Talk:Turkey/Archive 28
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
Ethnic Summary
??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.34.241.123 (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Unsourced lead paragraph statement
... Turkey became an associate member of the EEC in 1963, joined the EU Customs Union in 1995 and started accession negotiations with the European Union in 2005 which have been effectively stopped by the EU in 2017 due to "Turkey’s path toward autocratic rule".[1]
Marked part of the text is not supported by the reference given. The reference given only supports the earlier statements. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Chronology of Turkey-EU relations". Turkish Secretariat of European Union Affairs. Archived from the original on 15 May 2007. Retrieved 30 October 2006.
Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2018
 | This edit request to Turkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Economy," Turkey is listed as having the 17th highest GDP. However, according to the 2018 figures from the IMF, as listed on the Wiki page for countries by highest GDP, Turkey is now 18th in the world. 173.2.36.12 (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia does not cite itself. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Some issues to think about
The article text itself needs a bit of work. The lede should be the last issue. I'm not sure if I should nominate it for GAR first - some issues like discussing emigration to Israel and the Wealth Tax in the Christianity section (uncited) are pretty dismal in terms of organization/well-written - maybe we should consider discussing GAR at this point, until these issues are fixed.
- Varlık Vergisi (The Wealth Tax on non-Muslims in 1942) is discussed only in the section about Christianity. Also discussed in that section is 1948 emigration to Israel. (Also uncited).
- The lede is not summarizing the article. 20% Kurdish population is in the lede cited to 5 different sources, while the article text says 18-25% and it cited to different sources. Most of the disagreements about the lede in the article stem from POV editing of the lede that contradicts the article. (Changing Neolithic to Paleolithic, the demographics studies, the RfC about removing secular/democracy from the lede without bothering to improve the article content first, etc.)
- The lede says the Ottoman Empire became a "world power" during the early modern period. This isn't discussed in the article, it isn't verified by the cited source and editors removed the quote needed tag instead of supplying the quote that I requested.
Seraphim System (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- What? None of these are "issues". Of course the Varlik Vergisi is going to be in the Christianity section, since it targeted Christians. And of course we're going to mention the Kurds in the lede. I do not recommend trying to remove that. As for the Ottoman Empire being a world power, that's kind of WP:BLUESKY, though we can change it to "major power". Khirurg (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, they are issues. The prose style, poor organization and citations that fail verification are serious issues. It's not WP:BLUESKY, there is disagreement in sources about this term — I don't think you should be telling other editors they "have some reading to do"—the content in the article needs a citation that actually verifies it.Seraphim System (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
World Power
The conquests or Selim I are identified as the starting point of Ottoman "world power" by sources that are already cited in the article.[1] Other sources say Suleyman and some say it was never a world power. The link to "early modern period" doesn't provide any critical information either. In any case, the best way to proceed is to trim the content about the Ottoman Empire as much as possible, so content that is actually about the subject of this article can be added. Seraphim System (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Howard, Douglas Arthur (2001). The History of Turkey. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-313-30708-9.
Recent changes
Boccadasse Welcome to Wikipedia. I see you have made a lot of changes to this article recently, please use edit summaries to explain the changes you are making. This article is GA so it has to comply with certain standards and more experienced editors might want to look over the changes and verify the sourcing. Georgepodros, the line about Erdogan can not be removed without a discussion as it's inclusion was the result of a lengthy discussion involving multiple editors. This isn't the first time and I think you've previously been informed about the RfC, so please don't try to remove it without starting a discussion. Seraphim System (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Etymology
I've sourced the Etymology to OED. It should not be replaced with unsourced content or OR as recent edits have done. This section has some history of disruptive editing from what I have found. I think Boccadasse should explain why he has restored it, and that he should explain his edits with edit summaries.
The problems with the previous section are as follows:
- "The name of Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye) can be divided into two components: the ethnonym Türk (Old Turkic: 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰰 Türk[28][29][30]) and the abstract suffix –iye meaning "owner", "land of" or "related to" (originally derived from the Greek and Latin suffixes –ia in Tourkia (Τουρκία) and Turchia; and later from the corresponding Arabic suffix –iyya in Turkiyya (تركيا).)" -Entirely unsourced.
- Etymonline is an SPS. I checked the 3rd edition of the Bartleby dictionary cited and it doesn't have any of the etymology information it was cited for in the article, but perhaps the 4th edition is different? Can someone check?
- 'The Turkic self-designation Türk is first attested in reference to the Göktürks in the 6th century AD. A letter by Ishbara Qaghan to Emperor Wen of Sui in 585 described him as "the Great Turk Khan." - I checked multiple RS about this and none discuss it as etymology, all the the reliable sources consider this significant to the debate of simultaneous kingship. The source cited in the article does not seem reliable.
- The source about Old Turkic inscriptions for Turk is cited only to a low cite, inaccessible work published by a little known publisher. It seems to be more about the etymology of Turk than Turkey.
- The content about the Greek name Tourkia should probably be added to Name of Turkey. This is not etymology either, as none of the sources I checked draw any links between this term and the English language.
Seraphim System (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
GAR
I am planning to nominate this article for GAR either today or tomorrow. A new editor Boccadasse continues to restore unsourced/poorly sourced/badly written/unverifiable content to the article. It is effecting several criteria including NOR. I don't see any other choice as long as this continues. Seraphim System (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I noticed that over the last couple days. @Boccadasse: you seem to be ignoring the editors trying to give you advice and restoring sometimes years-old revisions with your edits. Can you please explain what you're doing? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm simply adding sources (books) published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, including the URL of the specific book pages so that you can click on them and see the written content for yourselves. Boccadasse (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- No you are not, your edits have removed sourced content, restoring unsourced content that was added by an editor with a history of disruptive editing on this article and undoing other changes that have already been discussed on this talk page. I'm not going to continue edit warring with you, but my opinion is that this article no longer meets the GA criteria. It probably has not for a long time but there was so much disruption and rapid fire undiscussed editing that some of it seems to have slipped by unnoticed until now. Seraphim System (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm simply adding sources (books) published by Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, including the URL of the specific book pages so that you can click on them and see the written content for yourselves. Boccadasse (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The obvious attempt to blacken the image of the Turkish Republic
This stupid rubbish on Erdoğan and his policies has no place in the lede, what other country has such a dedicated paragraph on the lede regarding their current leader? Do we see the same case for Poland or Hungary, countries with autocratic leaders? NO. This belongs in the politics section. Its mostly true Im not against that, but its not lede worthy, youre all trying to blacken the image of the republic. Fools like erdoğan win thanks to you people because he tricks his supporters into thinking every western country other than Turkey is somehow an enemy. You people show yourselves as haters of Turkey trying to blacken her image. This is why that erdoğan is winning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere
- I added a POV statement tag to this line. There is consensus for this from a previous RfC. I think the line is mostly fine and supported though perhaps a Wiki-link should be added to clarify the earlier reforms. It still makes it sound a bit too much like freedom of the press was a Kemalist policy, when it was actually much more recent then that. But I'm not sure what other problems there are. Georgepodros, please comment here rather then continuing to remove this line against the current consensus. Seraphim System (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Recent reverts
- Please do not restore unsourced content to the article. This was stated clearly in the edit summary. If something is removed because it is unsourced, it should not be restored without a source. This should not lead to edit warring, but restoring unsourced content is completely unacceptable.
- Per MOS:LEDECITE -
editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.
- avoid redundant citations in the lede. This is not controversial, it's not likely to be challenged and it doesn't need a citation in the lede. Following WP:BRD means leaving a comment on talk explaining why you restored the content and addressing the justification that is clearly given in the edit summaries. That did not happen here and I have restored the content. Seraphim System (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't agree with your position here, as i said in my edit-summary, given the revision history of this article, i think (unlike you) that the information is quite controversial and requires a cite for it in the lead.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- What information is controversial? I don't know what you mean by "the information". That citation was added after the GA review, and the content it was added to verify has since been removed. There is already a source for it in the article. Seraphim System (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the territorial share of Turkey between Asia and Europe. In Europe, this is a controversial question to find out whether Turkey is or isn't a European country. Therefore, according to me, this needs a cite in the lead.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining. That content is clearly and unambiguously sourced in the article. Citations in the lede are usually not preferred for GA-class articles. I am planning to clean up the rest of them at some point. However, while following up on this I found that Eurasia was not sourced, so I have added a source for this. Seraphim System (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm talking about the territorial share of Turkey between Asia and Europe. In Europe, this is a controversial question to find out whether Turkey is or isn't a European country. Therefore, according to me, this needs a cite in the lead.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- What information is controversial? I don't know what you mean by "the information". That citation was added after the GA review, and the content it was added to verify has since been removed. There is already a source for it in the article. Seraphim System (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't agree with your position here, as i said in my edit-summary, given the revision history of this article, i think (unlike you) that the information is quite controversial and requires a cite for it in the lead.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Recent addition of emblem
Jennifer Sue Milem (MY-lum), can you please explain your recent series of edits that have restored the national emblem to the infobox. TU-nor reverted this with a link to a discussion that closed no consensus [1]. While there is no strong consensus against inclusion, I think it is likely to be reverted again unless the edit is explained and discussed on the talk page. Seraphim System (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- This question has been brought to the editor's attention at When you don't understand... Shenme (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Neolithic/Paleolithic
I checked the citations and found that Oxford Handbooks and the Greenwood book only verify Neolithic. Paleolithic (earlier period) was cited only to a primary archeology paper with 43 cites. The article also currently says Neolithic so now the lede is consistent with the article text. I removed the list of nationalities for conciseness and because I don't think there are any sources that will verify this type of national differentiation in the Neolithic era. Seraphim System (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, i was self reverting but you were faster. Sorry. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. The removals are unacceptable. The material is sourced to a peer-reviewed journal paper. It is not "primary" or any such nonsense. Can you also explain the "43 cites" bit? That makes absolutely no sense. Also, the text does not say the various nationalities were "differentiated", so please don't make stuff up. Khirurg (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- This revert does not seem it was done in good faith [[2]] due to an assumption of bad faith in the edit summary and the restoration of information contradicted by multiple other cited sources and other unverifiable information (like the area was inhabited by Greeks since the Paleolithic period) - there are no sources for this because its not true.Seraphim System (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. The removals are unacceptable. The material is sourced to a peer-reviewed journal paper. It is not "primary" or any such nonsense. Can you also explain the "43 cites" bit? That makes absolutely no sense. Also, the text does not say the various nationalities were "differentiated", so please don't make stuff up. Khirurg (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- The revert was actually made to improve the article. I can see that Khirurg makes a good point regarding the sources. It's peer-reviewed and is not Primary. What makes you think it's Primary? Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- This source doesn't say anything about continuous settlement - (inhabited since). There is established archaeological evidence of continuous settlement dating back only to the Neolithic period. This may be why the Oxford Handbook and other secondary sources have chosen Neolithic instead of Paleolithic—there may be other reasons also. There may not be consensus about whether the Paleolithic sites are human or Neanderthal. In any case, what matters here is that we should not just override Oxford Handbook's choice with our own. This paper is a primary source, but not for settlement—it a study comparing Paleolithic ornaments from different places. It's been improperly interpreted here to imply continuous settlement by various groups since the Paleolithic era (even though there are strong secondary sources already cited in the article that contradict this). And Greeks didn't settle the Anatolian mainland until the 8th century BC- that's thousands of years after the Neolithic. Seraphim System (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- The problem with your edit is that you removed specific mentions of minorities when it is reliably sourced. Now, the sentence says SINCE the paleolithic age. This can encompass the Neolithic period as well. Or, as you mention, the 8th century BC. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Minorities? Like the Phrygians? Do you see anything in the lede that you would agree to remove? Seraphim System (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- The problem with your edit is that you removed specific mentions of minorities when it is reliably sourced. Now, the sentence says SINCE the paleolithic age. This can encompass the Neolithic period as well. Or, as you mention, the 8th century BC. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- This source doesn't say anything about continuous settlement - (inhabited since). There is established archaeological evidence of continuous settlement dating back only to the Neolithic period. This may be why the Oxford Handbook and other secondary sources have chosen Neolithic instead of Paleolithic—there may be other reasons also. There may not be consensus about whether the Paleolithic sites are human or Neanderthal. In any case, what matters here is that we should not just override Oxford Handbook's choice with our own. This paper is a primary source, but not for settlement—it a study comparing Paleolithic ornaments from different places. It's been improperly interpreted here to imply continuous settlement by various groups since the Paleolithic era (even though there are strong secondary sources already cited in the article that contradict this). And Greeks didn't settle the Anatolian mainland until the 8th century BC- that's thousands of years after the Neolithic. Seraphim System (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- The revert was actually made to improve the article. I can see that Khirurg makes a good point regarding the sources. It's peer-reviewed and is not Primary. What makes you think it's Primary? Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Greeks didn't settle the Anatolian mainland until the 8th century BC
- You have some reading to do. May I suggest [3]? Btw the article is not claiming the Greeks settled in the Neolithic. Care to explain how you came up with that? Khirurg (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)- I know it may seem trite, but it's important for the reliability of Wikipedia overall that we get these things right - you really have to use reliable sources on Wikipedia. I don't appreciate being lectured that I "some reading to do"—I shouldn't have to be a subject matter expert, the content in the article should be verifiable. Most mainstream sources say its been inhabited since the Neolithic. Sometimes it's necessary to simplify (without dumbing down) - especially in the LEDE of a country article. If you are very interested in Greek pottery and prehistoric periodization, this is not a good article for it. There are a lot of problems with the chronology and pinpointing when you can start calling the inhabitants "Greeks", as well as problems with the periodization during the Chalcolithic. The lede of this article is not the place to introduce these theories. It should be a concise summary that links to more detailed articles (many of which are badly in need of improvement).Seraphim System (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- The fact that you spout nonsense like
Greeks didn't settle the Anatolian mainland until the 8th century BC
shows that you do have reading to do, and quite a bit of it. See Competence is required. Khirurg (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)- Sorry, you're right they settled the Black Sea coast in the 7th/8th century and the Aegean Coast earlier. I've worked previously on other articles about the former topic where I found and corrected numerous sourcing problems. What does that have to do with the content in this article though? Seraphim System (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- The fact that you spout nonsense like
Economic crisis to lede?
Is there support for adding a sentence about the current economic situation to the lede? I propose this in conjunction with proposing removal of the EU statement's quote from the lede, but opinions on this discretely are also relevant. --Calthinus (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would leave it out at the moment - it would have to be extraordinary (say - great depression level - and even then maybe) to keep it in the lead (e.g for Greece - where it was extraordinary - we left it out (or it is out now)). I also think dropping the EU negotiations from the lede might be a good idea (as long as there was a viable route towards this happening it was lede worthy - but probably not now).Icewhiz (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, this logic sounds fair enough to me.--Calthinus (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I also would leave it out, per MOS : "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 27 August 2018
| | This edit request to Turkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why is the events of the past 2 years mentioned in the first paragraph of country's history which spans 3500 years? No other country in Wikipedia has their recent events included on their lede, this is a severe rule breaking. I demand this to removed, including the lines
...which have been effectively stopped by the EU in 2017 due to "Turkey’s path toward autocratic rule".
...which adopted a presidential system with a referendum in 2017; the new system came into effect with the presidential election in 2018. Turkey's current administration headed by president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of the AKP has enacted measures to increase the influence of Islam, reversed and undermined Kemalist policies, and has reversed earlier reforms such as freedom of the press.
Current events of a countries political policies or current news do not span an encyclopedias main page. Marjdabi (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- OSE. The main event in the lede from the past 2 years is the government system change (to a presidential system) - which is there since in most countries we cover the government type.Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
What do the lines "measures to increase the influence of Islam, reversed and undermined Kemalist policies, and has reversed earlier reforms such as freedom of the press" have to do with the governmental system? Or the lines " EU in 2017 due to "Turkey’s path toward autocratic rule" Marjdabi (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- That is for events in the past 16 years (from 2002) in which Turkey underwent great changes (e.g. per Democracy Index).Icewhiz (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Events since 2002? Seriously? Is 9/11 mentioned on US wikipedia lede? Is Putin authoritarianism mentioned on Russia lede? Is Egypt's revolution and coup mentioned in their lede? What does, to your saying 2002 change, have to do with Turkish lede? Nevertheless the lede has not said anything on since 2002. It mentions events of 2017 and even 2018. Which is one year ago and the other is from 2 months ago. To give a summary of the history of a country leading since 1500 BC, these have absolute! no place here. Marjdabi (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think this whole thing could definitely be removed without losing anything critical
After becoming one of the first members of the Council of Europe in 1949, Turkey became an associate member of the EEC in 1963, joined the EU Customs Union in 1995 and started accession negotiations with the European Union in 2005 which have been effectively stopped by the EU in 2017 due to "Turkey’s path toward autocratic rule".
- The relationship with the EU and accession talks don't need to be discussed in this much detail in the lede of this article. This is a good place to trim bloat from the lede. The part about Erdogan will require an RfC - I would also add that I think it's bit soon to revisit this. It was added after two rounds of RfC and not much has changed since then though I expect this will come up for discussion again as higher-quality sources become available. Seraphim System (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think this whole thing could definitely be removed without losing anything critical
- Tbh I could support removing
due to "Turkey’s path toward autocratic rule"
. The deterioration of democracy in Turkey is elaborated elsewhere in the lede. Btw, the same is not true for Poland or Hungary, or Russia -- astonishingly. Some other countries do have "annoying" things in their ledes; these are either ones that don't even pretend to be democratic (Belarus, North Korea, etc), ones with overwhelmingly negative press (Iran), or ones with dedicated sets of editors who dislike the country in question. In truth the EU decision was a bit more complicated and that was not the only reason (literally anything involving the EU or Turkey is too complicated to summarize in a lede, actually). The rest of what we say about Turkey's current affairs is sufficient (though I suppose perhaps the economic situation should be alluded to). --Calthinus (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Tbh I could support removing
As I've stated in the talk page these recent events in the lede do not belong to lede. Equally no other country on wikipedia mentions recent events on lede as. The article's lead covers thousands of years...a whole paragraph on just the past few years going into so much details that we link names is considered WP:Undue. Theses named people and events do not define the country for the past few millenniums. - Marjdabi (talk) 04:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Not done: - premature edit request. Please make a request only after consensus is established, and then please request specific changes in "change x to y" format. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Looking at above, clearly there is a consensus. Cramming latest political winds into a lede of a country with thousands of years history was strange and unusual and a bit suspicious in my opinion too. This is hardly a news portal or a magazine. Only the relevant subsections should be updated with new worthy information if needed at all. It turns these pages into a battle ground of latest political opinions and ideologies. We already have too much of it.
Including the judiciary in 'Government' in infobox: the supreme courts of Turkey
The Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation, the Council of State, the Military Court of Cassation, the Supreme Military Administrative Court and the Court of Jurisdictional Conflicts are the supreme courts mentioned in the judicial section of the Constitution. Unofficial source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_system_of_Turkey#Supreme_courts
In order to include the judicial branch of government, I suggest adding one or more of the following supreme courts to the infobox. In the interest of conciseness and alignment with other country pages, let us at the very least include the Constitutional Court of Turkey, which is the current practice on the Germany page. Perhaps others would like to include the Court of Cassation (Turkey) or Council of State (Turkey).
Constitutional Court of Turkey: President Zühtü Arslan (Source: http://www.constitutionalcourt.gov.tr/inlinepages/judges/President.html)
Court of Cassation (Turkey): First President: İsmail Rüştü Cirit (Source: https://www.yargitay.gov.tr/kategori/76)
Council of State (Turkey): President Zerrin Güngör (Source: http://www.danistay.gov.tr/eng/official-4-administration.html)
I am interested in hearing what other Wikipedians have to say. Ysfkdr (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 7 September 2018
| | This edit request to Turkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Put the protection tag below the hatnote per WP:ORDER Hddty. (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Lede
Though there are perennial efforts to remove this from the lede I strongly support its removal:
Approximately 70–80% of the country's citizens identify themselves as ethnic Turks.[10][11] Kurds are the largest minority at about 20% of the population; other ethnic minorities include Circassians, Albanians, Arabs, Bosniaks, and Laz people.[11][12][13][14][15] The official language is Turkish, which is the most widely spoken Turkic language in the world.[16] Minority languages spoken today in Turkey include Kurmanji, Bosnian, Arabic, Zaza, Kabardian, and several others.[
This is excessive detail for the lede of an article with this much ground to cover and it duplicates information that is more effectively presented in the infobox. There is additional content editors want to add that needs to included for this lede to be a representative summary of the article, but there is no room for it (literature, cuisine, and some other issues were mentioned in previous discussions, as well as links to the unesco sites which are usually included in the lede for country articles.) Seraphim System (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- I tend too agree that there is too much detail in this presentation. However, there was a RfC about this as recently as last November, so the only possible way to change it, would be to start a new RfC. Given the way these discussions usually takes, it would be advicable to take great care in formulating the RfC. Regards! --T*U (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- That was not an RfC, it was a discussion that was closed by the same editor who opened the discussion without addressing any of the substantive issues I raised (See Talk:Turkey/Archive_26#Should_Kurds_be_discussed_in_the_lead?) I think Kurds should be included in the lede, but I'm not convinced that disputed population studies from the 1990s convey the most critical information about this topic, and the space in the lede is limited. (See also this Cambridge University Press source noting two 1990 studies from 12.6% - 24%. [4]) - what was clear to me from the discussions last year was that editors have a lot of knowledge about the Turkifcation era, but there is generally a poor understanding the critical Cold War and post-Cold War period. In fact, some of the comments in the various discussions that took place around that time indicated that at least some editors working on this article connect the ban of the Kurdish language in 1980 with Kemalist era Turkification policies (50 or 60 years prior). I've never seen a single reliable source supporting this and no editor on this talk page has produced one, despite multiple requests. If there is such a source, I would definitely like to see it. Adding to this, the rest of the list is an incomplete list of arbitrarily selected "ethnic minorities" and "minority languages" - (I know we don't count German Turks as an "ethnic group" for example - maybe it's because German just isn't very ethnic? - or the French language isn't "minority" enough?) Seraphim System (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Demographics statistics like this almost always requires further explanation that would overburden the lede of this article. It doesn't even tell you what that particular study defined as "Kurds" (there are mutiple possible definitions - it could mean Kurds who identify as both Turkish or Kurdish, it could include Kurds who speak Turkish as their mother tongue but identify as Kurdish, it could mean only Kurds who speak Kurdish as their first language, or who don't speak Turkish at all. Just saying "20% of the population are Kurds" is entirely trivial. If this is a percentage of people who self-identify as Kurdish we have to make that clear. Seraphim System (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- That was not an RfC, it was a discussion that was closed by the same editor who opened the discussion without addressing any of the substantive issues I raised (See Talk:Turkey/Archive_26#Should_Kurds_be_discussed_in_the_lead?) I think Kurds should be included in the lede, but I'm not convinced that disputed population studies from the 1990s convey the most critical information about this topic, and the space in the lede is limited. (See also this Cambridge University Press source noting two 1990 studies from 12.6% - 24%. [4]) - what was clear to me from the discussions last year was that editors have a lot of knowledge about the Turkifcation era, but there is generally a poor understanding the critical Cold War and post-Cold War period. In fact, some of the comments in the various discussions that took place around that time indicated that at least some editors working on this article connect the ban of the Kurdish language in 1980 with Kemalist era Turkification policies (50 or 60 years prior). I've never seen a single reliable source supporting this and no editor on this talk page has produced one, despite multiple requests. If there is such a source, I would definitely like to see it. Adding to this, the rest of the list is an incomplete list of arbitrarily selected "ethnic minorities" and "minority languages" - (I know we don't count German Turks as an "ethnic group" for example - maybe it's because German just isn't very ethnic? - or the French language isn't "minority" enough?) Seraphim System (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- There's a long-standing consensus, formulated some time last year, to have information concerning Turkey's demographics included in the lead. This includes the Kurdish stuff. I see just one user complaining about this on this TP as opposed to three others in favor of its inclusion. It will take much more than that to build a consensus around this bit of information in the lead. And the reason why it's being removed now is rather odd. We don't just move vital information out of the lead and into the body. Rather, we should provide a summation of the body in the lead. The demographics of Turkey being in the lead serves just that purpose. Étienne Dolet (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Topics now covered 3 time 2 times in the lead.
No, it is not. It's covered once. That is, if you're referring to the 20% Kurdish minority. A minority consisting of 20% of the population of a given country can only naturally be notable and due for the lead (much like the leads of Belgium, Switzerland, and etc.). Étienne Dolet (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- There's a long-standing consensus, formulated some time last year, to have information concerning Turkey's demographics included in the lead. This includes the Kurdish stuff. I see just one user complaining about this on this TP as opposed to three others in favor of its inclusion. It will take much more than that to build a consensus around this bit of information in the lead. And the reason why it's being removed now is rather odd. We don't just move vital information out of the lead and into the body. Rather, we should provide a summation of the body in the lead. The demographics of Turkey being in the lead serves just that purpose. Étienne Dolet (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Pls pay attention to the edits before reverting. Again no need to duplicate text...fixed it. --Moxy (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Moxy: Sorry Moxy. I didn't realize you were keeping it in the lead. I'm willing to accept this version, however I think the information should still be placed in the body. After all, the lead should be a summation of the body. To avoid repetition, we can rephrase it a bit. That's something we can work on together. Étienne Dolet (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- We do....but a bit different "the majority of the Turkish population are of Turkish ethnicity. They are estimated at 70–75 percen...." and "The Kurds are the largest non-Turkic ethnicity, around 18–25 percent of the population"....--Moxy (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine with me Moxy. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is overburdening the lede per Moxy and it should be removed. There is no longstanding consensus, only an informal discussion that was closed by the editor who opened it, and didn't resolve any of the problems. Detailed demographics content doesn't belong in the lede and certainly not in the second paragraph of the lede. Restoring this has made the lede too long. Some of the WP:RECENTIST content should at least be removed to make up for it. Seraphim System (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just a note that I think the "WP:RECENTIST" stuff is not longer really recentist, it was just a bit premature when it was added. Most reliable sources believe Erdogan is the most influential national leader since Ataturk, as such he most likely deserves mention in the lede, though it should be condensed. We don't have room for a full summary that would include Inönü, Çiller, Ecevit, Erbakan, etc, but we should make room for at least Inönü. If you want to content about Turkey's minorities in the lede then add substantive prose content about Inönü's era, not demographics trivia.Seraphim System (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is overburdening the lede per Moxy and it should be removed. There is no longstanding consensus, only an informal discussion that was closed by the editor who opened it, and didn't resolve any of the problems. Detailed demographics content doesn't belong in the lede and certainly not in the second paragraph of the lede. Restoring this has made the lede too long. Some of the WP:RECENTIST content should at least be removed to make up for it. Seraphim System (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine with me Moxy. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- We do....but a bit different "the majority of the Turkish population are of Turkish ethnicity. They are estimated at 70–75 percen...." and "The Kurds are the largest non-Turkic ethnicity, around 18–25 percent of the population"....--Moxy (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Moxy: Sorry Moxy. I didn't realize you were keeping it in the lead. I'm willing to accept this version, however I think the information should still be placed in the body. After all, the lead should be a summation of the body. To avoid repetition, we can rephrase it a bit. That's something we can work on together. Étienne Dolet (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, the FA article is a good example. This article used to be FA but it was delisted - bringing it back up to FA status is a good goal for this article. Seraphim System (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- And here [5] you sneakily removed the material you really really don't like using a deceitful edit summary. The material is not in the infobox (the percentages, that is). I have the article watchlisted, as do many others. Did you really think that was going to work? There is a consensus to include this material in the lede. Further disruption will be reported. Khirurg (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- There has never been a clear consensus to include this. The only discussion was "Should Kurds be included in the lede" - there is consensus that Kurds should be included in the lede. I supported including Kurds in the lede also. But there has never been any consensus on how to include them in the lede or whether the demographics details should be included and the weak consensus based on this discussion is no. The discussion should really refocus on how Kurds should be included in the lede.Seraphim System (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- The only part of this paragraph that has ever been discussed is including that Kurds are the largest minority. I am looking for a place to restore this, but I don't see one in the lede right now. Adding a separate paragraph on demographics only to include this would be UNDUE. Seraphim System (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- There has never been a clear consensus to include this. The only discussion was "Should Kurds be included in the lede" - there is consensus that Kurds should be included in the lede. I supported including Kurds in the lede also. But there has never been any consensus on how to include them in the lede or whether the demographics details should be included and the weak consensus based on this discussion is no. The discussion should really refocus on how Kurds should be included in the lede.Seraphim System (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
- Everyone who participated at the discussion last November agreed that the Kurds should be mentioned in the lede. And now you are trying to claim that we can't add them, because oh well, that would require a paragraph on demographics which would be WP:UNDUE? The fact that you think WP:UNDUE is your opinion, and yours only. There is a clear consensus to include this material in the lede. By the way, this article will never be FA, or even GA, if you continue to edit-war like this. I hope you are aware of that. Khirurg (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, remember this [6]? You have been trying to remove the Kurds from the lede for months now. Different excuse each time. In the past, it was that "we can't overemphasize the Kurds in the lede, we have to mention all groups", now it's "we can't include other groups in the lede, only the Kurds". Riiiiiight. Khirurg (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Icewhiz: You weren't involved in that discussion last year as far as I know, and there wasn't a strong consensus about any particular wording including mentioning the size. However, it seems that the language "large minority" will most likely be a consensus language without the percentages - but it doesn't fit into any of the existing paragraphs. I'm not willing to compromise prose quality. This is just lazy. A full paragraph discussing Turkey's minorities should have been drafted up by now but it's hard to get input from other editors due to the aggressiveness of some editors on this talk page.Seraphim System (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I remember this was discussed - perhaps I did not comment - but it seems rather obvious that such a large minority - and in particular due to the ongoing Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) in significant chunks of the country - should be mentioned. As for
"I'm not willing to compromise prose quality"
- relevant detail/facts are much more important than prose quality - though it seems possible to address both.Icewhiz (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)- Yes it is possible to address both, I don't know why you are arguing with the about the "largest minority" - I think that language is fine but that excessive detail like the paragraph currently includes is detrimental. Reader's attention span is actually more important - most likely I or another editor will have to draft up an alternate paragraph to resolve this. I think the Kurdish Turkish conflict should be linked, but that the paragraph should also include content about the non-Muslim minorities during Inonu's era (Jews/Christians) and the Varlık Vergisi. I would like to hear from editors about what else they think should be included, I don't think an RfC is the best way to do this since an RfC is supposed to resolve outstanding content disputes on the talk page.Seraphim System (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I remember this was discussed - perhaps I did not comment - but it seems rather obvious that such a large minority - and in particular due to the ongoing Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) in significant chunks of the country - should be mentioned. As for
- I've fully protected the article indefinitely. This is a content dispute that needs to be worked out. The RfC from November is not entirely valid due to the fact that it was prematurely closed by an involved party, so there's no point in repeatedly referencing it as if the issue has been definitively settled. Take this to a noticeboard, hold a proper RfC, hammer out a compromise, whatever, just make sure proper avenues of dispute resolution are followed, and work it out. The edit warring cannot continue. Swarm ♠ 09:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Swarm: Based on past experience, I don't really think productive discussion or RfC is possible unless there is a civility restriction imposed on Khirurg - we've had problems on other RfCs in the past which closed with a warning against personal attacks and I'm not looking forward to a repeat. This is not a DS area, maybe this should go to ANI first and then the discussion can continue? Seraphim System (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Am RfC might help.....but most will probably agree that ethnic disputes should not be in the lead of a country article as is not an article about ethnicity. --Moxy (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- An RfC sounds like the way to go. I don't see why it wouldn't help. Khirurg (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- There's no clear RfC question - we don't have an alternate proposal for the RfC. The paragraph is not only about ethnicities and no one has really been clear about why they are restoring it aside from pointing to the old discussion. The RfC is not supposed to be a substitute for the discussion - then we need to have multiple RfCs and it wastes everyone's time. It would help if editors who have restored this could say what they want to keep and explain why. If that isn't possible DR/N may be more helpful then RfC if they are willing to mediate. Seraphim System (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is very strange. It's not hard to formulate an RfC question. In fact it's very easy. Khirurg (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Not in this case, this isn't a straight removal or disputed inclusion. This is content that most editors agree needs to be reworked to some extent. There is rough agreement to include the content that the Kurds are the "largest minority". There has been very little or no discussion about where to include it or what else to include. This includes the content about Turkish self-identity, the incomplete list of other ethnicities and the content about language. Most of this duplicates what is already in the infobox. Seraphim System (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is very strange. It's not hard to formulate an RfC question. In fact it's very easy. Khirurg (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I also agree. Its just some attempt to make Turkey look bad. putting kurds and arabs and whatnot in the lede is an obvious attempt to blacken Turkey is some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) 13:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC) <--- Blocked sock, see SPI Kavakdere
Circumcision
Should circumcision be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.41.79 (talk) 12:18, August 10, 2018 (UTC)
Why is Turkey the only country in Wikipedia that has events of the past 2 years written on its lede? (Main paragraph)
This is an obvious rule breaking by whoever has made this edit, in no other countries article on the English Wikipedia are the recent events of the past are included. The article is locked as of now, I demand an explanation do this by all or any Wikipedia admin. IF recent changes are to be included in countries from now on I will start editing the leads of all the countries in the World. Moxy who is an admin has also given consensus to this. Revert this mistake of an article which represent an entire country now! How was this left alone this way for such long time? Do non of the admins pay attention what's going on in Wikipedia?
Marjdabi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, August 26, 2018 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 23 September 2018
| | This edit request to Turkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, Rebestalic here
I would like you to change the 'drives on the' element in the opening template to 'driving side'.
Thank you. Rebestalic (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
- Rebestalic, That is controlled through the template {{Infobox country}}, so the issue should be raised at Template_talk:Infobox_country Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Somewhere the article says '...in 1453, the Ottomans completed their conquest of the Byzantine Empire by capturing its capital, Constantinople. This is entirely wrong, because they left out unconquered territories in Trebizond and the Peloponnese which took them some 10 years to integrate them. The Byzantine Empire fell along with Constantinople but was not entirely conquered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.156.63.5 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Historical inaccuracy
Hello everybody.
On this article there is a spot I saw when I first read it. I also attempted something like a week ago to draw attention to it, I do not know what happened with it. In the history section the article reads: "...in 1453, the Ottomans completed their conquest of the Byzantine Empire by capturing its capital, Constantinople", which is not correct. It also does a reference with a footnote, citing Patrick Kinross (1977) and the pages from his book. One cannot easily find where the mistake is but certainly there is one. I do not attempt edits on wikipedia quite often but now I pursue the reason I do it. Anyway. In fact, the Ottomans DID NOT COMPLETE their conquest of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 with the capture of its capital Constantinople, but they did it eight years later with the capture of the last Byzantine stronghold in the Peloponnese, Salmeniko Castle in July 1961. And I would like to make reference to another wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnese, which speaks the historical truth and is obviously and accurately right. Trust me, this fact is established by the international literature on the subject matter. Besides, I have read a lot of history books, including historians of the fall of Constantinople, holding in my folder a degree in history. What I do now by editing, or attempting to edit, could somewhat be deemed out of place, but anyway. I drop the level too low. With regard to the spot I talk about, in my opinion the articulation of the article referring to Kinross is obviously wrong and the article at this point represents just another typical wikipedia inaccuracy.
On any occasion I say bye to you all and by the way,
stay well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.156.63.5 (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2018
| | This edit request to Turkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
hello turkeys are delicious on thanksgiving. what does M and M stand for on the candy? 67.135.156.4 (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Minorities – again
After extensive edit warring about inclusion/non-inclusion of the stuff about minorities and/or moving it, the article was fully protected some weeks ago. One might then perhaps expect that the talk page discussion should continue in order to go forward, but the opposite happened: The talk page went almost completely stale. Strange, but I have noticed the same effect in other articles before. The good thing is that it gives an opportunity for those of us who prefer to back out from edit wars and heated discussions. I will use the comparative quietness to make a proposition.
There have been attempts to move the whole paragraph "Approximately 70–80% of the country's citizens ..." to the "Demographics" section, and there have been attempts to remove it altogether. Both these approaches have been reverted on grounds of a former consensus (probably still valid) that the Kurds should be mentioned in the lede. The discussion in the talk page indicates that this is a very difficult question (too difficult for a RfC, it seems). In my opinion there is a very simple and quite obvious solution:
- Move the whole paragraph to "Demographics".
- Include a short summary in the lede. (That is exactly what the lede is meant to be, a summary of important points from the article.)
The lede summary will of course have to be discussed. A first suggestion: "The official language is Turkish, and most of the country's citizens identify as ethnic Turks. Kurds are the largest minority at about 20% of the population." This could be added to the end of the first paragraph of the lede.
Pinging all participants in the recent discussion above and in the former discussion: Seraphim System, Khirurg, Moxy, EtienneDolet, Icewhiz, Georgepodros, power~enwiki, Calthinus, Dr.K.. --T*U (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Besides "just" being 20% of the population, the Kurdish minority is involved in a decades long war with the state - Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) - which is quite significant. The Kurdish minority should definitely be in the lede, and furthermore we should add a blurb about the ongoing conflict. Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I mean, we have a consensus don't we? Kurdish issues are relevant. I thought we went over this...--Calthinus (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think T*U's suggestion is good for now. We can talk about expanding the lede further later - currently the article has the date as 1984, so that will have to be looked at more. Given the current situation on this article and with the full protection, it's probably a good idea to keep this simple and take it piece by piece. Seraphim System (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I didn't realize this article has been full-protected for a month; I'm going to canvas this on IRC. I have no particular preference on the topic and have no idea what preference the people I canvassed will have. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- This thread has been open for a while, if there are no objections we can put in an edit request for TU-nor's above suggestion. Seraphim System (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I would modify T*U-nor's suggestion as follows: "The official language is Turkish, and 70-80% of the country's citizens identify as ethnic Turks. Kurds are the largest minority at about 20% of the population." I also think the Kurdish-Turkish conflict should be mentioned. Khirurg (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to mention 70-80%, and I don't think the sourcing for it is authoritative enough that it deserves such a prominent placement in the lede. Kurdish Turkish conflict can be discussed separately after the protection is lifted. The article has been full protected for a month and it is urgent that we reach a consensus on the current content before opening discussions about new additions. Seraphim System (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is advocating beyond a short blurb - e.g.
The Kurdish–Turkish conflict, an armed conflict between the Republic of Turkey and various Kurdish insurgent groups, who demand separation from Turkey to create an independent Kurdistan or to have autonomy and greater political and cultural rights for Kurds inside the Republic of Turkey, has been an active conflict since 1978 primarily in the southeast of the country
. If we can agree this is worth a mention, then wording here should be too difficult.Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)- The sourcing for the 70-80% is perfectly authoritative, and it is very easy to find sources. It also follows logically since Kurds are anywhere from 18-25% (easily sourced) and there are also other, smaller minorities. Icewhiz's wording regarding the Kurdish-Turkish conflict is good. Khirurg (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm okay with Icewhiz's wording. Khirurg's modification seems better and more straight to the point. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Icewhiz: No, the article needs to be edited before we can add anything about the conflict. The article says the conflict began in 1984. This would require multiple RfCs and discussions, because the article content needs to be changed before the lede. This discussion should really be in a separate section. Seraphim System (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- There don't seem to be any objections, so I've gone ahead and implemented T*U's suggestion. Seraphim System (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- There are plenty of objections, namely from myself, EtienneDolet and Icewhiz. Khirurg (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Seems we have strong consensus to add the conflict to the lede. And no, multiple RfCs are not required (unless the RfC was poorly crafted to begin with)) - and in this case we have multiple editors supporting and one opposing. You do have a point with consistency between the lede and the body.Icewhiz (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- The only thing that is currently sourced in the article about the conflict is that 40,000 persons were killed during a conflict that began in the 1980s (that figure is for both sides together). Everything else in the edit you proposed is currently completely unsourced in the article - the fact that multiple editors currently support adding entirely unsourced content to the lede of the article without having bothered to expand the article content suggests a serious and perhaps deeper long term problem on the editing style here, but it's not a consensus. The expansion of the article is not likely to be entirely unchallenged, but it would be best to start a new section and clearly cite the sources for the added content. Despite the fact that I was the one who originally proposed adding the conflict to the lede, I can't support this edit unless the article content is expanded and balanced, and all the sources are clearly cited.Seraphim System (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- No, Seraphim System, you did not implement my suggestion. My suggestion included two steps: moving the current text to "Demographics" and make a short version for the lede. Your edit removed relevant and sourced demographic data completely. Also, your claim about no objections was obviously wrong when you made your first edit, even more so when it was reverted. And just for the record, I have no problems supporting Khirurg's more precise wording. --T*U (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you guys. I agree with your well-made points. Dr. K. 09:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Me too, for what it's worth my support is behind [this version] by Icewhiz which seems balanced and informative.--Calthinus (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- @TU-nor: Sorry, I did not realize that, I've fixed it. There haven't been any objections made on this talk page. The only thing here is SYNTH from Khirurg between statistical figures from two different sources, which is abjectly unacceptable, and does not respond to any of the actual objections that were raised about the quality of the sourcing. We don't usually use the CIA World Factbook without attribution. The content also isn't discussed in the article, so it should have never been in the lede at all. The only other discussion here is about adding content that is entirely unrelated to this dispute, and that we can't add until someone actually does the work to expand the content in the article. It directly contradicts the content that is currenly sourced in the article and is completely unsourced. Thus I don't see any actual objections and I am implementing TU-nor's suggestion. If editors object to this it's up to them to explain why clearly and coherently on this talk page in a way that helps move this discussion towards a consensus, otherwise it is just starting to look like stonewalling. I'm implementing TU-Nor's suggstion and I don't think it should be reverted again without a good reason. Seraphim System (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, you have no consensus for this. None at all. Everyone here actually seems to prefer my version. Back to the original version until you get consensus. Khirurg (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Since there is clear and obvious support to remove the information duplicated in the infobox based on both this discussion and the discussion below, I have removed it again. If you add unsourced content to the lede of the article based on a poll I will remove that also. The sources need to be added to the article so editors can verify the content and also review the sources to see if the content is balanced and conforms with our NPOV policy. If POV content is added to the lede balancing content will be needed also, so it would be better in the long run if you slow down and do it correctly. Consensus is not a poll, it is an agreement based on civil discussion and balancing of sources between participants.Seraphim System (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- I hate to remind you again, but my suggestion – which seems to have been accepted by everyone – included two steps: moving the former lede text to "Demographics" and making a shorter version for the lede. The only discussion after that has been about the content of the "short version", and that is now solved. What remains is to move the content of the longer, detailed text to the "Demographics" section. There is some overlap with the text already there, but not too difficult, I guess. --T*U (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Since there is clear and obvious support to remove the information duplicated in the infobox based on both this discussion and the discussion below, I have removed it again. If you add unsourced content to the lede of the article based on a poll I will remove that also. The sources need to be added to the article so editors can verify the content and also review the sources to see if the content is balanced and conforms with our NPOV policy. If POV content is added to the lede balancing content will be needed also, so it would be better in the long run if you slow down and do it correctly. Consensus is not a poll, it is an agreement based on civil discussion and balancing of sources between participants.Seraphim System (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Me too, for what it's worth my support is behind [this version] by Icewhiz which seems balanced and informative.--Calthinus (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you guys. I agree with your well-made points. Dr. K. 09:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- There don't seem to be any objections, so I've gone ahead and implemented T*U's suggestion. Seraphim System (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is advocating beyond a short blurb - e.g.
- I don't think we need to mention 70-80%, and I don't think the sourcing for it is authoritative enough that it deserves such a prominent placement in the lede. Kurdish Turkish conflict can be discussed separately after the protection is lifted. The article has been full protected for a month and it is urgent that we reach a consensus on the current content before opening discussions about new additions. Seraphim System (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I would modify T*U-nor's suggestion as follows: "The official language is Turkish, and 70-80% of the country's citizens identify as ethnic Turks. Kurds are the largest minority at about 20% of the population." I also think the Kurdish-Turkish conflict should be mentioned. Khirurg (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I thought you voted on the proposal below? I implemented that and Khirurg continued reverting it saying there was no consensus.I'm not going to edit war over it but if you want to add the content to the demographics section, I don't mind. Seraphim System (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Proposal for minorities in the lede
Approximately 70-80% of the country's population consists of ethnic Turks. Kurds make up the largest minority at approximately 20%. The Kurdish–Turkish conflict, an armed conflict between the Republic of Turkey and various Kurdish insurgent groups, who demand separation from Turkey to create an independent Kurdistan or to have autonomy and greater political and cultural rights for Kurds inside the Republic of Turkey, has been an active since 1978 1984 primarily in the southeast of the country.
- Support as nom. Covers all main points, seems to satisfy most users. Khirurg (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Per discussion above. Content in body has been updated and sourced to reflect this. Icewhiz (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Minor correction - 1978 should be changed to 1984 if we mention one date. The PKK was founded in 1978, and was involved in various conflicts/violence (some of them parts of wider conflicts) in Turkey in 1978-1984 - which is why our conflict article begins in 1978, however 1984 is the date most often cited as the start of the current Turkish-Kurdish conflict - as in August 1984 the PKK announced, and implemented, a full scale insurgency. Icewhiz (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support per my comments above. --T*U (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support per others. I also suggest we expand on the various human rights abuses Kurds had to endure to give it more context. This can be elaborated in the body and if you guys agree, we can mention it briefly in the lead. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support sufficient for most discussed concerns. But I don't think expanding on specific human rights abuses in the lede is a good idea. It seems like recipe for future issues, and a dangerous precedent to get that in-depth on minority issues on a lede that should summarize all aspects of the country. (I make an exception for the discussion of the three late Ottoman genocides and denial thereof -- these were cataclysmic and pivotal events that are internationally recognized thus sui generis -- if Dersim is to be brought up in relation to these, the reply is that while truly terrible, it lacks both the international recognition and the scale in impact, both demographically and geographically) --Calthinus (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- I will note that this discussion was started during a period when I have been inactive due to real life demands and without pinging past participants. Very poor conduct. I agree with Calthinus, and even as it is the lede has to reflect content that is already in the article. Anything that is not clearly sourced in the body of the article will be promptly removed. The number of support votes here are not an exemption to our sourcing requirements and if this type of disruptive editing continues most likely this will end up at ANI. The POV balance of the lede should not be changed this way without editors doing any work to improve the content in the article or participate meaningfully in source-based consensus discussions.Seraphim System (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Claims of "real life demands" are not my concern. Five users support my proposal. Since you added the first two sentences of my proposal to the lede, I presume you won't mind if I add the third. The body of the article discusses the Kurdish-Turkish conflict btw. Khirurg (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- No one should have supported this proposal without seeing or discussing the sources for it. The content needs to be sourced in the article and you need to ping past participants to discussions (they need not reply). Seraphim System (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- Claims of "real life demands" are not my concern. Five users support my proposal. Since you added the first two sentences of my proposal to the lede, I presume you won't mind if I add the third. The body of the article discusses the Kurdish-Turkish conflict btw. Khirurg (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm more concerned right now that the sources cited in the article do not support the content Khirurg added about Kurds to the lede. The Guardian article says:
The PKK, designated a terrorist group by Turkey, the United States and the European Union, says it is fighting for autonomy and greater rights for Kurds in Turkey
and that is different from representing PKK's stated goal as an objective fact in Wikivoice. In reality, most Kurds do not broadly support violent action against Turkish civilians and have pursued peaceful methods to improve education and their access to state resources (by expanding language access), and unlike PKK, they were actually getting somewhere until the more recent TAK attacks. Most importantly the content added to the article says:has been ongoing since 1984, primarily in the southeast of the country
, while the sources cited directly contradict the content and note the period of ceasefire. Also PKK, if you recall, claimed responsibility for bombing shopping malls and crowded markets in Istanbul, not in the southeast of the country. Which of the cited sources say the armed conflict has beenprimarily in the southeast of the country
. There is also this:various Kurdish insurgent groups (most notably the PKK)
- most notably according to which of the cited sources? As an opinion, it would have to be attributed directly to the expert. I would fix some of this myself but I'm afraid it will only start another edit war.Seraphim System (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- That was added by a sock and has now been removed. Khirurg (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- No it hasn't, all you did was remove the balancing content which has made it worse. It still says
has been an active since 1984 primarily in the southeast of the country.
. I'm removing it, if you want this content in the article you need to clearly cite sources that support the text directly. Seraphim System (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)- I wouldn't do that if I were you. That text is sourced in the body of the article. Khirurg (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- It is not supported by the cited sources, which I think were added by Icewhiz. You should have reviewed the sources before making changes to the article. This is not a well-written or coherent sentence and no one else can fix it because it's not supported by the cited sources.Seraphim System (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't do that if I were you. That text is sourced in the body of the article. Khirurg (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
- No it hasn't, all you did was remove the balancing content which has made it worse. It still says
- That was added by a sock and has now been removed. Khirurg (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
To help matters, I added the sources in the body and expanded the Human Rights section concerning the Kurds. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Inappropriate rollback
Wikaviani I suggest your self-revert your restoration of a significant typo/grammatical error to the lede in this revert [7]. Remember that this is a GA article and this error has been live in the lede for sometime (mostly because I've been too busy to fix it and apparently it isn't bothering anyone else). In general, editors are expected to review the content they are reverting and not just blindly hit the revert button. Seraphim System (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Seraphim System: I will self-revert if you give me a legit reason for that. Who told you that i "just blindly hit the revert button" ? I've checked your edit and it appears that you have tried to remove some significant and sourced parts of the article without giving a legit explanation in your edit summary. Also, i did not use my rollback tool to revert you, therefore, i don't know why you're talking about an "inapropriate rollback". Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Seraphim System: Stop making personal attacks, both here and in your edit summaries. Also stop making false accusations ("inappropriate use of rollback" - no one used rollback), and most importantly stop edit-warring. The changes you made are highly controversial. You removed relevant sourced info. Further disruption will be reported to ANI. You have been warring a lot on this article in recent months, I strongly suggest you stop. Khirurg (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Restoring a previous version of the article without fully reviewing the changes you are making is certainly disruptive when you end up restoring a major grammatical error to the LEDE of a GA article. An active what?
an active since 1984
- that is what has been live in the lede of this GA article for a month. It's not clear why my relatively minor edits arehighly controversial
other then the pattern of harassment and disruptive editing that probably should be reported to ANI (and it certainly will be reported if it continues once I have time for regular editing again.) There is very little to justify here when your reverts restored a major grammatical error to the LEDE of a GA article. If you think the rest of the content is DUE for inclusion you have to explain why on the talk page before reverting. Seraphim System (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)- Your edits were not "minor" - you removed sourced info. That's not "minor". The content has been there for a long time. If you feel it should be removed, make your case here. You cannot just remove it and then edit-war to have your way. As for using a "grammatical error" to remove text from the lede that was agreed upon by a diverse group of editors, that is also a no-no. Grammatical errors can be easily fixed without removing text. Khirurg (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like the "major grammatical error" has been fixed (and quite easily at that). So much for that. Khirurg (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Seraphim System: Please refrain from misrepresenting other users' contributions. Your "major grammatical error" was only 3 print characters while you have tried to remove as much as 1951 print characters of sourced content. If you really think that this is ANI worthy, go ahead and make the report, but i feel like this will end WP:BOOMERANG for yourself. You're an experienced editor and you perfectly know that. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- It is a requirement of GA articles that they be well-written. I am disappointed that neither of you feels that needs to be taken seriously. Seraphim System (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding this edit: [8] it has resolved the major error, but this sentence
The Kurdish–Turkish conflict, an armed conflict between the Republic of Turkey and various Kurdish insurgent groups, who demand separation from Turkey to create an independent Kurdistan or to have autonomy and greater political and cultural rights for Kurds in Turkey, has been active since 1984 primarily in the southeast of the country.
still fails the well-written/concise criteria. Commas are not a way turn two sentences into one long sentence and I recommended two sentences in my edit summary here: [9]. As an editor who has spent countless volunteer hours copy editing and correcting typos and cleaning up new article submissions, for the benefit of the project, I don't really appreciate the nonchalant attitude here about maintaining basic quality standards on a GA article. I am also not satisfied with the quality of sourcing. There is nothing inherently wrong with media sources but it becomes a problem when those "easy quick reads" are cherry picked to support political content that editors want to add, without consulting stronger and more detailed secondary sources to make sure the content is balanced. It's not ok to routinely shift the burden of maintaining article NPOV to other editors, the burden for that really belongs with the editors adding the content. However, continuing that discussion here is not likely to be productive. Another issue is the claim that biased sources (under our WP:RS definition) are being restored with an edit summary claimig they are neutral. The edit summary is false, I didn't remove ECHR at all, only CPJ and it wasn't a blanket removal. It only looks like I removed ECHR because it was a restoration of the previous article state and I broke up the paragraphs to improve readability: [10]. My edit only trimmed some of the undue/excessive detail from that one non-neutral source (comparing Turkey to China etc.) which was completely incompatible with an encyclopedic style of writing. I don't know if ANI is going to be enough to resolve the problems on this article, but we can give it a try if you guys think it' would be helpful.Seraphim System (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)- ECHR and CPJ are not "biased". They furthermore meet all the criteria for WP:RS. If you feel they don't, feel free to post at WP:RSN. The sentence you are objecting to is a bit long-winded, but anyone with a 8th grade reading level or above can understand it just fine. If you want to break it up into two sentences, propose your change here and we will discuss it. But as with the "major grammatical error", that is not a valid excuse for removing the sentence. Khirurg (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Seraphim System: Regarding "major grammatical errors", perhaps you should take a closer look at the result of your own edit here:
The Kurdish–Turkish conflict ... that began in 1984.
--T*U (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)- @TU-nor:Do you mean the error I made that I fixed in the next edit? With the edit summary [11]? Well, sorrryyy. Fortunately, it was live for 4 minutes before I fixed it unlike the monstrosity of a run on sentence that is currently at issue, which has been in the article for over a week. However, your changes here [12] seem to have resolved the more pressing issue. I'm not sure why we needed this highly spirited multi-editor discussion with multiple reverts to get it done but thank you. Seraphim System (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Seraphim System: Regarding "major grammatical errors", perhaps you should take a closer look at the result of your own edit here:
- ECHR and CPJ are not "biased". They furthermore meet all the criteria for WP:RS. If you feel they don't, feel free to post at WP:RSN. The sentence you are objecting to is a bit long-winded, but anyone with a 8th grade reading level or above can understand it just fine. If you want to break it up into two sentences, propose your change here and we will discuss it. But as with the "major grammatical error", that is not a valid excuse for removing the sentence. Khirurg (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding this edit: [8] it has resolved the major error, but this sentence
- It is a requirement of GA articles that they be well-written. I am disappointed that neither of you feels that needs to be taken seriously. Seraphim System (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Seraphim System: Please refrain from misrepresenting other users' contributions. Your "major grammatical error" was only 3 print characters while you have tried to remove as much as 1951 print characters of sourced content. If you really think that this is ANI worthy, go ahead and make the report, but i feel like this will end WP:BOOMERANG for yourself. You're an experienced editor and you perfectly know that. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
- Restoring a previous version of the article without fully reviewing the changes you are making is certainly disruptive when you end up restoring a major grammatical error to the LEDE of a GA article. An active what?
- @Seraphim System: Stop making personal attacks, both here and in your edit summaries. Also stop making false accusations ("inappropriate use of rollback" - no one used rollback), and most importantly stop edit-warring. The changes you made are highly controversial. You removed relevant sourced info. Further disruption will be reported to ANI. You have been warring a lot on this article in recent months, I strongly suggest you stop. Khirurg (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)