This article will address the topic of Talk:Misak-ı Millî, which has gained great relevance in recent years. Throughout history, Talk:Misak-ı Millî has been the object of study and interest by experts in various disciplines, and has been a source of debate and reflection for society in general. In order to further understand the importance of Talk:Misak-ı Millî in the current context, different perspectives and approaches will be analyzed that will allow us to obtain a comprehensive vision of this topic. Likewise, the implications that the study of Talk:Misak-ı Millî has in different areas, such as culture, politics, science, among others, will be explored. Through an exhaustive analysis, the aim is to provide the reader with a broad and updated vision of Talk:Misak-ı Millî, providing new reflections and knowledge that contribute to enriching the understanding of this phenomenon.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Misak-ı Millî article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Turkey may be able to help! |
I think there are some problems with the map. I am not sure whether Cyprus or Sofia is included in boundaries of Misak-ı Milli.--Ugur Olgun 10:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I created the map above. Please discuss for further improvements. This map is an amateur work which i did in 2 minutes. If there is some missing or some extra territories, please write. After a proper discussion, I can prepare a nice version of this map. See you, Deliogul 17:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to write the additions I made to the standard Turkey map (Image:LocationTurkey2.png). Mosul, Kirkuk, Batum and Western Thrace. By the way, I'm still waiting your comments. Deliogul 16:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the good work. However I am not so sure about Hatay's situation. Do you think we should include it? I read http://tr.wikisource.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Misak-%C4%B1_Milli but could not come to a conclusion about the issue.Ugur Olgun 18:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the book "Ataturk'un Soylev ve Demecleri I-III" (Speeches and statements of Ataturk I-III) published by Ataturk Arastirma Merkezi Baskanligi (Ataturk Research Center) in Ankara, Ataturk clearly puts it in 1920, May 1 (about seven weeks later national pact decision was made) as follows: "One of principles and probably the first that we always agree to while border problem being determined and established is that our national borders pass from the south of Iskenderun and stretching to the east, include Musul, Kerkuk and Suleymaniye. In the light of this explaination of an Ottoman Army Officer and the most authoritative mouth of Independence War, southern border "streches" from south of Iskenderun to the east, which means an arrangement on the Syrian border presented in this map.
12:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)12:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)HakanPasali 12:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is Hatay province in the map on the left included? That looks strange to me? Any sources? It was incorporated in 1939 into Turkey. Looks like a mistake! Apocolocynthosis (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Which organization made this map ? why doesnt it include places where Turks live like Deliorman/Dobruca (Bulgaria) ? Also Ahiska region which is now in Georgia had a huge Turkish population before they were forced to move to central asia. Not to mention Acara. These regions would be obvious in any greater Turkey aspirations!
Does anybody know if Cyprus was including in the 'Misaki Milli'? Can you also provide the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliaxip (talk • contribs) 00:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The map is held as legitimate by more parties then Turkish Nationalists and the source about the significance is irrelevant to the articles discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdaletAdam (talk • contribs) 13:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
"The Republic of Turkey's borders according to the original National Pact. Turkish nationalists still claim these borders are the legitimate borders of Turkey"
This text or article under the picture claims itself 'something what's not there', pointing out that 'nationalists' wants to claim something, let this come over like someone wants to brute attacks because it wants something. Actually in a gentle hatefully way exposing your own toughts instead of of keeping your word in the first text.
"The Republic of Turkey's borders according to the original National Pact.
You can't claim it when the pact is there, it is already your.
So tell us what's the opposite of claiming, that's what the other side is doing to the regions 'on our pact'.
Turk. 89.205.137.161 (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)