User talk:Mboydas

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * Welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or sock puppetry.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries (SESRIC)
Hello ,

It seems to me that an article you worked on, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries (SESRIC), may have something copied from http://www.sesric.org/sesric-about.php. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.

It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.

Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC) ==Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries (SESRIC)==

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries (SESRIC) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.sesric.org/sesric-about.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MER-C 13:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Turkish Tradition vs Western Modernization: Headscarf Ban

Mensur Boydaş

The headscarf ban is one of the most talked about and debated topics in nearly half a century of history in Turkey. In this context, especially universities, including the name of public space under the public institutions and organizations; hospitals, military facilities and etc. women who wear headscarf because of the religious beliefs could not enter into these fields and work which                     was the subject of debate. Threat to the secular social order on the grounds, dress arrangements carried out and in these embodiments also consulted with the limits of fundamental rights. This ban is applied in a conscious way of socio-psychological process operated and conducted with the support of the media legitimized in due course. As a result, Muslim women victimized and eliminated from social life; could not have a voice in political, economic and social field. Political and social initiatives within the area are quite out of the process, by the fierce repression of minorities and otherization studied. The alteration of ban within the context of time, location, and arbitrary actions of persons also proves that the ban has no legal base and show that it is a mindset issue. The second part of the article opens the historical theme of the issue, third part is about the interpretation of secularism in Turkey, fourth part is about the headscarf issue, fifth part reveals and refutes the allegations of the headscarf ban and the last part consists of conclusive statements. 2.	Historical Theme Having taken part in the Turkish social life of the headscarf as a problem, on the one hand the course of modernity and modernization process within the context of a unique structure to Turkey, on the other hand with the end of a one-party rule emerging class conflicts of interest between different sections of society played an effective role. As a result of Tribal Migration (B.C. 375) Eastern Roman Empire collapsed and the central authority weakened in Europe. Until the French Revolution the authority was in the hands of both Church and Lords. With the rise of bourgeois population; there have been advancements in arts and science, geographical discoveries, finding new ways of trade and etc. forced the central authority to change and adopt a system which obtains science and rationality as guidance. Modernization process occurred as a result of a great struggle and within a certain period in Europe. It is possible to state that there is a harmony in between the popular masses that need to internalize the values modernity and the state that implements the process of modernity because of a process due to great struggles. In a sense it is easily visible to see that there is synergy and integrity between the practitioners of modernity and the public in Europe. On the other hand, Kentel states that (2008, p.64) Turkish modernization has not appeared as a result of great struggles, but appeared as directly mounting of the outcome that is secularism of the modernization process in Europe to Turkey. There have been no efforts undertaken to comprehend the real foundation of the modernization process of Europe. The direct mounting process of secularization is realized by the means of state elites and the broad masses of people who personally experience the daily life of the modernization process remained passive. In other words people have been involved in every aspect of salvation, kept away from the modernization process. The republic of Turkey was established in 1923 and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was the first president of the Grand National Assembly. The founders of the Republic have carried out drastic reforms as a means of secular state and tried to abolish any source of threat such as Ottoman Sultanate, Caliphate and other means of power. Kadıoğlu (1996, p. 121) suggests that one of the most important consequences of the modernization project boosted by the Republican elite was the tear of the link between central and the local administration. Before the republican period religion was the linkage between the administrations. Religion had a big role in the public space within the context of law and order and relationships, trade and so on. Unlike the West, the process of modernization and secularization in Turkey adopted the method of mobilizing society rather than represent. As a result of this the modernization process has laid the foundations of polarization in the public. 3.	Turkish Secularism This section of the article gives a description of secularism and explores the Turkish way of secularism that is different from the European way. The widely known definition of secularism is the division of religion and state. However, this definition does not express the many attributes of secularism. Aliefendioğlu (2001) sovereignty belongs to the nation  not to a heavenly person. In the Turkish tradition sovereignty belonged to the monarch before Islam and the dynasty after Islam. Aliefendioğlu (2001) religion is abstracted from the state in secular governments. In other words religion has no effect in any law or regulation. Aliefendioğlu (2001) a secular government is unbiased to all religions. Aliefendioğlu (2001) a secular regime obliges the education and the official systems to be secular. The education and official systems contain laws based on logic and science not on religion. Aliefendioğlu (2001) a secular regime necessitates freedom of religion and sense of right and wrong. Hence, this does not mean religion is abstracted from society. People are free to implement their religions and free to exert their religious beliefs in both private and public space. Aliefendioğlu (2001) a secular regime is based on pluralism, which requires the government’s respect for all religions and religious beliefs. The aforementioned characteristics of secularism portray a theoretically perfect way of secularist regime; the Turkish version is used against the Muslim masses. Turkish way of secularism is espoused from the French version “laïcité” which is stricter than the version that most Western Nations and United States have adopted Aliefendioğlu (2001). The Western secularism model whatsoever does not permit state or religion to put pressure on each other. On the other hand, in the Turkish model of secularism, the state can oppress and control religion however religion does not have the same right. The ban against wearing of the headscarf in educational and state institutions is an example of oppression. The main goal of the system is to make sure that religion does not gain its power as in the past. After the defeat of World War I, most of the lands were occupied by Allied Forces as accordance with the Treaty of Sevres. An Ottoman commander Mustafa Kemal found the treaty unacceptable and ignited the fuse of nationalist movement against the Allies and Ottoman Empire that has accepted the treaty. Mustafa Kemal and his forces defeated the Allies Forces and constituted a modern republic. He not only gathered the lost lands but also established a secular goernment via numerous reforms. In the book of Borak (as cited in Wing&Varol, 2007) Atatürk states that; “Look at our history. Those who hid their real beliefs under the disguise of religion deceived our innocent nation with big words like Shari’a. You will see that what destroyed this nation, what caused its collapse, was always the deception hidden under the curtain of religion.”

Therefore, the majority of his reforms aimed at seperation of religion from state, which does not imply Atatürk was against religion. Borak’s book (as cited in Wing&Varol, 2007) he was against the extremist and those who wanted to use religion as a political tool. The fundemantal reforms to establish a secular state include; clothing, alphabet, women’s rights, education, in which the religion had an enormous effect on. In any fundemental regime alterations, there exist a side representing opposition. The mistake was the oppression of the opposition and otherization process rather than persuation. Another problem is that misinterpretation of the secularization and modernization project. The project utilized as exclusive rather than inclusive. From the beginning the secularization and modernization project was not attributed to the public, as a result the project was protected by the constitutions and the military. Here we see how an ideology is constructed into a project of Westernization and secularization. The would not be any protection needed for the project if there was no oppression of the majority of the puclic mass. The power of countries within the context of structure and regime is directly proportional to the harmony between the ruler and the ruled in that country. 4.	The Headscarf Issue and The Legislations For and Against Headscarf Ban The history of the headscarf issue rooted from the establishment of the Turkish Republic. Prior to reforms on the clothing style of women, in Ottoman times all clothing reforms were all about men. In the process of the reforms women were granted with equality to men within the context of work, education and suffrage. Although the formal equality granted by the civil code, patriarchal norms continued to be practiced within the private life (Arat, 1997 & Tekeli, 1986). Unveiling is reflected as the modernizing for the women in the republican era that is from the establishment of the republic until the end of the single party period. If we have a look at this Republican period, we cannot see much effort by the creators of the modernization to include the masses of people who are in many areas the counterparts of the modernization. The elites in the republican era until the 1950s believed the headscarf as a carry out implemented by the illiterate women. Saktanber & Corbacioglu in their article (as cited in Tok, 2009) note that that was acknowledged as a matter of education and underdevelopment in the dissertation of state and it was believed that the headscarf would fade away as a result of education, urbanization and development. However, Althusser (as cited in Aksoy, 2008) states that education and training systems are the ideological devices used by the ruling class that is used to reproduce themselves. Nevertheless, apart from the anticipations of the Republican elite, the public visibility of the headscarf increased in the urban sphere because of urbanization guided by industrialization in the 1960s and 1970s. Hence, the population in the urban areas is increased. The immigrants from the rural areas carried out their beliefs, habits, which resulted in the visibility of headscarf augmented in the urban area around 1980s. The younger generation of the veiled women adopted a new way of veiling and lifestyle. The most significant difference (Tok, 2009) between the two veiled women is that the older generation employed a domestic and congregational role and abstained from the public space owing to lack of chances or anticipation by their families and on the other hand the new generation of covered women desires to have a higher education, professional career and a religious identity at the same time and in order to realize these goals they demand to enter public space. The older generations’ veil is not seen as a threat by the Republican elite because the older generation is noot seen in the public whereas the younger generation strived to enter public space within the context of education and career portfolio. Contrary to the expectations of the Republican elite the visibility of the headscarf increased. As a result of the new economic structures and policies in 1980s conservative elite appeared as against the Republican elite. With the practice of headscarf of the new elite, the headscarf is no longer associated with poverty, illiterate people’s usage and underdevelopment. On the other hand, beginning with coming to power in Turkey in 1950, the Democratic Party, the Motherland Party, which came to power after elections in 1983, followed by thoroughly aggravated with a leap of Political Islam in the 90s and the AK Party governments in the early 2000s followed by displacement of capital and the emergence of a new case of the capitalist class will give us important insights for understanding the headscarf issue. With the establishment of Democratic Party in 1946 and came into power in 1950, the urban elites whose privileged status shaken by, since then they see the parties and their supporters as a threat to their own built-in interests and kept record of them as; reactionary, counter-revolutionary and anti-regime. Behind all this we see an instinct of protection of the privileged status and economic interests. In this sense, to begin with May 27 coup repeated and updated in periods of about fifteen years, support for military interventions by the urban elite, could be regarded as the reflex formed against the case of loosing built-in interests. The liberalization politics in economy in the 1980s also made the capital of Istanbul uncomfortable that until this date fed by protectionist policies and government incentives and these politics increased the visibility of the Anatolian capital. 4.1 The Legislation Against The Headscarf Ban As the younger generation of the immigrant families in metropolitan cities and their commitment to get a higher education allowed the visibility of headscarf in the universities in 1980s. The first regulation by the Cabinet (Wing &Varol, 2007) addressing the wearing of headscarves in universities issued in 1981. The constraint of the regulation was that the ones working for public organization and students in educational institutions to wear common, abstemious and modern dress. The very thought that the regulation caused by the increasing number headscarf in universities, could not be wrong. The Higher Council of Education issued a printed notice that disallowed student from wearing headscarves in universities in 1982 and followed by a similar type declaration of The Council of State. After the declarations the era starts with the numerous court cases against them. In 1990, the second legislation was going take its place. The court case at European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that Leyla Sahin vs Turkey (as cited in Wing&Varol, 2007) notes the second legislation also freed the headscarf in higher educations. Then the issue has been concern of the both parties that one tries to lift and other try to sustain the ban. There is a clear law but the interpretations are exact opposite. In short, interpretations under ideological norms have never been for the good of the state. Whoever has the power used it in favor of his/her own wills. None of them thought the women who were struggling under the tussles of elephants. Those who should have been the actor and have a greater say. The politics let the radical beings to counter the state and its institutions. Then the secularists used them to increase the intensity of the tussle. The issue then went up to the European court of Human Rights. The court’s decision was in favor of the headscarf ban. Although we have an article in the constitution that states the freedom of education, the issue has gained strength. 5.	Otherization and Analysis of Grounds for the Ban First of all, the headscarf in the eyes of the urban elite has become a symbol of not being themselves. In other words, around the conflict of interest the headscarf in the eyes of the urban elite class in; economy, science, art, intellectual arena, universities, theaters, in short, almost every area of modern urban life that although there was previously no longer visible, and breaking the monopoly of the urban elites in places like these are the symbols of the other class. One of the matters to be considered here is that headscarf is symbolized by the urban elites who see the women with headscarves as others not the women who wear headscarves. In other words, the symbolic position of the headscarf in the conflict of politics was determined by the urban capitalists who are against the rise of Anatolian capital and the freedom of headscarf. An important part of the supporters of the headscarf ban, as justification to the ban argue that the possibility of being under pressure by women with headscarf in social life. The social pressure of the scenario and the vise-versa is seen in our daily life everywhere. Here is a comment from the former rector of Istanbul University Professor Dr. Mesut parlak in 2008 (as cited in Benli, 2011) “To a student wearing headscarf I cannot grade what she deserves” that clearly shows this possibility of pressure. Yet at the same university, persuasion rooms were established in order to systematically put pressure on the students wearing headscarves still remain fresh in memories. Discrimination and otherization of a person who does not fast, is the same as; deprivation of the right to education of the women with headscarf, exclusion from the public sphere, ruthlessly otherization in many places and to be declared as potential enemy of the regime within the context of oppression and discrimination. 5.1.	 Grounds For The Ban There exist many allegations for legitimizing the headscarf ban, some of the important ones are; secularism requires headscarf ban, headscarf could be not allowed of in public sphere, headscarf ban is required for the uniformity of state and headscarf could be not allowed of in public sphere. 5.1.1 The allegation that secularism requires headscarf ban Republic of Turkey being a secular country, uncovered women entering the public domain that is required by the allegations. In fact, the principle of secularism among women with and without head covered, or religious practice that is utilized or not utilized by individuals, requires equal treatment of individuals regardless of their religion. A secular states response is that to guarantee the use of the rights of people and standing at equal distance to the ones with or without beliefs and ones who practice or not practice religion. In a constitutional state anyone has the right and sovereignty to practice religion or not. The difference is the affluence of the public mass. It is inevitable in every society that there are differences in the community with texture. Yayla (2009) describes this scenario as; “Modernity is not the imposition of a lifestyle; it is a system that based on a combination of different life styles living together. Whichever title you insert in front of; any life-style is no self-superior the others and does not deserve to be kept by the public authority subject to positive discrimination. In a clear and comprehensive society there exist many way of lives. In fact, throughout the life of a human being can experience the life of more than one.” Equality, that brings respect for different possibilities. At this point, everyone is free to format their dress, but disregarding the enabling of covering head and neck, is a way of discrimination of who might seem different. The headscarf ban utilized in almost every stage of life and the 2. Article justification for the principle of secularism in the constitution of Republic of Turkey notes “Secularism that never meant to be irreligious means that; everyone is free to be in faith and from any sect and be able to worship as other citizens of their religious beliefs means that the evolving subject to a different treatment”. At this point, to covering and not covering head in a secular state, individuals must have the same results in the practical life not be exposed to discrimination. As a state of law based on human rights Turkey should act equal to women with or without headscarves. According to The Declaration United Nations on the on the Abolition of All Forms of Intolerance within the context of religion on December 25, 1981 notes that “State should not differentiate on the basis of a particular religion or belief, ruling out, restrictions, or not recognize the privilege.” 5.1.2 The Allegation that Headscarf Could Be Not Allowed of in Public Sphere One of the reasons for the prohibitions of the headscarf in Turkey is the claim that religious symbols cannot be used in public space. Public sphere in Turkey, strived to be determined as religious symbols should not take place and as a secular sphere that excludes headscarf from. As justification of discriminatory treatment against women with headscarves, the claim that “headscarf is not allowed in public sphere” has put forward. 4th Criminal of Department in Supreme Court taken off a defendant on the grounds of covering head and declared that institutions of higher education is a public space such as the courts, therefore woman with headscarf cannot use the right to defend herself in court (Keskin, 2003). Public space, neither the application justify discriminating against the headscarf, nor is a concept that will end debate on the issue. Habermas notes (as cited in Benli, 2008) the word “public” exists in the terminology of social sciences not in the law and who brought in the concept in social science concept defines public sphere as a space in general that everyone who is affected by the consequences of public space enter the practical discussion and agree on. In the model of Habermas public sphere is where freedom shows itself. In Turkey, public sphere is represented as a place that is prohibited for women covering the head. There is no limit to the utilization of public sphere which could also include streets, shopping malls and etc.

5.1.3 The allegation that Headscarf Ban is required for the Uniformity of State In no democratic and state of law, states or individuals have the right to put the rule of within the context of covered or non-covered. If any rule should be put on that restricts Fundamental Right and Freedoms should be in accordance with the conditions stipulated in Constitution. However, public order, public morality, public health, national security reasons, none of these require the intervention of the women's clothes. Moreover, the Constitution and international conventions to which Turkey is party requires that the restrictions are due to touch the essence of right and must not conflict with the requirements of a democratic social order. As for the application against women wearing headscarves, makes the right to be not used beyond the essence of touch. In addition, women who believe that covered women should obey the rules of state need to imagine the exact opposite and need to empathize. Justice is an indispensable maxim that everyone will need a day. 5.1.4 Allegations of political Symbol and Headscarf / Turban Distinction It is argued that headscarf is different from “turban” and because turban has become a political symbol should be prohibited. A study revealed by the supreme body of religious affairs in 2011 in Turkey; Islam mandates wearing headscarf for the women. The women wearing headscarf in Turkey calls the used veil as headscarf. Those who demand the prohibition of headscarf and the mainstream media insist on using “turban” as the word choice. This distinction that “veiled” for peasants, uneducated and older women, “turban” for young, urban and educated is used. For instance, when mentioning about a wife of doorman “veiled and about a wife of bureaucrat “turban” is used. The research undertaken by A&G (2007) 6% of the veiled women call her veil as turban and 77.8% call the veil as headscarf. In the same research, %64.1cover head as a practice of religion, %18.9 as tradition, %12.4 as habit and %4.6 as request of elderly family members. As for the status of being a political symbol, an outfit to be a single political symbol broad section of society should evaluate it the same way and individuals must agree on a certain icon using the outfit. According to a study of A&G (2007) revealed that %69.3 of the attendees believe turban is not a political symbol and %18.7 believe turban is a political symbol. Since the majority of the veiled women cover heads just as a practice of religion. There are covered women in all of the political groups and this fact refutes the claim that the headscarf is the symbol of one and a dangerous form of politics. 6.0 Headscarf in Politics and Who Own the Problem The headscarf issue has been tremendously taken place in political life. Ones are for the ban and others against. Whoever advocated the lifting of the ban called retrogressive or fundamentalist and whoever advocated the ban called irreligious. Secularism is used as a material for ideologies. Repressive state tradition utilized to change the way people live. There should not be any form of government that oppresses its citizens on any fundamental rights. The system originated from Europe. The main reason for the French Revolution; nationalism, secularism and others to pop up was to get rid of an oppressive regime of Church and Lords and as a result gain the liberty. Turkey has not adopted the spirit of the revolutions in Europe and not even succeeded in inspiration. The repressive state understanding is doomed to end eventually. The Arabic Stream is the most actual precedent to this. There is no such thing as one type of clothing style is superior to another. The secular regime needed to be protected, because though the spirit of reforms in Europe was not understood, the system put into practice guided by ideology and the public mass were not persuaded. The public mass sulk the state on the circumstances and was divided into two. The issue has also been an important material for the general elections in Turkey. As soon as the oppressive Republican party period over, in the elections the public made its decision on Democrat party. Military was another institution that protected secularism like there was a real threat. Military coup is a form of retrogressive act that affects the state from all aspects. State intervention need to be restricted in this context. As for whose problem it is. When evaluating the issue of the headscarf, only making reference to a particular party is a matter of only a particular segment is the product of an evaluation is extremely faulty claim. General terms of defending the freedoms that everyone should be the owner of a certain attitude and when the headscarf issue come to agenda responses increase from many different sectors of society. Discussed extensively the issue of the headscarf, for example, many politicians and headworkers since 2007, made various comments regarding the headscarf should be free. Here are some of the statements; Abdullatif Şener (to the headscarf ban states “I think the university youth has the ability to make their own decisions. If we apply solid rules and propose tight clothing formats, we would be in defect to respect the identity and personality of the youth”. Hüseyin Ergün (Düzel, 2009) one of the ones in left ideology who is opposed to the headscarf ban states “I am absolutely opposed to the university headscarf ban… Connecting the people’s clothes to law and constitution is nothing but fundamentalism. In fact I do not think that it is important the headscarf ban in secondary education. State employees, except uniformed officers may cover their heads if they wish”. Another important representative of the left ideology Ufuk Uras states “For us everyone is entitled to the same training; women with headscarf, ones who wear Che Guevara t-shirt, and men with earrings. Individual liberties cannot be prohibited, unless that is precluded others freedom, besides not head but brain covered men could enter anywhere, and there are hand-line predators even in the corridors of the university”. It is possible to argue that the majority of the community support for headscarf freedom. Supporting of the removal of the headscarf ban is not just a vision of only one party. 7.0 Conclusion The secular and democratic regime of Turkey is not complete as other regimes in the world. The power of countries within the context of structure and regime is directly proportional to the harmony between the ruler and the ruled in that country. To ensure this compliance, we need to revise our interpretation on secularism. As a result, the ban on headscarves in many areas is a violation of democracy and freedom and the intervention of a concrete image. Headscarf may only be the symbol of a lifestyle intervention and the ban has served nothing but the polarization of the public mass. The freedom of individuals cannot be restricted for any reason. No one can wait from a person whose individual and human rights violated to do nothing and wait. The only way to get this issue off the agenda is that the prohibitionists have to stop the position of being forbidder. To live in a manner consistent with our level of tolerance and respect need to enhance. As a nation, we need to get over the freedom issues to be able to continue to grow and shine in a region where every part is problematical.

References

1.	Kentel, F. (2008). Teorinin Rajonunu Bozan “Başörtüsü” Bir Direnişin Anatomisi: Örtülemeyen Sorun Başörtüsü. (pp. 62-70). Turkey:Akder Publications.

2.	Kadıoğlu, A. (1999). Cumhuriyet Kadını: Vatandaş mı Birey mi? Cumhuriyet İradesi, Demokrasi Muhakemesi içinde. (pp. 119-125). İstanbul, Turkey: Metis Publications.

3.	Aliefendioğlu,. (2001). Laiklik ve Laik Devlet” adlı makale: Laiklik ve Demokrasi. İstanbul, Turkey: İmge Kitabevi.

4.	Wing, K.A., & Varol, O.O. (2007). Is Secularism Possible in a Majority-Muslim Country?: The Turkish Example. Texas International Law Journal, 42(1), 8-33.

5.	Arat, Y. (1997). Rethinking Modernity and National Identity in Turkey:The project of Modernity and Women in Turkey. University of Washington Press, 95-112.

6.	Tok, C.G. (2009). The securitization of the headscarf issue in Turkey:‘the good and bad daughters’ of the republic. The International Studies Association of Ritsumeikan University, 8. 113-137.

7.	Aksoy, H.H. (2008). Eğitimde Reform: 1980 Sonrası Üniverste Reformu. Ankara Üniverstesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.

8.	Benli, F. (2011). 1964-2011 Türkiye’de ve Dünyada Başörtüsü Yasağı Kronolojisi. Mazlumder.

9.	Yayla, A. (2009, May 29). Türkan Saylan ve 27 Mayıs. Zaman Gazetesi, pp. 1,2.

10.	United Nations. (25 November 1981). Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Article 2 (2).

11.	Keskin, A. (2003, November 7). Türbanlı Sanığa Duruşma Yasağı. Radical Gazetesi.

12.	Benli, F. (2008, February 20). Hukuki, Siyasi ve Pratik Boyutlarıyla Türkiye’de Başörtülü Kadınlara Yönelik Ayrımcılık Sorunu. Retrieved from http://www.ak-der.org/hukuki-boyutlariyla-turkiyede-basortulu-kadinlara-yonelik-ayrimcilik--bolum1-.gbt

13.	Premiership Turkey. The Directorate of Religious Affairs. (2011). Din İşleri Yüksek Kurulu Kararı.

14.	A&G Araştırma Şirketi. (2007, 21-23 September). Türban Siyasi Bir İşaretmi. Örtüsünü Nasıl Tanımlıyor. Retrieved from http://www.agarastirma.com.tr/arastirmalarimiz.php

15.	(2007, September 27). Başörtüsü Mnemli Bir Sorundur, Çözülmeli. Zaman Gazetesi. Retrieved from http://www.zaman.com.tr/haber.do?haberno=593720

16.	Düzel, N. (2009, June 16). Hüseyin Ergün: ‘Darbelerde solun rolü fecidir’. Taraf Gazetesi. Taraf Gazetesi. Retrieved from http://www.taraf.com.tr/nese-duzel/makale-huseyin-ergun-darbelerde-solun-rolu-fecidir.htm

17.	Uras, U. (2008, February 6). Che Guevara tişörtü giyende, türban bağlayanda üniversiteye girmeli. Milliyet Gazetesi. Retrieved from http://www.milliyet.com.tr/2008/02/06/son/sonsiy25.asp

OIC-VET

Vocational Education and Training Programme for the Member States of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC-VET) is a programme formerly intended and established by the Statistical Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries (SESRIC) so as to develop the excellence of vocational education and training in the public and private sectors with the purpose of auxiliary and augmenting the prospects for entities in the Member States to enhance their acquaintance and abilities and therefore to underwrite to the improvement and effectiveness of the frugalities and to simplify the distribution of information amongst OIC Member States.

Mensur Boydaş Resaercher ==Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries (SESRIC)==

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JMHamo (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)