Talk:Turkish Land Forces

message: For the first time has the military publicized information regarding its personnel numbers, please update:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turkish-general-staff-discloses-personnel-numbers-2011-11-21  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dücanem (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size / Update 

message: There seems to be a very un-objective viewpoint in this article and should be corrected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xen0blue (talk • contribs) 02:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's useless without more detail. Lastdingo (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: This section has been copied from my site (http://warriorsoul.4t.com) without permission. In order to adopt a more constructive way of action than removing the whole table, I simply added a link to my site in the "Sources" section. I am a researcher on the defence industries and accurately keep track of the changes in the inventory. I spend a lot of time and effort on updating the information provided and I am happy to see that a growing number of people are making use of it. However, I would highly appreciate it if people who use the information elsewhere would at least provide a link to my web site as the source. Should you wish to contact me personally, kindly follow the "Contact" link in my site.
Thank you.
Warrior Soul
-----------------------
-----------------------
I work in Turkish Military Base in Kartal/Istanbul and have strong information about military equipments of Turkey. It's not clarified any information about Turkish army, but I'll try to add the most clear estimates. Kachik 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Equipment 

message: Turkish Army took active role in both Kosova and Afghanistan peace-keeping. If we mention Somalia, we should mention these as well.--Kagan the Barbarian 11:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan and Kosova 

message: Such inaccurate and propagandistic descriptions do not have place in Wikipedia. If you want to write about the history of the Turkish Army, you got to stick to solid and proven facts (including the fact that it did not fight in WWII like others did), and spare each one of us the exaggerations and blurbs about the "sunny Ataturk" or the importance of Turkey. If you can't do this, then someone should either remove it, rewrite it from scratch, or mark it as disputed.--User:Theodore Lytras, 13 April 2006
I personally do not have much detailed information on the history of Turkish Army. But arbitrarily deleting the whole section, without trying to edit it or even saying anything about it in the talk page would clearly be vandalism. Your work would be much appreciated if you edit the parts that you think are POV. Or if you too do not have much knowledge about the article, then puting a POV tag for others to notice is also a good idea, which you have done and I appreciate it.--TimBits  21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a very major NATO force due to its geo-strategic location 8you don't need much power projection capability if you're at home right next to the mess) and due to its quantity. The Turkish forces are surely underrated in the English language world - in part because their government simply doesn't use them very often. All forces learn about some of their shortcomings when the shit hits the fan, the British and U.S. troops learned a lot in 1990/91 and 2003 as well. The German army has only about half a dozen brigades, for example. That's merely a know-how retaining establishment, while the Turkish army is pretty much still at Cold War-like levels. The french, Italian, Spanish, British, Polish forces are very much like the German ones - melted down till merely capable to retain the competence.Lastdingo (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just had a quick look at your conversation and it really bothers me that you claims have nothing to do with the truth, Turkey has the second strongest army and that is a fact. You can check any reliable website and it will tell you that, all you’re doing is spreading misinformation. Loads of poor countries also spend millions to strengthen their armies. That has nothing to do with an armies power. I’d reccomend you to think before you speak. Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 12:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the Turkish Army 

message: This article is highly subjective, full of exaggerations and unnecessary romantic, swashbuckling prose. It is unbecoming of a modern encyclopedia and should be amended or outright removed.
:You should come and see our army first. Actually you should make some research first. Without the Turkish Army, there wouldn't be the term "history".
:"Savaş... Türk, sen bunun tadını ne sevgili kucağında ne de baba ocağında bulamazsın"
:Hüseyin Nihâl Atsız
:With respect, Deliogul 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur this article is pretty asinine.  I made some changes, and we will see if they stick.  The old way it was written it read like some Stalinist Propaganda...TchussBitc 02:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased, Swashbuckling Article 

message: Turkish Army is a legend on both terms of proficiency and honour. At least it has never been a blood sucking imperial army or a subject of imperial powers like Greece have been.
Ottoman empire was a good empire...Are you serious?
I see that the supporters of Turkey and its military forces are very nostalgic people.  The Ottoman Empire wasn't imperialist?  I believe that all empires are probably imperialist, that might be how they got to be an empire.  When one group of people goes out to conquer another (always for natural resources), that would be safe to consider imperialist.  And you need to calm down with all that honor crap because plenty of militaries—past and present—are better than that of the Turks.
Sign your comment people! And also, I’d like to introduce you to thinking, have you ever heard of before. It’s what you’re supposed to do before talking. What you call “honor crap” is something beyond your understanding and someone afraid of signing his/her comment shouldn’t be talking about it that way. Think! Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 12:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legendary Army 

message: Since by the 30th of August 2006 commanders will change, this article needs an update.Ugur Olgun 14:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update required 

message: It would be well interesting if someone could provide evidence for how ıt has "contributed to world peace", or exactly how it brings "stability". From my outlook (I am currently writing from Dogubayazit in Eastern Turkey, a mayor military base) this is more than doubtful. The army here mainly spend their time harassing the local population. /Petter
This article, IMHO, is not entirely neutral, especially in the first section (about the glorifying stuff). If the case can be made for the Turkish Army (which in theory i do not deny), it would be best to use facts (and cite sources), and not use poetic language to try to glorify the army. That way, people will not get "bogged down" by the language used.
--Brunovdc 10:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality 

message: Hmm, this article looks like it can use a good copy-editing, I will do it when I will have some free time this week.
To start I changed the 'Commander in Chief' to Chief of Staff.. Commander in Chief is the president, Nezer... I know it is a technicality, but all the same.. :)) Baristarim 23:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy Editing

message: This article should be written again, using the current information, but by someone who isn't a Turkish nationalist. It is hyperbole, and not suitable for Wikipedia. Viciouspiggy 10:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a rewrite. 

message: The section on Cyprus is strongly POV, and seems to place blame rather than inform on the action. "Freeing" the Turkish Cypriots - not apporpriate NPOV language for Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User383739 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyprus

message: I am declaring this page totally disputed and await arbitration. The stuff written about Cyprus is nationalist propoganda whose sole intention is to blame the Greek Cypriots instead of providing neutral information. User383739 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyprus Propoganda

message: Is it a mere propaganda that EOKA-B, under the command of Nikos Sampson who was supported by the Greek military junta in Athens for establishing Enosis (i.e. Union between Greece and Cyprus), ousted the democratically elected Cypriot president Archbishop Makarios (who opposed Enosis), against the rights of the Turkish Cypriots and triggered the Turkish military intervention, or is it an undeniable historic fact? 
Let's think about it without nationalistic prejudice, please (even though I believe the latest editing is also politically correct and carefully crafted in order to avoid hurting the feelings of neither side)
I'm not saying that the current Turkish military presence in Cyprus is something nice (we should have pulled our troops after restoring the 1960 constitution in Cyprus and disarming the pro-Enosis EOKA-B militants). However, the intercommunal violence between 1963-1974 was terrible (Bosnia style) and the Athens-junta-backed-coup was the last big error of the Greek side which triggered the Turkish military intervention.
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 20:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Cyprus Propaganda

message: I'm sure that if the Enosis succeeded, the Greeks would declare Nikos Sampson and the Greek military junta in Athens as national heroes. However, the Turkish military intervention, and the Greek junta's inability to confront the Turks in response, toppled the junta and restored democracy in Greece, which joined the EEC (now EU) in 1981 and became the decent and wealthy country that it is today.
A Greek victory in Cyprus and success of Enosis would only consolidate the junta and fascists, delaying Greece's democratization, modernization and wealth.
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 20:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Now isn't that ironic?

message: Wikipedia is NPOV. I have deleted the second part of your revision because it is all about attacking the Greek Cypriots and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Turkish Army. 
Regards User383739 21:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Your argument is POV

message: Where's the "attack against Greek Cypriots"?
In July 1974, the Turkish Armed Forces intervened against a coup in Cyprus, organized by EOKA-B and led by Nikos Sampson who ousted the democratically elected Cypriot president Archbishop Makarios in order to establish Enosis (Union) between Greece and Cyprus. The coup was backed by the Greek military junta in Athens. The conflict in Cyprus lasted until August 1974 and resulted in the division of the island between the Turkish Cypriot controlled north and the Greek Cypriot controlled south. Turkey still maintains troops in Cyprus, since a political solution could still not be achieved, and since many members of the Turkish Cypriot community fear a return to the intercommunal violence which occurred between 1963 and 1974.http://www.country-studies.com/cyprus/intercommunal-violence.htmlhttp://countrystudies.us/cyprus/13.htm A referendum in 2004 for the Annan Plan which aimed at reunifying the island was supported by the Turkish Cypriots, but rejected by the Greek Cypriots, on the pretext that it gave too many rights and political power to the Turkish Cypriots who make up 1/5 of the island's population.
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 21:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Your argument is POV - I can't see any "attack against Greek Cypriots"

message: Rather than get into an edit war, I suggest arbitration. The second part of your revision has nothing whatsoever to do with the Turkish Army, and looks POV to me, since it appears almost to be justification for Turkish Army deployment to Cyprus. 
Regards. User383739 22:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: revision

message: It's not a "justification" of the Turkish military presence in Cyprus. On the contrary, it stresses the fact that Turkish troops will leave the island once a political solution is achieved. Cyprus is not a "conquered land" (not a part of Turkey).
And it is a "fact" that the Greek Cypriots rejected the Annan Plan on the pretext that it gave too many freedoms and political power to the Turkish Cypriots who make up only 1/5 of the island's population. There is no reason to be ashamed of this truth, and such a decision doesn't make the Greek Cypriots the "bad guys". They only didn't like the "Annan Plan" (they aren't obliged to like it).
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: revision

message: The UAVs of the Turkish Army are also used by the Turkish Air Force, so wouldn't it be more correct to list them in the Turkish Air Force inventory? Because I presume UAVs such as Heron and Harpy will be under the command of General Faruk Cömert in case of a war (God forbid). For instance the Harpy will complement HARM missiles in destroying enemy radar systems, therefore, logically, they should be used in accordance with the operations of the Turkish Air Force. Shuppiluliuma 20:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkish Army UAVs

message: Hiberniantears, Turkey never ceased to exist. Turkey only changed its political system (was a Monarchy, became a Republic).
Turkey didn't change its flag. 
Turkey payed for the Ottoman debts until the 1950s, being the only legal heir to the Ottoman Empire.
The Ottoman Empire was actually called "Turkey" if you read the texts of 19th century treaties such as the Paris Peace Conference (1856) or the Congress of Berlin (1878). Just look at the 19th century caricatures on Punch magazine and you'll see that Turkey was always "Turkey". ;)
With your definition, the Turkish Air Force can't be founded in 1909-1911 (which is its official founding date). 1911 predates the establishment of the Turkish Republic. Similarly, the official founding date of the Turkish Navy is 1081, which also predates the Turkish Republic.
In short, "Turkey was always Turkey" - it only changed its political system. The flag and the institutions remain the same, but the ideology has changed.
Regards. Flavius Belisarius 17:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: @ Hiberniantears

message: User:Flavius Belisarius has admitted to being a sock of indefinetly banned User:Shuppiluliuma on the Talk:Turkish Navy page. Hiberniantears 18:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Flavius Belisarius]] 

message: Should a template in the form of: , ,  etc. be used instead of the infobox we have in the article now? I can create a sample if necessary. --Kimontalk 21:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job! --Kimontalk 13:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I still don't think the pre-republic section need be so extensive when there is a link to the Ottoman Military History article preceding this section. Essentially, this can simply be summed up as "The Turkish Army has its roots in the Ottoman Empire..." and then go right into the foundation of the the Turkish Army under Ataturk. Any meaningful language which does not yet exist on the Ottoman Military page can simply be moved there. Hiberniantears 17:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there are no objections, I will do this tomorrow. Hiberniantears 20:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please do go ahead and remove all non-Republic of Turkey related information from the Turkish army article. History of Turkish Armed Forces could perhaps be a more appropriate place to detail out a timeline dating way back --Javit 15:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is already an article for Turkish military history -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 18:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting to the point 

message: There are a couple of unreferenced claims in the intro, like deploying a Corps at short notice and and airlift capability of 7 battalions day or night. These need to be referenced and backed up or they will be removed at some point. Cheers Buckshot06 12:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced claims in Intro

message: Much of the 'Mission' section is a straight copyright violation from http://www.tsk.mil.tr/eng/genel_konular/tarihce.htm - which also explains some of the bias issues. This needs to be substantially rewritten or it will be removed at some point. Buckshot06 13:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio in text

message: Do Turkish units claim lineage from the Ottoman Empire units?--mrg3105mrg3105 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  unit lineage 

message: According to Turkish Commandership of Land Forces, Turkish army was founded by Mete Khan (a ruler of Asian Huns / Xiongnu) in 209 BC. I'll try to add this valuable info to the article, I'll be happy if someone makes it sound "encyclopedic". The date I am talking about is visible in Turkish Army seal in the article. And here is a direct source for Turkish-speakers: --Mttll (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, that date always comes up and is actually referred to, though not directly, in the intro when it says that 'Turkish historians trace its history back millennia.' I've changed the wording a bit - see what you think. We can always redraft it again. Cheers and happy new year, Buckshot06(prof) 11:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Turkish army 

message: I visited this page to learn about the personnel strength of today's Turkish Army (or  find a link to the answer), but I cannot find any. That info (figure should be like 750,000-850,000) would be useful. Lastdingo (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  personnel strength 

message: There is a mistake about foundation date of the turkish land forces (in fact turkish army).It's founded in adv. (before christ) 209.You can see this reality on the middle at army's seal as like as M.Ö. 209 (milattan önce 209). ~ distinct 26.06.2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.194.122 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeeeeah - not so much.  The Turkish army may claim lineage back that far, but the Turkish army of today has no direct connection to any army in the region at that time.  Claims do not make it a reality.  The modern Turkish state, and ergo the modern Turkish army (which is what we're talking about here - not the sum total of military history in the region) did not exist until the 20th century.  You may as well say that the Italian army was founded in 500 BC, or the Greek army in 1100 BC...  Sorry, no dice. - Jonathon A H (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Show me where there's a reliable history of modern Turkish army which links it with any army that existed in 209 BC.  It's not an unbroken line, I'm afraid.  There were many interruptions and changes, and the modern Turkish state did not exist until the 1920s. As far as I can see the claims are just that... claims.  It's an attempt to give the current army a historical legacy that it simply does not have. - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If we consider that independence war was done by then Ottoman army and generals, yea, you can push back establishment date of modern Turkish Army a little back but there were lots of changes in military structure as Jonathon mentioned. One thing to consider is after The Auspicious Incident, modern army of Ottoman's was created in 1820's which was named as Nizam-ı Cedid. It stayed until the dissolution of the empire and through the independence war.--Cerian (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

text: There is no end to that really. You can consider it as a WP:PoV but from WP:NPoV you can't go back thousands of years. It just doesn't make sense...--Cerian (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundation Date 

message: They still have conscription but I do not know enough detail to add it. I think it is being shortened but not abolished? Surely some info should be added.
Jzlcdh (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conscription 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Emblem of TuAF.svg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Seal of the Turkish Navy.svg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:T-155 FIRTINA 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzer.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Turkish Main Battle Tank MITUP Altay.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: http://www.kkk.tsk.tr
Lumialover2, you may find it illogical for the Turkish Army Command to date its forces to 209 BC, but they just do, and there isn't much that can be done about it but to express it in the article. --Mttll (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is directly under the the heading "CUMHURİYET DÖNEMİ ÖNCESİ TÜRK KARA KUVVETLERİ", which Google translate translates as "THE REPUBLICAN PERIOD BEFORE THE TURKISH ARMY". Lumialover2 (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That heading actually translates as "PRE-REPUBLICAN ERA TURKISH ARMY". Feel free to have it checked by a Turkish speaker you trust. --Mttll (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Or easier yet, check the glaring date on the Turkish Army emblem: Link --Mttll (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The 209 BC foundation date is quite frankly absurd, considering it predates the ethnogenesis of the Turkish people (by several centuries), not to mention that of the Republic of Turkey (by several millennia).  So the Turkish army consider themselves to have been founded by the huns in 209 BC?  Great for them, but we are a serious encyclopedia here.  The date of foundation of the Armed Forces of the Turkish Republic cannot, by simple logic, predate the date of foundation of said Republic.  Therefore the earliest possible foundation date is 1923.  Yes, sometimes things are that simple. Athenean (talk) 13:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are saying Wikipedia cannot spare the tiny space needed to mention the official position of the Turkish Army about its own foundation date? Are you going to edit out the 209 BC from the official emblem while you are at it? --Mttll (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I'd be ok with it being added in the main text, properly attributed ("According to the Turkish Army's website...."), but adding it in the infobox is out of the question, for obvious reasons. Athenean (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I added it in the section, History. --Mttll (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official claim on the inception date 

message: If you are not a native English speaker, could you please learn to differentiate between Army and Armed Forces? 
*Army = Land Forces
*Armed Forces = Land, Air and Naval Forces
Too often are people confusing personnel figures for the entire Turkish Armed Forces on this article. Thanks.Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Personnel

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Turkish Land Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110429012849/http://www.armeniandiaspora.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7376 to http://www.armeniandiaspora.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7376
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Turkish Land Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419233159/http://www.kkk.tsk.tr/EN/GenelKonular/Tarihce/icerik.asp to http://www.kkk.tsk.tr/EN/GenelKonular/Tarihce/icerik.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419233159/http://www.kkk.tsk.tr/EN/GenelKonular/Tarihce/icerik.asp to http://www.kkk.tsk.tr/EN/GenelKonular/Tarihce/icerik.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628202710/http://www.korean-war.com/turkey.html to http://www.korean-war.com/turkey.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070922071251/http://www.turkishpress.com:80/news.asp?id=133903 to http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=133903
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070916040825/http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr:80/article.php?enewsid=83334 to http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=83334&contact=1
*Added  tag to http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/archives.php?id=33977
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Turkish Land Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419233159/http://www.kkk.tsk.tr/EN/GenelKonular/Tarihce/icerik.asp to http://www.kkk.tsk.tr/EN/GenelKonular/Tarihce/icerik.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006083942/http://www.aktifhaber.com/tsk-mevcut-personel-sayisini-acikladi-911886h.htm to http://www.aktifhaber.com/tsk-mevcut-personel-sayisini-acikladi-911886h.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006083942/http://www.aktifhaber.com/tsk-mevcut-personel-sayisini-acikladi-911886h.htm to http://www.aktifhaber.com/tsk-mevcut-personel-sayisini-acikladi-911886h.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006083254/http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Turkey/turkey.html to http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Turkey/turkey.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080523100502/http://www.arrc.nato.int/divisions/1tudiv.htm to http://www.arrc.nato.int/divisions/1tudiv.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110121634/http://www.zmka.hu/docs/Volume11/Issue1/pdf/12.pdf to http://www.zmka.hu/docs/Volume11/Issue1/pdf/12.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Turkish army and Türk ordusu is not the same thing. Because in Turkish, ordu is a word used for all ground, naval and air forces combined, whereas army is only used for land forces in English. So, I am correcting that in the lead section.--Visnelma (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not delete the words yourself without knowing and researching the etymology origins..Orda (organization)Cengizsogutlu (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I speak native Turkish myself. Army and ordu is not %100 synonymous. I have already explained above. Even Turkish Wikipedia doesn't redirect "Türk ordusu" to Turkish version of this page. See--Visnelma (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

text:  Also, we have a concencus about the content, if you continue edit warring you will probably get blocked.--Visnelma (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Listen, army is used for only land forces, but ordu is a word for land, naval and air forces combined. The title Türk ordusu must be added to the article Turkish Armed Forces. You can see TDK for more information.--Visnelma (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For combined troops Silahlı Kuvvetler (Armed Forces) used, land forces are also called army. see Hellenic Army, or directly self army page please. An army (from Latin arma "arms, weapons" via Old French armée, "armed" [feminine]), ground force or land force is a fighting force that fights primarily on land. In the broadest sense, it is the land-based military branch, service branch or armed service of a nation or state. It may also include aviation assets by possessing an army aviation component. Within a national military force, the word army may also mean a field army. You are doing ridiculous edits, I still do not understand your purpose.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read what I wrote? I don't think you really understand that army and ordu are not synonymous.--Visnelma (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I guess we wrote at the same time instead of deleting the word Türk Ordusu change than into Türk Kara Kuvvetleri Komutanlığı than. Also Ordu is used for Corps, Field army etc such as Kolordu for the Turkish Land Forces command. I agree on the etymology of the word and its inconsistency with today's Turkish. In current Turkish, Ordu is used for combined units indeed but it's mostly used for Land Forces in military terminology. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You should add the name Türk ordusu to the article Turkish Armed Forces. That's the right place. Even in Turkish Wikipedia Türk ordusu redirects to Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri not to Türk Kara Kuvvetleri.--Visnelma (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you delete history section than There is a logical explanation for this, but why is history? Cengizsogutlu (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already explained above.--Visnelma (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Visnelma! Sadly I do not know to read Turkish (yet). Your knowledge of that language is valuable and your help highly appreciated around here. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be highly glad to help with translations when needed.--Visnelma (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  This proves once again that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source in anything as every page in it is carries a political sentiment at this point, especially against Turks at the moment driven by you and buidhe as you two attempt historical revisionism on nearly every page on Turks. Thanks to you I now support banning Wikipedia in Turkey again. I also hope that you will fix the "pseudo" foundation dates on other armed forces etc. to prove your "unbiasedness".--Astu2004 (talk) 17:20, 8 Jul 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Astu2004, I fully agree with you, there is a big Anti-Turkish sentiment, promoted by armenian and greek lobbyists at the English Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Öztürklü (talk • contribs) 11:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Türk ordusu and Turkish army

message: 46.106.50.243 (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. See discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021 

message: because why not? also please add this 'File:Turkish Special Forces soldier.jpg' to modernization section maybe? 46.196.85.12 (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because in accordance with the rules, galleries should be on Commons. If you want to look at collections of pictures, go there. Here, pictures are individually placed next to the sections they describe. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

text: But, yes, if the picture you name fits with the section, I can add it there. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  could somebody please add a gallery to the end? 

message: Please remove the errant ref tag from the end of this citation:
IISS (2023). "Chapter Four: Europe". The Military Balance. 123 (1). International Institute for Strategic Studies. doi:10.1080/04597222.2023.2162716. ISSN 0459-7222.</ref>
Thanks.
PS. I would make all the bulleted references a new "Further reading" section, but that's up to the editor. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also separated the bulleted references into a separate "Works cited" section, since some of the inline references seem to refer to these works. Liu1126 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2024