User talk:Yce
Feel free to start discussions here. I like to discuss issues with people whom I disagree with so that both sides may learn (or at least get to know each other) something out of the discussion. However I hate unnecessarily aggressive and prejudiced talk which will not serve anything but only creating hostility.
Who are the Turks?[edit]
An article by Justin McCarthy, Ph.D.
Professor of History
College of Arts and Sciences
University of Louisville, Louisville, KY
The simplest questions can be the most difficult to answer. The Turks are obviously a people separate from other peoples, but a people can be defined in many ways-language, religion, cultural traits, citizenship, loyalty to a ruling house, or many other feelings of kinship. The Turks of today are citizens of the Turkish Republic. The name Turk is also used to describe the people in Turkey who share the distinctive Turkish culture, especially the Turkish language, which all Turkish citizens do not share, no more than all Americans speak English. Or a Turk can also mean a member of the great linguistic and cultural family of the Turks, a family that stretches from China to Europe, bound together by language and history. The best way to define the Turks may be to consider which people make up the Turks of Turkey and how they defined themselves politically, first as subjects of the Ottoman Empire, then as citizens of the Turkish Republic.
The original speakers of the Turkish language lived in Central Asia. They roamed as nomads over a vast region that today lies in Siberia, Western China, and Kazakhstan and other ex-Republics of the U.S.S.R. They were known at an early time to both the Chinese and the Middle Eastern Persians and Arabs, but they first appeared in the Middle East in large numbers, as nomadic soldiers, in the tenth century. Finding the Middle East more pleasant than the cold steppes of Central Asia, they remained.
The Turks had converted to Islam while in Central Asia. Although some of the Turks in history had been Christians and Jews, Islam became the religion of the vast majority and remains so today.
The Turkish nomads expanded westward under the leadership of the Seljuk family of sultans. The Seljuks quickly took Iran and Iraq, capturing Baghdad, the capital of the old Abbasid Empire, in 1055. Their forces were unlike what is ordinarily thought of as an army. The first Seljuk troops were nomads who brought all their lives with them-families, dwellings (tents), animals, and belongings. They were at home wherever the pastures were good for their sheep. Relatively soon after their arrival so many Turks had come that the region to the southwest of the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan, was Turkish. Large groups of Turks were also spread over other regions of Iran and Iraq.
The nomads did not stop once Iran and Iraq were conquered. They were soon raiding into the Byzantine Empire, which lay to the west of Iran, in Anatolia. In 1071, the Byzantine defeat to the Seljuks in a great battle at Manzikert opened Anatolia to Turkish settlement. Over the next two hundred years the nomads kept moving into Anatolia in great numbers. Although the Turks themselves did not use the term, Anatolia had become Turkey. Many other peoples remained there. Greeks, Kurds, Armenians, and others shared the land, and many of them adopted the Turkish language, converted to Islam (forced conversion was almost unknown), and became Turks themselves. Because the Turks had no concept of "race" that would exclude anyone, they accepted those who wished to be Turks as Turks. The Turkish people were thus made up of the descendants of the Turks of Central Asia and those who had become Turks.
Nineteenth and early twentieth century refugees added to the numbers of Turks in Anatolia. In the time of the Ottoman Empire, Turkish population had spread throughout the Balkans. The descendants of these Turks lived for five hundred years in the areas theater today Bulgaria, Greece, and other countries of Southeastern Europe. Large numbers of these Turks were either killed or exiled when the countries rebelled against the Ottoman Empire and became independent. Russian invasions of the Ottoman Balkans and the creation of new Balkan states resulted in the expulsion of more than a million Turks. The exiles eventually settled in Anatolia and Eastern Thrace.
The Russians were also responsible for the immigration of more than two million Turks and other Muslims from the Crimea and the Caucasus Region. Both regions were overwhelmingly Muslim in population.
The Crimean Tatars were Turkish-speakers who had lived in the Crimea for centuries. The Caucasians, primarily the peoples known as Circassians, Abkhazians, and Laz, were not Turks but were Muslim peoples who had lived on their lands since the beginning of history. All the groups were forced to flee their homelands by Russian armies or laws. They too cam to what today is the Turkish Republic.
From 1800 to the 1920s more than three million refugees came to what today is Turkey. Many of the immigrants were already Turks in culture and language. Others, such as the Circassians and Abkhazians, kept many of their ethnic traditions but became Turkish in language and loyalty. The ethnic Turks of modern Turkey thus came from Central Asia many centuries ago. A number are also descendants of peoples whose ancestors were Hittites, Phrygians, or other early peoples of Anatolia. Others descend from the peoples exiled from their homes by Russians and others taken in by the Turks of Turkey.
Peoples are often defined by the unique states to which they belong. This is especially true of the Turks, who were tied to one of the greatest empires of history, then to one of the first successful "developing" countries of the modern world.
Partly because the poetry, art, and other aspects of the Turkish character are little known to the West, Europeans and Americans have usually thought of Turks as soldiers and administrators. While there is much more than this to the Turks, it is true that Turks rank among history's great empire-builders and rulers. Under the Ottomans they conquered vast territories in the Balkans and the Middle East and ruled for six hundred years. The Ottoman Empire was founded at the end of the thirteenth century by a Turkish military leader, Osman, and his son Orhan. They and their successors conquered in Europe, Asia, and Africa. One sultan, Selim I, took all of what today is Egypt, Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon in one campaign. His son, Süleyman the Magnificent, expanded the empire by taking Iraq and Hungary. When Süleyman died in 1566 the Ottoman Empire stretched from the borders of Poland in the North to Yemen in the South and from near Venice in the West to Iran in the East. For centuries, the Ottoman Empire was the primary homeland of the Turks.
The Ottoman Turkish administrative genius lay in retaining and governing what they had conquered. The survival of any government for six centuries is in itself a testimony to greatness. The Turks proved to be adaptable to new circumstances. They managed to turn their system from a nomadic state whose members were more naturally wanderers than statesmen to a settled empire with laws, land registers, taxation systems, and economic might. Their system was not without troubles, but revolts and sometimes poor politicians could not bring it down. The state was based on tolerance of differences among its subjects. Christians and Jews were allowed to keep their religious practices and their means of gaining livelihood. This was good for the Ottomans, because satisfied subjects did not rebel. It was also good for the subjects.
Tolerance and administrative ability were not enough for the Empire to last forever. In the 1600s and 1700s the Ottoman central government weakened just as European power immensely increased. The Europeans were translating the benefits of the Renaissance, the scientific revolution, and the discovery of the Americas into military and economic advantage. Europeans began to dismantle the Empire, taking Ottoman lands for themselves, causing the great exile of Turks and other Muslims mentioned above. Ethnic and religious groups, such as the Bulgarians and Greeks, became affected by European ideas of nationalism. In the nineteenth century they revolted and created their own nation sates, once again expelling many of the Turks who lived within their new borders.
As the Ottoman Empire compressed, the Turks also began to develop a national consciousness. Driven into Anatolia, the Turkish exiles and the Turks of Anatolia began a slow process of thinking of themselves not only as a religious group, Muslim, or the mainstay of an empire, Ottoman, but as the Turkish People. Turkish philosophers and politicians called upon the Turks to think of themselves as a nation.
The ultimate push toward Turkish nationhood came after World War I. Following Ottoman defeat in the war, the Arab and Muslim provinces had been stripped from the Empire. Anatolia, Istanbul, and a small portion of Europe were all that was left to the Turks. Then, in 1919, Anatolia was also invaded. Aided by Britain, France, and Italy, the Greek army landed and took control of Western Anatolia and Eastern Thrace. The European allies took Istanbul themselves. Many Turks already had been driven from both Europe and Asiainto Anatolia, and Anatolia seemed about to be lost also. Drawing on their old military skills, the Turks organized to save what remained. They rallied under the leadership of General Mustafa Kemal, defeated the Greeks, and created a new state, the Turkish Republic, in Anatolia and Eastern Thrace.
The identity of the modern Turks was forged in the Turkish Republic under the tutelage of Mustafa Kemal, who became the first president of the Republic. Once again the Turks proved adaptable to change. Mustafa Kemal devised political, economic, and social reforms that would bring Turkey into the modern world. Radical change was legislated covering most facets of life. Soon after the founding of the Republic, Turkey became a secular state. Islam remained the religion of most of the people, but the state was not religious. Other changes followed quickly: The veil and the fez were banned and Western styles of clothing appeared. Women were given the vote and elected to Parliament. The Turkish language began to be written in Western characters, not the Arabic letters used previously. Laws were based on Western legal codes. Schools followed Western models. In short, Turkey became rapidly Westernized under Mustafa Kemal. As a symbol of change, Mustafa Kemal's government required all Turks to change the habit of centuries and adopt family names, as in the West. Mustafa Kemal himself took Ataturk ("Father Turk") as his surname. An entire culture began to be altered. Nevertheless, study of history and traditions of the Central Asian Turkish ancestors of the Turks of Turkey was stressed, as well.
Why follow the ways of Europe and America? Atatürk and the Turkish reformers felt that Western ways could not be adopted piecemeal. They believed that copying the industries and economies of the West was not possible unless one also accepted Western schools, business practices, and social customs. It was the whole of the Western culture that allowed Europe to develop economically, Atatürk felt, and he wanted his country to develop, so the country had to Westernize. Accepting the ways of the West meant accepting democracy. Atatürk kept authority in his own hands, but he deliberately schooled the people in the forms and ideas of a democratic society. In the 1950s the Turks created a real democracy which, despite some obstacles, continues to this day.
Westernization is another facet of the Turkish makeup. While some Turks would prefer to go back to old ways, the country as a whole has been committed since the time of Atatürk in the model of the West. Turkey has been a full member of NATO since 1952 and an ally of Europe and America in the Gulf War with Iraq.
Who are the Turks? They are the descendants of the nomads from Central Asia and the refugees from the Balkans and the Caucasus, brought together in the Turkish republic. Most of the Turks are Muslims, following the prayers of Islam in the mosque, but living in a secular state. They are also the inheritors of the governmental traditions of the Ottoman Empire and the democracy of Atatürk and the West.
The citizens of today's Turkey do not come from one ethnic group, no more than do the citizens of the United States. As in the United States, the ancestors of today's Turkish citizens come from many different places and many different cultures. The majority are ethnically Turkish. That is, they speak Turkish at home and feel themselves to be a part of the great ethnic tradition that goes back to central Asia. Some others are "Turks by adoption." They speak Turkish as their first language, but their ancestors came to Turkey, primarily in the nineteenth century, speaking other languages. Others are Turkish citizens but do not speak Turkish at home. This too is similar to the United States.
Of those who are Turks by adoption, the majority are the descendants of refugees from the Caucasus and the Balkans. The refugees were driven from their homes by Russian and Balkan armies and settled in what today is Turkey. Peoples such as the Circassians and the Laz have kept some of the folk traditions from their old homeland. However, they seldom speak the old languages. They have become part of the Turkish "melting pot."
The largest concentration group of non-Turkish speakers, the Kurds, is centered in Southeastern Anatolia. Other Kurdish-speakers live in Iraq, Iran, and other parts of what was the Soviet Union. Many Kurds now also live in cities all over Turkey, integrated into the general society. Groups of Arabic speakers live in province that border Syria. Of late, large groups of Persians have come to Turkey, refugees from the regime in Iran. There are also numerous smaller groups who have come from all over Europe and Asia.
The Jews in Turkey are both distinct and integrated. Today, their primary language is Turkish, but they have a separate language, Judeo-Espanol, which is also used. Most of the Turkish Jews are descended from those who were expelled from Spain in 1492. Although they are economically and politically completely integrated into Turkish life, the Turkish Jews retain a strong sense of ethnic and religious identity.
By no means do all the ethnic Turks originally come from Anatolia and Eastern Thrace, the area of modern Turkey. The ancestors of many, more than two million, were exiles from the Balkans and what today is the Armenian Republic. Other Turks were forced out by the Soviets in the 1950s. Still others came in large numbers in the 1980s when the Bulgarian State first discriminated against them, then allowed them to migrate to Turkey.
All of these groups make up the citizenry of the Turkish Republic.
RfC on Argyro[edit]
I put an RfC request for Argyrosargyrou. Feel free to contribute: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Argyrosargyrou
Creating redirects[edit]
Hi Yce.
I ran across your merger of the duplicated articles Sabiha Gökcen and Sabiha Gokcen. That was a sensible thing to do; good catch! Just in case you merge two articles again, you don't need to use a "soft" redirect like you created here. I'm not sure if you've run across this before, but you can create automatic redirects for article names. The process is described in detail at Wikipedia:Redirect, but here's the important bit:
To redirect visitors to Sabiha Gökcen automatically to Sabiha Gokcen, replace the text in Sabiha Gökcen with
#REDIRECT Sabiha Gokcen
Anybody who goes to the first article will then automatically be taken to the second.
Cheers, --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot TenOfAllTrades, I didn't have time to look at the Wikipedia:Redirect and I came up with "soft" solution ;). Thanks a lot for the information. - Cansın 7.40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Cyprus[edit]
Cansın, I liked what you wrote on the Cyprus Dispute case. Being neither Greek, Turkish, or Cypriot, I could look at the issue with a more detached view, and I came down on the side of the Turkish Cypriots. Also, I view the TRNC as a ligitimate, sovereign state with Turkey acting as it's protector. I hope to go there and visit sometime in '06. Expatkiwi
- Hi, thanks for writing here and sharing your opinion. I hope the things in Cyprus get better for both communities in the near future. BTW, I personally do not like the idea of keeping national symbols (such as flag) on my page, or on my personal website. Please, do not take it personal but I am removing the TRNC flag with your permission. Thanks for your understanding. Cansın 21.44, 5 June 2005 (UTC)
I had posted the following on Wikipedia: Murat Aga and Sandalla casualty list, Atlilar casulaty list, and 1963-1967 Turkish Cypriot Casualty List. Now these pages have been put up for votes on deletion. Looks like somebody doesn't like seeing the actual names of those who were killed..... -- Expatkiwi 23:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, they may be mentioned in Cyprus Dispute issue under casualty section instead of being another entry. --Cansın 2.40, 11 June 2005 (UTC)
I noticed your comments on the PKK talk page. I'm currently attempting to correct grammatic and POV errors in the text, and have provided a diff on the talk page showing an initial series of edits. If you'd take a look at it, I would appreciate it.--Scimitar 19:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Image:Yce.jpg[edit]
Image:Yce.jpg needs to tagged with its source and copyright status or it may be deleted. Nv8200p 21:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Image copyright Problem Image:GaziEvrenosMausoleum-Giannitsa.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:GaziEvrenosMausoleum-Giannitsa.jpg and for stating the source. However, its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. If it is open content or public domain, please give proof of this on the image page. If the image is fair use, please provide a rationale. If you don't know what any of this means, just give me more information about where you got the image on the image page. Thanks so much for your help.
P.S. If you didn't leave a image copyright tag on the image, please do so next time. This allows Wikipedia's images to be easier managed and to comply with copyright law. Thank You.
I see that the image came from one of the external links from the article, but it doesn't look like you hold the copyright. Is this image really public domain or not? Franzeska 20:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, as you have figured out I found the image on one of the external links. I don't hold the copyrights. Since it is on that website I just took it and uploaded. hope it is ok. Cansın
It's probably not ok. Most images on the web are under copyright unless they specifically say they are public domain. You should only upload things to Wikipedia if you hold the copyright or know they are public domain. Franzeska 05:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Atatürk page[edit]
Hi, I notice you have added to Ataturk page before, a new page called Criticism of Atatürk has been created containing quite a long slab of unencylopedic text about Ataturk. There is a disagreement running in the discussion whether Ataturk should be accused of a genocide or not, i'd appreciate your input since i tire of chasing after these things. --A.Garnet 21:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hi A.Garnet, thanks for informing and inviting me, however, I stopped being involved in these kind of discussions. I was convinced that there are a lot of people who can spend all of their times by spreading propaganda on Wikipedia and unfortunately there are such people among the administrators. This kind of sensitive discussions lead nowhere, since people involved in or started these discussions are very biased and have their own agenda. I don't have energy and time for endless discussions and I wish you have enough patience and time for it. Best. Cansın 18.30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- I dont blame you, i too have lost my patience. Best of luck with your other endeavours. --A.Garnet 22:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
TWI/AG[edit]
The Armenian Genocide goes a long way to explain why the Turks had to fight the Armenians as well as the Greeks during this time period. As it is, the article focusses too much on the Greek front which is why some think it ought to be merged. The Turko-Armenian conflict (and its causes), the Turko-Kurdish conflict and the Republo-Sultanic conflict all need expansion in the Turkish War of Independence article. Caerwine 23:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Dear Caerwine, I am just sensitive to the words: What does Turko mean? Turko means "One of a body of native Algerian tirailleurs in the French army, dressed as a Turk" according to dictionary.com. When you use Turko with a dash as Turko-Armenian, then it means Armenians of Turkish decent which I don't think you tried to mean. I am not trying to be a smart alec, please do not misunderstand me, but we have to be careful what we are trying to say and how. I also didn't understand what you meant by Republo-Sultanic conflict? Do you mean the conflict between Ottoman Sultan and Turkish Nationalists under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk? Anyway, if I come back to our discussion, Turkish War of Independence article is currently very weak and lacking a lot of details. It is strongly correlated with the results of World War I. The most important emphasis about the Independence War is that the war was a Turkish uprising not only against Ottoman Sultan and his government who alligned themselves with the Allied Powers, but also against the Allied Powers who already occupied and divided the remnants of the Ottoman Empire. There was Turkish-Armenian conflict started in 1919 between the newly founded Armenian state and the Turkish Nationalists and ended with the Treaty of Kars in 1921. However it is not reasonable to refer to Armenian Genocide page which mainly concentrates on 1914 events under Ottoman government. When I have more time I will work on the article which is now nothing more than a chronological order of the events. Best. Cansın 26 September 2005
About the POV tag[edit]
Someone inserted some test tag there, so the POV tag was not removed, but rather replaced by some tag they are testing. I wonder how long they'll keep testing it. Fadix 03:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Armenian Patriarch of Istanbul speaks at Erciyes University[edit]
ERCIYES UNIVERSITY First International Social Research Symposium (EUSAS) The Art of Living Together in Ottoman Society: The Example of Turkish-Armenian Relations 20-22 April 2006
SPEECH
MESROB II
Armenian Patriarch of Istanbul and All Turkey
Dear Rector,
Dear Participants,
I do not think that, as citizens of the Turkish Republic, our main reason for coming together here is to shower praise on the vast world empire of the Ottoman Dynasty. However, it is important to analyze the Ottoman system since it provided the possibility for people of different identities in the Ottoman Empire to live together and because in a shrinking world that requires people of increasingly different religions, languages, races, and nationalities to live together in the same cultural mosaic, crowded side by side, it will be no mistake to refer to the experience of the Ottomans.
I would like to share with you some of my personal thoughts about the event that is often called the “Armenian Issue” by some people and by the Turkish press.
THE HISTORIAN’S ETHICAL DIMENSION
The way we look at history is an ethical matter with universal consequences. Our way of presenting history to today’s generations is also an ethical matter. It often requires courage and freedom to convey the bare truth. If we are squeezed into a certain mold, if we are slaves to a certain ideology, and especially if we have a nationalist, racist, or militarist temperament, we will sometimes have difficulty in speaking the truth and communicating realities to the new generations. Our having a realistic historical viewpoint depends on whether we can be freed from the value judgements of the day and from subjective opinions.
It is not possible to idealize every phase in the history of Ottoman-Armenian relations and to say that Armenians never had any problems. However, we know that the first acquaintance between Turks and Armenians goes back at least 1300 years.[1] If the historian Elise actually did write his work on the Persian-Armenian War in the fifth century, then this mutual acquaintance has a 1500 year history.[2] In this long history of commercial and political interactions between neighbours, there are relatively few instances of exchanges of physical violence.
Just as the nationalist movement that started with the French Revolution in time affected all other governments, so all peoples connected to the Ottoman Empire came under its influence. Especially towards the end of the 19th century there was an increase in tension in relations, whether responsibility for this was due to the Ottoman Government, or the German, American, French, British and especially Russian governments, or Armenian political parties, or the Armenian Patriarchs of Istanbul of that period, who discharged their obligations under the close surveillance of the Temporal Affairs Council that then consisted of Armenian secularists in Turkey. Even if the various sides were not all equally responsible, it is not an moral approach in view of the painful aftereffects for any one of them to speak up and deny any accountability in the development of those events, or to place all responsibility on the other parties.
THE IMPASSE MUST BE BROKEN
Both Turks and Armenians must leave aside their cliches such as, “We really used to love the loyal nation” and “We really did love the Turks”. In place of nostalgic expressions such as, “My grocer was an Armenian” and “My army officer was a really good Turk”, we must accelerate those historical and scholarly endeavours that offer concrete examples from the past of the fact that Turks and Armenians did coexist peacefully. Instead of wasting time and money in publishing books that only re-state in various ways the usual Turkish and Armenian claims that everyone has memorized by now, Armenian works that can make an important contribution to the history of Turkish-Armenian relations should increasingly be translated into Turkish and English for the consideration of academicians and the general public. What are fundamentally needed at this stage in the impasse are new primary sources, rather than new interpretations of what already exists. For instance, the minutes of the Armenian National Assembly which, according to the 1863 Constitution of the Armenian Millet, appeared in print with the approval of the Sublime Porte and were collected regularly from 1863 to the time of Sultan Abdulhamid are one of the black holes in Turkish history. These texts should be published urgently as a parallel text, with Armenian on one page and the corresponding Turkish translation on the opposite page. The writings of Patriarch Nerses II (1874-1884), the correspondence of Patriarch Madteos III (1894-1896 and 1908-1909), the three volumes of memoirs of Patriarch Magakya I (1896-1908), and the one-volume patriarchal memoirs of Patriarch Zaven I (1913-1915 and 1919-1922) should be available in Turkish. Instead of books about the Armenian Church and its culture, and books that are sometimes highly unscholarly, Patriarch Magakya’s three huge volumes of the history of the Armenian Church should be read in Turkish by university students. In addition, the archives of the Istanbul Patriarchate that were moved to Jerusalem in 1916-1918 must also be brought into academic circles by the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem. In order to create the possibility of collegial work on a common platform by the next generation of Turkish and Armenian academicians, the teaching of the Ottoman, Armenian and Turkish languages and their literatures must begin without delay, whether in universities in Turkey or in Armenia.
MUTUAL RESPECT
To rescue today’s relations from a dead end, dialogue is inescapable, and for dialogue mutual respect is a must. It is difficult to bring together parties who belittle each other and engage in verbal assaults. Therefore activities between groups of academicians, young people, artists, and members of the press from Armenia and Turkey, in which they exchange visits, for acquaintance and mutual understanding, are very important.
Respect must also be shown to the other’s history. We have to change the mentality shown by some Armenian historians who still see Turks as uncultured barbarian emigrants from Central Asia and who belittle their ability to establish a Turkish state and ensure its continuity. We must likewise change the mentality of some Turkish historians who say, “Armenians never had a state, and they couldn’t found one,” and who even turn the Native American peoples into Turkish clans who crossed the Bering Strait. Both the Turks and the Armenians are peoples who, both in their own capacity, have made a significant historical mark in politics and culture. In the museums of Anatolian Civilizations, the mentality that sees the historical Armenian Kingdoms as only vassal states or completely non-existent, even neglecting the mutual pacts between Armenian Kingdoms and western governments, can only deceive its own citizens, since it cannot destroy the documents in western archives and libraries. However, when there is a mutually respectful approach to the histories of the two sides, where each other’s successes are praised, it will be possible to create mutual empathy.
FRIENDSHIP IS A GEOGRAPHICAL IMPERATIVE
Turks and Armenians are people of the same geographical area. Almighty God has put these people together. It will not be possible to change this, now or in the future. Turks and Armenians have to learn to live together, or side by side. Strategists sin by ignoring this reality and by turning the youth of the two countries against each other. People will either be enemies or friends. Is friendship not much better than enmity?
DO NOT DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN THE ELEMENTAL CITIZENS OF A COUNTRY
However, fanatical nationalism claims that its own country and race are chosen, that its language is perfect, and that its culture is unsurpassable, but this is nothing other than collective narcissism. These kinds of baseless claims serve no purpose other than to cause similar narcissism in others. To count the other as nothing, to see in the other a foreigner or enemy or potential saboteur not only creates a chaotic condition in the country but, because such an approach always needs to create windmills to fight, it also leads to uneasiness because it hatches speculation about which group of citizens will be the next victims. I think that the often-heard expression, “Turks and Kurds are the original elements of this country”, is also a sort of discrimination. If our Turkish and Kurdish brothers and sisters are the original elements, then in even the rosiest of definitions that puts the Armenians and others into second place. But the Armenians have a written history in this land since the sixth century BCE, and the Syriacs and Jews have even older records.
CORRECT THE PROBLEMS OF ARMENIANS IN TURKEY
Today in our country of 70 million people, the number of Christian Armenians who are citizens of the Republic of Turkey has fallen to 70 thousand. According to some government departments, there are about 30 thousand people with Armenian roots living in Turkey who have come from abroad. In this situation solutions are needed for religious, charitable and social issues pertaining to minority communities, including the local Armenian community, whose total population is probably less than one in a thousand. These are matters that arise from the regulations for religious foundations, and matters that lead to the struggle for existence in the face of massive problems generated by a changing world. This is one of the clearest areas where abstract concepts such as “tolerance,” “living together,” and “pluralism” can be concretized and can turn from word to deed. Otherwise we shall this country’s multi-hued character gradually fading away, becoming pale and monotonous.
RELATIONS BETWEEN TURKEY AND ARMENIA REQUIRE SELF-SACRIFICE
The normalization of relations between Turkey, to which we Turkish Armenians are bound by citizenship and the dialogue of life, and Armenia, where we have common ethnic and religious roots, is the goal of the Armenians in Turkey, where we find ourselves between two countries, between two loved ones, if you will. But unless there is mutual sacrifice, it is evident that it will be difficult to make progress in these relations.
WE MUST GIVE PRIORITY TO HUMAN AND ETHICAL VALUES
We must think of what binds us together as human beings beyond religion, race, nationality, and so on.
In this context, what we leave behind for our children, for the future, is important. Thus in addition to scientific and technical education we must also see the humanities as of utmost importance and give this area the necessary encouragement. We must accept that studies of language and literature are also a significant bonding element.
No matter how much the secular form of government guarantees freedom of religion and conscience, it can be said that the implementation of so-called Jacobin secularism in our country, which we sometimes encounter, prevents the richness of the spiritual meaning of Islam’s ethical dimensions from contributing to analyses, and consequently this is also sometimes true of approaches to history.
I wish, as is done successfully in some countries, that pre-Ottoman civilizations could be considered as part of our historical heritage and that we could be enriched by the contribution made to Turkey by Byzantine, Armenian, Syriac, and Jewish cultures. In this context I see the Ministry of Tourism and Culture’s project to restore the Armenian Church of the Holy Cross on the Aghtamar Island in Lake Van as a very positive step in the right direction.
NOT NATIONALISM OR ETHNOCENTRICISM BUT ETHNOPHILIA
Both Turks and Armenians must break out of the straitjacket of exclusive nationalism and racism. Otherwise it is clear what will happen. The harm and cost is evident wherever the practice of nationalism and racism predominates. The results are always bloody wars, tears, and hate campaigns that last for generations. I believe that for peace and well-being to obtain the upper hand, we must be able to escape from this straitjacket. Instead of nationalism and racism, it is much more in line with our religious and ethical values to practice a love and appreciation for our national cultures.
CONGRATULATIONS AND GOOD WISHES
I congratulate the Rector of Erciyes University, Prof. Dr. Cengis UTAS; the Head of the Symposium Organizing Committee, Prof. Dr. M. Metin HULAGU; and Assistant Professors Dr. Sakir BATMAZ, Dr. Suleyman DEMIRCI and Dr. Gulbadi ALAN who worked to organize this symposium. It is my wish that this symposium, which is taking place in our historical city of Kayseri (Caesarea in Cappadocia) may set an important milestone on the road to peace and well-being, and I would express my deepest respect to all who are following the proceedings. I pray that peace and well-being may prevail in our country, for the happiness of all of our citizens, and for unity. Thank you.
[1] C.J.F. Dowsett tr., Movsés Dasxuranci, The History of the Caucasion Albanians. Oxford, 1961, Book Two, Chapter 12.
[2] Elise, “Vasn Vardana ew Hayoc Paterazmin”, Yerevan, 1957, p. 12, 141, 198. While some academicians state that this work is from the fifth century, others think it is from the 7th century.
- Thanks Cansin, how you are doing? You were absent from Wikipedia for a good amount of time. I will answer you about the article when I can. Regards
WikiProject LGBT studies[edit]
Hello! I noticed that your userpage mentions that you are interested in LGBT issues. Would you be interested in joining WikiProject LGBT studies? The WikiProject's been a bit inactive recently and some of us are trying to get it going again. We'd love to have you on board! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:LatifeUsakligil.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:LatifeUsakligil.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:GaziEvrenosMausoleum-Giannitsa.jpg[edit]
VikiProje Türkiye'ye davet / Invitation to join WikiProject Turkey
|
Merhaba, sizin VikiProje Türkiye'ye katılabileceğinizi düşündük. Ayrıca yalnız başınıza ya da diğer kullanıcılarla birlikte Türkiye ile ilgili maddeleri düzenleyip geliştirebilirsiniz. Eğer projemize katılmak istiyorsanız lütfen katılımcılar sayfasını ziyaret edin ve adınızı yazın ya da projenin tartışma sayfasına tıklayın. Eğer herhangi bir sorunuz varsa benimle ya da bir başka VikiProje Türkiye üyesi ile bağlantı kurabilirsiniz.
Hi, I was thinking that maybe you would like to join the WikiProject Turkey. There you can also find and contact users who are trying to improve Turkey-related articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the participants page and/or inquire at the project's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other member of the WikiProject Turkey. |
|
--Absar 11:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edits[edit]
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 00:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Sinebot, I will do. I haven't followed wikipedia for a long time, so things have changed and being upgraded as I see...that is good...--CYE 01:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I appologize[edit]
I appologize. I don't even recall leaving that. I'm sure it was pure coincidence, there really was no pun intended. I went through a phase of calling people turkeys. I've removed that comment. Evrenosogullari 21:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Need help on the Sabiha Gokcen page[edit]
Armenian users and especially "EtienneDolet" (Armenian) are making Sabiha Gokcen's "early life" to read "her origins are disputed" just because a pro-Armenian Armenian newspaper made a claim that every other academic source (which I've listed on Gokcen's talkpage) have denied and she herself has denied.
But Wikipedia seems weirdly to favor Armenian claims over simple truths and so Armenian's keep having the page read that her "origin is doubted" which is basically the same as saying "we can't prove that she's an Armenian, because she's not, so we're going to say her origins are doubted to make you think she is anyways". You were on Gokcen's talk page and look like someone who could help in resolving this issue. Your help would be greatly appreciated, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sekarca (talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)