Talk:Recep Tayyip Erdoğan/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Article clearly written without neutrality or balance, clearly negativity bias and at times libelous or defamatory

Bad copypasta from the archives from a year ago
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article clearly written without neutrality or balance, clearly negativity bias and at times libelous or defamatory Below is my request from last year, thanks to all wiki community that helped last time, a lot has changed since then and the page is extremely less offensive compared to previously before your help, but again it is still not a neutral or a balance article, which is quiet obvious from a neutral point of view, and so having quiet a lot of success last time, again I ask wiki community to up hold wiki rules and polices and delete ANY data that is un-neutral, negative and libelous or defamatory... clearly a bias and unfair which is against wiki rules and polices, please help! this article is clearly bias, one-sided, hateful and incomplete, its one sided that paints clear negative picture of a president, I ask that fair information be promote inline with the ethical procedures and policies of Wikipedia, that hate should not be promoted against anyone, and that truth be told at all times... iv tried to implement fair edits yet people are abusing and ignoring Wikipedia's rules and polices of unbiased info, therefore this page should be locked with fair and true unbiased information whatever that may include, that ultimately does justice to readers, wikis rules and polices and every other stakeholder... cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.108.252 (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC) Yes, your edits were clearly biased, unfair, and against Wikipedia's policies; and others have helped. As I said at Wikipedia:Help desk: See WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:V, WP:GEVAL, and WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia is not a platform for any politician, all new information must be supported by mainstream academic or journalistic sources, we do not create artificial balance when almost all sources agree on a point, and we are not censored to help the feelings of an autocrat. In short, we are not a propaganda arm for any government.On the contrary, the article seems like a propaganda brochure for Dictator Erdogan. There is no debate on the fact that he is a dictator. Even his supporters see him as a benevolent dictator (although he is not). This fact should be clearly stated on the Dictator's biography page. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC) completely disagree, I'm from Australia & very far from any bias when it comes to the truth or Turkey, your argument is weak and childish; that the elected president of a country that of 85% of all voters, over 50% voted for Him as the president, yet you still imagine that "there is no debate", your an absolute joke, unworthy of debating with, a perfect analogy to this is that of a person playing chess with a pigeon, no matter how good the person is, the pigeon will shit on the board and strut around like it won... Shame on the Wikipedia community, I truly thought that you would support good faith and unbiased truths promoting peace, instead of supporting negativity, hate and bullying that oppresses world peace... write as you wish, time will reveal all truths for those who truly seek it... cheers From Australia... why is my response being deleted? clearly a bias, libelous material THAT certainly is NOT a NEUTRAL point of view... The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability.[1] It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. !!! It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. I encourage all of the Wikipedia community to abide by the above rules and help, this will ensure that hate, negativity and oppression are not contributing to the evil act of dividing people and communities and negatively impact world peace... please EVERYONE delete ANY data that is un-neutral, negative and libelous/defamatory... lets clean this page of any info that go's against Wikipedia, that ::promotes hate and/or negativity..... thanks to all the wonderful Wikipedia community members who are educated enough to help... peace and love to all... why is THIS talk-post being deleted please answer? 114.78.99.134 (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Your argument goes both ways. We don't allow unsourced propaganda in articles, either. The material that you think is negative is reliably sourced. If you have a problem with it, see WP:NOTCENSORED. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC) I am not supporting any biases, I am trying to enforce Wikipedia's rules, I don't care where the source come from or how reliable it is, if it goes against Wikipedia rules then it should be delete, I acknowledge that I am not above Wikipedia's rules and so should you and all of Wikipedia community... again I stress that Wikipedia does Not allow any negativity, hate, un-neutral or libelous info, so please be apart and inline with the community rules and standards...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.99.134 (talk • contribs) You are fighting against WP:NOTCENSORED, you completely failed to follow WP:V with your unsourced additions, and your hero-worshiping tone did go against WP:NOTPROMO. Per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:DUE, Wikipedia does summarize negative coverage by academic or journalistic sources. We don't pretend that Hitler was just some guy who painted, because that's not what historians and journalists know him for. We don't pretend that John Wayne Gacy was just a clown, because that's not what historians and journalists know him for. This whole pretense that we don't allow anything negative is completely wrong. Now, if you meant that we can only add negative material if it is supported by reliable sources, then yes, that'd be right -- but that's what the article does. In fact, it's fair to say that no material (positive or negative) can be added unless it's supported by reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Again I acknowledge that I am not above Wikipedia's rules and so should you and all of Wikipedia community... this is what Wikipedia has posted and is not my opinion or rules. my questions is why would anyone delete this talk-post/discussion? This what should be enforced!!! read carefully the following... The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability.[1] It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. !!! It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. and who/why would anyone be against this? again please help, only with the help of the Wikipedia community can we achieve this standard... yours sincerely... 08:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.99.134 (talk • contribs) Please point to any material that is not backed by a professionally published mainstream journalistic or academic source. Bear in mind that the intro summarizes sourced material found later in the article. You keep saying "neutrality," but you don't seem to realize that we enforce neutrality by sticking to the sources. We don't create artificial balance by pretending that one side has way more support than it really does, nor do we pretend that a rather vocal majority of sources is less than what it is. You keep saying "libel," but we're just repeating information that's found in the sources all over the world. If there is any libel, Erdoğan will have to address the newspapers we got the info from, not us. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC) It's the Wikipedia community that you should be asked to point out and delete any info that go's against Wikipedia rules and (not me personally) or not just ONE individual(again since you have a hard time understanding, it is the Wikipedia community duty as a whole to uphold the rules and delete any libelous material), I'm only here to remind the community to follow Wikipedia's rules, stated above, but you just don't understand, like I said before your an absolute joke, unworthy of debating with, a perfect analogy to this is that of a person playing chess with a pigeon, no matter how good the person is, the pigeon will shit on the board and strut around like it won... your the biggest pigeon ever and thus I'm not going to ask you any more why you have deleted this chat-post or my response to a previous chat-response, or any other question, please don't respond your only embarrassing your self, your obvious to what/who you are, no need to explain further... 09:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.99.134 (talk • contribs) No. You claim there is a problem, so it is your responsibility to provide evidence for that claim. The burden of proof rests on whoever makes the claim. Shoving the responsibility onto other people is not only irresponsible and rude, but tendentious. You say you're here to remind us of our "rules," and yet you repeatedly show that you don't know what they are or how they actually work. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC) The fact of your statement "There is no debate on the fact that he is a dictator" clearly shows your bias and any intelligent person can see this, and can tell what your preferred sources and the tone and bias they have. please assess your view with a scientific approach, this will show you exactly where you differ from the truths. it is not me who gives responsibility of correction to the Wikipedia community I'm sure you know that Wikipedia gives this, so please don't start... I'm not asking anything from you so don't ask anything from me, again I'm appealing to the Wikipedia community in general to help up hold the rules set out for all articles especially for living people who are leaders of great countries be it Turkey or Australia or any other... just follow the rule, which are as follows: The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability.[1] It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. !!! It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. I encourage all of the Wikipedia community to abide by the above rules and help, this will ensure that hate, negativity and oppression are not contributing to the evil act of dividing people and communities and negatively impact world peace... please EVERYONE delete ANY data that is un-neutral, negative and libelous/defamatory... lets clean this page of any info that go's against Wikipedia, that :promotes hate and/or Libelous..... thanks to all the wonderful Wikipedia community members who are educated enough to help... peace and love to all... 10:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.99.134 (talk • contribs)

49.192.7.90 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC) thanks to all who have taken the time to read this thanks to all those who helped last time your efforts are much appreciated...49.192.7.90 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

49.192.7.90 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

...Removed my own pontificating note about WP style recommendations for above "hatted section," after finally realizing that the now hatted section was a "stale" snippit that someone had apparently randomly posted here as a "comment" from a year old archive, with no explanation or notice, and not current. Scott P. (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Scottperry: You realize that the IP copy-pasted the above out of an archive? Also pinging Ian.thomson --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Neil, I just now noticed the dates in the odd snippet, jumping suddenly from April 2016 to April 2017. Scott P. (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to hat this. I'm not seeing where the new IP is contributing anything new. They appear to be rehashing the same stuff as the old IP under the pretense that anyone agreed with them.

On a further note, the IP's attempt to copying my remarks has altered them by getting rid of links that I included. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Glad the "spaghetti section was duly hatted. The above "spaghetti snippet section" was all a rather bizarre exercise in the blind leading the deaf leading the dumb! Not sure which of these three I qualify as. Probably all three!! Scott P. (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Scott, appreciate it but please don't change the heading or title, or if you must than please include it as sub heading, but one should not disregard and disrespectfully delete or edit other people chat topics, please be more mindful next time, cheers, Mike....

49.192.7.90 (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

One should not disrupt the talk page by doing a bad job of copying and pasting a thread from over a bloody year ago, especially when one plans to add nothing to the discussion whatsoever except pointless thanksgiving. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Ian, thanks for the hatting of the bizarre section above. Sorry for my confusion about what was going on. I think that you may be correct that the above "spaghetti comment" may have been more of an instance of "vandalism" of this comment page, than an actual attempt to communicate in a helpful or constructive manner. Just a guess. Still, to whomever posted it, if you were attempting to vandalize, I think you may have succeeded, at least for awhile. Scott P. (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Ian, if you wanted to simply delete this whole comment (which was probably merely a "prank" on us all), I certainly wouldn't object, and actually, unless anyone else can give a good reason for keeping it, tomorrow I'll delete it myself. Scott P. (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Above is my request from last year as I clearly stated, but it also contained my current opinion and feedback of the current article in order to generate discussion, calibration and a reminder of rules and regulation in place by Wikipedia, yes I copied and pasted an old comment but this was with sincere intention of helping readers to better understand the scope of my opinion and help bring about a more useful discussion or possibly a constructive argument, and yes I did thank all previous wiki community members that helped last time, as mention above the current main article is extremely less offensive compared to previously, before wiki community helped, but again I feel it is still not a neutral or a balance article thus their should be discussion in a constructive manner of what is neutral, does the article have a negative bias ,which is quiet obvious from a neutral point of view, by all means I'm not saying it should all be positive all I'm asking is does contain a balance view or is it leaning towards a negative bias if so why? and how can we help improve it and eliminate the negative bias, if the situation was reversed and the article had a positive bias I would be asking the same questions, please understand the wiki community deserves an unbiased article, it should not contain either positive or negative bias but a well balanced article that does justice to rules and regulations of Wikipedia and so having quiet a lot of success last time, again I ask wiki community to up hold wiki rules and polices, and be kind to those who are new to community and may be still learning to use and express them self's correctly within this community... thanks for your patience, tolerance and understanding, cheers Mike...49.192.7.90 (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I accept your edit above as a "good faith" edit, and I thank you for sticking with this. Whenever folks come together from greatly differing perspectives, outlooks, cultures, or places, good communication always requires extra effort, and I thank you for not giving up on this here. Usually, if enough good-faith in one another, and effort by all parties is made, ultimately all parties benefit and learn from the process, and good communication can and does finally result. Please see the new comment section below titled: "WP's NPOV vs: true objectivity vs: majoritarian journalism." Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Foreign policy inflation

This article has a severe length problem (90kb prose, when 60 is the suggested maximum) and a lot of this is down to the huge foreign policy section. It is also stylistically poor: no other major political figure that I know of has one aspect of their governance elevated in this manner. The foreign policy section needs to be hugely condensed and incorporated into the prime ministership and presidency sections. Ideally, the same needs to be done with the controversy section, but we can get to that later. If nobody raises serious objections here, I will begin this shortly. Vanamonde (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

When you say "one aspect of governance" is "elevated," (improperly), exactly which aspect of Erdogan's governance are you writing about here, and what might you mean by seemingly implying that whatever aspect you are speaking of, might have been "improperly elevated?" Scott P. (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Rather obvious, I thought: "foreign policy" has a section for itself, on par with "Personal life and education", "Prime Minister (2003–14)", and " Presidency (2014–present)". This is quite obviously inappropriate: it is only a part of his policy as head of state. It is also a very very long section. As I said above, it needs to be incorporated into the prime minister and president sections, and shortened. A spinoff may be appropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I see. Yes I agree, the Foreign Policy section could certainly be split off without harming the main article. If you wanted I could help you with this? Or if you prefer not, that would be fine too, or were you wanting someone to do it, besides yourself? I won't have time to do it myself for a few days. Scott P. (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Erdogan's Islamic poem

The article should probably mention he was jailed at some point for reading an Islamic poem. I didn't see it in there, but it's widely known and widely reported, so it should not be difficult to source. There once was a turk named Erdogan A bad guy if I ever heard o' one His skin ain't so thick He's kind of a prick But a leader? H ain't even a third o' one here is one possible source I also couldn't find mention of lifting the headscarf ban which has a long history in Turkey, source Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

WP's NPOV vs: "true objectivity" vs: "majoritarian journalism"

One of the beautiful things about Wikipedia is that it is not really based on a system of "laws" that are precisely administered in an entirely "arbitrary" fashion. I think when the Wikipedia founders set up the rules for Wikipedia, they intentionally allowed the rule system here to be just a little bit "fuzzy" so that it might challenge all the rest of us, at least just a little bit, to have to think for ourselves about what they mean.

Wikipedia editors are expected to understand our NPOV rule, in order to be able to successfully edit anything here that might possibly be an article topic with "multiple popular views." NPOV stands for Neutral Point of View. Obviously, the Erdogan topic has at least two very different views on his presidency, with both views being very popular among certain large groups of people. So how is this article supposed to be written using the Wikipedia:NPOV perspective?

Ideally, in cases where a given issue may still often be "up for public debate", as is Erdogan, a good encyclopedia has no business taking only one editorial side, and effectively silencing or "sabotaging" the other. Articles on such topics should present both points of view, in as fair of a light as possible for both sides. Accomplishing such an article is much easier said than done. In order to accomplish this, a good editor must be able to get himself in someway, into the "headspace of both sides," and write different sections of the article trying to present both voices fairly within the same article. If one can successfully write an article in this style, it should leave a reader him or herself still able to decide which voice of which side they may or may not wish to agree with, and feeling that the editors of the article themselves did not take either side. Unfortunately, being able to be in two headspaces at once, is something that many editors here are still trying to learn how to do.

So, Wikipedia neutrality is not exactly the same as "not taking sides," but it means being able to "take two or more sides at once." Not everyone can easily do this, thus many Wikipedia editors prefer to take the far easier route of what I will call "Majoritarian journalism." This means, quite simply, whoever has the most votes (amongst sources), by definition must be right, and that it is this "side" that Wikipedia should always take. Majoritarian articles are much easier to write, but less informative, because they always take sides, and always judge against the "underdog opinion."

In the case of the Erdogan article, there are both the pro and con Erdogan sides, and both sides seem to be prone to want to paint the "other side" black, very black. Also the pro-Erdogan side wants to silence the con-Erdogan side. To make the article on Erdogan comply with true NPOV, neither side should be silenced within the article, and both sides should be allowed to present their views as best as they are able, barring any clear and brazen attempts at outright deception by either side. (In Erdogan's case, locking up more journalists than any other country in the world is a good indicator to most reasonable folks, that a certain form of brazen deception may be taking place.)

Wikipedia NPOV does not mean being "objective," or "majoritarian," it only means presenting both sides fairly and letting the reader decide. This is how the Erdogan article should be written.

(My views expressed here on "Wikipedia NPOV" may not agree with what others have written on this, but I can guarantee you they would agree entirely with what Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia would say on this.)

Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

A rather bold move guaranteeing that I would agree with you entirely. But a move which works, since I do agree with you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not certain this is the right place for this discussion, but there is one aspect of NPOV on which you are incorrect. Yes, we must present all non-fringe perspectives on a subject, giving due weight to each. Due weight, though, and even the form in which we present any argument, is not determined by us trying to get into the headspace of a certain perspective, and presenting it from their point of view. Due weight is determined entirely by predominance in reliable sources. That's all. The preponderance of reliable sources decide what is written in Wikipedia's voice: perspectives described, but not supported, in a significant number of sources must be mentioned, but cannot form the basis of our narrative; and fringe perspectives must be ignored altogether. Thus the balance cannot come from us trying to treat "pro-" and "anti-Erdogan" equally. That is a false dichotomy. We present what the sources say. If most reliable sources praise him, then the article will generally be "positive"; if most are critical, then it will be "negative"; but the "positive" and "negative" are none of our concern. Vanamonde (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the current incarnation of NPOV has unfortunately sadly devolved into "majoritarian journalism" which by definition "weights" (takes sides). Sigh... Wales has allowed this devolution because he has hoped that we might be able to understand NPOV ourselves without his having to constantly edit our NPOV policy himself. I guarantee you, if you asked Jimbo or Sanger, they would both heartily agree with what I have written above, and would be saddened by the current state of our current NPOV policy incarnation. (But these days, it seems that I'm the only one around here who has ever bothered to ask either of them, and nobody asks or listens to either of them on this important topic any more, so certain are some editors that they have "improved upon" the original. Sad.) Scott P. (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You can pick which version of Wikipedia:NPOV you prefer. Perhaps the biggest and most obvious problem with the current "majoritarian WP:NPOV" policy, is that it doesn't work very well in "close calls." In cases such as this Erdogan article, there is sometimes no clear "majority" amongst sources, so editors are sometimes left not really being able to agree which side to pick as the "winner" or "loser" (which side to weight for/ against.) Due to this obvious weakness of the current incarnation of WP policy, in "close call" articles like this Erdogan article, much confusion, and sometimes hard feelings amongst editors can sometimes be generated.

Actually by applying the current incarnation of WP:NPOV policy to this article, it would seem to me that the English article would probably be "weighted towards" (take the side of) the con-Erdogan side. I say this because the English WP relies primarily on sources written in English, which probably don't well represent the actual state on the ground in Turkey itself, so they would probably "vote" for the con-Erdogan side, and intentionaly weight-away-from (side-against) the pro-Erdogan side. In the opinion of the founders of WP, taking sides is not neutral, its taking sides. Personally I prefer the original NPOV over the current majoritarian NPOV policy, (just in case you might not have gotten my drift.) The original policy would ask editors to "take both sides" but the current policy would probably ask the editors to take only the con-Erdogan side. Scott P. (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bore you Mike, with WP politics here.... At any rate, I don't think anyone will mind if valid, citeable pro-Erdogan points are included in this article, so if you might have any well sourced reasonable pro-Erdogan points you might want to get into this article, please let me know, and I will be happy to try to get them into the article. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Please keep info on Kemal here, don't delete Erdogan's view.

Deleting the fact that Erdogan believes that the elections were fair, and his government is legitimate only weakens the NPOV of the lead. This Erdogan claim surprises nobody, but the fact that the closing sentence of the lead carefully has "implanted disqualifiers" placed in the Erdogan claim, essentially turns Erdogans whole logic completely upside down for anyone who seriously unpacks that sentence. The word "disputed" and its supporting cite [23] are the key here. Anyone who takes the time to fully unpack this sentence will almost automatically have to arrive at the conclusion that Erdogan's government is illegitimate, no? Thus, Erdogan's own words end up being the logical rope here that hangs him, no? By deleting the phrasing about "legitimate" you weaken the sentence's "real argument." Please let our readers make up their own minds, and don't be afraid to let Erdogan call himself "legitimate" here. Everyone knows he thinks he is legitimate, so there is no reason to try to hide this fact.

By deleting things like the fact that Erdogan's parliament has been criticized for not supporting Ataturk, you also undermine the page's argument. Ataturk is the absolute antithesis of Erdogan. Ataturk is the founder of true democracy in Turkey and the founding father of that nation. The fact that this criticism has been made is notable and probably speaks to most Turks of Erdogan's dictatorial tendencies. Please do not delete things like this unless you have a little better understanding of why these things were first added here. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This contradistinction of Kemal vs. Erdoğan seems like WP:OR to me. Unless such contrast is made in WP:RS, including all these details of Kemal vs. Erdoğan looks like the personal opinion of an editor. The rest of the text you restored was text removed by Vanamonde93, for reasons s/he explained in their edit-summary and with which I happen to agree. It was a good cleanup. Also the text you restored had numerous {{cn}} tags. Restoring unsouced text is generally not a good idea. Dr. K. 22:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Also your phraseology Please let our readers make up their own minds, and don't be afraid to let Erdogan call himself "legitimate" here. Everyone knows he thinks he is legitimate, so there is no reason to try to hide this fact. leaves a lot to be desired. Please don't insinuate that editors who disagree with your editorial choices are trying to "hide" things or that are "afraid" of anything. Let's keep this discussion civil without insinuations. Dr. K. 22:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Dr.K.'s edit summary was quite correct. "And are the legitimate source of the government's authority" is almost redundant, and certainly too wordy for the lead. Erdogan says the elections were fair; his opponenst dispute them. Plain statement of fact. We should not bend over backwards to find things that Erdogan or his supporters say about themselves. I said this above, I'll say it again; we have to stick to what reliable sources say. If they say "Erdogan is X" that is what we say, whether that is positive or negative. If they say "Erdogan's supporters say X and his detractors say Y" then we say that. There is a legitimate concern with a western tilt in reliable sources, but there are ways to address that; there are quite decent English sources from the middle east, from Russia, from south Asia, and so forth. Using our ideas of what should be in the lead to make it "balanced" because we know, for instance, that we should mention Ataturk is verging on original research, and is definitely an NPOV problem. I don't have a history with this article, but I've worked on quite a number of political biographies, and brought a couple to GA status; so I'm not ignorant of the issues involved. Vanamonde (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Vanamonde - it would be POV advocacy. Ataturk was a great man, but what we know as Kemalism is an ideology, including laicism. There may be discussion about the ideological balance in secondary sources, but I agree with above comments that a BLP is not the right article for the discussion. As for it coming from western sources, yes that is also an issue. Erdogan actually has a very strong position for his arguments rooted in Turkey's history of military coups and strict secularism, and he does actually have popular support. It is only more ammunition for him to say his critics don't want democracy in the Middle East. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"claiming that the government's disputed April 2017 elections were legitimate." Why do you say elections or talk about the legitimaty of the government? Although Erdogan is of course a dictator, the government has its legitimaty from the controversial 2015 parliamental elections and nothing to do with 2017. 2017 has been a referendum on the constitution, which will take effect in 2019 when the next President will be elected. Although Erdogan is in fact controlling the government, formally he is not. Ignoring that the current government is (formally) not led by Erdogan, the lead is formulated pretty bad. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.zaman.com.tr/gundem_rektorluk-diplomasini-yayinladi-halacoglu-yeni-belge-gosterdi_2213158.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141217043626/http://www.zaman.com.tr/gundem_yeni-yolsuzluk-dosyasinin-ekonomik-boyutu-100-milyar-dolar_2189530.html to http://www.zaman.com.tr/gundem_yeni-yolsuzluk-dosyasinin-ekonomik-boyutu-100-milyar-dolar_2189530.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808055103/http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/124664/erdogan-39-s-mother-tenzile-erdogan-dies-of-acute-cholecystitis.html to http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/124664/erdogan-39-s-mother-tenzile-erdogan-dies-of-acute-cholecystitis.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531074150/http://arsiv.zaman.com.tr/1998/04/22/guncel/all.html to http://arsiv.zaman.com.tr/1998/04/22/guncel/all.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cfr.org/publication/14395/conversation_with_recep_tayyip_erdogan_rush_transcript_federal_news_service.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005001307/http://www.turkishembassy.com/ii/O/ErdogantoKocaryan.htm to http://www.turkishembassy.com/ii/O/ErdogantoKocaryan.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004232232/http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/8050/ to http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/8050/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324095757/http://www.cjpme.org/DisplayDocument.aspx?DocumentID=2163&SaveMode=0 to http://www.cjpme.org/DisplayDocument.aspx?DocumentID=2163&SaveMode=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224084835/http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action%3Bjsessionid%3DAE94F068CFA327ECCF1188D64D19F795?newsId=267701 to http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action%3Bjsessionid%3DAE94F068CFA327ECCF1188D64D19F795?newsId=267701
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130719043902/http://gundem.bugun.com.tr/yuzde-50nin-degil--haberi/655153 to http://gundem.bugun.com.tr/yuzde-50nin-degil--haberi/655153
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203014540/http://www.zaman.com.tr/sehir_duble-yollar-uzadi-kaza-ve-olumler-yuzde-50-azaldi_1080097.html to http://www.zaman.com.tr/sehir_duble-yollar-uzadi-kaza-ve-olumler-yuzde-50-azaldi_1080097.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141208052922/http://www.todayszaman.com/national_rift-deepens-between-govt-top-court-with-pms-heavy-criticism_344553.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/national_rift-deepens-between-govt-top-court-with-pms-heavy-criticism_344553.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604130349/http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=282315 to http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=282315
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141208052032/http://www.todayszaman.com/business_social-security-law-finally-passes-in-parliament_139477.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/business_social-security-law-finally-passes-in-parliament_139477.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027232406/http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_turkey-somalia-military-agreement-approved_297699.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_turkey-somalia-military-agreement-approved_297699.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141125103048/http://www.todayszaman.com/national_critical-media-block-imposed-on-ak-saray-opening-amid-graft-concerns_362922.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/national_critical-media-block-imposed-on-ak-saray-opening-amid-graft-concerns_362922.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141201150226/http://www.zaman.com.tr/gundem_ak-saray-alman-basininda_2254265.html to http://www.zaman.com.tr/gundem_ak-saray-alman-basininda_2254265.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150212222451/http://www.taraf.com.tr/politika/davutoglu-bile-bu-kadar-istemedi-400-milletvekili-lazim/ to http://www.taraf.com.tr/politika/davutoglu-bile-bu-kadar-istemedi-400-milletvekili-lazim/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150208184432/http://www.taraf.com.tr/politika/akpnin-sarkisinda-uzun-adam-gitti-osmanli-torunu-geldi/ to http://www.taraf.com.tr/politika/akpnin-sarkisinda-uzun-adam-gitti-osmanli-torunu-geldi/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160619081327/http://theturkishsun.com/opponent-or-terrorist-the-dramatically-changing-nature-of-turkish-democracy-20313/ to http://theturkishsun.com/opponent-or-terrorist-the-dramatically-changing-nature-of-turkish-democracy-20313/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509094335/http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/turkey/2009/091109B.html to http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/inside/turkey/2009/091109B.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160601125158/http://www.france24.com/en/20160531-ex-miss-turkey-sentenced-insulting-erdogan to http://www.france24.com/en/20160531-ex-miss-turkey-sentenced-insulting-erdogan
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141113151608/http://gundem.bugun.com.tr/adana-seciminde-oylar-boyle-calindi-haberi/65695 to http://gundem.bugun.com.tr/adana-seciminde-oylar-boyle-calindi-haberi/65695
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160122082724/http://www.todayszaman.com/columnists_scholars-for-peace-we-will-not-be-a-party-to-this-crime_409172.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/columnists_scholars-for-peace-we-will-not-be-a-party-to-this-crime_409172.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160506174618/http://turkishmonitor.com/the-rift-betweent-erdogan-and-davutoglu-raises-questions-2783/ to http://turkishmonitor.com/the-rift-betweent-erdogan-and-davutoglu-raises-questions-2783/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141209195647/http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/116073/turkey-39-s-ruling-ak-party-wins-elections-with-49-83-percent-vote.html to http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/116073/turkey-39-s-ruling-ak-party-wins-elections-with-49-83-percent-vote.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141209203321/http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/481/erdogan-named-european-of-the-year.html to http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/481/erdogan-named-european-of-the-year.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141208161146/http://www.zaman.com.tr/politika_kizilaydan-erdogana-ustun-insani-hizmet-nisani_446971.html to http://www.zaman.com.tr/politika_kizilaydan-erdogana-ustun-insani-hizmet-nisani_446971.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314014823/http://www.zaman.com.tr/wap.do?method=getSondakikaDetay&haberno=933739&sirano=0&sayfa= to http://www.zaman.com.tr/wap.do?method=getSondakikaDetay&haberno=933739&sirano=0&sayfa=
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=54518
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100308235302/http://www.unhabitat.org/content.asp?cid=8016&catid=5&typeid=6&subMenuId=0 to http://www.unhabitat.org/content.asp?cid=8016&catid=5&typeid=6&subMenuId=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126081028/http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=66697 to http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=66697
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111025215042/http://www.todayszaman.com/news-260972-prime-minister-erdogan-receives-palestinian-excellence-award.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-260972-prime-minister-erdogan-receives-palestinian-excellence-award.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2018

Erdogan's stint as the mayor of Instanbul (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recep_Tayyip_Erdo%C4%9Fan#Mayor_of_Istanbul_(1994%E2%80%9398)) does not have a valid citation. The sole reference to his seemingly miraculous performance in that position does not actually link to any information whatsoever (ref included below).

"Recep Tayyip Erdoğan participated in the World Leaders Forum event, Turkey's Role in Shaping the Future, in November 2008". Columbia University. 12 November 2008. Retrieved 12 November 2008. 

The broken link in question: http://www.worldleaders.columbia.edu/participants/recep-tayyip-erdo%C4%9F

Already done ToThAc (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Updates needed as time changes.

updates should be applied to section such as infrastructure, education system, health care, etc...

restriction to alcohol sale should be next to restriction of sales of cigarettes/smoking, in healthcare.

cheers...14.200.53.53 (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

War crimes

Nothing has been mentioned of the above topic and how Erdogan is wanted in Sweden to answer charges. Here are 3 articles on the subject.

http://theregion.org/m/article/12691-turkey-is-committing-war-crimes-in-afrin-syria https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/recep-tayyip-erdogan-latest-news-sweden-genocide-lawsuit-turkey-president-kurdish-a7835951.html https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/president-erdogan-should-be-tried-war-crimes-european-judge-finds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.247.90 (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

de facto leader

I'm not going to be drawn into an edit war here, but this addition is quite unnecessary, and borders on being silly. The lead says Erdogan was Prime Minister from 2003 to 2014, and President from 2014 to the present day. How does "de facto leader from 2002" add to this? Vanamonde (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Bad wording

“Georgians in Turkey are basically Muslims” sounds just weird and should be rewritten DemonDays64 (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

help

Please can someone add protection padlock to article because there are to many edit warring. For example changing to 12th to 13th president and adding false information. Struck edit request by sock of blocked user.IamNotU (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Goto WP:RFPPRonhjones  ^(Talk) 19:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Help request

Please can someone update the picture to this more recent one.

Erdoğan (cropped version, 2018).jpg

This is the official portrait picture of Erdogan and it’s used in the Turkish version of the article.

Here is the link: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Erdoğan_(cropped_version,_2018).jpg Struck edit request by sock of blocked user.IamNotU (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done The official portrait is a crop of Erdogan shaking Putin's hand? Citation needed. Huon (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Help me

Spotted an error on the Education part.

Please can someone correct F@tih project it should be Fatih project* — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIncredibleTurk (talk • contribs) 02:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Struck edit request by sock of blocked user.IamNotU (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done We had an article on the F@tih project and there are some indications on the web that this was the stylization of the name that at least some outlets used. This article was later moved to the non-stylized name.

You could engage in a COMMONNAME discussion about it, though, since it looks to me that the non-stylized spelling has become more the more commonly used. But I'm not willing to correct it as an error. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Help/edit requests by blocked user

There have been several help/edit requests by sock puppets of blocked user Shingling334. Please be aware of this before responding to future requests, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2019

Add a sentence to the end of the following paragraph, in the section on the Armenian Genocide: "On 23 April 2014, Erdoğan's office issued a statement in nine languages (including two dialects of Armenian), offering condolences for the mass killings of Armenians and stating that the events of 1915 had inhumane consequences. The statement described the mass killings as the two nations' shared pain and said: "Having experienced events which had inhumane consequences – such as relocation – during the First World War, (it) should not prevent Turks and Armenians from establishing compassion and mutually humane attitudes among one another".[77]"

The added sentence should say: "The Ottoman Parliament of 1915 had previously used the term "relocation" to describe the purpose of the Tehcir Law, which resulted in the deaths of anywhere between 800,000 and over 1,800,000 Armenian civilians in what is commonly referred to as the Armenian Genocide." LevCat (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

References

 Already done Looks like this has been done already, so I'm marking this as answered. Roadguy2 (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Caliph of the homosexuals

This nickname is dubious and not backed by reliable sources. Seems as a personal attack. Its place is not in the lede per undue weight issue. Jingiby (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)