Wikipedia

Talk:Gezi Park protests/Archive 1

< Talk:Gezi Park protests
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Podiaebba in topic Standing man
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

NPOV (Neutral Point of View) issues: PLEASE PAY ATTENTION!

Latest comment: 11 years ago24 comments11 people in discussion

PLEASE READ FIRST:

1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

2. Wikipedia:Citing sources

3. Wikipedia:Assume good faith

4. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

5. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

6. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning

7. Wikipedia:Be bold

If I remembered how to put an NPOV tag on this article I would. In the meantime, it's obviously written to inflame readers' emotions and help the protesters. The intro states "attacked by police" and cites Al Jazeera. How about language like "broken up by... ...with X number of injured, a situation described by witnesses and police sources as..." If you really want Wikipedia and this page to be taken seriously, then stick to NPOV language. I'm sure many Turkish citizens' grievances are legitimate, but this page is not the vehicle for revolution, it's just a neutral document for what's going on. Feel free to link to websites that carry your message more freely.Pär Larsson (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

  • NPOV acknowledged. Do note that Al Jazeera is among the best world media coverage available.
I posted (above) credible WESTERN news sources -- cutting across the political spectrum of at least the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.93.61 (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Currently the English section of the protests are collaboratively being developed by those whose native languages are Turkish and speaks English and by those whose native languages are English. So even in this passage you can see many inadequate word selection -- particularly verbs -- and low-level relative clause efforts. Many Turkish people, who speak English in a variety of levels, usually take the very first verb they see from dictionaries. They immediately want to translate the sentence in their minds to English and do not pay attention on proper sentence structures while they are editing on wikipedia (and not only for wiki). It is true that there is a huge effect of emotions and yes it must not be in that way. For now one of the suggestions is: Native English speakers may intend to review the entire text and re-edit in more adequate way. Not to be misunderstood, this is not a duty for only native English speakers. Collaborating is the core in wikipedia world. --Toksoz (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This article in its current form has no use and it is indicative of the inclusionist dominated Wikipedia we have today. There's an element on English Wiki that wants the credit and kudos for getting in on the action first and being about to write 'history in the making'. It should be written about after the protests have died down from a neutral observer. not written about in an attempt to control the flow and direction of these protests, and attempt to write history from a particular non-neutral perspective.
  • There's also the problem of all 'sources' being pro-Protest, and absolutely none being anti-Protest, which is why is shouldn't be written up now. Those opposing the protest are not writing articles and blogs about it in English.Oxr033 (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • All the citations I, and many other contributors, to this article have added are from major news providers that have reporters on the ground, not from blogs, and consist of Turkish- and English-language sources. It is important to document the unfolding of these news stories.eliotbates (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • NEUTRAL LANGUAGE REQUIRED URGENTLY! For example under the title of "2 June"; "...the extent of police brutality started to...", "...cleaning stopped compulsory...", "...violence on almost every single person, even on people who just walked with flags including women..." and many more. --Toksoz (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This whole entry sounds more like a propaganda piece. The same references are used several times as the source for several irrelevant claims. It is heavily opinionated, do not use any of the official information and contains opinion pieces. You might as well print this out and distribute it during the protests. This article is not neutral, and it is too obvious that it is not neutral. In my opinion it requires a rewrite from beginning to the end, and re-examination of the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.233.170.205 (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • From what I see almost all sources are either opinion pieces, or reports of allegations. i.e. Luke Harding on the Guardian claims there were undercover cops among protesters [1] and it is presented as a fact here. The same article is cited on several places as a reliable source while it is only conjecture on Luke Harding's side. And the infobox reads more like a manifesto, presenting the protests as a "civil conflict", this is factually incorrect as the government is on one side of this conflict, it is by all definitions a rally or a protest, no civil conflict, at least for the moment. The infobox includes biased information that can not be confirmed, like goals and methods.
Most, if not all sources cited, are either disputed, later confirmed to be false or the opinion of a writer. There are also several references to pictures on facebook, tweets on twitter and blog entries on news site like icnn and such. these are all quite biased sources by themselves.
The pictures used in article are also quite biased, as it only includes pro-protester images. There are quite a few images and videos of protesters burning public vehicles, attacking the police, throwing rocks and molotov cocktails, these have been published on reputable news sites like cnn and similar mainstream media, but are not present in this entry.
The language itself has obvious problems. Some parts of it read more like an article on a newspaper than factual information. At places it sounds more like a commentary than an encyclopedic entry. The section about the Protesters read more like a promotion poster for a movie.
At the moment it would be best to shorten the article to the bare minimum, cleared of any references made to blogs and opinion pieces. It should be rewritten to reflect the confirmed and verified reports once the protests are over and things are much clearer.178.233.170.205 (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure, let's rely on "official information". We can replace the article with a short summary like this: the police were slightly rude to a few treehuggers protesting about a shitty little park being replaced by a splendid reconstruction of an Ottoman-era architectural marvel, and then the opposition CHP got together with some terrorists and provocateurs and international finance wanting to undermine the Turkish economy for its own profit and international media wanting to do Turkey down because they hate Turkey for some reason, all of which caused thousands of people to beat their heads against police batons and tear gas canisters, and dozens of lawyers to brutally arrest themselves. Much better. Podiaebba (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Well I guess it is rather pointless to suggest you be more civilized. - well that's not at all uncivil. Anyway, feel free to get an account and discuss specific issues in more detail. Podiaebba (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ahem... IS THIS ARTICLE A SERIOUS ISSUE REGARDING THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE?!?! I WANT TO ADD Template:POV AND YOU PEOPLE HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING IN RESPONSE TO MY QUESTION!!! JUST PLEASE SAY YES OR NO TO ME STRAIGHTLY AND GET ON WITH THE TEMPLATE!! Image2012 (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think that the above poster's advocacy of neutrality needs to be taken very seriously. Wikipedia activity from his IP address began on 13 June, and the first edit was to make Erdogan's anti-alcohol policy look not as bad as it is. As far as I can tell, neutrality doesn't mean making accommodations with Islamism, which is clearly the objective of this poster. Wikipedia doesn't push a Christian fundamentalist point of view, and it shouldn't push Islamist points of view, either. – Herzen (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see wikipedia is supposed to be about facts, not about who said what or profiling writers based on stereotypes. I am new to the editing process, but I would have serious doubts about the reliability of wikipedia if this is how the process works. I have already commented on various issues with the neutrality of the article, I would appreciate debating on those instead of personal attacks. 178.233.170.205 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Adding a template accomplishes precisely nothing - how many articles have such templates for years? Raise specific concerns, and then maybe they can be addressed. Podiaebba (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. 1. You are perfectly correct. 2. Yes, we should be neutral. 3. That should be pretty obvious. 4. I am! It's just so confusing, considering the circumstances of the events there. 5. I understand perfectly what it is not. 6. Of course. Disrupting one of the world's most popular sites just to prove a point is completely idiotic and disastrous. 7. I'm too shy. Image2012 (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Credible Western media coverage across a wide range of political ideologies

Arrests of Journalists, artists, and political opponents ECONOMIST, moderate/independent

Free speech NYT, democrats/left/liberal

Women's Rights NRO, republican/right/conservative

Prohibitions on alcohol FINANCIAL TIMES, republican/moderate

Media Silence BLOOMBERGE, left of center

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.93.61 (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2013

2013 Turkish Protests like 1968 France

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Searching around the Arab Nations Media, I found an article of opinion published by a libyan newspaper (Tripoli Post), which explore the similarities of 1968 Events on France, specially the reaction of youth against the conservative and authoritarian policies of General de Gaulle, and actual events in Turkey in 2013. I think the author's opinion is a best fit of actual events: a mixture of youth libertinism, and a frontal opposition of a conservative goverment. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.136.249 (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC) >> It's also a comparison made by the Canard Enchaîné French newspaper. Captain frakas (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Issues with Title

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion

Gezi Park is too specific

Protests have been held not only in Istanbul's Gezi Park, but also in Ankara and in several Turkish communities in Europe [2]. --Երևանցի talk 00:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The protests have obviously spread to other locations in Turkey such Izmir and Ankara[3]. The current article title is misleading. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there a proposed alternative name? The turkish wikipedia article has the same name:http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Taksim_Gezi_Park%C4%B1_protestolar%C4%B1 Rajah (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"2013 Taksim Gezi Park protests" title seems proper. Yes, it is true that the protests have spread to many cities in Turkey but currently the sparking point is still on the 'Taksim Gezi Park'. The other cities have begun to protest to support the main protesters in Istanbul from their own locations not necessarily to move and participate directly in Istanbul.

News are pouring gradually. And wikipedia users must follow the current events protecting their own objectivity and wiki's policies.

However if this event expands to many more locations and evolves from the environmental perspectives to another ones (i.e. political, ideological, anti-government motives), then the title can be changed.

One simple example: Think that World War 1 started today. We cannot know and make any assumption that after "the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria on 1 June 2013" World War 1 started because simply, we cannot know what happens afterwards. Gradually we will learn the events and finally we will change the title as 'World War 1'.

Regards, --Toksoz (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move to "Taksim Gezi Park protests"

The following discussion is an archived 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: KEEP. No support for move; subsequent events have rendered the proposal moot. Capscap (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Capscap (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


2013 Taksim Gezi Park protests → Taksim Gezi Park protests – No need for year; nothing to disambiguate from. Mohamed CJ(talk) 04:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • No sources seem to refer to these protests as anything similar to "2013 Taksim Gezi Park protests". They simply call them Turkish protests, which makes sense, since this is about much broader issues than just a park. A name such as 2013 Turkish protests" or some such would make more sense. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
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.

2013 Turkish protests

Let's not make a move of the title before discussing here first please, people here are tired of reverting the inaccurate doings. If you do not want to discuss here, at least consult google once. It's called Turkey Protests everywhere now. Here's a few examples of it:

Azirlazarus (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Azirlazarus. Let's move it to Turkey Protests or 2013 Turkey Protests.Kavas (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused. It looks like an admin made the move—a technical move that seems uncontroversial— and that Azirlazarus undid it. I thought the move the admin made—2013 Turkish protests—was good, as this article is also about (and discusses) the 50+ Turkish protests outside of Turkey. Capscap (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we quickly agree on 2013 Turkey protests? (Seems WP:SNOW to me) Capscap (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

The article has multiple issues, the worst of which being lack of citations for vital claims, and an obvious pro-protest POV. It has to be well-supported with citations, written from a neutral point of view, and not make arguments, such as the background section beginning with the claim of Turkey's lack of freedoms, which makes sense only if one assumes the article's writers want the reader to agree with their political conclusions. The best place to start is with citing the material that needs supporting. Then the article can be checked for neutral language. Writing an article poorly helps no one's cause. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

  • You can use these file which is taken by me.

File:Erdal Beşikçioğlu in Kuğulu Park (May 31, 2013).jpg

File:Tunalı Hilmi Street (May 31, 2013).jpg

File:Tunalı Hilmi Street (31 May 2013).jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Istiklal_caddesi_gezi_parki_protestosu.JPG Haruneskar (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you.--Reality 05:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is much improved now. Please help the protesters by nominating the article for ITN section on the main page. Candymoan (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Some information needs to be moved from the lead to the timeline. The background section needs to be for issues explicitly linked by reliable sources to the protests, it can't simply be a spiel about bad things in Turkey. Generally speaking, the purpose of this article is for informing people about the event, but not promoting it. As such, information in the article, particularly the timeline section, needs to explictly focus on citable facts, and avoid POV adjectives and commentary. LukeSurl t c 09:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC-)

While it possible that Turkey is using agent orange in the demonstrations, and other editors have been putting up links to "media reports," none of the media sources has yet confirmed this (CNN was emphatic about this), and it more probable that what was observed was expired tear gas. Agent orange is a defoliation agent, not a crowd-control tool.eliotbates (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"Sources" will all naturally be pro-protest, because those anti-protest will stay silentOxr033 (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Main Page - ITN

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Petitioning for inclusion of the article for In The News section of the Main Page. Please support. Candymoan (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Link to the petition: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Turkish_protests --Rajah (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
While this is likely to be posted soon, it's important to note that ITN/C is not a petition. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

See also section

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This section includes an article of Istanbul bombing. What is the link between these two events? Egeymi (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

2010 Taksim blast link was placed on the section to tell the important events occurred in Taksim and its round. There is not any parallel between the two but to inform people about the significance of Taksim (and particularly 'the Taksim square') in the eurasian history; not only in the Turkish, Ottoman, Seljuq, Byzantine, etc. history. --Toksoz (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for explanation. Egeymi (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not Agent Orange

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

the agent orange thing is a rumor, and it's sourced here to CNN, when in fact it was on CNN "ireport," which is unverified first-hand reporting, and the page has now been taken down.

As the Wikipedia page to which this links makes clear, Agent Orange is a defoliant (used to kill plants, not control people) and not orange in color, is not a gas, has no use in crowd control, and does not produce the symptoms experienced by the protestors, who have been hit with a variety of forms of tear gas. Since Agent Orange has a particular and ugly history, and there are actually no verified sources of its use here (verification would actually require sophisticated chemical testing--the rumor appears to be based on some tweets and blog postings and the orange color of one of the tear gas varieties used by Turkish police), I'd prefer this claim be removed. Wichitalineman (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed-- I've rewritten to clarify that turkish riot control chemical nicknamed "Agent Orange" is not the US military's defoliant. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
That CNN page has been taken down because it was "found to be in violation of the iReport Community Guidelines and Terms of Use", fyi. Gnaaye (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Also can someone take down that caption under the picture that says blood in the streets? That was red dye from water cannons that police use to "mark" protestors for later arrests. 66.65.62.138 (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Issues regarding injuries and casualties

Latest comment: 11 years ago22 comments10 people in discussion

Turkish Doctors' Association? Source of "6 lost eyes" quote?

Where is the Turkish Doctors' Association website please? I cannot find anything on www.ttb.org.tr re the 6 lost eyes quote from the Guardian. There is no name in the Guardian for who gave the figure. If you cannot edit this talk page feel free to tell me on my own talk page. I will also try and find out whether this is true via my own links with Turkish doctors but I doubt my sources will be good enough. Thanks. Jzlcdh (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah quote is from Reuters. But they have not named the spokesperson. Any have any more info on this? Jzlcdh (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Cannot find info on this point on Turkish Wikipedia. Jzlcdh (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see it is not on http://www.ttb.org.tr/index.php/tumhaberler/ - so I am removing it. Jzlcdh (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the Guardian got things kind of garbled and misread "gözaltı" (arrest, custody) as "altı göz" (six eyes) - there seems to be now other source for that specific number. The actual press release from the Turkish Doctors' Association is quoted on the current version of the page, though I'm not sure the translation is correct - my Turkish isn't very good, but I think the meaning is ambiguous and could be either be "a large number of our fellow citizens were said to have lost an eye as a consequence of [these] injuries" (they are reporting hearsay for which they don't have evidence themselves) or that "a large number of our fellow citizens are [now] losing an eye as a consequence of those injuries" (they are known to have received injuries that are now resulting in the loss of eyes, or that are known to be the kind of injury that can result in the loss of an eye). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.178.164 (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Who reported that there were deaths?

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20804 says "According to reports, more than a thousand protesters have been injured and at least two have died." But in what source were deaths actually reported? Unless the source can be found and it is reliable I suggest this info should be removed as unreliable. Jzlcdh (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed - please give the names of 2 dead in reliable source before re-adding. Jzlcdh (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

So it seems that Amnesty International is a reliable source only depending on what country is reporting, like: AI reliable in Turkey? No. AI reliable in Syria? Yes. Wow, double standards in full effect...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Unlike in the Syrian conflict, we have several independent sources stating the names of the dead. FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Deaths

I reverted removal of death information as it is sourced. The claim that the deaths are not named makes no sense. Follow reliable sources. Regards, Sun Creator(talk)18:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Very strange question... NeoRetro (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sun Creator. Of course Amnesty International is a reliable source and I have great respect for them. However they themselves are merely quoting other report(s) and as far as I can tell they have not told us who or what those sources are. Therefore we cannot judge their reliability. They have not in fact said whether they consider the report(s) to be correct or not. Given the need to try to avoid inflaming the situation and provoking any more violence against people on either side I believe Wikipedia ought to be reasonably sure of itself before reporting the deaths of two people. Therefore I believe this statement should be removed for now and when and if more information becomes available it could be re-added. I hope you will agree that this is not a trivial matter (as many of my other Wikipedia edits are!) and should be carefully considered. Would anyone else like to comment on this? Jzlcdh (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I see 3 deaths are now stated in the infobox and a picture has been added (partial so it is not obvious whether the person is wounded or dead). If next of kin have been informed could the name of the person in the picture be given and the place and time? Jzlcdh (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Now in the infobox the same picture is being claimed as a death in Istanbul and Ankara! Jzlcdh (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Turkish newspapers like Posta and Yeni Asır confirmed that the dead of Moroccan-Turkish girl and also the protester that got hit by a civil police car is confirmed dead. You can check the paper sites from internet. Of course, there won't be any official speech from government saying "Yes we killed them". Photos are the true proofs. And all the police violence is true, telling this as a man just hit home in Izmir. Thanks. Berkaysnklf (talk) 2 June, 2013, 22:17 (UTC)

I cannot find confirmation of the claimed killing of Lavna Allani on Posta and Yeni Asır websites. But my Turkish is not very good. Perhaps someone with better Turkish can put the link on this talk page. Are they reliable sources? Until the death(s) are confirmed by a reliable source (such as mainstream foreign media or a foreign embassy as she is mentioned as a foreigner) I am removing the deaths info in the infobox as unreliable. Jzlcdh (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I searched the sites; the only story on Posta (which is confirmed on stories on Radikal) is that she is in critical condition. There is no mention of her on Yeni Asır. An unconfirmed post on Ekşi Sözlük on 2 June mentioned that she's undergoing a 2nd operation.eliotbates (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Amnesty is reliable, so you cannot do that. FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I see one death has now been confirmed. But I do not think we should be showing unconfirmed deaths in the infobox without good sources. I am replacing the Turkish language source for the confirmed death with an English language one and removing the unconfirmed figure. I agree Amnesty is reliable and I am not removing their quote in the body of the article. However they are quoting an unknown source which may not be reliable. Jzlcdh (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There is an infographic which states at the bottom: "Death count: Officially, 12 (unofficial more than 30). The graphic includes two photos which could depict dead persons:
http://postimg.org/image/7s9j8s16z/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.8.230 (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Death of İrfan Tuna from overexposure to tear gas seems to be an allegation. The claim is worded as a fact on Source #37, but without relying on any official source, or report. However, I have come across several sources reporting that the prosecutor's office launched an investigation to investigate the allegations of overexposure to tear gas. And an otopsy will be done to determine the cause of death. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything about the incident on the mainstream sources. (Edit: I checked again and I am confused now. They say "he died because of gas and was buried today", at the beginning of the text, then at the end of the text: "the prosecutor's office launched an investigation to investigate the allegations of overexposure to tear gas.", and quote İsmail Boyraz's words: "we don't know the result of the otopsy yet, but we think he died because of tear gas") Qurshad (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Death of Ethem Sarısülük is not confirmed. He is alive and under intensive care. [7]

Death of Ethem Sarısülük is now confirmed on 06/14/2013 [8] 178.233.170.205 (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

International reactions

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In addition to the "Official" and "Unofficial" sections, I think there should be an additional section, possibly called "Worldwide protests" in order to not fill up the "Unofficial" section. The bulletpoints on protests themselves have outnumbered the bullets on other reactions. Ajitirj (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed--Abbatai 20:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. It was available on the Taksim Gezi Park protests before its moved. Its deleted somehow. --Movietech 21:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Movietech (talk • contribs)

I was surprised to see that the "worldwide protests" section has been removed. Was this on purpose? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidothefirst (talk • contribs) 06:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources as references (youtube, tumblr, imgur, etc.)

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Hi folks, great job at this article so far. Please be mindful not to link to self-published primary source youtube videos which may not meet our reliable sources guideline or copyright policy. Youtube videos from random uploaders (non-official channels without a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) are not reliable sources for an encyclopedia article. Further, it's essential that we do not have any doubts that the video uploader is the copyright holder of the video. We cannot link to copyright-infringing reposts on youtube or other sites.

For example, a random, non-official Twitter post should not be linked as evidence unless a reliable secondary sources points to it.

A youtube video uploaded by a protester should not be linked as a reliable source unless that video is linked in an article by a reliable secondary source.

Images from the ground in Turkey cannot be used as reliable sources unless they are accompanied by an authoritative statement by a reliable secondary source such as a newspaper or journalist or expert website. Images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, however, if they meet copyright guidelines--yet they can only be used to illustrate the article not to verify claims.

For more information, please use.

Keep up the great work. Ocaasi t | c 20:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Since there is a shocking blackout on the Turkish press, youtube and tumblr and imgur etc. are the sole source of news nowadays here unfortunately. Not that I claim that it meets the reliable sources policy or anything though. Azirlazarus (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the issue... The current problem is not being able to find any secondary sources for the events taking place. The videos I'd included had very clear implications - a group of 12 policemen beating a lone woman on the streets does not need verification. This uprising is very real, the police brutality is one of the triggers and mainstream media is blacking out on us.

I understand the underlying concern, but at the same time the self-published sources are the only source in midst of this mess. Candymoan (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS is a guideline in service of our core policy WP:Verifiability. It's possible to generate a consensus for including as facts things depicted a self-published source, but it would have to be a very exceptional set of circumstances to generate that kind of consensus. So, there might be exceptions, but I haven't seen need of one yet in my WP career. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

From the beginning of the protests self-published sources have reported and circulated fake stories, including images and videos that were found to be from other events in the past. I would advise extra caution against reports from such sources, especially since the events are still unfolding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.233.170.205 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Not Agreeing With Arab Spring

Latest comment: 11 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion

"Part of Impact of the Arab Spring"? Is it? --Akinranbu (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not! The Prime Minister is elected, so no relation to the Arab Spring!--Movietech 21:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added byMovietech (talk • contribs)
  • I'm still not agreeing with seeing this democracy act that got started to protect nature and which's goal is "protect nature and seed democracy" as a part of Arab Spring. And I'm sure people here, won't agree with it too. Berkaysnklf (talk) 2 June, 2013, 22:21 (UTC)
  • Being a part of Arab Spring is one thing and being a part of IMPACT of the Arab Spring is another. This movement is clearly influenced by the idea of successful removal of dictators in Arab World and occupy movement which was also influenced by Arab Spring. I think that the tag of Impact of the Arab Spring should be kept. Azirlazarus (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That's ridiculous. There are no sources to support this, and I can find you plenty that would support the opposite. Is every revolt part of the Arab spring now?NeoRetro (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • For now, it seems appropriate. User:Azirlazarus has mentioned above. Again, please look at carefully that it is written as "Impact of the Arab Spring". The protests in Turkey does not have strong motives from the Arab Spring but "impact" word is fine. Moreover, please also check "Occupy Movement". The events are happening in the U.S., in many European countries and etc. And it is very clear that the O.M. protesters inherited mostly "the methods", "the solidarity spirit" and suchlike from the Arab Spring; not imitating the involved countries' [of the Arab Spring] cultures, ways of life and forms of government. --Toksoz (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Well I think the Iranian uprising of 09 is a more suitable comparison. For all it's worth, Iran is a democracy and some of the issues and tactics are the same. NeoRetro (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Toksoz is right. No need to be an Arabphobic though. #occupygezi is influenced by the occupy movement and occupy movement is influenced by the Arab Soring. Simple as that. Azirlazarus (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that the Impact of Arab Spring tag is appropriate. For sources, see some of the 121,000 google results for "turkish spring" that make this connection. [[4]] Capscap (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • When we delve into the issue, it is quite possible that we can reach till the legacy of Spartacus. It is not that big issue accepting the "impact" of the Arab Spring. We are not going to be Arab, when we keep the title under the "impact" word. Please check again: There is a "sequence" function in history; not necessarily imitating to one another. "Spartacus' fight", "The American Revolution", "The French Revolution", "The Soviet Revolution", "Founding the Republic of Turkey from the residuals of the Ottoman Empire", "Under Gandhi's leaderhip; The Salt March", "The Nazis", "The Chinese Revolution", "The Cuban Revolution", "Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech in 1963", "The Vietnamese Revolution", "The Iranian Revolution", "The Dissolution of the Soviet Union", "1999 Seattle WTO protests", "The Orange Revolution", "The Arab Spring", "The Occupy Movement" and "The Taksim Gezi Park protests" have common "the spirit of solidarity". As it is seen; the cultures, the languages, the forms of government are far different but there is a "sequence" over "solidarity". --Toksoz (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The protests are not the part of the Arab Spring; the protests are influenced by the Arab Spring's methods and solidarity. Therefore, it was written as "The protests are the impact of the Arab Spring". --Toksoz (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The so-called Arab Spring started in Tunisia against an obvious dictator. As long as I know, the AKP was voted majority into the Meclis by the Turks and I don't recall much criticism about the elections. Not every protest since 2011 should be considered as part of the impact of the Arab Spring. I would like to hear your comments on how this protests are related to the Arab Spring, other than being a series of mass demonstrations against the government. --Երևանցի talk 22:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The explanation is mentioned above. There is not a direct correlation between the Taksim Gezi Park protests and the Arab Spring. The one and only connection is about the two: The methods and solidarity. --Toksoz (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, this started as an environmentalist act and still continues like that on first place. Every morning people, got out with thrash bins and clean the streets that got polluted on battles. And thousands check this page every day. The claiming Arab Spring or Impact of Arab Spring can make people get this movement wrong. We don't have to write there anything. At least now. So can it just be removed ? I'm telling this as a protester who's out every day until night. We don't have to write there anything, at least for now. Berkaysnklf (talk) 3 June, 2013, 00:29 (UTC)
  • The connection/impact of these protests with Arab spring is pure conjuncture and original research at its finest. Even claiming these protests are a continuation of the Republic protests of 2007 would be original research but that has a higher likely-hood. Said 2007 pro-secular protests predate the arab spring. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • In some of the foreign protests (Oxford, London) diasporic Turks have been waving signs that say "Turkish Spring" and the like, but I haven't seen anything of this from inside Turkey. eliotbates (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure, "Anadolu Spring" is a term I have also seen but not through reliable sources. Personally I like "Anatolian Summer" more. :p -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • In addition to my post above, I found this news: [5] A small protest in northern Tehran with people demanding release of Mousavi and 'down with the dictator'. Turkish-Iranian culture is very connected, this protest isn't part of the Arab spring. It's about liberalising the Perso-Turkish culture. Mousavi is an ethnic Azeri, and he's not even running in the election. Those protesters have definitely made the candidacy of their leader impossible. Still they felt this was the right time, with the upcoming elections and all.NeoRetro (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • ONE MORE TIME: It is true that there is NOT direct connection between the Taksim Gezi Park protests and the Arab Spring. As explained above, there is a "sequence" function in history. That's why; the one and only connection between the two events may be: The methods and the spirit of solidarity. --Toksoz (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • LOL. I don't know if you know this... but the Arab "spring" was probably also influenced by the Iranian revolt. I don't think there are many Turks that want some sort of Arab revolution... And if you are talking about a sequence, the Iranian uprising was obviously before the Arab spring. NeoRetro (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am aware. Please read the passage above starting as "When we delve into the issue,...". There is not only "The Iranian Revolution" but also "The Soviet Revolution" and many more. And the "sequence" function in history works in the Taksim Gezi Park protests, too.
Lastly, 1. The Republic of Turkey is NOT an Arab country and never will be. The "sequence" points in this event are "the methods" and "the spirit of solidarity" motives between the two.
2. The U.S., the European continent, etc.; the majority of protests [The Occupy movement, the protests against austerity measures and suchlike] in this geographies inherited firstly "the methods" and "the spirit of solidarity" from the Arab Spring. But please pay attention: Neither the U.S. nor the European continent said [and will never say] that they aimed an Arab revolution or a Christian revolution or a Communist revolution in their cultures and governments. Being a part of the Arab Spring and being influenced by the Arab Spring are far different points.
3. Anonymous identifies itself as an international online activist group. This organization supported the Arab Spring in the past and now supporting the Taksim Gezi Park protests. Anonymous is also aware that there is NOT direct relations between the two events but the similar motives and these are [again] "the methods" and "the spirit of solidarity". --Toksoz (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sides in casualty

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is the casualty listed in the protester side of the infobox, as if the casualty did not belong to Turkey? The divisions in the conflict are currently not clear and I think it would be a good idea to list the casualties without dividing them by side.VR talk 20:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

New York Times ad

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Headsup: all 3 drafts of a planned full-page letter in the New York Times include a link to this Wikipedia article: [6]. An incentive to make the page better, perhaps! Podiaebba (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  • This is a joke, right? Atatürk? Another authoritarion leader, but just with a bit sauce of westernization, is being used to define us?
I'm so pissed off! I am a Gezi protestor and a leading figure on the ground since the beginning. I've been hit by gas cannisters and got wounded several times. I've done all I could on twitter (organizing people and everything) and made massive contributions to this page, just for standing against an authoritarian leader and for simply freedom! And now I see what? A bunch of elitist, coup d'etat sympathizers (who shout "We are the soldiers of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk," which is a really disturbing slogan to hear for many Gezi Protestors), those who are Republic Protests participators advertising our resistance in a tone of Kemalism on western media!

You're right Atatürk did it wrong. He should simply be the Sultan and there would be no problem today. He is dead now, why don't we make another one Sultan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.122.168 (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Atatürk is the symbol of secularist Turkey; mentioning him doesn't necessarily mean some extremist Kemalism. There are plenty of different voices there, and trying to represent them all in a single message is always going to be hard. But anyway, this isn't an issue for Wikipedia; if you want to promote an alternative message, you'll have to find other ways to do it. Good luck! Podiaebba (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • We (me and my protestor acquaintances) just wish that it wasn't a Kemalist propaganda paper, It doesn't represent the liberal identity of the movement. Most of those who see the wikipedia link of this page on the ad will also see our reservation here. I ask them to ignore that ad, thank you. Azirlazarus (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is a unique place where [aims to] presents events ‘directly’; not in a manipulated way. The allegations are true over this question ‘Is wikipedia really neutral?’
Please try to look to the frame from an angle a bit above. The letter published on NYTimes; yes may be an elitist, yes may be a Kemalist, yes may be a communist, yes may be a secular, yes may be a liberal, yes may be a capitalist and yes may be a conservative effort. But one issue cannot be changed; the first reason why the protesters gave ‘2013 protests in Turkey’ wikipedia page as a reference to NYTimes is that there was not any other area, web site, mail line, tv channel, facebook group or twitter river to ‘tell’ (only ‘tell!’) to the world what is going on in Turkey. Showing a wikipedia page as a reference does not make that particular wiki page ‘one-sided’ at all [except minorities].
All registered & unregistered users in wikipedia world try to write their sources in one single page and these massive efforts make the area ‘an ocean’. And no one must expect in wiki pages only the things which those who desire to see. The essential presence of wikipedia is [again] telling events directly.
Please think about George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. These giants are [three of] the most fundamental monuments of the U.S. governmental structure. But some of them called ‘federalists’ and some of them called ‘democratic-republicans’.
Lenin and Stalin are far different individuals. But today in Russia, you can still see the people marching on the streets, holding the Stalin frames, shouting loudly. Don’t they know Stalin cruelly promoted the Gulag way of life!
Most of the Chinese people are in love with Mao and most of the Chinese people yearn to destroy the cult of his personality!
What about North Korea? What about Hitler or Mussolini?
Che is a legend and will remain in that way. But don’t ‘the left’ know that Che also killed people!
What about Neo-Nazis!
And what about the military operations and coups backed by the CIA!
Don’t you think one of the closest friends of Ataturk, Ismet Inonu; in the last days of Ataturk, felt hurt about their brotherhood!
If we intend to find a hole from a character, definitely we can find one!
Federalists, democratic-republicans, communists, revolutionaries, autocrats, capitalists, conservatives, liberals, dictators, etc. are ‘individuals!’, too. No one is übermensch!
Most of the hardcore-leftists do not approach to hear what Mewlana Rumi said and most of the hardcore-rightists do not approach to hear what Deniz Gezmis said. But what would Rumi and Gezmis think about each other!
Can we balance between Hitler and Ataturk!
Of course, there is a huge difference between ‘being in love with Ataturk’ and ‘yearning to destroy the cult of his personality’! This situation seems a spiral; black or red, yellow or blue…
Once again, we must pay ‘very high!’ attention to keep wikipedia neutral. It doesn’t matter ‘who’ & ‘which side’ gives a wikipedia page as a reference. The things written in a wiki are the core! --Toksoz (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Totally agreed. Even that Atatürk tried to construct democracy in Turkey until his last days, it was so hard for him to open up a second party because in every try, all the Ottoman-supporters were filling it up. He tried it two times, as much as his life give permission. So I think there is a big difference between Erdogan's and Atatürk's authority. It was a newly-founded republic and Atatürk needed to put on authority to supress the Ottoman supporters and Islamists, while he and his friends were trying to build up the proper democracy. And they hardly achieved it and made Turkey a country with democracy with lots of sides. But the authority Erdogan uses is insane, for nothing and brutal. So as Toksoz said, you can find similar spots between anyone and everyone! But if you are trying to balance someone with Hitler and if you are especially working on the authority, then it is easier to balance Hitler and Erdogan ! And so, as Toksoz said again, of course there is huge differences between loving someone and yearning the destruction of the cult of that someone's personality. But in Wikipedia, we all must stay neutral and contribute neutrally. Berkaysnklf (talk) 18 June, 2013, 18:11 (UTC)

Needs

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article needs better organization. Ffor example the reactons part should go together (with interntional) not a subsection of th e date and it needs consolidating of the 1 sentence paragraphs. Pre precedent, media reactions are secondary to political ones.

Also need to add erdogan terming the protest as extremist and backed by foreigners (possibly with the investigation he suggested). And update today for the 200k+ civil servants striking.(Lihaas (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)).

Naming sections

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Right now we have:

  • 2.1 28 May
  • 2.2 29 May
  • 2.3 30 May
  • 2.4 31 May
  • 2.5 1 June
  • 2.6 2 June
  • 2.7 3 June

This seems hard to read. How about putting the month first to separate the numbers? (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 15:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears like this because you are logged in, and have the "auto number headings" preference set. Logged out users won't see the section numbering. Per WP:MOS all dates in an article should have the same format, so the section headings should (usually) not be put as month day, without changing the rest of the article. It would probably be better to get rid of the date section headings completely, and use prose for the dates.Martin451 (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I think we should eliminate the section headings, use prose, and focus on the notable events rather than a minute-by-minute play-by-play. I previously proposed moving the timeline to a separate article, but that was shot down. Capscap (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

New picture at top of article

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I'm not sure exactly how NPOV rules apply to pictures, but the new picture at the top seems pretty POV to me. It would be one thing if it were just an actual photo of the protests like the old one.. but having a propaganda poster at the top of the article just feels inappropriate to me. Capscap (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. There are probably copyright issues with such internet-sourced composites too. Podiaebba (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if the sports clubs poster is non-NPOV, but I agree the gas-masked whirling sufi is a better image for the top-- a whirling sufi is distinctly Turkish and the gas-mask references the tear gas used on protestors. I'll restore that image to top. Someone else already beat me to it. --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks like Martin451 beat us to the punch [7]- Thanks, Martin! Capscap (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree the sports picture had POV issues for the first picture, and put the sufi one back in.Martin451 (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
As a Turkish citizen and someone following the news from the start I find the whirling dervish pretty irrelevant to the general theme of the protests and the opposing sides. elif 8:32, 7 June 2013 (PST)
Well, the gas mask is a symbol used by the protesters (and used by them in reality too); The whirling dervish protester helps us distinguish it as a uniquely Turkish protest. Generic protest images could have been taken in New York just as easily as Istanbul. But open to suggestions-- if we get permission to use the Woman in Red image, that would be my strong favorite for top image. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed that since the woman was identified and interviewed and her reluctance to be an icon has become clear, media have been using a photo taken a fraction of a second later, where she has turned away from the spray and her face is obscured by her hair. The photo is significantly less aesthetic and dramatic, and I think it must be to respect her wishes. We should take those wishes into account, and I would certainly oppose using it for the leading image. Podiaebba (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
It's a good photo, and works well at that size, and has a uniquely Turkish theme. It's not easy to find another good photo which doesn't look generically protesty at that size. Podiaebba (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the best picture would be a collage. -- Iñfẽstør  T• C• U 21:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Final sentence of the lead...

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

... ends with: "that the government will ensure full participation of locals to local constructions and developments forth." I can't fix this as I can't even tell what is meant by this sentence. That local people will participate in local construction projects from now on? In the sense that they will be construction workers, or that the community will be involved in construction decisions? Please clarify. siafu (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The sentence does not seem to be directly backed up by the cite, but I am guessing that he means local people will be consulted on future developments. Not (as I read the sentence) locals will be forced to help construction, or locals will be given priority in jobs.Martin451 (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I've removed that unclear and unsupported part of the sentence. If anyone has a link for future construction-related development, feel free to add it along with a citation. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 02:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Supporting Political Organisations

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

While it was a "civil" protest at the beginning, later on, some organisations took control of the protests. The major and most influential ones were:

I think this fact should be noted.--144.122.104.211 (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

There is wide agreement that the protests are spontaneous. Only CHP even gets mentioned in news reports, and not as an organising force. Podiaebba (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
First, not all media reported from the beginning of the protest, so it is dangerous to rely only on normal commercial media as sources. Because it is given that a lot of media are controlled by people or organization who are freely or not freely cooperating with the government and the akp, it is possible but not necessary that they want to prevent giving any oppositional groups, parties, syndicates etc. the credits of partly organising these protest. There are parties, groups, syndicates etc. which are calling on to protest against the government on their own news publications (facebook, twitter, webpages, newspapers and tv channels), so you cant say its only spontaneous. The question is rather how much their influence is. For example: the Turkey Youth organisation has around 283'000 likes on facebook and nearly 60'000 followers on twitter, if they are calling for a protest are they organising it?130.60.230.130 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
These and other political organizations have attempted to capitalize on the event, but I don't have the sense that any have any degree of "control." For example, the survey done by Bilgi University researchers today, the summary of which is posted here, does not suggest that any of the above parties has had any appreciable influence. The most prominent pro-protest politician, at least by sheer mentions in news stories, is Sırrı Süreyya Önder, from the BDP, a party not even mentioned above. eliotbates (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
it is not a contradiction if the results of a survey are different to the mobilization trough different organization. a survey can never be 100% accurate, likewise the flags of organisations in different fotos arent neither.178.39.184.187 (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding Syria to international reaction

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have noticed someone removed Syrias comments on the turkish protests Jumada (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesnt surprise me, it surely was one of that claimed "neutral" editors...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
probably someone loyal to sultan Erdogan Jumada (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 Y No idea why it was originally removed, but I've restored the content. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Timeline split

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Is it perhaps time to split the Timeline section to a separate article (compare Timeline of the 2011–13 Saudi Arabian protests (January–April 2011)), with a summary here? I think we're in danger of losing the wood for the trees. I'm not all that happy with the "Location of protests" section either - it's again a "wood for the trees" issue, especially as it doesn't give any sense of how the size of protests changes over time. Could that section go into a separate article as well? Podiaebba (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I put a split tag on it yesterday but someone almost immediately removed it. But after reading the section again, I think it could probably be cut down and summarized using prose. It's mostly a minute-by-minute play-by-play and quite a bit of the content is not notable, useful, or encyclopedic. Capscap (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, one thought I had was that it might be useful to have it split by city as well as date, which might be more feasible in its own article. The progression of events in Istanbul, Ankara, and elsewhere does seem to differ. Podiaebba (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I think splitting it by city could work too. Perhaps Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, and Other Cities? Capscap (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The nice thing about the location of protests section is that it helps the reader understand the extent of the protests, affecting cities across Turkey-- as someone generally ignorant of the geography of Turkey, it helps a lot to have lists, numbers, and a map, so we can understand the protests are across the nation, not concentrated in any one locality.
I agree that once the situation calms, we should split off the timeline into a sub-article, summarized in this article. In my experience, so long as a situation is an on-going current event, recent updates are going to flow into the main article, even if we create a timeline subarticle. I'd recommend keeping current structure in place for now, and refactoring once we have a little more distance from the event, once hindsight approaches 20/20. But I agree the timeline jumps out as a good candidate for a subarticle, once things are less current. --07:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox - lead figures

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The infobox in the lead section describes the lead figures as follows:

  • Various artists and intellectuals
  • People from various ethnic, political and religious backgrounds
  • Supporter groups of various football teams
  • People from various social classes
  • Various political groups

These are clearly not the lead figures but the apparent participants in the protests. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Woman in Red Image?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The woman in red image has been quite widely discussed. [8][9][10]. The woman has been identified and interviewed.[11].

Do we think WP:NFCC would allow inclusion of the image? There are many discussions of it being an "iconic symbol", but it was taken by a Reuters photographer, not a protester's cell phone.

I don't know the answer, so I'm completely agnostic on whether WP should permit inclusion of this image. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

One point against is that the woman isn't particularly keen to be an icon in this way. Podiaebba (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If someone uploads a free image on the commons, why not?-- Iñfẽstør  T• C• U 11:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a problem in the first para

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

In the first para, while mentioning the international solidarity to Turkey, only the U.S. was written.

The introduction para [usually] is written as a general point of view for the rest of the event, mail, story, column, article [mostly for delivering ‘news’] and etc.

I suggest to re-write that specific part with more covering [means ‘international’] words.

Who else joins to this rearrangement demand? --Toksoz (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I think there is way too much specific detail in the whole introductory section, including the paragraph you mention. Especially if we keep the sections "4 Locations of protests; 4.1 Turkey; 4.2 International" there is no need in the introductory paragraph to mention specific countries (we could mention the number of confirmed countries, though). I've been thinking of a new introduction but haven't quite figured out the best wording. eliotbates (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Eliotbates, it will be a good idea to spread this plan here, now. You can step forward and write [on the main page] or here to share other users' opinions. --Toksoz (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Aren't there any other wikipedians to participate to re-write the aforementioned part [and the entire lead]?
Waiting for proper rewording by wikipedians:
Current: “The protests have also spread to other cities in Turkey, and protests have been seen in other countries with significant Turkish communities, including New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, San Antonio, Texas, Miami, Tampa, and Washington, D.C. in the U.S.”
The new one: “The protests have also spread to other cities in Turkey, and protests have been seen in other countries with significant Turkish communities, including the European countries, the U.S. and the far-east Asia.” --Toksoz (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Tone of the article, subjective comments, and claims

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think overall tone of article seems to be heavily affected by the pro-protestors' point of view, which hurts objectivity of the article. (Any second opinion?)

And I have come across some claims which refer to some fuzzy youtube videos, and questionable sources. I would like to share two of them:

1- "A civilian car, allegedly driven by a traffic police officer, drove straight through the crowds in Kızılay, killing at least one protester." The source #149 refers to a fuzzy youtube video which doesn't give any real info about the incident. Just a crowd running here and there, and a car is seen for a short period of time. And the source #150 refers to a liveleak video, which has better quality and a better angle. In this video, a civilian car tries to continue its way on the road. Car slows down to let the protestors step aside, and start moving slowly. Then some protestors start hitting the car, and car vanishes in the crowd. After a while, the car is seen again getting out of the crowd with a partially broken windshield, and trying to escape. During his escape, the driver speeds up, and ends up hitting a few protestors on his way. None of the sources have anything concrete about "police officer" or "killed person". The car seems to be civilian.

When I tried to find some info about the incident, I came across this news website: [9]

Here, it is reported that a civilian driver escaped the crowd, hitting three protestors. Later in the night, the driver was caught by the police. The driver claimed that he paniced when protestors attacked his car, and caused the incident. The three protetors, who were slightly injured, were taken to hospital.

2- "On June 5 Turkish public broadcasting service TRT aired footage of people burning the Turkish flag. The footage was originally aired in 2010 but featured doctored dates, implying the current demonstrations were somehow secessionist in nature." Source #380 refers to Ulusal Kanal, which is known with its anti-government attitude, and its alleged ties with Ergenekon. (Please see the related wiki page for more info.) On the web page, they make their accusations and refer to ReadHack, but without any real evidence, and without any real source. Actually, there a few versions of this "they aired fake video" claim floating around in the social media. (Some of them also claiming that the place was also not Kızılay, but Dolapdere).

After those accusations, TRT revealed the whole video, which proves itself to be valid: [10]

-Sorry if it is too long :)-

After all, the whole article also seemed to be containing too much detail to me. But, considering that I am not so proficient in the wiki related stuff, I might be wrong about that. And to avoid ruining the article, I didn't want to edit it directly, without talking here first. :)

I am also willing to make more contributions to this article, and maybe to more articles later. Any comments/advices would be appreciated as I am new here. :)

Qurshad (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Qurshad, welcome to Wikipedia! I agree with you in principle; many of us have been working at removing uncorroborated claims, but with the sheer number of edits and the number of references now over 400, some rumors remain. I searched and found an article by Milliyet (a bit more reliable than Spot Haber) which aligns fairly closely with what you wrote above concerning the first point.[11] I think that the text should be rewritten. Regarding the 2nd point, the TRT video doesn't prove anything (even if the text of the video was then copied on other government-owned newspapers) and other news sources suggest that TRT as well is doctoring the "evidence."[12] We must remember that the government-run TRT is no more or less partisan than Ulusal Kanal, and "alleged ties with Ergenekon" has been used to stifle nearly every serious news provider in Turkey and are just that - alleged. When possible, we include every "side" of the story. eliotbates (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Your comment about TRT has been noted. :) But I have to add for the sake of completeness/fairness: the social media campaigne about TRT's video was claiming that the video was from a BDP meeting in Dolapdere in 2010. (I couldn't find that shared "evidence" in facebook right now, because the one I saw was deleted by its owner.) But when I checked 1:05 to see the man with striped clothes, 1:50-2:00 to see doremusic store, and 2:05-2:10 to see the same man still walking, I thought the video is genuine. Then I checked yandex[13] to see if that place was really in Ankara, and it came out to be Hatay street of Ankara. By the way, I don't know if you know Turkish, or if you are using machine translation, but the source you mentioned says "There were rumors about TRT's video on social media, so TRT published a photo gallery comparing the video and the photos taken in daylight". Have you encountered any reliable source other than Ulusal Kanal about the fake evidence claim? (It would be appreciated.) Ulusal Kanal's news about this incident only says "redhack said so".

[possibly unrelated info] And redhack is also not so reliable. I have just watched their claims about "manipulating vote numbers in the elections" (on halk tv), which says vote numbers were changed by using computers to make AkParti win the elections. Funny thing is, we don't use computers during elections. We use simple paper and ink. And count the votes, by hand, under the watch of observers from each party (all citizens also have the right to observe and object). And all parties take notes of those numbers, then cross-check with the official results. We only use computers for cataloging, getting sums, etc. (And those results are also cross-checked by all parties). [/unrelated info] Qurshad (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Censored on Facebook

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I don't know what to make of Adbusters's claim that its Facebook events have been "censored" by Facebook: [12]. Anyone? If true it would be significant, but it seems bizarre and improbable. Podiaebba (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not confirming, but reports like this give it some plausibility. Unfortunately, I think that getting better information would come under the category of original research. --Nixin06 (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
That's just about internet censorship in Turkey. Adbusters' claim is that the events have been deleted, not that they can't be accessed from Turkey. (As they're events outside Turkey, that's not so important anyway.) Podiaebba (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Number of protestors

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

According to the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey around 640,000 people participated in the demonstrations. But this only refers to the protestors on the streets, while it ignores the protests of banging pots and pans which includes millions as The Economist saying "Millions of housewives joined in, clanging their pans in solidarity." Should we count them as protestors too and put the word of Millions to the info box? Azirlazarus (talk) 15:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

They can't possibly know that it's "millions", never mind that it's millions of "housewives". We could mention the pot/pan protests, yes, but I think we'd have to put "unknown, but significant numbers" or something like that. Podiaebba (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The thing is the infobox section gives precise numbers for the protestors while the true numbers are much higher. It causes a misperception. We should either remove the precise numbers or write something like "Unknown, but significant numbers" above cities list as you suggest. Azirlazarus (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, the city estimates are a bit misleading in the body text; they're worse in the infobox - a shorter summary would be better. And sourcing remains a problem - I've just randomly clicked the Ankara source in the infobox and it says 20k, not 40. Podiaebba (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The German article had a very useful table to show different estimates, which could also be used to put in some comments about the source. They have since replaced it with another table, but have kept track of estimates. People have been increasing the number of protesters without sources, probably they are right in the number being much higher in many cities (I've verified myself in many anatolian towns there have been thousands to tens of thousands of people on the street, but could not find any source so I left it out. The first couple of days I tried to keep the list correct, but I'm working on finishing my bachelors degree so I'm sorry I don't have had time the last couple of days. I think someone should go over the list, and the page history to create a table with different estimates (including the date and source). Also, the list in the infobox should be removed, or only the top 3 or 4 locations should be put there with the link to the table. NeoRetro (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

On Gezi History

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ottoman History Podcast just did a two hour long segment on the history of urban transformation in Istanbul from the Ottoman time. Might give some additional background information.NeoRetro (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Better image

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Here's a bunch of protesters: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Gezi_Park_protests.jpg

Here's someone dancing with people clapping: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Whirling_Sufi_Protester_wearing_gas_mask_in_Gezi_Park.jpg

It trivializes the issue and it doesn't represent what's going on. Can I replace this? The one I want is in use in the Turkish wikipedia by the way. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The second one is interesting too, and could be used elsewhere in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Can we please have semi-protection for this page? There is tons of vandalism going on. -- Iñfẽstør  T• C• U 20:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

OSTİM

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

"OSTİM", what is that? Quote: >> Ethem Sarısülük, the 26 year old OSTİM Human rights activist died on June 2...<< --80.136.56.251 (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ortadoğu Sanayi ve Ticaret Merkezi or OSTIM is a industrial zone for SMEs in Ankara. Btw, I coulnd't find any reliable source if he is dead or not through Google. Yakamoz51 (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

OSTIM seems to be OSTIM Industrial Zone. I'm not sure what "OSTİM Human rights activist" is supposed to mean then - labour activist maybe? Podiaebba (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Can a "large industrial park" and "Inc." like OSTIM Industrial Zone also be a "Nonprofit Organization" and "foundation"? Or are there two organisations wicth the abbreviation OSTIM ?
... I am lost in translation. --80.136.43.99 (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
 
File:Myths and Facts on OccupyGezi.PNG

Why is it the white picture allowed, but not the red picture. They both appeared on NYT. They both appeared with the same license. User:HectorMoffet claimes that the red picture is not the NYT image. Source 1 and 2 (I have more if you want) writes that it is indeed the NYT image. Randam (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Only difference is sourcing. We know the white image DID appear in NYT, but are we certain that that red image has actually appeared in the NYT? I don't see any english sources confirming its publication in NYTs, and google translation of the one turkish source1 does not, to my eyes, suggest that the red ad has run. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
As uploader of the white image of the ad, indeed the site for the crowd-funded ad on Indiegogo shows only the white picture (along with other related stuff, of course), but not the red picture. The people there succeeded. Even though I did not participate in any way for the advertisement (can we call it a manifesto, though?), and I am not an expert on newspaper printing, I think that printing a color ad would be more expensive than a black-and-white one. Anyway, since reliable sources triumph once again, maybe we all should look a little deeper. Image2012 (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation problem

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I couldn't find an article providing the number of the protestors in the city Sinop although I've found a local news website (http://www.sinoppusulasi.com.tr/haber_detay.asp?haberID=664) and a Facebook event (https://www.facebook.com/events/627542837256210/) that shows about 700 have gone to the protest. Is it possible to deduce and include some numbers from the images in the former link or from the Facebook event? I'm a newbie, apologies if this is not the right place to ask. Luot (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is the place to ask.
Sources are essential in wikipedia world. Currently, the case is still hot and all (registered & unregistered) wikipedia users share their sources in the main page. Relying on (and respecting) a source, in a sensitive case like these protests, is important. Therefore, when editing a new info, it will be more appropriate to use the exact figures written in the sources that you intend to edit into the main page.
The sources are from Facebook, Twitter, etc. are acceptable in wikipedia. But it requires a bit more attention than the mainstream news sites (local, international; it doesn't matter) to prove the figures in those. You can see examples via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_protests_in_Turkey#International_reaction link how to use particularly social media tools' sources in a wiki page.
And remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning and Wikipedia:Be bold. --Toksoz (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Judging by the pictures on the Facebook event and the number of participants who said they would go (about 700), I assumed an actual participation rate of tad below 0.5 and have said that the number is between 100 (as said in the first citation) and 300 (the extrapolated number). Luot (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So will both complaining parties (gov and denizen) submitt to a trial in the Hague?

  1. an end to the sale of "public spaces, beaches, waters, forests, streams, parks and urban symbols to private companies, large holdings and investors";

Illegal sales are not final. That is old in the law.

  1. the right of people to express their "needs and complaints without experiencing fear, arrest or torture."

There is no such thing as police who break laws and torture. Highly paid thugs that make gov. wishes come true are hired thugs.

HOWEVer. The protesters should be concerned that financial pressures are real. And the need for gov to prevent anarchy so that there is any "real plan" is real.

You welcome hope you enjoyed somewhat either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.222.174 (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Celebrity endorsements

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There doesn't seem to be an established test for "prominence". This has led to several links to celebrity blogs and social media accounts, which sets a perilously low bar. My view is that the only prominent individuals who should be represented are those whose views appear in independent sources. Possibly the articles for individuals like Neil Gaiman should record their views on this event, but that's a decision to made case-by-case and elsewhere. --Nixin06 (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


Events escalated

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This event has to be moved back to the news section in the main page. 151.250.3.104 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Police raining tear gas on protesters right now

Here's a stream: http://rt.com/on-air/istanbul-protest-tear-gas/

I can't add all the information unfolding right now but maybe someone else can. Events include hitting someone in a wheelchair and kicking a CNN cameraman, besides all the other crap. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced/unusualy edits June 12 2013.

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So the user with IP: 82.95.138.21 has made a lot of edits claiming this is a revolution, and attributing "indigo" as a color of the protests. I've spent a few hours trying to find any pics or news sources to support this, and as far as I can tell it's completely unsupported. Unless someone has some sources, this is all going in the trash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen1990 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the edits linked to Indigo children. I think that tells us all we need to know. Podiaebba (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"Woman in Red" uploaded

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In light of the image becoming an international symbol[13], the "Woman in Red" image (File:2013 protests in Turkey , Woman in Red image.jpeg) has been uploaded and included in the article. Any improvement or defense of the Fair use rationale is greatly appreciated. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone will be tempted to make it the infobox image (it's currently in Symbols). As I said before, the woman doesn't want to be an icon like that, so please let's not do that. Podiaebba (talk) 09:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed-- most of all, let's not name the living person depicted. Her name is irrelevant. For one momenet, she was a symbol, but let her fade back into obscurity-- unnamed and without ongoing notability. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

90 cities in Turkey?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"≈81 to 90 cities around Turkey" Turkey doesn't have 90 cities. It has 81 cities 5 Ömer Miraç (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. The source actually says "90 separate demonstrations across the country".[14]. Podiaebba (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hagia Sophias as Mosques

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hallo
yesterday, I corrected the following sentence:

"In addition, plans to turn Turkey's former christian Hagia Sophia churches (now museums) in Trabzon and possibly Istanbul into mosques stirred controversy within progressive communities..."

into

"In addition, plans to open again to the Islamic cult Turkey's Hagia Sophia in Trabzon and possibly Istanbul (both former churches converted into mosques and then museums) stirred controversy within progressive communities..."

The reason of the correction is evident: both buildings have been converted into mosques after the ottoman conquest, Of course, there are plenty of sources supporting that, and ignoring this fact leads to a plain falsification of history.

Unfortunately, user Podiaebba reverted my edit without explanation. Any thoughts about that? Alex2006 (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I objected to the reference to the "Islamic cult", and the change was unreferenced. There's also nothing wrong with the previous versions - "now museums" is correct. It might be helpful to say how long they've been museums, and then it would be more natural to say when they were converted and what from (mosques). Podiaebba (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
If you need references about the conversion in mosques, there are half thousands about Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, and quite a few about Hagia Sophia in Trabzon. If you don't like "islamic cult", we can write there something as "plans to convert to mosques again". I tried to correct the previous version because is misleading: from that, it looks like someone turned the 2 churches into museums, and now the Turkish government suddenly wants to convert them to mosques (which, BTW, is true in Trabzon, but not -yet- in Istanbul). That's the reason why the sentence should be corrected. Alex2006 (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/turkey-recep-tayyip-erdogan-must-compromise
  2. ^ http://www.focushaber.com/irfan-tuna-yi-biber-gazi-mi-oldurdu--h-321093.html
  3. ^ http://www.demokrathaber.net/guncel/ankarada-polis-gazi-temizlik-iscisini-oldurdu-h19094.html
  4. ^ http://www.gazetecileronline.com/newsdetails/10228-/GazetecilerOnline/gaz-bombasi-masumu-da-oldurdu-turk-baharina-5-kurb
  5. ^ http://www.andahaber.com/gundem/polisin-gazi-isciyi-oldurdu-h1880.html
  6. ^ http://www.etha.com.tr/Haber/2013/06/06/guncel/gaz-bombasi-bir-can-daha-aldi/
  7. ^ http://www.cnnturk.com/2013/turkiye/06/12/ethem.sarisulukun.beyin.olumu.gerceklesti/711493.0/
  8. ^ http://gundem.milliyet.com.tr/ethem-sarisuluk-hayatini-kaybetti/gundem/detay/1723011/default.htm
  9. ^ http://www.spothaber.com/haber/26382/ankara-kizilaydaki-gezi-parki-eylemlerinde-bir-araba-gostericileri-ezdi-video-izle-kac-kisiyi-ezdi.html
  10. ^ http://www.trthaber.com/haber/gundem/iste-provokatorlerin-bayrak-yakma-ani-ve-provokasyon-goruntulerin-tamami-88463.html
  11. ^ http://gundem.milliyet.com.tr/eylem-alanina-araba-daldi/gundem/detay/1717813/default.htm
  12. ^ http://www.ilkegazetesi.net/haber/ankarada-hainler-bayrak-yakti/4264
  13. ^ http://harita.yandex.com.tr/?um=&ll=32.858730%2C39.918435&spn=0.011008%2C0.001644&z=17&l=map%2Cstv&ol=stv&oll=32.85872966%2C39.91843494&ost=dir%3A362.09868393112185%2C0.9000722263345343~spn%3A90.00706984196188%2C38.96767778577018

Standing man

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I think this is notable enough to add to the article or even have its own article. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It is in the article under "meme" (for some reason). 2013_protests_in_Turkey#Meme. Podiaebba (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I do not think that is sufficient. Sure the concept of "standing man" may be a meme but this is still part of the overall protests. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be mentioned in the timeline article, but only a brief mention here. It doesn't deserve its own subsection, for sure. Podiaebba (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Certainly. I was thinking of a paragraph. Actually I think the 2013 protests in Turkey#Timeline section needs actual text. A section without any content is simply weird. Perhaps it could be a week by week summary on each paragraph with 3rd week talking about the standing man and union strike action. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gezi_Park_protests/Archive_1&oldid=1146616742"