Talk:Taksim (politics)

= Comments =

Removal
I'm removing a large portion of this article. The history of the dispute should go in Cyprus dispute, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, and other such articles---we shouldn't resummarize it all here! This article should be specifically about the term taksim, so I'm making it into a stub about the term. Maybe we should even redirect it. --Delirium 12:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur with the removal. let's wait to see if it can be developed any further. Baristarim 13:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * i think the article should be removed completely. this "rallying cry" can be mentioned in other articles. otherwise it will only act as an arena of pov pushing. the article is too short anyway.. if this article can be extended, then still it would be wiser to merge it with another article.
 * one more thing; i think taksim should redirect to taksim square, which most people would be looking for.. or a disambig page including the article for the musical form "taksim". 85.235.91.68 10:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing
The edits by EOKA-Assasin are just POV pushing. Statements like "and there is absolutely no evidence Turkish Cypriots would have accepted a unified state independent of Greek and Turkish interests" are blantant POV pushing and have no place in this article - and they are also not backed up by the referance cited either. Taksim was a reaction to enosis. It's ideological roots were not Panturanist ideas, which was an ideology that was the opposite of those on which the modern Turkish state was founded. The ideological roots of tasksim were the right of self determination. If Greek Cypriots were to define themesleves as Greeks via enosis and thus a seperate people from Turkish Cypriots, then Turkish Cypriots demanded their own seperate right to determine their future. This then was the ideological basis for taksim, developed as a reaction to enosis. I am reverting the changes made by EOKA-Assasin pending discussion here by him. Erolz 09:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You have violated policy twice here Erolz. I have cited my sources, I can reword if you wish, but this information is going to be included one way or another. Oh, and the sources DO back up the assertions made, Panturanism by itself is not a clear influence on Taksim, but the effect the ideology of Panturanism had upon official Turkish state policy is touched upon at length in the source provided. As well as others, for example, Professor Jacob Iandau's study (Uni. Of Jerusalem) on Panturkism: The Dogma of Turkish Expansionism which deals with groups such as The Association of Turkish Culture in Cyprus (Kibris Turk Kultur Dernegi), The Association of Turkish Nationalists (Turkiye Milliyetciler Dernegi) and others and their role in shaping Turkish state policy throughout this period and earlier. A quote from the 6th Cretalogical Congress is also useful in explaining this point: "Ataturk appointed his Members of Parliament to Professorial chairs at universities so that his theories about Turkic tribes and the antiquity of Turkish civilisation would prevail, while the theory on panturanism, which presupposes an expansionist policy, became huge during Ataturk's time and is the creation of his collabarators" --EOKA-Assasin 09:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Where have I violated policy? You say "this information is going to be included one way or another" - whihc pretty much shows your approach. Where does you source back up the claim "and there is absolutely no evidence Turkish Cypriots would have accepted a unified state independent of Greek and Turkish interests" ? Why are you insiting that this will be included when it is neither relevant to the article or anything other than your own personal assertion? Clearly your agenda here is pov pushing. You say here in talk "Panturanism by itself is not a clear influence on Taksim" yet in the article you keep reverting back to "Movements towards Taksim can be traced from Panturanist movements". The sensible way to deal with this is to discuss it here and THEN chaneg the article. You constant reverting based on your assertion "this information is going to be included one way or another" is not the way to proceed. I will once again revert the article to its original state untill we can discuss this here and agree any revision Erolz 10:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you would have checked you could have seen I made some alterations to the text, list some specific concerns you have, what you would prefer to have the text changed to and so on, and perhaps we can arrive at a consensus.--EOKA-Assasin 10:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Arriving at consensus is exactly what I am trying to do here. First off I have seen nothing that supports your assertion that "and there is absolutely no evidence Turkish Cypriots would have accepted a unified state independent of Greek and Turkish interests" or why such a personal view should be included here. So can we agree that this has no place in the article? After that let's discuss what a wiki user needs to know about taksim. It should be stated that the growth of the idea of taksim amongst the Turkish Cypriots of Cyprus was as a reasction to the growth and potential implemntation of enosis as a sucsessor to British rule. Can we agree that? If you wish to explore the ideological underpinings of Taksim, then we can not just look to panturanism. Ideologicaly taksims roots are embedded in the idea of Trukish Cypriot seperate rights to self determination in Cyprus vastly more than they are to the idea of a greater Turkish state made up of Turkic peoples around the world (panturanism). For an average Turkish Cypriot in the 50's they supported the idea of taksim not because they believed in the idea of expanding the Turkish state to include all Turkic peoples, but because they oppposed Cyprus being handed over to Greece after British rule without them having any voice as a community in this decision that affected fundamentaly their own futures. To make out that the main drive behind taksim was therefore the ideologies of panturanism is to distort reality. So I suggest as a compromise that if the article is to look at the ideas that lay behind taksim then they must recognise as the first and main idea, that of 'self determination of peoples' and that because enosis by definition claimed that Greek Cypriots were a seperate people from Turkish Cypriots then Turkish Cypriots also had, along with Greek Cypriots, a seperate right to determine their own futures. Taksim was a mechanism to achieve this, all be it one that required population movements. If having made this clear as the first and primary ideological base behind taksim (and a reactionary one at that) you wish to point to panturanism as a secondary one, then we can reach some agreement here. If however you wish to make no mention of 'self determination' as an ideological basis for taksim and simply try to create an impression that Turkish Cypriots look to and supported taksim in Cyprus merely as an expression of panturanism, then I will oppose such an entry because such is just not ture or accurate and is motivated by POV pushing. Erolz 11:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I didn't say that Panturanism itself was any kind of driving force, not in the slightest, but that certain parts of panturanism had an impact on secular Turkish state policy throughout the 20th century. I agree that Taksim gathered pace under the growing Greek drive for Enosis (as the TC membership for the PEO didn't really decline until the outbreak of intercommunal violence, there are other examples as well), but we should also mention that it did exist as an Academic idea, i.e. an idea between certain intellectuals from the Turkish Republic and British Administered Cyprus not so much as a response to Enosis (as the intellectuals in question who supported Taksim before the 1950s largely supported Annexation by Turkey and not the creation of an independent state).--EOKA-Assasin 11:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Taksim was a proposal as to what should happen to Cyprus after British rule ended. Other proposals were enosis or the return of Cyprus to Turkey. To say that certain Turkish intellectuals developed and supported the idea of taksim because they supported the idea of Cyprus being returned to Turkish rule after the end of British independance makes no sense to me. Taksim was an alternative to either annexation of Cyprus to Greece or annexation of it to Turkey following British rule. In any case I suggest you post a reworked version of your additions here in talk and we can then work on them togeahter, get them in an agreed state and add them to the article. Erolz 11:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok i'll sort it out in a couple of days.--EOKA-Assasin 00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok done.--EOKA-Assasin 11:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The suggestion was that you post a proposed revision in TALK first - not just yet again wack a rveision into the article without discussion. You new version, which has been reverted in any case by another user, is still far from suitable imo. I suggest the following as a revision for the whole text. "Taksim (Turkish for "division") was the rallying cry of Turkish Cypriots who supported a partition of the island of Cyprus into Turkish and Greek portions. Supporters of taksim felt partition was the only way to ensure peace and security and to prevent the assimilation of the Turkish population on the island, due to its majority ethnicaly Greek population and as a counter to Cyprus being ceeded to Greece after British rule, against the Turkish Cypriot commuites wishes. Taksim emerged as an intellectual idea within a small segment of Turkish Cypriot intellectual community as far back as the 1930's. It subsequently became a popular idea amongst the mass of ordinary Turkish Cypriots in direct relation to the calls for enosis from the Greek Cypriot community. As Greek Cypriots increasingly demanded enosis and nothing but enosis and launched their armed sturggle to achieve enosis thus the demand for taksim amongst the Turksih Cypriot population grew and gained popular supprt. " Erolz 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, my suggestion is thus: "Taksim (Turkish for "division") was the term used to describe the political ideology of dividing Cyprus into two parts. Supporters of taksim felt partition was the only way to ensure peace and security and to prevent the assimilation of the Turkish population on the island, due to its majority ethnicaly Greek population and as a counter to Cyprus being ceeded to Greece after British rule, against the Turkish Cypriot communities wishes. Taksim emerged as an intellectual idea within a small segment of Turkish Cypriot intellectual community as far back as the 1930's (along with the more hardline approach of those who believed Cyprus should be ceded to the Turkish Republic). It subsequently became a popular idea amongst the mass of ordinary Turkish Cypriots as the Greek Cypriot demand for Enosis grew."


 * The last sentence you added isn't really necessary, it's a little POV and it's already explained in the text provided.--EOKA-Assasin 15:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well first I notice that you continue to make revision to the article whilst 'discussing' the text here. I suggest that finding agrement here should be the first stage and making edits to the article done after that. As to your point, the last sentance is imo totaly necessary. It is a fact that popular growth and support of taksim in the Turkish Cypriot community was a response to Greek Cypriot pursuit of enosis. This is a crucial part of understanding taksim and the support of it from the Turkish Cypriot community. This is not explained elsewhere. A reader needs to understand how the idea of taksim went from being a minority idea amongst a small set of Turkish Cypriot intellectuals in the 30's to be a dominant idea of the majority of Turkish Cypriots by the late 50's. The reason taksim popularity spread was as a reaction to Greek Cypriot pursuit of enosis. Erolz 16:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I only reverted it before I checked the discussion page and found this. Anyway, the sentence 'As Greek Cypriots increasingly demanded enosis and nothing but enosis and launched their armed sturggle to achieve enosis thus the demand for taksim amongst the Turksih Cypriot population grew and gained popular supprt.' Is already explained by 'It subsequently became a popular idea amongst the mass of ordinary Turkish Cypriots as the Greek Cypriot demand for Enosis grew', whatsmore, the term 'and nothing but enosis' is POV, even if it could be proven, we are talking about a time when Greeks and Turks living together in an independent state was something of a revolutionary concept, if you want, add something like 'It subsequently became a popular idea amongst the mass of ordinary Turkish Cypriots as the Greek Cypriot demand for Enosis grew during the period of intercommunal violence'--NeroDrusus 06:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Taksim (politics). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://cyprus-conflict.net/narrative-main.htm

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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Özkan
Özkan's work is already cited in this article. He discusses the development of the Turkish state position regarding Cyprus in this article, which provides much more valuable insight for this article and may help add nuance here and in the article on Cyprus. Will be returning to this, just wanted to drop a note. --GGT (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)