Talk:Turkish Land Forces

Turkish official figures versus IISS

Dear @Shadow4Dark can you explain further your recent revert on the personnel numbers? They appear to be official Turkish figures. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Because it is not verified as Turkish officially also claimed that they have 80 bill dollars for military budget wich is also not verified by independent sources. IISS is most accepted sources for military numbers and i see no reason why we would change this by unverfired claims. Shadow4dark (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I have just done some checking in the 2017, 2014, 2013, 2011, 2006, 2001/02 editions of the Military Balance. The figure for reserves, 258,700, is unchanged since 2001/02. The figure is over twenty years old. If the land forces total which the IISS currently lists is 260,200 + 258,700 = 518,900, and the total which is officially given is 401,500, there could be easily 260,000 ish on active duty; over 20 years however, the reserve figure might have fallen from 258,000 to nearer to 140,000. I suggest given the age of the IISS estimate that we remove it immediately. I also suggest that we start giving the date first listed for IISS estimates.

For comparison the The World Factbook from CIA currently says the army's active-duty strength is 350,000, which would give an even lower number of reservists . Buckshot06 (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

You have point here, if it is outdated we can add both of them similar as this page Iraqi Ground Forces. The Armed forces page need also the updated numbers. Shadow4dark (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean removing the IISS figure, and inserting both the official Turkish figure of 401,500 (probably including both active and reservist) and the active-only-figure, 350,000, of the CIA. Am I correct? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, correct. Shadow4dark (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2024

Please remove the errant ref tag from the end of this citation:

IISS (2023). "Chapter Four: Europe". The Military Balance. 123 (1). International Institute for Strategic Studies. doi:10.1080/04597222.2023.2162716. ISSN 0459-7222.</ref>

Thanks.

PS. I would make all the bulleted references a new "Further reading" section, but that's up to the editor. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done I've also separated the bulleted references into a separate "Works cited" section, since some of the inline references seem to refer to these works. Liu1126 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

addition

could somebody please add the template to the end of the infobox?

83.9.114.133 (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2025

~2025-37927-82 (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)turkish land forces was found 209B.C

 Not done. We do not count ancient civilization armies here. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 02:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

[]

Founding date is wrong

Official date is MÖ 209. Meaning 209 BC It's right there in the emblem I don't know how did you people manage to fuck this up it's such a basic fact. https://www.kkk.tsk.tr/en/kkksablonmaster/header/institutional/landforcescommand/emblemofthelandforces.aspx

It's not really worth addressing but I will address your 1920 claim. Only thing thing that happened in 1920 is Turkish Army decoupled itself from the sultanate. Same men, same training, same equipment, same mentality as the Turkish army in 1919. Yes there was a Turkish army in 1919, only a retard would believe otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintus tullius cicero 46 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Quintus tullius cicero 46 Would you kindly indicate why you are destabilizing the page? The various changing dates for the formation of the Turkish Army are well canvassed in a referenced paragraph almost immediately after the introduction. The most factually based date for the adoption of the Ottoman Army by the GNA, after the creation of the Republic of Turkey, is already in the infobox. We are interested in factually based evidence (WP:THIRDPARTY) not uncritical replication of official claims. Why are you continuing to push the 209 BC date? FYI Shadow4dark. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This page is primarily about the current Turkish army and not about their alleged legendary claims. If this is true we need add these predecessors of ottoman empire and many others. Shadow4dark (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I'M destabilizing the page? Bunch of Greek nationalists and anti-Turkists denying Turkish history and calling it consensus. Are you telling me there was no Turkish army before 1920? What about Alp Arslan? He wasn't Turkish? 2. Mehmet's army that conquered Constantinople wasn't the Turkish army? Punks. Stop vandalizing this page for your dim-witted ideological reasons. 209BC is the official founding date and should be on the page. I'm fixing it. Quintus tullius cicero 46 (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you are disrupting a page about the Turkish Land Forces. 209 BC might be appropriate for Land Forces of the Xiongnu, the Ottoman Empire, and their descendants, but it is not appropriate for a page that refers to modern Turkey, established after the end of the First World War. 209 is about the Xiongnu, and is enormously distant from modern Turkey. 209 BC is more historical speculation than fact. As you know better than me, Alp Arslan was a sultan of the Seljuk Empire, which disappeared hundreds of years ago.

As you can see, 209 BC is already well discussed on this page - it's just not in the infobox.

Continued reverts here will eventually only achieve a WP:BLOCK. Should you wish to continue trying to get this changed, I would suggest a Wikipedia:Requests for comment or a neutrally worded post on the WT:MILHIST talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This is revisionist history at it's finest. Turkish army wasn't established in 1920, it's the same institution as the Nizam'ı cedid of the 1790ies it's the same education, training, personnel, same military traditions. It's ludicrous to suggest that the Turkish army of 1920 isn't the same institution as the Turkish army of 1918-19. It's completely arbitrary bullshit that you made up that nobody in the world respects.Everybody knows it's a much MUCH older than 1920.

Only reason you're insisting on this is your racism towards Turks. Nothing more nothing less. Next you're going to claim that Ottoman Empire wasn't Turkish because your whole point in this is denying Turkish history. Quintus tullius cicero 46 (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This article is not about the Ottoman Army; it's about the Turkish Land Forces. The Ottoman Empire is not and does not equal the Republic of Turkey. Neither of us are denying the historical links, but Turkey is a different sovereign state to the Ottoman Empire. "Everybody knows" is not supported by WP:RELIABLE, WP:THIRDPARTY, sources. This article is about a government agency of the Republic of Turkey, and thus refers to something that started *after* the Republic of Turkey was created.

I've just checked. Even our article on the Ottoman Army does not mention 209 BC, so if the Ottoman Army doesn't trace it's history to 209 BC, how can the KKK?

Cease and desist, please, also, the WP:PERSONALATTACKs, or we will have to report you on behaviour grounds, not just policy. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The world doesn't revolve around your racist ideological assumptions. There's no such thing as an "Army of Türkiye" There's only Turkish Army. It's not separate from Ottoman army it's the same fucking entity. Same military schools, same education, same key personnel, same DNA, same identity. it's not a "government agency" It's the army that built the fucking government. If you can't get this through your head I don't know what else to tell you. You can report me to whoever you want and I'll report you too. You keep deleting the OFFICIAL FOUNDING DATE of the Turkish army which I cited from Turkish army website itself. You're stopping me from improving an article because of your racism and nothing more.

IT's the same racism that called the Eastern Roman Empire "Byzantine Empire". It's ROMA you can cry about it. Quintus tullius cicero 46 (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I think I would just be repeating my points - I've made them already. Again, cease and desist the WP:PERSONALATTACKs, or you will find yourself facing WP:Administrator action. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

You have no arguments. Simple as that. Go ahead, go tell your daddy. Facts are on my side. I've cited my sources. You have no leg to stand on other than your racism. Quintus tullius cicero 46 (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Er, I've made my arguments clearly, and the citations are all in the 4th paragraph of the article. As you should have seen, you've been reported by both me and another editor at WP:ANI. I would encourage you to cease this insulting language immediately, and to engage with the discussion there. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

No you have no sources. There's nobody outside wikipedia not even in the most crackpot greek nationalist forums that would suggest "there's no Turkish army before 1920" You don't have a leg to stand on. Quintus tullius cicero 46 (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2026

You may want to change the emblem on the right side panel to a higher quality one, e.g.

This one is taken direct from https://www.kkk.tsk.tr/ which is the official website of Turkish Land Forces. AltugEymen (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2026 (UTC)