Talk:Chapulling

Citation Requirement

Chapulling in Eniglish Wikipedia The website of one of the most popular newspapers in Turkey report about the Chapulling entry on the English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.166.119 (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Idiotic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.219.1 (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that there is a "This article needs additional citations for verification." template on this page, please point at which statements you see that requires a citation with a citation needed tag. So far there seems to be enough citations for a small page. Mavromatis (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not clear which, if any, constitute reliable sources, per WP:RELIABLE. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The first reference link is a government site, second is reputable news site with an actual video of that event, the third is a joke and might be removed yet wouldn't be considered unreliable but just not encyclopedic, fourth is another video proving its claim, same with the fifth video showing Noam Chomsky, and sixth is another reputable news source. Can you point out where you need more citations? Mavromatis (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The (as was) first reference is an automated translation page, the second is a news site covering Erdogan's original speech but not the neologism, and self-published YouTube videos (even from Chomsky) are WP:PRIMARY until someone reports on them. The Hurriyet news source seems fine, though, if a little brief. More sources definitely wouldn't hurt. --McGeddon (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't need more citations; I'm alluding to Wikipedia's guidelines. There are currently four cites, all of which appear to be in Turkish, which is okay, but makes it difficult for some editors on English Wikipedia to ascertain their reliability--they may be good, but one editor's say-so in that regard is not sufficient, especially since the Google searches turn up nothing yet. Per notability guidelines, there needs to be substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I can agree that we need more citations, but the page is edited so fast that I can't even grasp what information to cite. Also I fear that there might not be enough sources in "English", there should be some reliable ones about the events but not much about the word itself. I believe putting the citation-needed tag on spots you notice might help the process a bit. We might need the current event tag on this too. Mavromatis (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Good points all, especially the current events tag. Much of the editing appears to be motivated by parties interested either in promoting or deleting. If that continues page protection is an option, after which time neutral editors can work more freely. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Another point is that there is so much going on on social networks about this term (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc) that it becomes quite difficult to differentiate. Especially: is it possible to, for example, link a tag from Instagram? for example http://statigr.am/tag/chapulling ?) Imdatsolak (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Instagram is not a reliable source. One surmises that much of the editing here is overflowing from or being promoted by social media. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As seen here [1]. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

That's over reaching- context determines the reliability, not vehicle. A link out to the media being referenced (whether Instagram or Twitter) is permissible as long as the reference isn't the basis of assessing or interpreting- that is where secondary sources are necessary. So, primary sources can be used to show something exists- and secondary sources for what it means and why it bears inclusion. (incidentally, there is an avalanche of primary sources- which presents a quandary: how do we document material that is part of the Zeitgeist, but hasn't been address in print? The rule should promote- not thwart -our encyclopaedic efforts.)Mavigogun (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

it's not needed to merge this page into another. this is a new word that Turks would like to put in English Dictionaries, meaning resisting against non-democratic movements by politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.215.151 (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge into 2013 protests in Turkey

I think that (as of now anyway) the term is not notable enough to deserve its own entry, but it would definitely deserve a place (a sub-section, perhaps), when merged with the 2013 protests entry. It certainly deserves a place somewhere in the English Wikipedia, but nobody is sure where. We could also wait and see whether this is going to be a short-lasting phenomenon and if not it would then and only then deserve its own entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.176.166.119 (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Why shouldn't this be a part of the 2013 protests in Turkey article? This doesn't seem notable enough for its own article and would be a better fit as a subsection within the other article. Capscap (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this might wait separately for a few days until the momentary edits calm down to see how this article will turn up. I think that in the end it'll be added to the protests article but for now we can wait to see it's shaping and it might be provocative towards the pro and anti protest editors and trigger unwanted spam of vandalism from both sides. Mavromatis (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree to Mavromatis. Güzel günler yakın (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes - give it some time. The other article is already overloaded and it's not clear whether this has any real long-term significance. It will be much easier to merge later when things have become clearer (it might end up just being one sentence). Podiaebba (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that would make sense. Also, this might be considered as an entry for Wiktionary instead of Wikipedia. Imdatsolak (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And I hereby retract that comment as "Chapulling", or "Chapuller" becomes a key term. The same arguments I used against fast deletion is still valid: it seems to be a key term to the movement and can become, over time, the definition of peaceful protests of people from across interest groups, faiths, religions, political and social views, and so on - coming together and peacefully demonstrating for their democracy and their rights. There is so far no term for something like that and it could be this term that defines these kind of people - a-political, not part of a political party or message but wishing to change the society to make it freer, more inclusive, respecting and protecting diversity in terms of religion, political, economic, and any other views and demonstrating for an environment where people can be as they wish to. Sorry for such a long comment, but I had time to think about this a bit longer Imdatsolak (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This definitely deserves to have it's own page! It already started to have widespread global recognition with examples like [ chomsky support], inheritance in the ongoing [ Iranian protests], etc... So long story short CHAPULLING should go on! --Agnichuck (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.85.229 (talk)

I tend to concur that this term is important enough to have its own page, specifically for keeping the documentation readily to hand. Burying it in a larger page would make it hard for people to actually find and make sense of. Wfh (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I support separate articles. There is enough information to warrant separate articles. In addition, the 2013 protests in Turkey wiki page is only going to continue to grow and will most likely need to be separated into separate articles due to it's length. Triesault (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I too support separate articles- the word has been indelibly tattooed on Turkish culture the same way that the 'I have a dream' speech did American culture: in an instant. The word should have it's own article because it will be relevant to future events that may have no bearing on the past few days.Mavigogun (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mavromatis' argument that Wikipedia can wait. Nimuaq (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Merge I worry that we're confusing support for this article with support for the protesters. It's way to soon to see if this has a lasting impact in Turkey, and a short blurb on the 2013 protests in Turkey seems fine for now. We should also watch the deletion discussion on the Turkish Wikipedia. If it gets merged or deleted in Turkish, we should probably follow.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 19:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

1) Who is this "we" you speak of? You demonstrably have no insight into my apprehension- so, in addition to yourself, who is the other confused person? 2)Turkish Wikipedia is not our standard of excellence. Should we also follow suit when Turkish Wikipedia disdains references, or indulges in original research? Not!Mavigogun (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Having worked on protest driven articles before, I know how Wikipedia discussions can seem like a proxy for arguments going on in the streets, rather than a discussion of the merits of an article. That's what I think of when I see bolded comments like "CHAPULLING should go on!" and "we", the editors discussing this, need to be wary of that. Now you say that this topic "will be relevant to future events" but, again I'm sorry to quote here, one thing "you demonstrably have no insight into" is the future. From what I can tell, this is not on a par with King's "I have a dream", instead its more likely to be a one time gaff that sparks a meme. Perhaps its more akin to the 2011 Wisconsin protests where protesters were called "slobs" but took up that as a theme, or to the SlutWalk protests against that term. If it has staying power cannot be known the day or two after a quote is made, but lets review it in a month, even a week and see.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 15:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Let's keep them separate. Azirlazarus (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Let's keep them seperate LardoBalsamico (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Let's keep them separate. It is remarkable linguistically.--Shanghainese.ua (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
• Separate articles. If Chapulling is worthy of inclusion, it should be included in its own article. 2013 protests in Turkey is already quite long and dense as is-- no need to merge neologism content into the an already-crowded article. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I put in 1 sentence referring to Chapulling under protesters. Lets keep it separate, it's long enough alreadyNeoRetro (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Merge First of all it's not Wikitionary and in my opinion capuling does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Kavas (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You must not be in Turkey if you think its not notable. For an example of Wiki-worthiness, see Where's the beef? - then come back here and make your argument for why this usage does not raise to that level.Mavigogun (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I live in Turkey, am a native Turk and I don't think it's notable. "Where's the beef" at least has some historical worth -- it has survived for nearly thirty years. Chapulling, on the other hand, is merely a few days old. It's easy to lose perspective when you're knee deep in the events. We'll see how the word fares once the events subside, and then the correct judgement will be easier to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.250.177.3 (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep it separate. Chapulling became the catch-phrase of the peaceful demonstrators. You may or may not support them; but it this catch-phrase is worthy enough to have its own article. Bora Aydeniz (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's keep them separate.Sbasturk (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Let's keep them separate This term became an important catch phrase for the Turkish Chapulcu, making it significant enough for it to be considered as important. Having a neologism spread so fast is remarkable and I would argue that merging a neologism in a crowded article is useless. Goutlard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.242.210.49 (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. 2013 protests in Turkey is simply too long as is and will probably get longer as this is an ongoing event. It appears that page may be broken apart into sub-articles. I also think this term is notable enough to have its own article. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 10:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:NOTNEO. Wikipedia should not have articles on neologisms that have only recently been invented. Wikipedia is not a disctionary (unlike Wiktionary). It is impossible to assess if a term that has just developed during the last seven days will indeed become a permanent part of the Turkish vocabulary or will vanish as soon as it has emerged.--RJFF (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTNEO is just a long-winded way of saying that it needs coverage in reliable secondary sources. I count currently at least 5 mass media sources mentioning "chapulling" in a headline. Podiaebba (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep separate. It's pretty foolish to try to merge an article into a massively long article - an article so long it will soon have to be split, and if merged, this would be a prime candidate for splitting! Podiaebba (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That's an argument for condensing the 2013 protests in Turkey article which is excessively long and detailed for an encyclopedic coverage of the topic and disregards WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is not an argument against the merger. --RJFF (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
    • It doesn't seem like you've looked at the sources in the chapulling article. Podiaebba (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep separate. First of all we are trying to keep 2013 protests in Turkey down to size so merging the content of this page would be counterproductive. Second of all this is more than a common neologism; it is an important aspect of these highly notable protests, and is therefore notable enough for its own article. --Philpill691 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. As it stands the 2013 protests in Turkey is already a large article, and has been split (today). Although it is a neologism, it is common enough to warrant its own article.Martin451 (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• Own article please.--Chauahuasachca (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Keep separate It seems clear that this is going to be one of the defining terms to come out of the Turkey protests, much like We are the 99% came out of the Wall Street protests in the US. And there were multiple attempts to get that article merged in the early days too. It's a waste of everyone time to keep having to go through discussions like this. There are already news articles directly about this subject. I say leave it as it is and, if in a month's time it hasn't gotten more coverage, then it would be appropriate to suggest a merge. Silverseren^C 07:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep separate: It's an absolute example of neologism in socioeconomic terms. It's in daily life, a part of daily language and even a part in economics at domestic level. There are many applications pending over the rights of the word for commercial purposes. [2], [3], [4] Umi1903 (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 June 2013

For French :

Tchapouleur: celui qui tchapoule Tchapouleuse: celle qui tchapoule.

Ilkerz (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - Wikipedia is not a language dictionary. But I've edited the article to say that localised versions of the word are being used by people in other countries to support the movement. --McGeddon (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 June 2013

Derived phrase verbs of the term are;

to chapul around: being a part of a massive freedom resistance within a whole country, city or a region.
to chapul inside: cannot remain calm and quiet against injustice, a storm to be breaking (within one's heart). Ozgurozansen (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - these particular interpretations would need a source. --McGeddon (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

2. Edit request on June 6, 2013

Please add following link to references: http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/39/39272/1.html

Auf Deutsch: tschapullieren: "Man muss jeden Tag für seine Rechte tschapullieren." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.182.139.248 (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Im Übrigen wurde in der Türkei das Wort çapulcu, mit dem Erdogan die Demonstranten verunglimpfen und in die kriminelle Ecke schieben wollte, aufgegriffen und ist mittlerweile zur ironischen Selbstbezeichnung geworden. Wer zu den Protesten geht, geht nun chapulling oder, türkisch, çapuling und nennt sich chapuller, was auch im Ausland, beispielsweise von Noam Chomsky, aufgegriffen wurde.

Roughly translated as: Incidentally, the word çapulcu, with which Erdogan wanted to denigrate the demonstrators and push them into the criminal corner, was picked up in Turkey and has become a self-ironic name. People going to the protests are now chapulling or, in Turkish çapuling [...] Imdatsolak (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done--McGeddon (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated. Imdatsolak (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Translation as "vagabond"

"roughly translated to "looter" or "marauder" or "vagabond" as contemporary" - is this last part trying to say that the word çapulcu sounds to a modern Turkish speaker as archaic as "vagabond" would to an English speaker? --McGeddon (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

He does love to use Ottoman-Turkish, doesn't he.NeoRetro (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It would be a lot better if someone could just remove the first "or" in that sentence, which is in between "looter" and "marauder", as there is no point keeping that. Bora Aydeniz (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman Turkish is indeed Turkish. There are loan words from Arabic & Persian both in pre-republic and modern Turkish. http://tr.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%A7apul -> capul is from Persian. But +cu is a Turkish. And Wikipedia talk pages are not used for speculation of topics that you don't know. Kavas (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The Talk page is a place for musing on how to address the article- especially for seeking guidance or consensus when information gaps are present... such as 'topics that <the author isn't familiar wit>'. McGeddon's question is appropriate. Mavigogun (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia talk pages are not used for speculation of topics that you don't know" - correct, we use the actual articles for that purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Small-edit request on the first paragraph, 07 06 2013

As it seems, vagabond was removed from the description of çapulcu. That being said, an addition of "or" was forgotten, so it would look a lot better if we could add "or" in between "looter" and "marauder".

Original: (roughly translated to "looter", "marauder")

Should be changed to: (roughly translated to "looter" or "marauder")

Bora Aydeniz (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done--McGeddon (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Appreciated. Bora Aydeniz (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Turkish Language Association changes definition of "çapulcu"

Turkish Language Association (TDK) changed the definition of the word "çapulcu" from looter to rebel sometime between 04 Jun 2013, 6:37pm (the last time I personally checked in preparation of an e-mail to an English-speaking friend), and 05 June 2013, 11:35pm (the time newspaper soL woke up to the fact, and published an article about it).

This stands to show how important a symbol this word has become. This may affect the notability. Okans (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Later in the day, TDK denied the accusations. Still, at the time of the objection, the noun "çapul" still means loot, yet the agent-noun "çapulcu" does not in any way mean looter, an inconsistency TDK cannot resolve.Okans (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Does TDK publish an official Turkish to English translation dictionary or define a translation? In Tulaci's rather disreputable Comprehensive Turkish English Dictionary, which brown-nosed to the TDK to the extent that it contains no translations for words the TDK had "demonetised", çapulcu is translated as "raider, marrauder, pillager". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A citation

• 'Chapulling': Turkish protesters spread the edgy word from The Express Tribune --78.177.176.119 (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• this is quite sweet: Thank you, my chapuller son. Not sure we need it though. Podiaebba (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 June 2013 - More on Chapulcu, Chapuling

Here is an article that examines the word through its semantic shift, explains how its linguistic construction became an identity through the myth of Robin Hood and compares it to the queer movement in the U.S. I think it would greatly improve the wiki page on the word:

http://thedailydirenis.com/2013/06/09/a-sociolinguistic-look-at-chapulcu-chapulcu-identity-utopic-robin-hoods-of-turkey/

Xorba (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:BLOGS. --ElHef (Meep?) 16:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation translation

The Erdogan citation was translated in a very biased way instead of a verbatim translation.--Homei (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It is "chapuling"!

NOT chapulling OR çapuling. What anally-retentive grammar-nazi on Wikipedia decided to insert two "ll"s? In longer texts when accompanied by regular Turkish words it might appear as "çapuling", or even return to regular Turkish, in forms like "çapulcunun" and so on. But as a stand-alone word, and in the "Everyday I'm Chapuling" slogan, it is almost always "chapuling" and ALWAYS with one "l". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW, since the slogan is based on the "everyday I'm ...in" meme", technically it should be "Everyday I'm Chapulin", and in this form it does appear in an illustration on page 39 of the July-August issue of Turkish magazine "Express". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)