Talk:Human rights in Turkey/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Untitled

I have just read that PKK is a Kurdish worker party. What kind of thoughts are behind this? It should be internationally accepted that PKK is an Kurdish Terror Organization. When I read this article, I can see that the author is not an objective writer.

Hi, Everybody defines been objective differently but we have to stick to Wikipedia policies here. And labelling a organisation is not accepted here so the editor is in the right within the Wikipedia rules. Ozgur Gerilla 02:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is Turkish propaganda of the worst kind

There is world-wide condemnation of the past and present Turkish Human rights record.The European Union has been the strongest critic of Turkish human rights crimes which have been the major reason why Turkey has not been granted membership.The United States State Department has had Turkey on it's list of human rights violators as have many human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The arrest and trial of Orhan Parmuk clearly shows that Turkish human rights activists and minorities in Turkey have no human rights.It was only the strong international condemnation that led to the release of Orhan Parmuk.The Turkish government actively supported the Azeri massacres of Armenians during the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict and it has murdered over 30,000 Kurds.The Turkish government is actively involved against operations against Kurds in the present day. You have to live in a fairy tale world to think that Turkey cares for the human rights of Turkish human rights activists and minorities living in Turkey.

Let's do something about it! :)Ozgur Gerilla 01:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, if anyone has useful information with a good source to back it up then they should add it because this article is seriously a pure turkish propaganda. The Kurdish section talks about protection by the Turkish army to Kurds. That is sad when infact there is so much pressure on Kurds in southeast Turkey. Ozgur Gerilla 01:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Very much agree with this: some inserted partisan, pro-Turkish propaganda here, and this should be remediated about. --Lucas Richards 16:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't agree with something like this. You said something about a armenian massacre...this did not happen in the past. After that you say the Turkish state has killed 30.000 Kurds...You should correct your sentence like this: The PKK has killed more than 30.000 soldiers/civilians of the Turkish state. When anyone attacks soldiers of a state...he will be arrested if possible, else, when the life of a soldier is being threathed by de opposite...the opposite will be killed.

There is no human rights problem...Turkey has a problem with the PKK, and this has nothing to do with human rights.

Where do you get the information wether there is pressure on Kurds? Why don't you pinpoint the pressure of PKK on the Kurdish people in southeast Turkey? You blame the Turkish government/army, but the real pressure is made by PKK (don't defend the PKK with human rights or something else...it's a terror organization.

Most international observers note that both the PKK and the Turkish state commit infractions against human rights. Both these infractions should be documented upon. --Lucas Richards 16:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you give correct examples for the Turkish state by comitting infractions against human rights?

I think there's no need for a special article titled with "Human rights in Turkey". The title of the article makes itself subjective and allows hostile point of views (Armenian, Greek) to be explained. This hurts the neutrality. The article is used for propaganda.

Why is there a need for "Human rights in Turkey" but no need for "Human rights in USA", "Human rights in France", "Human rights in Uganda", etc.

Thanks

Other "human rights in..." articles exist. Among them is a Human rights in the United States article. Also, I don't think there is any propaganda in this article. Stereotek 11:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The 2004 Penal Code added a penalty of ten years in prison for any person affirming that the Armenian Genocide took place or object to the government policies regarding Cyprus. [1]."

I will remove the mentioned quote from the article for the following reason:

Frank Pallone is a prominent member of Armenian lobby, a fact also mentioned here. His naturality in this matter is highly doubtable. U.K. parliament has reached a different conclusion about the mentioned law which should reflect a more natural point of view due to non-interference of lobby movements. [2]

I will add it again, this with a better and more neutral source: [3] Stereotek 11:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is written by people who wish to support the idea that their country (Turkey) has not worse a problem of human rights than the rest of the civilised world. This is highly disputable, and there is plenty of evidence that shows that human rights in Turkey, especially in what concerns minorities and religious practice, are not respected in many ways. It should either be removed or edited to show all sides. --Spryom 06:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Overly subjective wording

  • "Although Turkey is a long way ahead of orthodox Islamic countries...."

The assumption that Western practices are inherently more 'developed' than those of other cultures has no place in a global, neutral encyclopedia. Any suggestions as to a better word arrangement? 82.32.83.19 21:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear, it is not just 'Western' practices, but the Uited Nations' Declaration of Universal Human Rights that should be the relevant criterion to assess the democratic development of countries. And from that perspective, I think Turkey is indeed ahead of Arabic world. --Lucas Richards 11:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "In the past, the Greek Orthodox Church's insistence on insulating itself from the national high education system resulted in shutdown of the Halki Seminary."

This is conveying the official Turkish government opinion and is highly disputable. The Ecumenical Patriarchate's (Head of the Orthodox Church) view is that the closing of the School of Halki is an effort to supress the religious rights of the Christian minority, in direct violation of the Treaty of Lausanne. It should be rephrased to a NPOV or removed. --Spryom 06:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

More or less agree with this. The official Turkish explanation looks like a lame excuse. --Lucas Richards 11:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Pure Propaganda

This article reads like a Turkish Tourism Ministry bulletin. -- James

Please help fix it. Ben Aveling 11:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"And it was the first country in Europe to give women the right to vote and to be voted."

This is simply not true, see Universal suffrage


Go ahead and check it from formal history resources, and see that it is totally true. -- CANCAN

Not all history books imply truth. Ozgur Gerilla 23:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Notes on wikificationing

Tried to make intro NPOV.

Chopped most of gender. Especially the bits dumping on the Kurds. (I have to suspect much of it is true, but why single out just the Kurds?)

Could have moved bit on male conscription, but don't think it relevant to human rights.

Chopped most of press freedom, including the assertion that ethnic broadcasting is only because ", in order to comply with recent human rights legislation"

Still not happy with it, but don't feel I can cut more without losing stuff that is probably interesting.

Cleaned up Ethnic minorities. Removed comparison to foreign countries here, as I have elsewhere

This line might be worth restoring "It has always been legal to speak any language in one's private life." but probably only if someone can something about public use, use in education, whatever.

No changes to Religious freedom or links.

Regards, Ben Aveling 11:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

PS. It's a fine line, but I think I've gone too far in removing references to the Kurdish separtists. While past Turkish govt's have been far too quick to blame abuses on the 'need' to 'respond' to them, I don't think they should be completely omitted either. However, I think this calls for someone with more knowledge of the situation than I, so I won't make any more changes now.

The article still reads like a list of those "human rights that are not abused in Turkey", which doesn't please me. :-(

Regards, Ben Aveling 11:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Excessive vandalism from 81.213.123.54

Adminstrators - Please protect this page from editing due to the wave of vandalism from 81.213.123.54 Schzmo 23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a case for semi-protect for a few hours... And a block for 81.213.123.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

POV thrash

I've tried to merge in some of the points our anonymous editor seems to want make.

In a way, I'm tempted to remove the cleanup and disputed tags, not because the article is perfectly clean and perfectly balanced, but because those tags ought to be backed up by a list of problems somewhere here on this page. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


Revert

The old version of the article is against a particular country, state and goverment, it is away from Wikipedia's quality standarts.

Strongly object against this reasoning. As this topic is quite actual and very relevant for EU ascension, it feel that it is indeed a very correct way, in line with Wikipedia standards, to have a specific topic on this. --Lucas Richards 16:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be objective. Please check the realities in Turkey (both pro and against) and then decide about the old version; is it correct or not according to facts not to your opinions. Please, stop critising a country with your opinions if you want to add something to new version please add but please do not erase this objective new article and please please do not put the old version. Also, please remember that Turkey is not an undemocratic country. We say all those things because we have much more information than many people who edit this article. I hope you will understand our points, because this image costs Turkey a lot; Thank you, -the people who revert ex-article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.101.20.170 (talk • contribs) .

The arguments used are quite revealing: the unknown author apparently feels that any critical information may be censored out as it 'costs Turkey a lot'! However, any critical and true account of human rights infractions in a particular country ALWAYS costs to the image of the country. That is normal, honest and scientifically and intellectually OK. What rfeally matters is whether the criticism given is accurate and correct. And if it is accurate, correct, and also relevant etc (see Wikipedia guidelines), then bad luck for those contributors who identify to much with a particular state or country, so much that their legitimate love and affection for it blinds their neutral judgement. --Lucas Richards 16:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

  • women often continue to face informal discrimination, especially in rural areas of Eastern Anatolia where violence against women, forced marriages, so-called honour killings and a lack of basic education also continue to be significant social problems.
    added to new version pls check
    Looks good. Are education campaigns only happening in East Anatolia?
  • In 2003, the Turkish Grand National Assembly rejected a proposal to amend the constitution to allow positive discrimination in favour of women
    making a research about it
    Thanks.
  • there are restrictions on broadcasting programs and news considered harmful to the unity of Turkey and general Turkish ethics.
    this true but laws are very strict
    Looks good. Might be interesting to provide some more details.
  • Writers touching on sensitive issues such as the alleged massacre of a million Armenians 90 years ago and the deaths of 30,000 Kurds in the past two decades, such as Orhan Pamuk, are frequently targeted by the law.[4]
    Orhan Pamuk's sittuation is different many Turks belive that he did that thing to won the Nobel Prize
    Would it make a difference if he had? Whatever his motives, I think it would be good to mention specific examples such as him, or perhaps someone else instead if there is a better example of what is and is not allowed.
  • Turkish society contains elements ... and German ancestry. I don't know why the list of ancestors is important, but if it's there, should it not include Germany?
    No German ancestry, absolutely sure
    I can't believe there's not some - not with all the guest workers in Germany. But I see the point that the bulk of Turkish society descends from the old ottoman empire. So looks good with the new changes.
  • Until recently, Turkey restricted publication, broadcasting and education in a number of minority languages, particularly dialects of Kurdish. The Turkish constitution of 1961 allowed Kurdish publications in principle, but in practice many were confiscated for inciting separatism. During the 1980s, laws were brought in to suppress the use of Kurdish in public life
    Compare with the new version
    Looks good.
  • Security forces in Turkey forcibly displaced Kurdish rural communities during the 1980s and 1990s in order to combat the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) insurgency, which drew its membership and logistical support from the local peasant population. Turkish security forces did not distinguish the armed militants they were pursuing from the civilian population they were supposed to be protecting. By the mid-1990s, more than 3,000 villages had been virtually wiped from the map, and, according to official figures, 378,335 Kurdish villagers had been displaced and left homeless. (see [5],[6] and [7]. Also see Report D612, October, 1994, "Forced Displacement of Ethnic Kurds"(A Human Rights Watch Publication)[8] )

It might be worth mentioning that the army claimed that it was forcing people from thier homes 'for their own good' but I can't think of any way to say it that doesn't sound sarcastic.

  • They are Turkish citizens and Turkish army did not kill Turkish citizens but the terrorist killed more than 30,000 peope
    I think we're getting into a disputed area here. We should probably just write what we know, without saying who or why except where that's documented.
  • Turkey is a secular country and has no official religion. Every Turkish citizen have right to choose his/her religion and can worship in every way he/she wants.

Can a turkish woman decide to cover her head at work? At school? In parliament?

It is about special case of Turkey, please check new version
Better.

This sentance no longer makes sense.

Please see now
Looks good.
  • {{TotallyDisputed}}

I think the fact that we are having this discussion suggests that the article is disputed. It's good that we're working through this.

Thanks, Ben Aveling10:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Cooperation will make this article reach to Wikipedia's standarts; Thank you; CrashMex 16:19 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

You too. Ben Aveling 21:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


Armenian Genocide problem and this article

Can someone inform me about the connection between the genocide dillemma and the human rights issue in Turkey? There is nothing about the genocide issue. Also, the genocide issue is not acapted still by many historians(not only Turkish) so there is no point to write this problem here. There is no proof yet. Please, Wikipedia is not an arena that nations edit and fight. I strongly suggest removing of Armenian part because there is no human rights offence of Turkey. Even though, there is a chance of being real it was during the Ottoman Era, again nothing to do with Turkey! However, some people harm Turkey and gain advantage as much as they gain over Turks. I know this issue is a law in some countries but there is nothing about it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights! CrashMex 18:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Armenian issue has nothing to do with Human Rights in Turkey. If one wants to talk about the rights of ethnic Armenians in modern day Turkey, that's fine, but genocide claims that allegedly happened during the Ottoman times have no relevance at all with Human Rights in Turkey.
This is incorrect: it is very related because of how Turkey reacts to anybody willing to exercise his right on a personal opinion abou this case as soon as this opinion is different from the state's opinion. --Lucas Richards 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The following sentence has serious problems: "In addition to this it is not uncommon for Turkish academics to be persecuted as a result of expressing supposed anti Turkish views when simply talking about the issue, infringing many fundamental human rights, most notably the right to free speech." An attempt was made to support it with Orhan Pamuk case, which has no ground. Orhan Pamuk is not convicted of any guilt. Furthermore, no scholar has ever been convicted due to expressing views supporting Armenian claims in Turkey.

Wrong: many peole have been jailed for just this, and Ohran Pamuk was indeed also prosecuted. he escaped jail because of the massive international outrage and pressure from the EU administration and many civil rights organizations. --Lucas Richards 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The following is also quite problematic: "As an act of genocide it remains the greatest human rights issue to be addressed by Turkey." Why is it the greatest? This is ridiculous. Either a solid reference needs to be brought (stating that it is indeed the greatest) or the language has to be changed. The greatest Human Rights issue in Turkey has nothing to the with Armenia (the world does not turn around the Armenian issue), it might be freedom of speech, religion, etc., but not a propoganda item.

Indeed; Armania's genocide issue is far from the major issue (which does not diminish the scale of human suffering caused by those genocide, nor the insult caused by any denial of it to the survivors and their relatives).

Just as a clarification, the offical Turkish position on the Armenian Genocide is often portrayed as a flat denial that it happened. This is not the case. The dispute is over WHY it happened. The Armenian view is that it was an ideologically based campaign of ethnic purification, and the Turkish view (supported by almost all Mid East scholars) is that it was an attempt to save the state at any cost by moving a population viewed as unreliable and rebellious out of the war zone where the empire was currently being invaded by Russia. Although there are mutliple views on the number of Armenians that died, nobody disputes that the number was massive - the lowest I have seen anyone seriously (i.e. non-propaganda) argue is 600,000 - and there is a level of exasperation over the refusal of anyone to discuss the enormous mortality suffered by the Muslim population of the same region. In any case, I don't see how discussion of the Armenian Genocide is particularly relevant to modern human rights issues in Turkey; I don't think it merits more than passing mention in the section on the illegality of criticizing Turkishness. Pamuk got into trouble for his perceived lack of balance, and what seemed to be obvious grandstanding to generate book sales lost him any sympathy he might have garnered at home.

On another note, there is a reference in the section "Ethnic Groups" to forced Turkification of Armenians who are called "Hashemis". I have never heard this term, and can find no reference to it anywhere. If nobody is able to provide a reference, this line should be removed. "Hashemi" is a common surname in the Mid East, and is often used to refer to the Hashemite dynasty. "Turkification" is not defined or supported, and was never an ideology of the Ottoman regime, other than the promotion of the use of the Ottoman Turkish language, but this was not really an issue for the Armenians, almost all of whom were already native Turkish speakers, or at least bilingual. It was also not aimed supressing any groups, but rather as an effort at centralization.

Sprotected

I've protected this page against edits by anonymous and new users as a result of a prolonged edit war. - FrancisTyers 20:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've also seen that therev is a massive effort going on from Turkish contributors who remove critical information on Turkey and related topics on a certain scale. They often don't explain anything on discussion pages, just CUT. Some of them (as Delioğul) are self-declared Turkish nationalists. --Lucas Richards 11:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling error within article

"instutitions" probably should be "institutions" but as an anon user, I can't alter it.--203.214.88.244 13:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just altered it. Ozgur Gerilla 14:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If I read all this edit's...It's just funny. The Turkish state is being blamed for something which didn't happen. Turkey has to accept this if it want's to be a full member of the European Union. On the other side...The French state has made a genocide in Algeria, but doesn't have to accept this or is being blamed. There is a little contrast here. Turkey should accept something what didn't happen...at the other side...France made a genocide in Algeria...but is not being blamed of it, or has to accept it. It's a little bit strange.....

Hi, This is no place to discuss politics. Please try to relate your conversation to the articles subject. Thanks. Ozgur Gerilla 02:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkification???

There was no forcely Turkification in the 20th century. Hamsheins are a group of Armenians who chose Island as their religion and continued to live with Armenian traditions. CrashMex 19:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, why is it that a large percentage of the Kurds do not speak their language then? Ozgur Gerilla 16:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)