Talk:Turkish Land Forces

Turkish Land Forces received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turkish Land Forces article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Turkey Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: National / Middle East

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Size / Update

For the first time has the military publicized information regarding its personnel numbers, please update:

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turkish-general-staff-discloses-personnel-numbers-2011-11-21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dücanem (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

There seems to be a very un-objective viewpoint in this article and should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xen0blue (talk • contribs) 02:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's useless without more detail. Lastdingo (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Somebody really made a mess of the main equipment section and it looks like a deliberate action. The article is unfortunately not accurate anymore and I will not bother to edit/correct it since I have a feeling that it will be botched again.

Warrior Soul (August 31, 2006)

Main Equipment

This section has been copied from my site (http://warriorsoul.4t.com) without permission. In order to adopt a more constructive way of action than removing the whole table, I simply added a link to my site in the "Sources" section. I am a researcher on the defence industries and accurately keep track of the changes in the inventory. I spend a lot of time and effort on updating the information provided and I am happy to see that a growing number of people are making use of it. However, I would highly appreciate it if people who use the information elsewhere would at least provide a link to my web site as the source. Should you wish to contact me personally, kindly follow the "Contact" link in my site.

Thank you.

Warrior Soul

I work in Turkish Military Base in Kartal/Istanbul and have strong information about military equipments of Turkey. It's not clarified any information about Turkish army, but I'll try to add the most clear estimates. Kachik 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the numbers are not true,for instance for cobra hellicopters

         o AH-1W (9 in use)
         o AH-1P/S (32 delivered)

Those are official figures. Stocks should be added as well. Kachik 15:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan and Kosova

Turkish Army took active role in both Kosova and Afghanistan peace-keeping. If we mention Somalia, we should mention these as well.--Kagan the Barbarian 11:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Turkish Army

Such inaccurate and propagandistic descriptions do not have place in Wikipedia. If you want to write about the history of the Turkish Army, you got to stick to solid and proven facts (including the fact that it did not fight in WWII like others did), and spare each one of us the exaggerations and blurbs about the "sunny Ataturk" or the importance of Turkey. If you can't do this, then someone should either remove it, rewrite it from scratch, or mark it as disputed.--User:Theodore Lytras, 13 April 2006

I personally do not have much detailed information on the history of Turkish Army. But arbitrarily deleting the whole section, without trying to edit it or even saying anything about it in the talk page would clearly be vandalism. Your work would be much appreciated if you edit the parts that you think are POV. Or if you too do not have much knowledge about the article, then puting a POV tag for others to notice is also a good idea, which you have done and I appreciate it.--TimBits 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to discuss about WWII because Turkish Nation was tired of wars(there was an endless war period in the last times of the Ottoman Empire and during the Turkish Indipendence War 1878-1922) so Turkey didn't take part in the Second World War but you can't argue that the Turkish Army isn't powerful. Turkish Army is the second most powerful army in NATO(after USA). Turkish Army is also a force that has the ability to make over-sea operations(only a couple of countries have this power). Also, Turkish Army is in a process of modernization(second attemp since the formation of the Republic of Turkey). Turkey is going to produce fighter jets under the licensse of Lochead Martin. A hundred fighter jets are going to be bought or to be produced and also four submarines will be added to the Turkish Navy. Additionally, you can't forget the 2,000 years of war experience of Turks. Think twice befor you argue something. Deliogul 13:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Turkey is the second most powerful nation in NATO? What are you basing that off of? Is this based off statistics (size alone isn't a huge factor, remember Iraq)? Turkey doesn't even really have a method of projecting it's military strength compared to other NATO powers (ie: UK has 3 carriers, while Turkey has none). Turkey spends aprox. 30 billion USD compared to the UK's 56 billion USD. Turkey is a regional power, and that is it. If anyone should think twice before they argue something, it is you. TchussBitc 02:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed I'll tell you that 2,000 years of experience doesn't mean jack. The Afghans and the Yemenis are born warriors (and they have been this way even while the Turks were flavoring their meat with dirt), and they have still lost wars like nothing else. You people need to knock off the crap. The Turkish military is pretty strong, that's not a lie, but we have come to exaggerating the truth by now. The Turks have a huge military, but size is not the only indication of power. Turkey is not the strongest army in NATO after the U.S., that's a fact. Get over yourself, and get your facts, information, and intelligence, straight.

It is a very major NATO force due to its geo-strategic location 8you don't need much power projection capability if you're at home right next to the mess) and due to its quantity. The Turkish forces are surely underrated in the English language world - in part because their government simply doesn't use them very often. All forces learn about some of their shortcomings when the shit hits the fan, the British and U.S. troops learned a lot in 1990/91 and 2003 as well. The German army has only about half a dozen brigades, for example. That's merely a know-how retaining establishment, while the Turkish army is pretty much still at Cold War-like levels. The french, Italian, Spanish, British, Polish forces are very much like the German ones - melted down till merely capable to retain the competence.Lastdingo (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a quick look at your conversation and it really bothers me that you claims have nothing to do with the truth, Turkey has the second strongest army and that is a fact. You can check any reliable website and it will tell you that, all you’re doing is spreading misinformation. Loads of poor countries also spend millions to strengthen their armies. That has nothing to do with an armies power. I’d reccomend you to think before you speak. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 12:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biased, Swashbuckling Article

This article is highly subjective, full of exaggerations and unnecessary romantic, swashbuckling prose. It is unbecoming of a modern encyclopedia and should be amended or outright removed.

You should come and see our army first. Actually you should make some research first. Without the Turkish Army, there wouldn't be the term "history".

"Savaş... Türk, sen bunun tadını ne sevgili kucağında ne de baba ocağında bulamazsın"

Hüseyin Nihâl Atsız

With respect, Deliogul 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur this article is pretty asinine. I made some changes, and we will see if they stick. The old way it was written it read like some Stalinist Propaganda...TchussBitc 02:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda...

This article is nothing but propaganda. I would have you know that the Turkish military forces have hardly done enough to be considered the historical defenders or creators of history itself. Pure propaganda . . . .

These people who don’t sign their comments are getting on my nerves, he’s probably referring to the armies of all the Turkish civilizations. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 12:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Army

Turkish Army is a legend on both terms of proficiency and honour. At least it has never been a blood sucking imperial army or a subject of imperial powers like Greece have been.

Ottoman empire was a good empire...Are you serious?

I see that the supporters of Turkey and its military forces are very nostalgic people. The Ottoman Empire wasn't imperialist? I believe that all empires are probably imperialist, that might be how they got to be an empire. When one group of people goes out to conquer another (always for natural resources), that would be safe to consider imperialist. And you need to calm down with all that honor crap because plenty of militaries—past and present—are better than that of the Turks.

Sign your comment people! And also, I’d like to introduce you to thinking, have you ever heard of before. It’s what you’re supposed to do before talking. What you call “honor crap” is something beyond your understanding and someone afraid of signing his/her comment shouldn’t be talking about it that way. Think! Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 12:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update required

Since by the 30th of August 2006 commanders will change, this article needs an update.Ugur Olgun 14:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The new Commander of the Land Forces is General İlker Başbuģ, and the Chief of Staff (2nd in command) is General Attila Isak. (User: Ilan)

neutrality

It would be well interesting if someone could provide evidence for how ıt has "contributed to world peace", or exactly how it brings "stability". From my outlook (I am currently writing from Dogubayazit in Eastern Turkey, a mayor military base) this is more than doubtful. The army here mainly spend their time harassing the local population. /Petter

This article, IMHO, is not entirely neutral, especially in the first section (about the glorifying stuff). If the case can be made for the Turkish Army (which in theory i do not deny), it would be best to use facts (and cite sources), and not use poetic language to try to glorify the army. That way, people will not get "bogged down" by the language used. --Brunovdc 10:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROPAGANDA.....for example turkish army is more powerfull than Bitish or French army...be serious YES WE SERIOUS BOY AND DONT FORGET WE ARE BORN WARRIORS COME FACE 2 FACE IN ANY BATTLE FIELD A TURK WILL DEMOLISH ANY THING IN ITS SITE BELEVIE ME MY FRIENDS. WE ARNT ARABS WE ARNT ENGLISH. WE ARE TURKS DONT FORGET

And that means what? I believe the Turks lost their empire, and the hell they will get it back. The English Empire was stronger than yours ever was and can ever hope to be, as were most of the Arab Empires, which made the Turks what they are today. For all the pride Turks have, they are very nostalgic and seem to easily forget where they came from as well as seeming to have a condition where their heads become overly-inflated. Turks are not the fierce warrior people they used to be. Now, they're just like the rest of the modernizing world: sedentary, lazy, apathetic, unmotivated, and constantly gaining weight.

Firstly - "turkish army is more powerfull than Bitish or French army...be serious YES WE SERIOUS BOY AND DONT FORGET WE ARE BORN WARRIORS COME FACE 2 FACE IN ANY BATTLE FIELD A TURK WILL DEMOLISH ANY THING IN ITS SITE BELEVIE ME MY FRIENDS. WE ARNT ARABS WE ARNT ENGLISH. WE ARE TURKS DONT FORGET" -- This is disgusting behaviour. Your embarissing Turkey. There is nothing good in war, and you shouldn't promote it to satisfy your over inflated ego. Up until 84 years ago, the Turks used the Arabic alphabet. Furthermore, there are still many arabic speaking provinces in Turkey. If you think that the Turkish Army is as strong as you say it is, then start the 'demolishing' with the PKK. That's your main problem for now.

Secondly "The English Empire was stronger than yours ever was and can ever hope to be, as were most of the Arab Empires, which made the Turks what they are today." - Not true, I can't think of one account where the English have defeated the Turkish without intervention. The turks did defeat the English in the crusades. They also controlled both Europe and Asia for a substantial period. As for the Arab Empires, the turkish army consistently defeated the Persian army, and possessed much more land, then the Persians or Saracens, ever had. The English empire was laughable compared to the other empires out there. While the Byzantiums, Romans, Turks, Arabs, Germans and Austro-Hungarians dominated Europe and Asia, the English maintained their policy of 'Splendid Isolation' staying out of these wars and searching for land in uncolonised continents such as Africa. Sadly today, England like my own Australian has become lacky to the USA. So much for empires.

Sign your comments and stop spreading that misinformation/propoganda. The English Empire couldn’t do anything the Ottoman Empire without it’s allies. I’d like to see them defending their country against several other countries while also trying to stop riots. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 12:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

exaggerated

The exaggerated figures were tried to be removed by putting back the table dated 30.08.2005 (which seems more reliable) with some minor corrections. Lets try to give objective and concise information.

Copy Editing

Hmm, this article looks like it can use a good copy-editing, I will do it when I will have some free time this week. To start I changed the 'Commander in Chief' to Chief of Staff.. Commander in Chief is the president, Nezer... I know it is a technicality, but all the same.. :)) Baristarim 23:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a rewrite.

This article should be written again, using the current information, but by someone who isn't a Turkish nationalist. It is hyperbole, and not suitable for Wikipedia. Viciouspiggy 10:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed

I concur. It reads like a recruiting pamphlet. --DOHC Holiday 19:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus

The section on Cyprus is strongly POV, and seems to place blame rather than inform on the action. "Freeing" the Turkish Cypriots - not apporpriate NPOV language for Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User383739 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

When you say it isn’t appropriate language for Wikipedia, are you saying that appropriate language is Greek Propoganda? Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 12:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus Propoganda

I am declaring this page totally disputed and await arbitration. The stuff written about Cyprus is nationalist propoganda whose sole intention is to blame the Greek Cypriots instead of providing neutral information. User383739 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cyprus Propaganda

Is it a mere propaganda that EOKA-B, under the command of Nikos Sampson who was supported by the Greek military junta in Athens for establishing Enosis (i.e. Union between Greece and Cyprus), ousted the democratically elected Cypriot president Archbishop Makarios (who opposed Enosis), against the rights of the Turkish Cypriots and triggered the Turkish military intervention, or is it an undeniable historic fact?

Let's think about it without nationalistic prejudice, please (even though I believe the latest editing is also politically correct and carefully crafted in order to avoid hurting the feelings of neither side)

I'm not saying that the current Turkish military presence in Cyprus is something nice (we should have pulled our troops after restoring the 1960 constitution in Cyprus and disarming the pro-Enosis EOKA-B militants). However, the intercommunal violence between 1963-1974 was terrible (Bosnia style) and the Athens-junta-backed-coup was the last big error of the Greek side which triggered the Turkish military intervention.

Regards. Shuppiluliuma 20:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now isn't that ironic?

I'm sure that if the Enosis succeeded, the Greeks would declare Nikos Sampson and the Greek military junta in Athens as national heroes. However, the Turkish military intervention, and the Greek junta's inability to confront the Turks in response, toppled the junta and restored democracy in Greece, which joined the EEC (now EU) in 1981 and became the decent and wealthy country that it is today.

A Greek victory in Cyprus and success of Enosis would only consolidate the junta and fascists, delaying Greece's democratization, modernization and wealth.

Regards. Shuppiluliuma 20:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is POV

Wikipedia is NPOV. I have deleted the second part of your revision because it is all about attacking the Greek Cypriots and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Turkish Army.

Regards User383739 21:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your argument is POV - I can't see any "attack against Greek Cypriots"

Where's the "attack against Greek Cypriots"?

In July 1974, the Turkish Armed Forces intervened against a coup in Cyprus, organized by EOKA-B and led by Nikos Sampson who ousted the democratically elected Cypriot president Archbishop Makarios in order to establish Enosis (Union) between Greece and Cyprus. The coup was backed by the Greek military junta in Athens. The conflict in Cyprus lasted until August 1974 and resulted in the division of the island between the Turkish Cypriot controlled north and the Greek Cypriot controlled south. Turkey still maintains troops in Cyprus, since a political solution could still not be achieved, and since many members of the Turkish Cypriot community fear a return to the intercommunal violence which occurred between 1963 and 1974.^[1]^[2] A referendum in 2004 for the Annan Plan which aimed at reunifying the island was supported by the Turkish Cypriots, but rejected by the Greek Cypriots, on the pretext that it gave too many rights and political power to the Turkish Cypriots who make up 1/5 of the island's population.

Regards. Shuppiluliuma 21:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

revision

Rather than get into an edit war, I suggest arbitration. The second part of your revision has nothing whatsoever to do with the Turkish Army, and looks POV to me, since it appears almost to be justification for Turkish Army deployment to Cyprus.

Regards. User383739 22:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: revision

It's not a "justification" of the Turkish military presence in Cyprus. On the contrary, it stresses the fact that Turkish troops will leave the island once a political solution is achieved. Cyprus is not a "conquered land" (not a part of Turkey).

And it is a "fact" that the Greek Cypriots rejected the Annan Plan on the pretext that it gave too many freedoms and political power to the Turkish Cypriots who make up only 1/5 of the island's population. There is no reason to be ashamed of this truth, and such a decision doesn't make the Greek Cypriots the "bad guys". They only didn't like the "Annan Plan" (they aren't obliged to like it).

Regards. Shuppiluliuma 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Army UAVs

The UAVs of the Turkish Army are also used by the Turkish Air Force, so wouldn't it be more correct to list them in the Turkish Air Force inventory? Because I presume UAVs such as Heron and Harpy will be under the command of General Faruk Cömert in case of a war (God forbid). For instance the Harpy will complement HARM missiles in destroying enemy radar systems, therefore, logically, they should be used in accordance with the operations of the Turkish Air Force. Shuppiluliuma 20:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ 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 17:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure sweetheart, whatever you say. You're right, everyone else is wrong. I'm not even fully removing your content. Just the nationalist absurdities. Hiberniantears 17:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hibernian ignorance, what do you see in this 19th century Punch magazine caricature:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Abdulhamid_looks_worriedly_at_European_Turkey_in_1897.jpg

I won't learn Turkish history from an American.

Regards. Flavius Belisarius 18:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing mentioning the Republic of Turkey. Thank you for proving yourself wrong yet again. Hiberniantears 18:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hibernatingbears, I know that "it hurts to be PWN3D", but I always said "Turkey" never ceased to exist, it only became a "Republic" in 1923 (it was a Monarchy).

If the United Kingdom decides to become the Republic of England in, let's say, 2017, will the history of its Armed Forces start in 2017?

Regards. Flavius Belisarius 18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flavius Belisarius

User:Flavius Belisarius has admitted to being a sock of indefinetly banned User:Shuppiluliuma on the Talk:Turkish Navy page. Hiberniantears 18:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He nevertheless has contributed more to the Turkish Armed Forces articles than you ever can/will. Flavius Belisarius 20:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Should a template in the form of: {{United States Army}}, {{British Army}}, {{French Army}} etc. be used instead of the infobox we have in the article now? I can create a sample if necessary. --Kimon^talk 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... Please do! Hiberniantears 17:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead an created the template myself. I added {{Turkish Army}} to the article, and removed to template previously there which applies to the entire military, rather than just the army. If you do not like the template, or feel it lacks enough data (as it is currently many redlinks), please just edit it at Template:Turkish Army. Thanks, Hiberniantears 21:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! --Kimon^talk 13:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting to the point

I still don't think the pre-republic section need be so extensive when there is a link to the Ottoman Military History article preceding this section. Essentially, this[1] can simply be summed up as "The Turkish Army has its roots in the Ottoman Empire..." and then go right into the foundation of the the Turkish Army under Ataturk. Any meaningful language which does not yet exist on the Ottoman Military page can simply be moved there. Hiberniantears 17:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I will do this tomorrow. Hiberniantears 20:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do go ahead and remove all non-Republic of Turkey related information from the Turkish army article. History of Turkish Armed Forces could perhaps be a more appropriate place to detail out a timeline dating way back --Javit 15:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article for Turkish military history -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 18:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced claims in Intro

There are a couple of unreferenced claims in the intro, like deploying a Corps at short notice and and airlift capability of 7 battalions day or night. These need to be referenced and backed up or they will be removed at some point. Cheers Buckshot06 12:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio in text

Much of the 'Mission' section is a straight copyright violation from http://www.tsk.mil.tr/eng/genel_konular/tarihce.htm - which also explains some of the bias issues. This needs to be substantially rewritten or it will be removed at some point. Buckshot06 13:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unit lineage

Do Turkish units claim lineage from the Ottoman Empire units?--mrg3105 mrg3105 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 14th Cavalry Brigade, from which the 14th Armoured Brigade took its name, was established in Afyon on 31 July 1922. It immediately joined the Great Offensive against the Greeks. It launched an offensive and captured Gediz on 5 September 1922, and on 9 September 1922 it was the first Turkish unit entering Izmir. It went down in history in golden letters for occupying Karsiyaka (quarter of Izmir). With the Turkish Army placed on peace footing on 1 November 1923, it was dispatched to Urfa. KIBRIS goes on and says that it played a role in the suppression of Sheikh Sait and Nasturi Kurdish uprisings in 1925. It was later disbanded. As of 14 May 1997, work started in occupied Kythrea for the formation of an armoured brigade, and on 17 July 1997 the original brigade was reinstated as 14th Armoured Brigade. (Source URL is http://www.hri.org/news/cyprus/tcpr/1998/98-11-19.tcpr.html)91.84.88.227 (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do. For example, 52. Infantry Brigade in Burdur (which I did my military service) is the continuation of the same brigade that took part in Canakkale (Gallipoli) in 1914, in WW1.

History of Turkish army

According to Turkish Commandership of Land Forces, Turkish army was founded by Mete Khan (a ruler of Asian Huns / Xiongnu) in 209 BC. I'll try to add this valuable info to the article, I'll be happy if someone makes it sound "encyclopedic". The date I am talking about is visible in Turkish Army seal in the article. And here is a direct source for Turkish-speakers: [2]--Mttll (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, that date always comes up and is actually referred to, though not directly, in the intro when it says that 'Turkish historians trace its history back millennia.' I've changed the wording a bit - see what you think. We can always redraft it again. Cheers and happy new year, Buckshot06(prof) 11:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do, I think. Thank you and happy new year to you too.--Mttll (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABSOLUTELY LAYING!

209 BC I'm from Turkey but I know that is bullshit! Maybe you know all Turks have a racist view !!

personnel strength

I visited this page to learn about the personnel strength of today's Turkish Army (or find a link to the answer), but I cannot find any. That info (figure should be like 750,000-850,000) would be useful. Lastdingo (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)werwerwer[reply]

Foundation Date

There is a mistake about foundation date of the turkish land forces (in fact turkish army).It's founded in adv. (before christ) 209.You can see this reality on the middle at army's seal as like as M.Ö. 209 (milattan önce 209). ~ distinct 26.06.2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.194.122 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeeeeah - not so much. The Turkish army may claim lineage back that far, but the Turkish army of today has no direct connection to any army in the region at that time. Claims do not make it a reality. The modern Turkish state, and ergo the modern Turkish army (which is what we're talking about here - not the sum total of military history in the region) did not exist until the 20th century. You may as well say that the Italian army was founded in 500 BC, or the Greek army in 1100 BC... Sorry, no dice. - Jonathon A H (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about modern army in Turkey, it would not present from 1921.The army's history is not cutted anytime from 209 BC.Also we are even talking about the modern one, there is a direct connection from 13th century (Little Ottoman State - Osmanlı Beyliği).The 1921 army is the main of Turkish Independence War (Kurtuluş Savaşı).But it has not landed from sky suddenly. If we were choosing reforms period for establishment time of any army, it would be wrong, i think. ~ distinct (sorry for my terrible English) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.194.122 (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where there's a reliable history of modern Turkish army which links it with any army that existed in 209 BC. It's not an unbroken line, I'm afraid. There were many interruptions and changes, and the modern Turkish state did not exist until the 1920s. As far as I can see the claims are just that... claims. It's an attempt to give the current army a historical legacy that it simply does not have. - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we consider that independence war was done by then Ottoman army and generals, yea, you can push back establishment date of modern Turkish Army a little back but there were lots of changes in military structure as Jonathon mentioned. One thing to consider is after The Auspicious Incident, modern army of Ottoman's was created in 1820's which was named as Nizam-ı Cedid. It stayed until the dissolution of the empire and through the independence war.--Cerian (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, there're two chapters.Modern one or general Turkish Army (actually Turkish Land Forces).Turkis army is from 209 BC.Modern one's controversial. "...It's an attempt to give the current army a historical legacy that it simply does not have..." You can use translation tool, [[3]]- English topic is not detailed Military history of Turkey. Reforms do not cut the history of anything. We can talk two different countries; Republic Of Turkey - Ottoman Empire, but we can not talk two different armies... ~ distinct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.246.33 (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no end to that really. You can consider it as a WP:PoV but from WP:NPoV you can't go back thousands of years. It just doesn't make sense...--Cerian (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

209 BC is nothing but the "official" claim. Takabeg (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Conscription

They still have conscription but I do not know enough detail to add it. I think it is being shortened but not abolished? Surely some info should be added.

Jzlcdh (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linked it in. Jzlcdh (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emblem of TuAF.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Emblem of TuAF.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) 09:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of the Turkish Navy.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Seal of the Turkish Navy.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) 10:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:T-155 FIRTINA 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzer.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:T-155 FIRTINA 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzer.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 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) 08:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turkish Main Battle Tank MITUP Altay.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Turkish Main Battle Tank MITUP Altay.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 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) 12:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Army size

Turkish Army size updating by the Turkish Army for 711,759. We can use it as app. 712,000. 402,000 is half of it. Plese update this offical information. [4] Turkish army declared personal numbers Date: 02/01/2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.212.101.120 (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The citation refers to The entire Turkish Armed Forces. Sometimes in English, the meaning for "Army" and "Armed Forces" are often miss understood/translated by non native speakers. Also the Citation does not provide any link to those figures, so its hardly a reliable source and certainly not "official". — Woe90i^Woe90i 14:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TSK (Turkish Army) = Air Force + Sea Force + Land Forces = 657.985. http://www.tsk.tr/10_ARSIV/10_1_Basin_Yayin_Faaliyetleri/10_1_10_Guncel/2012/guncel_1.htm This is TSK's official :) site. Last row for civilian personnel. Please calculate and update information. Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.212.101.120 (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Turkish Army = Land-forces.

Turkish Armed forces = Navy, Air Force and Army. — Woe90i^Woe90i 16:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Official claim on the inception date

Kara Kuvvetlerinin kuruluş tarihi olarak, Büyük Hun İmparatoru Mete Han’ın tahta çıkış tarihi olan M.Ö. 209 yılı esas alınmıştır.

http://www.kkk.tsk.tr

Lumialover2, you may find it illogical for the Turkish Army Command to date its forces to 209 BC, but they just do, and there isn't much that can be done about it but to express it in the article. --Mttll (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is directly under the the heading "CUMHURİYET DÖNEMİ ÖNCESİ TÜRK KARA KUVVETLERİ", which Google translate translates as "THE REPUBLICAN PERIOD BEFORE THE TURKISH ARMY". Lumialover2 (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That heading actually translates as "PRE-REPUBLICAN ERA TURKISH ARMY". Feel free to have it checked by a Turkish speaker you trust. --Mttll (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or easier yet, check the glaring date on the Turkish Army emblem: Link --Mttll (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 209 BC foundation date is quite frankly absurd, considering it predates the ethnogenesis of the Turkish people (by several centuries), not to mention that of the Republic of Turkey (by several millennia). So the Turkish army consider themselves to have been founded by the huns in 209 BC? Great for them, but we are a serious encyclopedia here. The date of foundation of the Armed Forces of the Turkish Republic cannot, by simple logic, predate the date of foundation of said Republic. Therefore the earliest possible foundation date is 1923. Yes, sometimes things are that simple. Athenean (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying Wikipedia cannot spare the tiny space needed to mention the official position of the Turkish Army about its own foundation date? Are you going to edit out the 209 BC from the official emblem while you are at it? --Mttll (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'd be ok with it being added in the main text, properly attributed ("According to the Turkish Army's website...."), but adding it in the infobox is out of the question, for obvious reasons. Athenean (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I added it in the section, History. --Mttll (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel

If you are not a native English speaker, could you please learn to differentiate between Army and Armed Forces?

Army = Land Forces
Armed Forces = Land, Air and Naval Forces

Too often are people confusing personnel figures for the entire Turkish Armed Forces on this article. Thanks.Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Turkish Land Forces. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110429012849/http://www.armeniandiaspora.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7376 to http://www.armeniandiaspora.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7376

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} 03:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Turkish Land Forces. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Turkish Land Forces. 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:

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) 10:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Active since 209 BC?

How can the Turkish army be active since 209 BC when the Turko-Mongols hadn't even migrated out of Siberia and the Mongolia? I think people are confusing Turkic and Turkish.KhakePakeVatan (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is problematic. And the Infoboxes may not be used in such context, yet I noticed recent edits related to it. Infoboxes are meant to present actual information/facts about the subject, not claims on millenias-old legacy. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See official site and history section https://www.tsk.tr/Sayfalar?viewName=History. Also 209 BC is not an inspired date or additional information. This phrase is used everywhere. This phrase is not just an obvious expression in the wikipedia paragraph but It takes place from its logo to all buildings and is not a simple date information. I understand you guys, but this date is indicated in all parts of the ground forces command You can even see it on a standard soldier's badges. It would not be correct to delete an official claim.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Official sources can say whatever they want, but that doesn't mean we have to take them seriously. The official website does not meet the criteria for WP:RS, hence this information cannot be taken at face value. Khirurg (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have seen the official site that is cited. Yet this doesn't make it a fact or appropriate for the infobox. It is just a politically motivated anachronism that has nothing to do with how the army's history was conceived prior to the Pan-Turanian assertion of Nihal Atsız and the official adoption of that view in 1980. Do you understand that we are editing an encyclopedia and such WP:FRINGE views should be treated more carefully, and each article should be complimentary to other relative articles. Do you see any mention of a Turkish identity in the articles of Mete Khan or Xiongnu for example? No. Xiongnu doesn't even have a certain ethnolinguistic identity as you can read here, let alone a Turkish one. And again, pay attention to what SilentResident wrote to you in regards to the role of infoboxes. Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted SilentResident's last revert. Sure, 209 BC is ridiculous -- but the history of what the Turkish Land Forces' officially says as their history should be recorded. The question is where in the article. On reflection, while writing this, I do not believe it is correct to be in the infobox, and will take it out. Everybody should talk here, and come to a consensus, without continuing this mild edit war. Hope we can come to a reasonable agreement. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about this Islamic Republic of Iran Army Shadow4dark (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They should change it to when the Shah consolidated various forces in the 1920s or 1930s. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument; we are discussing this page, and this page only. The question is how to portray what the TLF officially says. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 209 BCE reference was already mentioned in the introduction of the historical section, it was never taken out. In fact 3/4 of the historical introduction pertains to it; this is more than enough. Lede and Infobox sections on the other hand are only meant to provide a summary of the article's most important factual contents. Buckshot06, per your own comment you seem to agree with this, thus i cannot understand why you reverted everything. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Demetrios. I myself can't understand why we are EVER discussing about this here. The responses I read here in the Talk page not only lack any strong arguments in favor of maintaining the propaganda theories on WP:Lead, but also are giving me an worrisome feeling that certain editors here may not be fully aware what an encyclopedia really is about. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

Comment: The admins yesterday banned the editor Cengizsogutlu for 1 month due to POV edit warring here on this article the date "209" into the infobox: [5]. The rest of the editors, including editor Buckshot06, are urged to be careful and refrain from ever restoring this WP:PROPAGANDA date into the infobox if they do not want to be reported and go on the same course as Cengizsogutlu. As for the article itself, the problem is restored by Buckshot06 [6] and now the article fails even the minimal quality article standards because it appears to promote the official propaganda claims over factual information about the army's creation. Therefore I am inserting the POV tag [7] which will remain in place until the problem is resolved adequately and in a satisfactory manner. For the POV tag to be removed, the editors should address this emphasis on propaganda dates - that means:

To remove the propaganda date completely from Lead section. Lead sections in an article may, just like infoboxes, only summarize on key factual information, nothing else.
To reorganize the History section so that it prioritizes the factual historic info over anything else, be it official date theories, propagandas and celebrations.

If Buckshot06 disagrees with my edits, fine. But to remove the POV tag from the article, then, the aforementioned issues which Buckshot06 brought back with their reverts, will have to be addressed first. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text you removed presents the facts, as they are: "Official sources trace the army's foundation to Modu Chanyu of the Xiongnu Empire in 209 BC, but the modern history of the army began with its formation [after 1918]." What is incorrect about this sentence? Can you point out where it is incorrect? Buckshot06 (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The text you removed presents the facts". Nope. The information stating that the army was founded 100 years is a fact and the only true fact here; The rest is just propaganda and it has no place on article's Lead section. Whatever fringe theories or propagandas may exist about its foundation are already covered in the article's History section and that is as much as it can get. Nothing more. Like I said above (and please read carefully as I am tired repeating myself): Lead sections in an article may, just like infoboxes, only summarize on key factual information, nothing else. If you are unfamiliar with WP:LEAD, then I recommend you check it as well. Per WP:LEAD: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. Information on fringe or propaganda theories have no place on Lead nor is the most important information in the article. Please revert yourself. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will you drop the stick and stop repeating the word "propaganda"!! I have heard it, many times, as no doubt anyone else who is following along has too!! I have *acknowledged* what you write is true. Now, read the words I wrote: "official sources trace" -- does not argue for or against those official sources being true. It acknowledges the claim, without commenting on its verity, or not. Can you not see that? Buckshot06 (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are we even discussing then Buckshot06? You agreed yourself that this is ridiculous, thus it has no place in the infobox and lede. Meaning we cannot give WP:UNDUE weight to WP:FRINGE views. It's just an officially adopted view which is in itself an WP:PROPAGANDA#Extraordinary_claim (please read this carefully). It was initially suggested by Nihal Atsız in 1963, and was officially adopted in 1980, namely some 17 years after (no doubt even Turkish officials originally thought it was too extreme as well). Furthermore, the "trace" in the "official sources trace" is a misnomer and misleading, as if they actually traced the history of the army to more than two millennia ago. If anything, a correct summary of the content would be, "Officials adopted the Pan-Turanian view of Nihal Atsız in 1980, that the army...", but even that gives WP:UNDUE weight to a WP:FRINGE view and thus creates WP:FALSEBALANCE. Demetrios1993 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06, "drop the stick"? My apologies if my firm stance on this matter had annoyed you but no, I can't drop the stick just like that when there is violation of numerous Wikipedia rules. Having looked anywhere in Wikipedia, I wouldn't find a single rule that would support your position at all. Contrary, no rule in Wikipedia permits the use of WP:LEAD sections and Infoboxes for WP:PROPAGANDA purposes citing WP:PRIMARY sources. Can you help me by providing any rules justifying the presence of the contentious date there? You should understand that Wikipedia emphasizes on factual information; is not a place where we promote official narratives/political propaganda (nor give them any WP:DUE spotlight by placing them on prominent locations such as Infoboxes and Leads). Let alone using WP:PRIMARY sources to cite it when Wikipedia's rules are quite clear that primary sources should be avoided if possible; third-party independent WP:RS are preferred instead! Looking at the talk page I can't help but note how, so far, three editors have already objected to this by raising their valid concerns on the matter and pointed to several problems (anachronism, POV, unreliable source and more) that may affect the article's quality. I am sorry if the responses here to you are not what you wanted to hear, but you can't ignore other editor's legitimate concerns; and with 3 editors already being against you and with Cengizsogutlu being blocked by the Admins for trying to restore this propaganda date to prominent places, there is clearly a WP:CONSENSUS of 3 versus 1 against your edits. Now, if you allow me:

1) considering that the majority of editors here in this talk page is against any mention of info on official propaganda dates on Lead and Infoboxes per WP:CONSENSUS,
2) considering that the official propaganda is extraordinary claim, anachronistic and WP:FRINGE and not supported by any serious academic scholars,
3) considering that the only source of the propaganda information is WP:PRIMARY and both official websites are not qualified as WP:RS,
4) considering that Wikipedia is not bound to give any propaganda more WP:DUE prominence of placement (such as Lead or the Infobox) than necessary
5) considering that the propaganda doesn't contribute to the WP:LEAD in any useful way nor is an essential information to warrant inclusion there,
6) considering that the History section here [8] suffices already for mentioning/covering this kind of propaganda,
7) considering that the common practice in Wikipedia is to have the History sections written in a chronological order to make the most sense to a reader without confusing them (and that is, the info on army's foundation precedes any date celebrations about that army that may have occurred years later, let alone any mention on propaganda.

Your edits will be reverted. If you feel you disagree with the outcome of the consensus, then you are welcome to seek a 3rd opinion here at: [9] or any other means of dispute resolution if you like. EDIT: the Admins on the related ANI case have been informed as well: [10]. Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great summary of the points addressed above SilentResident. Don't forget though:

8) Buckshot06 has already agreed that this politically motivated anachronistic reference is ridiculous (Sure, 209 BC is ridiculous) and has also acknowledged that what SilentResident writes is true (I have *acknowledged* what you write is true.).

Thus, this is either a case of Buckshot06 not being familiar with basic Wikipedia guidelines, or worse, a conscious attempt of giving WP:UNDUE weight to obvious WP:PROPAGANDA. I choose to believe the first one as more likely, per the fundamental Wikipedia principal of assuming WP:GOODFAITH and because he/she had already agreed for the removal of the respective information from the Infobox (I do not believe it is correct to be in the infobox, and will take it out.). Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish rebellions in 1920s and 1930s

I have just reverted this this revert, which sought to remove some broadly uncontroversial, factual data about rebellions in the 1920s and 1930s. We deal in WP:V facts, not trying to remove historical events which the Turkish Army took part in. However Konli17 you need to cite the number of 50,000 troops, and the massacre; you have ten days to do so, or I will remove that detail until sources are provided. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page: Buckshot06 (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Hello. I saw you reverted my revert on this article. The original revert was based on another edit of a user account who is subject to multiple-time complaints at Administrators' noticeboard, due to continous POV'ed edits ([11], [12], [13]). The mentioned edit was biased, relying on user POV, manupilative, lacking of supporting evidence (no reference at all) and it was trying to pull article elsewhere. I'll revert it again with good intention and hereby I'd like to underline that I respect you as a Wikipedia contributor and I'd like to avoid a potential edit warring. If you'd like to support such a controversial text, please kindly bring supporting evidences/references. Regards. Isik (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)"[reply]

As you will see Isik the basic information conveyed, about the rebellions in the 1920s and 1930s, is uncontroversial, factual, and unchallenged. Whether or not this editor is under a cloud, there is no reason to remove the core additions. To do so would be to remove relevant data about fighting the TLF has taken part in. You are effectively yourself making a personal attack on that particular edit based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

I never, ever attacked anybody at this website. My archive, like all other users, is transparent. Please, feel free to check and prove any personal attack. Isik (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, I have already asked him, before you wrote a note on my talk page, to reference the specific number of total troops, and to reference the atrocity. I intend to give him 10 days, as I have stated above.

I will not tolerate removal of basic historical facts about fighting the TLF has taken part in. Whether unwelcome or not to anyone, they are part of the TLF's history, and to try and remove such information violates wikipedia's core policies. We are not in the business of documenting only the parts of the TLF's history that appeal to some editors - we are here to cover all of it.

Raise queries on whether text should be added, amended, or removed on the article talk pages, first, please; that means that everyone interested has a better chance of following the discussion. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isik kindly please stop editwarring to remove the text until the talk page discussion had proceeded further, at the very least. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference for the 50,000 figure from the Dersim rebellion page's infobox, but I'm not sure it's configured properly. I don't know why a reference is required for the Zilan massacre sentence, it took place during the Ararat rebellion. Konli17 (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copy over the full reference from that page, please. WP:BURDEN requires that you as the adding editor do so. Zilan? Everything has to be properly referenced on the page which it is mentioned - a random reader may not have any knowledge of which massacre was part of which rebellion. So please go to whatever revolt it was and copy over the reference. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by full reference. I looked for the reference and that was all I saw. Konli17 (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi people, this guy deletes here sourced content because he thinks it is "POV" but he adds here own POV.

[[14]] @Buckshot06: @Isik: Shadow4dark (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalistic Propaganda in History Section

Turkish army was not founded in 209 BC. Milliyet is not a reliable source for a history related article. Nihal Atsız himself was a nationalist writer and the source written by him dates back to 1960s. Those dates like 209 BC are chosen to claim that Turkish army is rooted deep down in history. They are not supported by reliable, academic sources. Website of Turkish Land Forces is not a academic source either. This article covers the history of Turkish army starting from 1923.[15] So, I am removing that section.--Visnelma (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Visnelma: why would you remove 209 BC, while its logo has that number? Beshogur (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a self-claim. Also the logo is not a reliable source. It could maybe mentioned as "They self claim that their foundation dates back to 209 BC, but academic sources state it is founded in 1920s."--Visnelma (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as it is stated info-box 209 BC is the foundation of first Turkic army, not Turkish army. Maybe a better version would be "The date 209 BC in their logo represents foundation of first Turkic army but according to academic sources..."--Visnelma (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-claimed" by itself is not a reason enough to immediately delete an entry. So many things are self-claimed here, whatever that means. There is an actual logo too. One could have said or suggested "Turkish Land Forces traces its traditions back to 209 BC", and explain why. That is what a real editor would do. Murat (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not supported by independent, reliable sources. But the article I stated covers its history starting from 1923. Also citing website of kara kuvvetleri komutanlığı is not a good idea, since its independency would be questionable about a topic diretcly relating to themselves. I invite you to cite reputably published academic sources. @Buidhe: what do you think?--Visnelma (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also Turkish Land Forces is a branch of Turkish Armed Forces which are the military forces of Republic of Turkey. So, claiming that 209 BC is the foundation date is anachronistic.--Visnelma (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem about, official date they chose as one institution and it must be noted as this is article about organisation/institution, and they keep it on their logo, websites, documents. 109.93.0.125 (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: I concur with Visnelma on this. Fictional date claims may only be presented in Wikipedia as such, not as facts. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classical suppression of information, with one funny excuse. If officially adopted that is worth information and can't be hiden or ignored especially as that information is at their logo, documents and their websites. I just see some pov pushing from couple of editors, without any reason. 109.93.0.125 (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we use reliable sources here, not make anachronistic assumptions from logos.--Visnelma (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If its self claimed then put "Self-claimed" caption on it instead of deleting whole section, sorry but wikipedia is not a platform to quell Turkish hatred. You cannot take revenge by deleting the date from the Turkish unit's logo. It shouldn't be hard to find a few puppets to approve your opinion but exceptions do not break rules, this is the date of establishment on the logo and according to their own phrases. Official claim must be stayed as CLAIM. In addition, for example, the establishment of 1363 (Janissaries) can be added, but this will not be official also it would be absurd. But this claim was not edited by a fantasy enthusiast Turkish nationalist its a date on the official logo & establishment. Even it stated 1000 BC it is official claim no matter how it's absurdly ridiculous. If you erase this, a question will arise in people's minds; What's in this 209 BC on logo? If you erase the answer, I think you will sabotage the encyclopedic information exchange. Even only deleting it in the information box restricts the access to information.. Again, do not perceive it personally, but it does not sound sincere to me that a Greek would want this badly. If i did this on for ex Kurdish content i know i will be banned for disturbing editing. Please try to make more constructive edits instead of destructive. WP:LISTEN WP:NOTPOINTy Cengizsogutlu (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the official page & information about it https://www.kkk.tsk.tr/tarihce.aspx Cengizsogutlu (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Land Forces command states on its official page As the establishment date of the Land Forces, The year 209 BC, which is the date of accession to the throne of the Hun Emperor MeteHan, has been taken as basis. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cengizsogutlu has already been blocked by the Admins about 2 months ago for their nonconstructive attitude and behavior in Turkey-interest articles. Seeing at Cengizsogutlu's new problematic statements here, where they are WP:PA pointing at the ethnicity of editors or calling them "puppets", I have little faith that this editor is capable of making positive and rational arguments in this discussion. Unless they ~~strike~~ their WP:UNCIVIL statement, I will ignore them completely and keep the diffs for possible future reports to the Admins.

Visnelma, what is your proposal regarding the issue of propaganda date claims?--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With "puppets", As someone who has edited 1000's of articles, I expected that you to realize that i mean sock puppets. You are again trying to be politically correct in order to show your ulterior motive. Continue deleting dates it will not change the reality that i know why you want it to be deleted.. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+PS i have banned from Operation Claw Tiger page cuz I was arguing with someone claiming that Turkey first gassed people and then bombed the cave. This was a ridiculous claim and I was banned from the page because i was in a revert war. You actually made a Personal Insult by making an accusation of "uneducable" about me.. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentResident: Actually, the funniest part is I am a Turk myself. But it is obvious that the relation between Turkish Land Forces and the date 209 BC is only symbolical. Nevertheless, I don't feel comfortable citing their sources which claim that "foundation date is 209 BC" to state "209 BC symbolizes the foundation date of the first Turkic army", because we should use reliable sources in the first place and not make assumptions from non-independent non-reliable sources. The article I cited above covers the history of Turkish Land Forces from 1923, but it doesn't mention anything about 209 BC either. So, we also shouldn't meantion it unless we find independent, reliable sources. Thus, I propose deletion of the first paragraph of history section.--Visnelma (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, same problem exists in the article Turkish Naval Forces. There it is claimed that foundation dates are 1081 (government website, non-independent source), 1390 (no source), and 1867 (no source) again.--Visnelma (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT ADD: @SilentResident: After I took a second look, the source I cited actually covers the history of Turkish Army since 1923 not Turkish Land Forces. According to the relatively reliable sources cited in this article, the year 1949 is the geniune foundation date of Turkish Land Forces. So, it would be also appropriate to delete the date 1920 since Turkish Land Forces Command was not established at the time. Besides, Turkish War of Independence and First Kurdish rebellions and lead-up to WWII sections should be mentioned in a newly created section "Background" or else it would be anachronistic again.--Visnelma (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cengizsogutlu:Yes, in simple words: nonconstructive attitude and behavior. I will very kindly ask that editors with different views from yours, are respected and that includes avoiding pointing to their ethnicity or whatever. In Wikipedia, ethnicity does not matter and may never be used to make points in arguments. The sooner you understand that, the better for you.

@Visnelma:Thank you. This has to be addressed so that both articles are in line with how things were done elsewhere, (i.e. in the articles about the land forces of other countries such as Greece (Hellenic Armed Forces), Israel (Israeli Ground Forces) and Italy (Italian Armed Forces), all avoid any fringe dates despite these nations having... ancestors who had armies. A side note: someone had mentioned around there on this talk page about the Iranian armed forces article having similar fringe date claims too, but I haven't looked at it since Iran isn't one of the topic areas that interest me in Wikipedia (however this may change in the future).

And yes, I agree with deleting the first paragraph of history section. Wikipedia is based on independent and reliable sources and that should be our priority here even if certain other editors may not be happy about that meaning the removal of the questionable information. If Cengizsogutlu or any other editor has any independent and reliable sources regarding the 209 BC date claim, then perhaps we may mention it in the article, provided that these reliable sources consider this date to be important and relevant to the Turkish Army and not something the nationalists and lunatics in the Army picked for propaganda purposes (where in such a case, it would fit better in the article Turkish nationalism instead). Fringe dates in Wikipedia is nothing new. There are fringe dates even in country articles such as Serbia and Albania which I am looking someday at addressing too and bring these articles in line with how it was done for i.e. Italy, Israel and Greece. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding these non-factual dates in other articles, don't hesitate to ping me when you need. Best regards.--Visnelma (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda purposes?? What do you mean that the Turkish army has nothing to do with Ottoman and Seljuk history? And these are the propaganda and the celebration of some old traditions, the dates in the logo and their official claims are all propaganda? Deleting the first paragraph of history section etc ?? Since Turkey's military history starts from 1920? Why then the Armenian Genocide was attempting to be attributed to a state whose army was established in 1923, then this is propaganda with your logic also or not? So, with this logic, from anything that was done before 1920, the Turkish army is not responsible? About 209 BC It is symbolically accepted as the foundation year of the Turkish Land Forces and is celebrated every year. Here i have found acedemic source; https://www.academia.edu/5234091/Turk_Ordusu_ne_zaman_kuruldu?auto=download they even used the year of foundation of the janissaries before, and it was later replaced by 209BC It is not purely nationalistic imagination, but a symbolic history that the military puts on its official logo and celebrate each year. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a NATO newspaper that describes and foundation date of the Turkish Land forces back to 209 B.C. "Turkish Land Forces which has a long history was founded in 209 B.C. " https://www.nato.int/Kfor/chronicle/2002/chronicle_03/09.htm This newspaper was published in Kosovo Task Force to inform soldiers since the internet usage was not that wide at that time. Thus, there were small informatic articles about the joining allies to the Task Force. I can't understand how can we provide such an academic evidence about 209 B.C. too. I can't believe NATO was so amateur to let turks do their fake propaganda on their official newspaper. I am pretty sure this newspaper is also used in other articles on wikipedia too. Please keep your agenda to yourself and don't make wikipedia your personal mispropaganda website. People visit wikipedia to get informed not getting Anti-Turkish pronaganda. Visnelma has a history of vandalism on Turkey related articles please check this users history and you will see. How could it be possible only Visnelma knows the holy truth and then vast majority of Turkish wikipedia authors are fully brainwashed? This is beyond a joke. Sebci (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, WP:COMPETENCE is required. Everyone knows that the "Turkish Land Forces" is a contemporary creation that didn't exist back in 209 B.C. Citing unreliable sources, like the ones you provided there, such as that NATO advertisement paper, aren't making your arguments any stronger, I am afraid. Please read carefully on how to idendify reliable sources and if you think you can't identify a reliable source from a dubious one, then feel free to ask at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. The hard-working mediators/admins here will evaluate the sources for you and let you know whether they meet Wikipedia's standards. And sorry to dishearten you but they will tell you the same as I do about these dates. You may very well bring the matter to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard instead, or even open a RFC on the matter, but do not expect anyone to accept the use of fringe ancient dates as establishment dates for the contemporary Land Forces. Such big claims require really really strong and indisputable sources written by experts and whose content is peer-viewed. The fact that you were unable to provide any strong sources by now, means that you were unable to find any, because there aren't any. I believe this discussion has come to a natural end and do not expect me to reply further. I ain't consenting to the use, in Wikipedia, of dates made by nationalists and lunatics who were trying to cling on something ancient by giving their army a historical grandeur to cover up for their insecurities. Their claims have no place in an encyclopedia, no matter how officially supported they are. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The User:SilentResident has already decided to end the conversation but I will still answer for the source you cited in Academia. Actually Altar Maket is not a unreliable source and I used one of their articles in the article Palanka (fortification). Where the source you cited says that the foundation date is 209 BC it uses KKK as a source which is not independent. It also states that 209 BC was not always accepted as the foundation date of Turkish army. It was only after 1980 coup (after which nationalistic values promoted) that the date 209 BC accepted as a foundation date. And it says the date chosen is "symbolic" at the last paragraph. So, the source you cited may be used to state that Turkish military accepts the foundation date as 209 BC symbolically. But it is far from being a fact as no reliable source state that 209 BC is factually foundation date of the Turkish army.--Visnelma (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A quick translation made it clear to me that the source lacks the necessary reliable analysis to support inclusion to the article as a fact (like some editors around here wanted). And if I may add regarding the NATO articles about ethnic task forces or armies on its website: their descriptions are usually written in coordination with the governmental agencies and ministries who send the information to NATO, not the other way. This is easy to tell, from the language tone used to write them, and which varies greatly from country to country. This doesn't necessarily mean that the NATO adopts unconditionally whatever its member countries do claim about their own armies. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Cengizsogutlu or any other editor has any independent and reliable sources regarding the 209 BC date claim, then perhaps we may mention it in the article, provided that these reliable sources consider this date to be important and relevant to the Turkish Army

Well, I mentioned the academic source above btw. Also you can't call people lunatic See List of disability-related terms with negative connotations page..Cengizsogutlu (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read carefully: If Cengizsogutlu or any other editor has any independent and reliable sources regarding the 209 BC date claim, then perhaps we may mention it in the article, provided that these reliable sources consider this date to be important and relevant to the Turkish Army. The source you provided merely confirms the use of the propaganda date by the army. Nothing else. Source doesn't explain how it is factually important to the army and how it is factually relevant to it. Only thing we know is that some nationalist lunatics (mind you, its an Admin's choice of word in describing the revisionists in Turkey, not mine) adopted it. The disagreement here in the talk page however isn't about whether nationalists in the army adopted it, but about whether such kind of information is factually important or relevant to the army itself that would warrant inclusion to the article. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, reflects on facts only in military articles, not on what revisionist nationalist claims and ideas may exist about a country or its army - officially or unofficially. For these, the article Turkish nationalism is the place to go. Got it? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about this foundation date is it doesn't represent a single official date or a country name identified with a certain administration system. The reason why 209 B.C. is accepted as a foundation date is Modun Chanyu's (a.k.a. Mete Han) new army system. This army system can basically be explained by the '10s of divisions'. The entire army is made of smaller parts that are composed of 10 and multiplies of 10. For example, 10 soldier makes a 'Manga'. 100 soldier makes a 'Bölük'. 1000 soldier makes a 'Tabur'. 10000 soldier makes a 'Tümen'. This regular army system was created by Modun Chanyu in 209 B.C. That's why it is the foundation date of the Turkish Army. Even though there were armies before this date, both Turkish and other, none of the modern descendants of these armies carry the same administrative systems. However, the Turkish army does. Turkish army uses the same system continuously for the last 2000+ years. Unlike the examples given before, Italian and Greek armies are differently administrated than their older foundations. Thus, 209 B.C. can be accepted as the foundation date of the Turkish Armed Forces.Hsynylmztr (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Türk ordusu and Turkish army

Turkish army and Türk ordusu is not the same thing. Because in Turkish, ordu is a word used for all ground, naval and air forces combined, whereas army is only used for land forces in English. So, I am correcting that in the lead section.--Visnelma (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete the words yourself without knowing and researching the etymology origins..Orda (organization)Cengizsogutlu (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I speak native Turkish myself. Army and ordu is not %100 synonymous. I have already explained above. Even Turkish Wikipedia doesn't redirect "Türk ordusu" to Turkish version of this page. See[16]--Visnelma (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cengizsogutlu: Also, we have a concencus about the content, if you continue edit warring you will probably get blocked.--Visnelma (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cengizsogutlu: Listen, army is used for only land forces, but ordu is a word for land, naval and air forces combined. The title Türk ordusu must be added to the article Turkish Armed Forces. You can see TDK for more information.--Visnelma (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For combined troops Silahlı Kuvvetler (Armed Forces) used, land forces are also called army. see Hellenic Army, or directly self army page please. An army (from Latin arma "arms, weapons" via Old French armée, "armed" [feminine]), ground force or land force is a fighting force that fights primarily on land. In the broadest sense, it is the land-based military branch, service branch or armed service of a nation or state. It may also include aviation assets by possessing an army aviation component. Within a national military force, the word army may also mean a field army. You are doing ridiculous edits, I still do not understand your purpose.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what I wrote? I don't think you really understand that army and ordu are not synonymous.--Visnelma (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I guess we wrote at the same time instead of deleting the word Türk Ordusu change than into Türk Kara Kuvvetleri Komutanlığı than. Also Ordu is used for Corps, Field army etc such as Kolordu for the Turkish Land Forces command. I agree on the etymology of the word and its inconsistency with today's Turkish. In current Turkish, Ordu is used for combined units indeed but it's mostly used for Land Forces in military terminology. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should add the name Türk ordusu to the article Turkish Armed Forces. That's the right place. Even in Turkish Wikipedia Türk ordusu redirects to Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri not to Türk Kara Kuvvetleri.--Visnelma (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you delete history section than There is a logical explanation for this, but why is history? Cengizsogutlu (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is already explained above.--Visnelma (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Visnelma! Sadly I do not know to read Turkish (yet). Your knowledge of that language is valuable and your help highly appreciated around here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be highly glad to help with translations when needed.--Visnelma (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Visnelma: This proves once again that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source in anything as every page in it is carries a political sentiment at this point, especially against Turks at the moment driven by you and buidhe as you two attempt historical revisionism on nearly every page on Turks. Thanks to you I now support banning Wikipedia in Turkey again. I also hope that you will fix the "pseudo" foundation dates on other armed forces etc. to prove your "unbiasedness".--Astu2004 (talk) 17:20, 8 Jul 2021 (UTC)

@Astu2004, I fully agree with you, there is a big Anti-Turkish sentiment, promoted by armenian and greek lobbyists at the English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Öztürklü (talk • contribs) 11:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

46.106.50.243 (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Land Forces were established in 209 BC. It was written here before but now I don’t see it anymore...

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creation date extract from earlier version

The Turkish Army traces its origin to the Ottoman Army. A theory accepted officially was that the Ottoman Armed Forces had been founded in 1363, when the Pençik corps (the predecessor of the Janissary corps) had been formed and, in this context, on 28 June 1963, it celebrated the 600th anniversary of its foundation.^[1] In the same year, one of the prominent Pan-Turanists, Nihal Atsız, asserted that the Turkish Army had been founded in 209 BC, when Mete Khan of the Xiongnu is thought to have formed an army based on the decimal system.^[2]^{[verification needed]}^{[dubious – discuss]} In 1968, Yılmaz Öztuna proposed this theory to Cemal Tural, who was the Chief of the General Staff of the Republic of Turkey at the time.^[3]^{[verification needed]} In 1973, when the Turkish Army celebrated the 610th anniversary of its foundation, Nihal Atsız published his claim again.^[4]^{[verification needed]} After the 1980 Turkish coup d'état, the Turkish Army formally adopted the date 209 BC as its year of foundation.^[5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs)

References

^ "Kara Kuvvetlerinin 600. kuruluş yılı kutlandı". Milliyet (in Turkish). Istanbul. 29 June 1963. Retrieved 21 March 2015.
^ Nihal Atsız, "Türk Kara Ordusu Ne Zaman Kuruldu?", Orkun, Sayı: 18 (15 Temmuz 1963)
^ Yılmaz Öztuna, "Türk Ordusu 605 yıl önce kurulmadı", Hayat Tarih Mecmuası, Sayı: 8 (Ekim 1968)
^ Nihal Atsız, "Türk Karaordusunun Kuruluşu Meselesi", Ötüken, Sayı: 4 (1973)
^ Turkish Land Forces Archived April 19, 2014, at the Wayback Machine and "Brief History of the Turkish Armed Forces". Republic of Turkey, Ministry of National Defence, General Staff. The first orderly and disciplined formation of the Turkish Army dates back to 209 BC, during the Great Hun Empire; the greatest units in this organization were the divisions made up of 10,000 soldiers, divisions were further divided into smaller units composed of a thousand, hundred, and ten soldiers; this organization continued to exist throughout the history in the Turkish states with small changes.

Southeastern Turkey

Why are rebellions in the 1920s and 1930s referred to as being in a region that didn't exist until the 1940s? Stara Marusya (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the region created in the 1940s that you are referring to? What is its name? My impression is that "South-Eastern Turkey" here is merely referring to everything south and east of the midpoint of Turkey, not a defined administrative region. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Southeastern Anatolia Region, which southeastern Turkey redirects to. Stara Marusya (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I thought so. The counterpart Turkish article lists no creation date for the Southeastern Anatolia Region (had a look through and saw no '1940, 1941, 194x etc) - are you able to provide one or point me to the master Turkish article which has some dates and details?

Are you able to point me to any details or Tuwiki article on the correct geographical entity for the 1920s or 1930s?

In any case, I will break the article link because you are correct, and repoint it to South-East. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current geographical regions of Turkey "were originally defined at the country's First Geography Congress in 1941." Even if that region was in existence in the 1920s and 30s, some of the rebellions took place in Kurdish areas outside it. Turkish Kurdistan seems to be the best catch-all for the wider region these rebellions took place in. Stara Marusya (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a better suggestion, I'll make this change. Stara Marusya (talk) 07:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

could somebody please add a gallery to the end?

because why not? also please add this 'File:Turkish Special Forces soldier.jpg' to modernization section maybe? 46.196.85.12 (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because in accordance with the rules, galleries should be on Commons. If you want to look at collections of pictures, go there. Here, pictures are individually placed next to the sections they describe. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But, yes, if the picture you name fits with the section, I can add it there. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish official figures versus IISS

Dear @Shadow4Dark can you explain further your recent revert on the personnel numbers? They appear to be official Turkish figures. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not verified as Turkish officially also claimed that they have 80 bill dollars for military budget wich is also not verified by independent sources. IISS is most accepted sources for military numbers and i see no reason why we would change this by unverfired claims. Shadow4dark (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just done some checking in the 2017, 2014, 2013, 2011, 2006, 2001/02 editions of the Military Balance. The figure for reserves, 258,700, is unchanged since 2001/02. The figure is over twenty years old. If the land forces total which the IISS currently lists is 260,200 + 258,700 = 518,900, and the total which is officially given is 401,500, there could be easily 260,000 ish on active duty; over 20 years however, the reserve figure might have fallen from 258,000 to nearer to 140,000. I suggest given the age of the IISS estimate that we remove it immediately. I also suggest that we start giving the date first listed for IISS estimates.

For comparison the The World Factbook from CIA currently says the army's active-duty strength is 350,000, which would give an even lower number of reservists [17]. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have point here, if it is outdated we can add both of them similar as this page Iraqi Ground Forces. The Armed forces page need also the updated numbers. Shadow4dark (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean removing the IISS figure, and inserting both the official Turkish figure of 401,500 (probably including both active and reservist) and the active-only-figure, 350,000, of the CIA. Am I correct? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, correct. Shadow4dark (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the errant ref tag from the end of this citation:

IISS (2023). "Chapter Four: Europe". The Military Balance. 123 (1). International Institute for Strategic Studies. doi:10.1080/04597222.2023.2162716. ISSN 0459-7222.</ref>

Thanks.

PS. I would make all the bulleted references a new "Further reading" section, but that's up to the editor. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've also separated the bulleted references into a separate "Works cited" section, since some of the inline references seem to refer to these works. Liu1126 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

addition

could somebody please add the template to the end of the infobox?

83.9.114.133 (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.country-studies.com/cyprus/intercommunal-violence.html

[2] ttps://countrystudies.us/cyprus/13.htm

[3] "Kara Kuvvetlerinin 600. kuruluş yılı kutlandı". Milliyet (in Turkish). Istanbul. 29 June 1963. Retrieved 21 March 2015.

[4] Nihal Atsız, "Türk Kara Ordusu Ne Zaman Kuruldu?", Orkun, Sayı: 18 (15 Temmuz 1963)

[5] Yılmaz Öztuna, "Türk Ordusu 605 yıl önce kurulmadı", Hayat Tarih Mecmuası, Sayı: 8 (Ekim 1968)

[6] Nihal Atsız, "Türk Karaordusunun Kuruluşu Meselesi", Ötüken, Sayı: 4 (1973)

[7] Turkish Land Forces Archived April 19, 2014, at the Wayback Machine and "Brief History of the Turkish Armed Forces". Republic of Turkey, Ministry of National Defence, General Staff. The first orderly and disciplined formation of the Turkish Army dates back to 209 BC, during the Great Hun Empire; the greatest units in this organization were the divisions made up of 10,000 soldiers, divisions were further divided into smaller units composed of a thousand, hundred, and ten soldiers; this organization continued to exist throughout the history in the Turkish states with small changes.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]