Talk:Turkish Navy

Objective clean-up is required

The articles about the Turkish Armed Forces should all be cleaned up, because they include controversial arguments and exaggarated numbers. The references should not be forum/blog like web sites which state POV statements. They should be objective and verifiable. The aim is to give correct and concise information, not to make any propaganda or advertising. e104421 14:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is rife with nationalistic chest-beating and ethnic self-promotion. It should be overhauled and made to conform to a neutral, objective POV. I might also suggest limiting the article to the post-Ottoman Turkish navy, Turkey and the Ottoman Empire not being perfectly synonymous or interchangeable terms. Qinshihuangdi 12:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

---

Statements such as "second strongest" have little meaning in the context of a military force. Is this a ranking of specific capabilities? Proven combat-effectiveness? Level of training? Any such statement needs to be substantiated.

In terms of equipment and capabilities, a couple European Navies come to mind, such as the Italian and Spanish navies, (which both have aircraft carriers) which are "stronger" than Turkey's, not to mention the German and Greek navies, which have similar capabilities.

The point is, this is an encyclopedia, in which you should strive to have a neutral POV. Other than that specific statement, it is a very informative article.

How is Greek navy stronger than Turkey's, I would like to know. And just numeral or fire power supremacy doesn't make a stronger navy or army; armies are as effective as their officers and generals, not just their weaponry. So first you were right, we can't call Turkish navy second best, just as you can't make a comparison as well unless it is a huge gap as between for example US and Turkish navies.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The person above said and he is pretty correct that italian, spanish and should we also say french and english navies include aircraft carriers and are actually stronger navies, when he mentioned the greek navy he mentioned similar capabilities, and in many forms the greek navy is of similar capabilities to the turkish navy. _______________________

Τhe statement that the Turkish navy is the second strongest navy in europe is completely nonsense, how could they be better than the highly modernized French navy or Italian navy?, in addition to that main combat units for the turkish navy are the obsolete Knox class frigate who have been termed by some people are not "fit" for the aegean sea.

There is an ongoing large scale modernization in Turkish Army, which includes building of new ships.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Main Equipment

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

Question

What is the "designation" (for lack of a better word) letters that come before the name of a Turkish ship (i.e for the US USS. Ronald Reagan, Britian HMS Ark Royal, Holland HLMS Tromp)

The "designation" letters before the name of a Turkish navy ship are "TCG" (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Gemisi, in English language: Ship of the Turkish Republic). CeeGee 08:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

      Well Turkish navy has no projection equipement. But projection capability does not mean strength. Turkish navy is second in europe after english navy considering purely strength !!

Turkish Navy Motto

It is "Daima Hazır", "Always Ready/Prepared", if someone wants to add it. I think we need to rebuild Turkish military related articles, they are too weak, very few photos and information. I am willing to contribute time and information for this, especially in Navy related articles I can provide photos. Let me know, contact me, don't be lazy.--Kagan the Barbarian 08:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro statement

"The Turkish Navy is the third strongest in Europe after the British Royal Navy and Russian Navy."

I apologize, but this is quite an incorrect statement. First of all, the two best navies in Europe are generally recognized to be the British and the French, not British and Russian. Furthermore, Turkey's is not the third best. I would rate the Russian, German, Italian, Spanish, and even the Dutch navies as superior. I think there may be disagreements about the latter three, but I can't foresee any about the first two. I plan to correct this highly POV statement.UberCryxic 04:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Submarines

Tang Class: 4

• Hızırreis: 2
• Pirireis: 2

Atılay Class: 10

• Atılay: 2
• Saldıray: 2
• Batıray: 2
• Yıldıray: 2
• Dolunay: 1
• Doğanay: 1

Preveze Class: 14

• Preveze: 3
• Sakarya: 3
• 18 Mart: 1
• Anafartalar: 1
• Gür: 3
• Çanakkale: 3

Gür Class: 3

• Burakreis: 3 (1 more is about to be compeleted soon)

Total: 31

Mizrak 19:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Please compare by yourself the source of user E104421: [1] and mine: [2]. As you can see his source does not even open. So could anyone revert the article, please? Kachik 01:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

E104421, so let's exchange the soruces, ok? You also know perfectly well those figures are not right. Kachik 17:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected

The article is protected due to the edit war (that is not to show endorsement of any particular version). Please solve your differences on talk and then ask any admin (e.g. me) for unprotecting. abakharev 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

question

I had asked you the source. Kachik 15:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

sources

The source is given at the sources section of the article [[3]]. You can check from the official site of Turkish Navy. If you go to the platforms page [[4]], you'll see the equipments of the navy. Just click on one of the class' name, a new window will be opened (if your browser blocks pop-ups, press ctrl) and in the new window, you'll see not only the number of that kind of equipment but also the technical information about them. This is the official site of Turkish Navy and i think they know what they have better than everybody. If you are not satisfied, please write your comments here. e104421 23:37, 29 August 2006 (UCT)

I have told you many times that your source didn't open. Have you ever tried to open it? You cannot prepare fake URLs to change the figures. --Kachik 11:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried just before and its ok. Try to keep [ctrl] pressed while clicking on the names of the classes. There is no problem with the site but maybe with your browser. e104421 13.09, 30 August 2009 (UCT)

My PC has no problem but your source has a problem. Btw, I have never seen such an URL which ends with "asp". --Kachik 21:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• The e104421 sites work for me. They open without problems in both FireFox1.5 and IE6.0, have not tested other browsers abakharev 02:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• They work for me also. Maybe your browser doesn't support Javascript, Kachik. And "asp", used for Microsoft's Active Server Pages, is one of the world's most used extensions, so I doubt the use of that particular extension can shed any light on the credibility or otherwise of the website. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources; if the official website of the Turkish military is not reliable for this topic, what is? - Tangotango 12:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know what's the problem but it doesn't work for me. :( --Kachik 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

---

For God's sake who is removing my site from the Sources section of Turkish Navy as well as from those of Turkish Army and Turkish Air Force? Haven't you guys read my complaint at the top of this page? Do you have mental problems? You steal the updated info from my site and erase my site from the sources sections of all Turkish Armed Forces pages! Man, the admin really has to do something about all this. This simply is not normal!

Warrior Soul (http://warriorsoul.4t.com)

The removal your site from the section of Turkish Navy is obvious, cause the official site of Turkish Navy is considered to be the most relevent one. The figures related with Turkish Army and Air Force are quite exaggarated as the ones of your site, but probably in the future they will be replaced by the offical ones. Please, do not try to advertise your site or your POV. The references should contain reliable sources, not forum or blog like ones. e104421 18:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, the main equipment section of the article has been copied and pasted from my site in the first place. Even my short comments, in addition to the figures, have been copied. Now, after copying my work to the letter, you're calling my efforts unreliable??? Just go and check my navy page at http://warriorsoul.4t.com/navy.html and tell me which figure has been exaggarated. Also check http://warriorsoul.4t.com/updates.html to see my monthly updates and tell me who else is capable of doing a better job than I do... The official site of the Turkish Navy does not and will not provide updated inventory figures since such action is against the official Turkish military practice. I'm not trying to advertise anything, I'm just telling you that what you are doing is a fellony and that you are taking the advantage of the situation as my site is hosted on a freeserver and therefore not protected by copyright regulations.

Warrior Soul (August 31, 2006)

Oh, boy, I just checked the Turkish Army and Air Force pages and noticed that somebody really made a mess of the main equipment sections and it looks like a deliberate action. These two articles are unfortunately not accurate anymore and I will not bother to edit/correct them since I have a feeling that they will be botched again. A similar edit-lock is needed to clean up the mess. I, on the other hand, feel obliged to restate that my site is not intended for false propaganda but is a fruit of careful and neat research. I do not exaggarate the figures, temper with information or falsify anything. Go check it and you will see what I mean...

Warrior Soul (August 31, 2006)

---

Dear Wikipedian Friends, i do not want go into deep debate on this army related discussion cause i'm not an army expert. My main aim is to put objective information, based on relevent references. Maybe this is just because of my academical training cause i always try to put the arguments on scientific research. For this reason, i always find safer to rely on offical sources.

In my opinon, considering todays' technology (satellites for example), it is impossible for any navy to hide their equipments, cause naval equipments are huge devices. For this reason, i think the information on the official site of the Turkish Navy is the most relevent one, cause probably they also aware of technological developments.

Furhermore, I assume good will all the time, the armies are to protect people (for example, against terrorism) not to threat anybody. The motto of Republic of Turkey is "peace at home and peace in the world". The Turkish Military is to protect Turkey and i believe they know this motto better than everybody. Lets try to end this editing war and try to give correct and comprehensive information based on objective references. e104421 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

images

There are too many images in the article. Most of them are not closely related with the subject and reducing the quality of the article. E104421 09:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Military history of Turkey

Please do not remove the information presented in any article without any discussion. The information provided was very informative and there is no reason moving to any other page. You can mention the same staff in any other article. Regards. E104421 11:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved them all to the Military history of Turkey page. These are not staff of the Turkish Navy that were removed. Rather, the names represent admirals who served the Ottoman navy, and most of these names served several hundred years ago. I agree that it is informative, but not in the context of this page, which is about the navy of the modern Republic of Turkey. Hiberniantears 12:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Structural changes should not be done without discussion. These admirals are all served for Turkish Navy, you cannot classify them as Ottoman admirals only as if Ottomans are not related with Turkish people. The name of the article is Turkish Navy not the Navy of the modern Republic of Turkey. Furthermore, the name Military History of Turkey is not a proper choice, the better one would be the Military history of the Turks. Regards. E104421 13:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that there are some naming convention issues here. I would support your suggestion on the "Military history of the Turks" idea. This article, however represents the link to the Turkish Navy from the Turkish Armed Forces page, which represents the military of the Republic of Turkey. Perhaps we need to clarify the name of this article to more clearly state that? Hiberniantears 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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 17:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

@ Hiberniantears

I'm Flavius Belisarius, aka Dragut Barbarossa, Calico Jack Rackham, Shuppiluliuma and many others (I've been around in Wikipedia for a very long time).

1) Turkish Navy related articles that I created using Italian and Turkish archives:

• Kemal Reis
• Piyale Pasha
• Seydi Ali Reis
• Salih Reis
• Kurtoğlu Muslihiddin Reis
• Kurtoğlu Hızır Reis
• Koca Murat Reis

2) Turkish Navy related articles that I vastly improved using Italian and Turkish archives:

• Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha
• Turgut Reis
• Oruç Reis
• Uluç Ali Reis
• Piri Reis (I added all the maps and Kitab-ı Bahriye information on this one)

3) Turkish Navy ship articles that I created:

• Milgem
• Kılıç class
• Yıldız class
• Rüzgar class
• Doğan class
• Kartal class

I also personally wrote every word, comma, sentence, date and event in the Chronological List of Events (battles, treaties, etc.) at the bottom, which took me days of research to complete.

It took me several days to write the Admiral articles alone (each Admiral article took several days to write).

Therefore, if you think that I will leave an incompetent person, with no knowledge on Turkish naval history or its present fleet, and whose only ability is to "copy-paste", "cut-delete" and "change the positions of the pictures" according to his personal tastes (which also "I" uploaded under the name DenizKuvvetleriKomutanlığı), and eventually destroy the article (according to his ignorance), you are dead wrong.

I will be here to guard my efforts FOR EVER AND EVER AND EVER AND EVER.

If you have nothing better to do in life, keep going. But don't trust your "Irish stubbornness" too much, as you probably have no idea on what kind of people the Anatolians (Foolish Galatians) are. :)

Regards. Flavius Belisarius 16:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)