Revision as of 21:43, 19 December 2019 editKhirurg (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,686 edits →Including of accusations← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:46, 19 December 2019 edit undoWikaviani (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,572 edits →Including of accusations: CommentTag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit → | ||
Line 167: | Line 167: | ||
:Agree, the guy who called the operation "genocide" is a US politician and yet we say "the offensive has been described as "bordering on genocide"" and without attribution because if it is attributed it would like like "Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn said that the offensive is bordering on genocide" something that would obviously look like POV and UNDUE--] (]) 21:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC) | :Agree, the guy who called the operation "genocide" is a US politician and yet we say "the offensive has been described as "bordering on genocide"" and without attribution because if it is attributed it would like like "Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn said that the offensive is bordering on genocide" something that would obviously look like POV and UNDUE--] (]) 21:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC) | ||
::It's certainly notable to be included. Also, why did you remove the other stuff about white phosphorus and other war crimes? There is an amnesty international report about ? "No consensus" is not an argument, it's ]. ] (]) 21:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC) | ::It's certainly notable to be included. Also, why did you remove the other stuff about white phosphorus and other war crimes? There is an amnesty international report about ? "No consensus" is not an argument, it's ]. ] (]) 21:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC) | ||
:: There is nothing UNDUE here, just some ] behaviors.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:46, 19 December 2019
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turkey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
To-do list for Turkey: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-09-25 Guidelines for editing the Turkey article
|
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
On 12 December 2017, it was proposed that this article be moved to Turkey (country). The result of the discussion was not moved per WP:BOLD. |
Archives |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Establishment section in the infobox
With this edit, Turkistan has added several dates to the "Establishment" list, dates not relating to the Republic of Turkey, but to the Ottoman Empire and even before. This has been discussed several times earlier, but has usually drowned in other discussions, so it has never been brought to a conclusion. See Talk:Turkey/Archive 26 for some of the latest discussions. I am not negative to adding "Ottoman Empire 1299" or similar to the section under certain conditions. However, in order to get sufficient input and a clear consensus, I think it needs to be formalized through a WP:RfC. --T*U (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
In October 2019, Turkey invaded the Kurdish-controlled regions of Syria.
This sentence is the last sentence of the Turkey#Republic of Turkey section. It is dubious because the invasion did not begin in 2019, but in 2016 and in 2018, it was against ISIS (mainly Arab) and SDF (Kurdish and Arab). Though the sentence says Turkey invaded in 2019, skipping the past 3 years. And says Kurdish Controlled regions, which is false and the citation given of it is a failed verification. There ought to be some changes into how this sentence is written. The 2019 operation was not aimed at the Kurds neither since SDF claims it is an Arab and Kurd 50-50 armed group, the area invaded on the other hand is Arab majority. KasimMejia (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Inclusion of Armenian Genocide image
EtienneDolet, Symmachus Auxiliarus. What are your arguments for inclusion of this image per your reverts. It sounds perfectly logical per, Buhedyar that it shouldn't be included since other countries much larger genocides, Germany Holocoast 6 million, is not included. Neither are British genocides, such as Irish Famine 2 million or those in India 100 million or Native Americans millions. Discuss. KasimMejia (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- The standard response can be found at WP:OTHERCONTENT. William Avery (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm gonna go with WP:IGNORE in response to this. There may be a rule about WP:OTHERCONTENT yet there is a rule called WP:NPOV, the rules are cancelling out each other meaning they should be ignored. KasimMejia (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- That’s not how it works. And if you’ve read NPOV, I suggest you re-read it. Most of the policy has to do with neutral editing in the sense that we support what receives substantial coverage and representation in reliable sources, not about watering down the text. It’s to protect articles from an undue POV and fringe viewpoints. My main concern is that this seems like an attempt at censorship. The fact you changed “killed” (as supported by the source) to “died” is what really raised alarm bells. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument anywhere on Misplaced Pages. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no point of that picture. No country page has "look at this sad picture of a person dying" photo. China doesn't, Germany doesn't, UK doesn't, Russia doesn't and why should Turkey have it? If you want to add Armenian genocide part? Go ahead even though I'm not in favor of that either. Considering the person who added the picture and the content is a greek/hellenized anatolian, I don't think he had good intentions concerned only about contributing to the page.Buhedyar (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- First, please stop edit-warring. Secondly, please refrain from making accusations toward other editors based on perceived ethnic allegiances. This warrants discussion, not repeated reverts. For the record, other country articles have pictures related to unsavory parts of their past, such as Nazism and the Holocaust in Germany. Whether another picture is more suitable is certainly a topic for discussion. So far, the arguments made are not supported by any editing policy. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Could you show me where in Germany's article there is a photograph of genocided Jews? The only reason why this photo has been added to this article is to create an emotional response for readers. Also the use of "Turkish State" in the caption is not showing the facts at all. It was orchestrated by Young Turks, an Ottoman government after all. --Gogolplex (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. KasimMejia (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Nice ad hominem there. William Avery (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Contentious image must be removed to be consistent with other countries' articles. Khestwol (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- There's no agreement that articles have to be consistent in that way. And in any case, the answer might be to add content to other articles, rather than removing it from this one, might it not? William Avery (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- If we start to add genocide/deportation pictures to every country's page, i'm especially thinking about Westerners, It will just create bloated talk pages. As I mentioned, the only purpose that the picture serves is to rile people up. And the picture isn't even too credible anyway (even if it is, not related to the discussion). And I don't think we should add every single very very sad very tragic not staged pictures to every country's wiki page, rather, create wiki pages for their atrocities or add the pictures to the existing ones Buhedyar (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Principle of least surprise is a good argument. The pictures on Human are kept pretty low key. William Avery (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- If we start to add genocide/deportation pictures to every country's page, i'm especially thinking about Westerners, It will just create bloated talk pages. As I mentioned, the only purpose that the picture serves is to rile people up. And the picture isn't even too credible anyway (even if it is, not related to the discussion). And I don't think we should add every single very very sad very tragic not staged pictures to every country's wiki page, rather, create wiki pages for their atrocities or add the pictures to the existing ones Buhedyar (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- There's no agreement that articles have to be consistent in that way. And in any case, the answer might be to add content to other articles, rather than removing it from this one, might it not? William Avery (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Contentious image must be removed to be consistent with other countries' articles. Khestwol (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The comparisons with Germany or the UK overlook the fact that Germany has apologized repeatedly for the Holocaust and tried to make amends. The UK also recognizes its actions. In contrast, there is an almost complete genocide denial by official Turkey, making the inclusion all the more relevant. Yes, pointing out atrocities is more relevant when the perpetrators actively try to deny them than when they openly admit and apologize for them. Jeppiz (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- This smacks of "righting great wrongs". Additionally, facts are covered in the text, but the picture is too emotive. William Avery (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with the removal, it looks 100% fake.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- That wasn’t part of the original contention editors expressed over the photograph. As far as I know, it’s part of a series of documentary prints housed in the Library of Congress. I don’t think anyone has ever denied their veracity. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- The arguments (if we can call them that) against inclusion of the pics boil down to: WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and should be ignored. The Armenian Genocide is a major event in Turkish history, and is nowadays very frequently mentioned in the news with regard to Turkey, especially in light of the recent ethnic cleansing campaigns by Turkey in northern Syria (against Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians, and others). Khirurg (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you Khirurg. I think you about summed it up. There’s no valid reason for the removal of a photograph about the Armenian Genocide based in policy, though as I said (and Jeppiz also stated), we could certainly choose a different photograph(s). It clearly needs to be illustrated per coverage in the top-level article. I also agree with Jeppiz that this photograph is likely overly emotive. While I’d prefer some photographic diversity on the project, pictures of one of the forced marches are fairly closer to that objective, as opposed to people mourning over the corpse of a dead child. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think that pictures which depict atrocities and/or the results of those atrocities can be ascribed human psychological reactions. A picture is inherently a mechanical reproduction of a fact. Humans may react emotively to this reproduction, but this is neither here nor there. The depiction of the historical fact is important. The mother crying over the body of a dead child captures the horror of the Armenian Genocide very well. A picture depicting a march tends to neutralise the death toll since I don't think there are dead victims depicted in such a picture. This neutralisation of such a central factor in the Genocide, is not NPOV. If this picture has to be replaced by another, it should be a picture such as Morgenthau's. Dr. K. 03:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- That wasn’t part of the original contention editors expressed over the photograph. As far as I know, it’s part of a series of documentary prints housed in the Library of Congress. I don’t think anyone has ever denied their veracity. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Jeppiz Which genocide did the UK recognize. Furthermore, does the recognition of a genocide make it OK to do so? Say lets kill millions of people and say we are sorry! It should be OK. ? Yet Turkey's disputed genocide, which killed 1.5m people is worse than those which killed 100 of millions because Turkey refuses to deny it? And lets place a picture cause why not? West are the good guys, they apologized for their genocide we should not write a word about their atrocities! The bad easterners should be portrayed worse even though their alleged crimes is 1 in 100th in scale. KasimMejia (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Just a note, User:Buhedyar has been blocked at ANI for persistent disruptive editing. They’ve threatened to sock as well, so keep an eye open. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Fertility map
This has got to be the most absurd definition of WP:SYNTH I have ever encountered. The map is sourced to a single source; there is no SYNTH whatsoever. The "juxtaposition" is merely coincidental because of the short section length. Are we allowed only one map per section with this logic? Khirurg (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Coming here following the discussion at the ANI. I double-checked the map, it is just one source. Now regarding the "juxtaposition" thing, there is no problem, from what I can tell. I have seen hundred articles with sections containing more than one map and this was never a problem before. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 16:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- You do not try to understand. I wonder if you ever checked the source itself. The source does not mention anything about ethnicities, it is your own research. Beshogur (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- If you actually checked, you would see that the caption has been modified and any mention of ethnicity has been removed. Khirurg (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Fine, why did you revert my edits at the beginning where I asked citations for it? Edit warring? Beshogur (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- If you actually checked, you would see that the caption has been modified and any mention of ethnicity has been removed. Khirurg (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Why is the fertility map needed? It is not even mentioned in the text. AIRcorn (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- The majority of these maps have been removed from most country articles. Firstly not sourced or part of prosr and secondly not a major stat....something for demo article's. We had a big chat about this but I forget where but they were removed all over.--Moxy 🍁 22:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Why is the map needed? Because it is informative, and highly so. The purpose of the article is to inform readers after all. I find such maps very useful. Regional variations in fertility are potentially very important and far more informative than just an average for the whole country. And that information is much better conveyed in a map than in text form. In this case, a picture is definitely worth a thousand words. Khirurg (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- The majority of these maps have been removed from most country articles. Firstly not sourced or part of prosr and secondly not a major stat....something for demo article's. We had a big chat about this but I forget where but they were removed all over.--Moxy 🍁 22:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Status of membership of the F-35 JSF program
Regarding:
- "Turkey is one of nine partner states in the F-35 JSF program"
Is that still the case? What about the change in July 2019 ("until its removal from the program in July 2019")?
--Mortense (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Including of accusations
What's the point of putting an unproven accusation to this article? Also why is literally one person's comment "bordering on genocide" so important. Too much POV pushing. user:Symmachus Auxiliarus, can you explain. About what "general consensus for inclusion" are you talking about? Beshogur (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's not "unproven", it's reliably sourced. Anything else besides WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? Khirurg (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Khirurg, Wait for consensus to include. If there is no consensus there is no inclusion. There is a NPOV and UNDUE problem here . It is you who just dont like that fact.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Agree, the guy who called the operation "genocide" is a US politician and yet we say "the offensive has been described as "bordering on genocide"" and without attribution because if it is attributed it would like like "Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn said that the offensive is bordering on genocide" something that would obviously look like POV and UNDUE--SharabSalam (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's certainly notable to be included. Also, why did you remove the other stuff about white phosphorus and other war crimes? There is an amnesty international report about ? "No consensus" is not an argument, it's WP:STONEWALL. Khirurg (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- There is nothing UNDUE here, just some WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT behaviors.---Wikaviani 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Turkey articles
- Top-importance Turkey articles
- All WikiProject Turkey pages
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- C-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- C-Class Western Asia articles
- Top-importance Western Asia articles
- WikiProject Western Asia articles
- C-Class Europe articles
- High-importance Europe articles
- WikiProject Europe articles
- C-Class Assyrian articles
- High-importance Assyrian articles
- WikiProject Assyria articles
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists