Talk:Turkish Army
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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
The Turkish Land Forces has the date of 209 BC on its logo. This is the date when ruler Mete of the Huns founded the first regular army. Although the Turkish Army is not a direct predecessor of it, the 'army tradition' is considered to be preserved.
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)
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
-
- 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)
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.
[edit] 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"
- With respect, Deliogul 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- 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)
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 . . . .
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
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)
[edit] 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)
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.
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
Agreed
[edit] 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).
