they mean the protests) are the most important reason for the courts decision but you don't have to add it to the article. Take care, Deliogul 20:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ayasi 19:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

DYP and ANAP merged ?

I have adjusted the table accordingly -- Cat ^chi? 16:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

At elections Friday and Sunday there were two parties.As you see in http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/407361.asp even today ANAVATAN exists and is active at TBMM.Ayasi 12:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

ANAP is some kind of a history now, just like DYP. We have to judge future moves by these participants as the acts of DP. Deliogul 15:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That does not matter at all, they are one party now. It isn't like this is anything controversial. No one claims they are two separate parties. -- Cat ^chi? 17:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/407227.asp clearly shows that today there are two parties: ANAVATAN and DYP. They have a decision to merge, but it is still not done.

Doğruyol ve Anavatan Partisi, Demokrat Parti adı altında birleşti. Her iki parti 2 Haziran’da kongrelerini toplayarak birleşmeyi gerçekleştirecek. 22 Temmuz seçimlerine katılacak olan Demokrat Parti’nin genel başkanı Mehmet Ağar olacak.

De facto, they act like 2 parties, but officially they are still 2 parties. Ayasi 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

They are still not merged. And clearly, they were not merged at TBMM 27 April meeting. And who knows they will merge in the future, everything is uncertain now.Ayasi 22:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

DYP and ANAP merged? NO NO NO & 2ND TABLE

I change the second table also. ANAVATAN(by the way not ANAP but ANAVATAN) and DYP has never merged. A question. In the second table voting was done by GİZLİ OY, so how do we know that number of YES votes was used from any party? I can delete the table if what I say is correct because party's exact number of YES votes is not known.Ayasi 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AKP Logo.png

Image:AKP Logo.png 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 Wikipedia articles 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.

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 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

DSP and CHP are two different groups?!

Guys this is wrong since DSP don't have enough seats to leave CHP and form their own group. They need at least 20 seats and they only have 13. DSP leader Zeki Sezer has some big problems with Deniz Baykal but we can't just say they will act differently in the upcoming election. It's just too early to divide them :) Deliogul 11:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read reports that they'll split as soon as parliament's opened, and the table is not meant to include only nominal parliamentary factions, but all people identifying with a party, even if they are not enough to constitute a faction. —Nightstallion 13:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

But Baykal said that they will have a meeting with Zeki Sezer to talk about the results of the election and the further steps that will be taken. Deliogul 20:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? I've read they'll definitely split... Well, I'd say we keep it like that for now -- if they really decide to merge their parties, we can always merge them in the table, as well. —Nightstallion 13:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. You know there is a joke about it. If three Turkish communists sit around a table to discuss, they will divide themselves into six different fractions when they leave the table haha :) Deliogul 21:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a regular joke about far-left parties around the world... Say, did I get that correctly? Since an MHP MP died in an accident, his seat is vacant now? —Nightstallion 00:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you got it right. This parliament will be a 549 seat parliament rather than a 550 seat one. Deliogul 20:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there is no kind of by-election or something like that in the case a MP resigns or dies? —Nightstallion 12:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the seat just stays vacant until the next general election. Deliogul 18:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked the constitution (English translation) and it says there can be by-elections once per term, but no earlier than 30 months after the general elections, unless five percent of the seats become vacant. CuriousOliver 20:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know any real life examples about that rule of the constitution. Deliogul 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting -- so 28 vacancies would *automatically trigger* by-elections, or would just render the 30-month passus irrelevant? And who'd call them? The president, the speaker, the PM, the parliament? —Nightstallion 23:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, just read it. So they *can be held* between 30 months and 48 months after the last general election, but *must be held* within three months of the latest vacancy if more than 5% of seats are vacant. —Nightstallion 23:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

... and if all of a district's MPs have resigned/died. Fascinating. —Nightstallion 23:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this law is there to secure the system if an extraordinary thing happens. For example, even if it is a small possibility, some kind of a disaster can cause the deaths of all MP in a region. Deliogul 13:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's all right now, Deliogul, there's been official news on it: http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/6231797.html —Nightstallion 14:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, they didn't even wait for the opening of the parliament. This will be a funny five year term thanks to general Deniz Baykal and his 98 warriors :) Deliogul 16:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've read an analysis which states that it would be likely that a number of secular MPs from the AKP would leave it and form a new, secular right party around Mesut Yılmaz -- how likely is that? —Nightstallion 08:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The big problem is that AKP members think that they are the real "good guys" so I don't think that such a thing will happen. However, it is possible that some CHP members would pass to MHP or AKP because there are a number of people who are not CHP originated in the CHP's cabinet. Mesut Yılmaz openly stated that he didn't join to the parliament to stay as an independent MP so he will possibly work for a new party, still hard to talk about the political notion of it, but he has to wait for the mistakes of AKP which can cause departures from the party's cabinet. Deliogul 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Length of Term

Some one wrote that the next president (after the one elected this year) would be elected in 2012, but there is no source. I am not an expert on Turkish law, but usually the length of the term for an office is determined at the time of appointment, and in this case this would mean that the term is seven years, since the five year term is not in force yet (I think), so we would expect the next presidential election in 2014. CuriousOliver 17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess nobody knows the true way at the moment. We must wait the result of the referandum. Deliogul 18:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My point is that it should not depend on the referendum at all, because relevant is the law at the time of the election, which will operate under the current version of the constitution. Therefore, I think it is seven years. The rational is that you can only elect some one if you know for how long, because it might theoretically influence your decision. But in any case, we seem to agree that the 2012 date is doubtful and unsourced and should be removed. CuriousOliver 20:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Deliogul 21:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically, a referendum could be worded so as to retroactively shorten the term of the just-elected president, but I don't know of any plans to do it that way. Since it was not part of the original law proposal, and that's what will be submitted to referendum, I'm fairly certain it will be seven years. —Nightstallion 23:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Vecdi Gönül and Murat Basesgioglu?

Where is that idea from that Vecdi Gönül and Murat Basesgioglu are considered candidates for president? CuriousOliver 19:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Vecdi Gönül has always been a possibility even before Abdullah Gül was selected as the candidate. It is known that if AKP offer Gönül as the President candidate, the rest of the parliament will support him. AKP's leader, Erdoğan, has two paths to choose. First one is to support Abdullah Gül until the end, a decision that can make the Islamist base of the party satisfied but the rest of the AKP voters and the supporters of other parties will protest Gül. The second path is to offer a more "light" guy as his candidate, a guy that doesn't symbolize a certain political vision. On the other hand, I don't know anything about Başeskioğlu :) Deliogul 19:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for Vecdi Gönül? And what exactly does it mean that he "has been a possibility"? Regarding Gül, I have seen polls that seventy percent of the people view his candidacy positively. Maybe I should dig those out and include them in the article. The ones who are fiercly opposed are essentially the twenty percent who voted for CHP, and the main reason they come up with is his wife's headscarf. If AKP withdraws Gül and nominates some one with a wife who does not wear headscarf, they would send a signal that they succumbed to the notion that women with headscarves are second-class citizens. If you want to call every woman with headscarf an Islamist, then there are quite a lot of Islamists in Turkey. Unless AKP wants to nominate a bachelor, they have no reasonable alternative to Gül. CuriousOliver 21:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The source for the names is this, but it's in German and won't be on-line in two months, so I didn't add it. —Nightstallion 14:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The language might be a problem; the expiration in two months less so, because such information will be outdated by the end of August 19, Turkish time, when we will know who the official candidates are. The other thing is, there is now a lot of suggesting, demanding and speculating going on in Turkey, which is all very interesting, but it is not very useful to only know fragments what has been said, without knowing who said it and in what context. Such information is lacking from the source. CuriousOliver 22:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

CHP, DSP, MHP are all against Gül. MHP will join the election sessions because they don't want to give AKP a chance to use their absence as a political tool (remember CHP's situation back in May, 2007). Other parties that couldn't manage to enter the parliament, such as ANAP, DP and GP, were also against the way that AKP did things back in the first phase of the presidential elections in May. There are also a considerable percentage of AKP voters, basically people who gave their votes to AKP for economic wealth and stability more than ideological reasons, that think Erdoğan has to search for an "agreement/concensus" (a popular term in Turkish politics these days uzlaşma) in the presidential elections which means that AKP must ask the opinion of the opposition and the new president must be elected with the consensus of the parliament. Also, Vecdi Gönül was one of the first people that Erdoğan considered as his candidate because other parties were positive about Gönül. Sadly, Bülent Arınç (the third man in AKP) opposed Erdoğan's early decision and argued that the candidate should be from the big three (Erdoğan- Gül- Arınç).Deliogul 10:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I am all in favor of reporting on the debate, but since there is no consensus on what you say, we have to be specific about who says what. Also, a distinction needs to be made between the suggestion that some one should be a candidate and the expectation that he or she actually will be. I encourage you to find some trustworthy English sources on all that. No one knows for sure what Erdoğan, Gül and Arınç talked about or what strategy they are pursuing. We know Erdoğan talked about compromise, but it is not clear what he meant by that or how he plans to translate that into action. We know that CHP and MHP would like to see a different candidate, but it is not clear which one or how AKP will respond. And that opposition parties have alternative suggestions is so normal in a multi-party democracy that it deserves no mention. More noteworthy would be if competing parties agree on something without need. Actually, I read that Baykal declared he wants to nominate Hikmet Çetin [1] - would that be considered a compromise? CuriousOliver 12:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Baykal always talks about the decision of the whole parliament but even he doesn't care what the rest want so you better don't take him seriously :) Also, I found where the name of Vecdi Gönül comes from.[2] Sadly, all reports that states this detail is in Turkish but it is basically about a survey that Erdoğan sent to the party organizations right before the presidential elections. Survey was designed to ask party members that which of the following four people would be a better decision for the presidency. That four people were, Minister of State Beşir Atalay, Minister of State Mehmet Aydın, Minister of National Defence Vecdi Gönül and the head of the Parliament Justice Commission Köksal Toptan. Deliogul 16:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a nice example illustrating how cautious one has to be: Reading this report, one might assume that one of those four would get nominated - when in fact the nomination went to another person CuriousOliver 20:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Vecdi and Murat are out of the game :) Prime Minister insisted on his former candidate, Abdullah Gül. Deliogul 11:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Erdoğan's ideas

He stated that people who won't accept Gül as their president should leave the country.[3] I guess he gave up talking about democracy. Actually many people knew that he don't care about it even before his new statements. Whatever, we must add this to the article. Deliogul 14:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, add the statement, but you should also add the statement to which this one was a response to. A English reference would be good. Whether it is an undemocratic statement, I am not sure. It depends on how he meant it: If he meant, those who are not happy should leave, that would be clearly anti-democratic. If he meant, those who are unable to accept the constitution and what follows from it should leave, then this is not necessarily undemocratic, since many would consider obedience to the law a prerequisite to democracy. CuriousOliver 23:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

He said "people that think Gül can't be my president should leave the country". I think it is clearly personal rather that constitutional. I will add it to the article when I find an English source. Deliogul 07:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is also a reply to a statement that columnist made some time ago, that those who want to wear headscarf should leave Turkey and go to Saudi Arabia. I will try to find a reference to that CuriousOliver 14:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Süleyman Demirel said that Saudi Arabia thing :) Deliogul 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I have been told that Bekir Coşkun said it. I guess they both said it, and maybe other people said it, too. Does that mean that it is wide-spread in Turkey to tell others to leave the country? :) CuriousOliver 15:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Imho, "Love or Leave" is a common term in the world. Many people in US also use the term to defend the military aggression of their country. Funny thing is that Süleyman Demirel was one of the supporters of the İmam Hatip system during his political height. Deliogul 17:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Army Comments

In all of the somewhat anti-Gul commentary (and almost certainly not NPOV) listed on the page so far I am surprised that no one has mentioned the latest attempt by the secularist Turkish military to sway the Presidential voting, a definite threat issued on August 27.

[4]

I see their threat failed to stop Gul from getting elected, though. ^_^ WMS 18:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the main problem of the Western media. One of them creates a pattern and others keep looking at the picture from that perspective until something interesting happens. The army didn't make that statement to stop Gül. Clearly, they can prepare a coup in any second without concerning what people think (for example, what they did back in 1980) but that would make them the bad guys from the first second. TSK made that declaration to openly state and remind their standing, a thing which can be helpful if Gül come too close to the green of Islam in near future. We will wait and see. Deliogul 21:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And it wasn't an attempt to get the Grand National Assembly to reconsider their votes before the all-important third round? Regardless, I mentioned this because I thought it should be mentioned in the main article but given a rather nasty experience the last time I tried to edit a Wikipedia article I didn't add it in myself. WMS 21:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, things are changed. You can't parade your Sturmabteilung troops in Berlin to make other people do what you want. Diplomacy has became hugely important in 21st century :) Deliogul 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I had the events of 1997 in mind, only one decade ago. :P I am, however, glad to hear that things have changed. :) WMS 16:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But you must keep one thing in mind. I hope it won't be but the coup will happen when the situation matches with the disaster criteria of the Army. However, as I said before, things are changed and the disaster criteria of the Army is way more different than it used to be (remember; 1960, 1971, 1980, 1997). Deliogul 17:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

An interesting point. I wonder if the disaster criteria has changed any as a result of international opinion, because I've seen quite a wide range of opinion hostile to any coup. Regardless, I don't expect anything to happen because I think the AKP and Gul aren't going to do anything dramatic, although I do expect there to be more changes over time as there have been (IMO for the better). And a quote from [5] to end this discussion which will doubtless be hit with the "this is not a debating forum" tag: ""It's a very important turning point," said Yel. "Those people who are the peasants and farmers and petty bourgeoisie always had republican values imposed on them. Now they are rising against it. They are saying, 'Hey, we are here, and we want our own way.' "" The elitism of the CHP was rather evident to my outside observer's eye, and the provincial results do seem to bear that out. ;) WMS 19:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem starts there actually. Peasants, once named as the masters of the nation by Atatürk, today represent conservatism which causes clashes between the values of workers (these guys once were leftist revolutionaries in 70s -see Taksim Square massacre- but these days they became highly right wing) and the values of the revolution. Ordinary Anatolian people want to modify the revolution according to their world view (see Bülent Arınç's concept of "Islamic secularism", he really said such a crap) but Turkish revolution was made to change ordinary people instead of obeying them. Maybe revolution doesn't need a simplification but people need to become more complex :) Whatever, we will wait and see. Deliogul 20:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hyp logo.jpg

Image:Hyp 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 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 05:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Turkish presidential election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070828233644/http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr:80/article.php?enewsid=81657 to http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=81657

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Turkish presidential election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.haberpan.com/genc-parti-gulle-gorusmeyecek/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927203538/http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=71861 to http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=71861
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr:80/article.php?enewsid=81657

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)