Talk:Gezi Park protests/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

3 weeks

It has been 3 weeks today. But the counter is showing it as 2 weeks. Also, it was showing 2 weeks, 6 days yesterday. I checked but, couldn't see any wrong. Can anybody fix it ? Berkaysnklf (talk) 18 June, 2013, 19:43 (UTC+2) —Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This is no ordinary protest, this is an uprising!

In the Turkish media we see it being called "ayaklanma", which translates most readily as "uprising". [I am responding to the comment that there are no sources referring to the events as an uprising -- there are] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.79.163.4 (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You got that right. Not only in Istanbul, but almost in every single city and municipality in Turkey, people are fighting, uprising for their humanitarian rights against this fundementalist-fascist dictatoriat! Please, change the title as an uprising! Love from turkey, solidarity! We're winning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.217.208 (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There are barely any reliable secondary sources that use the phrase "uprising". "Protests", at this time, would be the most appropriate term. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Due to the high tension of the events, currently it is quite normal to understand why those who say 'We are winning!'

Wikipedia is not the place where leans towards the winning side, the losing side, the moderate side or the chameleon side. Wikipedia users must pay attention on their own neutrality and wiki's policies all the time. These two motives are prime and the driving force behind the entire society to make them [ourselves] completely free and unspoilt. --Toksoz (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a how-to. μηδείς (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this is certainly civil war that we are seeing and not protests.--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC) http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-03/australian-man-describes-taksim-as-war-zone/4728664 Stick with protest for now Alhanuty (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit much? If the 95% of the country is sitting in their homes, it is not a civil war. Everyboady talks of millions but I live in İstanbul, the number is not higher than 30.000 and that being very very generous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.173.241.27 (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The Colbert Report

• http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/mon-june-10-2013-dan-savage

Shouldn't this be added to in pop culture section? Do we wan't to include the anagram 'Pro Gay Centipede Ray' remark from the episode (WP:BLP)? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 12:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a satirical news show - I'm not sure if it's really significant that it covered the protests. A mention would be ok I suppose. No to the anagram, that's silly. Podiaebba (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The Colbert Report is a significant show in terms of notability as far as pop culture is concerned. It's a comedy show... Being silly is kind of the point. He uses the anagram a few times as well. My main worry is in terms of WP:BLP. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I also noticed haberler.com which seems to call Colbert "insolent" for calling Erdogan a homosexual. I think such articles elevates the notability of the phrase which should be discussed explaining the criticism towards it as well. Also more sources foxturkiye.com haber10.com which too are very critical. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well if media have reacted to it then it's more significant of course. Podiaebba (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Somehow funny, but relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.54.136 (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It is political humor. If it wasn't criticized/attacked in this manner by many media outlets, it wouldn't be much of a deal. However because it was, this may even rise freedom of speech & media questions possibly (consider the penguin documentary during the protests) in the future which would lead to a separate article on its own. For now a section on this article and also possibly on Recep Tayyip Erdogan article would be sufficient provided there are no WP:BLP issues. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 12:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I added a paragraph under Popular Culture. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Standing Man

• http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-255930/
• http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2013/06/18/turkeys-new-protest-hero-standing-man/?mod=e2tw
• http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2013/06/19/turkeys-standing-man-joins-ranks-of-icons - By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press
• http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2013/06/21/i-m-a-one-man-stand

I think we should consider creating an article for the Standing Man. I am seeing countless sources discussing it. I realize the article doesn't have enough content for it but there seems to be enough sources to assert such a notability. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. But don't forget the Standing Woman that first started too. There are standing women everywhere here. We can tell about her and all the standing woman in a sub-title. Just an advice. Totally agreed with creating an article about The Standing Man and protests. Berkaysnklf (talk) 22 June 2013, 23:31 (UTC)

"Standing Man" is used as a term worldwide. It even trended more than "Erdogan" on Google trends briefly. I'd rather have someone else write about it if possible as I suck at actually writing articles. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Also agreeing with it too. As I have no time, only to add and update the important news to the main and related pages. Anyone here who can create a NPOV article about The Standing Man ? Berkaysnklf (talk), 23 June, 2013, 12:01 (UTC)

Turkish Gendarmerie

I think this should be also listed along with the police on the infobox. Lead figure would be the person in charge in Istanbul. I think that would be the officer in this article, Mehmet Artar. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Integrated into the article in the absence of an objection. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Involvement of the gendarmerie has very different significance in the context of Turkish history and politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.79.163.4 (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

How so? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 07:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Start of protests

article isnt quite clear..why were environmentalists opposed to the building of the ottoman barracks? Baboon43 (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Second sentence reads "The protests were sparked by outrage at a brutal eviction of a sit-in at Istanbul's Taksim Gezi Park protesting the park's demolition" (emphasis mine) what exactly is ambiguous? I am not saying it can't be improved mind you. My main worry is that the lead is FAR too long as is. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 07:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

the protests are most likely over the building of a mosque in turkey. this article indicates its secular citizens vs religious gov officials..they view gezi park as some kind of secular identity area even though they concede that it wasnt important to them before and it was infested by drug dealers. they simply refer to themselves as "environmentalists" to cover the fact they are against religion influencing the country.[1] Baboon43 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There are many aspects to the protests; the original issue was replacing Gezi Park with a shopping mall. Pretending that the protestors are just Kemalists is the AKP's approach to trying to ignore what is a strikingly diverse coalition of discontented voices. And FWIW I understand the proposed Mosque would be built on Taksim Square and/or the area where the Ataturk Cultural Center now stands, not Gezi Park. Podiaebba (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone is aware that this has grown way beyond a simple park. The starting group was environmentalists and brutal police reaction them sparked the nation-wide protests. The political make-up of those environmentalists isn't that relevant IMHO. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Mind you im refering to the start of the protests not who is involved now..yes right now it seems like the whole country has erupted but the people that triggered these protests in the beginning are no doubt kemalists. this would be second after 2007's Republic Protests. Baboon43 (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be original research without sources. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 06:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware that Sırrı Süreyya Önder was a Kemalist. Podiaebba (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Start date and time

Wikipedia's servers are at +0 UTC so 27 date gives the protests an extra 20 hours (22-2). I have adjusted the {{Start date}} to include the precise start time but calculations are 20 hours off so I gave it start date on the {{Age in years, months, weeks and days}} for that reason. It is still 4 hours off this way too but that shouldn't be as big of an issue. There is no reason to inflate the protests but I will try to fix the problem on the template end later. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

As promised now hours will display along with "year, month, week, day" from previous template. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Examples of police brutality

• http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/yazarlar/23566095.asp

This has few instances of personal stories being discussed. I hope to see these incorporated into the article. Any suggestions on how to handle this? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 06:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue is starting to get big enough to need subsections - for actions against demonstrators, health workers, lawyers, and the shooting of Ethem S. This might mean the need for a spin-off article. Podiaebba (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's avoid having too many impossible to manage subsections. Existing subsections (such as List of solidarity rallies with the 2013 protests in Turkey) need a lot of work already. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Status section of infobox

The sixth entry to the status section should be removed. The word of status means a social position and condition that has varying and continuing effects on the issue. In context of this protest movement, a happenning needs to have a remarkable impact or has to spread and shaken the nation. All five entries that comes before the sixth incident fit in this definition, whilst the carnation happenning is a one time thing and does not have any large impact. It occured and it has ended, that's it. Hence status section is not timeline section. Let's move the sixth entry. Azirlazarus (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't exactly understand your objection. The "status" section tends to be for the status of the event (if it escalated, concluded, etc). "Result" is for conclusions typically used once the civil conflict concludes. What exactly do you want to do? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Violence Again

Hey dear Wikipedians. Just hit home. So what I am going to tell is that (please check the news and Twitter); After the spread of silent demonstrations, today the violence started again. After police's attack on peaceful protesters that "just threw clove flowers at police and called them as their brothers". The police attacked violently and after the masses went on streets everywhere, the police violence started again, so the silent demonstrations turned to some noisy ones with police brutality again. Live reporting. Berkaysnklf (talk) 22 June, 23:34 (UTC)

Ivan Watson got insulted "sons of bitches" by under cover police it seems. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

False info again, Internet has became the perfect place for misinformation and false propaganda. Too sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.122.73.24 (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

False? It is on his twitter account: [2] and has had media reaction radikal.com.tr, posta.com.tr, milliyet.com.tr, cumhuriyet.com.tr, hurriyet.com.tr just to name a few. What exactly is false info here? Based on what source? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 16:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

And also thousands of official accounts, newspapers and also local media channels and papers with hundreds of thousands of photos and videos. And where is your source about internet being the perfect place of wrong information sir ? Berkaysnklf Berkaysnklf 20:36, 27 June, 2013 (UTC)

Should be very easy to cite them. We cannot just write on the basis that its out there somewhere. You need specific urls or citations for every bit of information. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Lice Event

Some Kurdish villagers protested the building of an additional structure to a gendarmerie station. (Some sources say they attacked to the station), And in either way, a clash occured with molotov cocktails on protesters and gendarmeries, gendermaries attacked them with real bullets, killing 1 person and injuring 7 (3 in critic condition).Radikal's report, Another report

What should we do ? Will it be okay adding it here, or not ? Berkaysnklf (talk), 28 June, 2013, 17:43 (UTC)

The essence of this article is the non-violent Gezi park inspired protests which have turned from time to time but violence came as more of a reaction to the disproportionate use of force by the police. I cannot see how the Lice incident relates to the Gezi park inspired protests. We would need to have credible sources linking the two. It can of course be a separate article if it is notable enough but currently it is nothing more than news. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Right. Berkaysnklf (talk), 30 June, 2013, 14:58 (UTC)

Facebook, Twitter, Social media

These aren't credible sources unless the source of the tweets is notable on its own. For instance the twitter/facebook account of people may be used to convey their opinions when relevant (say of the prime minister, president, or other public figures) We seem to have sections that entirely rely on random twitter/facebook accounts. The main problem is tweeter/facebook messages can be easily forged or deleted. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Map Error

As I said, the numbers must be updated as protests get bigger and numbers increase, and while I was updating the map, there was an error that I couldn't be able to fix on my last update. Can anyone check ? Berkaysnklf (talk), 30 June, 2013, 14:59 (UTC)

I don't think the map is a good way for this. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in the Turkish Wikipedia

I strongly disagree with that. Since Turkish Wikipedia is heavily pro-government due to censorship on Turkish media. So, most of the sources in the article are biased.--Abbatai 09:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Any addition to the article still needs reliable sources. tr.wikipedia (or any wikipedia) alone does not qualify as such a source. Proposal merely suggests the use of sources used in a two way manner from and to Turkish and English editions. 137.120.232.177 (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I also disagree. Both for the reason Abbatai stated and the low quality of Turkish Wikipedia's articles and bias.-- Iñfẽstør  ^{T• C• U} 15:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not quite understand. Noone is suggesting using the tr.wikipedia article itself, just the sources used in it whenever it improves the quality of the article. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't find the banner very helpful - the English article is already very big, and it's not easy to see what the Turkish article does better. Whoever added it should give some explanation of their thinking, or it's a bit useless. Podiaebba (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't added it but it is more or less a standard practice to add such banners for incidents happening in non-English speaking countries. This is the first time in my time on this site have I seen opposition to translation from the home source of the content. It is ultimately very unwiki to outright ignore an entire language edition on the basis of your POV. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I've seen non-English Wikipedia articles which were horribly biased, and I've seen non-English Wikipedia articles which were much more detailed and then the banner is self-explanatory. Neither applies here. Podiaebba (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That's hardly a problem, we would simply reword biased comments or not copy them. I am more concerned with the raw data such as number of attendance, injuries and etc. Reverse can be done too as in translation of content from en.wikipedia to tr.wikipedia. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Why this article is biased and should be deleted from Wikipedia

Just a simple suggestion. See Hurriyet newspaper (sells below half a million in TR) vs. Zaman (sells more than a million in TR, twice Hurriyet) (or todayszaman.com). I checked keyword search there were 8 Zaman, 26 hurriyet. Not worth mentioning other unbalanced resources. In my opinion given the selling rates in TR the article should include 52 references from Zaman. Otherwise, the article will remain highly biased and be serving for certain propaganda. From the scientific point of view, Facebook, Twitter, or alike cannot be a resource. Interestingly, these are the most important resources for this article. This is partly because, it's challenging and expensive to reach reliable data. Second, it's usually not the majority who uses these networks. Why should majority bother if they are already happy and don't care what's happening? In fact, this article is another evidence that Wikipedia articles on social events have never been and cannot be reliable as it's not possible to create balanced articles for above reasons. Please feel free to erase if you want to be another evidence for this hypothesis on unreliability of Wikipedia articles on social stuff. Even writing this was a waste of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.114.241 (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• As lead suggests, this article covers protests which among other things had "encroachment on Turkey's secularism" as it's basis. Basing this article on Zaman (newspaper), which has political alignments on "Islamic" (as the infobox suggests), would be like basing LGBT rights (United States v. Windsor) in the US on Fox news. I simply cannot accept that there are on every story two equal and logical sides to an argument. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• The reliability or quality of a newspaper is not determined by its circulation. In the US, USA Today has a higher circulation than The New York Times, but the Times is universally regarded as a better newspaper and, accordingly, is used far more often on Wikipedia. GabrielF (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• What makes us believe that things has to be the same in TR. What makes us belive that Hurriyet or a newspaper with lower circulation can always be more reliable resource in a country especially if we're foreign to their culture and editing an article on a topic which we have no idea whatsoever. Whether or not we share their opinion, in fact, in contrast with Hurriyet; Zaman and its English version Today's Zaman are considered universally more respectful newspapers/portals with worldwide circulations in many languages across US, Europe and Asia.Compare Wikipedia articles on Zaman vs. Hurriyet. Given all that above arguments are still not convincing and the article still needs significant revision to make it balanced which is impossible by random editors for such a topic on social stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.84.218 (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• As you say that Zaman has more circulation and you example The Times against it, I should say that, in here Turkey, there is a great media censorship, protests are being held everyday across Turkey, in front of the media buildings like, Sabah, Zaman, Takvim newspapers and TVs like CNN Turk, A TV, Kanal A, A Haber, TV7. Even Christiane Amanpour and BBC and RussiaToday and channels like these, are being a target of pro-AKP media, blaming them as special agents because of their live broadcasts and coverages. I think you all should have heard about penguins that our media showed to their people while police was brutally attacking to the protestors. I mean maybe its really impossible to turn this article into a totally objective one, but what I'm trying to say is, circulations of newspapers doesn't prove they are the true sources, "as especially there is a huge media censorship and blackout going on, here". Berkaysnklf (Berkaysnklf), 2 July, 2013, 13:14 (UTC)

• You are under the impression that we should treat sources based on their circulation, this would outright contradict WP:NPOV. We for instance do not exclusively use tge big three (WSJ, NYT and USA Today - source). I am more of a Foreign Policy person myself, and I do not agree with the "universally more respectful" claim. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• A lot of the differences between reasonably good newspapers are in selectivity - what they choose to report, or not, and in how much detail. It would not be surprising given its leaning if Zaman and its Today's Zaman English sister gave the protests less coverage than Hurriyet. But unless Zaman actually produces contradictory claims, there's not much to talk about. If it does, provide them, and then we can discuss specific issues. Podiaebba (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• The point is there are 482 sources in the article and only 61 uses from Hurriyet. We have good variety in sources, I cannot understand the problem. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Newspapers whether or not they have high/low circulation cannot be reliable resources to write such articles. Every newspaper has its own perspective. It's very difficult to make sure that the article has been created in a balanced way especially when the topic is highly contraversary. There are plenty of smart people around who can judge themselves what to believe by reading from contrasting newspapers or resources directly if they are brave enough rather than taking easy route and reading from a collection of summaries like in current Wiki article written by random editors or forcing them to belive something they want to. To me this is something like ostrich's hiding its head under the sand, but it doesn't know that its whole body is in the outside and everybody sees it. So silly! That's why these articles (2013 Protests in TR, Brazil, Bulgaria, etc.) are xactly where Wikipedia fails. Therefore, above arguments are still very far from being convincing and I still strongly suggest remove this garbage and keep Wikipedia respected again like it is seen for natural/physical sciences. Because these events are current social events, it should not be written unless everything settles down (i.e., maybe 20 years from now). Most there will not be even a need to write this article then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.168.150.38 (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Being ‘neutral’ has always been tough. Maybe today, not only for the protests in Turkey, the ‘neutrality’ function lives one of the toughest periods in/of its own lifetime thanks to technology.

Trying to make this case a little bit easier; if you make a little search via amazon.com about the NPOV issues of ‘Wikipedia’, you may find at least 2 books written by a nerd or a high-esteemed academic head.

Some people trust ‘Encyclopaedia Britannica’ more than wikipedia. If we make a generalization, there may be two reasons: #1. This giant is one of the oldest reference sources in the history of the world and #2. There has been always an [full & part time] editorial council and their prior responsibility is ‘being neutral’ while they are writing the events.

Today, Britannica is only on-line and unfortunately is not free of charge. If anyone else on this discussion/talk page [and for those who will read these lines in the future] had a registration in the Britannica’s web page, this will be a very good way to observe what kind of ‘language’ they used, apart from what kind of sources they used.

I don’t say that we just copy/past from there. Observation will bring more light on this highly controversial subject.

This is such a wrong mindset: “The ‘majority’ does tell the truth all the time.” Being a majoritarian and being a pluralistic (scientific and political) are far different wings so the core of this title is lying down here.

Wikipedia should work hard [and we, as the wikipedia editors from every aspect of life; take as a university student, a well-paid lecturer, a chickpea seller in a local marketplace, a Starbucks staff or a housewife] to make every single page in the ‘pluralistic’ way of language and source.

Do you think newspapers’ circulations really prove their neutrality? Apart from that how can be that much hard to tell the facts ‘directly’?

“Wow, this whisky is amazing” … “Yesterday, while Toksoz was attending a party in Papua New Guinea, he said: Wow, this whisky is amazing.”

To edit in the aforementioned way can be really hard?

Please remember history:

-- When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers, the New York Times and the Washington Post published them immediately in June 1971. Dozens of people despised the two as being pro-liberal, the great enemies of Nixon and etc. same as today for the great enemies of the P.M. Erdogan.

But does this ‘despising’ change the truth? The U.S. bombed Cambodia and Laos over 2 years and hid the ‘facts’ from public (and many more covered-up-events). Did the NYTimes and the WPost say: “We love Daniel Ellsberg and say goddamn Nixon”? The columnists might say but the editorial councils did not say anything about the leak and published them neutrally.

-- Edward Snowden leaked the ‘PRISM’ thing. And please ‘observe’ the news more careful from now on how ‘biased’ words and ‘despising’ threats are pouring…

And always remember to maintain your pluralistic manner while you are editing on wikipedia. No one cares here which political ideology you support in your individual life: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning

P.S. This comment was written for the purpose to bring a general advice. The sentences above do not aim to offend any individual here, there and everywhere. --Toksoz (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the most of what has been said by Toksoz about the neutrality issue. Howevever, why should a reader believe that Nixon and Erdogan should be on the same side this time. Why should we believe that the New York Times and the Washington Post always tell the truth especially on the matters that they are not native? My suggestion is that we cannot know the truth unless things settle down. We can only speculate. Wikipedia cannot be a place for speculation. We should let the events be discussed by newspapers not by Wiki. I strongly suggest that current event articles should be removed from Wikipedia. That harms Wikipedia by making it unreliable. Otherwise wikipedia should put a disclaimer that "articles on ongoing events may not reflect the truth but excited editors' collection whether or not they are from reliable and objective resources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.168.150.38 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• This answer was written for the one who does not have signature.

Please see the facts.

The Pentagon Papers is the fact.

The New York Times and the Washington Post are only the tools to publish the leak.

The columnists [in these two newspapers and the whole newspapers in the world, too] have very rights to express their opinions while they are writing their articles/columns in their companies.

But:

The editorial councils [of the newspapers] do NOT say anything about the leak and publish them neutrally.

Lastly, 1. We CANNOT know that Nixon and Erdogan are on the same side. But we have very rights to concern who is on which side.

Individuals’ concerns belong to only themselves and the places like wikipedia is NOT the platform to express the personal opinions but one and only the facts.

2. The New York Times, The Washington Post, Zaman, Hurriyet, Radikal, The Independent, Le Monde diplomatique, Cumhuriyet, Der Spiegel, The Hindustan Times… Can you tell me which one is completely neutral and which one is ‘one-sided’? I don’t think you can; neither do I.

3. There is not any barrier to create and write a wikipedia page promptly about the protests currently happening in Turkey, Brazil, Egypt or Greece; but there is a barrier for editors’ personal opinions about the events. That’s why Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning policies and suggestions were written.

If Obama, Putin, Castro and Erdogan are assassinated all together, must wikipedia wait?! Maybe it will be a good idea to start writing after the funerals!

There is not any obligation for waiting the events to cool down and start to write later. If those, who participate here, try to keep biases less and try to increase their “neutral point of view; NPOV” senses, there is no need to wait.

P.S.2: The tone of the comment above is stronger than before and again no insult intended. --Toksoz (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Please see the facts..."

The facts of the past cannot change what will happen in the future. The facts of the past cannot be truly verified until things settle down. The facts of the past cannot change the truth which is usually hidden.

I agree with "The columnists [in these two newspapers and the whole newspapers in the world, too] have very rights to express their opinions while they are writing their articles/columns in their companies." as long as they write in their newspapers not in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a tool to write opinions, spread misinformation, or mislead readers especially in the case of strong contraversy, it's a place for well-established facts from reliable and verifiable resources such as scientific journals not newspapers or alike.

Number 1, totally agreed.

Number 2, I think none.

Number 3, see previous concerns.

"If Obama, Putin, Castro and Erdogan are assassinated all together, must wikipedia wait not to write?!" This question is irrelevant as it doesn't contain any opinion or contraversy like the present article but a clear fact. Because it contains a clear fact the related information may be edited without any problem and without trying to dictate editors' own perception.

"There is not any obligation for waiting the events to cool down and start to write later. If those, who participate here, are try to keep biases less and try to increase their “neutral point of view; NPOV” senses, there is no need to wait." I agree, but this is not possible as this types of articles show. Again see above concerns for these type of ongoing events. They can be easily exploited as they are usually open-ended. For those who cannot wait, working for a news agency is strongly recommended. Wikipedia is not for journalists as it's not a newspaper. Therefore, I strongly suggest that Wikipedia should not contain highly contraversial articles like those ongoing events. Reader would like to see balanced, objective, scientifically sound articles not a collection of unreliable data from various non-scientific resources such as newspapers.

PS: Noone is intended to be insulted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.90.125 (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• This answer was written for the one who does not have signature.

“The facts of the past cannot change what will happen in the future.”: When Hitler was ruling Germany, there were quite much underestimated ones had already foreseen what kind of nightmares Germany [and the entire world] was about to live. The facts of the past can change the future when you continue to read the next passages.

“The facts of the past cannot be truly verified until things settle down.”: If some victims, authors, soldiers, scientists, journalists or any ordinary ones [native or foreign; it doesn’t matter] had not given any cue that there were extermination camps in several parts of Europe, what kind of fate would be waiting for humanity?! Why did not these [innocent or not; it doesn’t matter again] victims wait till the end of war?! Were they really worried about encyclopaedic information to be written neutrally?!

“The facts of the past cannot change the truth which is usually hidden.”: During the Nuremberg Trials, some suspects defended themselves and some admitted the crimes they committed. But this ‘usually hidden’ info, unfortunately, made the war longer. Remember what Traudl Junge said: “I was 22 and I didn’t know anything about politics, it didn’t interest me”, also saying that she felt great guilt for “...liking the greatest criminal ever to have lived.”

She said, “I admit, I was fascinated by Adolf Hitler. He was a pleasant boss and a fatherly friend. I deliberately ignored all the warning voices inside me and enjoyed the time by his side almost until the bitter end. It wasn't what he said, but the way he said things and how he did things.”

“Of course the horrors, of which I heard in connection of the Nuremberg trials, the fate of the 6 million Jews, their killing and those of many others who represented different races and creeds, shocked me greatly, but at that time I could not see any connection between these things and my own past. I was only happy that I had not personally been guilty of these things and that I had not been aware of the scale of these things. However, one day I walked past a plaque that on the Franz-Joseph Straße (in Munich), on the wall in memory of Sophie Scholl. I could see that she had been born the same year as I, and that she had been executed the same year when I entered into Hitler’s service. And at that moment I really realised, that it was no excuse that I had been so young. I could perhaps have tried to find out about things.”

As you, I and everybody say: The columnists write in newspapers. In wikipedia, their comments are being written usually in passive voice or written between quotation mark. The point here is that no one can claim that the X newspaper has a circulation of 50 while the Y newspaper has 100 so the Y tells the truth.

And again no one can immediately understand which one is neutral and which one is ‘one-sided’.

But this situation does not make the wiki pages [like these protests] not to use the comments of newspapers. As long as those are written from the angles of such diverse newspapers, a wiki page grows. The breakpoint is [as you concern strictly] X and Y, D and K, Black and Pink; a variety of source must be used here not to create any kind of misunderstanding and not to picture unbalanced perceptions. But this does NOT require to wait the events to cool down. As long as you try to maintain your neutrality, this wiki page WILL deliver partially-biased and partially-neutral info to public. When will this wiki page become totally neutral then? The answer: After a while. There are hundreds of editors there like you and me and if we try to reduce our prejudices on the case, these wiki pages become the pillars for everybody not only for journalists. And unfortunately, this takes time. But again does this require to stop now?! Not at all.

About the ‘Obama, Putin, Castro and Erdogan assassination’ example, do you remember John Fitzgerald Kennedy? If those, who lived or observed on and after Nov. 22, 1963, had delivered or written or recorded the event neutrally, would there be such a massive conspiracy mountain?! This example is completely relevant to the protests. Because sides have their own concerns. One side claims that AKP, inwardly, wants to bring a type of Sharia regime and another side claims that the ‘interest-rate lobby’ and the Otpor-like settlements organized the protests in Turkey. I am asking you again: Which one is true? But I am not expecting an answer from you because I know very well that you do not know; neither do both sides!

Lastly, I do not repeat an answer [already written above] for the last passage of your comment finishing as “…Reader would like to see balanced, objective, scientifically sound articles not a collection of unreliable data from various non-scientific resources such as newspapers.”

Please reconsider “…X and Y, D and K, Black and Pink…” section above. --Toksoz (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• The #Hold your horses section below was also aimed at you. Please stay on topic. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss personal opinions and/or conspiracy theories. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, you are absolutely right on discussing about personal opinions and conspiracy theories, A Certain White Cat. As you have read [specifically] the comments under this title, you will perceive that there is nothing personal.

All the comments written are completely relevant to the topic. One of the reasons can be shown that the comments are a bit long. But that’s not the case; the point is to make wiki pages healthier and stronger. That’s why the length of comments are not that much important. --Toksoz (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Can you please not add redundant newlines between entries as it makes reading quite a chore. Remarks on Obama for instance is irrelevant to this article. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hold your horses

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss articles content, not your personal opinions. Please stay on topic and also please sign your remarks with ~~~~. Thanks. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed, because it was an insult. Please read:

• Be polite, and welcoming to new users
• Assume good faith
• Avoid personal attacks
• For disputes, seek dispute resolution
• Article policies
• No original research
• Neutral point of view
• Verifiability

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.229.249 (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove other peoples comments. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Hold your horses" is an insult. You cannot use this page to insult people. If you insult, I have the every right to remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.229.249 (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hold your horses is a common idiom in English, not an insult. It means "hold on". -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Then I changed the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.229.249 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2013‎ (UTC)

• For the last time, do not modify section headers and do not remove or modify other peoples comments or else you will be blocked. Furthermore please sign your comments, it is the bare minimum courtesy you should be showing to your peers. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• If it has the same meaning why are you making so much noise? I am more than happy to be blocked, but don't tell the reader that this Wiki article is objective at all. I cannot understand how you could block my access. One thing, don't forget that you also deleted my comments although I didn't insult you and I didn't undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.229.249 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have not removed your remarks intentionally. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I consider this an apology and thanking you for being honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.229.249 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Dear the unknown commentator, please read my answer regarding your last comment above (before ‘Hold your horses’ title) --Toksoz (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This article has multiple issues, more than thought

This article has multiple issues box should include also at least something like ""articles on ongoing events like this may not reflect the truth but excited editors' collection whether or not they are from reliable and objective resources." in an appropriate way, until the article is completely removed. That may a little bit save Wiki's reputation. Wikipedia is not a place for collection of unreliable data from various non-scientific resources. Please keep Wikipedia clean, reliable, objective, scientifically making sense, and immune from what journalists think and how they see the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.90.125 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. What would qualify as a reliable source to you since 483 sources cited aren't sufficient? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing on this issue. The topic is not a scientific issue to begin with even if one lists a million non-scientific sources. Non-science is nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.229.249 (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Objectivity of this article is under discussion

"This article currently links to a large number of disambiguation pages (or back to itself) (check | fix). Please help direct these ambiguous links to articles dealing with the specific meaning intended. Read the FAQ. (July 2013)"

Sounds like the the article cites itself as the main reference. It's unbelievable. It's like throwing a lie and then believing your own lie. So silly! The top banner should at least include that the objectivity of this article is under serious discussion until the garbage is completely removed.

PS: None is intended to be insulted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.90.125 (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the aforementioned banner is removed. This is another evidence that Wiki editors are choosing the easy route, because the truth is challenging and expensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.229.249 (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like the the article cites itself as the main reference - that's not what the banner means (and I don't think there was one single example of such a silly thing as the article citing itself). It's mostly about linking to "disambiguation" pages like Smith. Probably someone fixed those links by changing them to point where they were supposed to. Podiaebba (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, although the article is still highly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.229.249 (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it as mentioned below. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Some Discussion on 2013 Brazil Protests that may be useful

I think someone can edit it below to relate it to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.90.125 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree but we'd need credible sources making the connection, otherwise it would be WP:OR. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Those should exist - I've seen it mentioned in media, and I think some Brazil participants explicitly said they were inspired by Gezi. Podiaebba (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I heard that too. But "some bloke from Brazil" isn't much of a reliable source. IIRC they had "This is Turkey" among the slogans. All it takes is reliable sources discussing it for us to be able to mention it. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A Suggestion from Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, on how to improve ‘neutrality’

Dear all participants,

Larry Sanger is the co-founder of ‘Wikipedia’ and left the organization in 2002.

I am not the hardcore supporter of either Larry Sanger or Jimmy Wales. But I believe they created such a platform 12 years ago; yes it still has problems but these problems do not make wikipedia a totally incompetent area.

I directly copy/past here an article written by Sanger circa 2004.

Again, I do not agree on each and every statement in there but a huge part of the article will signify such a path to all editors & commentators attended here about the highly controversial pages like ‘protests’. --Toksoz (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The original link of the article: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25

P.S. Some links in the text are dead.

Extended content

Wikipedia has started to hit the big time. Accordingly, several critical articles have come out, including "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia" by a former editor-in-chief of Britannica and a very widely-syndicated AP article that was given such titles as "When Information Access Is So Easy, Truth Can Be Elusive". These articles are written by people who appear not to appreciate the merits of Wikipedia fully. I do, however; I co-founded Wikipedia. (I have since left the project.) Wikipedia does have two big problems, and attention to them is long overdue. These problems could be eliminated by eliminating a single root problem. If the project's managers are not willing to solve it, I fear a fork (a new edition under new management, for the non-techies reading this) will probably be necessary. Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism Let me preface this by saying that I know Wikipedia is very cool. A lot of people do not think so, but of course they are wrong. So the following must be taken in the spirit of someone who knows and supports the mission and broad policy outlines of Wikipedia very well. First problem: lack of public perception of credibility, particularly in areas of detail. The problem I would like to point out is not that Wikipedia is unreliable. The alleged unreliability of Wikipedia is something that the above (TechCentralStation and AP) articles make much of, but that is not my point, and I am not interested in discussing that point per se. My point is that, regardless of whether Wikipedia actually is more or less reliable than the average encyclopedia, it is not perceived as adequately reliable by many librarians, teachers, and academics. The reason for this is not far to seek: those librarians etc. note that anybody can contribute and that there are no traditional review processes. You might hasten to reply that it does work nonetheless, and I would agree with you to a large extent, but your assurances will not put this concern to rest. You might maintain that people are already using Wikipedia a lot, and that that implies a great deal of trust. This is true, as far as it goes; but people use many sources that they themselves believe to be unreliable, via Google searches, for example. (I do so all the time, though perhaps I shouldn't.) Perhaps Wikipedia is better described as one of those sources regarded as unreliable which people read anyway. And in this case, one might say, there's no problem: Wikipedia is being read, and it is of minimally adequate and increasing reliability. What more could you ask? In other words, why does a perception of unreliability matter? I am willing to grant much of this reply. I think merely that there are a great many benefits that accrue from robust credibility to the public. One benefit, but only one, is support and participation by academia. I am on the academic job market now and I felt it was necessary to explain my views about Wikipedia's credibility for potential employers. A great many of my colleagues are not at all impressed with the project; but more about that in a bit. Another benefit accruing from robust public credibility is even more widespread use and support by teachers, schools, libraries, and the general public--precisely the people who want to use what they believe to be a credible encyclopedia. To the extent that the project is not reaching, and being supported by, these people, it is not succeeding as well as it might. Perhaps you might also maintain that, while Wikipedia does not now have a reputation for reliability, it will eventually, once enough studies proving its reliability are done, and once people are more familiar with the concept behind the project. This is hard to argue with; but it is also hard to support, because it involves predicting the future, and the future, when it comes to public opinion, is extremely unpredictable. It would be better to do something to help guarantee a reputation for reliability. Wikipedia has another sort of credibility problem, mentioned in passing above, and I fear that time is not a solution to this problem, the way it might be to the foregoing one. Namely, one can make a good case that, when it comes to relatively specialized topics (outside of the interests of most of the contributors), the project's credibility is very uneven. If the project was lucky enough to have a writer or two well-informed about some specialized subject, and if their work was not degraded in quality by the majority of people, whose knowledge of the subject is based on paragraphs in books and mere mentions in college classes, then there might be a good, credible article on that specialized subject. Otherwise, there will be no article at all, a very amateurish-sounding article, or an article that looks like it might once have been pretty good, but which has been hacked to bits by hoi polloi. (Am I sounding elitist enough for you yet? Just wait.) One has only to compare the excellent Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy to Wikipedia's Philosophy section. From the point of view of a specialist, let's just say that Wikipedia needs a lot of work. Second problem: the dominance of difficult people, trolls, and their enablers. I stopped participating in Wikipedia when funding for my position ran out. That does not mean that I am merely mercenary; I might have continued to participate, were it not for a certain poisonous social or political atmosphere in the project. There are many ways to explain this problem, and I will start with just one. Far too much credence and respect accorded to people who in other Internet contexts would be labelled "trolls." There is a certain mindset associated with unmoderated Usenet groups and mailing lists that infects the collectively-managed Wikipedia project: if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll. If you attempt to take trolls to task or demand that something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship," attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll. This drama has played out thousands of times over the years on unmoderated Internet groups, and since about the fall of 2001 on the unmoderated Wikipedia. Wikipedia has, to its credit, done something about the most serious trolling and other kinds of abuse: there is an Arbitration Committee that provides a process whereby the most disruptive users of Wikipedia can be ejected from the project. But there are myriad abuses and problems that never make it to mediation, let alone arbitration. A few of the project's participants can be, not to put a nice word on it, pretty nasty. And this is tolerated. So, for any person who can and wants to work politely with well-meaning, rational, reasonably well-informed people--which is to say, to be sure, most people working on Wikipedia--the constant fighting can be so off-putting as to drive them away from the project. This explains why I am gone; it also explains why many others, including some extremely knowledgeable and helpful people, have left the project. The root problem: anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise. There is a deeper problem--or I, at least, regard it as a problem--which explains both of the above-elaborated problems. Namely, as a community, Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise. As a community, far from being elitist (which would, in this context, mean excluding the unwashed masses), it is anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise is tolerated). This is one of my failures: a policy that I attempted to institute in Wikipedia's first year, but for which I did not muster adequate support, was the policy of respecting and deferring politely to experts. (Those who were there will, I hope, remember that I tried very hard.) I need not recount the history of how this nascent policy eventually withered and died. Ultimately, it became very clear that the most active and influential members of the project--beginning with Jimmy Wales, who hired me to start a free encyclopedia project and who now manages Wikipedia and Wikimedia--were decidedly anti-elitist in the above-described sense. Consequently, nearly everyone with much expertise but little patience will avoid editing Wikipedia, because they will--at least if they are editing articles on articles that are subject to any sort of controversy--be forced to defend their edits on article discussion pages against attacks by nonexperts. This is not perhaps so bad in itself. But if the expert should have the gall to complain to the community about the problem, he or she will be shouted down (at worst) or politely asked to "work with" persons who have proven themselves to be unreasonable (at best). This lack of respect for expertise explains the first problem, because if the project participants had greater respect for expertise, they would have long since invited a board of academics and researchers to manage a culled version of Wikipedia (one that, I think, would not directly affect the way the main project is run). But because project participants have such a horror of the traditional deference to expertise, this sort of proposal has never been taken very seriously by most Wikipedians leading the project now. And so much the worse for Wikipedia and its reputation. This lack of respect for expertise and authority also explains the second problem, because again if the project participants had greater respect for expertise, there would necessarily be very little patience for those who deliberately disrupt the project. This is perhaps not obvious, so let me explain. To attact and retain the participation of experts, there would have to be little patience for those who do not understand or agree with Wikipedia's mission, or even for those pretentious mediocrities who are not able to work with others constructively and recognize when there are holes in their knowledge (collectively, probably the most disruptive group of all). A less tolerant attitude toward disruption would make the project more polite, welcoming, and indeed open to the vast majority of intelligent, well-meaning people on the Internet. As it is, there are far fewer genuine experts involved in the project (though there are some, of course) than there could and should be. It will probably be objected by some that, since I am not 100% committed to the most radical sort of openness, I do not understand why the project that I founded works: it works, I will be told, precisely because it is radically open--even anarchical. I know, of course, that Wikipedia works because it is radically open. I recognized that as soon as anyone; indeed, it was part of the original plan. But I firmly disagree with the notion that that Wikipedia-fertilizing openness requires disrespect toward expertise. The project can both prize and praise its most knowledgeable contributors, and permit contribution by persons with no credentials whatsoever. That, in fact, was my original conception of the project. It is sad that the project did not go in that direction. One thing that Wikipedia could do now, although I doubt that it is possible in the current atmosphere and with the current management, is to adopt an official policy of respect of and deference to expertise. Wikipedia's "key policies" have not changed since I was associated with the project; but if a policy of respect of and deference to expertise were adopted at that level, and if it were enforced somehow, perhaps the project would solve the problems described above. But don't hold your breath. Unless there is the equivalent of a revolution in the ranks of Wikipedia, the project will not adopt this sort of policy and make it a "key policy"; or if it does, the policy will probably be not be enforced. I certainly do not expect Jimmy Wales to change his mind. I have known him since 1994 and he is a smart and thoughtful guy; I am sure he has thought through his support of radical openness and his (what I call) anti-elitism. I doubt he will change his mind about these things. And unless he does change his mind, the project itself will probably not change. Nevertheless, everyone familiar with Wikipedia can now see the power of the basic Wikipedia idea and the crying need to get more experts on board and a publicly credible review process in place (so that there is a subset of "approved" articles--not a heavy-handed, complicated process, of course). The only way Wikipedia can achieve these things is to jettison its anti-elitism and to moderate its openness to trolls and fools; but it will almost certainly not do these things. Consequently, as Wikipedia increases in popularity and strength, I do not see how there can not be a more academic fork of the project in the future. I hope that a university, academic consortium, or thinktank can be found to pursue a project to release vetted versions of Wikipedia articles, and I hope that the new project's managers will understand very well what has made Wikipedia work as well as it has, before they adopt any policies. Larry Sanger, 2004

No change is being suggested for the article, see WP:NOTFORUM. And this section is closed.

I wholeheartedly reject this text. Larry Sanger, was never a good metric for neutrality back in 2004 nor is he now. This serves only as a distraction. I also protest large copy pastes of text into this talk page. This is NOT the purpose of talk pages and this is NOT how you reference content. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC) WP:NOTFORUM applies. The talk page is for discussing changes to the article. The comments have nothing to do with the article. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC) It is quite normal not to approve Larry Sanger, or Hitler, or Che Guevara, or Obama... Firstly, please read what he wrote. Secondly, I also mentioned my own opinion about Larry Sanger (and Jimmy Wales) before the text. His message is completely relevant to topic; those who do not read its entirety may not understand the case and what kind of discussion mindset we have had here fully. Lastly, -as I wrote above- no one has to love, respect Larry Sanger or anyone else. But his situation in this (and every) discussion page -- no matter what he said, says and will say about wikipedia -- is not determined by "the wikipedia community", "Little monsters of Lady Gaga", "Martin Scorsese fan club", "Putin's re-election committee", "Larry Sanger war veterans association", "Stalin-type mustache collectors", "Bill Shankly High School", "Jimmy Wales spaceship programme" whatsoever. P.S. This message did not aim to offend 'A Certain White Cat' and 'TippyGoomba'. It is written to bring a bit more rationality, a bit more hope to reduce our prejudices. --Toksoz (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC) You are welcome to state your suggestions to improve the article. You are not welcome to copy paste other peoples remarks inflating the talk page. I am more willing to listen to you for hours than entertain Larry Sagner's ideas for a nano-second. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Dear 'A Certain White Cat', I don't have any idea (and maybe do not want to have) what kind of personal conflict you have with Larry Sanger. We do not discuss here his statements on wikipedia after he left the community. We try to pay attention on his message as you finally understood. I learned, thanks to you, about the direct copy/past issue in the wikipedia community; it is noted. And lastly, the length issue can make those, who would like to read/improve and who would like to participate in/on the topics/titles, exhausted. But there is not any limit to write -- which it is not aimed deliberately at all -- unless there appears a consensus, appears a rational point of view collaboratively; not only by my side. --Toksoz (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC) It is nothing personal, I have had no interaction with Larry Sagner. He has attempted to use Wikipedia to promote himself. His approach has been discussed to death and have been rejected by the community about a decade ago. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC) It is all right then. The purpose here is his message as the link tells above. We do not discuss here his desirability or non-desirability. --Toksoz (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Why Turkish Flag in the infobox on the right hand side but not on the left?

Put the flag on both side or completely remove. Are the anti-government protesters from outside Turkey? This is highly suspicious and tells a lot. Seems like it's intended by the editors that Turkey is under attack by external agents and civil war is wished. See Brazil protests and how Turkey reacts. Wikipedia should keep away from such black propaganda. The garbage should be removed and Wikipedia should be freed. The top banner should also include something like, "this article is written like dictating certain propaganda against Turkey." until the whole garbage is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.229.249 (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please keep your conspiracy theories to yourself we are not interested and talk pages aren't the median for this. This article discusses a civil disobedience and it is normal practice not to include a flag with the side engaging in the said disobedience. Any side that officially represents a government gets the flag by common practice. The only exception is when there is a full fledged civil war which this isn't one. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This is again an insult but won't undo it. What's normal with respect to whom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.229.249 (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Purpose of talk pages are not to discuss your personal theories. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

And the purpose of the Wiki articles is not to transmit misinformation from unreliable resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.229.249 (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Foreign Policy is unreliable? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

From the scientific point of view no news magazine can be considered a reliable resource. Only scientific journal articles can be. Sometimes, even scientific journals may fail to present the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.229.249 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 2 July 2013‎ (UTC)

This site is not a scientific journal. WP:RS applies and the listed sources qualify as being reliable. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Being listed in WP:RS does not make an unreliable resource reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.229.249 (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Your complete discontent towards guidelines that handles reliable sources is simply baffling. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me explain and remind, Wikipedia simply fails, hence WP:RS, when it starts to discuss a social events. It's just that simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.115.233 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This is how all all articles are written on this site. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's true that there's a certain irony in having the Turkish flag on the government side, given the symbolism of the flag (secularism...) and the current government (AKP). But there's a Wikipedia convention about use of flags which a Certain White Cat explained, and the convention is followed here. It's not a big deal. More interesting than worrying about the infobox would be saying something more in the article about symbolism of flags in the protests, including the Turkish flag. Podiaebba (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"It's true that there's a certain irony in having the Turkish flag on the government side, given the symbolism of the flag (secularism...) and the current government (AKP)." This is an interesting opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.115.233 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It'll be highly contradictory if you keep the flag there as the demonstrators in the top picture also cary the same flag. Wiki articles can be at least consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.229.249 (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. Flag should be included for consistency purposes. All similar articles have a flag for the government "side(s)". -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the comment has been not been understood. If you keep a picture of the protesters with the same Turkish flag on the top and put the same Turkish flag in the infobox on the right (government side) only, it's illogical. Besides, what you said is not true. Neither Brazil nor Bulgaria protests have flags. Please check their Wiki pages. It's a very unfortunate fact that the editors are not knowledgable enough to write here. How can reader trust this Wiki article? This actually again strengthens my suspicion on anti-Turkey propaganda in Wikipedia which should not be tolerated. Wikipedia should remove this nonsence.

See Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 as a compatible example. It has flags. Presence of the flags has to do with the kind of response governments give. If there is no confrontation, flags aren't added as it isn't much of a conflict. In such a case the government isn't the other side. If say the Prime Minister and/or Ministry of the Interior takes a side against the protests then they are added. Proportional representation really. Prime Minister Erdogan himself ordered some of the police actions according to himself. Perhaps we should escalate the hierarchy to include the Prime Ministry. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Brazil and Bulgaria protests are more relevant to Turkish protests. That's one of the reason why Brazil protest discussion include Turkish reaction. See the Wiki article. You contradict yourself. I remind, you said, "This article discusses a civil disobedience and it is normal practice not to include a flag with the side engaging in the said disobedience. Any side that officially represents a government gets the flag by common practice. The only exception is when there is a full fledged civil war which this isn't one." 2013 Brazil and Bulgaria protests disprove what you said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.115.233 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Did the prime minister or any other minister in Brazil take a side against the protesters? That is why it isn't two sides. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see any difference how the governments reacted in all three countries. Looks like 5, 5, and 7 were killed in Bulgaria, Brazil, and Turkey, respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.115.233 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately reliable sources disagree with you. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That information was also from Wikipedia :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.115.233 (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

How should one decide what is reliable what's not? Should one believe the cited newspapers in the article? Reliability is also subjective especially on topics like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.115.233 (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)‎

(edit conflict) It is common courtesy to sign your remarks. I will outright ignore or remove them if you do not sign with ~~~~ now on.

We decide based on the guideline mentioned on what is reliable and what isn't. This isn't your private wiki, stop acting like you own the place.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's so interesting. It actually looks like you own the place. You remove, you block. Again, you started to insult. As I said, I am happy to be blocked, do not wait if you wanted to do so. This is exactly what I'm saying, Wikipedia can never be a reliable resource on current and contraversial event articles like this as long as those editors exist to block people and suppress the freedom of speech. What a irony.

Wiki readers should see that some editors see this page as their own. Although we haven't reached any consensus, they ignore the discussion, they block the people, and do what they like. Finally they posted the flag again, even though there is no consensus they semi-protected the page just to add the flag even though it is illogical and inconsistent as logically proven above. Who gives such editors the rights to edit the pages as they like? As it has been said many times THIS WIKI ARTICLE IS NOT RELIABLE AND SHOULD BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY TO NOT FURTHER HARM WIKIPEDIA's REPUTATION. People are blocked here and are not allowed to edit. Wiki should return to its own business and keep enlighten people with science not with gossips of some journalists. WIKIPEDIA SHOULD NOT ACT LIKE A DICTATOR. IT SHOULD NOT TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO WRITE. WIKIPEDIA SHOULD NOT ALLOW THE READER TO SEE THE WORLD FROM THE EYES OF SOME JOURNALISTS, but from the SCIENTISTS'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.115.233 (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"Why this article is semi-protected" smells extreme bias

To preserve the bias? To suppres contrasting views? To transmit false information? To block freedom of speech? Wikipedia should remove this article. The article totally lost its reliability. Why not Brazil and Bulgaria protests not semi-protected? The article creates significant suspicion about a hidden agenda against Turkey. The editors of this article should be interrogated carefully to understand why they are insisting on writing this article. Could it be that they are paid for this? I wouldn't surprise. There were many protestors who were offered tens of thousands of dollars to show up in the protests and did not even know what and why they were protesting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.115.233 (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

There were many protestors who were offered tens of thousands of dollars to show up. Funny, AKP can get people to show up for just TL130 and a free bus ride... Anyway, it's not hard to get around the semi-protection, here's how, after 10 edits and 4 days. Podiaebba (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is significantly biased, suspicious, and serve as a threat to world peace

Wikipedia should not be exploited by the contractor editors. The article should be immediately removed from Wikipedia to save our world and peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.115.233 (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Park list

Park list is getting out of hand. Can one of you convert it to a table? I started it to give you an idea. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 16:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and completed the table. It needs more work though. I also noticed facebook to be the source. I don't like that to be honest. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Linking to tr.wikipedia

Would it be possible to create articles for these on en.wikipedia? Even a stub article would be better than linking to a different wiki. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, links to tr.wikipedia are very confusing. Podiaebba (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It didn't end

Everyday, thousands are gathering in Abbasağa Park (which is declared as the new Gezi Park as long as the police continues blockade it) and also the other Istanbul Parks like Yoğurtçu Park, Yeniköy Park, Maçka Park, Cihangir Park, Sanatçılar Park, Sibel Yalçın Park, Kartal Park, Çarşı Park, Göztepe Park, Saraçhane Park, Karadolap Public Park, Bakırköy Square, Maltepe Square and more and they are making forums to stop anti-democratic moves in Turkey and find solutions for problems and to protect Gezi Park and they decide to continue. Also people from other cities, Izmir, Ankara, Mersin, Antalya, Muğla are gathering and making forums, also protesting and making standing protests, and this is a wait for police to stop blockading Gezi Park, so everything is continuing. Now I'm going to forums too. Berkaysnklf (talk), 22 June, 2013, 12:36 (UTC)

Correction: Bogazici University Jazz Choir to Bogazici Jazz Choir

In the content; 8.2 Popular culture, the song of Bogaziçi Jazz Choir is listed and linked mistakenly as Bogazici University Jazz Choir. The choir which has adapted the song for the 2013 protests is called "Bogazici Jazz Choir" -or "Boğaziçi Caz Korosu" in Turkish- and is not related to Boğaziçi University. That is why Bogazici University Jazz Choir should be changed to Boğaziçi Jazz Choir. They are actually two separate choirs. When you click the link, that is listed in the Notes content, you can see that in the video, the choir is also called "Boğaziçi Caz Korosu (Bogazici Jazz Choir)". Because of that, the source is also verifying my correction. 78.176.255.79 (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Done - Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 16:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Still ongoing?

The article states that the protests are still ongoing. No news are coming in and the timeline seems to be finished at 30 June.-- Iñfẽstør  ^{T• C• U} 00:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Protests intensify on a weekend by weekend basis. People are on the streets every night. Currently many other parks aside from Gezi is been occupied. Not with tents though. We need a reliable source to declare it over anyways. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 01:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

About that, I think this feature of this protest may need some coverage. I have never heard of protests that take breaks during work days only to intensify in the weekends. I wonder if anyone written on this so far... -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, but some editors still needs to edit as their contract has not ended yet. Please see the section above: "Why this article is semi-protected" smells extreme bias"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.115.233 (talk • contribs)

it's semi protected against vandalism by unregistered people like you! you don't even bother to sign your entries on the talk page. also after seeing this subsection it's a very well taken decision to semi protect the page. what bias? this has nothing to do with bias. just vandalism!-- Iñfẽstør  ^{T• C• U} 02:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The situation still goes on. For example yesterday (2 July) was the anniversary of the Sivas massacre, so thousands were on streets again to protest the government. And also a new Mediterrenean Games scandal was leaked (I am willing to write it today). Forums continue too. Even if the number of people on streets gets decreased, the situation ongoes more in law ways. Like the governmental claims and purposes and like the rejection of the objection made by the government to continue to the mall project, by Istanbul court. The thing is situation is still ongoing in either way, but its hard to keep the news in the Timeline page. And as the Egypt starts to protest again, of course the world media turned their eyes on Egypt, so its why the news coming out from here to there got decreased. Berkaysnklf (talk), 3 July, 2013, 13:25 (UTC)

Oh, and also, is there way to contribute with the old way ? The new way is too much for my HP. Berkaysnklf (talk), 3 July, 2013, 13:41 (UTC)

One last thing, I'm not a special agent working with contrats. I'm just a Wikipedist writing the news coming out here from Turkey. Reading almost every newspaper to get ideas, including pro-government ones with extreme controversial theories. Again; I'm not a special agent working for anyone firstly US, UK, Israel, Russia, Syria, EU or Germany. (I think I need to tell this, after I read all of those unsigned comments). Berkaysnklf (talk), 3 July, 2013, 13:52 (UTC)

You can "edit source" to edit the old way. Please do not worry about the special agent accusations, this is a hot topic and we will always get intolerant people whom will lecture us on freedom of speech and then demand the take-down of the article itself. I'd like to see expansion of the standing man section (perhaps into a full article) but also expansion of the forums table should you have time for it. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You are totally right and thank you a lot for the back-up and also for the help. I can expand the standing protests' section after I write about the new Mediterranean Games scandal. And I can help about the table to, what kind of expansion do we need ? Berkaysnklf (talk), 3 July, 2013, 20:11 (UTC)

My priority would be with duran adam/standing man as it had google trended beyond even Erdogan ever gotten. I have seen coverage on multiple sources as well so that's one thing. However this is a current event and the park discussions should have a priority over the standing man which is while also ongoing is more historic. The problem with the table is that it is either unsourced or sourced based on something unreliable such as facebook and/or twitter. What do you think? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

ParksAreOurs (Parklar Bizim) is a big act and the pages of ParklarBizim on Blogspot and Facebook are the most reliable ones in Internet, we can even call them official. And the only thing we mentioned is the locations (not even all). So I think the ParklarBizim Act's internet pages are the proper sources for at least locations. When I have time, (like tomorrow) will add the content of the forums and the decisions that people are taking in the public forums. Then various sources will be needed and of course, added. That's what I think about the situation. Today I added the scandals of M.Games and made some updates of the latest news and protests. I will also add a sub-title for the humorist protests on the graduation of hundreds of colleges throughout Turkey. So I will upgrade the parks section as I told and as you've wanted. Add a sub-title for the gradution protests. And expand the Standing Man sub-title as its needed, mentioning about the Google search counts and the standing protest of the EU Parliament Members and more. I will also add flashing news or speeches if there occure any (it probably will). And of course, as long as I have enough time. That's the plan for now. Thanks for the advices. Berkaysnklf (talk), 3 July, 2013, 21:54 (UTC)

We cannot decide that. ParksAreOurs/ParklarBizim would not be an acceptable source for any other article, nor should it be the preferred source here. You would need to verify whats written on facebook with a third-party source. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Brazillian and Egyptian protestors

I think there are some sourced content that make the comparisons. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

So you have:

• http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/protesters-chant-turkey-is-here-in-brazil-bus-fare-demos-as-police-takes-hard-line.aspx?pageID=238&nid=48855
• http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/06/18/193101142/with-inspiration-from-turkey-brazil-discovers-mass-protests
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/02/the-protests-in-turkey-brazil-and-egypt-shouldnt-surprise-you/

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Machete attack

• http://haber.gazetevatan.com/gezi-gosterisinde-pala-dehseti/551892/1/gundem

Sabri Çelebi is the name of the machete attacker it seems. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/23676310.asp
• http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-court-releases-men-with-machetes-who-attacked-gezi-protesters.aspx?pageID=238&nID=50168&NewsCatID=341

More info. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We can also mention about the man who fired his pistol randomly in the middle of İstiklal Avenue and got arrested. He was described as a local shop owner by officials, but no shop owner knows or sees him, and it leads to shop owner-protester together demonstrations like, "We want music, not gas!" Berkaysnklf (talk), 19 July, 2013, 22:11 (UTC)

There have been rallies in Istanbul the last 3 days and worldwide media has shown much more pictures of what is happening. Wikipedia has shown nothing

Please if you have any sources add what is happening in Istanbul in July because news are running fast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrusselsBelgique4 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)‎

You are welcome to add them to the article. This is a community effort. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 06:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey I can't find time to contribute to the article, of course because of the protests, in last 3-4 days firstly Istanbul has seen a lot. Like detaintments of people playing with water guns. Like the court's decision to free the man who attacked and injured the protesters including women and tourists randomly with a butcher's knife. Like a man randomly fired his pistol in the middle of İstiklal. Like a man with a thick stick giving gas canisters to a police from his bag and saying them I'm with you. Like the 1.Gas Man Festival (1.Gazdan Adam Festivali) that hundreds of thousands gathered to protest in a carnival way. Like the re-opening of Gezi Park and re-closing of Gezi Park after 2 hours, 45 minutes with a intervention by police with gas bombs and water cannons. Like today, in the first evening of Ramadan, protestors' and people's feast on ground from Galatasaray High School in İstiklal to the Gezi Park (as long as reaches to the police barricade) and meanwhile AKP supporters' luxurious feast on high class tables in the Taksim square with private working waiters and waitresses. There is so much to write about but there is not enough time. So I'm telling these here if anyone could write about them, then I can complete or add when I have time. Thanks. Good evenings to all. Berkaysnklf (talk), 9 July, 2013, 17:50 (UTC)

And also there are lots of news articles for public park forums and there are lots of newspapers that publish the decisions being taken in the main ones. But you know it is impossible find a news article (or sth like those) for every park, so ParksAreOurs is the widest source that publishes all notes from every park. That's why I suggested that, saying "like an official represantative". It was not a good idea deleting them all I think. Maybe we could have move it into an another article. And meanwhile I could have find some sources other than the ParksAreOurs sources, when I have time between the protests. Thanks again.. Berkaysnklf (talk), 9 July, 2013, 18:00 (UTC)

Created NTV Tarih; its closure is probably worth a mention here. Podiaebba (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.yasarkenyazilantarih.com/ could be a very good source. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 04:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This and this should be added as well. Podiaebba (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/turkeys-standing-man-captured-attention-but-protest-doesnt-stand-still--it-forms-assemblies-8672456.html

The independent had an article talking about the forums which has links to even more sources.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to mention about NTV Tarih, so much going out in here. So the death of Ali İsmail Korkmaz (being beaten up by civilian polices and civilian AKP supporters), and the protests started after the death and the law decision that bans TMMOB (Union of Chambers of Turkish Architects and Engineers) to be against any construction decision. The protests mostly occur in Antakya, Istanbul, Eskişehir and Ankara these days. Antakya citizens doesn't let the police enter their neighborhood for almost 2 days (even throwing their armed cars water tanks and washing machines). These are the news, I have updated the injuries and timeline part, I have also updated the status section in the infobox but it caused a collapse on the infobox and I couldn't fix it. I will try it now. Thanks. Berkaysnklf (talk), 12 July, 2013, 23:50 (UTC)

Were you able to fix it? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 04:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Telekinesis remark

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0YiRP6gMUI
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/13/erdogan-turkey-protests-telekinesis-conspiracy-theories
• http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/telekinezi_dunyanin_dilinde_bu_bir_saka_degil-1141721

I am not sure how relevant this is but the telekinesis claim and rest of the video may be relevant. This is the same person that came up with the interest lobby theory and was recently promoted as the chief financial adviser to the Prime Minister. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yiğit Bulut seems to merit an article, at least, so I've just made one. Podiaebba (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Never mind the telekinesis: this is probably a greater factor in Bulut's appointment! Podiaebba (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

He comes up with a different theory every week. His latest claim is OTPOR (a Serbian organization) supported all protestors to start a civil disobedience. Berkaysnklf (talk), 14 July, 2013, 22:34 (UTC)

Move

Erdoğan claimed that three quarters of protest participants had voted for the main opposition CHP, and also accused CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu "of acting like the head of a terrorist organization by calling on the police not to obey orders." I think this part should be moved to another part in the text, since "three quarters of protest participants" is a valid information, not a conspiracy theory. For "of acting like the head of a terrorist organization by calling on the police", I think it's a baseless attack towards Kılıçdaroğlu. Conspiracy theories are absurd like "Telekinesis" idea.Kavas (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracies can be baseless. Are there credible sources contradicting this? The statement can be countered by that. We should not remove even "absurd" claims. I think such statements by Erdogan demonstrates his stance towards the protests and perhaps also towards the opposition party. The Guardian for instance lists a number of conspiracy theories based on comments by Erdogan and/or his advisers. Mind that we aren't trying write the truth, rather what is sourced. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

With respect, we're not discussing removing "Erdoğan claimed that three quarters of protest participants had voted for the main opposition CHP, and also accused CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu "of acting like the head of a terrorist organization by calling on the police not to obey orders.". We're discussing moving it into a different heading, since I think they don't belong to "Conspiracy theories". Besides, "Telekinesis" idea is a conspiracy theory, but I didn't remove it or suggest to remove to it, I used it as an example of a conspiracy theory.Kavas (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Did Erdogan not claimed this? Is it credible enough to be moved elsewhere? Where would you want to move it? I am having difficulty understanding the problem. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Did Erdogan not claim this? -Yes, he said it.

Is it credible enough to be moved elsewhere? - I didn't understand it.

Where would you want to move it? - anywhere except conspiracy theories

Kavas (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The claims are fine where they are. Erdogan is very clearly trying to imply that the protests were organised by the CHP, and not organic in the way people who've actually surveyed and talked to the protestors conclude. It is a conspiracy claim which goes very well with Erdogan's other conspiracy claims about the interest rate lobby etc. Podiaebba (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Find a source for "three quarters of protest participants had voted for the main opposition CHP," is a conspiracy theory! If you can't find the source, then you're inserting your POV to Wikipedia. Kavas (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, Kavas, go to the context and it's blindingly obvious that it's a claim that is part of a conspiracy claim. Here, from the source in the article:

[Erdogan] also said they would be inquiring into who was behind the Gezi protests, arguing that it was all a massive conspiracy, prepared very professionally in collaboration with social media, companies, the interest rate lobby, media and some “internal traitors and external collaborators.” He added that their true colors had now been revealed.

“It was prepared very professionally,” Erdoğan said. “Social media was prepared for this, made equipped. The strongest advertising companies of our country, certain capital groups, the interest rate lobby, organizations on the inside and outside, hubs, they were ready, equipped for this.”

Erdoğan slammed the opposition, saying they are hiding behind vandals’ backs since they fell short on opposing within Parliament. Amid particularly slamming the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), Erdoğan was harsh regarding the party’s leader, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, arguing that he was not worthy to fill the post. Erdoğan accused Kılıçdaroğlu of acting like the head of a terrorist organization by calling on the police not to obey orders.

“From the public poll we have conducted, we have seen that those involved in Gezi Park events voted for the CHP by 76 percent and are their followers; 16 percent are from the BDP [Peace and Democracy Party]; 1.2 percent are from the AKP and 1.2 percent are from the MHP [Nationalist Movement Party]. This is the picture,” Erdoğan said, adding the CHP was involved in the protests. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-prime-minister-vows-to-increase-police-force.aspx?pageID=238&nID=49006&NewsCatID=338

OK? Podiaebba (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Every accusation isn't a conspiracy theory. According to a different survey by KONDA, Gezi Park protesters voted for the CHP by 41%. So, 76% isn't unreasonable. Accusing CHP of supporting (or organizing) the protests isn't similar to saying "Twitter", "interest rate lobby", "the international Jewish lobby" is behind it.Kavas (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The facts of the claims Erdogan made are clear; it is a bunch of conspiracy claims, which includes the CHP. I don't know what you're playing at here. Do you just object to the word "conspiracy"? Conspiracies don't have to involve aliens you know... Part of the reason Erdogan so easily makes such claims is because Turkish history, including recent history, is rife with conspiracies (eg around coups and coup attempts), including conspiracies that look at least superficially similar to these protests. Podiaebba (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

PS CHP got 26% in the last election. Compare that to 41% or 76%? Very different implications. One is only slightly higher than a random cross-section of the electorate, the other is massively over-representing CHP. Podiaebba (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Kavas, conspiracy theories do not have to be factual. They can even be based on lies. We should use the KONDA survey you mentioned to counter the statement of Erdogan as required by WP:NPOV.

I agree that it is indeed not the same thing as the other conspiracy theories you have mentioned. The statement gives the feeling of 1950's United States with Joseph McCarthy around. I think keeping that feel is important when statements like this are common.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 05:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

See sources for surveys http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/gezidekiler_kim-1137540 (for KONDA), http://www.haberturk.com/gundem/haber/852023-gezi-anketinden-ilginc-sonuclar (for GENAR). Kavas (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a longer quote - it might make it clearer how the CHP claim fits into the general style of accusation. Podiaebba (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. What would you propose? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"I agree that it is indeed not the same thing as the other conspiracy theories you have mentioned." good. So we should find a way to differentiate them in the text too. Cheers Kavas (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain exactly how it's different. Erdogan lumps all these claims together under "internal traitors and external collaborators" - what makes you so special that you can contradict him? Podiaebba (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, you think everything Erdogan says are for proving "internal traitors and external collaborators" conspiracy. But, the difference is this: "twitter is behind Gezi Park" is cited as a conspiracy theory, "76% of people protesting voted for CHP" isn't cited as a conspiracy theory and it's indeed the result of a survey. Kavas (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be obsessed with the idea that the 76% claim is in itself a conspiracy theory (as if the CHP were a secret society or something). The 76% claim is part of the conspiracy theorising. Podiaebba (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked the article text. It's tricky because we're only partially dealing with direct quotes... I think it's clearer now. Podiaebba (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Reyhanlı reference you used is in my opinion not in scope of this article. Maybe you should find a reference where Erdogan's connecting Reyhanlı to Gezi Events.Kavas (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Erdogan claims such a survey exists. We have no way to know what survey that is or if such a survey exists at all? It's nothing more than a conspiracy theory without such detail. We cannot just assume things. As far as I know an important majority of the people participating in the Gezi Park sit-in were apolitical. I could be wrong though. Statistical makeup of the participants could be a separate section. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Reyhanli accusation is extremely relevant, and not just because it was made on 29 May. It makes it very clear that Erdogan isn't being hyperbolic or metaphorical, he really does mean the CHP could be conspiring to organise the protests as a way to topple the government. Put all his speeches together (there are others we could draw on) and it's clear what he's saying. Podiaebba (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you use a reference in which Erdogan talks about Reyhanlı in the context of Gezi? See http://www.haber7.com/guncel/haber/1048819-basbakan-erdogandan-cozum-sureci-cevabi Kavas (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)