Talk:Grand National Assembly of Turkey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Turkey (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Comment[edit]

This page needs a lot of clean-up of the English. -- Beardo 01:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable factual errors[edit]

"It was founded in Ankara on 23 April 1920 in the midst of the Turkish War of Independence with the aim of establishing a republic and overthrowing the Ottoman Sultan and his government in Istanbul." Whoever wrote this was either extremely careless or does not know hack about turkish modernization. It was clear in all initial statements that Meclis's aim was saving the monarch and the caliph. I am deleting this part.

One more thing. Single party period wasn't just a clash between Turks and Kurds. We have to expand that part by adding the İnkilaplar (Reforms) that were made by Mustafa Kemal and his friends. Deliogul 19:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Errors in the table[edit]

The second table which is supposed to show the parliamentary composition as of 2004 is full of errors. It has nothing to do with 2002-2007 term. Probably it shows the present (as of 2010) situation. But again, the figures are incorrect. For one thing, in 2007 elections only three parties were qualified to enter the parliament, not seven. The members of the last four parties entered the parliament either as independents or as CHP members (DSP case). So in the elected column, the figures of the independent and CHP members must be higher and the figures of the four smaller parties must be zero. There are also some other errors . For example ÖDP has no members in the parliament. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The table is fine; it shows the current composition, and it doesn't matter as what they were elected, they are members of those parties. —Nightstallion 00:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OK then, I only updated the current composition. The number of DSP members has been decreased and number of independents has increased, two new parties now have one seat each etc etc. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks! —Nightstallion 08:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Irrevelant period headings[edit]

The subsection 1945-1980 of the Republican era is meaningless. Because the composition, the number of houses and the electoral systems of the pre 1960 and post 1960 had nothing in common. There was also a change in the system in 1946. The subsection should be replaced by 1946-1960 and 1960-1980. I'll call the editor.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Turkish Parliament Building.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Turkish Parliament Building.jpg, 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) 11:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:TBMM interior.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:TBMM interior.jpg, 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) 11:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File:TBMM pic.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:TBMM pic.jpg, 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) 11:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Composition: critics of the 10% threshold[edit]

Considering: "This rather high threshold has been internationally criticised, but a complaint with the European Court for Human Rights was turned down. " From my point of view the criticism must be relativized. 10% is indeed a high threshold, but basically the UK system doesn't make sure that a party getting 11% of votes gets a seat at all. In character they are different, in the UK it's good for a party who is strong in a region, in turkey nut necessarily. But both systems make it hard for smaller (not small) parties. Although the UK system is criticized as well, as far as I can see it not in such relatively hard words. Proposal: add information or change the sentence so that it sounds more neutral. Eltirion (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this criticism as "harsh". It's a fact that the threshold is criticised internationally, and probably more so than the UK (and US) FPTP system. While I personally agree that FPTP is not better, this comparison is OR unless sourced. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)