Jump to content

Talk:Turkey: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Proposal for the word Secularism in the lead: rm unsupportable, obscenely racist drivel
Line 442: Line 442:
I also strongly suggest to move the secular, unitary, and parliamentary stuff out as the second sentence of the article, and move it to a more appropriate section in the lead, namely the parts of the lead that talk about secularism and government. The first couple of sentences of such an article should not bother talking about referendums and Islamist curtailing of secularism. And just a reminder: I am not going against any RFC conclusion by doing this. ''Secularism'' and ''parliamentary republic'' would still be in the lead, but this modification will give a more accurate description of the developments in Turkey. [[User:EtienneDolet|Étienne Dolet]] ([[User talk:EtienneDolet|talk]]) 05:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I also strongly suggest to move the secular, unitary, and parliamentary stuff out as the second sentence of the article, and move it to a more appropriate section in the lead, namely the parts of the lead that talk about secularism and government. The first couple of sentences of such an article should not bother talking about referendums and Islamist curtailing of secularism. And just a reminder: I am not going against any RFC conclusion by doing this. ''Secularism'' and ''parliamentary republic'' would still be in the lead, but this modification will give a more accurate description of the developments in Turkey. [[User:EtienneDolet|Étienne Dolet]] ([[User talk:EtienneDolet|talk]]) 05:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


Dont you dare try to mention islam. i dont want people thinking that Turkey and the Turkish people are some arab wanna be islamic society. get lost with this provocative rubbish. Turkey hasnt changed either. islamists are just free to be the horrid people they are and shout out more these days. back ten years ago youd be heavily punished for any kind of islamist crap these akp supporters do these days. polygamy is not really combated anymore, but it was always existent among the 0.1% that is turkish islamists. someone just needs to go in and set things straight. until then i dont want any mention of this "islamic society" nonsense. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JimPody|JimPody]] ([[User talk:JimPody#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JimPody|contribs]]) 15:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:JimPody|JimPody]] ([[User talk:JimPody#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/JimPody|contribs]]) 15:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Please, be [[WP:CIVIL]] towards other Wikipedia users. And do not threaten or [[WP:BULLY]] them. It appears that you [[WP:JDLI]]. However, we don't add or remove information from articles based on your [[WP:POV]] or to your liking, we merely report what reliable sources say. Which is what were tasked to do here. [[User:EtienneDolet|Étienne Dolet]] ([[User talk:EtienneDolet|talk]]) 20:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
:Please, be [[WP:CIVIL]] towards other Wikipedia users. And do not threaten or [[WP:BULLY]] them. It appears that you [[WP:JDLI]]. However, we don't add or remove information from articles based on your [[WP:POV]] or to your liking, we merely report what reliable sources say. Which is what were tasked to do here. [[User:EtienneDolet|Étienne Dolet]] ([[User talk:EtienneDolet|talk]]) 20:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:34, 19 January 2018

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleTurkey is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleTurkey has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 4, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 9, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
December 20, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
August 11, 2014Good article nomineeListed
September 15, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2015Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 27, 2017Peer reviewNot reviewed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zali96 (article contribs).

RfC--lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This has been a tough close to assess. Most of the comments are from only two opposing users, meaning there has been less discussion than would ideally be desired. However this RfC has been open for months now, with no sign of any other interested commenters. In the circumstances, closing is the best option. Due to the lack of !voters I have taken into account arguments from the previous RfC that led to this one. I have also taken into account the instructions in User:Godric on Leave's close on restoring the previous status quo if necessary.

Should Turkey be described as a Democratic and Parliamentary republic?

Democratic: No, Parliamentary Republic: Yes User:Seraphim System highlights Britannica's use of the words "Parliamentary Democracy" to describe Turkey. Tertiary sources like Britannica are useful for assessing where the consensus of the reliable sources lie. However, this does not mean we are strictly bound to follow what a tertiary source like Britannica states if the reliable secondary sources indicate otherwise. User:Icewhiz has highlighted numerous sources questioning Turkey's status as a democracy. He draws an important distinction between describing what Turkey "is" and what Turkey "is not." Failing to use the word "democracy" to describe Turkey in the lede, is not the same as the article denying that Turkey is a democracy. It is merely taking the position that there is sufficient uncertainty in the RS's to justify not stating it as an outright fact. This issue of uncertainty was also emphasised by other commenters in the previous RfC. As such I believe there is a consensus for not describing Turkey as a de facto democracy in the lede.
There was no opposition to the use of "Parliamentary Republic" to describe Turkey in this RfC. In the previous RfC there was some opposition, but no sources were provided and the arguments were based instead off of WP:OR. As such there is no consensus to deviate from the original status quo of describing Turkey as a parliamentary republic.

Should Turkey be described as Secular?

Yes Icewhiz has put forward an argument for why Turkey should not be described as secular in the lede. However, as Seraphim System points out, the argument is one based on WP:OR as opposed to the putting forward of reliable sources. There are sourced descriptions in the body of the article describing Turkey as secular in Wikipedia's voice. In the previous RfC, much of the discussion on secularism was again just people giving their own opinions and arguments, rather than providing sources. As such there is no consensus to deviate from the original status quo position of describing Turkey as secular.

Should Turkey be described as Unitary?

Yes Nobody objects to this one so finding consensus there is pretty straightforward. Turkey is very obviously not a federation.

Should Turkey be described as having a Diverse Cultural Heritage?

No No sources have been provided in this RfC or the previous RfC indicating otherwise. In the previous RfC people raised the issue of "diverse cultural heritage" being more puffery than an informative statement. In this RfC Icewhiz provided reliable sources showing why such a descriptor in the lede may be innapropriate. Seraphim System has stated that Icewhiz' argument here is WP:OR, but I can't really see why. Either way the issue is irrelevant, because the burden is on those who are trying to include the statement to show that is reliably sourced, not the oppposite. Brustopher (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Per the discussion and close in Talk:Turkey#RFC regarding a sentence in the lead and a subsequent mini-discussion in Talk:Turkey#Parliamentary Democracy, this RFC broadly reflects on:

Should we state in Wikipedia's voice that:--Turkey is a democratic, secular, unitary, parliamentary republic with a diverse cultural heritage or something alike in the lead?

There are 4 sections, corresponding to each of the 4 describers, with individual poser(s).

Thank you! Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic and Parliamentary republic

  • Specific Poser--
    • With reference to the Turkey#Politics section, can Turkey be stated just as democratic and parliamentary republic or parliamentary democracy" in the lead in WP's voice?
    • If not, do we omit any information rel. to the concept from the lead or shall we specifically mention and differentiate between the de-juro and it's current de-facto condition (w.r.t to concerns about democracy in the state, shift to presidential system after the referendum et al.)?
    • If, it is the second choice, how do we frame the sentence?
    • Can parliamentary democracy" and/or constitutional republic be used in the government type field at the infobox in the lead?Also see another parameter proposal for the same field at the Unitary sub-section
    Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Survey (Discussants, please just !vote, with desired phrasings(if any) under this header.For discussions, approach the discussion sub-header(s).
    • Omit Democracy (in any form in lead or body, sole exception being de-jure or self-declared status not in wiki's voice). While de-jure a democracy, the de-facto status is presently not supported by current RS. While it is relatively easy to pin down what Turkey IS NOT, it is complex (with possibly differing opinions) to state what it IS. If De-jure status is stated, we should also state the accepted current de-facto state of democracy in Trukey. Turkey is a hybrid regime per Democracy Index 2016 (Wikipedia cliff note version, actual report EIU democracy index (where it dropped substantially in its score in the past 5 years - some 0.7 points)). Freedom house agrees as well [1]. Trajectory per recent coverage in RS shows this is unlikely to improve (and quite possibly will decline) in the next yearly reports - [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7][8].12:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


  • Discussion

Secular

  • Survey (Discussants, please just !vote under this header.For discussions, approach the discussion sub-header(s).)
    • Discussion

    Unitary

    • Specific Poser--
      • Can Turkey be stated as unitary in the lead in WP's voice?
      • Can unitary" be used in the government type parameter at the infobox in the lead?Also see another parameter proposal for the same field at the Democratic and Parliamentary republic sub-section
      • It may be noted that in the prev. RFC that out of all the words, this garnered maximum support for it's inclusion.
      Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Survey (Discussants, please just !vote under this header.For discussions, approach the discussion sub-header(s).)
    • Discussion

    Diverse cultural heritage

  • Survey (Discussants, please just !vote with desired phrasings(if any) under this header.For discussions, approach the discussion sub-header(s).)
    • Omit. There are two problems with the statement - for starters the "heritage" qualifier is puffery (which may be applied to many cultures) and is not quantifiable - the original sentence in the lead further compounded this by pipelinking "Diverse cultural heritage" to Multiculturalism. If we leave the history of culture on the side (since most non-isolated cultures claim various historical influences), in the quantifiable sense - Turkey is not presently (self-perception aside) multicultural or diverse culturally. This may be seen in this source - Fearon, James D. "Ethnic and cultural diversity by country." Journal of economic growth 8.2 (2003): 195-222. or in the wiki-version (that also contains Alesina's ranking) - List of countries ranked by ethnic and cultural diversity level - where Turkey ranks low in diversity. - and this fully includes the Kurds (who are suppressed/in-conflict with the gvmt to various degrees - and per the metric in the cited paper contribute most of the existing diversity). The text in the body may need to be updated to reflect the discussion here regarding the lead.Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Struck aside comment, which is mostly irrelevant to the !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 07:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discussion

    General Discussion

    Comment I'm not partcipating, but as my input was invited I will leave a comment here, hopefully this will be useful to those who are participating:

    1. Democracy - Britannica is current. If an update were appropriate, I think Britannica would have updated. This is the online edition, and I don't think we should be "ahead" of them on an issue like this. I have read the new Constitution. The discussion right now is whether Turkey is a parliamentary democracy. Maybe it isn't, but the current sources still support it. It could be a Presidential democracy, but that is an update that had not been made in any legitimate WP:RS yet. BTW, our article on Iraq still calls it a "Federal parliamentary republic" and our article on Syria still calls it a "Presidential republic", anti-Erdogan WP:ADVOCACY is really not an excuse to make a change like this and then misrepresent the sources as "not current" - I suppose no source is "Current" unless is supports the editorial changes being pushed here, including Britannica. "Hybrid government" is not actually a thing, we don't write our articles based on one primary source study, and there is a clear and bolded request to avoid WP:OR in the proposal.
    2. Secularism again following the WP:RS Turkey's government is considered secular. General comments about inconsistent features like religious education, or state funding of religious institutions Directorate of Religious Affairs is all WP:OR. Once again, editors pushing these changes are not following WP:RS and are making things up. Despite the clear and unambiguous request to avoid WP:OR, I see the same WP:OR from the previous RfC being repeated here. The editor who first made this arguments has been indeff'd as a sockpuppet, but his argument is still being repeated here, and it is still unsourced WP:OR. (Problems like this are why I have stopped editing. That is all I have time for.) Seraphim System (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    ADD also this comment from Icewhiz The text in the body may need to be updated to reflect the discussion here regarding the lead - This is not how we write articles. After all he has said here and on other articles, he should be topic banned for repeated WP:OR like pushing Fearon to support his thesis on multiculturalism ("per the metric in the cited paper"). Obviously the article does not need to be "updated" to reflect one editors WP:OR. If the article needs to be updated, Icewhiz should wait until scholarship is published that supports the theories he has been trying to push here. Seraphim System (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please cease WP:NPA. Regarding "The text in the body may need to be updated to reflect the discussion here regarding the lead" - this was said in regards to the RfC, and was qualified with a may. Regarding "per the metric in the cited paper" - This was an aside, in parenthesis, noting that Fearon's low multicultural score includes the suppressed ethnic groups, and is if at all generous. My comment on Turkey's multicultural status is based directly on the ranking by Fearon, without any OR.Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in fact WP:OR. It is a primary source "metric" that you are using to support your own analysis, there is no secondary analysis in the paper. The fact that do not understand that it is WP:OR and that this is now an ongoing issue on multiple critical articles and seems to be connected to a identifiable POV is why you should be topic banned. There is nothing ad hominem about it. Seraphim System (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are cherry picking and misquoting me, however I struck this aside comment as over-verbose and not relevant to the actual !vote. Fearon is a widely cited source ([11]).Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I misquote you? Fearon may be widely cited, but the way you are using it is still WP:OR - a secondary source is based on analysis of primary sources, Fearon is a primary source for his own study. Once again, all I am seeing from your comment is that you still do not understand this. This is not the first time I have taken the time to explain this, and I think that I have been patient. It has not helped. Even assuming good faith, it is starting to be a problem. These articles are not supposed to be ahead of the current scholarship. I think that is enough back and forth, it makes it hard for other editors to follow the discussion.Seraphim System (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RfC Genocides

    Consensus is to (continue to) use option 1 because it is concise, as lead content has to be. Sandstein 13:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Which of these for the LEDE?

    Option 1: During the war, the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek citizens.

    Option 2: It is widely accepted by scholars, the international community and legal experts that the Ottoman Turkish government committed genocide against the Armenians during the war. The government of Turkey denies there was an act of ethnic cleansing. Significant scholarship has been published discussing genocide against the Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek populations of Ottoman Turkey.

    Option 3: It is widely accepted by scholars, the international community and legal experts that the Ottoman Turkish government committed genocide against the Armenians during the war. The government of Turkey denies there was an act of ethnic cleansing.

    • See extended discussion for debate about including disputed genocides in the LEDE.

    Seraphim System (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Option 1, in concise and encyclopedic, per WP:SS, WP:LEDE. Option 2 is long, verbose and WP:UNDUE for the lead. Khirurg (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 - concise as a lede should be, without confounding the reader with false balance.Icewhiz (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 - Whether or not actions against the Greeks constitute genocide is disputed by a significant scholars and experts on the Armenian genocide. I am being told the "consensus on Wikipedia" is that it was genocide - but there should not be a consensus about whether or not it was genocide on Wikipedia. If there is significant dispute in scholarship, we can't just ignore it because Khirurg and Icewhiz want us to. Also the statement that the Ottomans committed the genocide should be balanced against the Turkish government's denial. This is usual practice when government's deny certain actions, and I don't see any need to diverge from it here. Also, I am not sure if everyone who was effected was a "citizen". Seraphim System (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 - this should be succint and straight to the point. Let’s be careful when bloating the lead. If users want to learn about the role the Turkish government has played during and after the Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian genocides, they can easily access the articles of these events. That should be suffice. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 - per Icewhiz. --T*U (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • None - the nature of the campaign against the Greeks indeed a matter of dispute as any reading of the archives of that talk page can tell, but these are issues that should be addressed there. The only problem is that Option 1 implies systematic and direct government involvement in all three campaigns, which is not necessarily true for the Assyrian genocide. This had a different nature - there were no systematic orders of deportation and the chief researchers of the genocide are of the view that this rather boiled down to local initiatives. See the section on this there. Option 1 is as such an oversimplification and inaccurate. Options 2 and 3 definitely contravene WP:LEAD. We need another alternative. --GGT (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenty of scholarship lumps all three genocides together as part of the same policy of extermination. The lede of the article is not for hair splitting. Khirurg (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenty of (on average) more detailed scholarship has a more nuanced approach than that. Pointing out inaccurate statements about an entire genocide is not hair splitting. --GGT (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing "inaccurate" about Option 1. See WP:JDL. Khirurg (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'm familiar with that. It's not a statement of dislike, it's a statement of reasoned concern based on academia by a user who wrote a good part of the article on the Assyrian genocide. We simply just can't write articles based on only the scholarship that lumps the three genocides together, and we can't use them selectively for an over-simplification. The dismissive comment above is actually pretty uncivil. --GGT (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an oversimplification, it's an encyclopedically succinct summary, per WP:LEDE. Details can discussed in the respective articles. Khirurg (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @GGT: How about you suggest one? I can see the merits of separating the Armenian genocide from the others. But we do need to keep it short and to the point, and no throw doubt where it is not there (e.g. there is discussion over genocide classification but hardly any doubts the events occured).Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it definitely needs to be as you described. Which is why I was not immediately able to come up with something, but it will happen. Otherwise Option 1 is the one that is currently in the article anyway, I believe. --GGT (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 - per Icewhiz and Khirurg for me as well. We need to be careful as to not bloat the lede while mentioning these important governmental policies that left an everlasting impact to the country. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 06:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • None - none of the sentences reflects facts. The statement "widely accepted by scholars, the international community and legal experts" simply is not true, especially regarding the alleged Greek Genocide. If you look into that article, you'll see that it's recognized only by a handful of European countries, two of them being Greek themselves (Greece and Cyprus). They were recognized by those parliaments based on the lobbyism of political groups, not by decrees or reports of historians or whatsoever. It's a similar case with the Assyrian one. You should just check which countries in the UN recognize those alleged genocides, and then compare the numbers. And they should be handled seperately, since they are not connected. Akocsg (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 - Short and concise, the second option feels too in-depth about the legitimacy of the event for an article about Turkey. --Toreightyone (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support closing the RfC at this point and opening a discussion based on this RfC to revise the sentence so it is both concise and an accurate reflection of the sources and article content. It is possible we will have to discuss changing the content in the article before we can look at the lede, and we also need to discuss the use of the terms "citizens" (maybe some were not citizens? could they have been refugees who were denied citizenship?) - since the main articles are linked from the lead those should be improved as well, and then we can revisit this, most likely "Ottoman government" will need to be revised. Seraphim System (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I would drop genocide as fact and use massacre and ethnic cleansing instead. I would add at least elements within the Ottoman government or similar wordings instead of plain Ottoman government. Since there is no events (including what happened during WWII) which would still qualify exclusivally as genocide by its original definition (that's why terms like functionalism and similar constructs have emerged), true concensus will never be reachable with the three proposed options (if that was possible articles like the Holocaust would have reached GA statue by now). Genocide word could still be used, but to stat that it is often being called genocide (instead of stating it is one) or in foreign languages (Armenian, Greek, Syriac: where they injoy true concensus). Since the term is not universal, it's a construct and therefor can never describe an event beyond its defined parametters. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Seraphim System: The horrible and beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that the editing history is open to view. That means that when you accuse someone of lying here and then remove the comment here, the accusation is still open to see. But there was no lie, was there? In this and the following edits, you actually edit war to remove from the lede among other things the sentence "During the war, the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek citizens." Please refrain from personal attacks. Accusing people of lying is unacceptable. --T*U (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @T*U: Thank you T*U. Unfortunately this is not the only time this account has spread blatantly deceitful (dis)information about me. I have collected diffs about the disinformation from this account and I showed them to you on your talk. Perhaps, you also noticed the attacking edit-summary, calling good-faith editors "trolls" while removing his/her blatantly deceitful allegation. This kind of behaviour is utterly disruptive.

    As far as this article, you can check the deceptive edit-summaries, in the links I, and also you, provided above, talking about paleolithic/neolithic content at the lead or content not discussed at the body of the article, while removing all mention of Genocides from this article. The disruption continues unabated. Dr. K. 08:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you think this is the appropriate place for this discussion? How many edit wars have I been involved in? How many edit wars has Dr.K. been involved in? How many of his edits have been to article talk pages - 9.2%. How many of mine? 27.1% - ok, case closed. I removed the entire section because the entire section needs to be rewritten based on the sources that are in the article, and because Ottoman history is overemphasized for an article that is not about Ottoman history, not because it mentions genocides. This is some weird ego drama that I don't want to deal with. Since you've seen my talk page, I can only assume you have also seen that I am no longer editing, and that I removed this comment because I don't think you are credible and I do not want to talk to you, so I can only conclude that you are pinging me in a reply to a deleted comment because you enjoy drama. Seraphim System (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think this is the appropriate place for this discussion? Yes, since this is where you accused people of lying in your edit summary. I don't think you are credible Fine, I only wonder how and why you have decided that I am not credible. Credible how? I do not want to talk to you Then why do you? you are pinging me in a reply to a deleted comment because you enjoy drama Nope, I do not enjoy drama. But: The main point in my last edit stands: Please refrain from personal attacks. Accusing people of lying is unacceptable. And as for your comments towards me, whatever happened to WP:AGF? --T*U (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I assume good faith until I am proven wrong. I don't think that an editor who is regularly involved in edit warring but has 9.2% of edits to article talk pages is acting in good faith. It is not credible that you care so much about accusations of lying, yet say nothing about the numerous personal attacks the editor you are defending has made. Seraphim System (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The position he (SS) maintains has an existence of its own, doesn't matter if he was (or wasn't) deceitful. Might be he does not have any problem with the word genocide being mentioned, but only the way it is mentioned. There is a distinction between writing an event is a a) genocide or an event is b) often called a genocide. I proposed proposition b). Reason is that while massacre relate to general and universal human behaviors (does not have an author), the word genocide is a construction and therefor authored (Lemkin). The initial concept, in its original form isn't tenable (relies on the state apparatus) anymore making it open to interpretations (which are never fully generalizable). It relies entirely on a form of academical or group driven solipsism. We shouldn’t name on Wikipedia historic events by authored terms (in this case models). I made my point, so there is no point adding more.Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think in cases where there have been formal legal proceedings and convictions that the word genocide can be used objectively, as in Anfal, the Holocaust or Yugoslavia. I have a law background and I agree with the above comment - in cases where there has been no finding of guilt by a recognized legal body, it can only be described in terms where experts agree that it probably fulfills those conditions. We can't know what the Court would have decided. Genocide, beginning with Lemkin, is fundamentally a legal construction. It's purpose is prosecution, punishment and deterrence. I don't know why editors would assume I want to erase it or accuse me of genocide denial, but I don't think my participation in consensus discussion is realistic or possible under these circumstances unless clear guidelines are set for what kind of behavior is appropriate. I am also skeptical of an editor who is regularly involved in edit warring and has only 9.2% participation in talk page discussions, and I don't think it is fair to blame an editor with 27% participation on talk pages. Seraphim System (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is where we diverge, I don’t actually believe that legal proceedings have anything to do with it. If we were to debate about the differences between murder and killing (both rely on minimal constructs) this argument might somehow stand. But not in the case of genocide, see Functionalism_versus_intentionalism, and Raul Hilberg with his functionalism; even during WWII, there was no such intent (as originally defined by the concept of genocide). The limitation is within the model of genocide itself, just like Quantum mechanics (also an authored model) emerged from the inadequacies of Newton physics to wholly represent physical reality. Reason why articles like the Holocaust will never achieve FA, is that they are construed guided from the defining parameters of a model to describe a historical event. Terms like Armenian Genocide, Holocaust, Rwanda genocide etc. all suffer from the same limitations… because the defining parameters are arbitrary guided by models coined by someone (they’re not universal) somewhere, some jurists. The Armenian tragedy included massacres, revolts, some elements of premeditation, etc… In conclusion, academic solipsism can not define events effecting a population, because those concepts are simply not generalizable, they're arbitrarly sliced. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that is more extreme then my position, I'm pretty simple - if a Court has stated that it is genocide, then this has a significance. There are many death penalty cases in the United States where we follow the Court's determination of guilt in describing the incident, even where we note disputes that have been raised by scholars. The decision of a Court is not the same as scholarship. This is something different then discussing genocide as a vague "concept" - which I am inclined to agree has a limited significance compared to other words like "massacre" or "summary execution". I have never seen genocide described as a model, my understanding based on reading Schabas' treatises, Lemkin and the case law is that it is an intent crime that has been codified both on the national and international level, which currently has certain rules and case law that have developed the "concept" and that Lemkin is a lawyer and expert specialist source whose writing influenced our understanding of the concept as a crime that should be prosecuted, punished and deterred. Seraphim System (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is my last answer, because the problem won’t be fixed here, uses of constructs are generalized on Wikipedia. An example, the main article Humanism I have provided elsewhere. See, for most in the world (outside the elitist circle), humanism is simply our humanity which is not the mostly thinking construct (as often described in academic circles) but deals with feeling, thinking, intuition and sensing. Since Wikipedia is name-fed (academic source based) it suffers heavily of the cognitive bias of being solely thinking (see: Jungian_cognitive_functions), which often entirely dismiss the majority (serious selection bias as is the case in the humanism article, since what the majority of academics claim does not necessarly represent what most people claim (case of academical solipsism)). Those are real historical events, which includes arts, oral history, witnesses… they are not solely judiciary cases. By using some legal terms we add arbitrary parameters restraining the event to what is coined by some jurists. Events are events which may have genocidal components, genocides are not whole events, because the event can not be constrained to some legal word (it's the other way around). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I think using the "word" is the main issue here and I am not going to argue about that because the word is in use - but there is significant dispute from experts about the Pontic Genocide (and based on comments from other editors in this discussion, the Assyrian genocide as well) - I am unconvinced by arguments that "conciseness" is a justification to dismiss these disputes and make objective statements of fact. I would also clarify that the use of the term genocide is widely accepted for the actions against Armenians, and be specific as to who it is accepted by because that is the minimum level of detail required by the statement. Generally, I don't think that the tendency to politicize these issues or advocate for the "truth" improves articles. Additionally, it is abominable to accuse editors of attempting to erase the genocide or leaving deceitful edit summaries without even attempting a discussion. It is not enough to just say "please seek consensus on the talk page" - good faith is something that I assume until I am proven wrong, it is not blind faith. Seraphim System (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, it is abominable to accuse editors of attempting to erase the genocide or leaving deceitful edit summaries without even attempting a discussion. Please spare us the nonsense. This is not a qui pro quo. There is no logical connection between the two - How can you discuss blatant deceit? You left three deceitful edit-summaries to hide your blanking of the three Genocides. This is the trifecta of deception. Here they are:

    "(the history section does not summarize what is already in the article (paleolithic/neolithic) - the lede and the content should be consistent WP:LEDE)" - Hello? What do the three Genocides have to do with paleo/neo? And are you seriously suggesting that the three Genocides are not covered in the article body?

    Rv edit warring Undid revision 807949252 by Dr.K. (talk)) - Hello? I just reverted your blanking of the three Genocides, thank you very much.

    "not discussed in the article WP:LEDE" - Hello? The three Genocides, not discussed in the article? Misleading edi-summary much? Dr. K. 03:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Seraphim System Since you like numbers ("How many of his edits have been to article talk pages - 9.2%"), how about this: How many times have you been blocked for edit warring (in the last 6 months alone)? How many times has Dr.K. been blocked in his entire wikipedia career? Yeah, that's what I thought. Now I strongly suggest you cease and desist from any further wikidrama and casting aspersions, and find something productive to do, or this won't end well. Khirurg (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Where in the article do you think the Assyrian and Pontic genocide discussed? You don't understand the logical connection between assuming good faith and attempting a discussion? How long have you been editing? If you had attempted a discussion, or replied to my attempt to initiate a discussion, and articulated your concerns instead of being abusive towards an editor acting in good faith, I could have pointed out that our article refers to these events as "large scale massacres" and not "genocides". Seraphim System (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Where in the article do you think the Assyrian and Pontic genocide discussed? You don't understand the logical connection between assuming good faith and attempting a discussion? Um, have you forgotten the Armenian Genocide? Why did you blank it, since it is covered as such in the article body? Why did your edit-summaries conveniently ignore the Armenian Genocide? You don't understand the logical connection between assuming good faith and attempting a discussion? You either misunderstood my reply, or you are just obfuscating as usual. The connection I'm talking about is between your deceptive edit-summaries and the blanking of the three Genocides. No amount of evasion or obfuscation on your part will hide that.

    instead of being abusive towards an editor acting in good faith That's rich. You insult me on my talkpage, using obtuse arguments and misrepresentations, while not acknowledging that you erased any Genocide: Paleolithic is not in the body. It is Neolithic. You are restoring information to the lede that contradicts when is in the article, without discussion. Please, please stop editing articles in this topic area. You've demonstrated a repeated inability to edit civilly in this area and this is not productive. and then you want me to discuss anything with you? Dr. K. 03:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Seraphim System Now that you mention it, "large scale massacres" should actually be changed to "Genocide". Thanks for pointing that out. Khirurg (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Khirurg, large scale massacre is a stronger word than genocide. Since it always imply physical destruction of individuals, while something could be considered as genocide (under its own definition) without involving physical destruction (like transfering members of a group into another group). For this reason it is weasel wording... it gives actually no information on what did happen, while ethnic cleansing, massacre, expulsion... are more explicit and less open to interpretation (they're generalizable). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Chris troutman: you said that it's important to mention the fact that Turkey disagrees. and I disagree with you. This article is not about what political views the Turkish government has on these historical events that have unfolded on the country's soil. This article is about Turkey and the historical events that unfolded on its soil. Period. Wikipedia's role is not to advocate these political views on irrelevant articles. If we want to include the Turkish government's views, we may do so only in the articles dedicated to these events (i.e Armenian Genocide, Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, etc) that tackle about the opposing views on these events. Like I said, the article Turkey is about the country and the indisputable historic events that have unfolded on its soil. Nothing more, nothing less. The Turkish government's view of them has no place here. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 10:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care that you disagree. I made my point. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "point" makes no sense at all and is contradictory. One hand you support adding a sentence to the lead (regarding the denials of the Turkish government, and on the other hand you say that adding a sentence "seems much" for the lede. Khirurg (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    What about replacing option 3 with Option 4: It is widely accepted by scholars, the international community and legal experts that the massacre and deportation of Armenians and to a lesser extent other minorities constitute genocide while the Turkish government and several Western scholars (while a minority) reject that the event constitute a genocide.

    This proposition separate the event (invariable in time) from the word genocide...(which popularity might change) Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely not. Khirurg (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (which popularity might change): In the very remote case that it does, we can change it. But not before then. Dr. K. 00:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The advantage of my proposition is that it stands on correlates which can be generalized across multiple articles regardless of the subject they cover (that's called consistency). But seems that articles particularly of this subject area (involving nationalism) are contaminated by ethnic-centrism and it will be naive to expect any changes without any form of authority imposing concessions from all sides. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's (tragically) funny how compound terms ending in "-centrism" are used during POV-pushing to attack perceived opponents. Check a recent example and count how many "-centrisms" were used by that now-blocked account. Dr. K. 15:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You’re assuming more than what I have implied. There are elements of truth in what the blocked user is stating (like there are for his opponents), and this irregardless of his wiki-expulsion. If your reply was to be wholly relevant, you would have no problem raising the position I am pushing with almost zero ĉontroversial article edits. The peculiar thing about POV pushing is that editors feeding them request arbitrary rules which can’t be generalized (that’s called selection bias), while I request consistency. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And for your information, I had in the past started a draft [[12]] on how to reach concensus on the Armenian massacres on Wikipedia. But removed it by finding a better approach which will be known later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Extended Discussion

    No it is not a "technicality", genocide is a technical term and we are supposed to accurately reflect what the current state of scholarship is, this is what WP:DUE and balance are about. This is the kind of sloppy, lazy editing that should be discouraged because it is slowing down article development. I don't think I am going to continue editing if the community is unable to get this kind of disruptive behavior under control. I don't really want to invest time on articles where a small group of editors are allowed to turn the articles into badly written, poorly sourced polemics.

    The editors working in this topic area have made it clear that they are editing from a truly bizarre POV and are only interested in a very narrow range of issues which are repeated in article after article, whether they are relevant or not. In their phenomenal campaign defending the heritage of Christian Turkey, the regular editors seem to have forgotten to mention that Paul was born in Turkey, the seven churches of the Aegean - in fact they reverted these additions to lede. To what end, one wonders. I'm not especially willing to continue investing time into a project where the consensus is to de-emphasize the history of early Christianity, and to pretend care about Christians when it makes Turkish nationalists angry. The negativity on the whole is WP:UNDUE, for a country that has such a rich history - why should the war be emphasized when the entire early Christian period is missing from the LEDE? Whatever, I have other things to do. Seraphim System (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Our consensus on-wiki is that most sources say genocide in this case. Those who do not (with the exception of the Turkish government) say ethnic cleansing or similar terms. This is a distinction/clarification that is best left to a footnote, not an expanded 3 sentence block in the lead, which leaves the possible naive reader with doubt as to whether actions against the Assyrian and Pontic Greek actually occurred (as "scholarship has been published discussing" - without specifying the points being discussed).Icewhiz (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not here to lead the naive reader. This is advocacy. My job as an editor is not to convince anyone that the bad Muslim Turks committed this genocide or that genocide, it is to inform about what scholarship is available. In fact, unless the academic consensus is as overwhelming as it is for the Armenians, it should probably be left out entirely. We don't simplify disputed issues in the LEDE to support WP:ADVOCACY. The Greek Genocide and the surrounding dispute would be better left to the body, so I will add an Option 3. Seraphim System (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Icewhiz:, no, there really has not been an on-wiki consensus in the recent discussions on this topic. Per usual practice we stick with the status quo upon not reaching a consensus and this issue is not to be addressed here, but claims of an on-wiki consensus are simply inaccurate. --GGT (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @GGT: consensus in the form of the current article names (and frankly my personal opinion differs from the present name) - Whatever they are named - Turkey should link to them in the name decided on. We shouldn't call them A in the article about the events, and B in the the article about Turkey - and whatever the label, it should be in the lede here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing genocides is not Wiki friendly behavior, who ever is intended to remove them should consider reading a consensus on the matter. Redman19 (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That's par for the course in this article. Please observe the gutting of the lead and the removal of all genocides in three separate attempts by the same editor, using false edit-summaries to boot: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3. The same editor then came to Greece, an article they never edited before, and started retaliatory edit-warring. Quite a story. Dr. K. 07:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The Holocaust is clearly mentioned in the lead section of the Germany article, so we should maintain the same course here. Redman19 (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Why does the Lede of the article spend two paragraphs summarizing several millennia of the history of Anatolia, the history of the Ottoman Empire, and World War I, but ends abruptly at the foundation of the Republic of Turkey in 1923? Too much prehistory of Turkey and not enough history following the foundation. There is currently no mention of:

    NATO is mentioned, briefly (an early member of NATO). The Population exchange between Greece and Turkey and the Cyprus dispute could be mentioned if you have specific proposal. I can't support the others here, but they should all likely be mentioned in the lead section at History of the Republic of Turkey. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of these are relevant, but not the Korean War, which didn't really matter for Turkey at all except as an allied Western country.--Calthinus (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Turkey participated in the Korean War to enforce NATO membership, I also think it's not relevant since Turkey's NATO membership is mentioned in the lead. Redman19 (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    formation

    Hello fellow editors

    Here is what I hope we can agree on for the formation section on the infobox

    -Turkish Empire (1299) -Dissolution (1919) -War of independence (1919) -Treaty of Lausanne (1923) -Turkish Republic (1923) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 14:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well since no one has any objections I will go ahead and make the change, one which every european country on wikipedia has anyway. austria has been about 10 different countries, you europeans cant keep together. france probably went from republic to dictatorship to nazi land every few years and germany, well lets not get into that one. Turkey has been one empire one republic. so simple, yet you all insist that Turkey gets different treatment for some reason. How is it that a country (ottoman empire) which was informally called Turkey since the 18th century not actually the predecessor to the republic? Absurd! the same flag, same language, continuation of courts and even the recognition of sultans as previous heads of state but somehow not a successor state?!?! very crazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 09:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    JimPody: Well since no one has any objections I will go ahead and make the change. No, you will not! Firstly, you need to wait longer before you can say that no one has objected. Secondly, as you know, there is already a discussion above about the same thing, where there are arguments both ways. I happen to agree with you about the Ottoman Empire (but not Turkish Empire), but we have to wait until a consensus has been formed. Also: Please learn how to sign your talk page postings. See WP:SIGN. --T*U (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we can call it Turkish Empire, and the addition of a formation section to the infobox would have to be sourced. Seraphim System (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified one external link on Turkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we remove this from the lede?

    This is not well supported by the sources - none of the sources discuss "Freedom of the Press" (all in caps) or "Legislative System of Checks and Balances" (all in caps) being in place "since the founding". "religionist government" is not even proper English. Badly written and mis-sourced content has no place in the lede of a GA article. Additionally, there is also discussion of expanding the lede, which is already very long, much of it devoted to political background history. Significant sections of the article dealing with culture are not discussed. Post WWI history is also not discussed, but the lede should be balanced with some politically neutral content as it is currently a poor reflection of the article content.

    "Turkey's current administration headed by president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has reversed many of the country's earlier reforms which had been in place since the founding of the modern republic of Turkey, such as Freedom of the Press, and a Legislative System of Checks and Balances. A set of standards for secularism in government, as first enacted by Atatürk have also diminished in favour of conservative religionist governance, to the grievance of much of the Turkish public.[1][2][3]"

    Seraphim System (talk) 06:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Turkey Jailing the Most Journalists New York Times. By Hannah C. Murphey. December 18, 2013. Downloaded April 19, 2017.
    2. ^ Turkey's Vote Makes Erdoğan Effectively a Dictator The New Yorker. By Dexter Filkins. April 17, 2017. Downloaded April 19, 2017.
    3. ^ Who are the two drunks,’ Turkish politicians ask after PM’s remarks Hurriyet Daily News. May 29, 2013. Downloaded April 21, 2017.
    Should be in the lead. Poor grammar/English should be improved. Considering that Turkey is undergoing significant changes in character under Erdoğan and that portions of this article (and elsewhere) might not reflect current situation given the flux, we should note said flux in the lead. Sourcing for the existence of the state of flux is widely available.Icewhiz (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this could be rewritten to link to the coup attempt, purge and the referandum and possibly FETO. I don't think Turkey ever had freedom of press, and it is not the main point of the articles, it is the extent and degree after the coup that has attracted attention. Seraphim System (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Freedom House unfortunately uses a non-stable metric (I think), but Democracy Index has a nice info-graphic and a stable metric policy - see here Democracy Index infographic (click on Turkey) - when you can see that Turkey was stable on a 5.70ish score in 2006-12, and from 2013-6 has a reduction to 5.04 (CYRSTALBALLING their 2017 isn't out yet (will soon) - but isn't likely to improve and might be a further drop). So yes - there have been changes recently at least per outside observers.Icewhiz (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that and I didn't even need Democracy Index to help me. I don't really want to argue about how unreliable Democracy Index is as a measure. It certainly doesn't help here. For example, Israel, a country with actual anti-miscegenation laws that bans books and has been in a state of emergency since 1945 has a 7.85. I don't know what they are measuring, and I don't care. Seraphim System (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I looked into it and Turkey got a 3.75 for political culture, which from the EIU's vague explanation presumably is because there was a coup. Israel got a 7.5 - political culture meaning the losing side accepts the peaceful transfer of power. It says more about the perception and insight of the people who answered the survey, then it does about democracy. And it is based entirely on survey responses, so it is not a serious index. The way this section is written now links to completely random things that are unsourced like "Freedom of the Press" - there has never been Freedom of the Press, 301. Madde has been on the books my entire life. It isn't new. And according to the EIU study you have cited at least 6 times, the only thing not democratic about the current regime is the people who supported a coup to topple it. Seraphim System (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Israel does not have anti-miscegenation laws - you are confusing state recognition of religious marriages (which are by-passable by the local equivalent of common law marriages) with anti-miscegenation (that is racial, not religious based, that actually criminalizes). While other countries do ban books (e.g. Mein Kampf in Germany until recently), Israel does not ban books (you might be confused by sensationalist headlines regarding a Dorit Rabinyan book (that increased sales) - that was removed from an approved school literature curriculum - not banned). Other countries have been in a state of emergency. In any event - Democracy Index is generally well regarded.Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop. Anti-miscegenation is widely in use to describe Israel's marriage laws, yes Israel does ban books [13] and yes Germany should lose "freedom points" for criminalizing any kind of speech, even if that speech is Holocaust denial. These are all concepts that are firmly and deeply rooted in the concept of Democracy in the post Civil Rights era. "Generally well regarded" is entirely meaningless. Survey responses by an undisclosed sample are not WP:RS and it certainly doesn't source the content we are discussing. The only reason I am replying to this is because I am hoping that it will convince you to stop bringing it up in every discussion on this talk page. Seraphim System (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Anti-miscegenation is only used by POV sources. Your link to "Israel: Forbidden books" is about the military government in the West Bank. Democracy Index is cited widely by RS - it appears their methodology (which includes surveys - which is social sciences in often an accepted tool) is not questionable per those who cite them.Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop. I am not going to debate this with you. The source has nothing to be with the current section, which was added by a banned sockpuppet and needs significant revision. I only replied in the hopes that I could convince you to stop disrupting discussions on this talk page by posting the same source over and over again inappropriately, especially for discussions where it is not even remotely relevant, like this one. Seraphim System (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please move the sentence to the history of the republic section, next to the gezi protests sentence. it is clearly a part of the history of the republic, if you can count it that, than a part of the lede. the lede describes turkey as a whole, not the wrongdoings of some imbecile islamist — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 20:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears no one is objecting so I shall move it to the history section — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 16:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    JimPody: It appears no one is objecting so I shall move it to the history section. No, you will not! There is already one editor that has objected in this same thread. I happen to agree with Icewhiz that it belongs in the lede.
    And for the last time: Please learn how to sign your talk page postings. See WP:SIGN. --T*U (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @JimPody: Please stop these sloppy ultimatums. I agree with Icewhiz and TU-nor that this belongs in the lead. Dr. K. 21:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Which part? I'm going to rewrite it but what exactly do you think should be in the lede? GA articles have a certain standard for higher accuracy, and I don't think it's appropriate with major factual errors in the lede (that were added by a blocked sockpuppet, for what it's worth). Icewhiz supports revision as well, though he didn't say more then that. I should probably ping GGT as well since he was a major contributor on GA. I am willing to revise it and source it, but I would like to know what points editors think it should cover. What I think it should cover:

    • the attemped coup, the post-coup purge, FETO
    • the decline of Press freedom and the referendum
    • If religion is going to be discussed, the sourcing needs to be imrpoved. One issue is he has approved the first new Church construction in Turkey since the Republic was founded, and this should also be mentioned
    • Turkey has had a constitutional protection for free press since 2004 (not the founding of the Republic). I also think the link should be to Censorship in Turkey and obviously the sources improved

    Seraphim System (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    What you propose is a good start. I think, with the proper supporting RS of course, the lead should also include the tens of thousands of arrests, the mass shutdowns of television stations critical to Erdogan, and the ongoing transformation of Turkey from a parliamentary system to a quasi-dictatorial presidential republic. I also think that you are an expert in this area, as I noticed you created the 2017 March for Justice, which I find to be an excellent article. Dr. K. 01:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? A "quasi dictatorship"? what has this fool erdoğan turned turkey into? cetainly not a bloody "quasi dictatorship"? How can there be opposition justice marches, opposition parties, opposition press, opposition protests, opposition meetings, opposition media coverage, and opposition everything in a dictatorship? God damnit a journalist who supports terrorsim can go to jail in any country. imaging germany starting to shut to down neo nazi press. I wonder what you would all say. Imagine the police brutally beating peaceful Catalan protestors, what youd say, oh wait THAT HAPPENED!. no word. the people of catalonia just got crushed by a monarchist government and nothing about dictatorship there! hypocrisy is rife. I hate the turkish government but turkey is one of few old democracies in this world, from 1877. 30 elected premiers, and the AKP was, surprise surprise, elected four times. some dictatorship! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 05:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi @Seraphim System:, sorry for the late response. You raise valid points; unfortunately, although we all know what sort of things are going on in Turkey, I find it frustrating that often a sensationalist rather than an encyclopedic approach is employed to reflect that. This is one such instance. I think you could just do a rewrite based on your proposal per WP:BOLD and we can work on that if we judge there to be any insufficiency to it. The only thing I'd like to note is that there is plenty of scholarship out there to endorse the increasingly religious nature of the government and frankly the approval of the construction of churches is in pretty small print when compared to that. Otherwise your proposal seems fine to me. --GGT (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you tell me what some of those sources are - we have some OR in the the main articles regarding secularism and I am looking for secondary sources to help me sort it out. (It would help me with this edit also) - there is a theory floating around about the ministry and its funding, but it is entirely primary analysis. Secondary sources would be a big help here. Seraphim System (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruptive editing

    JimPody has again repeated edits that have been challenged before.

    1) There is still an open discussion in the talk page about mentioning the Ottoman Empire in the "Formation" section. I happen to agree that it should be there (not with the text "Empire Formed 1299", though, but "Ottoman Empire 1299"). However, putting it in while the discussion is still open is disruptive, bordering on edit war. "Dissolution 1908" is directly misleading. It would be wise to read WP:CONSENSUS before you try anything similar.

    2) the ethnic groups section in infobox was unsourced and unprofessional. here is a professional list form with proper source The ethnic groups in the "unprofessional" list were perfectly well sourced in the main text. And your "professional" list are numbers from just one of several sources. You have no right to assume that this source is more accurate than any of the others, so there is no foundation for putting numbers to the different groups. Using one source and ignoring others is called WP:CHERRYPICKING. Also: Your list of percentages has been reverted earlier. Per WP:BRD you should then discuss it on talk page in order to gain consensus before readding it. Just putting your numbers back in without discussion and consensus is to start an WP:EDITWAR.

    I suggest taking a break from disruptive editing and reading some of the Wikipedia guidelines mentioned instead. --T*U (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I absolutely agree. Thank you T*U. This account has singlehandedly converted this article into an edit-warring field in recent weeks. This disruption must stop, otherwise the next stop should be ANI. Dr. K. 21:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And again: JimPody has changed the list of ethnic groups and the list of languages in the lede in contradiction to the sources, even to the source they have presented themselves. Restoring lists per sources to include ethnic groups over 1%, speakers over 1 mill. Still ignoring WP:BRD and other guidelines. --T*U (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    After his edit-warring block, he has apparently learned his 3RR lesson and he doesn't edit-war fast enough to violate 3RR; instead he does it at a slower pace. This can best be solved by a report at ANI. But someone has to file the paperwork. Dr. K. 17:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike many of the other countries in the region, Turkey-related topics are not under discretionary sanctions. I don't see any specific diffs that are actionable on their own, it's a general pattern. If he does it again, I'll file the WP:AN report. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Power~enwiki for offering to do the paperwork. AN is also a better choice in this case. Dr. K. 00:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested move 12 December 2017

    The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

    The result of the move request was: Not Moved. Per WP:SNOW and WP:BOLD. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 22:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    – I am interested in moving the country of Turkey to either Turkey (country) or the official name Republic of Turkey and moving the disambiguation page to Turkey. The reason why I am requesting this is because the country Turkey can be confusing to the bird Turkey. It is just like how the city of New York can be confusing to the state of New York. 2601:183:101:58D0:A437:7718:6C0A:3965 (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it is workable at this point unless you are also willing to manually change all the links to the article. Seraphim System (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 3 external links on Turkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Secularism, unitary, parliamentary republic...

    ...All of which are dubious to begin with, should not be in the lead, especially after an RFC discussion concluded its removal prior to the launch of another RFC after a series of complaints from a sole user who did not accept its results (see WP:POVPUSH and WP:DROPTHESTICK). The users of that previous discussion did not participate in the newer RFC. Again, we have serious sources that claim, in a quite convincing fashion, that Turkey does not fall into a category of secular countries. That being the Huff Post, VOA, BBC. Parliamentary Republic is quite obvious since the referendum. I do not see why we should keep insisting that Turkey is something it's not. This sentence reflects a false impression for our readers and should seriously be evaluated. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey! Closer of the second RfC here. I believe you have missed what the closer in the first RfC was trying to do. User:Godric on Leave's close specifically demanded that a second RfC be had on each of the contentious phrases in the sentence.

    An RFC should be re-launched by the discussant(s), each side necessarily mentioning the sources for and against mentioning each particular word and asking the editorial community to instate their opinion on the topic w.r.t to a proper evaluation of the sources on both side of the table.The close of that RFC will supercede this closure and the closer of the subsequent RFC may wish to resume the status-quo before this RFC i.e. let the statement be included per his/her discretion.This non-typical scope is devised to address the many shortcomings of this disc. where sources played a minimal part.Unless such an RFC is closed, re-addition of any info pertaining to the particular words in the lead, that were removed as a result of this RFC, shall be rejected lest they regain a local consensus at this talk-page.(irrespective of the grammatical formatting of the sentence and whether that is uni-sourced/multi-sourced/un-sourced.)

    If it wasn't for the RfC being specifically demanded by the closer, it would indeed have been a case of WP:DROPTHESTICK and I wouldn't have closed it in the way I did. But in the circumstances they were just doing what the closer of the last RfC asked of them. --Brustopher (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This RFC should not have been closed since its participants were limited. Most of the users who voted no for the entire sentence in general (from the first RFC) did not even participate in the second RFC. The second RFC itself looks like a little discussion between two users. Hardly any reason to uphold any RFC, let alone a second one. Also, the reasoning as the why we should even have a second RFC is quite problematic since it appears that the sole user who is pushing for this was Seraphim System who was also vehemently involved in preventing the words democracy, diverse cultural heritage, secular, and etc. from being removed from the lead. Those who supported the removal of democracy, parliamentary republic, secular and etc. from the first RFC to begin with should have their voices heard and intact, not washed away by constant reopenings of RFCs to suit an agenda of a single user. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, as I noted in my close, I did make sure to read the previous RfC as well and took into account arguments that were made in the previous RfC that weren't raised in this one. Further, while Seraphim may be quite keen on having a second RfC, the reason it happened was because the closer of the first RfC demanded it happen. They were unhappy about the quality of arguments made in the first RfC, and how very little was produced in the way of source and policy based arguments. You should have challenged Godric's close if you were unhappy with the demand for a second RfC. You could have raised the issue during the many months this RfC was ongoing. However, if you are unhappy with my close, feel free to go to WP:AN to ask for it to be re-assessed. Brustopher (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Brustopher. I think it's fair to see Godric's view here. From what I see at the ANI discussion, very few participants from the original RFC participated and the second RFC was rushed to be opened just 24 hours after. What's even more disturbing is that even in the ANI discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#RfC_Closure_Review_Request), only Seraphim System is the sole user who is challenging the consensus reached by the RFC with filibustering tactics that I've never seen before (s/he keeps responding to his/her own comments back to back to back). Just look at the comments of veteran users such as Winged Blades of Godric, Jytdog, Ealdgyth. This ANI discussion was an attempt by Seraphim to push a POV and to wear down his/her opponents before getting his/her way to open up a second RFC. A WP:GAMING strategy that seemed to have worked since very few participants had the energy or time to engage with the user in a second RFC or of the multiple FORUMS the user shopped at. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The second RfC was challenged and the original closer replied here: Talk:Turkey/Archive_25#Comment_about_above_(stayed)_Rfc Regretably, the community has unanimously endorsed my closure with calls for a future RFC as correct.So, the RFC needs to be done. Seraphim System (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @EtienneDolet: Godric actually opened the second RfC (the comments there might make it seem it was me - I opened this up on democracy (which due to editing on the artice back then, I saw as more pressing), he expanded it to each of the 5 elements). While I do agree with some of the points you are making (and others have protested above) - the time to have made them was when the RfC was opened or during the long time it was open ( and you were pinged to it - though that may have been broken at the time). I think the case for striking secular could have been made in a better fashion than my attempt - but it should have been made then. I do not think we should have a third RfC - participation in the second was problematic given this drawn out affair - why would a third go be better? Maybe the broken pings a few months ago (as well as the "stay" of rfc2 that had it placed low by legbot when it was reopened) is a point to allow more comments - maybe.Icewhiz (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Icewhiz: I understand your good faith efforts in participating in the second RFC. I think the second RFC caused more problems than it solve and turned this talk page into a hodgepodge of different RFCs and discussions that will make it harder for any such user to participate in. For one, there were hardly any participants in the second one. The first one had at least 10. We are opting for an RFC of 2-3 participants as opposed to an RFC of 10 users. Might I add, that 9 users out of 10 voted against any of these words into the lead. That's an astounding sway of opinion to one side of the debate. And the sole user, who happened to be against the other nine, was Seraphim System who kept undermining the first RFC and continuously arguing the opening of another one until the opposition just died out. I think that regardless of the circumstances, the opinions laid out by nine users who participated in the first RFC should not be dismissed as the second RFC was no different than the first in terms of its proposal. As a courtesy, I think it may be fruitful to reopen the second RFC immediately so as to reduce any problematic editing patterns to this article. At any rate, the article is locked already so this might be the only option. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with User:Icewhiz, the RfC was open for a sufficient time. There were also problems with sockpuppetry in the last RfC, and WP:OR. The second RfC was widely agreed on after discussion with the closer at ANI, and I don't see any grounds to challenge this close.Seraphim System (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Which discussion at ANI? Do you (and I mean only you) bother to ping any of the participants of the first RFC in that ANI discussion? Can you please provide a diff wherein which proves you made the good faith effort to notify the nine users that were against your sole opinion and to the nullification and reopening of a second RFC? Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The first RfC had a large participation and was valid. The second RfC was started because a lone tendentious editor did not have his/her way and wanted to have his/her way. But obviously no one participated in that farce, so the second RfC is invalid and should be ignored. Khirurg (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-- I have individually notified each and every non-indeffed user, who participated in the 1st RFC, to indulge in the 2nd RFC.So, there's no way to assume that any of you were ignorant of the proceedings.The RFC closer is free to assume that you did not choose to participate and hence, that doesn't (at all) affect the subsequent alteration of the very-weak consensus in the 1st RFC.All that being said, I strongly affirm Brustopher's closure and believe it to be a perfect reflection of the debate at the 2nd RfC.Those who disagree, please re-launch another RFC on the topic, after passage of a few months at minimum.It's done and dusted for now.Winged BladesGodric 11:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Constructive note (hopefully) - As we near 2019 (and the constitutional referendum changes coming into effect) we will probably have to revisit parliamentary republic and/or cover the impending change in any event. If anyone wants to take a future tack at secularism - I suggest presenting strong sources prior to a RfC and/or focusing on expanding this one word in the lead (the situation here seems to be non-Binary - the state is still de-jure so - but it was always secular in a peculiar way (Directorate of Religious Affairs) and matters have been changing since the ascension of AKP). This was really a drawn out affair with some harsh rhetoric (both here and at AN/I) and a lack of focus on sourcing (too much rhetoric and OR, not enough sources in RFC1), and giving this a rest would be a good idea.Icewhiz (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    ↑↑Wot he sez in the last line.↑↑Winged BladesGodric 13:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one person (Icewhiz) participated in the second RfC. Part of the reason for that is that it was incredibly poorly crafted (bizarre structure, cluttered and confusing). I don't see how anyone can possibly consider it valid. Also regarding "secular", the only person who participated in the RfC was against including it in the lede, so I don't see why that should be there. Khirurg (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The closer looked at both RfCs, not just the 2nd. The 2nd RfC had de-facto two participants - Seraphim System essentially !voted on some of the items under "General Discussion" - and in any event WP:NOTVOTE applies. While formatting of the 2nd RfC could've been improved - there were also issues with the 1st (in that it lumped in a whole lede sentence (including "unitary" - which was never really in doubt (I think!)) without prior discussion and a rather long-winded and wandering discussion in 1st RfC itself. I think the close of the 2nd RfC regarding "secular" was fair - we have some sources stating Turkey is secular, and on the other hand we have OR and sources saying "it's complicated". My argument (as well as arguments in the original RfC - that I attempted to summarize) was indeed weak and based on interpretation (or OR) of the underlying situation and facts. Having a RS stating "Turkey is no longer a secular state" would've been much stronger - and I didn't find one at the time - Seraphim System's rebuttal of this arguement was pretty much bang on the money. Note also Turkey#Religion in the body - which further complicates a RfC for the lede (that should follow the body and not the other way around).Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, and working on the main article, which has the same OR issue, is on my to do list. One of the issues was the unseemly interest in removing particular content from the LEDE without doing the work to improve the articles first. I think if an editor can not edit about a topic productively they should contribute in areas where they can be more productive. This is not a simple topic where everything is "obvious", it is one of the most complex and difficult areas of history.Seraphim System (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Had I known in the 23rd of July (when I !voted in RfC1 following a Request For Comment in my watchlist) that come December 26th I'd still be discussing the same sentence in the lede.... I agree with Seraphim System that work on the body here - and in this context Turkey#Religion (and related dedicated articles (e.g. Secularism in Turkey & Religion in Turkey) is required prior to jumping to the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I think it's appropriate for another RFC or initiate an extended discussion regarding "Secularism" and "Parliamentary Republic" (unitary doesn't seem to be an issue, but why should it be in the second sentence of this article?). The 2nd RFC did not solve anything. If the 1st RFC should be "ignored" because there were no sources provided, then the 2nd one should suffer the same fate, if not more, since not only is there not one source provided by Seraphim System for his arguments, but s/he also seems to be the only one in favor of these words into the lead in the entirety of this talk page. With that said, "Secularism" can either be removed or relocated to another part of the lead with a caveat saying that some secular principals have regressed over the recent years. We can also add a caveat about Parliamentary Republic which, under the recent referendum, will soon be history and replaced by a presidential system. These developments are so profound and note-worthy that they need to be mentioned in the lead. By adding caveats here, we're not going against the conclusion of the 2nd RFC, but making it better for our readers. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Several editors have already told you that it is sourced in the article. This is in the closing itself. You are proposing that we work on the LEDE before addressing the issues with the article text, sourcing, and the main articles linked to from this one. If you are interested in improving the encyclopedia, then please help me work on improving these articles first before trying to dictate what should and should not be in the LEDE. The arguments you are making are incoherent and it does not seem like you care about what the majority position of WP:RS is. I am not going to support changing the LEDE based on your predictions and your understanding of "the truth." The only caveat is this is not a topic to source entirely to recent press reports, there are entire books and academic publications dedicated to secularism in Turkey and I would welcome discussion with any editor who wants to help me go through those to improve the content.Seraphim System (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I really hope you're actually reading the body of the article before suggesting I read it first. So let me just remind you that the article does include information about the referendum. In fact, the body of the article contains this wording:
    So why can't the lead elaborate on this? Claiming that Turkey is a parliamentary republic as matter of fact, as if it will remain like that forever, is highly misleading. And let me also remind you that under the religion section, regressive policies by the AKP against secularism is also discussed:
    So why is the lead painting a different picture? Turns out, it's not so black and white. So if we're interested in making the lead better, we should start by elaborating on some of these recent developments (i.e. AKP's anti-secularism policies, the recent referendum, etc.). It's a rather simple solution that doesn't ignore the result of the RFC and improves the wording to reflect the situation in Turkey more accurately. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There is already consensus to add the referendum to the lede from a previous discussion between me, Dr. K and GGT - I will add this once the page protection expires. There are no academic sources to "qualify" the words in LEDE - what you are proposing is WP:SYNTH. As other editors have pointed out, the referendum does not even take effect until 2019. The lede is not a place to highlight negative issues that you want to inform readers about, that would be WP:ADVOCACY. Based on prior discussion, there is a rough consensus about several points that should be added about recent developments. The correct place to expand on these issues is the main articles. There is already sufficient negative political content in the LEDE - several editors have noted in previous discussions that this article is not about the Erdogan government. There are many things that have not been included in the LEDE. We should add some neutral non-political content about culture, arts, architecture, and include the UNESCO sites, and various other points that are routinely included in the LEDE for a country article.Seraphim System (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Claiming that I'm inserting "negative" things into the lead of this article highlights your POV. Who's to say what's "negative" or "positive" other than personal opinion? So again, I'm not here to insert anything "negative" or "positive" into this article. But what I will say is that leaving critical information out of the article is an overall negative state of affairs in terms of Wikipedia's standards. It would be like lying by omission, for a lack of a better phrase. And just because the referendum doesn't take effect until 2019 doesn't mean it can't be included into the lead. To say that Turkey is a parliamentary republic, and nothing more and nothing less than that, would signify that it will eternally remain as such. We all know that that's not true. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the referendum results are probably DUE for the lead (briefly) - perhaps as a tack on to "Turkey is a secular, unitary, parliamentary republic" => "Turkey is a secular, unitary, parliamentary republic; slated to transition to a presidential system in 2019, following a 2017 referendum.". It definitely become more and more DUE as we approach 2019.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this would be better, Reuters is using the term "Presidential system".Seraphim System (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (unindent) @Seraphim System: It's not hard to find sources that Turkey is no longer secular. Your personal opinion on what's "negative" and "positive" is completely irrelevant. Khirurg (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Khirurg: - It would be useful, for future discussion, to actually present said sources. Personally - I haven't found a source stating "not secular". I have found sources stating A+B+C+D+E+F+G (all of which do not sound like a secular country).Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I would note that it is similar to suggesting we should change Syria's article to say Bashar Al Assad is de facto not the President of Syria. The suggestion is contrary to basically every one of Wiki's policies and has wasted too much editor time already. Wikipedia does not declare the victor in an unresolved political conflict. We update based on things that have verifiably happened, neutral facts - not speculation or media predictions. Our editors are usually pretty good at weeding these out. Some editors here seem to think they know what is going to happen in Turkey in 10 years, or in 20 years, but no one knows. We should update based on things that verifiably happened when they happen (coup attempt, purges) and leave out the grandiose predictions.Seraphim System (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • I support Icewhiz's proposal to modify Parliamentary Republic.
    • How about this for secular?: "Turkey was defined as a secular republic under the 1924, 1961, and 1982 constitutions." This is a neutral non-controversial fact.Seraphim System (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes - perhaps tightening - "Defined in its constitution since its founding as a secular, unitary, parliamentary republic, Turkey is slated to transition to a presidential system in 2019, following a 2017 referendum.". That Turkey, since the beginning, and presently has defined itself as secular is not in question.Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We can add the secularism stuff as to this sentence: Atatürk enacted numerous reforms, many of which incorporated various aspects of western thought, philosophy, and customs into the new form of Turkish government.[27]
    And none of this has to be the second sentence of the article. We can also include the unitary and parliamentary republic stuff in a more appropiate part of the lead. I don't get why it has to be the second sentence of the article. Makes things more complicated. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Only two users participated in the second RFC. Their arguments lack sources. There are numerous sources that demonstrate Turkey’s lack of secular principles. We should be much careful to place these kind of bold statements in the intro. ----Երևանցի talk 08:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The recent changes are an improvement. Thank you Icewhiz for your good faith efforts. Although, I don't think it wise that all this should be inserted in the second sentence of the article. It makes it very cluttered. Also, there should be caveats for the "secularism" bit. After that's resolved, we're good to go. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for the word Secularism in the lead

    For the word Secularism, which is found in the second sentence of the article, I propose adding a caveat to this bold statement, given that Turkish society has changed considerably over the years.

    I propose modifying the sentence to:


    I also strongly suggest to move the secular, unitary, and parliamentary stuff out as the second sentence of the article, and move it to a more appropriate section in the lead, namely the parts of the lead that talk about secularism and government. The first couple of sentences of such an article should not bother talking about referendums and Islamist curtailing of secularism. And just a reminder: I am not going against any RFC conclusion by doing this. Secularism and parliamentary republic would still be in the lead, but this modification will give a more accurate description of the developments in Turkey. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPody (talk • contribs) 15:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, be WP:CIVIL towards other Wikipedia users. And do not threaten or WP:BULLY them. It appears that you WP:JDLI. However, we don't add or remove information from articles based on your WP:POV or to your liking, we merely report what reliable sources say. Which is what were tasked to do here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support as informative to our readers and backed by sources [14]. Khirurg (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - good RS will be required. Would the Evening Standard be one such? Batternut (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support It is well known by Turkey scholars that the country is heading towards social conservatism and Islamism under Erdogan.
    media sources: Voice of America Politico
    scholarly sources: [15] [16] ----Երևանցի talk 07:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This source pointed out by Yerevantsi - Kaya, Ayhan. "Islamisation of Turkey under the AKP rule: Empowering family, faith and charity." South European Society and Politics 20.1 (2015): 47-69. - is well cited (49 citations for a 2015 paper....) and published in a peer-review journal.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some modification is due. I will note I lodge my protest to the multiple RfCs here. I support the spirit of this proposal if the text in the last paragraph of the lede Turkey's current administration headed by president Tayyip Erdoğan has reversed many of the earlier reforms, such as Freedom of the Press, a Legislative System of Checks and Balances, and a set of standards for secularism in government, as previously enacted by Atatürk.[35][36][37] is combined to this. Criticism of the current regime should be limited in the lede. e.g. redacting the last paragraph, and stating

    Icewhiz (talk) 07:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Icewhiz: I'm okay with that. Such details about recent developments should not be appropriate for the second sentence of the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Icewhiz's proposal is basically subtle vandalism - as most cases are where additions to a lede use improper capitalization and add unsourced content. I would rather remove the word entirely than compromise the article's GA-quality, and GGT Dr.K. and I had previously reached a consensus to revise this language. It's hard to believe this is seriously being considered by established editors. "Legislative System of Checks and Balances" is no where in the article. Etienne's proposal also introduces POV issues to the lede, but at least makes proper use of punctuation - no other country article focuses this much attention on the current ruling party. Either of these proposals would call the article's GA status into question, but Icewhiz's proposal is even worse (it fails concise, well-written, LEDE and POV). I would support something like "Turkey has been defined as a secular republic under the Turkish Constitution since its founding" - or something like this. Seraphim System (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How's it POV when it's reliably sourced? Check Yerevantsi's sources. And "Turkey has been defined as a secular republic under the Turkish Constitution since its founding" doesn't say much about Turkey's standing today. That'll be like saying "North Korea has been defined as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea" when it's neither of things (i.e. not democratic, not belonging to the people, not a republic, and certainly not Korea). To leave out valuable caveats like that would be lying by omission. Something are readers should not be succumbed to. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Seraphim System: I strongly suggest you retract this personal attack. Note the suggested language above is already in the bottom of the current lede. If it ahould revised, suggest something better. The gist of my suggestion was to place the two sentences (Turkey's political system, and crriticism regarding changes during Erdogan) together.Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No Icewhiz not you, don't be so quick to assume a personal attack - I was referring to whoever added it to the end of the lede - I think you just copied and pasted it without paying attention and would not object to correcting the capitalization. Legislative Checks and Balances is not sourced in the article - both you and I supported improving the article before the lede, and Etienne ignored us and opened this RfC anyway even though multiple people asked him to wait. The problem with Etienne's proposal is that this article is not about Erdogan or his government - why would we mention that and not Ataturk or other important figures in Turkey's history - Turgut Ozal or Tansu Ciller, or whomever. The lede should be a neutral summary that links to the correct articles that discuss a long history. Even the United States article does not mention Donald Trump. This just isn't how a lede for a high-traffic country is supposed to be written - It's not "lying by omission" which Etienne has said over and over again and if this continues, most likely this article s going to lose its GA status. Seraphim System (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I actually corrected the caps jn the blockkquote I sugeested. The caps error, it would seem, is in the text currently in the article which I placed in a tq (stating this text should be combined / placed next to). I noted my objection here to the process of yet another rfc. I do think that we should combine the two bits to be next to eachother, I am not married to the phrasing in the second bit - I copied it from the current lede. It could be toned down.Icewhiz (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support as nominator. More specifically, I'm leaning towards Icewhiz's proposal. Turkey's standing as a secular country needs to be elaborated. Mentioning it in the last part of the lead would be convenient since such developments have been more recent than others. And Yerevantsi found some strong sources. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment In general I support Icewhiz's proposal. However there is one clause I would change: to create a more Islamic society and reduce secularism measures should become to increase the influence of Islam in society and has undermined or reversed previous secularist policies. Two reasons:

    • What exactly an "Islamic society" is, that's an extremely divisive topic and there is little agreement between Muslims, who are far from monolithic, on this point. Having the phrase "Islamic society" could therefore lead to unexpected problems in the future. "Increase the influence of Islam", meanwhile, is hardly disputable.
    • "Secularism measures" is clunky and vague, and secularism isn't often used as an adjective like this. What the AKP has done is reverse government policies that were associated with Kemalist secularism. But it is not just reversal of explicit policies but also undermining of implicit ones that have occurred -- for example, Alev Cinar's 2011 paper notes that Ataturk and successors preferred government buildings to be higher than mosques and secular statist elements to have more prominence in the "public sphere" and notes that Erdogan's construction of huge mosques in major city centers, measures against public smoking and alcohol consumption, and promotions of huge Islamic-tinged festivals undermine this implicit policy (her paper also very interestingly would predict very well the 2013 Istanbul park-mosque controversy). They are much more this than reversals of explicit policy so otherwise they would not be covered. So "reversed and undermined previous secularist policies" is more specific but also more encompassing, and typical in form. --Calthinus (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated proposal based on Calthinus and Seraphim System (check and balances - particularly since we link to the referendum in any event), please excuse typos, I am on a tablet and not my usual PC. Might make sense to tighten the second sentence a bit more.

    Icewhiz (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m okay with that proposal as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --Calthinus (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as well. Khirurg (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support either Etienne Dolet's proposal above, or the modified one immediately above this comment. It seems to me to be necessary to mention the current's administration's efforts in the lead, but also that it should not be in the second sentence. Vanamonde (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey&oldid=821300137"