Talk:28 February operation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing! |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
 |
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for 28 February operation: |
|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
|
 |
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Turkey may be able to help! |
| The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Contents |
[edit] Comments
[edit] Coup is the correct term
The events leading up to the 28th of February process were most definitely a coup, though as the article notes a post-modern one. The information contained in this article is not correct. The military did not urge Erbakan to step down, what they did is force Demirel as current president to pressure Erbakan to step down or face military intervention, so he complied. It was an entirely undemocratic means of removing a prime minister who achieved his position though legal constitutional methods.
It is referred to as a post-modern coup mainly due to the fact that the military is no longer using violence as their first choice of intervention, and instead called upon the president to act on their behalf.
It could indeed use some cleaning and expanding however, and a new name since calling it a coup outright is somewhat misleading. I've generally read about it as the 28th of February Process or the alternate title of a Post-Modern Coup.
Chupac 17:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Chupac? where is the evidence? and sure you dont know about the coalition contract, which notes that PM chari will be shared time basely between Erbakan and Çiller
[edit] POV?
This page is POV because of claims such as:
-"During the 1990s, Turkey's economy and social welfare has been gradually improving"
-"however,the countries secular parties wanted to gain the power they had lost in the elections and put pressure on the army to step in and remove him from power.
i.e it represents a HIGH controversial political point of view.
Signed Timothy Scriven
[edit] So why don't you write another article?
.
[edit] My opinion as a Turkish citizen
It was not actually a coup but it was a threat kind of thing. I think the word "coup d'etat" is too much for that. I think this article should be removed or replaced with another appropriate title. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.6.158 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
In fact the February 28 was one of the most democratic event in Turkey, The only thing happened during the national security consul was denouncing communism threat(5 years after USSR collapsed) and announcing fundamentalism as new thread, PM Erbakan had signed it without hesitation, which turned the arrows to his own camp, it was like a suicide for Refah Party and subsequently coalition term ended(Erbakan wanted it to end earlier) and Tansu ciller would be next PM but President Suleyman Demirel appointed Mesut Yilmaz, leader of the second largest party on the parliament( that is a tradition ), who managed to form next government.
Where is the coup? the government completed its term (earlier but the coalition agreed) next party took the mission to form government and they did so why do people still call this as a coup? just because announcing fundamentalism as a thread which lead unreast among Refah Party ranks? 5 years later, 9/11 proved that fundamentalism is a global threat.
[edit] POV issue
Here in Turkey the CHP (Populist Republican Party) and the army see themselves as the founders and by extension "owners" of the state. What RefahYol (the coalition between the Welfare and True Path parties) did was threaten their power bases by the reforms they were planning. The real agenda was redistribution of economic wealth to different stratas of the society. Traditionally large conglamorates belonging to a select few families controlled much of the national economy. Beginning in the 80's during Ozal administration the average "backward" folk of Anotolia found the chance to really participate in the economy. By the mid 90's these entrepreneurs knowna as "Anatolian Tigers" were beginning to challenge the established socio-economic ortder. The evets surrounding the so called post-modern coup was a final attempt by the establishment to consolidate their power over the nation. However in hindsite we can say that it failed. Currently the Army and CHP has lost much of their clout in Turkish politics. The EU acession process, liberal attitudes of the previous chief of staff of Turkish Military and the economic (political) crises of 2001 in concert with the Erdogan government has greatly undermined the power of the forementioned establishment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.229.151.243 (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Not a coup d'état at all
This title does not represent the case in 28 February 1997. Turkish military had concerns on several issues and warned the government in National Security Council. 4 month later, prime minister Necmettin Erbakan resigned to let the coalition leader and vice prime minister Tansu Ciller to become the Prime Minister as part of the coalition deal. The President Suleyman Demirel didn't consider the deal and assigned some other party leader for government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.6.105.208 (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
There was no goverment overthrow, this falls best in to the catagory of "giving a warning", in Turkish "gozdagi vermek". The actions of Erbakan leading to resignation afterwards is his descision ...--Tendergluttony 13:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] coup d'état?
As wikipedia defines "coup d'état is the sudden overthrow of a government through unconstitutional means". There was nothing unconstitutional during this event. Army definitely had a role in the events, but I believe using coup d'état term is not correct. I suggest this article be renamed or deleted.--Charlesriver 05:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I know the correct terminology for such events is Memorandum. Regards Kerem Özcan 13:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Naming debates
See Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conflict for how to resolve dispute concerning titles. By the way, some of you might be interested in the controversy concerning the title of Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation [sic] . Cheers! Tazmaniacs 20:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tanks in sincan?
What is it to do with february 28? it was a demonstration after a theater event supporting terror in sincan and the military did its job(constitutional)
[edit] Renamed the article, etc.
I was surprised to read that there was a "coup" in turkey in 1997. I was living in ankara at the time, One wouldn't miss something like a coup, no?
Like the second paragraph of the article stated it was political, it may be the army intervening but mediums used are political.
I've read the discussion and went ahead, edited the title, and then the article. I erased the misinformation on N. Erbakan (if interested the writer of the first article can rewrite about Erbakan's political views in the article on Erbakan and would meet a more active disapproval, I think.)
I can't understand why nobody did it before I did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IIIIIIIII (talk • contribs) 22:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
