Talk:Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

Ethnicity

He is ethnicly Georgian? Are you sure about that?

I search this subject on internet. There is actual news about it. He says my ancestors moved from Georgia to Turkey. These are the links but in Turkish--Ugur Basak 02:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.digimedya.com/default.asp?t=wa&wid=6&aid=854 --->>> These sources are not reliable
• http://www.turksolu.org/98/adiguzel98.htm

He has a clear background compared to other politicians in Turkey such as Baykal and Bahceli.

He's not ethnic Georgian, his parents are from Rize and nobody in their fair minds would argue that people from Rize are ethnic Georgian, he could be Laz though and I don't think the Turkish nationalist groups would ever take issue with that. He was the only Istanbul-born mayoral candidate in the 1994 Istanbul mayoral race, which he won. Saglikserdar 06:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Living in Rize doesn't make you directly Turkish or a foreigner resident of Rize doesn't make all citizens in the city foreigners. Also, nationalist circles are using the term as I saw it in their magazines. Of course, this approach is the same with the approach of the leftist organizations which giving many religious oriented nicknames to Erdoğan. They are both subjective. Deliogul 16:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also not everyone from the Black Sea region or the city Rize is a Laz (Laz live more to the east, by the Georgian border). People tend to call almost anyone from the eastern Black Sea region a Laz, which is a major misconception. Can his parents or his other relatives speak Lazuri? (DvN)

I am sorry but reading your arguments about who is a genuine turk and who is not is laughable. If I have been reading my history books correctly only a small percentage of today's turkish population can accurately trace its roots back to the Altaic(?) nomads that entered eastern Αnatolia around 1.000 AD. The majority of modern Turks are the descendants of the indigenous peoples (Hettites, Romans, Hellenes, Byzantines, Armenians, Jews, Kurds, etc etc the list is endless some put this number close to 70) who have been converted (some forcibly) to Islam under the obscure notion of "Turkishness". What is Turkishness, can anybody define it? To me it sounds like the "Macedonicity" of the Slavs/Bulgars of Skopje. But this is of course another laughable story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.49.40 (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

When he visited Georgia (August 11, 2004) he said I'm Georgian too, my family is Georgian family, migrated from Batumi to Rize. (Turkish: Ben de Gürcü'yüm, ailemiz Batum'dan Rize'ye göç etmiş bir Gürcü ailesidir.) Bülent Sarıoğlu, "Kimlik değişimi!" Milliyet, December 13, 2005. Takabeg (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

cf. "Bahçeli: Hükümet kurumları baskı altına alıyor", NTVMSNBC, September 5, 2010.

Erdoğan is not ethnic Georgian. His family is from Batum which used to be part of Turkey but then given to Russia, now part of Georgia after the Soviet Union dissolved. Saying Erdoğan is ethnic Georgian is like saying that the German writer Günter Gras is ethnic Polish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seluckertan (talk • contribs) 23:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

He is a Potamya Greek. He is a Greek racist and works for Megali İdea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspectortr (talk • contribs) 13:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Greek of Pontus
  

His place of birth still has Greek name. Rize (root), the short of the original Rizounta (compare with Trapezounta, Kerasounta), or Rizaion in ancient Greek (Procopius (Προκόπιος), Περί Κτισμάτων, Haury, J. (ed.), Wirth, G. (αναθ.), Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia Libri VI, 4 (Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, Leipzig 1964), p. 99.). If you can read Greek, find here information about Rizounta Ριζούντα, in Greek Wikipedia and here about Rizaion Ρίζαιον. His village is called Potamya (River) Potamya (wrongly Potomya). His ancestors converted to islam because they were wealthy and this was the usual way to avoid taxation and harassment. His family name "Bagat" means the Greek guerillas of Pontus. All the rest is turkish nationalistic nonsense. Only a 10% of the Turks are real Turks.

Name pronunciation?

How is his name pronounced? – Kaihsu 11:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[Reh-jehp Tah-yip Ehr-dou-ahn] - something like this :) --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 18:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pronounce it directly as how it is written. This is the beauty of Turkish language :) With respect, Deliogul 23:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be special in other senses... I know at least three more languages that are pronounced as written. With respect ;-) Caribeando (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, Hellenic (a.k.a Greek) for example is read as written and vice versa. But now I have made my Turkish friends(?) angry by "bursting their bubble". The truth is Turkish is a beautiful language to those who speak it natively, e.g. the Turks. From a linguistic, purely academic perspective, Turkish, when compared with other, say European, languages, is a very simple, and to a certain extend limiting language. Not to insult, but it is well know that up until 1923 (or so) they had no written alphabet so they were using the Arabic one. Still today, they do not have an original alphabet, they are using the latin one with some necessary modifications. Sorry but this is the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.49.40 (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you know how to pronounce Turkish letters, which many don't. deniz^T_C 19:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha but I won't care if they call him Teyyap Irdogin or something like that ;) Deliogul 21:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the edits of ip: 206.47.249.252 which were absolutely made to insult. (http://www.seslisozluk.com/?word=takiyye) 88.254.81.202 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Erdoğan must be written as Erdoghan or something which makes English speakers be able to pronounciate the name easily. There is no Ğ in English as well as Ş, Ç, İ, Ü, Ö.--Tuleytula (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Mahmudmasri: I think the pronunciation is mistaken. It should be /ˈtɑjːip/, not /ˈtɑːjip/. The /j/ y pronunciation is the one which is doubled (long), not the /ɑ/ a. This name has an Arabic-language variant, anyway & it is pronounced /ˈtˤɑjːib/ Tayyib or /ˈtˤɑjːeb/ Tayyeb.
  • I don't agree in changing the spelling to "Erdoghan", because the pronunciation is already written & the ğ is silent. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Numbering

How was the figure of 57th PM arrived at? From the list, it seems a few ways of getting there are possible (by individual, by government, counting military governments, not counting them, etc.). Biruitorul 07:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Turkey was in chaos for much of the time during the Cold War. Being a NATO member right next to the Soviet block was really hard. Turkey had different Prime Ministers for every different year. After Turkish people passed those critical times they faced economic crisis during 90's and again in 2001. Of course many times politicians had to left the Prime Ministry due to these repeating crisis. I don't really like Erdoğan but if he can manage to complete his 4 year term in the office, I think this will be the first complete term since the Adnan Menderes' term. That was a long time a go, long before even my parrents were born ;) With respect, Deliogul 23:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but that doesn't really answer my concern: namely, if you go here, you'll find that 26 people have been Prime Minister of Turkey. So where did the number 57 come from? Biruitorul 02:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be the number of governments, several people have been prime minister for more than once, for instance Süleyman Demirel had been a prime minister for seven terms. deniz^T_C 02:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

İsmet İnönü, Adnan Menderes, Süleyman Demirel, Bülent Ecevit and Turgut Özal served more than once. A little addition to what Denizz said before :) Deliogul 12:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

He is the prime minister of 57th government, he is not the 57th prime minister. There are several people who were in this position more than one term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.168.47.65 (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Subjectivity?

As much as I don't agree with Erdogan's neither domestic nor foreign policy, I think it's a bit far-fetched to assume that a prime minister has anything to do with the recognition of the so-called formation of a country such as Kurdistan. Governments are elected temporarily and Erdogan has so far, currently in his last year, failed to meet the majority expectation. Still, it is unfair and unbecoming to use virtually baseless and dyspeptic comments in an essentially neutral dictionary.Pearlsforswine 11:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Some fractions are angry to him because he generally says the same things which Barzani says and it is so clear that Barzani supports Kurdish activists (Ahmet Türk etc.) and PKK. Actually, Erdoğan won a huge majority and I started to think that Turkish voters love autonomous Kurds and their activities. It takes my breath away :) Deliogul 12:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Takes your breath away eh?!? Do you mean that wanting to live independent and free of foreign interventions is something you find just and wonderful OR illegal and terrible. If it is the first then Kurds should be given the right to form their own state. If it is the second then Turkey needs to be disolved to what it was before 1923. You choose my friend!

These things that he says that you say are the same things that Barzani says, why don't you give some examples so people have some idea about what you're referring to.Saglikserdar 06:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Barzani says that Turkey can't cross the borders of Kurdistan. Couple months later, Erdoğan easily gives up the right of hot pursuit of the Turkish Armed Forces. Deliogul 16:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And now the Turkish army is in Northern Iraq, what do you say to that? Saglikserdar (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Now Turkey is out of Iraq, what do you say to that? It happened so fast, didn't it? Deliogul (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If the writer of this article wanted to sell Israel as a mass of complete innocence fine but he can't put false information, I think this article is clearly in need of rewriting in a more neutral perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.77.80 (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Mhhh.... about vandalism and possible semi-protect

I've reverted some vandalism, and I also see the comment above as an indicator that this article could be targeted for some more. So I will be checking in the next days and semi-protect it if needed --Legion fi 08:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please I beg of you for the sake of the integrity of wikipedia. Find Erdogan's Siirt speech -and I promise if I can find it on youtube someday I'll post a link- he started his speech with a poem as follows in Turkish: "Minareler sungu/ Kubbeler migfer/ Camiler kislamiz/ Muminler asker" And that was it he did not continue on with those made up lines as this article suggests. The source is also mistaken. I have watched that speech before and I very well know what he has said and what he has not said. Don't get into vandalism talk without knowing as good as I do. Find the speech and be ashamed of your bias. Saglikserdar (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision needed

I request that this article be revised intensively for the following reasons:

1- Contains bias at the scope of reaching to hilarious statements like "He does not shake women's hands" (must be vandalism of course, it is best to restrict any changes in the text first)

It doesn't say that.

2- Sources are not reliable. It is unsubstantiated that he has Georgian roots. Sites like turksolu (turkish left) are highy biased.

"Ben de Gürcü'yüm, ailemiz Batum'dan Rize'ye göç etmiş bir Gürcü ailesidir." isn't good enough for you?

3-The sources given do not match the inscriptions. The poem incident is highly inaccurate, although the BBC is given as the source.

Please sign your comments next time, like so: --~~~~ --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The palestinian section of the foreign policy section needs to be revised so that it is not a transcription of a single event. I am going to remove that part and leave the first paragraph as that is the only one relevant to his views towards palestine. Goalie1998 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

A Turkish record in public votes

AKP (JUSTICE AND DEVELOPMENT PARTY) OF THE TURKISH REPUBLIC HAS INCREASED THEIR VOTES FROM THE LAST ELECTIONS IN 2002,THUS BECOMING ONLY THE SECOND PARTY TO DO SO IN 2006. TO GOVERN WITH A RECORD BREAKING 47.5% OF PUBLIC VOTE. Aslaningozu 01:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This or that way, he won the elections and crushed the opposition. Yeah, he is a bad guy but the people we supported against him weren't good enough either. Therefore, we must stop crying for today and work for the future. Just like Charles de Gaulle once said, "France has lost a battle, but France has not lost the war". Deliogul 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And I wonder if this KANAL TURK is anywhere close to the mainstream? And do you really believe that a ruling party can increase its votes from 34 percent to 46 percent given almost 5 years of track record through delivering gift checks to people. Even the opposition leaders could not pursue such arguments. Saglikserdar 06:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Politics is way more complex than food help, I can accept that. On the other hand, claiming that the only reason of the rise in the number of votes is the success of the ruling party is just absurd too. Internal support is just a portion of the picture (what do we understand from "internal", that's debatable too). USA declared that it is glad because of AKP's victory in the elections. As an IR student, I know that using the wind of USA to move your ship is generally a bad thing to do (see the concepts of neoliberalism and neoconservatism). Therefore we must think why Americans loved the situation and why EU delegates started to express their worries about the secularism in Turkey. Desperately defending AKP (or CHP, or DSP) is a useless thing to do, of course if we want to build some academic statements from the situation. Deliogul 16:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

???WHAT other reason "internal" are there for akp`s success in the elections apart from, them proving themselves in the governmental arena, pulling inflation rates down from hitting the roof to a standstill maybe it was the revelutionary acts in social securities, the 80% price reduction of general medicine, and the avalibility of these at not only the local pharmacy but nationwide(benefits for peple on benefit),maybe it was the financial help that was given to the agricultural sectors of turkey thus the rates of tractors bought by the farmers and the interest rates to the financial credits borrowed are phonominal.also it could be that over a 100 thousand girls whose parent were not willing to send their daughters were supported mentally and physically, not to mention parents could not afford books to buy for their children for the coming term of school, akp gives these books free of charge!how about that? or could it be the brand new built 6000 kms of dual carriadge ways, that made transport much easier and safer? hello my there are many, many more improvements akp has achived "internally" which other reason do you see for the rise of votes enlighten us please.. Aslaningozu 01:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, then they are not trying to destroy the University Hospitals in Turkey via their strategies. Money flows to Turkey because of the successful government of AKP and not because of the high interest rates and AKP's policy to create a neoliberal market by promoting FDIs. Don't forget that while the rich don't pay any KDV to diamonds, ordinary people can't buy any basic material without paying high KDV tax. I guess they are also successful in the field of agriculture because they are leaving everything to God and doing nothing about the effects of the false usage of the water in farms while the world is at danger because of the global warming and we nearly lost Konya, once the grain storage of Turkey. Those lecture books aren't produced without a cost and people still paying them by paying taxes and this "come on girls, lets go to school!" campaign is a success of Turkcell with the support of famous people rather than AKP. Finally, new roads.... In an age that the civilization cries for the public transport (fast train, metro etc.), they decided to bury our money into the ground with those highways. They should have been "weaving the country from top to bottom with iron wires" instead of doing those roads. I hate to oppose everything AKP supporters say but that wasn't my goal while I was talking about the "internal" support. That is why I put it in brackets. I was talking about the business circles and some NGOs rather than the citizens of the country. By the way, as I said before, blindly defending any political entity wouldn't help anyone. For example, I can also talk forever about how a useless person Deniz Baykal is but that would be a lost time of my life. Deliogul 13:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The poem that put him in jail

The article presents a version recited by Erdogan and another version published in 1913 but in reality what he recited in Siirt is this: "Minarets bayonets, Domes helmets, Mosques our barracks, Believers soldiers". He does not go on to reciting any other part from that poem. I have not checked the sources of this poem but it seems the two are different poems published in different books. What Erdogan recited in Siirt is a poem by Gokalp in which he portrays a fictional conversation between Alpaslan, the victorious Turkish leader at Malazgirt, and the Roman emperor. This point should be revised. At least if the sources of the poem or poems are not verified the part that says Erdogan's version is definitely wrong. It is written to mean that Erdogan recited a whole poem by Gokalp and he made several changes to the original. Erdogan only recited four lines as I mentioned above.Saglikserdar 06:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Erdoğan modified the poem that's for sure. Also, he used it for religious purposes rather than nationalistic purposes of Ziya Gökalp. Deliogul 16:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The question:"Erdogan only recited four lines as I mentioned above." If one person recites only 4 lines, which he already changed these four lines; HOW do we know which poem he recited??? He could have come up with this 4 lines and we would not even be talking about it. We are talking because the poem in question was very famous during Balkan Wars. It was claimed to be a war of "Christian - Muslim (caliphate sultan)" war (can not find this fact in high school text book). He replaced the SULTAN's army section with a pointer to his group. Poem does not refer to sultan's army but army of Is.. Radi.. of Turkey. Just something to crunch 4u guys.--Rateslines 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If Balkan provinces didn't support the Young Turk revolution, there wouldn't be a CUP rule in the empire. Therefore simply calling Balkan Wars a clash between the religions is wrong. Balkan Wars were like a bloody meeting between Ottomans and Millets where the half a millennium old Ottoman presence was on the table. Deliogul 10:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the differences based on the realities on the ground and behind the war zone. Lets look at a corresponding dualism: Is it war against ""Terrorism"" or war against "Western way of life, -Bush in 2003" (Is Western being Christian?). If it is against terrorists, why not go after .... But they do not, do they??. Turkey nicely defines this dualism as there is no "your terrorist" or "my terrorist", but "the terrorist". You use the same perspective. Without noticing that you are using it. If you define (you have already done it) Ottomans (Muslim millet) and Millets (All other millets), you would be saying what the poem was saying. Erdogan two days ago "Bu millet'e en buyuk kotuluk, icinde bolucululuk oldugunu ...". He sees Turkey as the Muslim Millet. The understanding of millet, as he was using, being what the Balkan wars left behind. He did not say "Bu ulusa..." Ulus being the nation what Ataturk Reforms brought (Turkish people). He also said "Ataturk Happaned", didn't he? If you look why Armenian Revolutionary Federation supported "Young Turk revolution", you would see the same perspective as DTP's congress resolution two days ago. It was a way to establish an escape route from "the half a millennium old Ottoman presence" for ARF and perhaps 80 years of Turkish for DTP. Will DTP stop at the point if their demands realized. Did Armenians stop even though they had their Armenian Reform look at the first couple result. Just something to crunch 4u. Erdogan is holding on what Ottoman Empire left behind. DTP deny this concept. Rateslines 15:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there is nothing called Muslim Millet in the Ottoman imperial administration. The millet system traditionally contains Jewish, Armenian and Orthodox communities with late modifications like Protestants etc. It was a set of rights granted to non-Muslims to form fragmentation in the social and political structure of the empire. Therefore, these people were in different positions and this is the one key thing in the "empire" building process. If you have one cultural identity in your territory, your state is called a nation-state. All these mean that I used the dualism on purpose, not without noticing. I know that Erdoğan is using such terms for Islamic tendencies and I know that today we hold what is left of the "empire that ruled over three continents" but you have to understand that if we can go back to 18/19th century Ottoman Empire and tell Ottomans that they are going to lose Damascus, Sofia and Thessaloniki, they would treat us like some crazy man. Note that when I say "Ottomans", I refer to the whole population. Deliogul 22:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not get it why .....? There is no reason 4 me to discuss what Millet means. There is enough publication regarding Sheikh ul-Islam (Leader of ...) and what it represents under Ottoman civil administration (Millet of ...). Such as the Supreme Patriarch of All Armenians (Leader of ...) and Armenian Apostolic Church (Millet of ...). Even the Sultan which Christians named him "Blody Sultan" recognized the fact that "he was going to lose Damascus, Sofia and Thessaloniki" and began to use the title Caliphate more than any Sultan in the history of Ottoman Dynasty. We have seen how that turned out in WWI and Arab Revolt. By the way Ottomans has been a family designation (or the tribe (Turkish: Beylik) if you like), but never the "Nation." You and me are not children of Ottomans. I'm sure there is no familial linkage in my inheritance to Sultan Murat V. I know where my grand-grand parents grave is. They are sleeping at the same grave yard that my grand father and grand mother. It is being the Karamanogullari, not Ottomanogullari. I wanted my mom close where I live, she is not sleeping with them. I'm sorry that I was selfish. I'm a "Turkish" with a very strong "Turkic" origin. I can say: Erdogan is a "Turkish" with a very strong "Georgian" origin. I have friends who are Turkish with Kurdish origin. By the way "Turkish-Turkic" differentiation is also very established concept. I have not seen Erdogan using these terminologies once in his political life. He generally uses the term "Millet." When I sorted out all the arguments in your message, I had hard time getting out what you are opposing. Erdogan cited "Asker Duasi (Soldiers Pray)" which was used during a war time waged by Caliphate. He changed the pointers in the poem to ""a"" group located inside the Turkey. That was the reason court decided it was a speech of "religious hatred". The court asked "whose army is that?" and "where are they going to invade?" Rateslines 23:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you know some about Tanzimat Reforms, you must know the Ottoman citizenship system. I couldn't find another way to describe the whole population of the Ottoman territory. It doesn't mean that I'm talking about being a member of the House of Osman. Also, Abdülhamid II used Pan-Islamic policies after the disastrous Ottoman-Russian War of 1877-78 because suddenly a huge part of the western provinces were gone. If you think in the context of the Eastern Question, Abdülhamid was trying to form a more centralized and stable empire, both to defend his domain from western interventions and to intervene to other parts of the world by using Islam. I think there is a little confusion about the term millet. Its meaning has changed after the formation of the republic so when we say millet today, it is not the same thing Ottomans used then. At last, I wasn't opposing your opposition to Erdoğan but my problem is with “the way” you oppose because I think you use some false thinking to reach what you try to say. You know the saying "iki eğri bir doğru etmez". Deliogul 00:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Prologue

Look at http://www.memri.org/bin/media.cgi?ID=128705 and see Erdogan with Al Qaida

The above link is broken. So you might want to check the following:

http://www.ozgurturkiye.com/images/Tayyip-Hikmetyar.GIF

And a zoom shot ...

http://img.blogcu.com/uploads/ozgurce32_Taliban20Tayyip20erdogan20fetullah20gulen.jpg

There is also a snapshot with Fethullah Gulen (the greatest philosopher of century) in the second photo.

Excuse me but when you claim that "Fethullah Gulen [is] (the greatest philosopher of century)" should n't you provide some sort of backup references? "the greatest philosopher of century" by who's/what standards? And how was he awarded this recongition? And by whom? This is a very "heavy" statement! Are n't you risking being a little "ethocentric" here? Maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.49.40 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if the guys over there are Al-Qaeda or Taliban or worse.

But the point is, you can clearly see our (Turkey's) future "Prime Minister" over there with that just *beautiful glimpse* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onurgunduz (talk • contribs) 03:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

-- yawn! [12:25 Feb 14, 06]

Sadly, half of the Turkish voters foolishly think that he has changed a lot. Voters see him as a democratic and a charismatic leader and no more as an Islamist extremist. Deliogul 12:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The real morons are those who consider the will/decision of the public as foolish. You will have to respect the results of the elections in a democratic country if you are really democrat and republican. However, in Turkey, there are those who are blind to the realities and who are deaf to public's demand of democracy and normalization. At least, half of the public are not like the rest who drown in their ignorant secularistic bigotry.

Note this, if you control the words, you control the public who are in need of using those words. The public are nowadays informed enough to know who is using what words under what intentions. What is islamic extremist? how can you label Erdogan as an Islamic extremist? All these words, secularism, nationalism, extremisim, etc are discussed in minds who are open enough for the realities. The public do not buy the same old memorized slogans like in the past. They are more critical in pursuing the reality itself.

I didn't say that I don't consider the result as legal or legitimate. I only think that it is wrong and irrational. In a true democracy, nobody can stop me for expressing my view as long as I’m not violating the law. Therefore, I don't accept the Kissinger role you gave to me, in this situation, I'm Allende. Deliogul 13:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever lived in Turkey? Most of the people live in poverty and cling to religion. They do not judge whether this will be ultimately good for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.241.65.126 (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Have your ever read the Turkish constitution? It is supposed to be democratic, it doesn't say that just rich and secular people is allowed to vote because they know how to "judge better"... Have you ever thought that the problem might be that the "awesome system" of secular, economic and military elites are leaving outside the people who is now living in poverty? they may be the real reason for the AKP's support. Caribeando (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

AKP's power comes from the struggle between the backward peasantry, who didn't used to know anything about personal liberties before the Independence War and who have also been migrating to the big cities because of the tuff conditions in their birthplaces, and the so called "elites" of the country. It is no secret that the republic was founded by a little group of highly educated military officials of the Ottoman Empire. You can form strong connections between the Turkish case and the French Revolution, where the Third Estate took over the control from the clergy and nobility. People were told to obey what the "ruler" says and they are motivated and manipulated by the clergy to stay that way. I don't want to call the problem in Turkey a battle between the future and past because I don't believe that the representative democracy is a good way of governing for the future of humanity either. Whatever, AKP plays to the crowds who think that they are forced to give up some aspects of their lives which are indispensable to them. Imho, such people can't see that neoliberal/neoconservative politics of AKP itself creates the poverty around them and they are put into a deep coma by pumping traditions and religion to their brains, just like Karl Marx said. Only the people who control the government seats and the means of production can benefit from such a system and God can't do anything about it. Deliogul (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• The above sounds like the famous "Manifesto" of Marx and Engels. I was under the impression that it was proven to be false, null and void during the Soviet experiment of the last (20th) century. Are there still people who listen to (and feed upon) this empty jargon in Turkey ? Apparently not all "old guns" have converted to being "ulusalcı" (nationalistic socialism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.70.62 (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Let me put the picture above in context. The time that the picture was taken, was the time that US supported them against the invasion of the Russians. See: Soviet war in Afghanistan. These days the picture may look weird. Randam (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find a direct connection between the criticism of Marxism and the article of the PM. Still, if one has to look at the real life examples of efficiency to prove a political thought to be successful or failed, democracy failed couple of times more than the communism did. Also, I'm not an "eski tüfek" (the socialist activists of the 20th century Turkey), my parents were. As a young man who tries to be a qualified academician on the field of International Relations, I just learn as much as possible and combine the ideas of different political, economic and social thinkers into a coherent standing. Finally, I can humbly argue that regardless of which ideological scope you look through, AKP government is just a failure. Maybe not as clear cut as the failures of Reagan administration of 1980s or the Shah regime in Iran but the issues of Turkey can be handled way better than they handle them today. Deliogul (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

He also wrote a play on 1974 Mas-Kom-Ya (nothing about it on article). Please add details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.162.35 (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Çevrecilerin Daniskası

PM is back again with his new speech. He claimed to be an engrained ("daniska" in Turkish which has negative meanings) environmentalist and accused the global environmentalists for being unsuccessful. Greenpeace and other people issued comments criticizing the speech. I guess we need to add it into the article with a sentence or two. Deliogul (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to create a citation. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Resources

While doing my usual cleaning, I removed the following links from the EL as they were not very general. Cite them if you are interested:

• 2003 Speech by Erdogan - "Democracy in the Middle East, Pluralism in Europe: Turkish View"
• A supportive article about his political career Template:Tr icon
• An unsupportive article about his political slogans Template:Tr icon
• Sabah.com.tr - 1 milyar $'ın sırrı Template:Tr icon
• Sheikh Nazim Kibrisi addressing Erdogan's convention- 1993
• Erdogan speaks at the Council on Foreign Relations, Sep 27, 2007

--Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Public fight with the boss of media monopoly

I think a Turk should add a paragraph about the ongoing fight of the Prime Minister with the boss of the media monopoly in Turkey. Sounds like the boss wanted some freebies and after getting rejected he has started publishing articles about how the PM financed his political party. Thanks to these fights we laymen learn about the skeletons in the wardrobes of these public figures, albeit belatedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.70.62 (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Content

Erdogan's policy statements need to be structured and condensed and interlinked much more efficiently. At the moment they are all over the place, with one random quote giving away to another. It looks like a big collage of random quotes. 82.230.24.185 (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, why are there two different sections for his Prime Ministership tenure? It is hard to know which info should go to which section. Should the info on Palestinians be added to the "2002-2007" section or "since-2007" section? 82.230.24.185 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the structure has been cleaned up. It looks better now.. 82.230.24.185 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Incident in 2009 Davos

I believe that the incident in Davos should be more highlighted more. What do you think? Wisamsafi (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah why not? As long it is sourced, there is no reason why that section cannot be expanded. 82.230.24.185 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I have been doing a lot of work on this article for the last two days, clean-up, adding sources, formatting sources, syntax, grammar etc. I am primarily interested in style and structure, so if there is any political or contemporary dispute please don't confuse the structure of the article (like adding new sections instead of trying to fit them into an existing one) and do remember to bring sources since this is a BLP. Cheers! 82.230.24.185 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The quotations in this section are not needed - they do not add any depth to the section. It is sufficient to say, in this section, that Peres was highly criticized by Erdoğan without Erdoğan's direct quote. I will wait a few days to hear a response, but after that, I will remove the quotes assuming that there is no real opposition. Goalie1998 (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Armenia

If someone would add impartially sourced material regarding the reasons for the outbreak of hostilities between the two sides and the history of their relations, it would help to put this most contentious issue in a proper historical context for lay readers. Thanks (LycianFelix (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

This is a biography though. Probably not the right place for this content. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is my belief, that a link to such content, would go at least some way toward the education of the average Wikipedia user.(LycianFelix (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

Birthday

He is born in february!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sehzades (talk • contribs) 19:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Meeting with Sudanese vice president

I added the following statement to the "Israel and the Palestinians" section:

"Soner Cagaptay of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy noted that shortly after the Davos incident, Erdogan hosted Salva Kiir Mayardit, the Vice President of Sudan, who is being indicted for his role in the Darfur genocide. Cagaptay brings up this fact to note that Erdogan's action at Davos were less about humanitarian concern than they are about what Cagaptay calls a "civilizational view."[1]

It has been reverted twice now by Falastine fee Qalby. Firstly, I warn him/her not to revert again, as that would be a violation of WP:3RR or I would have to report him/her. Secondly, I fail to see how a statement of fact cited to a reliable source could reasonably be reverted with the response, "who cares" and then be labeled as a violation of WP:SOAP.[2] --GHcool (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious why you want to place Cagaptay's opinion in - you simply don't like what Erdogan said. Thankfully, this is not your soapbox and Wikipedia is not your opportunity to rebut Edrogan or to expose his hypocrisy. If criticism like Cagaptay's criticism was echoed significantly to make it a notable reaction to Edrogan's statement, we might consider placing it in. But it wasn't. So I ask you if you care about maintaining a a neutral encyclopedia, please revert yourself. I reverted you twice justifiably, I am allowed 3 reverts in 24 hours so it is not a 3rr violation.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If it is a sourced document, I think it should be left in - reworded, but left in. It is important to show Erdogan's relation to Israel. Goalie1998 (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Edrogan's statement and his actions are enough to show what his 'relation to Israel' is, if that is even important enough to show. I will reiterate, Cagaptay's opinion is not a notable reaction. One can certainly find many opinions from organizations less controversial than the Washington Institute for Near East Policy that support Edrogan in what he said and point out the hypocrisy in Peres' speech. But do you really want to open a door to that? There is no choice for that, please revert. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I encourage all significant views to be voiced on Wikipedia and would not mind one bit if other views are expressed. Cagaptay represents the Washington Institute, which is a notable and highly respected organization known for excellent scholarship and influential on American foreign policy. Wikipedia policy is clear: this information should not be removed. --GHcool (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the Washington Institute is not a highly respected organization, but that is besides the point. I disagree with the inclusion of the opinion because it makes the article POV. Instead of simply reporting what happened, you want to offer biased commentary as well. Wikipedia isn't supposed to take a position, reliable news sources that reported this incident didn't take this position. Since we cannot agree and it is unlikely we will agree with continued discussions, I am thinking of opening a request for a third opinion. I will let you know when the request is submitted. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I made the request. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, argument by assertion does not work on Wikipedia. The Washington Institute is notable by any reasonable standard. Take a look at their list of notable scholars. All of them—every single one of them—have written extensively on the Middle East and surrounding regions. Their articles and books on the subject are highly respected in the field of Middle East studies and their advice on foreign polcy is sought after by various people in the U.S. government. Many of them have served in some form of official diplomatic capacity. The claim that the Washington Institute and/or the scholars who are affiliated with it aren't notable simply isn't true.

The claim that the statement is POV does not hold water either. The statement is listed in a paragraph on the criticism of the Davos incedent. The statement is an accurate statement of criticism cited to a notable, reliable source. I do not put words into Cagaptay's mouth. I am completely open to ideas if somebody wants to propose a better way of phrasing the statement than I have, but I don't believe that censorship is the best approach here. --GHcool (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the third opinion tag as it is my opinion that the statement should stay. While I will say it probably needs to be reworded, I'm not sure how I would go about doing that. Sorry Falastine, but I hope this helps clear up any problems. Goalie1998 (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is not a valid reason to remove the tag. Please don't remove the tag. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

So by third opinion, you really mean as many opinions as it takes until someone agrees with you. Goalie1998 (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I issued a request for a third opinion at WP:3 which would bring someone uninvolved in the article not with a bias unlike yourself. I am trying to settle this as fairly as I can, your removal of the tag and your recent comment suggests that you want to just force your way. We can keep edit warring if you like but I rather have an uninvolved party check if there is a policy violation here. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Because it seems that this issue is not going to be resolved by third opinion (not many active participants), I will withdraw my request and remove the tag. It is better that I report this at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard instead. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. So the way Falastine fee Qalby solves issues on Wikipedia is by asking the other parent, eh? Heads, I win; tails, you lose? How intellectually dishonest! Shame on you, Falastine fee Qalby. --GHcool (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Now now, be civil. There is not much going on on the biographies of living persons page. You can always post your comments there also, but I would wait a few days before hand. Goalie1998 (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

However, since I now see that you already did post there, be civil. Goalie1998 (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think both of you need to civil and just wait. It seems both you of you are fearing outside input. Bullying and attacking me isn't going to help. Just wait for outside opinion, there is no harm in that. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am done waiting, I was being too respectful when you both were not and even though I feel the edits were policy violations. Section deleted. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not afraid of outside opinions. I am confident that any neutral person seeing the "offending" statement and its source will come to the same conclusions I did: that it belongs in the article. However, if there is a consensus against it, I will, of course, respect it. --GHcool (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Having been brought here via the WP:Israel page, I have to say that I don't see what the sentence brings to the article, and don't understand why such an effort is being made to include it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, it shows that Erdogan's concerns were not for Palestinian civilians as he had suggested during Davos, but for maintaining an image that he "cares" for the Palestinian cause. I could be reading the quote incorrectly, but if I'm not that's what I got out of it. Goalie1998 (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't show what Erdogan is concerned about... it shows that Sonar thinks that meeting with a man shows that you don't care about people in some other country. After taking some time to think about this I don't think this statement has the proven weight to be mentioned in the article as a connector for these particular dots. NJGW (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Shock Goalie1998 (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "Shock" has to do with the article's content. This page is only for discussing article content, not for commenting on the opinions of others. If you have something constructive to add it is welcome. NJGW (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah what a shock, someone reaching a reasonable conclusion through cogitation. Anyway, it seems that there isn't any consensus to keep the sentence so I will remove it until consensus is gained. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is also no consensus to remove it. So I will put it back until a consensus is reached. Goalie1998 (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,
GHCool has left me a message asking I come and give my mind.
I am usually quite open to all wp:rs opinions and I may be biased due to that but I think this one is relevant and even important.
Israeli official speech uses much the comparison with Darfur when attacked about Gaza (for the number of victims, for the atrocities, or here concerning people who condemn his actions but doesn't do the same for Sudane authorities...)
Whether we agree or not with the comparison, I think it is a recurrent and strong ad hominem (don't do as I do just do as I say) argument of the Israeli and pro-Israeli commentators and therefore, it is relevant for wikipedia. Here, the origin of the information is notable enough to deserve a few lines.
If there are wp:rs sources stating why this comparison is / would be not appropriate, it could be added too.
My mind is that the only reason not to put this information would be that it is false and that Salva Kiir Mayardit would not be indicted in the Darfur genocide, which I don't know and don't have checked or that Erdogan condemned him openly.
Ceedjee (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ceedjee. To paraphrase the text being suggested: "Sonar Cagaptay considers Erdogan's action at Davos less about humanitarian concern than about what Cagaptay calls a "civilizational view" because Erdogan met with the Sudanese vice president." Listening to the segment (12 minutes in) again, I see that this is a mischaracterization of Sonar's statement. In reality, Cagaptay agrees that Erdogan's actions are "a clear human concern for human casualty." He then goes on to make the much stronger claim that "the foreign policy" (he is speaking broadly here about Turkey and does not directly implicate Erdogan in this) is selective about its human rights positions, in that it (again no direct implication of Erdogan's personal views) is concerned about Muslims being killed, but not about Muslims killing others. This is a very strong statement to include in Erdogan's article, especially since Sonar is not criticizing Erdogan himself but all of Turkish foreign policy. I'd like to see if there are other sources which criticize Erdogan along the same lines before something like this is added to this article. NJGW (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

NJGW, could I ask you to propose a wording of Cagaptay's statement that you believe may be more in line with Wikipedia policy than my original wording? Your comments are reasonable. --GHcool (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that I don't see Cagaptay attributing these views directly to Erdogan, this appears to me a BLP issue. I can't myself justify keeping any wording which attributs the "civilization view" to Erdogan using only the Capagtay source. It might be an interesting issue to explore in an article on Turkey's current foreign policy, but would need more sources to be a fully developed discussion there too. This of course is just an outsider opinion from someone new to this subject. NJGW (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not about including opinions but rather reactions in these type of articles. Though I will address your point about Salva and his role in the genocide being unclear. First of all, the Janjaweed/Sudan government was fighting against the rebel group Sudan People's Liberation Movement. The side that was accused of genocide was the Janjaweed/government. Salva was leading the Sudan People's Liberation Movement and became vice president as a result of a peace treaty between the 2 sides in 2005. I have not read anything of SPLM engaging in genocide, especially since genocide was committed against Southern Sudanese. BTW, Edrogan hosted Israeli leaders as he himself stated at Davos. Before the offensive happened, he was mediating between Syria and Israel. So Cagaptay's position is deeply flawed and can be easily countered with simple facts. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW it is most likely that Salva is a Christian. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Complex issue.

I really lack knowledge about what happens in Darfur except that I often see references to this in my field of interest which is the history of Israel and the I-P conflict.

• I don't think WP:BLP is concerned here. If somebody (Capagtay) criticizes the actions of somebody else (Ergodan) and if that action really happened, whatever it is, it can be stated if the wordings respect WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:weight.
• I don't have taken the time to listen to the interview. Per WP:V, if it was not Erdogan that was targetted by the whole Foreign policy of Turkey, then it should be stated elsewhere but anyway, I think it must be taken into account that Erdogan is the official representative of Turkey and Turkish Foreign policy.
• If Salva was Christian and if he has really nothing to deal with the Darfur genocide, I think we can consider that we are in the field of "propaganda" and that we should not report this mind in justifying wp:undue. After reading Salva Kiir Mayardit, I think : - whether we should put on that article a pov-tag; - or the information we are talking about should be removed, because reading the wp:article, this guy is a peace negociator and in that case Capagtay's mind would be propaganda, and therefore wp:undue from our point of view.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

want talk with you.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.0.74 (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP/WP:OR violations

I removed the following passage because it is a clear violation of both WP:BLP and WP:OR and makes extensive use of weasel words.

But some suspect that Erdogan's virulent attacks on Israel are rooted in anti-semitism and hostility towards Jews. In Turkey, according to a survey in early October 2009, 53 percent of the population would object to having a Jewish neighbor. He has been accused of exploiting such prejudice for political gains: On October 8, 2009, he stated in a speech at the Yildiz Technical University of Istanbul that he has been watching "the Jewish model of success", pointing to "their [the Jews'] buisness instinct", and claiming that "Jews are able to make their money multilply while seated." (En Turquie, le premier ministre, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, exploite un sentiment d'hostilité vis-à-vis d'Israël (Le Monde, October 19, 2009))

Describing Erdogan's criticism of Israel as "virulent" is a NPOV violation (nor is it meaningful English). Quoting survey results about the opinions of Turkish citizens is WP:SYNTH and irrelevant to Erdogan's own beliefs. Also, nothing that is quoted is actually negative about Jews. Factsontheground (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That is good. It is also important to know that Erdogan is a leader who has said that anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity. Randam (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No mention of his internal policy with regards to democratisation incentives and Kurdish policy

Who's in charge of this bloody article? Where are the moderators? It's in dire need of an update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.199.235 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Deputy

Ali Babacan is not the Deputy Prime Minister. First Deputy is Cemil Çiçek. Second is Bülent Arınç, as written. I will correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.229.101.191 (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Georgian origin

According to Cezmi Yurtsever, it is Wikipedia which supports the thesis that he is of Georgian origin. Are there other sources?Kavas (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Kurd

Hes Kurdish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dersimli62 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

He was born in Istanbul. His ancestors are from Rize. There are no kurds in Rize. At most he can be Laz. But definitely he does not claim such an heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.84.178 (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Succeeded by Isik Kosaner?

Order of his precedence is not before the Chief of The General Staff!== —Preceding unsigned comment added by Launvatar (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Bagatlı Recep

How has this been allowed on wikipedia:

""Bagatlı Recep", Recep from Bagat, died in 1916 fighting against the invading Russian and Armenian forces.[1]

Erdoğan grew up, in the Kasımpaşa district of Istanbul, a less than affluent neighborhood, famous for its macho honor code.[3] Muslim men are known to be quick to anger, painfully proud and blunt in word, and he has always been proud of being one.[3]"

Weasel words anyone. "Macho honor code", "quick to anger", "painfully proud", you must be kidding me. I am not completely familiar with the WikiCode but I know for sure that the above type of statements are definitely not allowed.

Secondly, citation "1" is not a reputable source. "Armenian rebellion" you got to be kidding me! I am not even going to get into that but just the nature of the article alone proves it is not an academic or scholarly source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.238.146 (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What, Academic and Scholarly? I just come here and read in order to have a good laugh. This article is an insult to the principles of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.49.40 (talk) 05:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish?

In the introduction part, there is a statement says that Erdoğan is the first jewish prime minister of Turkey. This is not true as you can predict and I think whoever done this statement is done with bad intentions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinany (talk • contribs) 13:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

it was some bloke vandalising the page. it's not true of course.--Cerian (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Although it may not be true, there are several sources saying that Tayyip erdoğan is the first Jewish PM of Turkey. Ergün Poyraz wrote several books on Erdoğan's ethnicity and stated that Erdoğan has Jewish roots as well as Georgian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspectortr (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda article?

While it's perfectly understandable that some sort of courtesy should be shown to a prime minister of any country, this article lacks all sorts of controversies surrounding Mr. Tayyip Erdogan. It only focuses on his success' and the praises he got from others. This article reads like a party brochure and seems to be written by AK Parti supporters. Please keep in mind that he is a very controversial figure in Turkish politics and that he gets less than half of the votes in Turkey. Things like these should be mentioned as well. --Diren Yardimli (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on your perception of article's status as a "propoganda" brochure but I see your point. WP:Bold?--Cerian (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be more controversy as well. There is also no section on Israel in regard to foreign relations and the section on Iraq opens with a sentence about Gul.--NortyNort (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The same problem afflicts many politician entries - Wikipedia is an ideal medium for propaganda dissemination, so obviously politicians media-manage (by proxy of course) their own entries. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a propaganda brochure alright. I've added Erdogan's own statement regarding gender equality (which he opposes, of course, being an Islamist) to the page but a vandal keeps deleting it. Well, I guess AKP supporters cannot tolerate any criticism/controversy regarding this crappy dictator. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Diren Yardimli, to make this article less propaganda oriented I think it should include some other important controversial points (e.g. in a separate controversy section), such as:

• officially receiving Omar al-Bashir who has been charged with genocide in Sudan (and for whom an international arrest warrant is issued)
• the traffic accident involving his son and Sevim Tanürek alleging misuse of his powers during his governing of the city of Istanbul
• inappropriate language towards the people he represents e.g "anani da al git"
• intolerance against media e.g. suing cartoon drawers (e.g. emre) 13:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emreg00 (talk • contribs)

He is one of the dictators of Middle East like Essad, Hussein and Mubarak; however there is not a mention of this in this article. Inspectortr (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least he doesn't vandal wikipedia pages like you do.--Cerian (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I see your point. Of course vandalising a wikipedia page (which is your so-called accusation) is much worse than being a dictator and murdering opposition party supporters in streets. I am a bad bad guy. However, continuosly deleting a referenced information from a page without any logical reason just due to being a supporter of a politician (what you do) does not account for vandalism, does it? --Inspectortr (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

So your suggestion is, as long as there is a reference, without thinking reliability or relevance, we should just write it down here with provocative titles, right? I've some problems with that. As you already positioned yourself against Erdogan, I also have problems with your neutrality. But, it doesn't matter if you oppose his politics as long as you remain neutral and relevant to this wiki page.--Cerian (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"it doesn't matter if you oppose his politics as long as you remain neutral and relevant to this wiki page." That's right. So please stop vandalism. --Inspectortr (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to see that you still call people as "vandals" where everyone except you trying to reach a consensus here.--Cerian (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the controversy over the lack of controversial content, a personal attack is always completely uncalled for. Please keep that in mind. Thank you. EW_ikist^Talk 17:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Erdogan states that men and women are not equal

The whole article reeks of Islamist AKP propaganda and reads like a hagiography. There is no criticism or controversies section whatsoever. Well, how about this? Erdogan, in a recent speech, has clearly stated that he does not believe in gender equality. He said that "it is impossible for men and women to be equal." Since he himself expressed this sentiment, I'm adding this to the article. So much for the "moderate Muslim" that some idiots believe will bring democracy to Turkey. And yeah, I'm a Turkish feminist myself. 212.253.227.164 (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Link: http://www.haberturk.com/polemik/haber/537849-kadin-ve-erkegin-esit-olmasi-mumkun-degil

Don't just take bits and pieces.. If you read the article wholly then you would have seen that whole sentence used for compassion of women. Who does the propoganda now? And he hasn't said anything wrong. Humans are divided into two, whom contemplate each other with differentiated emotions and thoughts.--Cerian (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

He says that men and women are not equal but "complement" each other. This is the same bullshit that Christian fundamentalists say regarding women. Remember that this is the man who said that "all women must have at least three children" and is responsible for all the legislations that limit the freedom of women to work. The source is an unbiased newspaper, and Tayyip Erdogan has expressed this sentiment himself, therefore the sentence should stay. Erasing it is nonsense. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the edit as I believed it was taken out of context with the source to push a point of view. In all, there are problems with that addition. One, it must cite the source. I translated it with Google and could not see "Erdogan does not believe in gender equality." Even if the source is reliable, you must represent it with due weight to the source and the article. You can't pick and choose what you want out of an article. The way I interpreted it was that he does not believe they are physically the same which sounds kind of obvious. The article cannot say he doesn't believe in gender equality unless you have some reliable sources stating so. You may feel he does, but only what the sources say can go into the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

NortyNort and Cerian are right about this issue. The quotation is out of context. Erdogan does not say that men are better than women. On the contrary, he speaks very positively about women. For example, Erdogan says that the financial assistance of primary school pupils will be given to mothers instead of fathers, because "mothers in general are more responsible and trusted".

Secondly, Erdogan never said that all women "must" have at least three children. He said that to sustain the young population of Turkey, we will need at least three children per family. Otherwise, Turkey will have in the future the same problem as developed countries (e.g Germany and the Netherlands).

1 - Population ageing. If there are relatively fewer young people, they will have to pay more for the social security system.

2 - An increasingly smaller population. Randam (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Link: http://arsiv.ntvmsnbc.com/news/438418.asp

Well then, let me translate it for you: The title of the article says "It is impossible for men and women to be equal" followed by his statement: "Woman is woman, and man is man. Is it possible for them to be equal? They complement each other." I find it amusing that you push your own PoV and vandalise the page even though you have no knowledge of the Turkish language and base your assumption on Google's imperfect translation device. His religious beliefs regarding women are very similar to Complementarism theology. He believes in strong gender roles in society and marriage and he rejects gender equality. Now, I have included his own personal and verifiable statement on the page and you're erasing it. This page is a bloody hagiography, there is simply no controversies/criticism page which exists on almost every other Wiki page, and even his own confessions apparently cannot be included on this page if they "tarnish" his "image." You are, effectively, vandalising the page. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It was clear that this is being taken out of context from what I read. If it is not controversial, like it seems, then is there any reason to include any of it in the article? Don't add that blurb about gender equality in again, the edits are becoming disruptive and consensus is against inclusion. It isn't even just his own words, it is your own POV on his words. If anything is added, consensus should be reached here.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You are vandalising the page and making irrational accusations. I have cited three neutral references, please assume good faith and stop vandalising the passage. Only his own statements are included on the page. Erdoğan himself has clearly stated that he does not believe in gender equality, he instead believes that genders "complement/complete" each other. I am merely translating the newspaper articles. You are obfuscating the matter by accusing me of being POV, whereas I am only quoting his own statements, including why he believes families must make at least three children, and why relevant experts have dismissed his claims. Please stop vandalising this page with your POV censorship and propaganda attempts. If the PM of a country is making strong statements regarding gender equality, positive or negative, there is absolutely no reason for excluding them from his/her page. (Unless of course you're an AKP fanatic who cannot tolerate free speech.) The sources are not POV, all three resources are mainstream newspapers. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reported this to the administrator's noticeboard and requested you be blocked to prevent more edit warring on the article. You have reverted or re-added the information 3x while editor's in this discussion disagree with WP policy-backed arguments.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"eşit" has another meaning, "has no differences" (source:TDK). It is possible that he used the word with this meaning. Ayasi (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Erdoğan said Woman is woman, man is man. Is it possible that both of them could be equal ? Both are complementary to each other.

This his expression is open to interpretations and perceptions. For example, Haber Turk referred to "physical equality" ("fiziksel olarak..."). So we cannot use expression such as In July 2010, Erdoğan stated that he does not believe in gender equality. Because the term gender equality can remind the equality of rights and that expression does not match to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Takabeg (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What is Haber61 ? And Ulusal Kanal isn't neutral. It's the propaganda organization of the Workers Party of Turkey. We must not use such a web cite especially about political issues. Takabeg (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I have reverted it three times, others editors as well have and the IP has re-added it 9x despite the discussion. The statement needs to be put in better context and since it can be misinterpreted and was not harshly criticized (therefore insignificant), I don't think it belongs in his BIO. There are open discussions at BLPN and ANI regarding the IP's edits if any editors wish to contribute. I myself am not reverting the text anymore to avoid edit warring. It should be left up to consensus which I believe has been reached for the most part. I believe it should be removed at least for now and if the IP adds it again, the page should be protected or the IP blocked to prevent more edit warring.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You may take out the "Ulusal Channel" reference if you wish, since there are already several reliable sources. His expression, I'm afraid, is very crystal clear. "Eşit" means "equal." Please notice that I am merely conveying his own words, and you are doing original research here, in trying to imbue his words with an alternative meaning. His remarks were criticised and indeed a scientific report was published just to counter his claims. Your reference merely reflects an intellectual's POV, who lamented that there was no significant criticism. Also, Erdogan's statement about a universally important question is definitely relevant to a page describing his political views, irrespective of the level of controversy this may stir. You are imposing a whimsical rule here. If George Bush, for example, would state that "abortion is evil" (which he may have done) this would belong to his article even if a single individual's POV speculated that the subsequent reaction was not enough. Also, when he made these remarks, there were protests in the hall. The article (below) clearly says that there was a negative reaction and discussions erupted after his words. The women who heard his words were not mistaken about their meaning. You are trying to distort the picture. You can read more from here, another reference I'm going to include later. http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/?hn=159212 212.253.32.195 (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sunni

This was removed from the info box but is still a cat,ategory:Turkish_Sunni_Muslims there is nothing I can see in the article to support it and I couldn't find anything in google english search, has anyone got a citethat supports it or shall he be removed from the cat also? Off2riorob (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing there in English sources. Gotta say didn't look much. But I know for sure he's Sunni.--Cerian (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I got that from the search also, perhaps a Turkish speaking person will find us a citation. If it was in Turkish it would also be fine. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

See page 28 (34) in this PDF. It describes him as a traditional Sunni.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice one, I am of away from the comp. I would have prefered a wider independant publication and I was suprised to see all pictures copyright of Reuters without a statement that reuters said they could use them. Just to assert he is Sunni I think its fine, I might ask at the RS noticeboard later or feel free yourselves, thoughts? Off2riorob (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless something better comes along, I think we should. Most of Turkey is Sunni so I would assume he is as well. Like the comments above, I can't find much.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. I have asked for comments at the WP:RSN here - Off2riorob (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to correct this information. Mr. Erdoğan is a Tayyibst Muslim. Tayyibism is a sect of Islam and according to the Ulema, Mr. Erdoğan is a Tayyibist Muslim. He himself never said that he is of sunni branch and never denied that he is a Tayyibist Muslim. Inspectortr (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Rob, I found these articles that mention Sunni/Shia, but this seems the kind of thing that gets found in books like biographies, histories of conflict, etc. So I'm going over to UCLA tomorrow, I'll stop by the library. I'm sure the reference librarian can point me in the right direction. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/e/recep_tayyip_erdogan/index.html

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/ways+become+again+Turkey/3526705/story.html

http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=NDc5ODA4NDA5

http://www.newstatesman.com/middle-east/2010/09/erdogan-turkey-constitutional

Turkey is a secular country. Please remove religion item.

Women and men not equal?

In the article it is stated that Erdogan does not believe women and men are equal but merely complementary. For someone who reads this article for a first time, this makes it seem that Erdogan is against equality. Or at least that was my impression when I read it.

The source given is http://www.haberturk.com/polemik/haber/537849-kadin-ve-erkegin-esit-olmasi-mumkun-degil

But there is one issue. In the news article sourced it is never stated that women and men are not equal:

Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Kadın ve erkeğin fiziksel olarak hiçbir zaman eşit olamayacağını belirterek, "Kadın kadındır erkek erkektir. Bunların eşit olması mümkün mü? Bunlar birbirinin tamamlayıcısıdır." dedi

Here, Erdogan is saying that men and women are physically different. True enough. Not "unequal."

Here Erdoğan clearly says "Kadın kadındır erkek erkektir. Bunların eşit olması mümkün mü? Bunlar birbirinin tamamlayıcısıdır." which literally means "Woman is woman, man is man. Is it possible that thay are equal? They are complementary of each other." The question here is of course retorical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspectortr (talk • contribs) 16:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

İlköğretimde erkek öğrencilere 20, kız öğrencilere 25 lira, aynı şekilde orta öğretimde erkek öğrencilere 35 lira, kız öğrencilere de 45 lira destek veriyoruz. Bu yardımı, bu desteği anneye veriyoruz, babaya değil. İşte kadın-erkek eşitliğinin istismarını yapanlara söylüyorum. Bak bu sadece bir tanesi. Biz burada anneyi ön plana çıkarırken şefkatte anne, babaya göre daha farklı olduğu için bu adımı, bu tercihi yapıyoruz, istismarını değil. Cennet annelerin ayakları altına boşuna konulmadı."

Here, he elaborates. Erdogan mentions that the equality of men and women is being abused. He announces that he is giving educational support to children, and that the money the government is giving will be given to women because they are more compassionate -in a motherly sense. He also adds that "Heaven is under the feet of mothers'," a saying well-known in Turkey.

So I believe that some clarification should be added to the article, in the relevant section. It could be mentioned that he believes men and women are physically different, if it is necessary. But overall, I believe this information is irrelevant and saying that he believes men and women are not equal -as in unequal- is damaging.

I apologize if I wrote too much, but I believe it was needed. ---Seljuq--- (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to work something in, go ahead. As you can see above there were some issues regarding the comments when they were added. Some more clarity would be good.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am entirely removing the paragraph from the article until someone manages to write something that explains the issue more OR finds a reliable source that directly agrees with what was said. ---Seljuq--- (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Erdogan can not say "women and men are equal" because he is trying to become a leader not only in Turkey also in Islamic world. So with the help of ambiguity he is hiding himself very nicely.

Vandalism

88.226.39.174 is vandalising the page. Please, someone, protect the page and referenced information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspectortr (talk • contribs) 22:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The contributions and referenced reliable information is continuously being deleted without any explanation. The page is continuously vandalized. Please protect the information in the page. I think there is a way of deleting something from a page and this is by refuting the information which is referenced with reliable sources. Also editing the page has some rules. Anyway, it is not my place to remind these.

Inspectortr, please stop the editwar. Your edit is reverted because of WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. --Randam (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have asked for protection of the page and it was accepted. However the page is still being vandalized by registered users. Inspectortr (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said in my previous undoing of your edits, If we start to include everything in the election speeches, we will have a blog not a wiki page. But you still insist to include that "declaration of war against atheism" paragraph like it was a major development. Should we also write in Obama's page that he called Sarah Palin "pig lips", like "declaration of war against women" or "declaration of war against Republicans". Be rational for a second and try to think what should be included in this page and what should not.--Cerian (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you say is absolutely and indisputably wrong. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, personally, undoubtedly declared all, each and every supporter of the opposition party in his country atheists. This event has no, not a single similarity with the example you have given. Maybe you know what this means, maybe you do not. But this is one of the most "THE MOST" important events in the entire history of the Turkey Republic. Maybe you cannot understand the probable causes and effects of this speech but in Turkey every single person does. Anyway, your reason for deleting this topic is that according to you it is not important; however according to many people it is one of the most important events in the Turkish history. There is no exaggeration in this. It is so important that this information should be inserted on the pages giving information on History of Turkey.Inspectortr (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Reflecting a news title into the article falls in line with that Randam said. The section gives an impression that is false in my opinion. If other events fold into the judgment that he is against atheism and a reliable source demonstrates its notability, then I can see inclusion. Otherwise, its a theory and not encyclopedic. The section should be left out and if re-added, I will report it to an administrator. If you have a new proposal place it here. I don't consider the past reverts vandalism.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you could not understand what is written on the topic discussed. There is no debate on whether he is against atheism or not. I did not write something saying he is against atheism. Erdoğan himself declared a war against atheism and declared all peaople against him as atheists. This is not an opinion, this is an event that took place. An event that took place cannot be called theory. Also you cannot prove or refute an event. That is an event after all. On the other hand, for the edits on the page, first many vandals reverted the page without logging in. Then I had to ask for protection of the page. Then other vandals (or same vandals) made the same vandalism with their user accounts. I do not want to fight with these vandals any more. It is the administrators' duty to fight with them. --Inspectortr (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Just because you reference something, doesn't mean it belongs in the article. It is the way the event is spun, perceived, o whether it matters that may or may not make it notable.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This issue has already been discussed. Please read above. --Inspectortr (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't take this as an attack on yourself, unlike you accuse us of being vandals, but is it fair to call us as such when looked upon your previous contributions, you constantly wrote AKP party members political affiliations as "Tayyibism" and other stuff that doesn't need to be mentioned. To return to topic, I still say nay to changes you constantly try to enforce in this page and I still reserve the same objections I mentioned before.

Also, it's very uncool to personally attack several users who opposed you on this very topic, and threaten them in their user pages.--Cerian (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And the addition is not consensus. You reverting it constantly is in fact a form of vandalism and disruptive. Please stop.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Rte.png Nominated for deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Rte.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Obama first overseas trip not to Turkey in 2009

Obama's first trip abroad was to Canada, and his first overseas trip was to London, UK. The article incorrectly states Turkey as his first overseas trip.

(209.17.134.61 (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC))

To be fair, Canada is not a oversea country. London and Germany-France visits were G-20 and Nato summits , respectively. Although your argument still stands true, after NATO summit he visited Czech Republic. So related section should be changed to "One of the first overseas trip" instead of "the first trip".--Cerian (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The G20 summit was in London. The NATO summit was in Germany and France. The EU summit was in Czech Republic. There was no summit in Turkey. The visit to Turkey was the first overseas bilateral meeting. −Randam (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether this visit is Obama's first, second, thirtysixth or last visit is irrelevant to the biography of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Someone should delete this irrelevant statement. Inspectortr (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well tell that to US officials starting from Secretary Clinton, as they are keen on to mention this particular event when ever they want to explain how much Obama give care and attention to Turkey.--Cerian (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether US officials starting from Secretary Clinton are keen on to mention this particular event when ever they want to explain how much Obama give care and attention to Turkey is also irrelevant to the this biography page. What Cerian says supports my viewpoint. Someone should delete this irrelevant statement. Inspectortr (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you elaborate more on irrelevance of such a statement?--Cerian (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether the visit is Obama's fist, second, fifth or sixtysixth bilateral meeting is of course an important piece of information; however the place for this information is not this biography page. This is a completely irrelevant statememt in Erdoğan's biography. ( I don't know why I have to explain this in detail, it is pretty clear.) Inspectortr (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda, economy

The whole article is full of propaganda. Imagine if an article about Merkel included the success of German exports, or an article about Hu the economic rise of China. It looks like an election campaign.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.20.31 (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So, your logic is, we should not write United State's surplus years under Clinton leadership, which happened, by your logic, without Clinton's personal initiative. I find it hard to believe that..--Cerian (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It's propaganda if you mention just one side of the story. And this article seriously does that.There is mention of economic growth, but almost no word sell of Goverment Invesments such as the biggest Turkish Company Turk Telekom. It's common to face obsession of state especially on statistics and economic analyzes in Turkey.-- 18:26, 25 Jul7 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.143.178 (talk)

The article of course looks like a propaganda brochure of a bloody Middle East dictator. Inspectortr (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Football Player" Culturally Biased

He is noted as being a "football" player To keep with being culturally neutral, shouldn't it be "association football" or maybe "football (soccer)?" This American protests this blatant Soccer imperialism! Anyway I copy and pasted "Footballer" directly out of the David Beckham article.Stardude82 (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Honors, rewards...

Section takes huge chunk of space in the page, considering it doesn't contribute much to biography. I suggest it should have its own page or be minimized and enlarged on readers choice.--Cerian (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

This section needs a huge polishing up. Some of the information written in there may have related to Erdogan "personally" in someway, but almost all of them written about people other than Erdogan itself. Section needs a clean up or moved to AKP's foreign policy achievements or policies.--Cerian (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Israel paragraph

This is very biased and only contains recent events. Erdogan's attitude towards Israel only changed since December 2009 when Israel launched attacks on Gaza with white phosporus. Before that, he had been very friendly towards it and even visited it at least once in 2005. Erdogan even invited the President of Israel to address the Turkish parliament which is a gesture not accorded to just about any country leader. In fact, the day before the Gaza assault, Erdogan was acting as a mediator in the peace talks between Israel and Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serv1203 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed the part where it says terrorists have been shooting rockets into Israel. Whether this is a fact or not is irrelevant. This is section is about Erdogan views and policy towards Israel. Whether it is based on factual logic or not is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.70.76.32 (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Education and languages

1) does anyone have any information about what exact qualification RTE got in Business Administration? Master's, Bachelor's?

2) does anyone have any information about which languages RTE speaks in addition to Turkish? Does he speak English, Arabic (classical? modern?), others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.32.22 (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

He cannot speak any foreign language. Inspectortr (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - that previous question was mine - I forgot to sign in. Luzzy fogic (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Epilepsy

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is epileptic. Inspectortr (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

source?--Cerian (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Syria

The article does not mention that relationships with Syria got worse after Syrian president used military forces to suppress protests against Erdogan's advices. It's probably never going to be the same between him and Erdogan. I know recent events should be at minimum, but comparing to Egypt paragraph which is nothing but his visit 17 days ago, Syria paragraph looks very outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.7.36.179 (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added information on this issue. Please try to expand/correct what I wrote. Inspectortr (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This hagiography is completely useless. It looks like political propaganda. Who cares about the list of cheesy honors (the GAddafi Peace Prize!) and fake universities that have given Erdogan honorary doctorates? Get rid of all that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.158.121 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

How tall is Erdogan?

I heard that he is 193 centimeters tall, is not this unusual for a Turkish person? --46.115.16.95 (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant since he is not ethnically Turkish. Inspectortr (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Dictator Erdoğan is about 183 cm tall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.168.153.163 (talk) 09:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

We do not talk about a dictator but about a democratically elected Person. --91.6.83.134 (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/22/turkey-france-freeze-relations-over-genocide. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The only Prime Minister of Turkey who usually goes by his first name

What does it mean exactly - "The only Prime Minister of Turkey who usually goes by his first name"? Is he frequently called "Recep" in the media? Does he allow everybody call him Recep? Is there a source for that? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Nah.. Probably someone put it there just to make fun of him. All Turkish politicians go by their surnames, their name preferences are irrelevant. --Cerian (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Children

One of his sons name is Bilal and Bilal's first name is Necmettin. His full name is Necmettin Bilal Erdoğan. I am adding the name "Necmettin".

Awards

I attempted to delete the entire hagiographic section on accolades and awards and was unable to. People, this is Wikipedia, not the Erdogan personality cult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.158.121 (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There is not such as a section as awards on the biogrophy pages of most politicians in Wikipedia. I am going to delete this section. There must be a standard on this issue.Inspectortr (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Dictator

According to objective sources, the person is a dictator. Even his supporters aggree, they just see him as a benevolent dictator. However, there is no mention of this issue in the page.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is a middle east dictator just like Essad, Mubarak and Gaddafi. This should be mentioned in his biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.250.47.79 (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Signs of authoritarian tendencies is completely different than someone being a dictator. --Cerian (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever Erdoğan does or says shows that he is a dictator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.252.59.183 (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I aggree with Cerian. Someone being a dictator is, although not completely, mostly different than signs of authoritarian tendenncies. Therefore saying that Tayyip Erdoğan is authoritarian is not enough. He is a dictator and there is a concensus on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.30.49.161 (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. As I wrote before, a dictator is not equal to someone elected by a popular vote whom shows authoritarian tendencies. These two are completely different classifications. --Cerian (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The dictator ignores the right of speech of even his close colleagues always using curses and swearwords [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.135.235.118 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The dictator does not stop. [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.135.235.118 (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The dictator banned alcohol. The link shows only one aspect. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.174.16.203 (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The dictator banished the right of transportation inside Turkey. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.154.59.2 (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The dictator announced his new orders about the press. [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.41.69.217 (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is definitely a dictator. [8] [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.174.17.226 (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The dictator, also a former terrorist, banned the Republic Day in Turkey. [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.5.117.226 (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Dictator Erdoğan gave the order to use chemical weapons against Turkish citizens in Turkey's capital Ankara in the Republic Day. [11][12][13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.174.63.212 (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Pepper spray is not a chemical weapon but is pepper spray. --91.6.83.134 (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The one calling tear gas a chemical weapon would propably call pepper spray a biological weapon... --89.204.154.93 (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

It has turned out that the Republic President Abdullah Gül, who is a friend of Dictator Erdoğan, was the one who reduced the tension and prevented deaths of thousands by the order of the dictator on the Republic Day. Dictator Erdoğan gave the police and the Governor of Ankara the order "TO KILL CIVILIANS IF NECESSARY" . President Gül cancelled the "KILL ORDER". Dictator Erdoğan gets more and more bloodthirsty these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspectortr (talk • contribs) 17:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This person called 51% of Turkish citizens "terrorists". Just liked Essad calling his oppenents "terrorists" and Gaddafi "mice, rats". Their opponents have guns and fight against their governments. Dictator Erdogan's opponents does not even have the right to be opponent. Erdogan is the craziest dictator of 21th century and a threat to regional peacer in the Middle East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspectortr (talk • contribs) 11:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Since when are dictators elected? --91.6.83.134 (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Colorectal Cancer

He has colorectal cancer.

Are you his proctologist? --91.6.83.134 (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Large amount of Vandalism

When I read this article, many of the references to "Turkey" and "Turkish" were replaced with references to "Greece and "Greek". Someone, help me fix this vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PMErodganFan (talk • contribs) 00:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice about gas attack

I removed a sentence containing the following after a revert war by User:Inspectortr and User:E4024: "Erdoğan government used chemical gas against Turkish citizens celebrating the Republic Day of Turkey in Turkey's capital Ankara on 29 October 2012." According to CNN they used tear gas, (which is a chemical gas) which is commonly used to control crowds in cases such as when demonstrations go completely out of control (although I'm not implying that this was/wasn't the case here). The sentence as it read could just as easily hint at Erdogan being personally responsible for the gas attack, as well as hinting towards other (more deadly?) gases being used; and gave little context. CNN reports that this happened when the political opposition staged an illegal demonstration against the government, so the sentence needs to be expanded before it can be included. Please discuss the issue here before you reintroduce it. Bjelleklang - talk 22:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The sentence was, as it is referenced above "Erdoğan government used chemical gas against Turkish citizens celebrating the Republic Day of Turkey in Turkey's capital Ankara on 29 October 2012." Tear gas is a type of "chemical weapon" actually, but since it is not a very lethal one, I used the statement "chemical gas". If I wanted to hint other more deadly gases, I would say "chemical weapon" which is also correct, but I did not. CNN does not report "this happened when the political opposition staged an illegal demonstration against the government". People should not write their personal opinions as facts referencing news pages. To explain better, I should add that the Republic Day of Turkey is the mosy important national day of Turkey Republic, like the Independence Day of the USA. The Republic Day is not a demonstration against the government. --Inspectortr (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

CNN writes "Tensions mounted ahead of Monday's Republic Day holiday, when the governor of Ankara banned the planned march organized by secularist opposition groups that are deeply critical of Turkey's Islamist-rooted government" (italics are mine). This makes the march illegal as I interpret it. And why not just use the word "tear gas", which is more correct than "chemical gas", and also what CNN writes? You had an edit war going when I reverted, and reinserting the paragraph without discussion only serves to continue the edit war. The issue as such isn't relevant for the article, as

• Erdoğan didn't order the police personally to use tear gas
• Erdoğan didn't ban the march
• Using tear gas for riot control isn't uncommon in most parts of the world
• CNN and the turkish sources (as far as I understand through Google translate) doesn't say if the demonstration got out of hand or if the police attacked a peaceful demonstration.

However, as this incident appears to have been reported worldwide I wouldn't mind a mention of this being included in Human rights in Turkey. Bjelleklang - talk 19:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Other than presenting some other negative behaviours, the user who began to call themselves Inspectortr in the midst of this article is also a liar (I know what I am saying and will prove it below)as may be seen from this diff where the,y as an IP (confirmed by Checkuser DeltaQuad --see his TP- to be Inspectortr) used the words "chemical weapons" but had to step back after my decisive revert(s). As you notice, they will not reply to why they do not do the same (I am not referring to lying, I am referring to the sensitivity on tear gas) in the articles of the leaders or governments of other world countries -like Spain, Italy, Greece etc- because that would reveal the reason of their not-neutral POV; some kind of hate towards a certain country and its people. (If I am wrong tell me, Inspector "TR".) --E4024 (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, it was pepper spray. Definitely not a chemical weapon. --91.6.83.134 (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Biological weapon? ;-) --89.204.154.93 (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, no. Pepper spray is biological gas! *LOL*

From the article of List of national independence days;

|Turkey |October 29 | Turkey becomes a republic following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire Turkish War of Independence in 1923. --Inspectortr (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Cezmi Yurtsever

• According to Cezmi Yurtsever, Zsa Zsa Gabor killed Atatürk.
• According to Cezmi Yurtsever, Barrak Obama is of Turkish descent.

So it's impossible for me to accept his claims are reliable. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)