Talk:Women in Turkey

Lead could be better

Does it look normal to you to begin the article with a negative lead? I believe the lack of many Turkish Wikipedians causes this kind of awkward situations in WP. (Is WP a place where country articles must be made by users of the concerned country? In the lack of those users or their lack of interest in certain articles, can these articles be written from the point of view of people who -for this, that or another reason- have a lack of sympathy for certain countries? I mean is it free to throw mud on people we don't like?) I am, of course, not saying that the Turkish women have the best situation women has reached anywhere in the world and the Turkish legislation and practice considering gender equality are perfect. However, it looks strange to me that the article on Turkish women (who may become doctors, surgeons, judges for a hundred years now; who have voting rights since the early 20s of the past century, who have been elected deputies from the 30s, who have conquered the posts of Prime Minister, President of the Constitutional Court etc, who are flying military and civilian airplanes from the 30s, who have reached to the rank of Coronel in the Turkish Army almost half a century ago and have many staff officers by now, etc) begin with a negative introduction. Any volunteers to change this anomaly? Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You are pretty much right. I don't think I could change it. but hopefully someone does eventually. I don;t think it should have a negetive lead but a positive one. Negative ones can be more in the middle of this article. RaidenRules! (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Girl power - Help request

I promised a female Wikifriend I would write here a few words to ask help from woman colleagues for this article and I noticed now (I am afraid I'm beginning to catch a Parkinson's cause, I suffer amnesia) that although only in the context of the "lead" I had already asked here help and it was only a few days ago. Therefore I repeat my request of help and support for the whole of the article. This article is far away from representing the Turkish women. Halide Edip was only one "female" speaker of the all-female speakers of the 19 May 1919 Fatih rally to condemn the Greek occupation of Izmir, organised by the Association of Contemporary Women and also of the Üsküdar and Kadıköy rallies in the following days. She was the main speaker of the Sultanahmet rally realised later that year and gathered thousands of men and women in the capital of a Muslim-dominated city under Allied occupation. (Our article on her, although I tried to develop it, with help from a couple of friends, is still far from reflecting her importance as a fighter for gender rights and a political figure, other than an accomplished author. Indeed it has been utilised, like several other Turkey-related articles, to make anti-Turkish propaganda by some. Sorry, "propaganda with sources"...) Anyway, I would like to make a call to all female Wikipedians (and I am not making gender discrimination) to give a hand to this article. We the Turkish WPians will take care of Turkish sources but we need native speakers to have a look at the many sources in English about the Turkish women with a positive -though objective- attitude. To understand me better, please have a look at how this article looked (the pics f.e.) several days before me and Nedim and others began an effort to change it. Thanks in advance. P.D. I am a moustached WPian who is a staunch supporter of gender equality. :-) --E4024 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Turkish women in corporate business

26% of top-executive level. "Well" above EU average. Source. Why did nobody use this in the article? --E4024 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Source on rights struggle (general)

Here. --E4024 (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Official report

Situation of shelters as of 2008. Keep for comparative use with a newer report. --E4024 (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Redacted material of merit

The following material was misplaced in the lead- but seems worth including elsewhere; it is retained here for later inclusion.

There are only 65 women's shelters in the country, many of them underfunded.

Mavigogun (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Clothing section

The link I created is not broken, it was meant to be red because there's no article about that particular piece of headgear (yet). Compare the results you get from googling Turban and Türban (kadın başörtüsü).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, about the 'fiction of omission' of mine, I have missed the part that supports this statement: "resurgent political support since then has seen usage trending upward". Could you provide a direct quote to prove that?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This sentence you just added, 'however, resurgent political support since then has seen usage trending upward.' Is it verified by that BBC page? If not, it's severely misplaced, as adding it just before the source gives that impression. In the case it's not from that article, where did you get it?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

By all means, the statement requires qualification with appropriate reference. I suggest the statement be citation tagged and remain for a period- perhaps a month. Really, this dialogue would best be had on that document's talk page. The existing references do not speak to the statement and should not be associated with it.Mavigogun (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

'demonstrably false: women are most definitely seen on the streets in those places.' The source says otherwise, and I hope you won't be offended if I'll trust that over your personal experience.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

1)I can't find in the reference that "in central and eastern Turkey, women are rarely seen on the streets"; 2)we could spend a good deal of time demonstrating that with references that this isn't accurate, but it would behove us to simply use discretion. Purely for your satisfaction, I recommend a survey of current news from the regions in question.Mavigogun (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Second (third?) paragraph: "The women in Istanbul were seventy percent bareheaded and thirty percent covered in 2005. In the central and eastern parts of Turkey, women are rarely seen on the streets and wear head scarves in public."--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What page is that? Neither through automated search nor reading can I find it. (Frankly, I can only imagine it is an editing error- as the statement is as ridiculous as "women in New York rarely wear socks".)Mavigogun (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Page 109. Though you can find it by just googling my quote. Have you ever visited eastern Turkey? It doesn't seem the least absurd to me.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Visited? I've lived and travelled in Turkey since 2007. The idea that women on the streets of Kayseri, Van, or Trabzon is rare is just ignorant- not said as a pejorative, only to the complete disconnect with reality being asserted. From shopping to shepherding to socializing, their presence is not "rare". How do you qualify the statement?Mavigogun (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I assume you found the quote. Anyway, I got the impression from the fact that in some parts of Antep men are easily a good 70% of the people you see in the streets, and that's not even a particularly conservative city. And from the stories of a (Turkish) friend who has been in Agri for a while, it seems completely believable that it would rise to 90% in those places. Anyway, you can take out the 'rarely seen' part from the section if you insist, as it's not about clothing anyway. But if you want to add back that phrase about the rising use of headscarves, you really should find a source for it.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not only did I not find the quote, page 109 of the document linked from this article is, aside from the page number, blank! Turns out, I've been examining the article that is the bases for the vast majority of this section- not that used to reference this single line. My mistake. To paraphrase 'I trust you won't be offended if I value my personal experience over your supposition based on the stories of a friend'; though it would be amusing to hear the calculus used to reach the 90% figure, believability is entirely dependent on what one knows, thinks they know, or do not know. Simply put, belief bridges gaps in knowledge- and because we can't depend on editors to discriminate between belief and knowledge, we've contrived rules of reference. When we demand those references is again a mater of discrimination; while I'll endeavour to find appropriate supporting references for the assertion that trends in head covering have changed since the survey was completed (does anyone really think that the changes in the covering prohibition have had no effect?), that natively perceived trend is such that it has been repeatedly remarked on by life time residents. Of course, until demonstrated, any distant scholar is right to contest the observation of upward trend as nothing more than an unsubstantiated belief.Mavigogun (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here you can find definitive proof that page 109 is most definitely not blank. As you can see from this example, some things can be demonstrated, others can't. Your stories might be worth as much as my friend's, but the references are on my side, both for this assertion and for the survey that states that the usage of headscarves has been decreasing, which is more readily verifiable than the remarks of life time residents. So until you can find a supporting reference for your claim, let's leave suppositions out of this article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, show us your references for the claim that the trend for the last few years is down and not up; anything produced this decade would be a start. The Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation survey was a quality source- the anecdotes referenced and subjective qualification of "rare" in "Lifting the Veil" was not. Who is it that you think does domestic shopping in central and eastern Turkey? the men of the household? If not, how do women go about that business, if not via streets? You've snatched one overreaching statement out of an essay written by visitors- a statement that makes no sense on the face of it, nor is supported by examination of contemporary news that YOU could verify from the comfort of where you sit. Planting a flag in that statement and digging in is not improving the quality of this article- and that's why we're all here, isn't it? improving the article? Mavigogun (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I have expanded the article and provided several sources, while you provided exactly none, carried out lots of 'fixes' that turned out to be utterly wrong, 'improved diction' by using words you clearly don't understand and took about 2 hours to find a quote that was exactly where I told you it was. Did you find any sources for any of your claims? If not, I think it's time for our unfruitful conversation to come to an end.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a collaborative effort- for that to work, a presumption of good will is required- a presumption that is predicated on not being a dick. Ik, your last missive features a very high level of dickishness.Mavigogun (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

First paragraph

It mentions no good description nor anything as headline really, so i have tried to add more sourced content to it. On this edit[1], i would like to know from Mavigogun that why you removed it? OccultZone (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your contribution:

The women in Turkey continues to have been victim of rape, honour killings, further more scholars and government agencies claim significant domestic violence in Turkish population due to dowry disputes.

The diction problems would be easy enough to address- and the material is topical -but struck me as better worked into the body of the article; in the lead (which very much needs reworking) it seemed disproportionate.Mavigogun (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Then let me know, what would be your idea about adding it to the leading paragraph. Because there's need of a headline for highlighting the rest of the article. OccultZone (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of female militants in PKK

A good source on the use and abuse of Kurdish women and girls (children) by the PKK. --141.196.219.236 (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The source is not impartial enough to sustain such a claim. Mehmetaergun (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Who are you to decide, PPK's propaganda chief? --141.196.219.236 (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Neutralized section

Details added about surveys.
More details added about perpetrators so reader could understand that survey is related to perpetrators.
Neutralized some statements related to victims. No need to mention cases with details, the main points are enough.

"It added that metropolitan cities were the location of many of these, due to growing Kurdish immigration to these cities from the East."
Source didn't mention anything like this. This statement was clearly WP:FAKE.

Honor killing section has serious problems.

In 2010 a 16-year-old Kurdish girl was buried alive by relatives for befriending boys in Southeast Turkey; her corpse was found 40 days after she went missing.

Victims ethnicity not mentioned in the article. Clearly WP:ORIGINAL

It added that metropolitan cities were the location of many of these, due to growing immigration to cities from Eastern Turkey.

The first article doesn't say that, neither the second nor the third article. WP:ORIGINAL and WP:FAKE.

The mass migration during the past decades of rural population from Southeastern Turkey to big cities in Western Turkey has resulted in cities such as Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, and Bursa having the highest numbers of reported honor killings.

The source is just an essay, not a reliable source, check WP:RELIABLE and it is written using very biased point of view. Also, it doesn't even say what was written to the article, clearly WP:ORIGINAL and WP:FAKE.

As in Iraq, honor killings in Turkey are often attributed to the Kurdish population

WP:ORIGINAL, WP:FAKE. The source doesn't say that it is attributed to the Kurdish population.

Of course the source says so: There are a number of parallels between the occurrence of these crimes in Iraq and in Turkey. The fact that these crimes are often attributed to the Kurdish minority in both of these countries has created a sense of solidarity between some Iraqi and Turkish Kurdish women and

has prompted joint discussions of this problem. 295 The idea that honor crimes are so ingrained in culture and tradition that the problem is insurmountable is also prevalent in both societies. As one Iraqi put it:

The article also contains a lot of cherry picking statements. It is written with a negative point of view, WP:NEUTRAL. I tried to to improve the article but the user from random IP reversed all my changes, added WP:FAKE, WP:ORIGINAL and WP:ORIGINAL statements back without using the talk page. Thus, I am going to add appropriate tags until it has been solved. Ferakp (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Ferakp, you are making unfounded claims. The first statement on the the ethnicity of the girl (as if that really makes a difference here) is supported by this source, already cited in the article ("the honour killing of a 16-year-old Kurdish girl"). For the second statement, whilst there is a clear implication of this in the source ("The crimes were mostly perpetrated by people with origins in eastern Turkey"), I will not argue with you about this and have modified the statement to prevent any critique. On the third, thank you very much for pointing out to a plethora of policies, but this is an article published in The Independent, a thoroughly reliable source, and if that is not enough, it is an investigative piece written by Ramita Navai, a leading journalist specialising on such issues who filmed a documentary about honour killings in Turkey and wrote this article as an introduction to that. Few newspaper articles actually get this reliable. On the fourth, again, have you read the source? It clearly states on page 853: "There are a number of parallels between the occurrence of these crimes in Iraq and in Turkey. The fact that these crimes are often attributed to the Kurdish minority in both of these countries has created a sense of solidarity between some Iraqi and Turkish Kurdish women and has prompted joint discussions of this problem". And the rest of your claims I shall not even consider without substantial evidence. I am thus removing the tags, please do not persist on specifically attacking this well-sourced and well-written section in a long article with less well-supported, even unsourced parts. --GGT (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC

I don't make unfounded claim. Your source this source is related to the case, where 5 people were sentenced to life imprisonment, the second 16-year-old girl. I mentioned the first 16-year-old girl and it using only a one source and it's this [2], it doesn't mention her ethnicity. It not so important, but what I've heard that any kind of falsified information is not welcome to Wikipedia.

The second statement is now right, thank you for edit.

The third statement use this source [3]. It is an essay, not a reliable source. You need a reliable source to confirm such statement. Also, you tried to explain with the Guardian article, but it also doesn't that. If you are trying to use the Guardian article to explain that statement, it won't work, it will be WP:ORIGINAL. So, you have used unreliable source, which is not allowed and tried to explain with the Guardian article, which doesn't say that. Thus, we have two issues, WP:ORIGINAL and WP:RELIABILITY.

On fourth statement, it says that There are a number of parallels between the occurrence of these crimes in Iraq and in Turkey.. Take into account that it says "these crimes" and then it says "The fact that these crimes..". What does the source means with "these" word? Specific crimes, honor killings or other crimes? This is a problem, because the source doesn't say that honor killings are attributed to the Kurdish population in Iraq and Turkey. It have to say it directly, otherwise, it is WP:ORIGINAL, as it is now.

So, we still have sources in the section which are not reliable (an essay), WP:ORIGINAL (The Guardian article) and WP:FAKE (16-year-old girl), where her ethnicity is not mentioned and where you tried to use another source to explain it. Adding tags back and moving to the bottom. Please, do not touch it before consensus is reached and problems are solved.Ferakp (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The claim regarding the ethnicity of the girl was removed. The sentences about the comparison with Iraq were removed by an anonymous user. As the section is otherwise fine, a local tag (unreliable source?) was added next to the sentence cited to the essay to facilitate the debate. It is not acceptable to make a rather expansive section that is perfectly supported apart from a sentence seem "factually inaccurate" or "unreliable sourced" altogether, so the tags were removed. --GGT (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Honor killings and population

IP try to reverse WP:ORIGINAL and WP:FAKE statements. I am copying my old answer:
On fourth statement, it says that There are a number of parallels between the occurrence of these crimes in Iraq and in Turkey.. Take into account that it says "these crimes" and then it says "The fact that these crimes..". What does the source means with "these" word? Specific crimes, honor killings or other crimes? This is a problem, because the source doesn't say that honor killings are attributed to the Kurdish population in Iraq and Turkey. It have to say it directly, otherwise, it is WP:ORIGINAL.Ferakp (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. The source "THEY KILLED HER FOR GOING OUT WITH BOYS: HONOR KILLINGS IN TURKEY IN LIGHT OF TURKEY’S ACCESSION TO THE EUROPEAN UNION AND LESSONS FOR IRAQ" says:

"If an honor crime case arises later on, the results serve as evidence for the defense if the woman is found not to be a virgin. 293 Police and judges continue to be widely sympathetic to the perpetrators of honor crimes. There are a number of parallels between the occurrence of these crimes in Iraq and in Turkey. The fact that these crimes are often attributed to the Kurdish minority in both of these countries has created a sense of solidarity between some Iraqi and Turkish Kurdish women and has prompted joint discussions of this problem. 295 The idea that honor crimes are so ingrained in culture and tradition that the problem is insurmountable is also prevalent in both societies. As one Iraqi put it: “‘The idea of honor is in our cultural backyard. Ethnically and culturally, we believe it.’” Cultural, ethnic and religious ties, when combined with the practice of honor killings in both societies, breed potential commonalities in targeting this problem. Shared American and European goals of creating a model Arab state in Iraq and Turkey, respectively, should facilitate mutual support and encouragement of these projects. Thus, the United States does have something to gain by supporting the movement to combat honor killings in Turkey: It can learn lessons that may prove useful to its own democracy project in Iraq, a project in which the United States has invested an incredible amount of time, money, manpower and American lives.

So it is very clear that honor killings are meant, which are the sole topic of this paper.< — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.127.213.187 (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• I second the anonymous user's statement that it is obvious that honour killings, also referred to as "honour crimes" are meant in this instance. I have never argued against this point and was basically too exhausted to argue on what I consider to be not such a crucial sentence. As he/she says, these are the sole topic of this paper and are explicitly referred to just before the statement. To claim that the statement in ambiguous because honour killings are not explicitly referred to, in the light of the evidence provided, runs counter to basic linguistic logic and is in the realm of Wikilawyering. I suggest that any further issues are addressed through a WP:RfC. --GGT (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

  Let me repeat again, the article doesn't say that "As in Iraq, honor killings in Turkey are often attributed to the Kurdish population". Saying that honor killings are often attributed to the Kurdish population is a serious and extraordinary claim. For such claim you really need a strong and reliable source. As WP:RELIABLE says: Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim.. You have four problems here:
  

  1. The source is absolutely not enough strong and reliable for your claim. It is a note and published by Hofstra Law Review. It is not a study or an article and the writer is not an expert or researcher in the topic. Notes are usually written by law students and they aren't something which you could use as strong sources. Here you can read more about Notes and law reviews: [4]
  

  2. The source doesn't say that honor crimes are attributed to the Kurdish population. You must understand that this is a serious claim and I doubt that there is any expert or researcher who could claim such thing in his/her study. You need a source, which is strong and directly&clearly that honor crimes are attributed to the Kurdish population. What you are doing here clearly violates WP:ORIGINAL.
  

  3. Your edit violates WP:SYNTHNOT
  

  4. I have mentioned this so many times and told you if you want to add it, please find source which could clearly say that they are attributed to the Kurdish population, but you still keep reverting and involving in POV pushing and edit war.
  

  I will revert it and hope you use the talk page. I encourage you to use the talk page until consensus is reached or a strong and reliable source added to confirm the claim. Ferakp (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. It is not an extraordinary claim, many honor killings happen in Kurdistan, see the article. The attribution is also quite common, see for example: M. Faraç, Töre Kıskacında Kadın [Woman in the Trap of Customs] (Istanbul: Ça� gdaş, 1998). , or E. Özkök, ‘Asıl Kürt Sorunu Bu’ [This is the Real Kurdish Question], Hürriyet, 14 June 2006. This additional source has also been added as reference.

  2. The journal is ranked 68 out of more than 1,000 law journals in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by

  176.127.213.187 (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

  Many rapes happen in Western Turkey, should I write to all Wikipedia articles which are related to the rapes that rapes are often attributed to Turkish population? No, of course not. About your Hurriyet source, it's not a reliable source, it looks like a poem or something published bycolumnist. As I said, you need a reliable and strong source, which exactly says that they are attributed to Kurdish population. Thank you.Ferakp (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

General note

As a general rule of thumb, this article should not evolve into a list of remarks made by Erdoğan, or fanatics, or a list of individual cases of crimes committed against women. See this edit summary of mine. The section on "Violence for choice of clothing" typifies my concerns. Some of the cases listed there should indeed be discussed, but the sort of listing employed there is simply too sensationalist and fails to give a meaningful overview of the situation. To begin with, the problem with regards to "choice of clothing" is much wider than "violence", which is an extreme manifestation of the wider problems that consist of harassment and the phenomenon that sociologist Şerif Mardin called "community pressure" (a form of peer pressure instituted by the conservative community). I know that ideally I should be fixing this myself but as one may appreciate, this is a complex task that requires a bit of literature review, and for the time being, I think it is best to just drop a note. @Gre regiment: I appreciate your recent efforts on this article and realise that some of your additions are of very high quality, but just wanted to note this. --GGT (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks GGT, for your note. :) I agree that the section "choice of clothing" should be a wider section and not a sub section in the "violence" paragraph. For Erdogan, I thought it would be a good idea to add it since it shows the different opinion between the religious part inside the Turkish society about the woman's role. And that even Erdogan (which is very religious) think that some parts of the religious rules are outdated. But it's ok to delete it since it is not a major subject in this article. Gre regiment (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Refs

• https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/202526

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Ref

• https://www.turkishminute.com/2022/03/09/iled-journalist-sedef-kabas-says-women-often-subjected-to-violence-in-turkey/

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no Kurdish Turkistan

The map outlined as Turkish Kurdistan is 🇹🇷 TURKEY!!! ONLY TURKEY !We do not have a country within our country - check your facts and the HISTORY! This is very insulting and NOT TRUE! It may be on a wish list BUT DID NOT HAPPEN !!!!! 104.6.244.79 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)