Talk:Gezi Park protests/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

CS Gas

There is repeated mention in the article of the use of "tear gas". This is a general non-specific term but the specific chemical fired by the police was "CS gas". Since not all "tear gas" is "CS gas", and "CS gas" is the more specific and the accurate term to use in this case, I suggest we change "tear gas" to "cs gas". Here is a source that notes that what was used was CS gas: http://www.todayszaman.com/columnistDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=318254 - there are other similar ones, plus of course the numerous photos of the spent canisters, all marked "CS Gas". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the remark in essence however I can't help but ask two questions. Would the reader know that CS gas means tear gas? Is the distinction really relevant? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't just adding a link to the Wikipedia CS gas article solve that? And if it true that many readers will not know that "tear gas" means "CS gas", then that is a further strong reason to be correct and refer to the substance by what it is actually called. Using CS gas on the battlefield is considered a use of chemical weapons and thus a war crime - so if CS gas is being used among civilians it is a serious matter. That should require calling it by what it actually is - CS gas - and not using a more vague and colloquial phrase like "tear gas" that could be seen to be disguising the truth of the CS gas useage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure I remember reading about a "more powerful tear gas" being used as well (presumably CN gas, maybe OC gas - OC_gas#Treatment sounds familiar), when people were starting to get used to the tear gas and be ready with counter-measures. We should try and be clear about this. (As for people not knowing what "CS gas" is - well isn't that what a wikilink is for?) Podiaebba (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think is matters more what sources commonly call it. If they mostly say "tear gas", we should too. Having an occasional source say it's "CS gas" is not enough, in my opinion. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yemeni Seizure of Turkish ship loaded with Turkish weapons

Here is something really interesting. Turkish media didn't show this so I learned this one now. It can be related with the protests and democratic acts in Turkey, as the weapons were probably destinated for Mursi supporters, or Free Syrian Army (which the Turkish protesters are also protesting against). Should we mention about this in the article ? Berkaysnklf (talk), 18 July, 2013, 22:49 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of this incident to this article unless there is a source linking it. It may very well exist but unless it does the inclusion would be original research on our part. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 07:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought so. Just wanted to get an advice if we should mention it in a sub-title if there is a link between. But no links for now, right. Thank you. Berkaysnklf (talk), 19 July, 2013, 22:06 (UTC)

Honestly I do not see the importance of that story. Nothing credible at the moment even establishes accountability let alone a target for the alleged weapons (if they exist at all). -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Detention vs Arrest

And by the way, the detainments need a real update as the number passed 100 already and increasing. I can't find a source talking about the total numbers but lots of partial sources talking about partial numbers. Berkaysnklf (talk), 18 July, 2013, 22:52 (UTC)

Wait, there is a certain misunderstanding here. What do we use arrest part and what do we use detaintment part for ? For example, there are 119 people sent into "a prison" and at least 4,900 to 5,000 people "taken in custody" and at least 66 people still being "held in custody". We need to organize these parts urgently as the Human Rights Watch and Turkey Human Rights Association updates their reports again and again in urgency, I guess. Berkaysnklf (talk), 18 July, 2013, 23:09 (UTC)

Arrest is a temporary thing by the police. Detainment is with a court order only. Distinction is necessary due to the massive amounts of arrests and comparatively smaller number of detainments. I think we should keep track of the detainment separately due to their potential length of several years until an indictment shows up. We should use reliable sources to keep track of it though. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 07:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have the most reliable and latest source (for now) but before updating, I just wanted to ask. So according to the source that I am going to link in page now, there are only around some specific time period; here is the source, Human Rights Association (Turkey) Number of people being held in custody: 66. Number of people in prison: 119. So I'm updating the data now if there is any grammatical error about judiciary terms, you may fix it. Thanks. Berkaysnklf (talk), 19 July, 2013, 20:48 (UTC)

And actually the source has lots of content that needs to be mentioned like inside usage of gasbombs and water cannons and chemical substances in water cannons and lots more. But its really hard to update them all by myself. Berkaysnklf (talk), 19 July, 2013, 20:53 (UTC)

It is important to note how many detentions/arrests per city. Too much is going on at the same time. Perhaps the infobox can link to a section discussing the arrests and detentions. A day to day table would help a lot. This can lead to graphs. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It was easy at first when there are about 30-40 detentions and arrests. But now in the reports there is only the total number. The cities where 119 detentions were made is kinda mentioned in reports but not with numbers. The detentions made in cities Istanbul, Izmir, Ankara, Kocaeli, Antalya, Mersin, Adana, Antakya and Eskişehir (but its not clear if there is any in other cities.) Berkaysnklf (talk), 20 July, 2013, 20:28 (UTC)

Scientific journal on Police

• Science 19 July 2013: Vol. 341 no. 6143 p. 236 DOI: 10.1126/science.341.6143.236-a

  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6143/236.1.full

I think this could be a very interesting angle. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 09:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"Disinformation"

Doesn't "disinformation" and "lying" mean the same thing? Lying is more direct and clearly explains that section more then "disinformation" does. Doesn't any government "lie" anymore? —SPESH531Other 01:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Does this relate to the article somehow? TippyGoomba (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a section in the article labeled "Disinformations". The content (all three lines) is a mix of speculation and clarifications of conflicting information. So unless the contributors are asserting actual lies (which is not clear from the text) I think they may just be using the word incorrectly, and the content could be incorporated into other parts of the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

removed section

Disinformations There have been some disinformations about the protests: It was reported that the Istanbul police chief had been fired. There was speculation that the orange-colored anti-riot chemical used by the Turkish government (nicknamed "Agent Orange") was the US Military's defoliate Agent Orange. In fact the two substances are different chemicals. It was reported that King Mohammad VI refused to meet Prime Minister Erdoğan during Erdoğan's visit to Morocco on June 3. In fact, the King was in France for treatment since May 10.

It's an oddly placed section with a silly name. I've removed it. The content should be integrated into other parts the article if it's important. Any ideas? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your bold edit, TippyGoomba.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The section existed for about a month (until about 28 June) under the title "Misconceptions". I'm not sure who changed it, but obviously "disinformations" is not an acceptable title. Given the way rumours went through social media, I don't think it's wrong to document cases of rumours the media reported on. I think we should restore it under the old title. Podiaebba (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other. Podiaebba, if you believe the section has value and will be utilized, then you'll receive no objection from me. Its last incarnation seemed random and out of place. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree about adding them again under the "Misconceptions" title. Its really normal for misconceptions and rumours to spread amongst social media so the old title would be the best decision, I think. Berkaysnklf (talk), 12 July, 2013, 23:38 (UTC)

I would also support the addition of "Misconceptions". I would further suggest the misconceptions used by politicians such as the claims of people drinking alcohol in a mosque as well as others. Mind that we shouldn't act as a verifiablity check to twitter. We should only care about misconceptions covered by reputable sources. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 04:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

In any case, "disinformations" is ungrammatical. Since "information" is an uncountable noun, "disinformation" also can have no plural. Ikiayyas (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Needed Update of Government Response title

The Government Response title needs an update as the decision to stop and cancel the construction plan on Gezi Park is now declined by the higher court after the midnight bag bill passed and gave the constructional permission authorities to Ministry of Culture from TMMOB (UCTEA).

I updated the status part on the infobox as the news arrived but I noticed now that the government response title is last updated about the cancellation of project. So the title needs an update. My updated on the status part can be based as it's too late here and I need some sleep. Thanks and good Wikis to all.. Berkaysnklf (talk), 24 July, 2013, 00:32 (UTC)

The poor infobox is having difficulty keeping up with the developments. Perhaps the status of the park and how things developed needs a section and infobox should link to it. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I advice the Timeline section if this is going to happen. Berkaysnklf (talk), 26 July, 2013, 21:45 (UTC)

And some news of death(s) coming from the protests against government's Syria policies, supporting the terrorist organization El-Nusra, in the border-town of Ceylanpınar. After the situation gets clear, about if the deaths are because of the police attack on the people protesting or because of the bullets coming from the clashes between El-Nusra and Kurdish militias in Syrian town Rasulayn, I am planning to update the article's deaths part and I can add a section for the protests in there if its needed (if the government gets involved in town and situation gets worse). Just noticing this. Berkaysnklf (talk), 24 July, 2013, 21:51 (UTC)

This page needs a large amount of work

I'm going to begin (actually I already have) cleaning out this page. I will be gutting entire sections that do not belong on the wiki entirely. I already removed the list of locations where protests are still going on, as we are not a meeting place for protests and it did not seem to include any useful encyclopedic information. Also, information needs one or two references. That's it. It does not need five references, or even three. Just one. Also, these references must be reliable. No source is better than an unreliable one, which means that 90% or more of the facebook, twitter, and youtube reference will be removed and replaced with citation needed templates.

Another note, I'm likely going to be removing large amounts of "Prominent individuals, political parties, and groups" section, possibly even the entire thing. If they have no relation to the actual protests (i.e. they aren't prominent Turkish political parties or groups) then they don't belong in the article, no matter how important they may be to your country or social group.

In summary, this page is in dire need of a prune, and I'm about to do it. Jeancey (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As an update, I also removed the list of people injured as we cannot and will not list all 4000+ and picking who gets listed and who doesn't is a POV issue (all the people listed were protesters, with zero mention of any security forces/police injured, which have happened). Also removed some duplicate text in other sections. Still not done, will update again later. Jeancey (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I finished for now. If anyone has any questions on reasons why a specific thing was removed, let me know. Jeancey (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Jeancey, you did a great job in reducing the size of the article. I wish there would also be a "Jeancey-person" on the German article as it amounts now to over 600 KB and is increasing on a daily basis. --Alfred Klose (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Which article? I could give it a look. This article gives me a headache, which is why I stopped. I actually think we could cut this article in half and still have more than enough relevant information. Jeancey (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It is this article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteste_in_der_T%C3%BCrkei_2013 and I already told them on the talk page that they should take you as an example how to handle things. --Alfred Klose (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I don't speak German, so I can't help directly. Hopefully they can learn from what I did here to help out there! Jeancey (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sure they can! *tumbsup* :-) --Alfred Klose (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the clean-up (injuries etc.), but I didn't find cleaning-up the list on demonstrations part all true. At least the minimum number could be 2,000 or 2,500. Also a free space occured, that doesn't look good this way. And the sources are reliable about protester numbers. So I think we can re-take the list.

And also, the Mediterranean Games part is fine this way as length. It doesn't need anymore clean-up, I think (except the grammar, ofcourse). Berkaysnklf (talk), 24 July, 2013, 22:16 (UTC)

The point was mainly that there were a very large number of protests AND an entire article devoted to them, so they didn't need to be listed here. In fact, we probably should remove that entire list and just link to the full article detailing those demonstrations. This is just supposed to be a summary after all. I had originally left 16 locations, and I assumed that each column would contain four of each, but that clearly didn't occur. Jeancey (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note, twitter is not a reliable source, and use of hashtags change frequently and thus is not something we usually cover, especially while the protest is ongoing. When the protest is finished and there is one or two hashtags that are used enough to cause reliable sources to talk about them, THEN they can be added. Jeancey (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Then a new article about protest locations and protester numbers is kind of needed. Berkaysnklf (talk), 24 July, 2013, 23:38 (UTC)

I see now that the page is for a list of solidarity rallies. Yes, a page describing the protest rallies would be useful, however, when some rallies have tens of thousands of people, rallies with simply thousands of people are not that notable. Jeancey (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I see now that the page is for a list of solidarity rallies. Yes, a page describing the protest rallies would be useful, however, when some rallies have tens of thousands of people, rallies with simply thousands of people are not that notable. Jeancey (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I can contribute if someone starts the page. I'm not very good at starting articles as I don't have so much time because of the protests and also as my native language is not English. Berkaysnklf (talk), 24 July, 2013, 23:55 (UTC)

I find it highly problematic when large amount of sourced information is mass removed without adequate discussion. I am going to restore the injuries section for example. I am also going to restore the table for the park forums but will comment it out since it had sourcing issues anyways. We are forced to stuff this article with content as the only break-away was quickly nominated for deletion. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If something is nominated for deletion and then passed, the answer is not to just shift the information to another article. If you want to keep the information for future reference, put it into a sandbox in your userspace. Listing specific names of people who were injured out of 4000+ injured is unreasonable and extremely POV. As I mentioned, not a single injured police officer or security member was mentioned. At all. All of the ones mentioned were done to elicit an emotional response from the reader against the government. This is not what wikipedia is for. I did not remove the entire injuries section, just the useless and POV list of specific people who were injured. The park forums were also completely unnecessary. Who the hell cares if 100 people protested in some city. That is NOTHING compared to the hundred thousand and million person rallies. We are NOT a completely 100% up to date source for ANYTHING let alone this. It is impossible for us to be and it is not the goal of Wikipedia in general to do this. As a compromise for the protests section, how about we combine the other protest numbers under 15k into a single number, essentially protests in other areas of the country. That way the information is there, but isn't so useless. Jeancey (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, Twitter, facebook, and youtube are not reliable sources and thus cannot be used in articles. This article is massively long and full of unneeded and excessive information. Jeancey (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Let's discuss. I think we should all of the sections you just readded for the reasons stated above. Why do you think they should stay, given that they are excessive, POV, and generally serve to real encyclopedic purpose (and happen to be poorly sourced.)? Jeancey (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lets keep content we are discussing on the page, comment out if you think something needs to be removed so that I can see it in source and perhaps improve it to something you may then find satisfactory. The article is in some parts in a cliff note format since there is a lot of information and very few of us editors. I'll talk about the sections I have restored below.

I have restored the content removed from the injuries section. The nature of injuries and its targets is very important in giving examples of the scope of the protests and the police action against it. We are not talking about paper cuts here but rather very severe injuries such as people in coma or permanent loss of eyes etc.

I have also restored the "Prominent individuals, political parties, and groups" section as its removal was unexplained. Similar articles have such sections though very rarely do protests get such vocal support.

I have restored and commented out the table on the park forums. Listing these have historic information but most information wasn't sourced in a satisfactory manner. The forums can be a break away article too.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube are reliable sources if and only if they are from official sources. Official YouTube videos of artists, official twitter accounts of politicians, official facebook account of known activists are notable and reliable to be used as sources when relevant.

I am also very distressed by the mass removal of many sources from the article. Why was this even done as those sources weren't even fully utilized.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll respond to some of your points:

The injuries name specific people, every single one of them opposition members. I know for a fact that members of the security forces have also been injured, but none of them are mentioned at all. This means that the mentioning of injuries is POV. The extent of the injuries was laid out perfectly fine in the prose of that section. The list of people was therefore unneeded and excessive.

The prominent individuals and parties was a list of people who some may think are notable, but all shared one thing in common: They are not turkish. They have zero relevance to the topic. If Justin Bieber commented on this, he would be just as relevant as the other people listed. There was no purpose to having them on the page and just served to bloat the length of the article.

Again, I have mentioned above why the forums should be limited to those above a certain number. Listing places where 100 people have protested is unneeded and just serves to bloat the article.

Twitter, facebook and youtube are ONLY reliable sources when they are used as a source about themselves. I.e. when listing information about the poster. These sources were used as references for ANOTHER topic, namely the protests. This puts them firmly in the unreliable source category. Please feel free to read up on it here.

I removed sources where there were excessive amounts of them. A single line does not need 5 sources on it when two will do. We do not need to utilize 100% of available sources. We can't and shouldn't be doing that.

The entire goal of my edits was to reduce the massive size of the page under general size cap of 200k bytes. The topic covered by this article really only needs 100k to cover everything, judging by the information provided here. Look at it this way. This article is currently larger than the entire Arab Spring article. That's just ridiculous considering the amount of information on that page and the small amount of actually, useful information here. I suggest you read up on points 1, 2, and 4 of the NPOV section on the top of the page to get a better idea of what is actually needed in an article like this. Jeancey (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The details of the injuries were important and shouldn't be removed; and if police injuries aren't detailed in sources, that's not Wikipedia's fault. Some of the less important info about prominent support can be moved to another article, like International reactions to the 2013 protests in Turkey. Podiaebba (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jeancey, you just mentioned you know that members of the security forces have also been injured. Can you please cite your sources here? I did not find any reliable information about that matter, not a single name, no data about the amount of seriously injured officers. Even no recent data of injuries at all. The only name I found is - of course - Mustafa Sari. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain I heard it on Al Jazeera. I don't have a specific source for it, but I'll look as soon as I have some free time. Jeancey (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I would appreciate very much. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"I've searched my conscience, and I can't for the life of me find any justification for this, and I simply cannot accept that there are on every story two equal and logical sides to an argument." - Edward R. Murrow

The injuries listed on the article (at least the ones I added) have been either analysed in relation to ECHR or were interviewed by a journalist. Ayşe Arman had a number of articles on injured and killed individuals. We report on what is sourced. She has also interviewed four police officers (none were injured) whom were complaining about the "inhumane work conditions" forced upon the riot police. I have not added this since I do not know how or where it would fit. I think I have posted it here but it was archived due to inactivity. Wikipedia isn't a memorial, the mentioned names are only mentioned because their stories are relevant to the content of the article in explaining the nature of the police action.

Prominent individuals and parties do not need to be Turkish. Since when do we have such a requirement? The non-Turkish Andrew Mango was publishing articles on Turkey in Political Quarterly in 1957 when Erdogan was 3 years old. Why Andrew Mango? Because he is among the signatories of the full page letter and may face legal action from Erdogan. Remarks of artists and politicians alike are notable. If the list gets too long, it could indeed be a breakaway article with the more notable names listed here and a link to the complete list. Only one individual in the Times letter is Turkish (Fazıl Say). Mind that there also is sciencemag.org letter.

The protest of one individual (Standing Man Erdem Gündüz) trended beyond Erdogan on Google trends. It has had numerous articles covering it. I do not see why you are dismissing protests strictly based on size. Police will not allow crowds to grow and as a result lots of small groups are spontaneously protesting. Indeed the protest of a single 100 person group isn't very noteworthy but if a number of groups of 100 are protesting spontaneously at the same time, that makes them notable. This was the case with Occupy movement, I do not see why it should be any different here.

My comment on Twitter, facebook and youtube is clear. I have explained it to you on your talk page and I have pointed you to a specific section on that very page. Unless you have problems with that I kind of do not see why you did that.

Having multiple sources is good practice particularly on articles such as this one furthermore multiple sources can be utilized to source different pieces of information making up the single sentence. Please restore the sources you have removed or at least post them on the talk page as a list (on the first section perhaps) so that we can go through them on a case by case basis.

This article is indeed bloated. The solution is breakaway articles (that don't get immediately nominated for deletion) not removal of sourced/mass amount of content.

At heart I do not oppose your edits (to reduce the bloated size) but I think it would be best if we take things slower and work on creating breakaway articles explaining the various details that are notable enough to be on wikipedia but not that vital to be present inside this article.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The details in the injuries section are undue and makes the article unnecessarily long. As a compromise, I suggest we split the entire Casualties section, and make a new article for that.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think properly sourced, relevant information should not be removed entirely, but moved to spin-off articles. FunkMonk (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Injuries section demonstrates the nature of the police action. I can agree for a shorter summary of the injury section with details being discussed in a breakaway article. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Erdogan's Policies in the Middle East worth mentioning in this article

Can we put up a section talking about Syria and the deceit of the AKP?

This article is a great example: http://rt.com/op-edge/israel-attack-syria-turkey-313/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.64.20 (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems too off topic to me. Seems more to do with AK party's long-term Islamist agenda, same with Erdogan's attitude over Egypt and the toppled Morsi. But I think Erdogan's rhetoric regarding internal ecomomic policies are rather more deserving of mention in this article.: http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action;jsessionid=025F0F13F5AE32536511E34259911B0A?newsId=321484&columnistId=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, off-topic. We'd also need sources covering it in the context of turkey. A blog on rt would not suffice for something like this. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not so sure. Claiming that there is no connection between Turkey and Egypt's current protests would be denying the elephant in the room. There have been support protests towards Egypt's MB in Turkey by what appears to be the same anti-Gezi park protest crowd. Consider it in the content of this article. That is not the only article making the connection. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 10:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Erdogan's islamisation policy is connected to his Syria policy. In any case, it doesn't need a section, just a mention, since some protesters have cited Syria as an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles on the Police

• "Turkish police: we're fighting inhuman work conditions, not protesters". The Guardian. 14 June 2013. Retrieved 14 July 2013.
• Arman, Ayşe (14 July 2013). "Canavarlaştırıldık, insanlıktan çıktık". Hürriyet (in Turkish). Retrieved 14 July 2013.

These may be instrumental in covering the content on the police. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 03:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be expanded up on under the section on the police? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Reyhanlı Bombings of El-Nusra (which Erdogan supports) and accusation of Soldier Utku Kali

And we can also mention about the Reyhanlı bombings and the accusation of Soldier Utku Kali which is now being judged for 25 years in prison for the allegations of leaking the documents showing the Syrian El-Nusra members (which Erdogan supports) are responsible for Reyhanlı bombings, to RedHack, under the Background title. He is also being allegated about being a member of RedHack while RedHack states they don't have any relations with Utku Kali except the documents. This happened 1 to 2 week before protests blazed and really increased the social tension (amongst 4+4+4 educational system, alcohol ban and Erdogan's speech sarcastically calling the first constitution makers and leaders of Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and İsmet İnönü as drunkards because of letting the usage of alcohol freely.)

I also suggest you to search for 'objective' news and reports about this situation. So, this can really worth a mention..Berkaysnklf (talk), 24 July, 2013, 23:59 (UTC)

I fail to see the connection with the protests. We need sources making the connections. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There are actually a lot. Especially after RedHack. I will share some sources and news when I have time. Berkaysnklf (talk), 26 July, 2013, 21:53 (UTC)

RedHack is not a reliable source. Anything from them wont go beyond a claim. The connection between that incident and Gezi park needs sources establishing such a connection. Content should be on the scope of 2013 protests in Turkey. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 06:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I meant, Reyhanlı bombing is a reflection of the bad foreign policies of Erdogan and we can mention about them in the background section objectively, saying that the foreign policies of Erdogan on Syria led to Reyhanlı bombings and these led people to uprise and protest against Erdogan and his policies. What I'm advicing is, that we should mention about these in the Background title, not directly linking the Gezi protests and the bombings, but linking the Reyhanlı and the protests in Reyhanlı to people being against Erdogan's foreign policies. Just like in the last paragraph. And also how this increased the social tension in the country just before the protests blazed.

Some example sources and news;

* About "Erdogan being the reason of the deaths in Reyhanlı"

* About "Erdogan's foreign policies led Turkey into the bloodiest foreign terror attack of the Republic history." This also tells about the Broadcast Ban that government put after the bombings and tells that this is a crime and this is fearful, and criticises the media's situation in Turkey harshly. Notice that these are about 20 days before the start of the protests.

* This describes the reason of Reyhanlı as Erdogan's foreign policies too and tells about this is just like Erdogan's foreign policies being the reason of Mavi Marmara incident and Turkish jet being hit by Syria/Russia near Mediterranean. And this also tells about the situation of people in the region, near Syrian border and how the tension increases after all these.

So we can summarize about the Reyhanlı that came after foreign policies on Syria and how it increased the social tension in Turkey (firstly in the region) in the background.

And these 1-Sol, 2-Etha, 3-Başka Haber tell about Utku Kali who revealed that El-Nusra which Erdogan supports, is responsible for Reyhanlı bombings. And it (1st source) criticises the judge about how it's being interested in the leaked document parts instead of the result of the documents that show the government-supported Al-Nusra, is responsible for the bombings.

I put these also for further information. As a summary, after foreign policies led to Reyhanlı and Reyhanlı led to social tension, Utku Kali was targeted as a result. And all these paved the way for the blaze of the protests.

Berkaysnklf (talk), 27 July, 2013, 21:41 (UTC)

The protests broke out due to a varying number of reasons. The protesters are not a homogeneous group in their political desires. This is very similar to Brazil. Certainly frustration with the foreign policy may have had an impact particularly for cities closer to Syria. My worry is to avoid trying to talk about events from before the protests too much. There is an over emphasis on the Mediterranean games for instance. That should be a separate article probably. Yes there were protests outside the stadium and yes tickets were probably sold in bulk to generate a pro government crowd (to avoid anti government chants from the crowd) but the actual doping scandal isn't that important. Mind that it is definitely worth a separate article on it. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are right about the doping part. But as this affected the protests (and not in just that area), we can mention about this in the background title and in the foreign policies part. Berkaysnklf (talk), 27 July, 2013, 19:59 (UTC)

Deletion of Popular Culture Products

Finally, I don't find deleting the popular culture materials right, firstly; the song Eyvallah by Duman, Çapulcu Musun by Boğaziçi Jazz Choir and the Sound of Banging on Pots and Pans by Kardeş Türküler, as they were very symbolic for the protests, being played in every square. We can revert them or collect them in an other title but I don't think deletion was right especially the deletion of the 3 materials I've mentioned. Thanks and good night.. Berkaysnklf (talk), 24 July, 2013, 00:37 (UTC)

They may have been symbolic to you, but all the ones I deleted had only the youtube link as a source, which is not a reliable reference. If I left all the songs that had reliable news articles about them, which proved that they were at least somewhat notable. If you can find news sources that provide a reliable source for them, then you can add them back in. Otherwise it is original research. Jeancey (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:SECONDARY. The youtube links are primary sources and shouldn't be used for this purpose. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

For Duman's Eyvallah song that was composed and recorded in one night; 1-Sol, 2-Milliyet, 3-Akşam, 4-Yeşil
For Boğaziçi Jazz Choir's Çapulcu Musun Vay Vay song that was composed and first filmed in Istanbul metro; 1-Posta, 2-T24, 3-Sol, 4-Milliyet
For Kardeş Türküler's Tencere Tava Havası song that was in response for Erdogan's speech about cacerolazo protests; 1-Yurt, 2-Sözcü, 3-Sol, 4-TimeTurk
So this was why I was against the deletion. I didn't add them first so I didn't notice that the only sources were YouTube links. But now, I think these sources are enough for re-adding them again even there are more. Berkaysnklf (talk), 25 July, 2013, 17:10 (UTC)

Good. Please add them back with the new sources. Podiaebba (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Re-newed the popular culture part with the sources. Re-summarized the injuries part with important numbers and events needed to be mentioned including their sources. Berkaysnklf (talk), 25 July, 2013, 17:57 (UTC)

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/yazarlar/24401649.asp <- Interview with Ozbi/Onu Dursun. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 06:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiRMb4SVnjY <- DEV / Dans Et? What's the story behind this? Is it a parody? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

UN Reports and Statements about Sledgehammer Case

Does the reports of U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions about the detentions of military leaders and officials and journalists and members of parliament, accused on Sledgehammer Case which is also related with another case named Ergenekon which led to lots of military detentions too, worth a mention here? The report and statements, state that the detentions are arbitrary and against human rights. Calling Turkey to do, what needs to be done about the releasing of the "arbitrary" detentions.

People widely demanded the releasing of the secularist and patriot military leaders and all the others, being prisoned for years in Silivri Prison, during these 2013 protests. This can worth a mention here because of those demands of the people. And also a massive protest is being organized on 5 August in Silivri for the releasings of the accuseds, informing and calling thousands of people around Turkey by different organizations and individuals. This started and spread after the statements of UN. A source which contains the statement of UN and which has other reports about the Sledgehammer Case. .. Berkaysnklf (talk), 24 July, 2013, 23:53 (UTC)

A protest being organized for the future does not get mentioned at all here. The UN report likely has its own page and should be mentioned there. Jeancey (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say let's mention about the future protest but this demand of the protesters that I've mentioned about and the statment of UN that came afterwards can worth a mention, of course after taking opinions of other users, working on the article. Berkaysnklf (talk), 25 July, 2013, 00:09 (UTC)

And by the way, I didn't undo your edit on Ankara Telfer Construction consciously. It was caused by an edit conflict, I guess. Just noticing. Berkaysnklf (talk), 25 July, 2013, 00:23 (UTC)

Ah. That makes more sense. Jeancey (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The report of UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is notable on its own right but I do not see the connection with it and the protests. That said during the Gazdanadam festival there were many invitations for people to how up at the Ergenekon trial. We aren't a crystal ball so until that happens there is no connection as far as we should care. but as you said it is a good idea to keep this in mind. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah the first big demand about the releasation of Ergenekon and Sledgehammer detainees were occured during the Gazdanadam Festival. And also lots of groups, organizations and individuals raised their voice about these during ongoing protests. And after the Gazdanadam and after the UN reports, this call for Silivri is being made widely (firstly on social media). So this is a summary. And yes, we should keep these in mind until August 5. Berkaysnklf (talk), 26 July, 2013, 21:56 (UTC)

That content should be added to Sledgehammer (coup plan) though. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The Times (Daily - London) Full Page Ad

Another full page ad, signed by lots of foreigner notable people including Turkish pianist Fazıl Say (being targeted by lots of Islamists). This also drew reaction of the Turkish AKP government. And Erdogan told that he is going to sue The Times too for this behaviour. The ad A news page before Erdogan's statement about he is going to sue the Times Berkaysnklf (talk), 27 July, 2013, 22:48 (UTC)

I thought I moved this to the relevant section where the content is discussed. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry I saw it there and thought I put it in wrong place. Sorry again. Berkaysnklf (talk), 31 July, 2013, 23:47 (UTC)

Article title

I do not exactly like this name. It is not like this was the only protest in 2013 and 2013 is far from over. Calling it "Gezi park" protests may make sense but it is more significant than that now. Perhaps include the month in the name? Something like May-June 2013 protests in Turkey perhaps? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest 2013 Turkish protests. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, it is not the only protests in 2013. This suffers from the same problem. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing really wrong with 2013 Taksim Gezi Park protests - the protests in Ankara etc are/were all sparked by the Gezi issue, and there's no immediately better name to unite the disparate themes. (If there were any traction for "2013 chapulcu protests" that might work better, but there isn't.) Podiaebba (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What's important is that we have no other article about "2013 protests in Turkey", so it is really irrelevant if there even were others. And the park is not what the protests are about any more, so having that name in the title would be misleading. FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, but again it suffers from the same problem. I am going to move it to May-June 2013 protests in Turkey unless there are objections to give it a more specific date. 2013 protests in Turkey would cover all of the protests in Turkey in 2013. More of a "list of" article, ie something like List of protests in Turkey in 2013. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 16:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Alternative title could be Gezi Park inspired protests as the protests neither are restricted to Turkey nor is "2013 protests in Turkey" a sufficiently descriptive title. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

But yet again, what other articles about 2013 Turkish protests do we have? If there are none, there is no point in being so specific. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

We have other articles on 2013 protests in Turkey. There have been quite a few. To name two May day and Post Reyhanlı where protests were large enough for tear gas to be used. There may be more protests this year in the future as well. Why do you not want the article to have a name beyond "protests"? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

But none of those are separate articles, so there are no conflicting titles. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not the rationale behind picking article titles. Article titles should always be as unambiguous as possible. "2013 protests in Turkey" should be a redirect to "List of protests in Turkey in 2013". For instance if this was called "2013 Anti-government protests in Turkey" and there wouldn't be much of a problem provided there aren't any other such protests in 2013. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

So no strong objections? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be a widely agreed upon alternative name before any move should be made. FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The current generic name is problematic. I haven't heard your suggestion yet. What would you propose? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the one proposing to move it. It is up to the supporters to make up an alternate title and find support for it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really, compromise can come from all sides of an argument. Care to try? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it should be moved. It seems few others want to move it as well. So I don't see the point of asking us to find another name. If you want to convince us, make up a good alternative. Otherwise, it just seems clear that this is the most fitting name, despite its shortcomings. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 Gezi Park protests or 2013 Gezi Park-inspired protests? A White Cat is right about the too-generic current title. Podiaebba (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You two are the only ones who seem to support a move, so I'm not sure how "right" it is. You need to both gather support for a move, and then gather support for a specific alternate title. And as I've stated before, "2013 Gezi Park protests" doesn't even begin to encompass the scope of these demonstrations. When someone thinks of Turkish protests in 2013, this is the ones, not some random ones before. FunkMonk (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not true. People will think of "Gezi Park" protests or "Anti-government protests". That is what the media and everyone calls it. Per WP:COMMONNAME it would be a non-controversial move. I have suggested several alternatives, you have outright ignored them. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Anti government protests would be more fitting. And can you demonstrate that anything but "protests" is a common name in mainstream sources at this point? FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Anti government protests is how I heard it on reports. Even Colbert Report described it as such (through ABC I think). After a quick search some sources (for anti government): jpost, al-monitor, reuters, Tribune, Independent. Sources called it "Gezi Park protests" initially (until the park was violently evicted) so it would be a redirect after the move. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 01:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I really don't like "anti-government protests" - it may be a common, lazy media short-hand for this kind of thing, but that doesn't make it helpful. The protests are not anarchist (against the concept of government), and nor are they insurrectionist (demanding the overthrow of the government) - not least because there's no obvious alternative (AKP would likely win fresh elections, and very few protestors wanted a military coup). Rather, they were protests against a wide range of specific government policies. This is an important difference. Podiaebba (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Anti-government doesn't mean anarchist or overthrowing the government. It means the protesters are against policies by the said government. It happens fairly often in the 21st century and Turkish protests (2013) is a part of it. 2010 French pension reform strikes was an anti-government protest as well even though no confrontation happened between the protesters and the police and the main demand wasn't the overthrowing of the government. I understand your concern but that is exactly what "anti-government protest" means. There were peaceful and violent phases of the protests so calling it either would be a problem. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So any remarks? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 06:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You make it sound like "anti-government" just means "directed at the government", as almost all protests are. That makes it rather redundant, and we should only specify the protest target if it's not the government. On which point we actually have the con-founding factor that a significant element of these protests is protests directed at private media, not the government! Podiaebba (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, "anti-government" more or less means "directed at the government". What you are describing (anarchy etc) is a riot not a protest. Is the target really the media? They protest against the media under heavy government control. Similarities towards McCarthyism is jarring. I suppose it could be something like "2013 Anti-government and anti-media censorship protests in Turkey". Beef of the demands as far as I know is the eroding of personal liberties over time. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 16:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments? Further objections? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point, you'd need support before implementing it. You should make a formal move request. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

All you need to do is state one or more of the alternative titles you feel would be sufficient. You have not even attempted to counter anything I have said. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter at this point, when so few have voiced support. You cannot just move the article, you need to make a formal move request.[1] FunkMonk (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am capable of moving the article in any way I wish. I am seeking consensus among us or at least a 3O. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 Gezi Park-inspired protests? This discussion seems to have ground to a halt though. Podiaebba (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Page rename discussions tend to be that way. We seem to have a growing trend of Pro Egypt MB protests in Turkey so I am leaning towards "Gezi Park-inspired" as well to distinguish the two. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 10:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No, you can't move it to whatever you want, because your request is controversial. The best way is to make a formal request, that is common practice. That will also attract more editors to voice their opinion, because the thread will be visible on the central move page. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

At least some of us needs to agree on a title to propose. As far as I can tell you like the title as is an oppose a move of any kind regardless of the title. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with A Certain White Cat and I think a change is necessary; I think "2013 Anti-government censorship protests in Turkey" is fine. (I'm aware that this is an emended version of the one A Certain White Cat proposed, namely "2013 Anti-government and anti-media censorship protests in Turkey", but I think the media cencorship is another facet of the 'anti-government' element of the protests.) Honestly, I initially thought this page would list all the protests that happened in Turkey in 2013; I'm aware of the "List of <a>" naming template of list articles but nonetheless, I think a different name is necessary. Is it possible to have a poll or something equally democratic on this issue? - Luot (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is possible to have a discussion on the issue through Wikipedia:Requested moves but I'd like to have some general agreement on a new title beforehand. I like the "2013 Anti-government and anti-media censorship protests in Turkey" title to be honest and this satisfies the point Podiaebba rose above as well. Grammatically the correct title would be: "2013 anti-media censorship and anti-government protests in Turkey" -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Yet again, it is up to those who want the title changed to make a formal move request (so it becomes more visible for other editors), then we can vote and decide. FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal for a name? If not can you please stop distracting the discussion? It is quite annoying. Wikipedia:Requested moves is not a formal request. It is merely a median for a wider discussion. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, I don't agree it needs to be moved. And please, calm down, your insistence is annoying as well. FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

IMHO it should be called 2013 Gezi Park protests, as it first began about the Gezi Park Liesbeth98 (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC).

Gezi Park inspired would be better if we decide to use "Gezi Park" in the title. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 08:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It may be the case that events have overtaken us, since if the most recent protests have a focus, it's METU rather than Gezi Park. I can't say I like the current title either (it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue) but I can't think of anything better to describe such a wide variety of protests.Ikiayyas (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

I'm considering a major rewrite of the introduction. At the moment it is both too long and incomplete, since it only covers events up to June. Ikiayyas (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Please propose the changes here on the talk page. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 08:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This is what I suggest

During 2013, Turkey experienced widespread protests directed at the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The first major demonstrations started in May 2013, sparked by outrage at the forceful eviction of around 50 environmentalists at Istanbul's Taksim Gezi Park, whose sit-in was in protest at plans to replace the park with a shopping mall and possible residence as well as reconstruction of the historic Taksim Military Barracks over the adjacent Taksim Square. Subsequently, supporting protests and strikes took place across Turkey protesting a wide range of concerns, at the core of which were issues of freedom of the press, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and the government's encroachment on Turkey's secularism. With no centralised leadership beyond the small organisation organising the original environmental protest, the protests have been compared to the Occupy movement and the May 1968 events.

The sit-in developed into an Occupy-like camp with thousands of protestors in tents, organising a library, medical center, food distribution and their own media. Social media played a key part in the protests, not least because much of the Turkish media downplayed the protests, particularly in the early stages. Riot police cleared the camp and barricaded the park, but protests in the area continued. The park was eventually re-opened to the public on 8 July.

The subjects of the protests then broadened beyond the development of Taksim Gezi Park into wider anti-government demonstrations. The protests spread to other cities in Turkey, including Bursa, Antalya, Eskişehir, İzmir, Edirne, Mersin, Adana, İzmit, Konya, Kayseri, Samsun, Antakya, Trabzon, Isparta, Tekirdağ, Bodrum, and Mardin., and protests were seen in other countries with significant Turkish communities, including European countries, the U.S. and elsewhere. Protests died down during the summer, but were renewed in September, focusing on a similar controversial development plan: an attempt to build a road through a legally-protected forest in Ankara's Middle East Technical University.

The overall number of protesters involved was reported to be at least 2.5 million by the Turkish Interior Ministry over the 3 weeks from the start of the events. The range of the protesters was noted as being broad, encompassing both right- and left-wing individuals. The protesters' complaints ranged from the original local environmental concerns to such issues as the authoritarianism of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, curbs on alcohol, a recent contorversy about kissing in public, and the war in Syria.

According to various news outlets, the clashes are the most challenging events for Erdoğan's ten-year term and the most significant nationwide disquiet in decades.

Deleted parts would be summarised and moved to the Timeline. Ikiayyas (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be taking a break from Wikipedia for a while, so if anyone agrees with this edit, could they please implement it. Ikiayyas (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

POV resolution

"The neutrality of this article has been questioned" but I can find no entry under "Articles needing POV-check" for any months since the creation of the article. Is there any way we can resolve this? If the person who originally flagged the article doesn't speak up before long, and there are no other POV-based objections, then I suggest we remove the flag. In the mean-time, could any editors please check for possible NPOV-violating language? Ikiayyas (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"Big mass protests blazed again as the" in the infobox could be given as an example. colorful wording such as blazed isn't helpful. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 08:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been editing out emotive/biased language while doing general corrections for grammar and readability. Ikiayyas (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Status

I suggest moving some items from the status box to the timeline. Ikiayyas (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed its too long. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 08:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, it's done. Ikiayyas (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

METU Resistance instead of Ankara Telfer Construction

Protests against this construction didn't continue a lot. So I really advice summarizing this (even though I was the one who created it during protests) in like one to two sentences; and.. Creating a specific title for the resistance that was blazed after Middle Eastern Technical University Forest protests (The September Protests). Cause its effect is like the new-Gezi and needs to be titled much more than the telfer construction. We can summarize the telfer under that title too. And there are lots of articles in English, so you can start and I can continue as the news arrive. Thanks. Berkaysnklf (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And I also advice, adding the "current" or "ongoing" Template to the article, because of the current situation ? Berkaysnklf (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Detainment-Arrest

I really can't solve this because of their various differences in Turkish language. For example; a man who stays his whole life in prison and who is accused of murder is an arrested man, right ? And a detention is when you stay under police control for a limited time.. Right ? If so, I really need to change and re-organize those parts. Thanks. Berkaysnklf (talk) 10 September, 2013, 00:33 (UTC)

Detainment is temporary and can be without a prosecutor. It would translate as "gözaltı" to Turkish. Arrest is indeed more long term with prosecutor involvement. It would translate as "tutuklama". -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 08:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"Arrest" means taking someone into custody; "detained" means their state while they are there but not yet brought to trial.Ikiayyas (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've asked this before and received a complex answer. So now, we need to change the numbers oppositely. Arrest number is about 135 and there are thousands of detainments. Thanks again. Berkaysnklf (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No, wait. "Arrest" is the more general term, so there should be more arrests than detentions. You can arrest someone then let them go without detaining them. Ikiayyas (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not possible to arrest someone without detaining them, you are detaining them just by arresting them. You can detain someone without actually arresting them, e.g. detaining someone for questioning. "Arrest" is a legal term requiring a charge to be laid against the arrestee, and can be applied to people already detained, or in the process of detaining someone. "Detainment" or "detention" are more general, referring just to being held under the control of the relevant entity for some period of time, presumably against one's will. siafu (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

One of you say arrest is more general and one of you say detainment is. Then you can't translate detainment to "gözaltı". You can translate arrest to "gözaltı". I have an idea to fix this. So that we can't totally achieve this with English, we can do it the Turkish way. "Gözaltı" is when a person gets into police control temporarily. And during this process if police finds him guilty, they send him/her to court and if court decides to send him to jail; this is "tutuklama". So which one is which one ? Gözaltı = ? Tutuklama = ? Berkaysnklf (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I would stick with "arrests" for gözaltı, whether or not they involve detaining the suspect. "Detention" is ambiguous, because it can mean detention in the process of making arrest or -in British legal terminology - remand. Ikiayyas (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay your first sentence explains everything. Problem fixed. Thanks. Berkaysnklf (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

WAIT ! Under the "Social Media" sub-title I saw 15 people in Izmir and 13 people in Adana were detained.. They were all received a "gözaltı". So doesn't it has to be "arrest" ? Oh, my mind.. Berkaysnklf (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: Detention = Gözaltı (shortterm) and Arrest = Tutuklanma (longterm). This is the legal usage. To take into custody is even a clearer term then to detain, as detain can also mean alıkoymak, durdurmak (hold someone back). The confusion arises though due to the ambiguous and general use of the verb to arrest. Etymologically it means to stop someone so sometimes people use it as if synonymous with detain. Anyway, if you were hold back by a policeman in traffic, you wouldn't say you were arrested but you would say that you were detained for a few minutes (durduruldum veya alıkondum). However technically, in my opinion, detention is the short-term (gözaltı) and an arrest is the long-term and judiciary decided (tutuklama) words. I hope it was helpful. --Universal Life (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It was, totally. And what you've said, means that we should change the numbers. Cause detentions (gözaltı) > arrests (tutuklanma). I will wait for the second approval this time, before changing. But according to the statement above, numbers must change. Thanks.. Berkaysnklf (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

:) I've noticed something, yes arrest is tutuklanma, which is long term. So I also think the numbers should be switched. However, I understand as well those who oppose because even though arrest is meant to be for long term, the "action of arresting" (tutuklama eylemi, tevkif) itself takes seconds to minutes maximum. So it's also possible in a sentence to read: "He was arrested and then detained 24 hours... Finally he was convicted/sentenced to 20 years of prison." But "detain" is gözaltı, that's it is short-term. We should not forget that for short-term (police decision) and long-term (court-decision) there are clearer terms such as custody (short-term) (also: taken into custody) and sentenced (long-term) (also: sentenced to prison/jail/gaol). I'm also curious what others think about it. Though, Berkay, I think we should switch the numbers as soon as possible, because like this it looks ridiculous to my (and probably to many people's) eyes. Friendly --Universal Life (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've made a mistake! Yes, detention is normally short-term and arrest is long-term but where I was wrong is that they are not really the counterparts of the Turkish terms gözaltı and tutuklanma. Why? Because, after more and more reading about the subject, I've realised that the processes are quite different in Turkey and in the Western World in general. See some explanation of "detention" from this website, comparing detention and arrest:

In a detention, the police only need reasonable suspicion to stop an individual, and a reasonable person would feel as though they could leave in a short amount of time. This timeframe can vary a bit based on the circumstances, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held that 20 minutes or so is a reasonable timeframe for detaining someone.

And see about arrest:

To arrest an individual, law enforcement officers need probable cause. An arrest is characterized by the idea that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave due to the actions of the law enforcement officers. This usually means that the officers take the individual into custody. Custody can mean a number of things. An individual may be taken into custody by driving them back to the police station.

• A detention occurs for a very-short time, without hand-cuffs and s/he has the right to leave whenever s/he wants.
• An arrest occurs for a longer period of time, with hand-cuffs and s/he may not leave whenever s/he wants.
• A police officer has the right to detain and/or arrest anyone.
• This is the ideal but look at this example. One can clearly see that not always things happen so orderly.
• Comparingly, let's have a look how things happen practically in Turkey;
• A gözaltı occurs for a short-time (but up to 24 hours, not 20 minutes or a few hours), with hand-cuffs and s/he may not leave whenever s/he wants.
• A tutuklama occurs for a long-time (much more longer time than arrest), with hand-cuffs and s/he may not leave whenever s/he wants.
• A police officer has the right to take into gözaltı anyone, however tutuklama can only be performed by a court-order.

OK, so my conclusion is such:

1. According to dictionaries and most common perception; Detention is gözaltı and arrest is tutuklama.
2. However, the concept of "a peaceful detention, without hand-cuffs where the detainee may leave whenever", doesn't exist much in Turkey.
3. In Turkey, you'll see often the phrase yakalanıp, göz altına alındılar (they were caught and taken into gözaltı). Now the difficulty is to translate the term gözaltı.
   • Gözaltı occurs for a short-term, so it must be detention. Right?
   • But also gözaltı occurs with hand-cuffs, by force and s/he can't leave as s/he wishes. So then is it an arrest?
   • But for arresting someone, you've to read them their rights, I'm not sure if in gözaltı, if they read you your rights, I think sometimes they do, sometimes not.
   • Moreover, in Turkey tutuklama can only be done by a court, however arrest in the USA is usually done by the police.
   • The police after arresting someone, usually send him/her to the court. This is very similar to the process that happens after gözaltı. So,
4. Gözaltı is:
   • Detention if they haven't read your rights and they release you in less than 24 hours.
   • Arrest if they hold you around 24 hours or longer out of your wish (and normally they have to read you your rights and bring you to the court, but it's not always the case).
5. I've understood that tutuklama is an ongoing judicial process which is neither defined by the term detention nor arrest, so I looked up tutuksuz yargı ve tutuklu yargı in dict. and the result was pending judicial and judicial detention. It makes sense, the person is detained for judicial processes (court etc.). But this detention has nothing to do with the "police detention", they are very very different in many aspects. Judicial detention has an entirely different meaning than a simple detention by a police.

Finally, in the Gezi Park events, people who were taken into custody (gözaltı), were not released within 24 hours but were taken into courts and most of them were released by court order (correct me if I'm wrong here). A smaller number of them however were given the decision of tutuklama, which in this context could be translated as "they were detained for ongoing judicial processes". So, even though in Turkey gözaltı and tutuklama are important concepts, I believe that, as this template asks for detained and arrested only, we should not include the tutuklu people (those whose court processes are ongoing and they are not released for pending processes), but explain it in a simple and short language inside the article. Therefore, I think that Arrested:4900 would be enough for the template. --Universal Life (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

And one more small note, just after writing this note. I've went to the article and clicked the blue "detained" link and the Detention (imprisonment) article came along. There I've realised that in the template, they don't mean the simple detention of 20 minutes - few hours by the police, but they mean the judicial detention!! So, the template is just ok, the way it is now. As here detained, that's judicially detained is actually the number of tutuklu people! :) Everything is alright now! :) --Universal Life (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Turkish Spring

Turkish Spring redirects here, but nowhere does the article even mention that term, even though several refs do. Quite awkward. How about including a line such as "The protests have occasionally been labelled [or hailed as possibly prefiguring a] Turkish Spring in analogy to the Arab Spring, but [some reason why the analogy is not apt or the term not more widespread, or objections by named people]"? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Your question, somehow, contains the answer.

One of the biggest troubles of ‘Wikipedia’ [say for billions more aspects on earth, too!] is the perceptions of ‘majoritarianism’ and ‘pluralism’.

The main wiki pages cannot be changed through a result made in a talk/discussion page by only those who participated in. ‘The display’ and ‘the facts’ are not always the same.

My personal opinion or any wiki user’s opinion does not matter here now; because anybody, as an individual or as a coterie, do not have the infinite power to shape societies forever.

Therefore, I only can share my ‘observation’: A large majority of Turkish people [no matter what their political tendencies are] do not approach to label [or to make an analogy] the protests as ‘Turkish Spring’. Because:

1. They do not want to be mentioned with the Arab culture. [Again; not all of them.]

2. There is a massive stream that has already begun about 3 years ago called ‘the Arab Spring’. So it is so hard to replace the term after all. And from the sociological perspective, it is not necessary to replace at all.

Any ‘… Spring’ word make people recall ‘Arab Spring’ and this will result for Turkish society to be mentioned with Arabs. Because a vast majority of people around the world have an attitude that Turkish and Arab cultures are strictly intertwined. For some, “ Turko [or ‘Turco’] ” represents the entire middle-east including Arab culture. [To be clearer, there are still some people calling a huge part of Asia as ‘Chinese’ because of their eyes. And at the same time, a huge part of Asia perceive Europe, Russia, the Americas, a huge part of Africa, Australia, New Zealand and etc. the same.]

Re-writing here, the explanations above are not my definitive opinions [which are not the case for this discussion page at all] about the issue, these are only observations.

If you have more questions [as an individual or a wiki user] that “ Is there a genuine correlation between ‘the Arab Spring’ and ‘the Taksim Gezi Park protests’ ? ”, in ‘Archive 1’, there is a lengthy discussion about this specific subject.

Please visit.

Lastly, the discussion in archive 1 was not made to ‘decide!’ what to write in the main page about the issue. It may have been considered ‘a knowledge/opinion sharing’. --Toksoz (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is not about the issue of whether the term is correct/approriate or not; even if the reliable sources and the editors all might agree that the term is not, what is at issue here is completely independent of that. It is merely about a redirect term. Redirect terms should be mentioned in the article, at least more notable ones. And this one seems to be in significant use, enough to deserve mention, even if it mostly found in sources where the term is criticised. That the term is used is a fact and should not be ignored, omitted or censored (and neither should the idea, prediction or hope that the protests prefigure a revolution analogous to what happened in the Arab Spring, which lies behind the term). In fact, it is very useful to mention widespread incorrect or dubious terms or notions in Wikipedia in order to educate people. Wikipedia does it all the time. We don't simply omit incorrect things, unless they're not notable in the first place. But if the term were not notable, then there shouldn't be a redirect, either. Still, the fact that at least four of the cited sources mention it indicates that it is notable enough. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I was only trying to be helpful by making a suggestion. I do not have a horse in this game and do not care enough to edit the article myself. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Florian Blaschke; if you pay closer attention to the observations written above, the sentences do not aim to direct or re-direct about "the term is whether correct or not".

Your suggestion was noted not only by me also by a large majority of wikipedians visiting this talk/discussion page.

And anybody do not expect you to have horse but sincerely expect your care on "Wikipedia:Assume good faith" and "Wikipedia:Be bold". So do not hesitate to participate in. --Toksoz (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Plus, I also do think that the term must be written somewhere in the main page. --Toksoz (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• "and this will result for Turkish society to be mentioned with Arabs." That is completely besides the point. The mere fact that it would be called "Turkish spring" indicates that a separation is made. What matters is what the source say, not that Turks don't want to be associated with Arabs. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

fatalities

I think that this edit is questionnable. Here is an English version of the news. They state that Hasan Ferit Gedik was killed in Istanbul’s Gülsuyu neighborhood on early morning. Nothing suggests that this death is related to the protests. Or we'll add every death in Turkey that is in the news to the fatalites in this article? -- 37.17.113.123 (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I Agree Arved (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This is right, he died in an arguement (it was kind of a protest before) but against the local drug gangs in the area, nothing to do with government. BUT; then protests were held against "the government which is not taking care about the drug gangs in the city centres and not giving enough importance to these deaths, even trying to blacken the evidences". So death is not related but the protest that came afterwards are. Do as you wish. Berkaysnklf (talk), 7 October, 2013, 20:37 (UTC)

Gezi Park protest is over

Gezi Park protest is over why wikipedia says it is resuming? Fariztevfik (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Because protests are not over in other issues ?????? User:KazekageTR —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What are other issues? The last entry in protest timeline is in august Timeline_of_the_2013_protests_in_Turkey in English Wiki and 10 september https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Taksim_Gezi_Park%C4%B1_protestolar%C4%B1_zaman_%C3%A7izelgesi in Turkish Wiki. So if protests is resuming why there is nothing in timeline? I live in Turkey and there is nothing about Gezi Park for weeks. Fariztevfik (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

well there have been protests in Istanbul and Ankara just two days ago. http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/?hn=441180 ; so i don't think the protests are over. Arved (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

date of news is "14 Eylül 2013". It means "14 September 2013". We are now in 16 October 2013 (16 Ekim 2013 in Turkish). So it is not just two days ago, it is a month and a two days ago. So i think the protests are over. Fariztevfik (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

sorry i misread the date. So take this one [2] for example, it says 14.10. Arved (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately this protest is not related with Gezi Park. It is about mosque-cemevi complex construction in Tuzlucayir, Ankara. You can not associate every protests in Turkey with Gezi Park. Fariztevfik (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well the article's name "2013 protests in Turkey", so i think these protests belong here. Also there are certain characteristics that make the protests in Tuzlucayır a continuation of the original protests in Gezipark. Arved (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

2013 protests in Turkey continue as of today

http://www.bianet.org/english/youth/150753-11-detained-at-metu-solidarity-protest-in-istanbul

Though the recent protest and police crackdown are specifically in Ankara, these protests are still in 2013 and in Turkey. Events in Taksim Gezi Parki are but a minor expression of the world-wide protest against the imposition of "moderate sharia law" against the secularists.

I appreciate everyone's contribution to keeping this easy-to-use journal of what is happening in the 2013 protests in Turkey. Thanks to all! Rednblu (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Demands

The information under the heading "Demands" doesn't appear to match the information it cites. There are quotes in the article that aren't cited, and don't appear to correlate with the information that IS cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.66.212 (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Parties to the civil conflict Edit war

As some of you may have noticed, me and The Madras have been involved in a recent edit war. We have a disagreement about how the government side at the Parties to the civil conflict section of infobox should look like.

I think that 61st Government of Turkey should be displayed, whereas The Madras thinks only Turkey should be displayed. I think that 61st Government of Turkey is the correct approach, since protesters were not against Turkey, they were against this specific 61. government. And since we are making a historical acount here, when people click on 61st Government of Turkey, they will get information about this current government. But when they will click on Turkey, they will only find general info about Turkey, which is not really helpful. Also Turkish Vikipedi article about those protests uses 61st Government of Turkey as the conflicting side.

Second discussion is about the use of Turkish flag. The Madras thinks that Turkish flag should be displayed on government side, I think not. First of all, the protesters does not have a single flag to be displayed on their side. Second, Turkish flags were widely used by the protestors as well. The Madras thinks that flag should be definitely displayed. Also flag is not displayed at Turkish Vikipedi article.

I am flexible about the flag issue, but I definitely think that 61st Government of Turkey should be displayed. I also told this to he Madras, but keeps on changing the article according to his own view, and not even giving a reason while editing. He seems to have a history of edit warring, and even got a warning for his attitude.

Please share your thought about this matter since The Madras and I can not come to agreement about this issue. Thanks. Gezginrocker (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

My comment was "I also refer you to Islamist protests in Egypt (July 2013–present), 2012–13 Egyptian protests, 2004 al-Qamishli riots, 1999 Latakia protests amongst others which DO use flags for civil disputes. Gezginrocker simply told me that he had used the Turkish wikipedia version as a base and changed it to reflect the English wikipedia version, although Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source and he doesn't have a reasoning for NOT having flags. The fact that the rebels don't have a clear flag is not an issue. And by the way gezginrocker, 1 warning in all my time here doesn't constitute a "history" of doing it. The Madras (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)