Talk:Turkey/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2020

Add to the end of 'Foreign Relations':

On January 2, 2020, Turkey's parliament approved a bill to deploy troops into Libya to back UN-recognized government in the capital after forces loyal to Haftar, a rival administration, launched an offensive. The legislation passed with a 325-184 vote, however the details of the deployment have yet to be revealed in terms of amount and timing. JosephGX (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done I do not think that this event is significant enough to be included into the main article about the country. 18:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslik0 (talk • contribs)

How is a country's involvement in another country not significant enough to be included in the "Foreign Relations" section? Especially considering the factors that 1. troops will be deployed and 2. this is a response to aid a UN-recognized government. This additional factual information provides a better sight of Turkey's foreign relations with Libya and shows that Turkey is both capable and willing to send troops when another country is in aid. (disregarding any bias underlying reasons for doing so) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephGX (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This article is supposed to be an overview of the entire nation. Including a note every time a news item like this pops up isn't realistic. There is a main article just for foreign relations that might be more appropriate to amend. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

References

J'aimerais comprendre pourquoi le nom du pays devient Dinde en Français. Ce message est pour Wikipédia.

? Annick Tremblay (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed "?" What the hell are you typing? I thought this was the English Wiki. O_o No offense meant, but translation please? I can speak a few languages but, not that one. D: SageSolomon (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Turkey → Türkiye – The country has changed its English name to Türkiye. 2600:6C5A:657F:D1F5:48D3:2853:9745:8762 (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Won't happen as everyone will keep referring to them as Turkey! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, per WP:COMMONNAME. Even in the period after Erdogan's December memo, 'Turkey' predominates in English-language sources. News in the past 48 hours has described the name change as an ongoing process, with unclear timelines. It's far too soon to make a call on this, and I propose a short moratorium on requested moves until other governments, inter-governmental agencies, and news media can react to moves by the country. Firefangledfeathers 03:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Obviously way too soon for such a major change. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. But if this ever does catch on and the article gets moved, then Turkey (bird) should be moved to Turkey. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Since the bird is named for the country, we'll have to change its name to "Türkiye" also to be consistent. :) BilCat (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. As stated above, the most common in the English-language name for the nation is Turkey. Perhaps if media and other sources follow suit with using Türkiye, there would be a stronger argument for the change. ExRat (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Alex2006 (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME. Turkiye or its equivalent only used by Turkey major English sources. 125.167.57.203 (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, until the preponderance of reliable English language sources routinely use the spelling "Türkiye". Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose No sign WP:COMMONNAME has changed, as stated above. This needs more than a memo from Erdogan to change it - WP:RS English-language usage has to change before we change. DeCausa (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Firefangledfeathers. Slightly off-topic, this website [1] use the new spelling, but this [2] doesn't yet. Apparently, the word "Turkish" is still ok per government.[3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The name change is not even adopted yet by the largest two Turkish media in English language, Hurriyet Daily News and Daily Sabah, who continue to use "Turkey" as of now. Due mention of the name change can be slowly phased in if usage in local and global English-language media actually increases. Once the name change will be established and dominate in a wide range of sources (which is entirely WP:CRYSTALBALL), we can address the page title again. –Austronesier (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the English name is Turkey, not "Türkiye". Super Ψ Dro 13:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Turkish Constiution. Shadow4dark (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - obviously not the common name. The limit should probably be the lede sentence and a mention in the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. This should be a snow close at this point, as it's obvious this RM will fail. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support and make this title a DAB, no clear primary topic for "Turkey". Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Crouch, Swale: could you provide a rationale for your !vote? Firefangledfeathers 19:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Firefangledfeathers: A combination of WP:NATURAL, alternative names may be used to settle titles by using alternative names as well as WP:NOPRIMARY for "Turkey". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I would note that we have no reason to assume that Türkiye will ever be used a an English word by native English speakers. If we accept Crouch, Swale's argument above, the correct response would be the one they proposed at the August RM. Kahastok talk 18:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  My point was partly the fact that the country is probably going to sometimes be called "Turkey" and sometimes "Türkiye" so this reduces the chances of the country being primary for "Turkey". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per noWP:NAMECHANGES.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:NAMECHANGES would support retaining 'Turkey', as independent, reliable sources since the name change are continuing to use 'Turkey'. See, for example, the first five new pieces I found searching for 'Erdogan': Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, Times of Israel, The Defense Post, and Reuters]. All but Reuters use 'Turkey' exclusively, and Reuters uses neither version. Firefangledfeathers 19:27, 20 January 2022 (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.

F-35 cancellation

@Mortense I just double checked what this guy's archived post on this talk page was about and verified. Indeed, at [link] it states that Trump has cancelled this delivery of the F-35 to Turkey because they bought S-400s. It would be a help if we could get a few more sources to confirm this, but I'd put forth we should edit this tidbit of info on the main page everywhere, as its been done already over at the F-35 article. Such as in that pic with the F-35 and a Airbus A400M Atlas, for example. Unless I am mistaken and the United States is still selling them to Turkey? Any comments or feedback from anyone is welcome. SageSolomon (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@SageSolomon first of all yes that is true and that's why i've corrected the sentence 'Turkey is one of nine partner states in the F-35 JSF program ' to 'Turkey was one of nine partner states in the F-35 JSF program' but that dude Khirurg or whatever just blatantly reverts my edits. Secondly, although Turkey is no more a participant, it is still a good demonstration that the Turkish arms industry is capable of involving in such a program. That's why i think that we should keep that image. kazekagetr 12:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2020

Add to the end of 'Foreign Relations':

On January 2, 2020, Turkey's parliament approved a bill to deploy troops into Libya to back UN-recognized government in the capital after forces loyal to Haftar, a rival administration, launched an offensive. The legislation passed with a 325-184 vote, however the details of the deployment have yet to be revealed in terms of amount and timing. JosephGX (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done I do not think that this event is significant enough to be included into the main article about the country. 18:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslik0 (talk • contribs)

How is a country's involvement in another country not significant enough to be included in the "Foreign Relations" section? Especially considering the factors that 1. troops will be deployed and 2. this is a response to aid a UN-recognized government. This additional factual information provides a better sight of Turkey's foreign relations with Libya and shows that Turkey is both capable and willing to send troops when another country is in aid. (disregarding any bias underlying reasons for doing so) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephGX (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This article is supposed to be an overview of the entire nation. Including a note every time a news item like this pops up isn't realistic. There is a main article just for foreign relations that might be more appropriate to amend. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

References

J'aimerais comprendre pourquoi le nom du pays devient Dinde en Français. Ce message est pour Wikipédia.

? Annick Tremblay (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed "?" What the hell are you typing? I thought this was the English Wiki. O_o No offense meant, but translation please? I can speak a few languages but, not that one. D: SageSolomon (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

F-35 cancellation

@Mortense I just double checked what this guy's archived post on this talk page was about and verified. Indeed, at [link] it states that Trump has cancelled this delivery of the F-35 to Turkey because they bought S-400s. It would be a help if we could get a few more sources to confirm this, but I'd put forth we should edit this tidbit of info on the main page everywhere, as its been done already over at the F-35 article. Such as in that pic with the F-35 and a Airbus A400M Atlas, for example. Unless I am mistaken and the United States is still selling them to Turkey? Any comments or feedback from anyone is welcome. SageSolomon (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@SageSolomon first of all yes that is true and that's why i've corrected the sentence 'Turkey is one of nine partner states in the F-35 JSF program ' to 'Turkey was one of nine partner states in the F-35 JSF program' but that dude Khirurg or whatever just blatantly reverts my edits. Secondly, although Turkey is no more a participant, it is still a good demonstration that the Turkish arms industry is capable of involving in such a program. That's why i think that we should keep that image. kazekagetr 12:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Join me to make Turkey great again.

It was very sad to see my labor just fade away in front of my eyes and being able to do nothing about it. I've requested a peer review. Feel free to help me out with it. Actually, rather than 'feel free', just 'help me out' feels more suitable since it's been nearly three years over my last edit and it seems that article needs a complete overhaul. kazekagetr 17:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, can you pls elaborate a little further? Thanks, Cinadon36 19:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Cinadon36 yea sure, i wanna make it GA again is all and it would be awesome if someone lend me a hand instead of blatantly reverting my changes and editing this article with a anti-Turkish POV. kazekagetr 08:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, trying to get an article to GA status is a noble cause. I will keep an eye. Be prepared to use the Talk page alot. Cinadon36 08:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cinadon36 It cannot be PRO Turkey either. It has to state just facts, nothing more and nothing less. Neutral point of view. Not Anti Turkey, nor Pro Turkey. Just, Turkey. End of. There can not be any bias either way when creating Wikipedia articles, as this is an encyclopedia, not a political battleground. That being said, if there HAS been edits made that are anti-Turkey, I would agree, REMOVE them and make it as it should be with verifiable reliable sources and WP:NPOV. This is the sum of all human knowledge, not a platform for anyone's bias to be pushed to world at large. Please note, I am just stating this, and this is not a jab or an attack at anyone. Cinadon36 if you did work on this article in the past and gave it high marks, and someone came in a edited it and made it bias, and you are wishing to correct that, more power to you. :) Think Ive stated my two cents. I would have to learn far more about Turkey before I felt comfortable in assisting with editing this article, personally. There is SO much about this country for me to learn yet. D: Id want to do research on it first. Hit me up thy still wishes for assistance, anyway? I'll do my best? Haha. Apologies if this was abrupt or unwelcome. Turkey should be a well flushed out article, so I support the move to remove any bias of any kind. Happy editing! ^__^ SageSolomon (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment My involvement here was as the editor that delisted the article (and before that removed the GAR request). I do a lot of various good article maintenance so am coming from that direction (not any particular POV). One issue I see with the article is that it tends to stray into recentism and go into too much detail. This is an overview article on a country with a long history so should be written as such with most of the specific details in the daughter articles. The human rights section stands out most in this regard (see Wikipedia:Summary style). As for advice I would echo what I think Dr K implies below in that you will probably achieve the best results by getting the uncontroversial information up to scratch first and then working on the controversial stuff. If you can't reach a consensus here go for RFCs and the like. Also it may help to look at other country Good Articles on countries and use them as inspiration. Whatever you feel the POV of other editors it helps to assume they are here to make the article better. If they are not then it usually becomes obvious pretty quick when face with other editors trying to improve content. Good luck, I hope you can get it back up to standard. AIRcorn (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Challenging consensus

Kazekage, please explain what consensus you are challenging and then don't remove the consensus details from the article until you gain new consensus to remove them. You are free to edit non-controversial aspects of the article, but the way you do it so far makes it difficult to restore consensus edits you are removing without also removing your non-controversial edits since you are making too many small edits which are interconnected to each other making it difficult to separate the details without reverting all of them. Please make edits in such a way, as to enable editors to separate the controversial aspects from the non-controversial ones. That way your edits will not be reverted en mass. Dr. K. 17:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm challengig the consensus that @User:Khirurg keep claiming 'non-negotiable'. I think he/she talks about that Kurdish insurgency at the lede. I though Wikipedia was an open platform that anyone could edit and negotiate about any article, well it seems that now people like him/her have some enforcing power that they decide what to negotiate or not :D. Imma make my edits again and keep that Kurdish insurgency on lede, but here is what i say. We don't get to see other terrorist groups such as RAF,ETA,IRA,Zeta and other cartels unless the country is engulfed in a civil war or they have a timeline which goes on in lede. But in our case, it directly jumps from Atatürk's reforms which were enacted in 1920s-1930s and creates a half-a-century jump in timeline and it looks like that we are in a civil war or something like that but in reality even the Kurdish dominated cities like Diyarbakır or Van have seen dramatic drops in insurgency in last decade. Also i would like to add that the 'consensuses' on that Armenian Genocide image and PKK terrorism on lede doesn't strike me as consensuses rather topics which were left in vague and were argued on with some constant POVs. kazekagetr 17:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh yea also umm where have i insulted anyone, can you please adress to that @User:Dr.K.? I've just said that I'am aware of your ethnicity and your POV towards Turkey. But i didin't happen to say anything on both of them? kazekagetr 17:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

"You are igniting an edit war since you are of Greek ethnicity, i am well aware of that :)" Do you feel ok? Or do you not understand what you are writing? I have also told you that before: It is the lowest form of stupid argument to refer to other editors' ethnicity to cast WP:ASPERSIONS against them. I haven't done it against you for this reason. Dr. K. 15:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

And that, of course, does not include the other gem on my talkpage: "look mate i didin't wanted to use the classic 'ethnicity' card but please don't be hostile to all the turkish people. ..." It's good to know that you consider my reverting of your POV edits to be "hostility to all the Turkish people". And, using your own words, stop playing the "classic 'ethnicity' card", against me or any other editor. Stop doing it before it gets worse. Dr. K. 20:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide image 'again'

I've already checked the preview discussion about this image and i don't see any 'consensus' to keep it, rather i see people reacting to it in a logical way that i side with.

I think that since it has an article and it's been mentioned in both in the lede and in the history section, there is no need for such an image. As a citizen of this country, i could provide you images about other topics which reflect this country's rich history, which this image cannot possibly present.

Also in the previous discussion, there is a perfect sentence by User:Buhedyar that i totally agree: 'No country page has "look at this sad picture of a person dying" photo. China doesn't, Germany doesn't, UK doesn't, Russia doesn't and why should Turkey have it?' We can also add third world countries like Myanmar to this list.

I've noticed that User:Dr.K. reverted my change and i've opened up this discussion in order to respect everybody's views&thoughts. I was not able to join the other discussion since the block was removed since 01/01/2020. Love you all. kazekagetr 16:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with kazekagetr. Also the picture used in this article is way too bathetic or kitschy. --Gökhan 07:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Changing the national march's audio file

Turkish Wikipedia is using this audio file instead of the one in this wiki. This has lyrics too and it had been produced by the Turkish presidency.

The page is semi-protected so I can't change it by myself.--Yagizhan49 (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done ToprakM (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2020

the writer of the istiklal marşı is mehmet akif ersoy. Gungurbuz (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Hezarfen 21:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Project

Joshua Project is not reliable see this. I wonder why it is still being sourced in the article? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Statement that says the Ottoman government commited genocide.

  "During World War I, the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek subjects." This statement can be found in Turkey Republic's wikipedia page but can't be found in Türkiye page. Giving the message that ancestors of Turkish folk did commit genocide without doubt even though Armenian genocide case is not accepted by majority of different sources. 
  Stating the Ottomans commited genocide by counting on only one source and protecting that page is just gives the message that Wikipedia presents not reality but politically and emotionaly affected wiews of a subject.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorkem20 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 

Mehmet Akif Ersoy's "İstiklal Marşı" "The Independence March"-this is looking not very well.

in turkish page of this article there is no """Mehmet Akif Ersoy's""" in """"Mehmet Akif Ersoy's İstiklal Marşı" "The Independence March" """".

Mehmet Akif Ersoy's "İstiklal Marşı" "The Independence March" its should be this: "The Independence March" "İstiklal Marşı"

if it must be """Mehmet Akif Ersoy's""" in """"Mehmet Akif Ersoy's İstiklal Marşı" "The Independence March" """", then turkish page should be """Mehmet Akif Ersoy's""" in """"Mehmet Akif Ersoy's İstiklal Marşı" "The Independence March" """" too.

my english is very bad..

the main thing is: we should delete "Mehmet Akif Ersoy's" in english page

hope to understanding... Modern primat (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)modern_primat

Modern primat, thank you, you are right. We do not usually include the composer or writer of an anthem in the infobox and should not do it here either. I have removed it in line with your comment and in line with infobox format. Jeppiz (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

Change nominal gdp per capita from $9,683 to $8,957. BlueTea97 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@BlueTea97:  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoingBatty (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

"During World War I, the Ottoman government committed genocides against its Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek subjects."

The term "genocide" cannot be used on any issue that has not been accepted, not discussed by the historical commissions of the countries and not examined the evidence, and not discussed by any international court or united nations. It is just the argument of a claiming country. Wikipedia is an environment where no person, institution or country's political agenda is motivated, and it is a motto that it freely shares truthful data sharing. How can an "not confirmed", "not critisized, "judicially undecided" accusation can still be actively shown to the whole world by the hand of Wikipedia and this revision or editing is semi protected? How this type of text, action can be tolerated and accepted? This error needs to be corrected in a short term. Otherwise, it is the debt of the citizens to do what needs to be done in law and social, of that country both in the country and in the international arena due to this accusation of false information that pushes the society to hate and hate speech. Giving a reference doesnt mean it's a true information. Ttkhan (talk) 07:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish a consensus for this change before making such an edit request. Keep in mind, Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say about a topic. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

In the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey#Healthcare Title

"In 2012, there were 29,960 medical institutions in Turkey,[452] and on average one doctor per 583 people[453] and 2.65 beds per 1000 people.[452]"

this line can be updated via its source has 2018 values which should be

"In 2018, there were 34,559 medical institutions in Turkey,[452] and on average one doctor per 536 people[453] and 2.83 beds per 1000 people.[452]"

Sources are same and dont need an update. Thanks. Ttkhan (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done by Nithin — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess I just forgot to set it to completed! Sorry Nithin^talk 02:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Human Rights section

I noticed that the China, Iran and Russia articles don't have the Human Rights section, while North Korea, Syria and Saudi Arabia have it, but they are much shorter than the section in Turkey, which appears a bit like defamation. Should the information in this section be summarized and the excessive details moved to the main article Human rights in Turkey? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TR34Istanbul (talk • contribs) 05:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. T*U (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No. You removed a huge amount of text. Whole villages have been destroyed, and you removed that. You also removed anything related to the recent war crimes committed in Syria. Your bringing up other countries is a classic case of WP:OTHERCRAP, and your whole reasoning smells like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Khirurg (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

See the article Human rights in Turkey. Nothing disappeared, I moved the text there. Summary edit is a must. Otherwise, the Human Rights section (which doesn't exist in most country articles, including China, Iran and Russia) becomes 3 times longer than the regular sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TR34Istanbul (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. T*U (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree, while "summarizing" the part of the article you're talking about, you also removed some relevant informations that might be useful for our readers. Also, your remark about other articles is irrelevant here, see WP:OTHER. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

​ I think the part should be summarized, it should include most of the information but in a broader perspective . The “war crimes” in Syria should be included, but should be summarized as well. The Human Rights section in the Saudi Arabia article has been summarized too. Making the part really long would lead to the impression that Turkey’s human rights is worse than Saudi Arabia’s (which isn’t even close to being true). Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 13:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"Summarizing" seems to be a euphemism for "delete it because I don't like it. Khirurg (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, i don't see any legit reason for that, how would "summarizing" improve the article ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

​​I’m not proposing to remove any of the information, I’m saying it should be summarized. The events should be mentioned but it shouldn’t be this detailed. To Wikaviani’s question, other countries with worse human rights have a shorter section, making the section this long would lead to the false impression that Turkey’s human rights are worse than other countries (for example, Saudi Arabia). Some Countries don’t even have a human rights section even though there have been many instances which should be included. People come to Wikipedia to get informed about this country and, as I’ve said before, keeping the section this long would lead the false impressions. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 09:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe the solution then should be to improve and expand the human rights sections of those other countries' articles. Not to remove or whitewash otherwise unproblematic content from this article, based on the reasoning that the other articles are worse. See WP:OTHERCONTENT for more. Darthkayak (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darthkayak: The sections are too detailed, way too detailed to qualify as a proper summary. They should be mentioned briefly with a link to the main article, See WP:DETAIL. The reason I’m proposing these changes is to improve the readability of the article, it’s already a long article and it will keep being expanded. Also, trying to expand (and add) the human rights sections to other articles would take a lot of time and a lot of time, and people will continue using Wikipedia to learn about Turkey. A lot of people would get a false impression on Turkey during that time period. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 15:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I do not think the section is too long. It's not even 700 words, and largely consists of basic information summarized from statements by various rights organizations - as it is, it is already clearly a summary of the larger Human Rights in Turkey article. I also see no barriers to its readability. Above you state that the length of the section implies Turkey's human rights record to be disproportionately important in comparison to other countries, and cite Saudi Arabia's article as an example. I do not understand what you mean by this, as the Saudi Arabia article's human rights section is a good 150 or so words longer and similar in scope to the section in this article. Of course, there are a number of countries where the sections aren't as thorough, say for example The Gambia, but that does not mean we should abridge this article's human rights section, it means we should work on improving The Gambia article's. True, this takes a lot of time, perhaps years even, but that's a natural part of writing content for Wikipedia - it's an ongoing, cumulative process. It's helpful to remember that there is no deadline. I personally lean towards deletionism myself, and believe that we must be extremely cautious when determining whether something is worthy of inclusion, but the decision to remove content in an article should be judged on it's lack of value to the article (or violations of various policies), not on the state of comparable articles. The argument that other articles are in worse shape, and that this article should be similarly reduced until those articles are improved is at best, misguided. Such a standard could be used to remove any piece of text regardless of its merit, and would preclude the possibility of any article's human rights section being improved, for unless one simultaneously expanded every countries' article, such an argument could always be used to justify the removal of new content. Darthkayak (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darthkayak: I believe you have never been to Saudi Arabia but a 150 word difference wouldn’t even come close to the actual difference of human rights. What I’m saying is that the section is way too long compared to other articles. I understand that improving (and adding) the human rights section to every single article about a country is the right thing to do but as I’ve said before, it would take way too long to do that. As a reply to this:

“Such a standard could be used to remove any piece of text regardless of its merit, and would preclude the possibility of any article's human rights section being improved, for unless one simultaneously expanded every countries' article, such an argument could always be used to justify the removal of new content.”

The topic in question is very controversial and keeping the part long, as I’ve said before, would lead to a lot of false impressions. That’s basically the same thing with misinformation, what you’re saying here is that you think the section is of good length and it should be kept that way because changing it based on my comment would mean that “such an argument could always be used to justify the removal of new content.” Again, the topic in question is very controversial and there wouldn’t be many cases like this. All of my comments are based on the fact that the average “human rights” section on each article is around 300 words at best (I’ve guessed that number, it’s probably less). The probable reason for something like this to happen is that users who probably “don’t like Turkey” constantly come to the article with reliable sources and insert everything they can find which would damage the countries reputation. Almost all of the statistics given in the article are (very) outdated because most users editing the article aren’t trying to improve the article but to add more information which would damage Turkey’s reputation. I’ve been making calculations for about an hour now and see this:

The content which would damage Turkey’s reputation makes about 3.3% of the article (10.000 bytes), content which would damage Greeces reputation makes up less than 1%(1700 bytes) of Greece’s article. And it’s not that content like this doesn’t exist, it’s just that the Greece article doesn’t have a large group of editors who insert this type of material whenever they come across it. (Almost) No one is trying to actually improve the article. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 23:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, let me state that you don't know me, and whether or not I have been to Saudi Arabia has no bearing on this discussion (as it it so happens I have not, but I do have immediate family who lived there for many years). Going forward, please avoid alluding to my or anyone else's personal lives. Second, I agree that Turkey's article is a special case due to the potential for controversy, although I also think that is true of many countries. That said, it is not our place to try and improve or damage Turkey's reputation, and we should not make decisions based on such criteria. Instead we need to neutrally summarize the views of reliable sources (in this case rights organization), regardless of whether or not it hurts the country's reputation. Lastly, don't allege that a significant number of editors to this page are doing so with ill intent, without at the very least providing some diffs of them doing so. 03:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthkayak (talk • contribs)

@Khirurg: I’ve clearly stated that information shouldn’t be removed but given in less detail, could you please stop with the constant accusations? Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 09:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Enough with the pictures

• before you dive please refer to 1 and 2. Also for @Khirurg's negative attitute 1 and 2 also that and my talkpage where he accuses me without concrete evidence and full of misunderstandment which resulted in a failure. dudewithafez 20:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  Note that this comment was added two days after this thread was opened. Please refer to timestamp! --T*U (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus to remove the picture was reached before but the pictures were added again. I don’t see any pictures of the victims of the Holocaust in Germany, then why is this picture being included in the article? I’m going to remove it if no one opposes my opinion. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 16:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you please provide a translation of your comments and Kazekage's comments on Kazekage's talkpage? They are in Turkish and Google translate is a bit obscure in sections. I see also Kazekage has been canvassing Turkish users on this wiki. This is looking like canvassing disruption so far. So, before you start edit-warring, do tell us what you wrote on KZ's talkpage and what he replied, including the part about a "stable of dingos". Dr. K. 16:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• To wit:

• Anlıyorum, bence de öyle bir fotoğraf eklemek oldukça gereksiz. “Ermeni Soykırımı” (soykırım olduğuna inanmıyorum) dedikleri şey zaten Osmanlı döneminde gerçekleştiğinden böyle bir fotoğraf eklemek alakasız olur. Kaç kişiye haber verdiğini bilemiyorum ama bizim yapacağımız olan şeylere sorun çıkaracak çok kişi var, haber verdiğin diğer kişiler dönüş yapana kadar daha fazla kişiden yardım talep etmeli miyiz? Ayrıca, planın bu tip şeyleri çıkarıp sayfayı düzeltmek mi yoksa bu fotoğrafları çıkartmak mı. Ben ilk opsiyonu daha makul bulup ve topluca sayfayı geliştirebileceğimizi inansamda senin Vikipedi’yi bırakmadan böyle büyük bir projeye girişeceğinden emin değilim. Önceden dediğim gibi, yardım etmekten zevk duyarım. —-Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 13:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Which Google translates as:

• I understand, I think adding a photo like that is pretty unnecessary. Adding such a photo would be irrelevant, because what they call the "Armenian Genocide" (I don't believe it was genocide) happened already during the Ottoman period. I don't know how many people are reporting, but there are a lot of people who are going to have trouble with what we're going to do, should we ask more people for help until the other people you report have returned? Also, is your plan to take this kind of thing out and improve the page or take out these photos? I am not sure that you will embark on such a big project without leaving Wikipedia, even if I believe we can find the first option more reasonable and improve the page collectively. As I said before, I enjoy helping. —- Rodrigo Valequez 13:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Then you reported back to the canvassing organiser:

• I’ve proposed the changes on the articles talk page. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 16:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

  Dr. K. 16:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that I wasn’t going to start edit-warring, I was merely proposing a change which seemed logical to me. I’ll translate everything I said to English on the canvassing organisers user page. Also, is what he did not allowed? Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 17:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC) ​I’ve comepleted my translation. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 18:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

So first of all, thank you for providing the translations. My reading and writing in Turkish has decayed a lot, so I had quite a bit of difficulty reading it. To answer your question about if what Kazekage did is not allowed, based on my understanding of WP:CANVAS, it is clearly not allowed - to contact 40 or so uninvolved users about a discussion seems to be a pretty unambiguous example of spamming, and requests like this [4], make campaigning and vote-stacking concerns as well. Canvassing is disruptive and harmful to discussion because it makes otherwise genuine attempts at real consensus building suspect. In regards to your statement that "Consensus to remove the picture was reached before," in addition to the fact that consensus can change with time, I see no evidence that consensus was reached from the link you supplied. Rather it seems to consist of two editor's statements on the topic - that is not what consensus is. Consensus requires active discussion, preferably from a wide set of parties; if a talk page discussion doesn't achieve that, there are a number of appropriate methods for building consensus (an RfC perhaps - for more see WP:CONACHIEVE), but contacting people and asking them to support one's position in the talk page discussion is not one of them.

In regards to the point about the Genocide having occurred in Ottoman times, and the photo therefor not being suited for inclusion in this article, I would note that the article is about more than just the modern Turkish state, and includes images from a number historical time periods, going back to Göbekli Tepe. Articles about a modern country are intended to provide a broad historical overview of the region, rather than just its recent history. As for your larger objections to the inclusion of the image based on other countries' articles, I would first question the assertion that the presence of the photo presents a one-sided or disproportionately negative image of Turkey. You and the unsigned commenter below have implied that Turkey is being treated unfairly in this regard, and cite Germany as an example. While the Germany article does not currently host pictures of the Holocaust, it has at various points in the past, and does currently host a photograph of Hitler. I for one would firmly support the inclusion of Holocaust-related images, as well as human rights sections within many more countries' articles than they are currently present in. The bigger point here though is that what we need to decide on should be based on what would make for the best article about Turkey, irrespective of the content or quality of other countries' articles (for more on this idea, I like the essay WP:OTHERCONTENT, as it does a good job at showing why using other articles for comparison is often not very convincing). The question then is whether or not the photo hurts this article, and if so, how? I see no reason to think it does. Darthkayak (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Armenian Genocide is already mentioned in the text, and in the picture about the assassination of Hrant Dink in the "Human Rights" section of the article (which happened during the Turkish Republic era, so it should be preferred). We can't add a picture for every topic that's covered in the text, especially if it's already mentioned in another picture in the article. In general, the Armenian Genocide is a topic that should be covered in the Ottoman Empire article. I'm also against putting the pictures of "dead people" (e.g., the "dead child" in the picture that we are discussing), which is actually against the rules. I haven't seen any pictures about Jewish prisoners or dead Jews in the Germany article, or the picture of the Auschwitz camp in the Poland article. Turks are apparently being more open and honest than others regarding the sad issues of their country's past. To give an example, only a few months ago, many Syrians who tried to leave Turkey and go to Greece were either shot dead (there are numerous videos on YouTube and Twitter, here's one from Sky News and here's one from TRT World) or were stripped from their clothes, beaten, and sent back "naked" to Turkey. Human Rights Watch has condemned Greece for these human rights abuses, yet there is no "Human Rights" section in the Greece article. As I said before: Turks are being more honest and open about their mistakes than most others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TR34Istanbul (talk • contribs) 05:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. T*U (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, fake news from the Erdogan regimes TRT World and whataboutism as reasons to remove a picture of perhaps the most significant event in Turkish history of the last 150 years. Hmmmm, yeah, that's...convincing. Khirurg (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Keep your political views out of this. ”Fake news?”, what are you suggesting? That the videos were staged and the dead bodies of the immigrants were props? And that’s not the only reason, Your sarcasting comments and meaningless jokes aren’t necessary. We’re trying to establish consensus and here you are qualifying everything as whataboutism, I thought talk pages were to discuss in improving articles, not a stage for your comedy show. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 19:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I've discussed most of your points above, but I also feel I should note that putting a contextually-appropriate, historical photograph of a child's corpse is not "actually against the rules," at least as I understand them. Wikipedia is not censored. So long as the photo is not a copyright violation, and increases the reader's understanding of the subject, it is potentially worthy of inclusion. Of course, I may be wrong in this regard, so if I am I would be grateful if you could point to a policy or guideline or something showing me to be incorrect. Darthkayak (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

In any case, it should be added to the Ottoman Empire article. There's already an image in the Turkey article that mentions the Armenian Genocide, at the "Human Rights" section. A second image is not necessary. The Armenian Genocide is mentioned in full detail within the text of the "History" section, in the lede, and in numerous other sections of the Turkey article. But if those are not enough, we can dedicate the entire article to the Armenian Genocide. For example, we can add at least one paragraph and one picture about the Armenian Genocide to each section in the article. That being said, in the Germany article they have a picture of Adolf Hitler and a map showing his "conquests". No pictures of "dead Jews", whatsoever. In the Poland article there are no pictures of "dead Jews" in the Auschwitz concentration camp, Belzec extermination camp, Chełmno extermination camp, Gross-Rosen concentration camp, Majdanek concentration camp, Kraków-Płaszów concentration camp, Sobibor extermination camp, Stutthof concentration camp, Treblinka extermination camp, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TR34Istanbul (talk • contribs) 13:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. T*U (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I was going to tell ppl to change that part but i just saw this. I don’t think that a pictur like this is needed. I think it shoud be removed. I hope this is the right way to comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.24.160.16 (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

That’s 3 of us wanting the photo removed now. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 21:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I addressed some of your arguments above, but in regards to your point about an image in the article already mentioning the Genocide, I don't think that's really relevant. The information conveyed by an image illustrating the brutality of the Assassination Genocide is in no way analogous to the information conveyed by an image of a memorial to Hrant Dink. To that I repeat my earlier question: in what way does the inclusion of this picture harm the article? As for your statement that "if those are not enough, we can dedicate the entire article to the Armenian Genocide," I must admit I am confused as to what you mean. Wikipedia already has an article about the Armenian Genocide. Was that sarcasm which just went over my head, or did I just misunderstand you? Darthkayak (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darthkayak: That was most probably sarcasm, the article has a medium-sized part related to the Armenian Genocide, that on it’s own is overkill in my opinion. I get that the article also has information about the past but including such a brutal photo of what happened in a different period, and in a different country would not only make an (unnecessary) bad impression of Turkey but it also isn’t relevant. Why do we even need such an image? To make people understand that Turks are “barbarians”? The article is already extremely negative on Turkey and including an image of a crying parent mourning over her killed child wouldn’t help at all. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 00:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No one here is trying to portray Turkish people as barbarians. Honestly this might just need to go to an RfC then. We are beginning to go in circles - for one thing I've already made the point that the history sections of these articles aren't solely about the modern period. I think getting more people's opinions would definitely help us to reach some sort of a consensus. I do find it a little odd that despite your statement that "content which would damage Turkey’s reputation makes about 3.3% of the article" (although I'm not really sure how you calculated that, and again, it doesn't matter so long as we're representing the sources), you characterize this article's depiction of Turkey as "extremely negative." Darthkayak (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darthkayak:I was being sarcastic whiles saying the comment about users trying to portray Turks as barbarians. It is "extremely negative" compared to other articles. You haven't commented about users constantly coming to the article to add content which would damage Turkey's reputation and no one actually bothering to update the statistics. from now on, I won't be sarcastic so we can keep the discussion WP:CIVIL. If we contact other users, wouldn't it be canvassing? Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 05:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I understand what you mean now about extremely negative, although I still don't necessarily agree. Regarding people not updating stats, there's nothing necessarily malicious in that - it's tedious to update things, and we're all volunteers with other things in our lives, so it's often the case that articles aren't fully up to date. As an example, I just edited the article List of craters on Mercury, because I noticed that since last September it had displayed an out-of date number in the lead - it's entirely reasonable nobody noticed or thought to change it in that time. And my update was small - checking to see that the rest of the article is up to date would be a very time-consuming matter. As for why I haven't commented about editors trying to "damage Turkey's reputation," it's because you haven't provided any diffs which show that that's been happening, and I was unable to find any edits like that myself. I know you joined only a few months ago so I understand why you didn't, but when you make a claim about other users behaving inappropriately it's important that you are able to provide diffs to back it up - otherwise it comes off as baseless accusation, and potentially personal attack. I know that's not what you mean to do, but it's important nonetheless as without it, I and others have no idea what specific incidents you're referring to. Lastly, dispute resolution and things likes RfCs are very different from canvassing. I would explain further, but it's late and I'm falling asleep. Honestly you should probably talk about all these things more with your mentor (though they're likely busy with the RfA right now), as they could definitely do a better job explaining it than me, and this isn't really the place for that sort of discussion. Darthkayak (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darthkayak: I'm not saying that users not updating the statistics is a malicious act, it's just that they're busy edit-warring (most of the "negative" content was added a few years ago and the article has not been edited significantly since, The "negative" parts about Turkey was expanded but other sections of the article weren't.) Here are a few examples. . Also, I've been on Wikipedia since early 2017 but all I have been doing is minor contributions or typo corrections whenever I come across them, so I'm inexperienced when it comes to arguements. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 12:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry for implying that you are inexperienced. My intention with that statement was to cut you some slack for not seeming to understand terms like Dispute Resolution, Requests for Comment, and Canvassing but I see why it came off that way, so I apologize. Now, my point with the stats being updated is that there is no reason for you to assume that the reason people have not updated the stats is that they are too "busy edit-warring" - there are many simpler explanations. Similarly, your constant assertion that a portion of editors are editing the page with the intent to smear Turkey's reputation is a remarkable assumption of bad faith. Of the two links you provide (which you don't have to format as references, by the way), one is a broken link, and the other links to an edit which, while I may personally disagree with it, is perfectly within the bounds of normal editing behavior, and not sufficient to establish that Khirurg is making some sort of concerted effort at denigrating Turkey. Darthkayak (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

And also, the content related to genocides committed by the Ottoman Empire in the Ottoman Empire article (814 bytes) is only 34 bytes longer than the same content in the Turkey article. So, genocides committed in the Ottoman Empire are somehow so relevant to modern day Turkey that the sections should be (nearly) the same length? That just doesn’t make much sense to me, does that make any sense to you? Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 14:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, the Armenian Genocide occurred within living memory, so yes, even on an article solely about modern Turkey it would be worth discussing. But this isn't an article that's just about modern Turkey. The history section for example, is a thorough discussion of the region's history going back to the Neolithic period. If you feel that the article on the Ottoman Empire lacks enough discussion of the Genocide, you should of course feel free to expand it, but don't decrease the coverage of something on this page, just because another page is in a less developed state. Darthkayak (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Armenian Genocide is mentioned in the lede, in the "History" section, in the "Religion" section, in the "Human Rights" section and in numerous other sections of the Turkey article, which is about a country that was established in 1923. I think there's enough textual coverage already, plus the caption of the picture about Hrant Dink. If you want to turn the Turkey article into a memorial of the "Genocide", I'm against it. There are many more topics about Turkey to cover. If you want, you can add that photo taken in Aleppo (which is in Syria) to the Ottoman Empire article. The Armenian Genocide has its own article in Wikipedia (the Armenian Genocide article). In principle, I'm also against adding photos with dead people in it, which is a common policy in many internet news websites and forums.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TR34Istanbul (talk • contribs) 08:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. T*U (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Like I've said repeatedly, this article is not solely about the the country that started in 1923, nor should we not include things in the history section because they happened before 1923 - I do not know where you got that idea. Similarly it appears you are equating any mere mention of the Armenian Genocide with memorializing. The Hrant Dink photo is included because it illustrates the state of press freedom and modern violence against journalists in Turkey, something very relevant to a discussion of human rights. The mention of the Armenian Genocide in the religion section is because the Genocide significantly shifted the modern religious demographics of the country. Lastly, the point about photos of dead people amounts to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT - Wikipedia is not censored, and there is no policy here against displaying such photos. Displaying a contextually appropriate, historical photograph with a dead body in it is more than acceptable. Darthkayak (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t believe it to be correct. This has nothing to do with WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, we don’t think it’s relevant. I would explain why I think the removal of the picture is correct, but I won’t. I wouldn’t be able to convince you, but this is what consensus is. There’ already enough (maybe even too much) textual information on the article, including that photo would be overkill. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 19:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

So consensus is not a vote or a majority rules sort of thing; it is something that is built up on the basis of arguments and compromise. Your addition of a running count of the people who agree with you suggests you have some misunderstandings about this, so you should check out this page. But I too agree that we're going in circles, and that's why I suggest we move this forward to some other form of dispute resolution. Darthkayak (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

fellas i really don't know what to say, just wanna thank Rodrigo for his/her help since Khirurg accused me totally blindly. I was just notifying some users to join into this discussion since consensuses can be challenged (contrary to Khirurg's statement which he explictly said that this consensus was non-negotiable?). Now for the last time, before i retire (yeah i've graduated and started to work full time, it's not a cover like Khirurg suggests :D) i would like to challenge this so called 'consensus' to remove this image which in my opinion explictly instates a negative perspective on a country with a very deep historical backgorund. We can put tons of other (again imo) 'more important' images which reflects these lands' rich history. I also wanted to acknowledge that i do not deny genocide. so dont be using that card I just don't want that image. dudewithafez 19:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

That makes four of us. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 19:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You might want to revise that, Rodrigo. Khirurg (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I was just notifying some users to join into this discussion... I see you are in denial about the massive WP:CANVASSING you engaged in, not with some users but with Turkish users, and in the Turkish language sending them messages to support your cause. If you don't understand this is blatant ethnic canvassing, you need to be blocked. Dr. K. 20:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: I didn’t know that the user had contacted 40 people, and I didn’t even know what canvassing was. I technically was contacted by the user and I didn’t contact anyone else myself, I wasn’t intending to do anything against the policy so please stop accusing me of canvassing! Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 21:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please get a WP:CLUE and inform yourself about whom I was replying to. Hint 1. Check the indentation of my reply. It does not correspond to your answer Hint 2. I have highlighted a phrase in the template. It is not your phrase. Therefore, hint 3: I was not replying to you. Also please do not ping me. It is annoying. Dr. K. 22:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

​ We can’t even misunderstand as users anymore. What is this hostility towards me? I assumed it was me because a certain user is constantly accusing me of things. WP:CLUE has nothing to do with what you’ve just said so I’m assuming you meant “Get a clue”. You wrote your reply under my comment, I don’t have all the time in the world to go over you edits and question what you meant. That’s what pinging is for (or you could have just written his name). Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 22:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

When you use italics in "please" and exclamation mark so please stop accusing me of canvassing! in your response to me, do you think it is a friendly way to address me? Please look in the mirror before you give me a reply. Dr. K. 22:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

​ No, I don’t think it is a friendly way to address you. But you weren’t the only person I was addressing, a certain someone is constantly accusing me of WP:JDL and whataboutism. Do you think it’s a friendly way to tell me to “get a clue“? Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 18:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose the removal of the Genocide image. The Armenian Genocide is an extremely important event, and relevant to this day, due to the Denial of the Armenian Genocide, as witnessed on this very article. There is no event I can think of that is more deserving of being pictured in this article. And sadly, I don't see a compelling argument for removing it, only WP:JDL, whataboutism and canvassing along ethnic lines. Khirurg (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

​My arguement for the removal of the picture is that there aren’t any pictures of dead children in other countries articles (I’m talking about the countries which have committed genocide), and the article is already too detailed when it comes to Armenian Genocide (almost the same length with the section in the Ottoman Empire article, and the genocide happened in the Ottoman period). Just take a brief look at the caption: “An Armenian woman kneeling beside a dead child in a field "within sight of help and safety at Aleppo", during the Armenian Genocide.“ That on it’s own is just too much. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 20:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup, WP:JDL ("is just too much"), and whataboutism ("muh other countries"). Khirurg (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Have you been silently reading my comments and waiting for a time to “strike”? If so, great job. You should earn a medal for that. Please stop accusing me. The caption is way too dramatized, I get scared of myself (as a Turk) when I read it. I’ll remind you of my points:

• The section about Armenian Genocide is almost the same length in the Turkey and Ottoman Empire articles, the Armenian Genocide happened in the Ottoman Empire.
• There’s already a lot of textual information, including a brutal picture with an extremely dramatized caption wouldn’t do the article much good.
• What is this picture even meant to be helping a reader understand? (Obvious sarcasm which isn’t true)→ That Turks are heartless barbarians?

Also, is there a way I can mute a user from constantly accusing me? Asking for a friend. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 21:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well I don't read your posts out loud, so I guess I read them "silently". Are you demanding I stop reading your posts? Nor am I "accusing" you, or "Strinking". If you think replying to your posts is "accusing", or "striking", you're going to have problems editing. By the way, "way too dramatized", and "brutal" are not arguments for removing the picture. It just sounds like you find the picture "insulting", that's why you want it removed. Is that the case? Khirurg (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Khirurg: I’ve said this many, many times. I want the picture removed because I believe that there’s enough textual information (too much, in my opinion) in the article already. The photo is unnecessary and (sort of) irrelevant to the article. I understand that the Armenian Genocide was a part of the Ottoman Empire’s history and it should stay in the article, but the content on the Armenian Genocide on this article is almost the same length with the Ottoman Empire article (the country the genocide happened in). The content also covers about 3.3 % of the article (as in bytes), such a topic should be mentioned briefly. Adding a photo expands the unnecessarily detailed section even further making it seem as if the event was more important than it is in Turkey’s history (And it isn’t even in Turkey’s history! Turkey as in the country). You keep assuming the reason why I want the photo removed even though I’ve explained it several times, and you have also accused me of WP:JDL and whataboutism several times.

The thing is, Rodrigo, you keep bringing up these same three arguments over and over, and we've already either addressed them, or explained why we think you're misunderstanding either how Wikipedia works or what the purpose of this article is. While I do think you've encountered much hostility here, Khirurg describing your arguments as "Just don't like it" and Whataboutism is not an accusation against you, but rather a rebuttal of your arguments (the canvassing issue is it's own thing, but I think everyone here knows that you weren't the one to canvas the page - the indenting clearly shows that Dr. K's comment was in reference to Kazekage/Dudewithfez's comment, not yours). On the flip side, claiming that some subset of editors with ill-intent are "trying to damage Turkey's reputation" is an accusation, a serious one at that, and it is one that you have not yet retracted or provided evidence for. I really recommend you talk these things over with your adopter before continuing. Darthkayak (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darthkayak: I do believe that there are a few users who have only been adding this type of information to the article, I do not know their reason for doing it though. I accept that my accusation wasn’t relevant and I have no evidence to back it up, so I’m retracting my claim. I don’t feel the need to contact my adopter at the moment. I’m aware that you addressed my arguments but I don’t believe your view to be correct, User:Khirurg has constantly misinterpreted my views and comments (so many times in fact that I believe them to either be intentional, or he doesn’t believe that my reasons are valid.) even though I explained them several times. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 18:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Too much fuss over photos. In this WP there is a separate article on the Ottoman Empire. If desired photos can be added or discussed in that article, not here. Remember Turkey was proclaimed much later than 1915 and Allepo has never been a part of Turkey. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• That picture is not needed as it is from a non-Turkish city and not relevant for the article. Khestwol (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. The argument that events from the Ottoman empire period does not belong here, is obviously fake. The "History" section in this article is roughly divided into three parts, of which the Republic part is slightly less than one third (ca. 7.5K). The prehistory/antiquity/byzantine part is a little bit smaller (6.6K), while the Seljuk/Ottoman is almost 50% bigger (10.2K). Important events from the Ottoman period do belong in the article, especially when they – like the Armenian Genocide – are intimately connected to the transition period of the final decline of the Empire and the rise of the Republic. --T*U (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Aleppo is in Syria, not Turkey. If you want, you can add that picture to either the Ottoman Empire article or the Syria article. Also, the Republic of Turkey was established in 1923, while the Tehcir Law deportations took place between 1915–1916. The Ottomans lost Syria in 1918, which afterwards became controlled by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TR34Istanbul (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. T*U (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with the removal: That picture is from Ottoman periods, plus it is not in today's Turkey. If a picture from Ottoman period is going to be included, lot other things should be included as well. Beshogur (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• I Agree with the removal of the image. I believe that there’s enough textual information (too much, in my opinion) in the article already. The photo is unnecessary and (sort of) irrelevant to the article. I understand that the Armenian Genocide was a part of the Ottoman Empire’s history and it should stay in the article, but the content on the Armenian Genocide on this article is almost the same length with the Ottoman Empire article (the country the genocide happened in). The content also covers about 3.3 % of the article (as in bytes), such a topic should be mentioned briefly. Adding a photo expands the unnecessarily detailed section even further making it seem as if the event was more important than it is in Turkey’s history (And it isn’t even in Turkey’s history! Turkey as in the country). Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 18:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Per your own supplied link your 3.3% figure is for any content in the whole article that can interpreted as negative: [5]. Not only is it not our job to avoid including such information if it is worthy of inclusion, you are now carelessly touting a catch-all and broadly construed figure as if means anything to this discussion. I have no idea how the history section can be interpreted to be disproportionately focused on the Armenian Genocide; it is well over 3500 words - of these not even 100 of them are about the Armenian Genocide. As it is now, here it is in its entirety:

During the war, the empire's Armenians were deported to Syria as part of the Armenian Genocide. As a result, an estimated 800,000 to 1,500,000 Armenians were killed. The Turkish government has refused to acknowledge the events as genocide and states that Armenians were only relocated from the eastern war zone.

Of course, there is a separate earlier mention of the Hamidian massacres as well, as there should be. Darthkayak (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of picture. The Armenian Genocide is an act of atrocity against the Armenians. It is not confined to a place. This act was perpetrated by the predecessor state of modern Turkey and it is part of its history and the history of its people. The picture, therefore, belongs in this article. Dr. K. 18:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support inclusion Per Dr.K..---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: What we're seeing here is coordinated ethnic bloc voting, as a result of WP:CANVAS by a now indeffed user. The arguments for removal are either completely inane ("the city is not in Turkey") or boil down to WP:JDL and whataboutism. Khirurg (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

None of the users who are supporting the removal of the picture were contacted (excluding me and TR34Istanbul). You can check their talk pages. So this claim is based on no evidence, I suggest you retract the first part of your claim like I have. Nice try, Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 19:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Nedim Ardoğa was contacted as well [6]. If anything, I think this is a good example of one of the ways past canvassing perpetually hurts a discussion - a sudden influx of new editors to a previously canvassed discussion makes it so that people understandably start questioning each other's motives at the outset. Regardless, my concerns lie with the argument many of these editors are making, that the history section of this article is only for discussions of 1923 onwards, something which is demonstrably false - even a quick read of the history section shows that it summarizes roughly 12000 years of history, as it should per the purpose of such sections. Darthkayak (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment There are too many pictures in this section (and probably the article in general). As this is such a broad topic it becomes meaningless to argue whether pictures are relavent or not. We don't just put in a picture because we can, it needs to fit in with the broader scope of the article. So it becomes more a case of working out the degree of usefulness of the picture relative to other pictures that could be in the section. Most arguements I have seen here for and against the picture are very weak. The onus should really be on those wanting to include it to demonstrate how it represents a major part of the history of Turkey. Also we have a lot of daughter artciles leading from this section so we can still use it elswhere. We have File:Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field.png and File:Sultan Mehmed V of Turkey greeting Kaiser Wilhelm II on his arrival at Constantinople.jpg which both represent a siimlar period in time so we should only use one. Which one best represents the history of Turkey? AIRcorn (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn: The section is specifically talking about the end of the Ottoman Empire, the Armenian Genocide does not represent a major part of the history of Turkey. I find the picture of Mehmed V more relevant because he was an important figure during the end of the Ottoman Empire. There were other “genocides” commited by the Ottoman Empire at the time, so a picture of the Armenian Genocide wouldn’t provide enough coverage. Since we can’t add pictures of the 2 other genocides which were committed during the time period due to WP:DETAIL, removing the image is a better option than letting it stay. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 21:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the point about too many images is very good - reading my own stuff over, I think so far my arguments for the photo's inclusion have been pretty weak. While I do personally think the image represents the Genocide well enough, and the Genocide is a major part of Turkish history (considering that it still shapes the modern political and demographic landscape), so too is Turkish involvement in WWI, among many other reasons, due to it's importance in the establishment of the Turkish Republic. Since Mehmed V was largely a figurehead, perhaps we should consider replacing both of the photos with an image of the Three Pashas, as they were the ones who were most directly responsible for Turkey's entry into WWI, and for the Late Ottoman Genocides? Darthkayak (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Darthkayak: I knew we would eventually agree on something! I’m all in! Best regards, Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 23:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the only picture I could find which is already in Wikipedia: File:İkdam, 4 Kasım 1918.jpg. Perhaps a cropped version of this image would do? Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 23:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Valequez: I think this is an alright picture - though keep looking as there might be better ones available elsewhere. Remember, at the end of the day consensus should be decided on the strength of the arguments - don't treat my suggestion as an end all or as a sign of consensus being reached, or anything at all like that, for it has yet to be really commented on. All it is is an alternative proposal that I think merits some potential consideration. For that, I defer to the further arguments of others through Dispute Resolution, as I will soon be taking something of a wikibreak for a bit. Darthkayak (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The Armenian Genocide is far more important than Mehmed V. The "too many pictures" argument doesn't make any sense at all. The Seljuks and Ottomans section only has three pictures, and it's very long. There is plenty of room for the Genocide pic. If there are too many pics in the article in general, that is another matter, and easily addressed. Khirurg (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thats kind of indicitive of one of the major problems with this article. It should be written in summary style, with the bulk of the articles content at the respective daughter articles. If editors are really interested in improving it they would be better off removing information rather than adding more. AIRcorn (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree regarding summary style, however, that can be achieved without removing the picture. In fact it is an argument in favor of the picture, as the pic summarizes something that would take much more space to describe in detail using words. Khirurg (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Prime example of what Wikipedia is not

The above discussion is a very good example of why we make it very clear that decisions are not taken by vote. For a long time now, a highly disruptive nationalist has tried to remove all references to the Armenian genocide. This has been going on for months. Having failed to achieve anything with their repetitive edit warring, the user has then canvassed like-minded individuals (some of whom make perfectly valid arguments and whose overall contributions are welcome) to push through what the lone user did not accomplish through edit warring. This is exactly the oppositve of how Wikipedia works. We operate on the strength of arguments, not on the number of people being called in to support an argument. Please note that none of this is to suggest some users are not welcome use; quite the opposite, anyone is welcome to contribute no matter how they learned about this issue. I recognize that some new contributors here are perfectly constructive and we all welcome debate and discussion. However, the edit-warring POV-pusher needs to understand that canvassing others does not in itself change things Jeppiz (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for saying something that needed to be said. You did it better than I could ever have. Khirurg (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)