Talk:Article 301 (Turkish Penal Code)

message: The template unreferenced includes the following "This article or section does not cite its references or sources" (my highlighting). --Philip Baird Shearer 17:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So provided. The text in the article is different in a materially insignificant detail, but is a more literal translation of the original Turkish: The world kişi occurring in the first two clauses (follow the link to Türk Ceza Kanunu and search for "301"), not represented in the Amnesty translation, means "person", as can easily be checked. --LambiamTalk 20:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: unreferenced

message: Whatever the case, it is clear that the Article has a chilling effect on free expression, notwithstanding its fourth clause - I happen to agree, but the wording here seems like clear POV. Any chance of a more neutral version? Loganberry (Talk) 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a link has been given to show the context used in this paragraph. Richard001 04:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that "whatever the case" is POV, so revised and added a source.  Kelvinc 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Article 301 was introduced as part of a package of penal-law reform in the process preceding the opening of negotations for Turkish membership of the European Union.   I have heard that this law is an improvement (from the POV of the EU) of a previous law, which had a similar intention but was much stricter (either applied to more cases, or had stronger penalties, or both).  
If anybody knows the details, it would be interesting to have  a short paragraph   about the
situation before June 1, 2005, and about the differences to the current law. 
Aleph4 12:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new law vs old law 

message: I slightly expanded the mention of Amnesty International's views in the article text - however I also feel that the Amnesty International logo (Amnesty International.svg) was superfluous in this article, therefore I am boldly (WP:BOLD) removing it. If you wish to re-add it, please justify here. Thanks. -- 201.51.211.130 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the logo a couple of days ago, along with Pamuk, since the article had no pictures and there was a photo request on the talk page. It's fair use and fairly superfluous really, so I don't mind at all. The one picture should be enough for now anyway, if any especially relevant free use images are suitable they can be added in due course. Richard001 01:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amnesty International 

message: From :
Is this law supposed to be replacing a more restrictive law?  That's the only scenario I can come up with, off hand, in which a law outlawing opinions could be seen as increasing freedom of opinions.
If that's not the case, then what am I missing? TerraFrost 05:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  confused 

message: I find this text of old law TCK 159 (Article 159) as modified in January 2002 and Agost 2002 and which in 2005 was replaced by TCK 301:
:Madde 159. – (1) Türklüğü, Türk milletini, Türkiye devletini, Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi'ni, Bakanlar Kurulunu, bakanlıkları, adliyeyi, devletin askeri veya emniyet ve muhafaza kuvvetlerini veya bunları temsil eden bir kısmını alenen tahkir ve tezyif eden kimseye bir yıldan üç yıla kadar hapis cezası verilir.
:(2) Birinci fıkrada yazılı cürümlerin işlenmesinde tahkir ve tezyif edilen açıkça belirtilmemiş olsa bile, ona yönelik bulunduğunda tereddüt edilmeyecek bir durum varsa, tahkir ve tezyif edilen açıklanmış gibi kabul edilir.
:(3) Türkiye Cumhuriyeti kanunlarına veya Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi kararlarına alenen sövenlere bir aydan altı aya kadar hapis cezası verilir.
:(4) Türklüğü, Türk milletini veya Türkiye devletini tahkir ve tezyif, yabancı memlekette bir Türk vatandaşı tarafından işlenirse verilecek ceza üçte biri oranında artırılır.
:(5) Birinci fıkrada sayılan organları veya kurumları tahkir ve tezyif kastı bulunmaksızın, sadece eleştirmek maksadıyla yapılan yazılı, sözlü veya görüntülü düşünce açıklamaları cezayı gerektirmez.
If someone can translate then please to. Hevesli 08:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old law:  Article 159 text 

message: In the article it is said that: "Hrant Dink (featured in the genocide documentary film Screamers) was also brought to trial for insulting Turkishness by mentioning the Armenian Genocide.". This is a slander. In Turkey in media Armenian Genocide Allegations are done. Mr Dink was not send to prison. He was not prosecuted because of his ideas about 1914-1922 incidents.  He was found guilty since he said Turks are dirty bloodded. What he said is:"Türkten boşalacak o zehirli kanın yerini dolduracak temiz kan, Ermeni'nin Ermenistan'la kuracağı asil damarında mevcuttur. Yeter ki mevcudiyetinin farkında olsun.". I think it is not hard to reach the result text of the court. So do not try to hide the truth. I think Wikipedia is stg like Orientalism!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.122.113.165 (talk • contribs).
:OK, let's get this straight -- you say it is "slander" to say that Hrant Dink was brought to trial.  You say that he was not prosecuted or sent to prison, but then you say he was found guilty... so what are you trying to say?  You sound like a stuttering fuck.  If you are claiming that all Hrant Dink was prosecuted for was calling turks "dirty bloodded" (as you spelled it), a quick google search doesn't back you up and shows YOU to be the liar... Here is what Amnesty USA and the BBC say in their reports: 
::Amnesty USA said: Hrant Dink is a journalist and the editor of the Armenian-language weekly newspaper Agos, which is published in Istanbul. On 7 October 2005, Hrant Dink was given a six-month suspended prison sentence by the Sisli Court of First Instance No. 2 in Istanbul for “denigrating Turkishness” in an article he wrote on Armenian identity. According to the prosecutor in the case, Hrant Dink had written his article with the intention of denigrating Turkish national identity. The court suspended the sentence as the journalist had no previous convictions, on condition that he does not repeat the offence. Hrant Dink is currently appealing the decision. However, he is also being prosecuted under Article 301 for another offence (see below). Should he be imprisoned, Amnesty International would consider him to be a prisoner of conscience. http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGEUR440352005
::The BBC said: Dink, 53, was found guilty more than a year ago of insulting Turkish identity after he wrote an article which addressed the mass killings of Ottoman Armenians nine decades ago. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6279241.stm)
:Since when was writing an article on "Armenian Identity" which is what he was sentenced for the same as saying "turks are dirty bloodded?"  Since when is "an article which addressed the mass killings of Ottoman Armenians" the same thing as saying turks are "dirty bloodded?" You don't sound very neutral... show me an official news article from a NON-extremist, NON-turkish website saying that Hrant Dink did what you claim, and we'll go from there...  MalteseKnight 19:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral or not, the fact is that Dink's conviction for denigrating Turkishness was not based on mentioning the Armenian Genocide, but on his words Türk'ten boşalacak o zehirli kan. The meaning of this is not fully clear even to native speakers of Turkish, but literally it means something like "the poisoned blood that will drain away from the Turks". This was interpreted by the high court as implying that Turkish blood is poisonous and therefore denigrating Turkishness. The prosecutor at the court of appeals had asked for acquittal, saying that the words should be interpreted in context and were not intended to denigrate Turkishness.  --LambiamTalk 22:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So AT BEST, the person who posted above is taking the comments out of context... though I've yet to see a source.  In the end, there's no need to put in a subject line called "DO NOT LIE" simply to take one's comments out of context and post them up, IF Dink actually did make those comments... I will delete this thread unless someone can show that there is something useful to come of it... MalteseKnight 02:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of the thread violates AGF and is objectionable, but the thread itself serves as a reminder that the present formulation in the image caption (as well as the suggestion evoked by the use of this specific image) is factually incorrect. The correct information can be found in our article Hrant Dink. Here are some sources commenting specifically on the court case(s): http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=65648, http://www.bianet.org/2006/11/01_eng/news90480.htm. The statement that the conviction is based on a mention of the Armenian Genocide can be found in many newspaper articles, which however simply means they all got it wrong; the facts of the case are a bit more complicated. I can understand the urge to keep hammering in the genocide charge in face of the denialism of the Turkish state, but this should not go at the expense of factual correctness.  --LambiamTalk 08:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DO NOT LIE 

message: I feel like the contruction of the sentences outlining what's covered under Article 301 are awkwardly constructed, i.e. "A person .... shall be punishable".  Any thoughts on this? If no one objects, I would like to change this to either:
The act of publicly denigrating Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.
OR
A person who publicly denigrates Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, shall be punished by imprisonment of between six months and three years.
Since I'm not at all familiar with the Turkish language, any suggestions as to which version is closer to the original text would be welcomed. CanadianMist 21:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The English version is a very literal translation of the Turkish, so whichever of the two versions above deviates least in meaning from the version in the article deviates least from the meaning of the Turkish text. I'm not sure, though, what the problem is. While it is common to say that an offence is punishable, I see nothing wrong with saying that the perpetrator of an offence is punishable (i.e., may be punished). This is in fact the original meaning of the adjective; if V is a transitive verb, the word V-able (if it exists) means: capable of being V-ed. (drinkable, walkable, readable, sellable, etc.). Here are some links to original English-language laws using punishable as referring to the offender rather than the offence: , , , , , . The geographic spread of the sources shows that this use is not some local quirk.  --LambiamTalk 23:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the input.  I guess I'll leave it as is.  As a native English speaker, I've never heard a person being referred to as 'punishable' or any other kind of 'able' for that matter - except maybe when referring to an artist's work (i.e. Charles Dickens is very readable / Donna Karan is very wearable) but these situations are not meant in the literral sense, of course, as is the punishable statement.  It strikes me as awkward in its syntax, that's all.  CanadianMist 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you never met a person who was acceptable, accountable, adaptable, admirable, adorable, approachable, bearable, believable, changeable, controllable, correctable, dependable, desirable, detestable, employable, enjoyable, excitable, expendable, forgettable, forgivable, impeachable, laudable, laughable, likable, lovable, manageable, manipulatable, noticeable, predictable, presentable, reachable, recognizable, reformable, relocatable, remarkable, respectable, steerable, touchable, understandable, usable, or valuable?  --LambiamTalk 19:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Point made - I said in the above that I would let it stand.  You were very capable in your explanation.  I now realise  that a person can be punishable (no matter how much the phrase offends my Canadian ears).  Mea culpa. CanadianMist 22:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: The article is created now (see Kemal Kerinçsiz), and a google search gave bunch of references that one can use. I thought about redirecting it to this article, but I think he deserves an article. DenizTC 08:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  kerincsiz 

message: Everyone(here law) is innocent, until the crime is obvious
What is the crime of Article 301, as far as i know none was neither punished nor found guilty because of it. if there is no crime how come that article is based as if it is against Human Rights, and article clearly identifies "insult(Also carries slandering meaning in Turkish language)" so if you want to talk about for example "Armenian Genocide" in order no to be guilty you must prove that citizens of Turkey and/or any state founded by Turks made that process. And this is Basic of Law systems anyywhere on the planet.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.208.79 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The prime code of law. 

message: The law is particularly old, but this article seems to talk about the current version. What about the older versions? Shouldn't there be an "Origin" or "History" section? Does anyone know the history of it? It seems like if the AKP government wanted, with the majority they have, couldn't they throw it away, or do they like it themselves?
— talk § _Arsenic99_ 04:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone know the history? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Article 301 (Turkish Penal Code). 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 https://web.archive.org/20111004142725/http://www.bolgehaber67.com/detayhaber.asp?id=1365 to http://www.bolgehaber67.com/detayhaber.asp?id=1365
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 18:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Article 301 (Turkish Penal Code). 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/20090116123035/http://sc.tagesanzeiger.ch:80/dyn/news/kultur/560264.html to http://sc.tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/kultur/560264.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930211654/http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=114125 to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=114125
*Added  tag to http://www.bianet.org/bianet/kategori/english/78001/endless-trials-of-publisher-zarakolu
*Added  tag to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do?haberno=28098
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081203224305/http://www.bianet.org./english/kategori/english/108226/justice-ministry-refuses-article-301-case to http://www.bianet.org/english/kategori/english/108226/justice-ministry-refuses-article-301-case
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091217023206/http://www.byegm.gov.tr:80/sayfa.aspx?Id=78 to http://www.byegm.gov.tr/sayfa.aspx?Id=78
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) 02:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Article 301 (Turkish Penal Code). 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://sc.tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/kultur/560264.html
*Added  tag to http://www.bianet.org/bianet/kategori/kadin/80142/vicdani-red-bir-insan-hakkidir
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706132730/http://www.bartstaes.be/turkije.php?id=5 to http://www.bartstaes.be/turkije.php?id=5
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.byegm.gov.tr/sayfa.aspx?Id=78
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) 00:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified