Talk:Constitution of Turkey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I can see this article has been debated before. I didnt check if was even worse before. But it really needs to be rewritten. The article sounds like a very naive or propagandistic positive interpretation of the Turkish constitution.

All the article does is reflect the wording of the constitution. Normally I wouldn't dive into that kind of thing without knowing the case law, but if you can provide information on how the law parts with the text, please expand it rather than rewrite it. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 19:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 18:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

POV tag?

This article doesn't seem to need the NPOV tag, as there doesn't appear to be any significant bias in the article, nor POV disputes here on the talk page. I removed the NPOV tag. If anyone disagrees, feel free to put it back, however, when doing that it would be a good idea to state what precisely the problem is. Ikh 13:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

a minor change

I've changed the information about the former constitutions because only constituon of 1961 was in force when the military coup happened. --Hattusili 16:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Orhan Pamuk

“ Even though the Turkish constitution has claims protections for the freedom of political opinion, the actions of the Turkish government have violated the Turkish Constitution in many instances. Most notably, the arrest of the famous Turkish author Orhan Parmuk [sic] for "Unturkish activities" for his discussions on the Armenian genocide and Kurdish/Turkish conflict is a clear violation of article 10 of the Turkish constitution. ”

I have a couple of quibbles. (1) It's weak for Wikipedia to assert that X "is a clear violation of article 10". Much stronger if we can cite some authority, in particular the Constitutional Court, for finding so. (2) More importantly, if I'm not mistaken, the case against Pamuk wasn't brought by the government; it was brought by a consortium of nationalist lawyers. The government were certainly very embarrassed by the Pamuk case. But more importantly, from what I've heard, similar actions have been brought against many others who don't have Pamuk's celebrity status by the same group of lawyers. (I may well be wrong; please correct me if so.) QuartierLatin1968 16:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Serious deficiency in the article

The article, in its current state, makes no mention of the previous constitutions of Turkey and gives the absurd impression that Turkey had no constitution before 1961. I urge anyone interested and experienced in the subject to create a "History" section, even a stub section would do better than none. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 20:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So what do you think? :)

I did a major rewrite of the article, it is more informative and better than even the constitution of France! I will add the info about the past constitutions as well after I have made some research.. Ah, I love being a lawyer.. :)) Cheers!Baristarim 12:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)