Turkish Land Forces received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Turkish Land Forces 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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For the first time has the military publicized information regarding its personnel numbers, please update:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turkish-general-staff-discloses-personnel-numbers-2011-11-21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dücanem ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a very un-objective viewpoint in this article and should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xen0blue ( talk • contribs) 02:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Somebody really made a mess of the main equipment section and it looks like a deliberate action. The article is unfortunately not accurate anymore and I will not bother to edit/correct it since I have a feeling that it will be botched again.
Warrior Soul (August 31, 2006)
This section has been copied from my site ( http://warriorsoul.4t.com) without permission. In order to adopt a more constructive way of action than removing the whole table, I simply added a link to my site in the "Sources" section. I am a researcher on the defence industries and accurately keep track of the changes in the inventory. I spend a lot of time and effort on updating the information provided and I am happy to see that a growing number of people are making use of it. However, I would highly appreciate it if people who use the information elsewhere would at least provide a link to my web site as the source. Should you wish to contact me personally, kindly follow the "Contact" link in my site.
Thank you.
Warrior Soul
I work in Turkish Military Base in Kartal/Istanbul and have strong information about military equipments of Turkey. It's not clarified any information about Turkish army, but I'll try to add the most clear estimates. Kachik 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
the numbers are not true,for instance for cobra hellicopters
o AH-1W (9 in use) o AH-1P/S (32 delivered)
Those are official figures. Stocks should be added as well. Kachik 15:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Turkish Army took active role in both Kosova and Afghanistan peace-keeping. If we mention Somalia, we should mention these as well.-- Kagan the Barbarian 11:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Such inaccurate and propagandistic descriptions do not have place in Wikipedia. If you want to write about the history of the Turkish Army, you got to stick to solid and proven facts (including the fact that it did not fight in WWII like others did), and spare each one of us the exaggerations and blurbs about the "sunny Ataturk" or the importance of Turkey. If you can't do this, then someone should either remove it, rewrite it from scratch, or mark it as disputed.-- User:Theodore Lytras, 13 April 2006
I personally do not have much detailed information on the history of Turkish Army. But arbitrarily deleting the whole section, without trying to edit it or even saying anything about it in the talk page would clearly be vandalism. Your work would be much appreciated if you edit the parts that you think are POV. Or if you too do not have much knowledge about the article, then puting a POV tag for others to notice is also a good idea, which you have done and I appreciate it.-- TimBits 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed I'll tell you that 2,000 years of experience doesn't mean jack. The Afghans and the Yemenis are born warriors (and they have been this way even while the Turks were flavoring their meat with dirt), and they have still lost wars like nothing else. You people need to knock off the crap. The Turkish military is pretty strong, that's not a lie, but we have come to exaggerating the truth by now. The Turks have a huge military, but size is not the only indication of power. Turkey is not the strongest army in NATO after the U.S., that's a fact. Get over yourself, and get your facts, information, and intelligence, straight.
This article is highly subjective, full of exaggerations and unnecessary romantic, swashbuckling prose. It is unbecoming of a modern encyclopedia and should be amended or outright removed.
Propaganda...
This article is nothing but propaganda. I would have you know that the Turkish military forces have hardly done enough to be considered the historical defenders or creators of history itself. Pure propaganda . . . .
These people who don’t sign their comments are getting on my nerves, he’s probably referring to the armies of all the Turkish civilizations. Rodrigo Valequez( 🗣) 12:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Turkish Army is a legend on both terms of proficiency and honour. At least it has never been a blood sucking imperial army or a subject of imperial powers like Greece have been.
Ottoman empire was a good empire...Are you serious?
I see that the supporters of Turkey and its military forces are very nostalgic people. The Ottoman Empire wasn't imperialist? I believe that all empires are probably imperialist, that might be how they got to be an empire. When one group of people goes out to conquer another (always for natural resources), that would be safe to consider imperialist. And you need to calm down with all that honor crap because plenty of militaries—past and present—are better than that of the Turks.
Sign your comment people! And also, I’d like to introduce you to thinking, have you ever heard of before. It’s what you’re supposed to do before talking. What you call “honor crap” is something beyond your understanding and someone afraid of signing his/her comment shouldn’t be talking about it that way. Think! Rodrigo Valequez( 🗣) 12:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Since by the 30th of August 2006 commanders will change, this article needs an update. Ugur Olgun 14:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The new Commander of the Land Forces is General İlker Başbuģ, and the Chief of Staff (2nd in command) is General Attila Isak. (User: Ilan)
It would be well interesting if someone could provide evidence for how ıt has "contributed to world peace", or exactly how it brings "stability". From my outlook (I am currently writing from Dogubayazit in Eastern Turkey, a mayor military base) this is more than doubtful. The army here mainly spend their time harassing the local population. /Petter
This article, IMHO, is not entirely neutral, especially in the first section (about the glorifying stuff). If the case can be made for the Turkish Army (which in theory i do not deny), it would be best to use facts (and cite sources), and not use poetic language to try to glorify the army. That way, people will not get "bogged down" by the language used. -- Brunovdc 10:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
PROPAGANDA.....for example turkish army is more powerfull than Bitish or French army...be serious YES WE SERIOUS BOY AND DONT FORGET WE ARE BORN WARRIORS COME FACE 2 FACE IN ANY BATTLE FIELD
A TURK WILL DEMOLISH ANY THING IN ITS SITE BELEVIE ME MY FRIENDS. WE ARNT ARABS WE ARNT ENGLISH. WE ARE TURKS DONT FORGET
And that means what? I believe the Turks lost their empire, and the hell they will get it back. The English Empire was stronger than yours ever was and can ever hope to be, as were most of the Arab Empires, which made the Turks what they are today. For all the pride Turks have, they are very nostalgic and seem to easily forget where they came from as well as seeming to have a condition where their heads become overly-inflated. Turks are not the fierce warrior people they used to be. Now, they're just like the rest of the modernizing world: sedentary, lazy, apathetic, unmotivated, and constantly gaining weight.
Firstly - "turkish army is more powerfull than Bitish or French army...be serious YES WE SERIOUS BOY AND DONT FORGET WE ARE BORN WARRIORS COME FACE 2 FACE IN ANY BATTLE FIELD A TURK WILL DEMOLISH ANY THING IN ITS SITE BELEVIE ME MY FRIENDS. WE ARNT ARABS WE ARNT ENGLISH. WE ARE TURKS DONT FORGET" -- This is disgusting behaviour. Your embarissing Turkey. There is nothing good in war, and you shouldn't promote it to satisfy your over inflated ego. Up until 84 years ago, the Turks used the Arabic alphabet. Furthermore, there are still many arabic speaking provinces in Turkey. If you think that the Turkish Army is as strong as you say it is, then start the 'demolishing' with the PKK. That's your main problem for now.
Secondly "The English Empire was stronger than yours ever was and can ever hope to be, as were most of the Arab Empires, which made the Turks what they are today." - Not true, I can't think of one account where the English have defeated the Turkish without intervention. The turks did defeat the English in the crusades. They also controlled both Europe and Asia for a substantial period. As for the Arab Empires, the turkish army consistently defeated the Persian army, and possessed much more land, then the Persians or Saracens, ever had. The English empire was laughable compared to the other empires out there. While the Byzantiums, Romans, Turks, Arabs, Germans and Austro-Hungarians dominated Europe and Asia, the English maintained their policy of 'Splendid Isolation' staying out of these wars and searching for land in uncolonised continents such as Africa. Sadly today, England like my own Australian has become lacky to the USA. So much for empires.
Sign your comments and stop spreading that misinformation/propoganda. The English Empire couldn’t do anything the Ottoman Empire without it’s allies. I’d like to see them defending their country against several other countries while also trying to stop riots.
Rodrigo Valequez(
🗣) 12:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The exaggerated figures were tried to be removed by putting back the table dated 30.08.2005 (which seems more reliable) with some minor corrections. Lets try to give objective and concise information.
Hmm, this article looks like it can use a good copy-editing, I will do it when I will have some free time this week. To start I changed the 'Commander in Chief' to Chief of Staff.. Commander in Chief is the president, Nezer... I know it is a technicality, but all the same.. :)) Baristarim 23:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This article should be written again, using the current information, but by someone who isn't a Turkish nationalist. It is hyperbole, and not suitable for Wikipedia. Viciouspiggy 10:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed
I concur. It reads like a recruiting pamphlet. -- DOHC Holiday 19:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The section on Cyprus is strongly POV, and seems to place blame rather than inform on the action. "Freeing" the Turkish Cypriots - not apporpriate NPOV language for Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User383739 ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
When you say it isn’t appropriate language for Wikipedia, are you saying that appropriate language is Greek Propoganda? Rodrigo Valequez( 🗣) 12:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I am declaring this page totally disputed and await arbitration. The stuff written about Cyprus is nationalist propoganda whose sole intention is to blame the Greek Cypriots instead of providing neutral information. User383739 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it a mere propaganda that EOKA-B, under the command of Nikos Sampson who was supported by the Greek military junta in Athens for establishing Enosis (i.e. Union between Greece and Cyprus), ousted the democratically elected Cypriot president Archbishop Makarios (who opposed Enosis), against the rights of the Turkish Cypriots and triggered the Turkish military intervention, or is it an undeniable historic fact?
Let's think about it without nationalistic prejudice, please (even though I believe the latest editing is also politically correct and carefully crafted in order to avoid hurting the feelings of neither side)
I'm not saying that the current Turkish military presence in Cyprus is something nice (we should have pulled our troops after restoring the 1960 constitution in Cyprus and disarming the pro-Enosis EOKA-B militants). However, the intercommunal violence between 1963-1974 was terrible (Bosnia style) and the Athens-junta-backed-coup was the last big error of the Greek side which triggered the Turkish military intervention.
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 20:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that if the Enosis succeeded, the Greeks would declare Nikos Sampson and the Greek military junta in Athens as national heroes. However, the Turkish military intervention, and the Greek junta's inability to confront the Turks in response, toppled the junta and restored democracy in Greece, which joined the EEC (now EU) in 1981 and became the decent and wealthy country that it is today.
A Greek victory in Cyprus and success of Enosis would only consolidate the junta and fascists, delaying Greece's democratization, modernization and wealth.
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 20:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is NPOV. I have deleted the second part of your revision because it is all about attacking the Greek Cypriots and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Turkish Army.
Regards User383739 21:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Where's the "attack against Greek Cypriots"?
In July 1974, the Turkish Armed Forces intervened against a coup in Cyprus, organized by EOKA-B and led by Nikos Sampson who ousted the democratically elected Cypriot president Archbishop Makarios in order to establish Enosis (Union) between Greece and Cyprus. The coup was backed by the Greek military junta in Athens. The conflict in Cyprus lasted until August 1974 and resulted in the division of the island between the Turkish Cypriot controlled north and the Greek Cypriot controlled south. Turkey still maintains troops in Cyprus, since a political solution could still not be achieved, and since many members of the Turkish Cypriot community fear a return to the intercommunal violence which occurred between 1963 and 1974. [1] [2] A referendum in 2004 for the Annan Plan which aimed at reunifying the island was supported by the Turkish Cypriots, but rejected by the Greek Cypriots, on the pretext that it gave too many rights and political power to the Turkish Cypriots who make up 1/5 of the island's population.
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 21:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Rather than get into an edit war, I suggest arbitration. The second part of your revision has nothing whatsoever to do with the Turkish Army, and looks POV to me, since it appears almost to be justification for Turkish Army deployment to Cyprus.
Regards. User383739 22:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not a "justification" of the Turkish military presence in Cyprus. On the contrary, it stresses the fact that Turkish troops will leave the island once a political solution is achieved. Cyprus is not a "conquered land" (not a part of Turkey).
And it is a "fact" that the Greek Cypriots rejected the Annan Plan on the pretext that it gave too many freedoms and political power to the Turkish Cypriots who make up only 1/5 of the island's population. There is no reason to be ashamed of this truth, and such a decision doesn't make the Greek Cypriots the "bad guys". They only didn't like the "Annan Plan" (they aren't obliged to like it).
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The UAVs of the Turkish Army are also used by the Turkish Air Force, so wouldn't it be more correct to list them in the Turkish Air Force inventory? Because I presume UAVs such as Heron and Harpy will be under the command of General Faruk Cömert in case of a war (God forbid). For instance the Harpy will complement HARM missiles in destroying enemy radar systems, therefore, logically, they should be used in accordance with the operations of the Turkish Air Force. Shuppiluliuma 20:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hiberniantears, Turkey never ceased to exist. Turkey only changed its political system (was a Monarchy, became a Republic).
Turkey didn't change its flag.
Turkey payed for the Ottoman debts until the 1950s, being the only legal heir to the Ottoman Empire.
The Ottoman Empire was actually called "Turkey" if you read the texts of 19th century treaties such as the Paris Peace Conference (1856) or the Congress of Berlin (1878). Just look at the 19th century caricatures on Punch magazine and you'll see that Turkey was always "Turkey". ;)
With your definition, the Turkish Air Force can't be founded in 1909-1911 (which is its official founding date). 1911 predates the establishment of the Turkish Republic. Similarly, the official founding date of the Turkish Navy is 1081, which also predates the Turkish Republic.
In short, "Turkey was always Turkey" - it only changed its political system. The flag and the institutions remain the same, but the ideology has changed.
Regards. Flavius Belisarius 17:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure sweetheart, whatever you say. You're right, everyone else is wrong. I'm not even fully removing your content. Just the nationalist absurdities. Hiberniantears 17:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hibernian ignorance, what do you see in this 19th century Punch magazine caricature:
I won't learn Turkish history from an American.
Regards. Flavius Belisarius 18:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing mentioning the Republic of Turkey. Thank you for proving yourself wrong yet again. Hiberniantears 18:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hibernatingbears, I know that "it hurts to be PWN3D", but I always said "Turkey" never ceased to exist, it only became a "Republic" in 1923 (it was a Monarchy).
If the United Kingdom decides to become the Republic of England in, let's say, 2017, will the history of its Armed Forces start in 2017?
Regards. Flavius Belisarius 18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Flavius Belisarius has admitted to being a sock of indefinetly banned User:Shuppiluliuma on the Talk:Turkish Navy page. Hiberniantears 18:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
He nevertheless has contributed more to the Turkish Armed Forces articles than you ever can/will. Flavius Belisarius 20:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Should a template in the form of: {{ United States Army}}, {{ British Army}}, {{ French Army}} etc. be used instead of the infobox we have in the article now? I can create a sample if necessary. -- Kimon talk 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes... Please do! Hiberniantears 17:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead an created the template myself. I added {{ Turkish Army}} to the article, and removed to template previously there which applies to the entire military, rather than just the army. If you do not like the template, or feel it lacks enough data (as it is currently many redlinks), please just edit it at Template:Turkish Army. Thanks, Hiberniantears 21:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I still don't think the pre-republic section need be so extensive when there is a link to the Ottoman Military History article preceding this section. Essentially, this [1] can simply be summed up as "The Turkish Army has its roots in the Ottoman Empire..." and then go right into the foundation of the the Turkish Army under Ataturk. Any meaningful language which does not yet exist on the Ottoman Military page can simply be moved there. Hiberniantears 17:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
There are a couple of unreferenced claims in the intro, like deploying a Corps at short notice and and airlift capability of 7 battalions day or night. These need to be referenced and backed up or they will be removed at some point. Cheers Buckshot06 12:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Much of the 'Mission' section is a straight copyright violation from http://www.tsk.mil.tr/eng/genel_konular/tarihce.htm - which also explains some of the bias issues. This needs to be substantially rewritten or it will be removed at some point. Buckshot06 13:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Do Turkish units claim lineage from the Ottoman Empire units?-- mrg3105 mrg3105 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The 14th Cavalry Brigade, from which the 14th Armoured Brigade took its name, was established in Afyon on 31 July 1922. It immediately joined the Great Offensive against the Greeks. It launched an offensive and captured Gediz on 5 September 1922, and on 9 September 1922 it was the first Turkish unit entering Izmir. It went down in history in golden letters for occupying Karsiyaka (quarter of Izmir). With the Turkish Army placed on peace footing on 1 November 1923, it was dispatched to Urfa. KIBRIS goes on and says that it played a role in the suppression of Sheikh Sait and Nasturi Kurdish uprisings in 1925. It was later disbanded. As of 14 May 1997, work started in occupied Kythrea for the formation of an armoured brigade, and on 17 July 1997 the original brigade was reinstated as 14th Armoured Brigade. (Source URL is http://www.hri.org/news/cyprus/tcpr/1998/98-11-19.tcpr.html) 91.84.88.227 ( talk) 17:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they do. For example, 52. Infantry Brigade in Burdur (which I did my military service) is the continuation of the same brigade that took part in Canakkale (Gallipoli) in 1914, in WW1.
According to Turkish Commandership of Land Forces, Turkish army was founded by Mete Khan (a ruler of Asian Huns / Xiongnu) in 209 BC. I'll try to add this valuable info to the article, I'll be happy if someone makes it sound "encyclopedic". The date I am talking about is visible in Turkish Army seal in the article. And here is a direct source for Turkish-speakers: [2]-- Mttll ( talk) 06:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
That'll do, I think. Thank you and happy new year to you too.-- Mttll ( talk) 11:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
ABSOLUTELY LAYING!
209 BC I'm from Turkey but I know that is bullshit! Maybe you know all Turks have a racist view !!
I visited this page to learn about the personnel strength of today's Turkish Army (or find a link to the answer), but I cannot find any. That info (figure should be like 750,000-850,000) would be useful. Lastdingo ( talk) 20:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)werwerwer
There is a mistake about foundation date of the turkish land forces (in fact turkish army).It's founded in adv. (before christ) 209.You can see this reality on the middle at army's seal as like as M.Ö. 209 (milattan önce 209). ~ distinct 26.06.2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.194.122 ( talk) 19:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
If we're talking about modern army in Turkey, it would not present from 1921.The army's history is not cutted anytime from 209 BC.Also we are even talking about the modern one, there is a direct connection from 13th century (Little Ottoman State - Osmanlı Beyliği).The 1921 army is the main of Turkish Independence War (Kurtuluş Savaşı).But it has not landed from sky suddenly. If we were choosing reforms period for establishment time of any army, it would be wrong, i think. ~ distinct (sorry for my terrible English) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.194.122 ( talk) 16:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Simple, there're two chapters.Modern one or general Turkish Army (actually Turkish Land Forces).Turkis army is from 209 BC.Modern one's controversial. "...It's an attempt to give the current army a historical legacy that it simply does not have..." You can use translation tool, [ [3]]- English topic is not detailed Military history of Turkey. Reforms do not cut the history of anything. We can talk two different countries; Republic Of Turkey - Ottoman Empire, but we can not talk two different armies... ~ distinct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.246.33 ( talk) 18:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
209 BC is nothing but the "official" claim. Takabeg ( talk) 19:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
They still have conscription but I do not know enough detail to add it. I think it is being shortened but not abolished? Surely some info should be added.
Jzlcdh ( talk) 18:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Linked it in. Jzlcdh ( talk) 18:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Emblem of TuAF.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Seal of the Turkish Navy.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:T-155 FIRTINA 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzer.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 08:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Turkish Main Battle Tank MITUP Altay.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC) |
Turkish Army size updating by the Turkish Army for 711,759. We can use it as app. 712,000. 402,000 is half of it. Plese update this offical information. [4] Turkish army declared personal numbers Date: 02/01/2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.212.101.120 ( talk) 14:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
TSK (Turkish Army) = Air Force + Sea Force + Land Forces = 657.985. http://www.tsk.tr/10_ARSIV/10_1_Basin_Yayin_Faaliyetleri/10_1_10_Guncel/2012/guncel_1.htm This is TSK's official :) site. Last row for civilian personnel. Please calculate and update information. Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.212.101.120 ( talk) 14:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Kara Kuvvetlerinin kuruluş tarihi olarak, Büyük Hun İmparatoru Mete Han’ın tahta çıkış tarihi olan M.Ö. 209 yılı esas alınmıştır.
Lumialover2, you may find it illogical for the Turkish Army Command to date its forces to 209 BC, but they just do, and there isn't much that can be done about it but to express it in the article. -- Mttll ( talk) 08:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
If you are not a native English speaker, could you please learn to differentiate between Army and Armed Forces?
Too often are people confusing personnel figures for the entire Turkish Armed Forces on this article. Thanks. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 17:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Turkish Land Forces. 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 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Turkish Land Forces. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/archives.php?id=33977When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Turkish Land Forces. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
How can the Turkish army be active since 209 BC when the Turko-Mongols hadn't even migrated out of Siberia and the Mongolia? I think people are confusing Turkic and Turkish. KhakePakeVatan ( talk) 17:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The 209 BCE reference was already mentioned in the introduction of the historical section, it was never taken out. In fact 3/4 of the historical introduction pertains to it; this is more than enough. Lede and Infobox sections on the other hand are only meant to provide a summary of the article's most important factual contents. Buckshot06, per your own comment you seem to agree with this, thus i cannot understand why you reverted everything. Demetrios1993 ( talk) 13:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: The admins yesterday banned the editor Cengizsogutlu for 1 month due to POV edit warring here on this article the date "209" into the infobox: [5]. The rest of the editors, including editor Buckshot06, are urged to be careful and refrain from ever restoring this WP:PROPAGANDA date into the infobox if they do not want to be reported and go on the same course as Cengizsogutlu. As for the article itself, the problem is restored by Buckshot06 [6] and now the article fails even the minimal quality article standards because it appears to promote the official propaganda claims over factual information about the army's creation. Therefore I am inserting the POV tag [7] which will remain in place until the problem is resolved adequately and in a satisfactory manner. For the POV tag to be removed, the editors should address this emphasis on propaganda dates - that means:
If Buckshot06 disagrees with my edits, fine. But to remove the POV tag from the article, then, the aforementioned issues which Buckshot06 brought back with their reverts, will have to be addressed first. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The text you removed presents the facts". Nope. The information stating that the army was founded 100 years is a fact and the only true fact here; The rest is just propaganda and it has no place on article's Lead section. Whatever fringe theories or propagandas may exist about its foundation are already covered in the article's History section and that is as much as it can get. Nothing more. Like I said above (and please read carefully as I am tired repeating myself):
Lead sections in an article may, just like infoboxes, only summarize on key factual information, nothing else.If you are unfamiliar with WP:LEAD, then I recommend you check it as well. Per WP:LEAD:
The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.Information on fringe or propaganda theories have no place on Lead nor is the most important information in the article. Please revert yourself. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Buckshot06, "drop the stick
"? My apologies if my firm stance on this matter had annoyed you but no, I can't drop the stick just like that when there is violation of numerous Wikipedia rules. Having looked anywhere in Wikipedia, I wouldn't find a single rule that would support your position at all. Contrary, no rule in Wikipedia permits the use of
WP:LEAD sections and Infoboxes for
WP:PROPAGANDA purposes citing
WP:PRIMARY sources. Can you help me by providing any rules justifying the presence of the contentious date there? You should understand that Wikipedia emphasizes on factual information; is not a place where we promote official narratives/political propaganda (nor give them any
WP:DUE spotlight by placing them on prominent locations such as Infoboxes and Leads). Let alone using WP:PRIMARY sources to cite it when Wikipedia's rules are quite clear that primary sources should be avoided if possible; third-party independent
WP:RS are preferred instead! Looking at the talk page I can't help but note how, so far, three editors have already objected to this by raising their valid concerns on the matter and pointed to several problems (anachronism, POV, unreliable source and more) that may affect the article's quality. I am sorry if the responses here to you are not what you wanted to hear, but you can't ignore other editor's legitimate concerns; and with 3 editors already being against you and with Cengizsogutlu being blocked by the Admins for trying to restore this propaganda date to prominent places, there is clearly a
WP:CONSENSUS of 3 versus 1 against your edits. Now, if you allow me:
Your edits will be reverted. If you feel you disagree with the outcome of the consensus, then you are welcome to seek a 3rd opinion here at: [9] or any other means of dispute resolution if you like. EDIT: the Admins on the related ANI case have been informed as well: [10]. Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure, 209 BC is ridiculous) and has also acknowledged that what SilentResident writes is true (
I have *acknowledged* what you write is true.).
I do not believe it is correct to be in the infobox, and will take it out.). Demetrios1993 ( talk) 21:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I have just reverted this this revert, which sought to remove some broadly uncontroversial, factual data about rebellions in the 1920s and 1930s. We deal in WP:V facts, not trying to remove historical events which the Turkish Army took part in. However Konli17 you need to cite the number of 50,000 troops, and the massacre; you have ten days to do so, or I will remove that detail until sources are provided. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
[ [14]] @ Buckshot06: @ Isik: Shadow4dark ( talk) 10:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Turkish army was not founded in 209 BC. Milliyet is not a reliable source for a history related article. Nihal Atsız himself was a nationalist writer and the source written by him dates back to 1960s. Those dates like 209 BC are chosen to claim that Turkish army is rooted deep down in history. They are not supported by reliable, academic sources. Website of Turkish Land Forces is not a academic source either. This article covers the history of Turkish army starting from 1923. [15] So, I am removing that section.-- Visnelma ( talk) 21:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment:: I concur with Visnelma on this. Fictional date claims may only be presented in Wikipedia as such, not as facts. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
If Cengizsogutlu or any other editor has any independent and reliable sources regarding the 209 BC date claim, then perhaps we may mention it in the article, provided that these reliable sources consider this date to be important and relevant to the Turkish Army. The source you provided merely confirms the use of the propaganda date by the army. Nothing else. Source doesn't explain how it is factually important to the army and how it is factually relevant to it. Only thing we know is that some nationalist lunatics (mind you, its an Admin's choice of word in describing the revisionists in Turkey, not mine) adopted it. The disagreement here in the talk page however isn't about whether nationalists in the army adopted it, but about whether such kind of information is factually important or relevant to the army itself that would warrant inclusion to the article. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, reflects on facts only in military articles, not on what revisionist nationalist claims and ideas may exist about a country or its army - officially or unofficially. For these, the article Turkish nationalism is the place to go. Got it? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The thing about this foundation date is it doesn't represent a single official date or a country name identified with a certain administration system. The reason why 209 B.C. is accepted as a foundation date is Modun Chanyu's (a.k.a. Mete Han) new army system. This army system can basically be explained by the '10s of divisions'. The entire army is made of smaller parts that are composed of 10 and multiplies of 10. For example, 10 soldier makes a 'Manga'. 100 soldier makes a 'Bölük'. 1000 soldier makes a 'Tabur'. 10000 soldier makes a 'Tümen'. This regular army system was created by Modun Chanyu in 209 B.C. That's why it is the foundation date of the Turkish Army. Even though there were armies before this date, both Turkish and other, none of the modern descendants of these armies carry the same administrative systems. However, the Turkish army does. Turkish army uses the same system continuously for the last 2000+ years. Unlike the examples given before, Italian and Greek armies are differently administrated than their older foundations. Thus, 209 B.C. can be accepted as the foundation date of the Turkish Armed Forces.
Hsynylmztr (
talk) 13:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Turkish army and Türk ordusu is not the same thing. Because in Turkish, ordu is a word used for all ground, naval and air forces combined, whereas army is only used for land forces in English. So, I am correcting that in the lead section.-- Visnelma ( talk) 17:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
46.106.50.243 ( talk) 07:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Turkish Land Forces were established in 209 BC. It was written here before but now I don’t see it anymore...
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. See discussion above.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 10:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)The Turkish Army traces its origin to the Ottoman Army. A theory accepted officially was that the Ottoman Armed Forces had been founded in 1363, when the Pençik corps (the predecessor of the Janissary corps) had been formed and, in this context, on 28 June 1963, it celebrated the 600th anniversary of its foundation. [1] In the same year, one of the prominent Pan-Turanists, Nihal Atsız, asserted that the Turkish Army had been founded in 209 BC, when Mete Khan of the Xiongnu is thought to have formed an army based on the decimal system. [2] verification needed dubious In 1968, Yılmaz Öztuna proposed this theory to Cemal Tural, who was the Chief of the General Staff of the Republic of Turkey at the time. [3] verification needed In 1973, when the Turkish Army celebrated the 610th anniversary of its foundation, Nihal Atsız published his claim again. [4] verification needed After the 1980 Turkish coup d'état, the Turkish Army formally adopted the date 209 BC as its year of foundation. [5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 ( talk • contribs)
References
The first orderly and disciplined formation of the Turkish Army dates back to 209 BC, during the Great Hun Empire; the greatest units in this organization were the divisions made up of 10,000 soldiers, divisions were further divided into smaller units composed of a thousand, hundred, and ten soldiers; this organization continued to exist throughout the history in the Turkish states with small changes.
Why are rebellions in the 1920s and 1930s referred to as being in a region that didn't exist until the 1940s? Stara Marusya ( talk) 07:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
because why not? also please add this 'File:Turkish Special Forces soldier.jpg' to modernization section maybe? 46.196.85.12 ( talk) 14:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Dear @Shadow4Dark can you explain further your recent revert on the personnel numbers? They appear to be official Turkish figures. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the errant ref tag from the end of this citation:
IISS (2023). "Chapter Four: Europe". The Military Balance. 123 (1). International Institute for Strategic Studies. doi:10.1080/04597222.2023.2162716. ISSN 0459-7222.</ref>
Thanks.
PS. I would make all the bulleted references a new "Further reading" section, but that's up to the editor. 76.14.122.5 ( talk) 20:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Turkish Land Forces received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Turkish Land Forces 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 B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For the first time has the military publicized information regarding its personnel numbers, please update:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turkish-general-staff-discloses-personnel-numbers-2011-11-21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dücanem ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a very un-objective viewpoint in this article and should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xen0blue ( talk • contribs) 02:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Somebody really made a mess of the main equipment section and it looks like a deliberate action. The article is unfortunately not accurate anymore and I will not bother to edit/correct it since I have a feeling that it will be botched again.
Warrior Soul (August 31, 2006)
This section has been copied from my site ( http://warriorsoul.4t.com) without permission. In order to adopt a more constructive way of action than removing the whole table, I simply added a link to my site in the "Sources" section. I am a researcher on the defence industries and accurately keep track of the changes in the inventory. I spend a lot of time and effort on updating the information provided and I am happy to see that a growing number of people are making use of it. However, I would highly appreciate it if people who use the information elsewhere would at least provide a link to my web site as the source. Should you wish to contact me personally, kindly follow the "Contact" link in my site.
Thank you.
Warrior Soul
I work in Turkish Military Base in Kartal/Istanbul and have strong information about military equipments of Turkey. It's not clarified any information about Turkish army, but I'll try to add the most clear estimates. Kachik 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
the numbers are not true,for instance for cobra hellicopters
o AH-1W (9 in use) o AH-1P/S (32 delivered)
Those are official figures. Stocks should be added as well. Kachik 15:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Turkish Army took active role in both Kosova and Afghanistan peace-keeping. If we mention Somalia, we should mention these as well.-- Kagan the Barbarian 11:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Such inaccurate and propagandistic descriptions do not have place in Wikipedia. If you want to write about the history of the Turkish Army, you got to stick to solid and proven facts (including the fact that it did not fight in WWII like others did), and spare each one of us the exaggerations and blurbs about the "sunny Ataturk" or the importance of Turkey. If you can't do this, then someone should either remove it, rewrite it from scratch, or mark it as disputed.-- User:Theodore Lytras, 13 April 2006
I personally do not have much detailed information on the history of Turkish Army. But arbitrarily deleting the whole section, without trying to edit it or even saying anything about it in the talk page would clearly be vandalism. Your work would be much appreciated if you edit the parts that you think are POV. Or if you too do not have much knowledge about the article, then puting a POV tag for others to notice is also a good idea, which you have done and I appreciate it.-- TimBits 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed I'll tell you that 2,000 years of experience doesn't mean jack. The Afghans and the Yemenis are born warriors (and they have been this way even while the Turks were flavoring their meat with dirt), and they have still lost wars like nothing else. You people need to knock off the crap. The Turkish military is pretty strong, that's not a lie, but we have come to exaggerating the truth by now. The Turks have a huge military, but size is not the only indication of power. Turkey is not the strongest army in NATO after the U.S., that's a fact. Get over yourself, and get your facts, information, and intelligence, straight.
This article is highly subjective, full of exaggerations and unnecessary romantic, swashbuckling prose. It is unbecoming of a modern encyclopedia and should be amended or outright removed.
Propaganda...
This article is nothing but propaganda. I would have you know that the Turkish military forces have hardly done enough to be considered the historical defenders or creators of history itself. Pure propaganda . . . .
These people who don’t sign their comments are getting on my nerves, he’s probably referring to the armies of all the Turkish civilizations. Rodrigo Valequez( 🗣) 12:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Turkish Army is a legend on both terms of proficiency and honour. At least it has never been a blood sucking imperial army or a subject of imperial powers like Greece have been.
Ottoman empire was a good empire...Are you serious?
I see that the supporters of Turkey and its military forces are very nostalgic people. The Ottoman Empire wasn't imperialist? I believe that all empires are probably imperialist, that might be how they got to be an empire. When one group of people goes out to conquer another (always for natural resources), that would be safe to consider imperialist. And you need to calm down with all that honor crap because plenty of militaries—past and present—are better than that of the Turks.
Sign your comment people! And also, I’d like to introduce you to thinking, have you ever heard of before. It’s what you’re supposed to do before talking. What you call “honor crap” is something beyond your understanding and someone afraid of signing his/her comment shouldn’t be talking about it that way. Think! Rodrigo Valequez( 🗣) 12:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Since by the 30th of August 2006 commanders will change, this article needs an update. Ugur Olgun 14:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The new Commander of the Land Forces is General İlker Başbuģ, and the Chief of Staff (2nd in command) is General Attila Isak. (User: Ilan)
It would be well interesting if someone could provide evidence for how ıt has "contributed to world peace", or exactly how it brings "stability". From my outlook (I am currently writing from Dogubayazit in Eastern Turkey, a mayor military base) this is more than doubtful. The army here mainly spend their time harassing the local population. /Petter
This article, IMHO, is not entirely neutral, especially in the first section (about the glorifying stuff). If the case can be made for the Turkish Army (which in theory i do not deny), it would be best to use facts (and cite sources), and not use poetic language to try to glorify the army. That way, people will not get "bogged down" by the language used. -- Brunovdc 10:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
PROPAGANDA.....for example turkish army is more powerfull than Bitish or French army...be serious YES WE SERIOUS BOY AND DONT FORGET WE ARE BORN WARRIORS COME FACE 2 FACE IN ANY BATTLE FIELD
A TURK WILL DEMOLISH ANY THING IN ITS SITE BELEVIE ME MY FRIENDS. WE ARNT ARABS WE ARNT ENGLISH. WE ARE TURKS DONT FORGET
And that means what? I believe the Turks lost their empire, and the hell they will get it back. The English Empire was stronger than yours ever was and can ever hope to be, as were most of the Arab Empires, which made the Turks what they are today. For all the pride Turks have, they are very nostalgic and seem to easily forget where they came from as well as seeming to have a condition where their heads become overly-inflated. Turks are not the fierce warrior people they used to be. Now, they're just like the rest of the modernizing world: sedentary, lazy, apathetic, unmotivated, and constantly gaining weight.
Firstly - "turkish army is more powerfull than Bitish or French army...be serious YES WE SERIOUS BOY AND DONT FORGET WE ARE BORN WARRIORS COME FACE 2 FACE IN ANY BATTLE FIELD A TURK WILL DEMOLISH ANY THING IN ITS SITE BELEVIE ME MY FRIENDS. WE ARNT ARABS WE ARNT ENGLISH. WE ARE TURKS DONT FORGET" -- This is disgusting behaviour. Your embarissing Turkey. There is nothing good in war, and you shouldn't promote it to satisfy your over inflated ego. Up until 84 years ago, the Turks used the Arabic alphabet. Furthermore, there are still many arabic speaking provinces in Turkey. If you think that the Turkish Army is as strong as you say it is, then start the 'demolishing' with the PKK. That's your main problem for now.
Secondly "The English Empire was stronger than yours ever was and can ever hope to be, as were most of the Arab Empires, which made the Turks what they are today." - Not true, I can't think of one account where the English have defeated the Turkish without intervention. The turks did defeat the English in the crusades. They also controlled both Europe and Asia for a substantial period. As for the Arab Empires, the turkish army consistently defeated the Persian army, and possessed much more land, then the Persians or Saracens, ever had. The English empire was laughable compared to the other empires out there. While the Byzantiums, Romans, Turks, Arabs, Germans and Austro-Hungarians dominated Europe and Asia, the English maintained their policy of 'Splendid Isolation' staying out of these wars and searching for land in uncolonised continents such as Africa. Sadly today, England like my own Australian has become lacky to the USA. So much for empires.
Sign your comments and stop spreading that misinformation/propoganda. The English Empire couldn’t do anything the Ottoman Empire without it’s allies. I’d like to see them defending their country against several other countries while also trying to stop riots.
Rodrigo Valequez(
🗣) 12:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The exaggerated figures were tried to be removed by putting back the table dated 30.08.2005 (which seems more reliable) with some minor corrections. Lets try to give objective and concise information.
Hmm, this article looks like it can use a good copy-editing, I will do it when I will have some free time this week. To start I changed the 'Commander in Chief' to Chief of Staff.. Commander in Chief is the president, Nezer... I know it is a technicality, but all the same.. :)) Baristarim 23:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This article should be written again, using the current information, but by someone who isn't a Turkish nationalist. It is hyperbole, and not suitable for Wikipedia. Viciouspiggy 10:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed
I concur. It reads like a recruiting pamphlet. -- DOHC Holiday 19:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The section on Cyprus is strongly POV, and seems to place blame rather than inform on the action. "Freeing" the Turkish Cypriots - not apporpriate NPOV language for Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User383739 ( talk • contribs) 13:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
When you say it isn’t appropriate language for Wikipedia, are you saying that appropriate language is Greek Propoganda? Rodrigo Valequez( 🗣) 12:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I am declaring this page totally disputed and await arbitration. The stuff written about Cyprus is nationalist propoganda whose sole intention is to blame the Greek Cypriots instead of providing neutral information. User383739 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it a mere propaganda that EOKA-B, under the command of Nikos Sampson who was supported by the Greek military junta in Athens for establishing Enosis (i.e. Union between Greece and Cyprus), ousted the democratically elected Cypriot president Archbishop Makarios (who opposed Enosis), against the rights of the Turkish Cypriots and triggered the Turkish military intervention, or is it an undeniable historic fact?
Let's think about it without nationalistic prejudice, please (even though I believe the latest editing is also politically correct and carefully crafted in order to avoid hurting the feelings of neither side)
I'm not saying that the current Turkish military presence in Cyprus is something nice (we should have pulled our troops after restoring the 1960 constitution in Cyprus and disarming the pro-Enosis EOKA-B militants). However, the intercommunal violence between 1963-1974 was terrible (Bosnia style) and the Athens-junta-backed-coup was the last big error of the Greek side which triggered the Turkish military intervention.
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 20:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that if the Enosis succeeded, the Greeks would declare Nikos Sampson and the Greek military junta in Athens as national heroes. However, the Turkish military intervention, and the Greek junta's inability to confront the Turks in response, toppled the junta and restored democracy in Greece, which joined the EEC (now EU) in 1981 and became the decent and wealthy country that it is today.
A Greek victory in Cyprus and success of Enosis would only consolidate the junta and fascists, delaying Greece's democratization, modernization and wealth.
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 20:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is NPOV. I have deleted the second part of your revision because it is all about attacking the Greek Cypriots and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Turkish Army.
Regards User383739 21:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Where's the "attack against Greek Cypriots"?
In July 1974, the Turkish Armed Forces intervened against a coup in Cyprus, organized by EOKA-B and led by Nikos Sampson who ousted the democratically elected Cypriot president Archbishop Makarios in order to establish Enosis (Union) between Greece and Cyprus. The coup was backed by the Greek military junta in Athens. The conflict in Cyprus lasted until August 1974 and resulted in the division of the island between the Turkish Cypriot controlled north and the Greek Cypriot controlled south. Turkey still maintains troops in Cyprus, since a political solution could still not be achieved, and since many members of the Turkish Cypriot community fear a return to the intercommunal violence which occurred between 1963 and 1974. [1] [2] A referendum in 2004 for the Annan Plan which aimed at reunifying the island was supported by the Turkish Cypriots, but rejected by the Greek Cypriots, on the pretext that it gave too many rights and political power to the Turkish Cypriots who make up 1/5 of the island's population.
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 21:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Rather than get into an edit war, I suggest arbitration. The second part of your revision has nothing whatsoever to do with the Turkish Army, and looks POV to me, since it appears almost to be justification for Turkish Army deployment to Cyprus.
Regards. User383739 22:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not a "justification" of the Turkish military presence in Cyprus. On the contrary, it stresses the fact that Turkish troops will leave the island once a political solution is achieved. Cyprus is not a "conquered land" (not a part of Turkey).
And it is a "fact" that the Greek Cypriots rejected the Annan Plan on the pretext that it gave too many freedoms and political power to the Turkish Cypriots who make up only 1/5 of the island's population. There is no reason to be ashamed of this truth, and such a decision doesn't make the Greek Cypriots the "bad guys". They only didn't like the "Annan Plan" (they aren't obliged to like it).
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The UAVs of the Turkish Army are also used by the Turkish Air Force, so wouldn't it be more correct to list them in the Turkish Air Force inventory? Because I presume UAVs such as Heron and Harpy will be under the command of General Faruk Cömert in case of a war (God forbid). For instance the Harpy will complement HARM missiles in destroying enemy radar systems, therefore, logically, they should be used in accordance with the operations of the Turkish Air Force. Shuppiluliuma 20:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hiberniantears, Turkey never ceased to exist. Turkey only changed its political system (was a Monarchy, became a Republic).
Turkey didn't change its flag.
Turkey payed for the Ottoman debts until the 1950s, being the only legal heir to the Ottoman Empire.
The Ottoman Empire was actually called "Turkey" if you read the texts of 19th century treaties such as the Paris Peace Conference (1856) or the Congress of Berlin (1878). Just look at the 19th century caricatures on Punch magazine and you'll see that Turkey was always "Turkey". ;)
With your definition, the Turkish Air Force can't be founded in 1909-1911 (which is its official founding date). 1911 predates the establishment of the Turkish Republic. Similarly, the official founding date of the Turkish Navy is 1081, which also predates the Turkish Republic.
In short, "Turkey was always Turkey" - it only changed its political system. The flag and the institutions remain the same, but the ideology has changed.
Regards. Flavius Belisarius 17:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure sweetheart, whatever you say. You're right, everyone else is wrong. I'm not even fully removing your content. Just the nationalist absurdities. Hiberniantears 17:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hibernian ignorance, what do you see in this 19th century Punch magazine caricature:
I won't learn Turkish history from an American.
Regards. Flavius Belisarius 18:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing mentioning the Republic of Turkey. Thank you for proving yourself wrong yet again. Hiberniantears 18:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hibernatingbears, I know that "it hurts to be PWN3D", but I always said "Turkey" never ceased to exist, it only became a "Republic" in 1923 (it was a Monarchy).
If the United Kingdom decides to become the Republic of England in, let's say, 2017, will the history of its Armed Forces start in 2017?
Regards. Flavius Belisarius 18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Flavius Belisarius has admitted to being a sock of indefinetly banned User:Shuppiluliuma on the Talk:Turkish Navy page. Hiberniantears 18:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
He nevertheless has contributed more to the Turkish Armed Forces articles than you ever can/will. Flavius Belisarius 20:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Should a template in the form of: {{ United States Army}}, {{ British Army}}, {{ French Army}} etc. be used instead of the infobox we have in the article now? I can create a sample if necessary. -- Kimon talk 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes... Please do! Hiberniantears 17:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead an created the template myself. I added {{ Turkish Army}} to the article, and removed to template previously there which applies to the entire military, rather than just the army. If you do not like the template, or feel it lacks enough data (as it is currently many redlinks), please just edit it at Template:Turkish Army. Thanks, Hiberniantears 21:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I still don't think the pre-republic section need be so extensive when there is a link to the Ottoman Military History article preceding this section. Essentially, this [1] can simply be summed up as "The Turkish Army has its roots in the Ottoman Empire..." and then go right into the foundation of the the Turkish Army under Ataturk. Any meaningful language which does not yet exist on the Ottoman Military page can simply be moved there. Hiberniantears 17:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
There are a couple of unreferenced claims in the intro, like deploying a Corps at short notice and and airlift capability of 7 battalions day or night. These need to be referenced and backed up or they will be removed at some point. Cheers Buckshot06 12:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Much of the 'Mission' section is a straight copyright violation from http://www.tsk.mil.tr/eng/genel_konular/tarihce.htm - which also explains some of the bias issues. This needs to be substantially rewritten or it will be removed at some point. Buckshot06 13:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Do Turkish units claim lineage from the Ottoman Empire units?-- mrg3105 mrg3105 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The 14th Cavalry Brigade, from which the 14th Armoured Brigade took its name, was established in Afyon on 31 July 1922. It immediately joined the Great Offensive against the Greeks. It launched an offensive and captured Gediz on 5 September 1922, and on 9 September 1922 it was the first Turkish unit entering Izmir. It went down in history in golden letters for occupying Karsiyaka (quarter of Izmir). With the Turkish Army placed on peace footing on 1 November 1923, it was dispatched to Urfa. KIBRIS goes on and says that it played a role in the suppression of Sheikh Sait and Nasturi Kurdish uprisings in 1925. It was later disbanded. As of 14 May 1997, work started in occupied Kythrea for the formation of an armoured brigade, and on 17 July 1997 the original brigade was reinstated as 14th Armoured Brigade. (Source URL is http://www.hri.org/news/cyprus/tcpr/1998/98-11-19.tcpr.html) 91.84.88.227 ( talk) 17:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they do. For example, 52. Infantry Brigade in Burdur (which I did my military service) is the continuation of the same brigade that took part in Canakkale (Gallipoli) in 1914, in WW1.
According to Turkish Commandership of Land Forces, Turkish army was founded by Mete Khan (a ruler of Asian Huns / Xiongnu) in 209 BC. I'll try to add this valuable info to the article, I'll be happy if someone makes it sound "encyclopedic". The date I am talking about is visible in Turkish Army seal in the article. And here is a direct source for Turkish-speakers: [2]-- Mttll ( talk) 06:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
That'll do, I think. Thank you and happy new year to you too.-- Mttll ( talk) 11:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
ABSOLUTELY LAYING!
209 BC I'm from Turkey but I know that is bullshit! Maybe you know all Turks have a racist view !!
I visited this page to learn about the personnel strength of today's Turkish Army (or find a link to the answer), but I cannot find any. That info (figure should be like 750,000-850,000) would be useful. Lastdingo ( talk) 20:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)werwerwer
There is a mistake about foundation date of the turkish land forces (in fact turkish army).It's founded in adv. (before christ) 209.You can see this reality on the middle at army's seal as like as M.Ö. 209 (milattan önce 209). ~ distinct 26.06.2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.194.122 ( talk) 19:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
If we're talking about modern army in Turkey, it would not present from 1921.The army's history is not cutted anytime from 209 BC.Also we are even talking about the modern one, there is a direct connection from 13th century (Little Ottoman State - Osmanlı Beyliği).The 1921 army is the main of Turkish Independence War (Kurtuluş Savaşı).But it has not landed from sky suddenly. If we were choosing reforms period for establishment time of any army, it would be wrong, i think. ~ distinct (sorry for my terrible English) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.194.122 ( talk) 16:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Simple, there're two chapters.Modern one or general Turkish Army (actually Turkish Land Forces).Turkis army is from 209 BC.Modern one's controversial. "...It's an attempt to give the current army a historical legacy that it simply does not have..." You can use translation tool, [ [3]]- English topic is not detailed Military history of Turkey. Reforms do not cut the history of anything. We can talk two different countries; Republic Of Turkey - Ottoman Empire, but we can not talk two different armies... ~ distinct —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.106.246.33 ( talk) 18:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
209 BC is nothing but the "official" claim. Takabeg ( talk) 19:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
They still have conscription but I do not know enough detail to add it. I think it is being shortened but not abolished? Surely some info should be added.
Jzlcdh ( talk) 18:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Linked it in. Jzlcdh ( talk) 18:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Emblem of TuAF.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Seal of the Turkish Navy.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:T-155 FIRTINA 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzer.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 08:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Turkish Main Battle Tank MITUP Altay.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC) |
Turkish Army size updating by the Turkish Army for 711,759. We can use it as app. 712,000. 402,000 is half of it. Plese update this offical information. [4] Turkish army declared personal numbers Date: 02/01/2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.212.101.120 ( talk) 14:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
TSK (Turkish Army) = Air Force + Sea Force + Land Forces = 657.985. http://www.tsk.tr/10_ARSIV/10_1_Basin_Yayin_Faaliyetleri/10_1_10_Guncel/2012/guncel_1.htm This is TSK's official :) site. Last row for civilian personnel. Please calculate and update information. Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.212.101.120 ( talk) 14:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Kara Kuvvetlerinin kuruluş tarihi olarak, Büyük Hun İmparatoru Mete Han’ın tahta çıkış tarihi olan M.Ö. 209 yılı esas alınmıştır.
Lumialover2, you may find it illogical for the Turkish Army Command to date its forces to 209 BC, but they just do, and there isn't much that can be done about it but to express it in the article. -- Mttll ( talk) 08:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
If you are not a native English speaker, could you please learn to differentiate between Army and Armed Forces?
Too often are people confusing personnel figures for the entire Turkish Armed Forces on this article. Thanks. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 17:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Turkish Land Forces. 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 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Turkish Land Forces. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/archives.php?id=33977When 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Turkish Land Forces. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
How can the Turkish army be active since 209 BC when the Turko-Mongols hadn't even migrated out of Siberia and the Mongolia? I think people are confusing Turkic and Turkish. KhakePakeVatan ( talk) 17:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The 209 BCE reference was already mentioned in the introduction of the historical section, it was never taken out. In fact 3/4 of the historical introduction pertains to it; this is more than enough. Lede and Infobox sections on the other hand are only meant to provide a summary of the article's most important factual contents. Buckshot06, per your own comment you seem to agree with this, thus i cannot understand why you reverted everything. Demetrios1993 ( talk) 13:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: The admins yesterday banned the editor Cengizsogutlu for 1 month due to POV edit warring here on this article the date "209" into the infobox: [5]. The rest of the editors, including editor Buckshot06, are urged to be careful and refrain from ever restoring this WP:PROPAGANDA date into the infobox if they do not want to be reported and go on the same course as Cengizsogutlu. As for the article itself, the problem is restored by Buckshot06 [6] and now the article fails even the minimal quality article standards because it appears to promote the official propaganda claims over factual information about the army's creation. Therefore I am inserting the POV tag [7] which will remain in place until the problem is resolved adequately and in a satisfactory manner. For the POV tag to be removed, the editors should address this emphasis on propaganda dates - that means:
If Buckshot06 disagrees with my edits, fine. But to remove the POV tag from the article, then, the aforementioned issues which Buckshot06 brought back with their reverts, will have to be addressed first. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The text you removed presents the facts". Nope. The information stating that the army was founded 100 years is a fact and the only true fact here; The rest is just propaganda and it has no place on article's Lead section. Whatever fringe theories or propagandas may exist about its foundation are already covered in the article's History section and that is as much as it can get. Nothing more. Like I said above (and please read carefully as I am tired repeating myself):
Lead sections in an article may, just like infoboxes, only summarize on key factual information, nothing else.If you are unfamiliar with WP:LEAD, then I recommend you check it as well. Per WP:LEAD:
The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.Information on fringe or propaganda theories have no place on Lead nor is the most important information in the article. Please revert yourself. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@Buckshot06, "drop the stick
"? My apologies if my firm stance on this matter had annoyed you but no, I can't drop the stick just like that when there is violation of numerous Wikipedia rules. Having looked anywhere in Wikipedia, I wouldn't find a single rule that would support your position at all. Contrary, no rule in Wikipedia permits the use of
WP:LEAD sections and Infoboxes for
WP:PROPAGANDA purposes citing
WP:PRIMARY sources. Can you help me by providing any rules justifying the presence of the contentious date there? You should understand that Wikipedia emphasizes on factual information; is not a place where we promote official narratives/political propaganda (nor give them any
WP:DUE spotlight by placing them on prominent locations such as Infoboxes and Leads). Let alone using WP:PRIMARY sources to cite it when Wikipedia's rules are quite clear that primary sources should be avoided if possible; third-party independent
WP:RS are preferred instead! Looking at the talk page I can't help but note how, so far, three editors have already objected to this by raising their valid concerns on the matter and pointed to several problems (anachronism, POV, unreliable source and more) that may affect the article's quality. I am sorry if the responses here to you are not what you wanted to hear, but you can't ignore other editor's legitimate concerns; and with 3 editors already being against you and with Cengizsogutlu being blocked by the Admins for trying to restore this propaganda date to prominent places, there is clearly a
WP:CONSENSUS of 3 versus 1 against your edits. Now, if you allow me:
Your edits will be reverted. If you feel you disagree with the outcome of the consensus, then you are welcome to seek a 3rd opinion here at: [9] or any other means of dispute resolution if you like. EDIT: the Admins on the related ANI case have been informed as well: [10]. Have a good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure, 209 BC is ridiculous) and has also acknowledged that what SilentResident writes is true (
I have *acknowledged* what you write is true.).
I do not believe it is correct to be in the infobox, and will take it out.). Demetrios1993 ( talk) 21:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I have just reverted this this revert, which sought to remove some broadly uncontroversial, factual data about rebellions in the 1920s and 1930s. We deal in WP:V facts, not trying to remove historical events which the Turkish Army took part in. However Konli17 you need to cite the number of 50,000 troops, and the massacre; you have ten days to do so, or I will remove that detail until sources are provided. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
[ [14]] @ Buckshot06: @ Isik: Shadow4dark ( talk) 10:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Turkish army was not founded in 209 BC. Milliyet is not a reliable source for a history related article. Nihal Atsız himself was a nationalist writer and the source written by him dates back to 1960s. Those dates like 209 BC are chosen to claim that Turkish army is rooted deep down in history. They are not supported by reliable, academic sources. Website of Turkish Land Forces is not a academic source either. This article covers the history of Turkish army starting from 1923. [15] So, I am removing that section.-- Visnelma ( talk) 21:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment:: I concur with Visnelma on this. Fictional date claims may only be presented in Wikipedia as such, not as facts. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 04:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
If Cengizsogutlu or any other editor has any independent and reliable sources regarding the 209 BC date claim, then perhaps we may mention it in the article, provided that these reliable sources consider this date to be important and relevant to the Turkish Army. The source you provided merely confirms the use of the propaganda date by the army. Nothing else. Source doesn't explain how it is factually important to the army and how it is factually relevant to it. Only thing we know is that some nationalist lunatics (mind you, its an Admin's choice of word in describing the revisionists in Turkey, not mine) adopted it. The disagreement here in the talk page however isn't about whether nationalists in the army adopted it, but about whether such kind of information is factually important or relevant to the army itself that would warrant inclusion to the article. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, reflects on facts only in military articles, not on what revisionist nationalist claims and ideas may exist about a country or its army - officially or unofficially. For these, the article Turkish nationalism is the place to go. Got it? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 22:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The thing about this foundation date is it doesn't represent a single official date or a country name identified with a certain administration system. The reason why 209 B.C. is accepted as a foundation date is Modun Chanyu's (a.k.a. Mete Han) new army system. This army system can basically be explained by the '10s of divisions'. The entire army is made of smaller parts that are composed of 10 and multiplies of 10. For example, 10 soldier makes a 'Manga'. 100 soldier makes a 'Bölük'. 1000 soldier makes a 'Tabur'. 10000 soldier makes a 'Tümen'. This regular army system was created by Modun Chanyu in 209 B.C. That's why it is the foundation date of the Turkish Army. Even though there were armies before this date, both Turkish and other, none of the modern descendants of these armies carry the same administrative systems. However, the Turkish army does. Turkish army uses the same system continuously for the last 2000+ years. Unlike the examples given before, Italian and Greek armies are differently administrated than their older foundations. Thus, 209 B.C. can be accepted as the foundation date of the Turkish Armed Forces.
Hsynylmztr (
talk) 13:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Turkish army and Türk ordusu is not the same thing. Because in Turkish, ordu is a word used for all ground, naval and air forces combined, whereas army is only used for land forces in English. So, I am correcting that in the lead section.-- Visnelma ( talk) 17:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
46.106.50.243 ( talk) 07:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Turkish Land Forces were established in 209 BC. It was written here before but now I don’t see it anymore...
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. See discussion above.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 10:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)The Turkish Army traces its origin to the Ottoman Army. A theory accepted officially was that the Ottoman Armed Forces had been founded in 1363, when the Pençik corps (the predecessor of the Janissary corps) had been formed and, in this context, on 28 June 1963, it celebrated the 600th anniversary of its foundation. [1] In the same year, one of the prominent Pan-Turanists, Nihal Atsız, asserted that the Turkish Army had been founded in 209 BC, when Mete Khan of the Xiongnu is thought to have formed an army based on the decimal system. [2] verification needed dubious In 1968, Yılmaz Öztuna proposed this theory to Cemal Tural, who was the Chief of the General Staff of the Republic of Turkey at the time. [3] verification needed In 1973, when the Turkish Army celebrated the 610th anniversary of its foundation, Nihal Atsız published his claim again. [4] verification needed After the 1980 Turkish coup d'état, the Turkish Army formally adopted the date 209 BC as its year of foundation. [5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 ( talk • contribs)
References
The first orderly and disciplined formation of the Turkish Army dates back to 209 BC, during the Great Hun Empire; the greatest units in this organization were the divisions made up of 10,000 soldiers, divisions were further divided into smaller units composed of a thousand, hundred, and ten soldiers; this organization continued to exist throughout the history in the Turkish states with small changes.
Why are rebellions in the 1920s and 1930s referred to as being in a region that didn't exist until the 1940s? Stara Marusya ( talk) 07:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
because why not? also please add this 'File:Turkish Special Forces soldier.jpg' to modernization section maybe? 46.196.85.12 ( talk) 14:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Dear @Shadow4Dark can you explain further your recent revert on the personnel numbers? They appear to be official Turkish figures. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the errant ref tag from the end of this citation:
IISS (2023). "Chapter Four: Europe". The Military Balance. 123 (1). International Institute for Strategic Studies. doi:10.1080/04597222.2023.2162716. ISSN 0459-7222.</ref>
Thanks.
PS. I would make all the bulleted references a new "Further reading" section, but that's up to the editor. 76.14.122.5 ( talk) 20:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)