Talk:Orhan Pamuk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Columbia University WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Columbia University, her schools, environs, and people. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Orhan Pamuk article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
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!
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.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Orhan Pamuk:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

Contents

[edit] Comments

[edit] Ruya

Does anyone know how old Ruya is? Her birth year can be added. Paparokan 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paparokan (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Orhan Pamuk is divorced as far as I know. The article needs to be modified to reflect this.

The external link which supposedly goes to a New York Times editorial instead goes to one in the International Herald Tribune. I'm not sure whether the link is just labeled incorrectly or whethet there actually was such an editorial in the Times which was the link's intended target.

I changed the link title to be also IHT. Him being divorced is already in the article. Illustir 22:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] His Talk on Swiss Press

In the article it is written "In 2005, the Turkish government brought criminal charges against Pamuk after the author made statements implicating Turkey in the Armenian Genocide and persecution of the Kurds". He didn't mention the Armenian incident as a genocide, he told the number of the fatalities. He didn't tell anything about whether the incident was a massacare or also a genocide. At the same time he didn't tell these in regard to Turkish government (Turkish Republic hadn't been founded at the time of Armenian massacre) he told that 1 million Armenians and 30 000 Kurds were killed in this region. The sentence above is misleading and I think should be changed into:

"In 2005, the Turkish government brought criminal charges against Pamuk after the author made statements on the killing of 1 million Armenians and 30 000 Kurds in Anatolia."

  • Was it in fact the "Turkish government" that filed charges? Check out the Turkish Daily News, Saturday Febr. 19, 2005 [1] where it is clear that private citizens (attorneys for at least two different professional associations) filed the charges. The state merely provides the venue and judge for the trial, the actual initiation of the charges was in the hands of outraged Turkish citizens. Anthon.Eff 17:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"Turkish government" that filed charges???" .. Are you kidding.. I think he is not able to live in Turkey.. Because every Turkish people ready to spit on his face. What charges?? He will not come to Turkey.
We really hate Orhan Pamuk. (We=Turks). With respect, Deliogul 20:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Why? Orhan Pamuk's work offered to modern Turkey one of its most important cultural distinctions of all time - the Nobel prize! You should be proud! Rastapopoulos 06:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Deliogul, you hate with respect? is there any respect in hating others??? this is starting to make me laugh... Article 25 of your (you=turks) constitution says "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and opinion. No one shall be compelled to reveal his thoughts and opinions for any reason or purpose, nor shall anyone be blamed or accused on account of his thoughts and opinions." What he said literaly didn't imply recognizing the genocide, which most of the world think happened, just a short-sighted nationalist mind is incapable of not even questioning the past, not a bit! The poor guy isn't allowed to say what he thinks in such a wonderful country??? And not even because of that same nationalism some people is capable of recognizing the work of a guy who has won an international prize. I bet that if you read his works thinking they are somebody elses' you would still think he is a genious... I guess I have to be Turkish to understand your extremely (in my opinion too extreme) nationalist way of thinking. Give it some time... I will be glad to see how Turkey´s elites want to become part of Europe while banning the party that had the most votes, so funny to see how Europe has the eyes on them and don't let them do what they realy would love to if they could! Caribeando (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Most people in Turkey are euphoric and very proud of Pamuk at the moment even when they disagree with some of his views. Pamuk has lived his entire life in Istanbul, he is a proud son of the Turkish culture and the Turkish society. His literary accomplishments are a culmination of the contributions made by Turkish authors and poets over many centuries. People in Turkey are nothing but proud of him. "Hate" is a very unfortunate word. Most people in Turkey are not hateful people. Unfortunately they exist in the Turkish society, albeit as a small minority. ---146.115.111.68 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
But Orhan Pamuk is not agree with you. Because he says Turks killed more than 1 million armenians. If Turkish people are calm and they are not hateful people, how come they killed more than 1 million armenians. This is not logic. They should be hateful than right? I think Orhan Pamuk agreed with me hehehehe....
The thing is... he forgot to tell how many Turks died at the beginning of the century, what the Greeks did in Western Turkey, what had happened with the Turks in Balkan and what the French did in Antakya
You mean Orhan Pamuk forgot to tell these things. Right?. No he didn't forget. He did on porpose. Because he wanted to be famous. See he got Nobel prize just because of his speech on swish press.

He expressed this as bad intend of the swiss media, and what he told was about free speech in turkey than " i can't say turks massacered 1.5 million armenians and 30 000 kurds" not saying that he believes, but as usual armenian propaganda machine worked and manipulated his words, he is wise and intellectual enough not to discuss what he does not know, while he is not a historian nor soldier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doganaktas (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I don't understand this (overly long) sentence:

Some Turkish commentators have noted that praising Pamuk not for his writing but his statement on Kurds and Armenians is not only erroneous in this sense, but also unfair to people such as Yaşar Kemal, another world-famous Turkish writer who too had faced many charges throughout his writing life for defending rights of the Kurds as well as many other people who have dedicated a life-time to research minorities or been jailed to defend minority rights.

What is "erroneous"? Why would praising Pamuk be unfair to any other writer? The sentence doesn't make much sense. I have a feeling this is a misquoting or mistranslation or these unnamed "Turkish commentators".

Also this bit seems a little garbled:

The coincidence of the time that media began writing about Pamuk's statements and the time of major negotiations with EU has also resulted some controversy in Turkey.

Something is obviously missing here, but I'm not sure what. As it is, this sentence is garbled and doesn't make a lot of sense but I don't know how to fix it because the meaning of the editor is not clear. --Lee Hunter 23:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I read it as them claiming it would erroneous and unfair, because it would be giving credit to someone for doing something that they didn't in fact do, and not giving any credit to people who actually did those things. --Prosfilaes 08:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Me too. Or put it this way. What it's saying is that Pamuk has really done nothing major and is probably not even that concerned about freedom of expression or minorities but more with winning a nobel prize. I'm not saying this is the correct view but it's what the article is suggesting AFAIK. It may be similar to Princess Diana in some regards where various people suggest she actually did little for landmine victims et al and there are people who are much more deserving of praise in this regard then her... As for the second bit, I think it's saying that Pamuk may be part of an agenda to try and prevent Turkey entering in to the EU by doing something which may make problems for them precisely when it will make the most problems Nil Einne 12:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral(?) Point of View

I had not given much consideration to the factuality of Wikipedia until the libelious statements in it regarding a certain individual made it into the news. After seeing the article on Orhan Pamuk, which was supposedly neutral, all I can say is that Wikipedia is bound to fail as a reliable source of information. It appears that certain additions, which are factually correct and verifiable (such as Pamuk's father's position as the first CEO of IBM Turkey) had been removed alleging that someone was insulting the author in Turkish, which happens to be my mother tongue. I can tell you that there is nothing further from the truth. Certain people on Wikipedia are following Pamuk's example, which is slandering and lying without shame. If anybody calls certain authors as murderers for crimes they had not committed, this would certainly make its way into the court as a case of libel. If Orhan Pamuk does the same against a whole nation promoting hatred, well then he's a martyr for Freedom of Speech! Go figure on that! I have yet to hear one sentence from him protesting the war in Iraq, which is happening right now and right before his eyes.


A NON_TURKISH VIEW

I have read two of Pamuk's novels - THE NEW LIFE and SNOW and am reading MY NAME IS RED at the moment.

I am not a Turk but I see no evidence in any of these novels that he hates Turkey or that he is trying to sow the seeds of hatred. Far from it. While there is criticism of modern-day Turkey the books are steeped in a tragic love of his country and a vast desire for Turkey to be a great nation again with its citizens restored to a state of pride and spiritual happiness. SNOW and THE NEW LIFE are laments for a conflicted nation in search of its pride again. We expect our writers to challenge their countries and when this challenge comes out of a deep love and a desire to see that nation be great again that is to be praised.

It remains true that Turkish law makes it illegal to insult Turkey and Turkishness. If that is the law then one hopes that the coming court case will ascertain whether Pamuk has broken it or not. We may find the law unjust but it remains the law. It must be changed or adhered to. From my perspective, which is not Turkish, a statememt about the deaths of Kurds and Armenians is not treasonous. In the UK we talk about the atrocities committed against other peoples all the time but no-one sees this as an attack on Britishness - more an expression of a desire for truth and for Britain to be a better country. But as Voltaire said 'Autre pays, autre mouers'. Let us hope that the trial is fair and transparent and the truth emerges.

From my point of view, Pamuk is a great writer, one of the greatest, bravest and most honest in the world today. I wish British writers would tackle their nation with the same ambition, insight and uncompromising integrity.


This article pretends to have a neutral point of view which is none. Reading about the "alleged killing of 1 million Armenians" I just couldn't believe my eyes. Has it really become consensus here to talk about one of the most horrible genocides in the history of men as an "alleged" event? This is not neutrality but promotion of inhuman and outrageous nationalism. You see here the same attitude shown by people who talk about the Holocaust as an "alleged" event. The existence of an Armenian genocide is nothing to dispute about. It is a fact and considered to be one by historians from all over the world. Kemal Atatürk himself admitted that at least 800,000 Armenians had been murdered in Turkey. So give up this kind of faked "neutrality" and tell what is fact! --Sokrat3000 11:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a problem with all articles pertaining to Turkey. There's a large group of Turkish editors pushing an ultra-nationalist agenda. Turkey as a nation has never done wrong, Turkey can do no wrong, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, etc. are sub-humans, Kemal Atatürk is the greatest man who ever lived, and on and on. There are too many Turkish editors to counter this bias and they are fighting a war of attrition. Wikipedia is a long term project though. When Turkey changes (in the very distant future), so will the articles about Turkey. 80.202.25.17 11:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I admit that I have not been as bold as I could have been in combating nationalist statements in this article, because precedent shows that this leads to nasty edit wars and personal attacks. I have attempted to 'neutralise' statements added by nationalists as much as possible, but agree that some of them would be better removed altogether. Perodicticus 13:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
User:80.202.25.17, Turkey won't change in the way you want. We will continue to live according to our 4,000 years old traditions. Also, we have dozens of heroes. We don't have to always talk about Ghazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha. Turks will still be here when Wikipedia, Orhan Pamuk, EU and USA come to an end. With respect, the noble member of the Kayı Tribe, Deliogul 21:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
"Turks will still be here when Wikipedia, Orhan Pamuk, EU and USA come to an end." Oh my god... and I thought the average israeli, greek, catalan, and french was considered chauvinist... we have a winner! judging the emigration rates many turks may actualy be found in another land when the world comes to an end :-) Caribeando (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Very true, Turkish Nationalism is a massive problem at wikipedia, that and Atheist POV on pages are probably the two great giants of overly opinionated articles which aren't really paid much attention. We are seeing however, more and more radically nationalist Turkish editors joining. People in Europe, mostly academics, have a slanted view of the average Turk, they think opportunists like Pamuk represent a 'changing country', this couldn't be further from the truth, all History has shown us is that Muslims must either put their passion into radical Islamism, or abandon it and put their passion into radical nationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.106.176 (talk • contribs)
I want to remind you that Turkey will never be Americans' colony..

Is Turkish nationalism a massive problem? Then see below, someone claiming Turkey is being ruled by Grey Wolves and its military. This is not true, and not at all related to this Wikipedia article. This proves that anti-Turkish sentiment is a problem for Wikipedia, because some people are using it to spread their political views. Of course, their aim is not to make Turkey a more democratic place, in fact I am sure they'd be happier had there really been a rule of extreme right or military organisation. Thus they also have an ethical problem. I see such attacks in virtually every "popular" article about Turks and Turkey. Naturally there is a reaction to those attacks. If I must judge the severity of the problem, I see many more attacks to Turkish articles than Turks attacking others, so anti-Turkish sentiment is a much more "massive" problem. Filanca 11:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of pro or anti-Turkish sentiment or the existence and effect of nationalist Turkish editors, there is one essential issue at hand. That is whether every article that makes reference to <the events which occured in Turkey involving Armenians> avoid using the term "genocide", should the allegations of genocide be considered controversial, and should something like "alleged" genocide be used. The fact of that matter is that no credible scholar of history outside of Turkey has any doubts that the event in question occured, and that it fits the definition of a "genocide". Turkey is the sole and only country in which any reasonable and educated person debates this matter. As this is the English language Wikipedia, and the virtually all valid English language sources acknowledge that an Armenian Genocide DID occur, I propose a deal. I personally pledge not to edit the Turkish Wikipedia to say anything about Armenians or the G word if all Turkish editors cease to edit the English Wikipedia with the suggestion that this is controversial. It is controversial only in Turkey. In every other country everyone with an ounce of sense and a gram of education knows that the Genocide happened. Therefore, we will not pretend that the issue is up for debate to avoid hurting Turkish feelings here on the English wiki. We will also promise not to mention the topic on the Turkish wiki, and to respect the Turkish prohibtion on insulting Turkishness on that wiki. As a sidenote, most Americans (in my experience) do not accuse Turks of commiting genocide because we hate Turks. As far as I can tell, most Americans (myself included) have a very favorable impression of the Turkish (democratic, faithful but secular, a sucess story for modernization, a regional ally, a strong and cohesive culture, a sense of history, etc). The only real source of anti-Turkish sentiment I have EVER encountered among Americans is directly related to the obstinance of some Turks towards admitting to or even discussing the Armenian "event". In reading about Ottoman society, I was always struck by the level of tolerance of minorities compared to the Western world at that time. Denying that tradition is more of an "insult to Turkishness" than making an honest evaluation of a tragic historic event. As in the case of Japan's atrocities in China, the contemporary denial has become much more of an international embarassment than a simple admission of guilt.

The problem with the turkishness matter is too exaggerated, as no one was fined nor found guilty because of this. But, law in Turkey(probably elsewhere)uses judical individuality for state, cooperations, communities, etc etc which are almost equal to real individuals, a slander on them is punished as a slander on real people, and if you blame that the judical individual ottoman empire had commited a genocide and not prove it (everyone is innocent if guilt is not proved dont know how in elsewhere) you are charged with slander. So if really that was the case probably Pamuk would be found guilty(or the swiss paper). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doganaktas (talk • contribs) 21:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] His words afterwards

He said "i didn't say that Turks have killed a million armenians and 30000 kurds, i said "a million armenians and 30000 kurds were killed."" afterwards, when he was a guest in a tv show. He is just a classical writer type in search of fame using ethnic minority problems in the Turkish republic.These kind of writers, directors, historians, etc, are becoming famous all of a sudden,and after that they drown in prizes given by European oriented organizations.WHY?Now can anybody explain this to me?Is it right for parliaments to take decisions about history, especially about genocides? Politics interfering history and science. I really do think that history should be left to historians to work on, search and discuss.


Dear IP,
please remember that Wikipedia talk pages are meant for discussions about the article. They are, however, NOT meant for personal political statements. You may well do this in a political web forum if you like. If you think that parliaments should not take decisions about history it's your own business and does not belong HERE. --Sokrat3000 11:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sokrat,
You think that Wikipedia is a real encyclopedia but in fact it is not. There are many political comments. You can analyse the article about Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, for example. Some say that, there is nothing about the hatred of Greeks about him. Are they scientific? In my view, Wikipedia is not a real source of knowledge and I don't trust it.


The point is that Wikipedia talk pages are not meant for partisan talk. Just read the tutorial:
The purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the article in question. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play.
Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into a slanging match. See also: Wikiquette.--Sokrat3000 22:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Much on Criminal Charges

The recent criminal case against Orhan Pamuk was indeed an important event both in his life and the democratic development of Turkey; so it does require some interest. However the current article seems to give excessive space to the criminal case relative to Pamuk's career and work. This is probably caused by the fact that the case was covered extensively in the media (both in Turkey and Europe), but Wikipedia should not fall victim to the agenda of the day, but have a broader perspective. Therefore the article should be reviewed and edited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Univer (talk • contribs) .

On the contrary, Wiki has to reflect the views of the day, as in WP:NPOV. To ignore them in favour of ones own agenda is original research. If you feel it is imbalanced, the solution is not to delete valid information (which would be of interest to many people) but to expand other areas of the article. Tyrenius 00:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I think (and hope) once this criminal case nonsense settles, the entry will settle as well. But I think the section on the criminal case at the very beginning of the entry needs to go. If this is a biographic entry, to spend 90% of the article and the very introduction itself to discuss a sentence he uttered in the media is ridiculous. --Warpalawas 21:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the current state of the article does not do right to the literary qualities and fame of Orhan Pamuk. He has after all for years been one of the few authors from Turkey with readers across the globe.
How about reducing the size of chapter 3 by moving the bulk of it to a separate article? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Very nice idea indeed! I second it. Then the contemporary controversy can be discussed in detail there and Pamuk's article can remain as a biographic entry.--Warpalawas 14:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

www.orhanpamuk.net is not his official web page, bu rather a fan site. you can check the "copyright" section in that web page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canbaskent (talk • contribs) 05:32, 8 October 2006.

[edit] He got nobel prize :(..

Yes. He said bad things about Turkey, then Europe gave prize to him :(. Insert non-formatted text here

Well, actually, I believe there was talk about him getting the prize in 2005, but the controversy that would have caused problems (the charges were brought against him just before the prize was awarded), in fact I remember someone talking about him getting the prize in January of 2005.

I think Orhan Pamuk has too many Armenian friend . He says talking about the year 1915 is taboo. It is gaddam lie!. He is doing propaganda.. He says 1 milliona armenians killed in these lands.. In these years total population of Armenian was around 1 million. These 1 million population is now living in Armenia, Kudus, Beyrut, France, America.. They say we killed them all. And these people never talks about the innocent Turks Killed by Armenians.. I live in Adana .. My relatives killed in discussting way.. Most of the Armanian immigarated themself.. Because Armenians gangs did a big murder.. That is why most of them decided to leave the Turkey.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.12.136.186 (talk) 07:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
First of all, learn to speak English - your spelling is horrible... and second of all, you claim that Armenians killed turks... do you have anything other than some extremist website to back that up? Think about this logically (which might be difficult for a turk) - how often do minorities in a certain country commit genocides and mass murders of the majority and then freely "decide to leave" like you claim? If you know how to read, why don't you read one of the many books written on the Armenian Genocide - especially those that give day-to-day accounts of what was happening at the time AS IT HAPPENED. MalteseKnight 00:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I better stop reading! I am starting to believe that Armenians commited genocide against the Turks ha! However, these debates antropologicaly and psicologicaly are very insteresting, to see how one single country can think so different from pretty much the rest of the world, even considering the fact that history is not always accurate and trustworthy. Caribeando (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
dear maltese friend, Armenians were minorty like greek like syria like Iraq for maybe more than 400 years. but in WW1, Ottoman empire finished. And Armenians wanted to be an independent country with support of French and Russian Army.. Check the links please.. If you dont know history this is not my fault..
You wrote: how often do minorities in a certain country commit genocides and mass murders of the majority and then freely "decide to leave" like you claim?... Armenians decide to leave when French army also decided to leave.. .. French Army invaded Adana, Russian Army invaded kars..
For resouces you asked : http://www.tsk.mil.tr/eng/uluslararasi/armenianissue.htm , http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/index.html,

also this page is getting popular : http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/

I am still waiting for reply? You ask me resource? yes we have many skeletons of ottoman turks ın the middle of Anatolia killed by Armenians (belongs to womans, childrens), we have ottoman archive, many books, and our grand fathers :). What do armenians have? They have New york times news paper news, some russions soilders' pictures with death budies(saying that these are turkish soilder), some black and white pictures taken from Africa (saying that these are skeletons of Armenians). I am asking : If Ottoman killed 1,5 million Armenian, so where is the proof..show any proof??. Then I will shud up. Where is burning room ? where is sceletons?..

[edit] Armenian Genocide reference in the Introduction

User: Chimeira added the following to the introduction to this article.

"Ironically, on the same day that the French parliament has adopted a bill making it a crime to deny that Armenians suffered genocide at the hands of the Turks, Pamuk, who had declared that 1,000,000 Armenians had been killed by the Turks, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature."

I removed this section but he added it back twice. I don't have the time, nor the desire to engage in an edit war with this person. I don't believe these passages belong in the introduction. First of all, Pamuk did not say " 1,000,000 Armenians had been killed by the Turks", he said "a million Armenians were killed in these lands". So, this quote is inaccurate. Also, this passage in the introduction makes it look like Pamuk's entire personage including his literary accomplishments center around his views on the Armenian issue. Pamuk was well known before the controversy and his books have nothing to say about this issue. He was not awarded the Noebl Prize because of his views on this issue. I believe that the goal of this addition is political propaganda. The author of these edits wants to promote his political beliefs to anyone who is curious about the first Turkish Nobel prize winner. The French parliament's decision has nothing to do with this article. It should be removed. ---Vikiyazar 18:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's a remarkable coincidence, but coincidences are not encyclopedic. It's not relevant to Orhan Pamuk what law the French parliament has adopted, as long as he's not directly involved. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 18:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the difference between "1,000,000 Armenians had been killed by the Turks" and "a million Armenians were killed in these lands" ???? ... I dont see any difference. If you know history you will understand that there is no diference.. It is exactly same meaning!!!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.12.136.186 (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
I see a huge difference, because in the first quote he directly refers to the Turks killing Armenians, however in the second quote he refers to "a million Armenians being killed in these lands" he does not say whether they were exterminated by Turks, died of famine, disease, war-time atrocities, etc. So depending on your POV he might inderectly, be referring to the Turks, however in my opinion I think thats nonsense because as a journalist and writer he is very careful with what words he chooses to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.195.167 (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


I keep seeing throughout this discussion "What about the (fill in blank)s and what they did to the (blank again)s." Germans killed Jews, Americans killed indigenous Americans, etc...but the Turks did try to kill off the Armenians and fear the Kurds having a homeland once again. Turkey must stop living in denial and accept the failures and atrocities of your past leaders and move on. M.Stephenson 9/19/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.26.90 (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unencyclopedic

"Some of his Turkish colleagues attacked him for concentrating his criticism against "Turkey and Turks", and for not being equally critical of other governments."

could someone explain why that passage is suitable for an encyclopedia? aside from being totally unsubstantiated, and IRRELEVANT, it's unencyclopedic. is a person forbidden from criticizing something unless they criticize EVERY OTHER THING IN THE WORLD? it's a totally immature notion. it's the refuge of people who have no argument, and it's especially prominent in cheap/immature american political discourse: "Oh you criticize american policy? WELL YOU ALSO HAVE TO CRITICIZE XYZ, IN ADDITION". it's totally useless and foolish rejoinder, totally irrelevant to the argument at hand.

  • SECONDLY*

"Some Turkish commentators noted that praising Pamuk not for his writing but his statement on Kurds and Armenians was not only erroneous in this sense, but also unfair to people such as Yaşar Kemal"

how does that constitute a criticism of Pamuk? it's a criticism of his PRAISE, or the people who praise him "not for his writing". it's not a criticism of pamuk himself or of his work. this kind of childishness is typical of wikipedia, and an embarrassment. so the passage is nothing but nonsense that's totally inappropriate for the "criticism of pamuk" section.

and yes if you're still reading, both blank-claims ("some commentators/colleagues") are uncited. what a joke.

could someone explain why that passage is suitable for an encyclopedia?
It isn't, but some idiot kept reinserting it during his trial, and no one had the time and/or stomach to engage in a revert war. This has been a constant problem with this article -- see some of the earlier comments on this page.
So what to do about it? Perodicticus 10:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imposition

In English (legalese or otherwise) you don't "impose a person a person to a penalty"; you impose a penalty on a person. I am reluctant to actually make the edit because the wording may in fact be ensconced in an official Turkish legal document, but if it is merely a translation of the Turkish, I would ask an editor who knows both English and Turkish to correct it. --Haruo 21:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Done (copying version to be found in Article 301 --Zeisseng 20:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel prize and Grey Wolves

Democracy in Turkey is in the hands of the Grey Wolves and the military Deep State. Genocide is a routine Turkish policy, but they call it 'peace at home'. The EU is seriously duscussing Turkish membership, therefore the EU is mentaly and gradually returning to Nazism. 212.85.13.68 15:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Grey wolf is a just party. In Turkey only teroists hate Grey Wolves. And I think you are one of these trerorist. And For military: Military is just for grantee that in Turkey there is demokracy and freedom. This is their job in Turkey :).. And sometimes they use their force very well to make this. And also you dont like this because this makes Turkey excellent.. I think you are one of these terorist.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.233.113.45 (talk • contribs) .

Strange..an author gets Nobel for his spite writing over his country men...Nobel prize n the Swedish Academy stands for the perverted ideaologies of the EU. Has anybody got a nobel for writing on the Colonial looters..Who talk high ideals living in comfort built over 'blood' of hundreds of Africans n Asians countries.EU is the scourge eating away humanity slowly n steadily. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.248.32.114 (talk • contribs) .

Has anybody got a nobel for writing on the Colonial looters? Yes. Just check the list. Introspection is one of the major strengths of Europe, and has been for quite a while.--Stephan Schulz 10:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, this talk page is for discussions about how to improve the article. It's not for debates about Orhan Pamuk, his Nobel Prize, the EU, the Turkish political system, the Armenian genocide or anything else. Please focus on the article, not on the subject. Thank you, Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 20:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Grey wolves even are not a party, just a community of ethicists. About genocide this is not the place to discuss it , but as i wrote before slander is crime in turkey, calling him terrorist is also a slander, ("i think" wont save you User talk:88.233.113.45 , And Nobel is not a serious reward thinking Gorbachev was awarded for peace.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doganaktas (talk • contribs) 21:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protect?

Because of the massive amount of vandalism from anonymous IPs, I'm thinking this article is a good candidate for semi-protection. Anyone agree? Perodicticus 09:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism

I was googling with the keyphrase "orhan pamuk plagiarism" and came across a cached version of this article on answers.com here. It included the Plagiarism section. I didn't see any discussion about the removal of this section and believe that it should be included as it has references. I will put this section back in, I would like to know the reasons for its removal so that i can improve it before putting it back.--Zama Zalotta 00:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The claims that Orhan Pamuk committed plagiarism is not accepted worldwide- it is not even accepted widely in Turkey. Therefore you should show some references when you make some contribution. If you write your own opinion as if it has been told by someone else, it is not a fact. If you have your opinions on the similarities between these works you should publish it somewhere else first, before putting on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakerda (talk • contribs)

I am not a lawyer, and I can not determined Orhan Pamuk commited plagiarism or it is accepted as inspiration according to law. But, I can s reference about the source of the plagiarism claim. In Turkey, the most controversial book of Orhan Pamuk (about plagiarism) is "The White Castle". Acc. to the claim. This book includes some (almost same) parts from the book "Kanuni Devrinde İstanbul" by Fuad Carım ("Istanbul in the time of Kanuni", Kanuni is the Turkish nickname of Suleyman I). This book also shows as reference in "The White Castle" after the claims. The book have pressed very few edition in Turkish and never translated to any other language. So, it is difficult to translate the sample of claimed part. In Turkish, it can be found at http://webarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/2002/05/26/131125.asp . The books plot is the same with "The White Castle". I have no English Edition of "The White Castle" so, forgive me for translation.

‘‘Cenova'dan Napoli'ye giderken, hareketimizi haber alarak Ponz Adaları'nda bekleyen Türk donanmasının hücümuna uğradık’’ (Carım, 11)

"When going from Genoa to Napples, we attacked by The Turkish Navy that waiting us in Ponz Islands hearing our movement" (Carım, 11)


‘‘Venedik'ten Napoli'ye gidiyorduk, Türk gemileri yolumuzu kesti’’ (Pamuk, 11)

"We have been going from Venice to Napples, Turkish Nav stopped us" (Pamuk, 11)

Also, in both texts Captain give up to whipping the slaves, because he afraid of being punished because of this after capturing. Turks forced to be naked everybody but the narrator. The narrator have been saved beeing of oar slave because he is a physician.

Turkish archer attacked the Cristian symbols (in both texts they are Mother Mary images and crosses). And go on

I think there are too much similarity. But I am not such a position to determine this legally.CeyhunC 18:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a matter of law, the literature community can reach a consensus whether it is plagiarism or not. And nobody in the world says Pamuk commited plagiarism except some jealous guys in Turkey. It doesnt make sense to accuse a Nobel prize winner with plagiarism, all his works have been and are still under intensive scrutiny.

There is significant controversy (see this talk page for example!) so it's right to mention the issue briefly in the article. But proper references must be cited. The article must not take sides: if "plagiarism" is mentioned, other interpretations (e.g. "literary influence") must also be mentioned. Does that make sense? Andrew Dalby 10:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I have trouble seeing how 3-4 comments constitutes "significant controversy." I do agree with your other comments, but I favor the previous statement that the literature community will reach a consensus on whether this is plagiarism. Alternatively, if one of the supposedly plagiarized authors brings a case against Pamuk, then the topic may merit inclusion. Until then, I see little merit for including a fairly unsubstantiated accusation. Theinsomniac4life 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with the following paragraph here, I can't understand why it has been removed. I suggest putting it back in, thats all. Besides, how are people supposed to reach a consensus about something which has not been brought forward because they haven't reached one???--Zama Zalotta 23:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As reported by Melike Yilmaz from Bogazici University [24], Orhan Pamuk had been accused of plagiarism by some Turkish critics, for including a couple of excerpts in The White Castle from another novel by Critobal and Villanon, which had been translated into Turkish by Fuat Carim under the title Pedro'nun Zorunlu Seyahati[25]. Acknowledgements were finally inserted in the 15th printing of The White Castle (see references: Yildiz 2002, Küçük 2002, Kavlak 2003). Pamuk did not bother to answer the accusations and some critics have supported him in his silence, saying that usage of excerpts from other books should be considered as intertextuality, not plagiarism. [26]
Apologies for not responding till now. No, I don't see any problem with it. I read it before it was removed and it seemed OK to me; but for "bother to answer" you might write "respond to", as that is perhaps a more neutral expression; and I suggest you correct "Critobal and Villanon" to the exact name (or names?) of the author(s), linking if possible, and add the work's original (Spanish?) title, if possible.
I don't know why it was removed. Can you retrieve a version with references and paste it back in? Andrew Dalby 19:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speech in Ceremony

Could someone put a link to Pamuk's speech in the Nobel prize ceremony? I hear that it was a very good one. Filanca 11:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I put the link in references. The video and the text is available on Nobel Prize website. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2006/pamuk-lecture.html

[edit] Is he Kurdish

I heard that Orhan Pamuk is Kurdish.. Should we add it to article?

You just heard it. No reference. Without citing what you heard, you may not add it to the article. He is not Kurdish by the way. Don't forget to sign your comments using for tildes. --Scientia Potentia 13:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

We should not add that you heard that Orhan Pamuk is Kurdish. We don't even know your name, who are you? :) Please see WP:OR denizTC 20:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he is an armenian.Also I think his nickname is Artin Kemal

--Kızıl Şaman 11:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

lol he is definitely not Kurdish. His family are noble Istanbulites.

No no.I read in one of his books,he said he has Circassian ancestry.I'm not sure which one,its the the autobiographical one where it had pictures of him as a boy,his brother,his parents.I am the one who added the "of partial Circassian ancestry" to his article.J87 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.34.93 (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] misplaced sections?

Why is the "Western reviewers" section included in the "criminal case" section? Do those two parts have anything to do together? Cause I can't see any. Keith Galveston (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] most prominent?

According to NYTimes he is "most prominent writer", however according to the Turkish speaking people he is nothing. Even there is "articles" that he is not good in Turkish language, in the Turkish newspapers.--Ilhanli (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orhan Pamuk is certainly one of the most prominent writers of the world - of all times !

I simply salute Orhan Pamuk for his extraordinary writing skills! Very soon I would finish reading all his books and then I wonder what I would do? Because, since I have started reading him, I find most of the writers - both old and contemporary - very ordinary. I, in fact, do not have apt words to express my admiration for him. Hope he keeps writing for us - for ever! And, we keep enjoying wonderful moments while reading his books! ... Take care, Mr. Pamuk :)

Anju Chandel, New Delhi, India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.69.185 (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)