This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Secularism in Turkey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
From the last sentence of the introduction: "...actively monitors the area between the religions." I don't fully understand what this means; it may need to be rephrased. Is it alluding to the government taking a neutral stance on religion, or the government actively promoting religious tolerance? EyeSereneTALK 17:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Despite the fact that sources are cited throughout, several sections of this article seem to reflect a bias against Turkey and need to be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's standards for NPOV, such as the following passage:
"...Therefore by being a secular republic, Turkey is a poor representation of a democracy due to the fact it harasses people who pratice religion in public while it is evident in the West that many people practice religion openly without facing discrimination a law upheld by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights as "legitimate" on November 10, 2005 in Leyla Şahin v. Turkey.
^^ Leyla Sahin lost that case, as freedom has limit of individual area and religions has a tendency of expansionism, this article above does not represent the court decision also France has won a similar case against a Muslim woman. This article must be removed immediately due to misleading people by playing words
The strict application of secularism in Turkey has basically led to oppresion and has made for many individuals in Turkey a huge obstacle of expressing freedom, values, social life, and way of thinking#PPA28,M1 ))</ref>"
Therefore I am going to put the disputed-neutrality template on its page. —Edward Tremel 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
While its almost indisputable that Turkey is more secular than many of the countries neighbouring it how can they claim to be a completly secular republic when.
80.229.222.48 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
--Side Comment to number 6: Germany, an undisputed secular democracy, requires citizens to state their chosen religion as part of tax forms since tithing is done by the state. Germany also requires State recognition of religious sects.
This "Flag issue" must be removed immediately, Turkish Flag does not have any religious symbols read about it on Wikipedia, you can also check Gagauz flag who are Eastern Christians. A coin in found Cyprus dated back to Hellenistic Era has also same (5 point star) symbol and that doesnt make them muslims or does it?
I see the reference to "public reason" was added to the lead; I'm not sure that's appropriately used in reference to Turkey. The phrase has some currency, but is somewhat central to John Rawls, at least to my understanding (meaning I doubt it has much influence on Turkish politics). I would rephrase that unless someone disagrees. Mackan79 14:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that the blocking of Ateistforum (Turkish atheistic internet-forum) should be mentioned. Abdullais4u (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
they are different concepts for same problem secularism does not provide shelter for non-religious people(as in Germany they are obligated to pay church tax) where in laic countries religious symbols are not permitted , by this sense laicite is better deveplopped than secularity but the criteria of religious freedom in secular countries may be better for majority of believers
According to a report I heard on the BBC, the state appoints all the imams & writes their sermons, faxing them through to the mosques. If this is true, it's a very important fact that ought to be mentioned in the article, since it means that Turkey's concept of secularism is totally different from those of France & America, say. Peter jackson (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
In this article there is very little opposition to the secularism... last time i checked turkey is a moslem country and many people will be offended if their islamic cultures are banned eg the headscarf.. recommend more addition to the opposition by a turkey specialist... Canadian (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The article has become a mess in the last couple of days, with unsourced or unreliably sourced points-of-view, in particular in a new section entitled "Headscarf controversy", which completely ignores that there were already sections called "Impact on ..." dealing with the issue, sections that have been collapsed together in a section "Impact on society". Putting this new section "Headscarf controversy" first, before "Impact on society", gives this undue weight in the whole context, and is also strange – as if this is not part of the impact on society. --Lambiam 12:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Abdullah Gül is not the the first president of Turkey whose wife wears a headscarf (hijab).Latife Hanim is the first "first lady" (wife of Ataturk) who wears a headscarf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.43.145 (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Wife of Ataturk used to wear headscarf only in the beginning of her life, later she ceased this practice and called other women to do the same, that important difference with Abdullah Gül's wife who insist on wearing headscarf and therefore they cannot be grouped together. Also according to photo in wiki's article about Latife_Uşşaki in 1923 when she married Ataturk she already hadn't been wearing a headscarf, so during the time she was a first lady she hadn't worn a headscarf so wife of Abdullah Gul should be considered the first first lady to wear headscarf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.237.227 (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The intro sentence is flawed. Secularism in Turkey was introduced during the last era of Ottoman empire. But it is "officially" introduced in 1924. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.43.139 (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Guys check your facts, Wikipedia is becoming a more important source day by day. --81.213.66.248 (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
... how come a country where 99% of the population is Muslim exists as a secular state? I would expect citizens to push for a Muslim republic. It is unreasonable to believe that almost all population is Muslim and that at the same time these Muslim overwhelming majority fiercely opposes a Muslim state in the name of secularism. It just doesn't compute for me, and I checked this article out in order to understand this apparent paradox. Yet I could find no answer to my dilemma. Can anyone help me understand? 91.195.98.214 (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Well based on current social trends in Turkey, they should be the new Iran within a decade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.246.64 (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Not %99 ! It's %94 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.184.2.100 (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The exact percent of Islamic Turks is not what I was asking for. I also did not ask for future predictions. I just want to know how the past and current situation in Turkey was/is possible. 91.195.98.214 (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The article -obviously- is written by Kemalist and Islamist writers like a boxing match. Regarding secularism, it doesn't explain the history of Turkey and current situation correctly.
Facts:
The misconception arises from laicite amandment in the constitution which was just an eyeservice for Mustafa Kemal's Western allies.
Both Kemalists and Islamists claim that Turkey was and is a secular or laic state. Kemalists assert it for sake of masquerading (themselves and Mustafa Kemal) as progressive or "left" while Islamists assert it for sake of masquerading as "persecuted" ones.
From a liberal point of view, there was never a scent of secularism in Turkey and there is still non either.
Westerners are illusined with the costume of Mustafa Kemal and alcohol drinking customs of Kemalists but the reality is as outlined above.--144.122.104.211 (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Turkey was never a democratic country let alone secular. The kemalists tend to have racist attitude towards Kurds and other minorities often calling them with names. So-called founder of Turkey was a fascist himself, he admired Mussolini and gave inspiration to Hitler. We know that Hitler likened the young turks for his atrocities and Kamal was one of them. Kamal was an ultranationalist like Nazis who believed that all other "races" stemmed from the Turks as he "theorized" his so-called "Sun-Language Theory," which is ludicrous if anyone reading it sober.
I agree with the above comment, I read in Time magazine reporting as "Champaign sipping Kamal" and for Inonu "Swank little" was describing their behavior very accurately. Some editor seems to be admiring Kamal, but he was a fascist murderer. For instance in this article, The Progressive Republican Party was a liberal party, not a fundamentalist. One of the people who was executed after a farcical tribunal, Javid Bei was from a Jewish descent, he was the former Minister of Finance of the Ottoman Empire. Along with Javid Bei, Dr. Nazım Pasha and few others were executed. Dr. Nazım Pasha was one of the leader of the Young Turks junta, which resorted to a coup d'état in 1913, a year later Turkey entered WW1.
The general consensus among historians is that Javid Bei was murdered for his knowledge of Kamal's corruption, for instance stealing of billions from the Ottoman bank, 5000 gold coins arrived as an aid to the Caliphate fund from Indian Muslims which explains his "ownership" of 28% of Turkish İş Bankası. People who are admirers of this fascist stealer of democracy, people's struggle against imperialism should not have a voice about this country. Kamal died of his greed at Dolmabahçe Palace in a way deserving such divine justice of the circumstances he prepared for his own demise. Once calling himself "Selatin-i Ahirin," which means "the last of the Sultans," as he was a resident of the Palace died of cirrhosis of liver, oh well, too much alcohol consumption of a "champaign sipping Kamal."
Secularism in Turkey under the Kamalists is nothing but whitewashing of their dirt, especially killing Armenians, causing the demise of not only minorities but also their very own people. I guess nation building is something like this and it must be how Hitler wanted to imitate the young turks who are known as the Kamalists in the latter republican era. Alien sojourner (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC) ""---This (talk) is a resentful bias ridden moron, writes like a perpetual teenager whose personal attacks and "arguments" fathom only a facepalm or a least cringe. His argument is very weak, but his tantrum is really strong. The outburst has very little to do with Secularism in Turkey, but a personal attack on Ataturk. Either this is a either a bigoted foreigner, resentful fundamentalist Turk or a just a troll.
()Alien sojourner, all of these are just personal opinions, you admit by saying you agree with the Time's magazine reporting on their behaviour, it self an opinion piece, so you already lost a lot credibility. Let's say it is true that the "general consensus" among historians is that he had 'Cevid Bey' executed for investigating corruption, by that same token, the general consensus among historians is he is far from a fascist. Yes, that whole Sun Language Theory is a WTF moment in his life, hotly debated today is Ataturk was just trolling himself and didn't really believe in it. But the comparison to NAZIS is week and offensive as the Sun Langue Theory promotes language for the sake of a strong national identity not race and racism. Admiring Mussolini doesn't make one a fascist, in fact he admired the relatively successful economic polices Mussolini had in the 1920s of 'state corporatism' which Kemal blended some of it into Turkey, which synergies well with his pillar of Statism. Do you know who also "admired" Mussolini's state corporatism? US President Franklin D Roosevelt, who implemented bits of it into his New Deal. Does that make FDR a fascist too? And Hitler was influenced by Mussolini not by Kemal, Hitler gave a few compliments to him in regards to his tenacity and his state building, that's all. So being complimented (not inspired) by Hitler makes Ataturk evil? Hitler also complimented and admired Islam, is Islam then evil and fascist, please debate that with a few Muslims.... The stench of your false equivalence fallacy is overwhelming, son.
The Ottoman Bank Collapsed because the Empire collapsed, so what ever assets where went to the new state, and Ataturk was the state, duh. And the Ottomans left new Turkey their colossal debt, so there really wasn't anything to "steal". That 28 % is correct, but with context, Turkey needed a bank, for a line of credit, like every nation has, and he founded it, his guy from his party managed it, which explains partially the 28%, using left over gold bullion sent as aid by Indians to Muslims during the war of Impendence, not clear if so solely the gold was for to the Ottoman Caliph, as the National Movement who won the War of independence had Muslims in it so it could go for them. But's it's pointless argument anyways because to the victors to the spoils and they needed that spoils because the Ottomans left Turkey their huge debt. I could go with your infantile rambling's but can't be bothered anymore to engage.
There are legitimate criticism of his conduct as head of state and legitimate personal grievances of his lifestyle and the content of his character, but's that's the thing none of these come close to a legitimate augment or even a concise and measured personal opinion, just an inept angry troll, so much so that you even make legitimate critics of Ataturk look like fools. A lot of them would be embarrassed. Epic Fail.---"""
Lets also remember Erdogan isn’t also big on Armenians or Kurds for that matter. He openly denies the Armenian genocide and he’s an Islamist fascist authoritarian dictator Nlivataye (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
This section is not only poorly written with many technical errors in English, it is not neutral in its choice of sources or the facts presented. It strikes me as highly selective to push a political agenda of the relevant editor. I don’t know enough about the subject matter to correct the issues but other editors need to balance the section so it reads less like a veiled attack on a politician you aren’t sympathetic to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.236.206 (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
As noted at the top of this page, This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Secularism in Turkey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Please use this page for its purpose: to propose and discuss improvements to the article. Thank you. Ruby Murray 17:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
They gonna see us from outer space — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.16.206 (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)