Wikipedia

Talk:Turkey/Archive 27

< Talk:Turkey
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Eggishorn in topic Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2018
Archive 20←Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30

RfC Genocides

Latest comment: 6 years ago62 comments17 people in discussion
Consensus is to (continue to) use option 1 because it is concise, as lead content has to be. Sandstein 13:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Which of these for the LEDE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seraphim System Now that you mention it, "large scale massacres" should actually be changed to "Genocide". Thanks for pointing that out. Khirurg (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Khirurg, large scale massacre is a stronger word than genocide. Since it always imply physical destruction of individuals, while something could be considered as genocide (under its own definition) without involving physical destruction (like transfering members of a group into another group). For this reason it is weasel wording... it gives actually no information on what did happen, while ethnic cleansing, massacre, expulsion... are more explicit and less open to interpretation (they're generalizable). Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I like a shorter blurb but it's important to mention the fact that Turkey disagrees. Adding a sentence about the amount of the subject seems much for a lede about the country as a whole. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Chris troutman: you said that it's important to mention the fact that Turkey disagrees. and I disagree with you. This article is not about what political views the Turkish government has on these historical events that have unfolded on the country's soil. This article is about Turkey and the historical events that unfolded on its soil. Period. Wikipedia's role is not to advocate these political views on irrelevant articles. If we want to include the Turkish government's views, we may do so only in the articles dedicated to these events (i.e Armenian Genocide, Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, etc) that tackle about the opposing views on these events. Like I said, the article Turkey is about the country and the indisputable historic events that have unfolded on its soil. Nothing more, nothing less. The Turkish government's view of them has no place here. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 10:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't care that you disagree. I made my point. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Your "point" makes no sense at all and is contradictory. One hand you support adding a sentence to the lead (regarding the denials of the Turkish government, and on the other hand you say that adding a sentence "seems much" for the lede. Khirurg (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

And for your information, I had in the past started a draft [[1]] on how to reach concensus on the Armenian massacres on Wikipedia. But removed it by finding a better approach which will be known later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secularism, unitary, parliamentary republic...

Latest comment: 6 years ago65 comments15 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal for the word Secularism in the lead

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

I propose modifying the sentence to:


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

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

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

Support as informative to our readers and backed by sources [2]. Khirurg (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

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

  • Support It is well known by Turkey scholars that the country is heading towards social conservatism and Islamism under Erdogan.
media sources: Voice of America Politico
scholarly sources: [3] [4] ----Երևանցի talk 07:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
This source pointed out by Yerevantsi - Kaya, Ayhan. "Islamisation of Turkey under the AKP rule: Empowering family, faith and charity." South European Society and Politics 20.1 (2015): 47-69. - is well cited (49 citations for a 2015 paper....) and published in a peer-review journal.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Some modification is due. I will note I lodge my protest to the multiple RfCs here. I support the spirit of this proposal if the text in the last paragraph of the lede Turkey's current administration headed by president Tayyip Erdoğan has reversed many of the earlier reforms, such as Freedom of the Press, a Legislative System of Checks and Balances, and a set of standards for secularism in government, as previously enacted by Atatürk.[35][36][37] is combined to this. Criticism of the current regime should be limited in the lede. e.g. redacting the last paragraph, and stating

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m okay with that proposal as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Support --Calthinus (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Support as well. Khirurg (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The proposal is to remove the last paragraph, and place a condensed version of it (per proposal above) next to sentence in paragraph-1. It could be tightened a bit more.Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support either Etienne Dolet's proposal above, or the modified one immediately above this comment. It seems to me to be necessary to mention the current's administration's efforts in the lead, but also that it should not be in the second sentence. Vanamonde (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Proposals seem alright at a glance. Note on semantics: in "AKP", "P" stands for "party", so "AKP party" is incorrect as it literally means "Justice and Development Party Party". I think it would be best to give the full name (Justice and Development Party) followed by the abbreviation in brackets. --GGT (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a good point -- should probably be fixed. Icewhiz why don't we just go ahead and implement the change? It's been awhile without anyone contesting it. --Calthinus (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it should be moved to replace the last sentence for now since it breaks up the continuity of the first paragraph which is about geography. Seraphim System (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree, it could move down to the end of paragraph1, or next to Ankara being the capital. Regarding closing this - given the convoluted RfC history here and this being an official RfC - I would prefer a formal close. Icewhiz (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
NOTE: I went along and did the changes since there's almost unanimous support for the proposal. Closing admin should take note that there's been a consensus reached and the RFC should be closed accordingly. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I just reverted a drive-by removal of the agreed-upon text. Dr. K. 00:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Ignoring the above, It will need to be changed upon a successful referendum but until then WP:BALL wikipedia is not a crystalball.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This change was made without a formal close over objections from other editors, but checks and balances and the subtle vandalism (with capitalization) was not removed as we agreed. As Icewhiz says above The proposal is to remove the last paragraph, and place a condensed version of it (per proposal above) next to sentence in paragraph-1. It could be tightened a bit more. Seraphim System (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of relevant sourced content

Latest comment: 6 years ago21 comments9 people in discussion

Please refrain from simply deleting relevant and sourced content which belongs into the lead section. Nothing about that is "disruptive". You don't own this article and its lead section. Akocsg (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The consensus is about one or two sentences concerning the current political situation, based on the actions of the AKP government. My added content was about other topics. Initially I didn't know about the consensus, after the revert of Dr.K I noticed it and brought it back myself. The other contents I've added are independent from it and belong there. Akocsg (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly you added, but I saw that at least you restored the agreed-upon text. Thank you. Dr. K. 01:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, as I said I didn't know about that initially. I added it back myself. Though another user, Etienne Dolet, is making a battle out of it even though I'n not doing any "disruptive" edits or whatsoever. Akocsg (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Etienne is a reasonable editor. I'm not sure what he is objecting to, but I'm certain he will let us know. I don't have time to check what additional information was added to the article in the recent edit. Dr. K. 01:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I added content concerning major cities/urban areas, the official language, minority groups (especially Syrian refugees), and about major economical branches (tourism). Probably he thought that I deleted it again, which is not the case. So it's alright now. Akocsg (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, you're right. He may have thought you deleted the agreed-upon text. The rest of the edit, as you describe it, sounds uncontroversial. Dr. K. 01:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that’s what I thought. I’ll look into the other stuff when I have a chance. Also, why is the Turkey (bird) see also page being removed from the top of the page? That should be added back. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Good point. I would request if Akocsg could restore it. Dr. K. 01:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I thought it's redundant since there is an ambiguation page already. If it's that important then add it. Akocsg (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, you're right. I think it's redundant. But it's been there a long time, due to the name being identical, in English, to the bird. Dr. K. 02:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
It's common practice with disambiguation hatnotes to list specifically any targets which are also prominent usages of the term, to get readers to the information they're looking for in as few clicks as possible. That's why {{about}} supports up to (I think) four alternate uses. Since turkey is a very popular game bird and associated with cultural traditions throughout the western world, it should probably stay in. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

(unindent) I find the edits by Akocsg highly problematic on the grounds that they are intellectually dishonest. For example, Akocsg added that Kurds are "10-20%" of the population, when in fact all high quality sources agree that the kurds are much closer to 20%, perhaps more. Even the two low-quality sources Akocsg added do not say 10%. This is familiar "Kurdish minimization" problem we keep seeing in the article. 20% becomes 10-20%, becomes 10%, become 5-10%. I've seen it before all too many times. Second, the part about adding tourist numbers to the lede is also highly problematic. The figure of 25.4 million may seem high, but it is in fact almost half of the previous years, a catastrophic decline of around 40%. In one year. Additionally, this year's figures haven't been released (although they will be soon), and are likely to be even lower. Thus, adding "25.4 million tourists, 7th most popular destination in Europe" is highly dishonest and misleading. We could just as easily have added that "Turkey suffered a catastrophic decline in tourist arrivals in 2016 due to increasing instability, violence and slide towards authoritarianism". Khirurg (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing about those figures are dishonest and "misleading". It seems they are simply "I don't like it" contents for you. They all are sourced content found in Wiki itself. The only problematic action is you simply deleting sourced content based on Wikipedia:I just don't like it and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Better refrain from doing so. Akocsg (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems like one or two users would like to delete all the content simply based on the pretext that the percentage cncerning the Kurds is false. I fixed it and added a source.Akocsg (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Placing a false percentage, based on poor sourcing, for the Kurds in Turkey is a rather big deal.Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
What false percentage? And how is the source poor? According to whom? Are you deciding that? And as I said, I put it at 15-20% now, which is definitely realistic and most neutral at this point. If you have further, more precise sources, then feel free to add them. But don't simply delete all sourced content based on one single point. Akocsg (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Akocsg: the current sources for the figure of 20% are well-respected academic sources. Al Araby and worldatlas.com are by no means on par with that. If you are convinced that this figure does not reflect literature, you should bring on board comparable academic sources, which we can evaluate without any prejudice. A quick Google Books search, however, suggests that that will be an unlikely endeavour, Khirurg seems to be right regarding the literature. Regarding numbers of tourists, I find mentioning the decline in tourism in the lead more intellectually dishonest than giving the absolute numbers. Absolute numbers matter more, as despite the decline, Turkey is still a massive tourist destination and tourism is important for the economy - this is more encyclopedically important if we don't approach it from a recentist POV. However, I do think that we should not be giving any figures, we could just mention that Turkey has a large tourism industry, comparable to what we have in the article for Greece. --GGT (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting adding the major decline in the Turkish tourist numbers to the lede, I was just using that as an illustration of how one could be intellectually dishonest in the other direction. But I insist that mentioning the figures of 2016 is a) WP:UNDUE, and b) intellectually dishonest if presented out of context. And if the decline in numbers is sustained in the future, revisiting this issue would not be dishonest, and a mention in the body text (not the lede) would not be undue. However that is for the future. Khirurg (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Please, there has been enough edit warring over Kurdish population figures, lets stick to what the sources say. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 18:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The best academic specialist sources I have been about to find about this say that no reliable estimates of the population exist [5], but considers 18-21% a reasonable estimate - I think inclusion in the lede needs to be justified. Why is the statistic important? The only mention of the Kurds in the lede is this unreliable statistic. There is barely any discussion of modern Turkish history, most of the lede discusses the Ottoman Empire. This Cambridge University Press source estimates anywhere from 12-20%.Seraphim System (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Before making edits discuss it here first

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Otherwise this page will be needing protection. Redman19 (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The edit being made by the anonymous user had no harmful intentions. Redman19 (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Redman19 Actually, the content that you removed was agreed upon after a very long RfC process, which also agreed to remove the following sentence: Turkey's current administration headed by president Tayyip Erdoğan has reversed many of the earlier reforms, such as Freedom of the Press, a Legislative System of Checks and Balances, and a set of standards for secularism in government, as previously enacted by Atatürk. Unfortunately, an editor involved in the RfC did not remove this sentence before adding the agreed upon rewrite, which led to the repetition the ip tried to correct.Seraphim System (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I would've preferred to wait for the RfC's close - but seeing this was in, and subsequently edited - I modified the last paragraph to be similar to what the current RfC consensus seems to be. Currently this is all in the last paragraph - it could be moved up to the first (and very long) paragraph - up to you Seraphim System.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The above is not a simple edit request, but a large amount of unsupported and unreferenced assertions to challenge the plain-text statement or reliability of a source generally-accepted as reliable. The assertion of misrepresenting the source is not credible. In fact, the referenced source clearly says: Turkey's new school curriculum drops Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and adds the concept of jihad as patriotic in spirit. The referenced text says much the same thing, The above attempt to explain that the text doesn't mean this requires sources at least as reliable to support it and consensus among editors. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Topic of edit request

Section 7.3 (Demographics > Education) contains a statement that misrepresents the claim(s) of the article it references. The last sentence of the section states:

  • In 2017 the theory of evolution was removed from the national curriculum in favour of teaching on the concept of jihad. [ref]

It then references the following article:

The problem

The sentence above makes or implies three important statements, that:

  1. the theory of evolution was removed from the national curriculum;
  2. the concept of jihad is now being taught, as part of the national curriculum;
  3. the theory of evolution was replaced by the concept of jihad.

Below is what the article contains (with respect to each point above):

  1. The first statement is in-line with the article.
  2. The second [implied] statement is biased, and it's a misrepresentation. To quote the article, "The curriculum, effective from the start of the 2017-2018 school year, also obliges Turkey's growing number of "Imam Hatip" religious schools to teach the concept of jihad as patriotic in spirit." The article clearly states that the new curriculum obliges Imam Hatip schools to teach the concept of jihad as patriotic in spirit. It does not state that they weren't being taught before -- but rather that the way they are taught is reformed to be more patriotic. The article expands on this: "Jihad is often translated as "holy war" in the context of fighters waging war against enemies of Islam; but Muslim scholars stress that it also refers to a personal, spiritual struggle against sin." The new curriculum, instead of teaching it as a "personal, spiritual struggle against sin", would require schools to teach it as "patriotic in spirit".
  3. The third statement is also formed with bias. The theory of evolution was not replaced by the concept of jihad. Both of the changes were made in different contexts. The change regarding the theory of evolution was made to the national curriculum of public schools (as stated by the article), while the change regarding how jihad is taught only applies to that of the Imam Hatip schools. In order for the latter to replace the former, they would have to be in the same context. But they are not.

Proposed changes

The referenced text should be replaced with the following:

  • In 2017 the theory of evolution was removed from the national curriculum. [same ref]

The changes to how jihad is taught (now obligatorily taught as patriotic) are slight, and not worthy of mentioning on Turkey's main page. This topic is already covered in the main article Education in Turkey. However, if that portion is deemed important enough to mention, then it should be done so without implying that (1) jihad has just started being taught in public schools (it has not, rather it has always been part of the Imam Hatip education), and (2) that it has replaced the theory of education.

Thanks, 68.193.166.34 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey/Archive_27&oldid=846473503"