Talk:Orhan Pamuk

message: Does anyone know how old Ruya is? Her birth year can be added.
Burgaz 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ruya

message: I don't understand this (overly long) sentence:
:Some Turkish commentators have noted that praising Pamuk not for his writing but his statement on Kurds and Armenians is not only erroneous in this sense, but also unfair to people such as Yaşar Kemal, another world-famous Turkish writer who too had faced many charges throughout his writing life for defending rights of the Kurds as well as many other people who have dedicated a life-time to research minorities or been jailed to defend minority rights. 
What is "erroneous"? Why would praising Pamuk be unfair to any other writer? The sentence doesn't make much sense. I have a feeling this is a misquoting or mistranslation or these unnamed "Turkish commentators".
Also this bit seems a little garbled:
:The coincidence of the time that media began writing about Pamuk's statements and the time of major negotiations with EU has also resulted some controversy in Turkey.
Something is obviously missing here, but I'm not sure what. As it is, this sentence is garbled and doesn't make a lot of sense but I don't know how to fix it because the meaning of the editor is not clear. --Lee Hunter 23:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it as them claiming it would erroneous and unfair, because it would be giving credit to someone for doing something that they didn't in fact do, and not giving any credit to people who actually did those things. --Prosfilaes 08:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Or put it this way. What it's saying is that Pamuk has really done nothing major and is probably not even that concerned about freedom of expression or minorities but more with winning a nobel prize. I'm not saying this is the correct view but it's what the article is suggesting AFAIK. It may be similar to Princess Diana in some regards where various people suggest she actually did little for landmine victims et al and there are people who are much more deserving of praise in this regard then her... As for the second bit, I think it's saying that Pamuk may be part of an agenda to try and prevent Turkey entering in to the EU by doing something which may make problems for them precisely when it will make the most problems Nil Einne 12:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: User: Chimeira added the following to the introduction to this article.
"Ironically, on the same day that the French parliament has adopted a bill making it a crime to deny that Armenians suffered genocide at the hands of the Turks, Pamuk, who had declared that 1,000,000 Armenians had been killed by the Turks, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature."
I removed this section but he added it back twice.  I don't have the time, nor the desire to engage in an edit war with this person.  I don't believe these passages belong in the introduction.  First of all, Pamuk did not say " 1,000,000 Armenians had been killed by the Turks", he said "a million Armenians were killed in these lands".  So, this quote is inaccurate.  Also, this passage in the introduction makes it look like Pamuk's entire personage including his literary accomplishments center around his views on the Armenian issue.  Pamuk was well known before the controversy and his books have nothing to say about this issue.  He was not awarded the Noebl Prize because of his views on this issue.  I believe that the goal of this addition is political propaganda.  The author of these edits wants to promote his political beliefs to anyone who is curious about the first Turkish Nobel prize winner.  The French parliament's decision has nothing to do with this article.  It should be removed.  ---Vikiyazar 18:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's a remarkable coincidence, but coincidences are not encyclopedic. It's not relevant to Orhan Pamuk what law the French parliament has adopted, as long as he's not directly involved. Aecis I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive. 18:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the difference between "1,000,000 Armenians had been killed by the Turks" and "a million Armenians were killed in these lands" ???? ... I dont see any difference. If you know history you will understand that there is no diference.. It is exactly same meaning!!!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.12.136.186 (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a huge difference, because in the first quote he directly refers to the Turks killing Armenians, however in the second quote he refers to "a million Armenians being killed in these lands" he does not say whether they were exterminated by Turks, died of famine, disease, war-time atrocities, etc. So depending on your POV he might inderectly, be referring to the Turks, however in my opinion I think thats nonsense because as a journalist and writer he is very careful with what words he chooses to say.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.195.167 (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian Genocide reference in the Introduction 

message: "Some of his Turkish colleagues attacked him for concentrating his criticism against "Turkey and Turks", and for not being equally critical of other governments."
could someone explain why that passage is suitable for an encyclopedia?  aside from being totally unsubstantiated, and IRRELEVANT, it's unencyclopedic.  is a person forbidden from criticizing something unless they criticize EVERY OTHER THING IN THE WORLD?  it's a totally immature notion.  it's the refuge of people who have no argument, and it's especially prominent in cheap/immature american political discourse:  "Oh you criticize american policy?  WELL YOU ALSO HAVE TO CRITICIZE XYZ, IN ADDITION".  it's totally useless and foolish rejoinder, totally irrelevant to the argument at hand.
*SECONDLY*
"Some Turkish commentators noted that praising Pamuk not for his writing but his statement on Kurds and Armenians was not only erroneous in this sense, but also unfair to people such as Yaşar Kemal"
how does that constitute a criticism of Pamuk?  it's a criticism of his PRAISE, or the people who praise him "not for his writing".  it's not a criticism of pamuk himself or of his work.  this kind of childishness is typical of wikipedia, and an embarrassment.   so the passage is nothing but nonsense that's totally inappropriate for the "criticism of pamuk" section.
and yes if you're still reading, both blank-claims ("some commentators/colleagues") are uncited.  what a joke.
:could someone explain why that passage is suitable for an encyclopedia?
:It isn't, but some idiot kept reinserting it during his trial, and no one had the time and/or stomach to engage in a revert war. This has been a constant problem with this article -- see some of the earlier comments on this page. 
:So what to do about it? Perodicticus 10:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: unencyclopedic

message: In English (legalese or otherwise) you don't "impose a person a person to a penalty"; you impose a penalty on a person. I am reluctant to actually make the edit because the wording may in fact be ensconced in an official Turkish legal document, but if it is merely a translation of the Turkish, I would ask an editor who knows both English and Turkish to correct it. --Haruo 21:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (copying version to be found in Article 301 --Zeisseng 20:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Imposition

message: Because of the massive amount of vandalism from anonymous IPs, I'm thinking this article is a good candidate for semi-protection. Anyone agree? Perodicticus 09:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect? 

message: Could someone put a link to Pamuk's speech in the Nobel prize ceremony? I hear that it was a very good one. Filanca 11:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speech in Ceremony

message: I heard that Orhan Pamuk is Kurdish.. Should we add it to article?
:You just heard it. No reference. Without citing what you heard, you may not add it to the article. He is not Kurdish by the way. Don't forget to sign your comments using for tildes. --Scientia Potentia 13:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol he is definitely not Kurdish. His family are noble Istanbulites.
No no.I read in one of his books,he said he has Circassian ancestry.I'm not sure which one,its the the autobiographical one where it had pictures of him as a boy,his brother,his parents.I am the one who added the "of partial Circassian ancestry" to his article.J87  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.34.93 (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've heard he is Japanese.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.207.157 (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is he Kurdish 

message: Why is the "Western reviewers" section included in the "criminal case" section? Do those two parts have anything to do together? Cause I can't see any. Keith Galveston (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  misplaced sections? 

message: According to NYTimes he is "most prominent writer", however according to the Turkish speaking people he is nothing. Even there is "articles" that he is not good in Turkish language, in the Turkish newspapers.--Ilhanli (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  most prominent? 

message: Almost certainly he was raised as a muslim, but the article makes no reference to where he stands now on this matter.85.240.23.176 (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: His Religious Beliefs

message: I just added a "citation needed" tag to the beginning of this wikipedia page. Pamuk is an American citizen? So he has dual citizenship? I did a brief Google search and can't find evidence of this. Is it accurate to say he's a Turkish American? Christian Roess (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Pamuk have dual citiizenship? 

message: In the 4th paragraph it is written that "In 2005, Pamuk was put on trial in Turkey after he made a statement regarding the Armenian Genocide and mass killing of Kurds in the Ottoman Empire" while in his statement in the Swiss magazine  Peuwsen, Peer (2005-02-05). "Der meistgehasste Türke" (in German). Das Magazin (Tages-Anzeiger). "Man hat hier 30 000 Kurden umgebracht. Und eine Million Armenier. Und fast niemand traut sich, das zu erwähnen. Also mache ich es  there is no mention of 30000 Kurds killed in Ottoman Empire. In addition to Armenian genocide in Ottoman empire, He refers 30000 killings of Kurds in Turkey since 1984. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4205708.stm Khadkhall (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th paragraph 

message: The fourth paragraph of the introduction is totally unnecessary and exaggeratedly long. It seems to be written to give a link to the article "Armenian Genocide" only. Mr Pamuk may have reassured the Nobel by pronouncing those words but WP has no obligation to refer to the "Armenian Genocide" in every article related to Turkey, lee in their first paragraphs. The next time those same editors, when they will not be able to find a connection will write things like "X was born 50 years after the Armenian Genocide" or "He was not an Armenian Genocide survivor". WP is becoming funny with this obsession or orchestrated campaign. So please (1) shorten the lead of this article, (2) stop trying to invent ethnic origins to every successful Turk (I added a CN tag here to Mr Pamuk's alleged origin). Please do listen to me, for the good of Wikipedia. Thanks. --176.239.26.227 (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and other important stuff 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Orhan Pamuk. 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/20160106081910/http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGEUR440352005 to http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=ENGEUR440352005
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081011113820/http://www.todayszaman.com:80/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=28943 to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=28943
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081011011923/http://www.swissinfo.org:80/eng/index.html?siteSect=143&sid=6403672&cKey=1137959434000 to http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/index.html?siteSect=143&sid=6403672&cKey=1137959434000
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121023100110/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Plot_to_kill_Pamuk_foiled/articleshow/2729362.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Plot_to_kill_Pamuk_foiled/articleshow/2729362.cms
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120926175458/http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=155858&bolum=100 to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=155858&bolum=100
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121006054609/http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=169998 to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=169998
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 09:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Orhan Pamuk. 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/20090930143349/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/prospect-100-intellectuals/ to http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/prospect-100-intellectuals/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=169998
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) 14:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Orhan Pamuk. 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/20121120142738/http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=49417 to http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=49417
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) 21:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified