Jump to content

Talk:Human rights in Turkey/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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 · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 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)

Rewrite

I rewrote the whole thing.. I have the impression that people who wrote this article in the first place were really having a kick out of it big time [9].. :)) And that guy is an admin now.. Go figure.. In any case, i need a few sources and then that's that.. I don't understand why we need to be continously negative.. it is HR in TR, so why wasn't it never mentioned that Turkish women gained the right to abortions, an important HR, in 1985 whereas in Poland and Ireland they still dont have that right?? Always negative, always negative.. Honestly, do some people like to get a kick out of it this negativity? Anyways, Barış(peace) people!.. Baristarim 04:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

PURE PROPAGANDA, A LOT OF POV COMMENTS

This is a POV article! This is pure pro Turk and anti-Kurdish propaganda! Bleah!--193.43.176.101 09:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Khoikhoi 03:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have read through the article and reread the controversial parts, and couldn't find any anti-kurdish or pro-turkish propaganda. Please speak clearly. If you want a paragraph or a sentence to be checked for POV, than we can disccuss such things here. Thanks Caglarkoca 11:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You should have seen the older version :)) Well, this article still needs some work and certain sections contextualized. However, even its current state is good from a structural point of view. One thing that needs to be done is to find more general references, and not just for the controversial ones. Hopefully will get around to it one day! Baristarim 00:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey

I recommend merging anything useful in that article to here. --Cat out 16:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It already has been. yandman 16:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The line "Turkey was one of the first countries to elect a women prime minister in 1995" under Gender Equality is misleading. I can count 15 female prime ministers, from as far back as 1960. I will re-word removing reference to "one of the first". Panthro 14:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

15 out of 212 makes it the one of the first, right? :) Baristarim 16:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's debatable. My point is that there is a 35 year gap between the first woman prime minister and the Turkish PM. So I don't see how she can be described as one of the first Panthro 12:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I"m not an expert on politic but isn't a prime minister equivilent to a president? I agree with baristarim btw... Armanalp 16:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No. There are many countries that have both a Prime minister and a President. The former is the head of the government and the latter is considered the head of the executive. --Kimontalk 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Baristarim is a Turkish propagandist.His nationalism has blinded him toward the truth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Idot22 (talk • contribs)

Beware the troll :) Baristarim 04:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing called genocide and some people who don't know about the history are trying to support the genocide by opening fake web sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.159.16 (talk • contribs)

I don't think it's a good idea to merge the two topics. Thinking of it, this article covers a much broader scope. There are GLBT rights, Alawis, torture in Turkish prisons etc. Human rights in Turkey cannot be reduced to the alleged persecution of the Kurds. Tauphon 16:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree Kurdish people are suffering more than their share, and have suffered a somewhat more recently. This does not preclude the fact the rest is suffering or have suffered any less. Whenever it becomes a turkish-kurdish fsck-up it becomes as dignified as a pissing match, if you can ever pardon my french. I am Turkish, mine is the country where all the minorities have suffered inordinately in the last 60-100 years ("levanten"(?)s, jews, armenians, those who crack the egg on the wider side, and so forth). That the people of Kurdish origin are using the fact that Turkey is a (my POV) fascist (by that I mean very very state-nationalistic) minded county to further their own racist agenda is - well, undermines their whole base of validity (IMHO). I do root for the underdog and the meek and the underpriviledged. It is a sad fact that I am often made to feel and think the kurdish "minority" is trying to exploit this not to make it a more even field, but just to get the international upper hand to do as they unjustly please. I am quite ready to expound on this. Fair warning: Bear in mind I am NOT nationalistic-minded and quite ruthless. Justin Case (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Chart and bar tables

I feel a bar box would be more appropriate to show number of decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights over the years. However, the template linked-to above only show horizontal bars, not vertical ones; if someone knows how to make vertical bars, could he make such a bar chart instead of the numbered chart I've inserted (or explain to me how to do it)? Thanks, Tazmaniacs (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced paragraph

Moved here till someone provides sources: " The current AKP-led government has tried on certain occasions, but failed, to strengthen legal provisions that are more restrictive, such as making adultery a criminal offense that is in line with orthodox Islamic teaching. Proponents of the proposal however, claimed that the law in question would have prevented the practice of polygamy, which can still be encountered in remote rural areas [citation needed]. In any case, in the light of the recent jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court that had struck down a similar provision for being unconstitutional in 1992, all jurists agree that it would have done so again, even if it were to become law." Tazmaniacs (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

International criticism section

I moved it here, since specific criticisms are already adressed, and this section seems to me to general (which country isn't criticized by human rights organizations?). Sources might be useful for more specific issues, though. Tazmaniacs (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC) "==International criticism== Turkey has been criticized by a number of international human rights NGOs for its violations of certain rights of its citizens.Turkey, Human Rights and the International Law The European Union has been the biggest critic of Turkey's human rights record and this has hindered Turkey's accession process to join the EU. The European Court of Human Rights has also issued many rulings highly critical of Turkey's human rights record and other NGOs, such as the Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch, have also been critical of Turkey.Waller, Douglas (2000-05-22). "Human Rights Leave Chopper Deal in a Spin". TIME Europe. Retrieved 2008-08-20."

European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages

This page is not in agreement with European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages where it's stated that Czech republic did ratify the treaty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.139.107.166 (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Closure/Dissolution

Quasi-official translation of Turkish Constitution uses the term dissolution for what is termed closure here. For the sake of technical consistency I suggest replacing words closure with dissolution here and in this page as well. If no one disagrees, I'll do the changes in next week.--Eleman (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I find it interesting that the top hits on Google for "party closure" are all about Turkey! --Adoniscik(t, c) 03:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Gender equality and divorce in Malta

Divorce is not a right that is denied to women in Malta - divorce is denied to everybody (men and women): "In Malta divorce is not part of our legal system", according to the European Judicial Network, so it should not be used as an argument for gender equality. Helentr (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Communism

Guys, don't get me wrong here, I totally agree with communism being oppressed in my country (Türkiye). But this sentence which I removed is absolute speculation: " Many of these are the result of (right-leaning) military influence on Turkish politics, and originally aimed at containing Communism [citation needed]. ".

I mean come on, "(right-leaning)"? That's quite a heavy allegation, but the problem is that it's utterly personal opinion.

If somebody wants to reconstruct a sentence with the same subject (communism) without speculations, please be my guest, though, don't forget to cite it. Thanks. --Dimitrakopulos (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Complete rewrite

About a month ago I started to draft a complete revision of the article under User:Sc.helm/Human rights in Turkey. Somehow I forgot to announce this step here, because I would have liked others to contribute as well. I gave the page a new structure which I believe could be some kind of guidance on how to order issues on pages that describe human rights in a particular country. I've tried to keep as much of the existing article as possible, but I must admit that some pieces got lost, because they were either not relevant, precise, not sourced or in conflict with sources I believe to be more reliable.

I suggest that interested people visit my draft and edit it or leave comments on the talk page. Should there be no serious objection (let's say in a month or so) I would replace the existing article with my (our) draft. Sc.helm (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The structure of international reports

Remarks of Sebastian Helm to be read on his talk page and the fact that there has been no reaction to my idea, made me consider to detail my suggestions. Before I compare the structure of Human rights in Turkey to my draft on the subject let me first give you an idea how the subject is structured elsewhere. Both main international NGOs Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International (AI) have annual reports relating to almost all countries in the world. I shall deal with the reports 2009 (that actually cover the development in 2008).

You can say that both organizations had similar concerns on Turkey for 2008. But these concerns may vary from one country to another and from one year to another. In that sense the structure of HRW or AI are no samples for pages on human rights in particular countries.

In a second step let's look at regular reports from other places. There are annual reports from the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. The report for 2008 was published on 25 February 2009. The European Union publishes annual reports on Turkey as so called reports on progress. The latest report of the Commission for Enlargement was published on 14 October 2009. A comparison of the highlighted issues shows the following:

Without looking at all details one can assume that both institutions follow (to some extent) the order of rights as enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) or the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Relating to Turkey the following order can be observed (only in the ICCPR; the ECHR is similar and both are binding for Turkey).

  • Article 6 right to life
  • Article 7 torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
  • Article 18 freedom of thought, conscience and religion
  • Article 19 freedom of expression
  • Article 21 right of peaceful assembly
  • Article 22 right to freedom of association

BTW: Article 4 provides that no derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2 relates to slavery), 11 (no imprisonment for not fulfilling a contractual obligation), 15 (presumption of being innocent), 16 (recognition as person before law) and 18 may be made under this provision (in that sense these are the fundamental rights and freedoms).

Further provisions of importance in relation to Turkey are:

  • Article 23 family protection by society and the State
  • Article 24 right of the child to protection
  • Article 25 right to participate in public affairs
  • Article 26 ban of discrimination
  • Article 27 minorities' rights

The structure of current article and draft

A comparison of the Table of Contents shows:

My comment:

  1. Who determines what the common violations were at what time?
    1. My division into Main and Further Issues may not be the best way out (suggestions welcome).
  2. Extrajudicial killings and capital punishment both concern the right to life and belong together
  3. Violence against Journalists and Intellectuals is no major concern today: they are rather victims of the freedom of expression (item 3.3.)
  4. Conscientious objection is a specific issue under freedom of expression
  5. Gender equality, LGBT rights and the disabled people should be closer together. One could think of a heading such as discrimination.
  6. Ethnic rights, minority rights and the Kurdish question, too, are closely related to each other
  7. Workers' rights could be thought of as a specific issue under freedom of association

How I proceeded

I did, of course, first make a one to one copy of the existing article (way back on 10 September 2009). I then projected a structure and put all the pieces that related to the subjects under the relevant headings. Afterwards I started to edit section by section. Sc.helm (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Final step

Having waited for more than one month during which there was a single constructive comment I did what I suggested: I made a complete revision. Sc.helm (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to EU

I just happened to stumble upon this article and in reading it, I couldn't fail to notice the comparisons to EU countries:

This is in contrast with the policies of certain EU countries, such as Poland and Ireland, that ban abortion and deny this right to women. Modifications to the Civil Code in 1926 gave the right to women to initiate and obtain a divorce, a right still not recognized in Malta,[10] a EU country.

and

However, it must be noted that, even France, a founding member of the European Union, has refused to apply this treaty within its territory following a ruling by its own Constitutional Court that has affirmed that doing so would be contrary to the principle of the indivisibility of the Republic and the nation affirmed in the First Article of the French Constitution. In addition to France, many other EU countries, namely Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Portugal have also refused to ratify this treaty. To this day only 21 member states of the Council of Europe out of 49 have proceeded with ratification.

Since this is an article on human rights, what is the need of comparing the current status in Turkey to what's going on elsewhere? It should stand on its own, in an objective manner, and stating the facts alone.

I agree that human rights is one of the major arguments those in the EU are using to deny Turkey membership but, perhaps that could be an article in itself with maybe a section with a summary here.--Kimontalk 20:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, just as you pointed out in the last paragraph, since human rights has become such a big issue in EU-TR talks and that it has become to take precedence more than the HR issues itself. In that case, we should also remove the criticism from the EU, no? If we are going to let in the EU and EU-related criticism, there is nothing wrong with letting those paragraphs stay.
I know what you are trying to say, and I agree - however some people have insisted so much on including the EU criticisms in there, I felt obliged to add those paragraphs - nevertheless, the second example that you cited is very relevant since it concerns a European treaty, therefore its general acceptance is relevant. If we are going to include the position of Turkey towards a European treaty, it is also important to state the position of the treaty vis-à-vis other European nations. Baristarim 00:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
(somehow I missed this on my watchlist)
As to your former point (criticism from the EU), whether the comparison stays or not is irrelevant to the inclusion of EU criticism. The criticism should be addressed not by saying "yeah but, look at what you do", otherwise we'd have an ad hominem argument (or is it ad countriam?).
As to your latter point (EU treaty), I see what you're trying to say and it may be appropriate to include it.
Like you said, we're fundamentally in agreement and we should find a better way to address part 1 above. --Kimontalk 20:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey,i am new to wiki,so excuse me for various mistakes i do:). First of all i will start by saying I am Greek. I think,though,that we are all mature here and don't start namecalling. I find the article pretty good and informative, not biassed or anything. It is balanced in my honest opinion. BUT,i wonder if someone could write an paragraph about the recent speach-claims of the patriarch of the orthodox church in Instabul (Konstantinoupolis for us w/e). He did claim that some serious problems against orthodox and other minorities exist —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasilisDa (talk • contribs) 11:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mural depicting human rights in Turkey

A user recently removed the image asking what the purpose of the image was. The mural is located on a wall at the entrance of public education center in Bayramic Turkey. Its purpose is to educate the public on what their basic human rights in Turkey are. It being included in the article conveys the same information to the reader and also points to the positive actions taken by individuals in Turkey to educate each other on what their rights are. It, in my view, is as perfect as an image can be associated with the subject. Mdozturk (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Fill the card and Find a reliable shop before taking any public transportation (Esadian Tayyip)

İn Turkey(?) pedestrians have to wait, watch the way patiently first left then right, due the first pass right of the drivers' so either driver or policer may fine them as other europeans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.47.132.155 (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Racism section turned into separate article

I believe the Racism section of this article should be turned into a separate article under Racism in Turkey. This page is already too long. There are many examples of articles with the exact same purpose such as Racism in Ukraine, Racism in Israel, and Racism in Sweden. I am willing to work on the article myself. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

In the population boom they walk live and die down to earth as variety declines as angoras topping of doodle for years. (178.240.234.218 (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC))

Freedom of the press

Though there is a link to a separate article on censorship in Turkey, there is no section on press freedom in this article. In view of the dire record of that country in this regard, I believe that a section mentioning the most salient issues is in order. It would be useful to the reader who doesn't have the time or the will to read the whole Censorship in Turkey article, but who would nonetheless like to know the main facts. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Human rights in Turkey. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights in Turkey. 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) 17:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Human rights in Turkey. 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) 12:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_Turkey/Archive_1&oldid=1145251672"