Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hidden Tempo (talk | contribs) at 05:47, 29 July 2016 (→Alex Jones confrontation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:BLP noticeboard

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cenk Uygur article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Radio Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. University of Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

A proposal by RaffiKojian

PBS, a strong consensus has formed in favor of RaffiKojian's proposal. Since you're an administrator, how's it best to move forward on this matter? Urartu TH (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I endorse Raffi's proposal. Steeletrap (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

In the following collapse box is the text that I think the two of you are stating has consensus. If I am wrong then please modify as appropriate. I have numbered the paragraphs to make discussion easier

Users Cmeiqnj and CT Cooper are you happy with all of it or none of it? If some paragraphs are acceptable and other not then please list those which are acceptable, those that are not and those that would be with changes. -- PBS (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why that full section was copied. The consensus was on including only a couple of sentences, with no explicit agreement on where these sentences would go: "In 1991 Cenk Uygur wrote an opinion piece in The Daily Pennsylvanian stating that the massacres of Armenian during WWI era Ottoman Empire did not constitute genocide, a view he again expressed in a Salon letter to the editor in 1999. In April 2016, he distanced himself from that opinion, saying he was young at the time, adding that he doesn't know enough to form an opinion."

A couple of modifications were also suggested:

• Change second sentence to "In April 2016, he rescinded the statements made in the earlier letters, adding that he doesn't know enough to comment on the Armenian genocide."
• Add a third sentence describing the Armenian community's reaction to Uygur's comments

Turbot warrior (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought the whole point was that we had more or less made a "consensus" of sorts around a much shortened version? Why is this whole long text back in play? Agree mostly with User:Turbot warrior, except that I don't think that the Armenian community's reaction is really well sourced, and therefore should not be included. It can fairly be surmised they would not be happy IMO. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems likely the original text we were working off of was accidentally copy/pasted rather than the new one. I agree we have a consensus (and a very broad one at that) on the shortened version regarding the genocide, and should now include it. PBS, can we move forward? --RaffiKojian (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I strongly endorse the new text proposal by RaffiKojian. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I oppose all mentions of Armenian genocide.VictoriaGrayson 22:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear PBS, considering the overwhelming consensus that has formed in favor of the proposal by users who have actually argued over its merits, is it time to move forward with RaffiKojian's proposal? Urartu TH (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not sourced correctly, especially for a WP:BLP. It relies on WP:PRIMARY sources, and thus is WP:OR. And there is no legitimate reason to link to this Youtube video.VictoriaGrayson 04:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

This has already been discussed above. WP:PRIMARY states: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Misplaced Pages (without interpretation). The primary sources referencing the proposal text are reputably published. Therefore the proposal is neither in violation of WP:PRIMARY nor WP:OR. WP:BLP has also already been discussed. As to using the subject as a self-published source, WP:BLP states: Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Here we have Cenk writing about himself in a reputable publication. WP:BLP also states: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. Here, we have Cenk Armenian Genocide denial, in his own words, noted in the Daily Pennsylvanian, and on Salon.com. Furthermore, the YouTube is an actual video of him refusing to disavow his former statements during protest against him. These are all reliable sources and must document what these sources say. Finally, WP:BLP also states: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. There is firm agreement as to the truncated text proposal for the Armenian Genocide denial section. The text is concise, conservative and is not meant to malign the living person, but rather bring light to a controversy in their life. Urartu TH (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The 2 new arrivals have obviously not even read the discussion we have had here which has led to a consensus - one of them even proposed going further than I did in the inclusion of this material, while complaining about me wanting to include it, and while seemingly inventing new information about this matter: "After years of trying to ignore internet trolling over the issue"... That information is certainly not in the reference for that sentence. Anyway, both of them obviously think the discussion is still about the old text, not the new proposed text, and neither has read even a couple of comments preceding their arrival, let alone any reasonable portion of the discussion. --RaffiKojian (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus. What I see are several fanatical editors with a particular affiliation with Armenian subjects, low volume editors suddenly intimate with wikipedia policies, IP edits and a lot of things that smell like WP:SOCKs joining in to make this look much more lopsided than it is. As I accused before, with no refute, these people are being led to this otherwise low traffic area by external sites with a bias. There is clear political advocacy use this to assassinate the character of Cenk Uygur. My better instincts for this WP:BLP would be to resist the agenda based WP:ADVOCATES,

There are a few experienced and more neutral editors who are advocating for an inclusion. There are sources, particularly that Uyghur responded. My interest is in trying to advocate for free speech and to maintain WP:NPOV. This is what compromise is about. 5 paragraphs in a 20 paragraph article is not small by any measure. This absolutely does not deserve so much weight. Paragraph 4 and the end of Paragraph 1 after "Convention" are mentions of unrelated individuals (ostensibly for their contrarian positive publicity) and have zero business being mentioned here. The suggestion of their inclusion shows bias on the part of the author who is "acting" neutral.

Here are my suggestions to flow with the existing content. Starting with the first paragraph of "Political views":

You get your mention, tied to all the other views he wrote in the The Daily Pennsylvanian in 1991. The chronology of the article flows. You get to mention the protests which finally led to his denial and you get the statement that disassociates the name of his primary show and youtube network, from the similarly coined group who carried out the Genocide. Your sources are in tact, readers can read more, if they wish. Trackinfo (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have not read much of the discussion, or are on some sort crusade to impugn the nearly 10 users who have so far agreed with the proposal. The text you are criticizing is NOT what was last proposed. RaffiKojian stated as a proposal, the following: For the text regarding the genocide, I think 2 sentences would suffice. Something like, "In 1991 Cenk Uygur wrote an opinion piece in The Daily Pennsylvanian stating that the massacres of Armenian during WWI era Ottoman Empire did not constitute genocide, a view he again expressed in a Salon letter to the editor in 1999. In April 2016, he distanced himself from that opinion, saying he was young at the time, adding that he doesn't know enough to form an opinion". Simple, short, and covers the topic nicely without interpretation or excess. What do you think? I also think the topic of the name of the show should be covered. We have focused on the genocide issue so far. Would you like to share your thoughts on inclusion in general, your thoughts on the usefulness of the sources, where to put it, and perhaps a proposed text if you'd like?

That is what we are working with. Trackinfo, stop your attacks and be more constructive. Urartu TH (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I personally have no axe to grind on this topic, and think, as was discussed above, that it is reasonable to include a short, factual mention of the letters and Uygur's retraction. I do not think that citing armeninan nationalist organisations is appropriate in this context. That is why I liked Rafi's submission, which I thought had received consensus. I repeat it here with my own editorial change for reference. I would oppose the longer, more expanisve suggestions that have been made.

In 1991 Cenk Uygur wrote an opinion piece in The Daily Pennsylvanian stating that the massacres of Armenians during WWI in the Ottoman Empire did not constitute genocide, a view he repeated in a letter to the editor of Salon in 1999. In April 2016, he rescinded the statements made in the earlier letters, adding that he doesn't know enough to comment on the Armenian genocide. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that a month of waiting for anyone to "prove" that including the topic violates WP policies has shown that it is not an issue, and I think that we have a broad consensus that at least a couple of sentences are warranted. PBS, can we move forward? Thanks, --RaffiKojian (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I will support Peregrine's version, with the exception of the introduction. Placed as I did with the other Daily Pennsylvanian content, the introduction is redundant. Trackinfo (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

However RaffiKojian's proposal is formulated, it will be meaningless to a reader unless it's made clear that the topic that the few sentences covers is Cenk's Armenian Genocide Denial. Some sort of introduction or topic heading would be best to do that. Urartu TH (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I oppose RaffiKojian's proposal. It gives WP:UNDUE weight to this very minor aspect to Uyghur's life. As I pointed out, it needlessly fluffs several extraneous parties, Peregrine identified additional fluff. This fluff shows the bias in RaffiKojian's text. I came here as a relatively neutral body trying to protect the integrity of a WP:BLP. I've learned a lot through some research. What I have witnessed is a railroad job led by some obviously biased voices, supported by what looks like a lot of outsiders and socks who have interestes in an agenda rather than the WP:NPOV of wikipedia. On principle, we would tell them all to go away. Going along with other experienced editors who are more familiar with wikipedia policies, I am instead trying to be more level headed. Uyghur has retracted his previous statement, that does point some prominence to the original statement and its retraction. Those are the facts we should report and nothing more until there really is something more. Five paragraphs do not add up to anything except to attract unnecessary attention to other individuals voicing their objection. This article is not about them, it is about Cenk Uygur. Regarding my removal of the introduction, we already have a series of other Daily Pennsylvanian political articles written in 1991 by Uygur, most of which he has since politically reversed himself on, so this belongs with them. No additional fluff introduction necessary. Trackinfo (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Trackinfo, can you please post exactly what you think my proposal is? We need you to clarify that - because it does not sound like you're talking about my proposal at all, and the quickest way to clarify is for you to post what you consider my proposal to be. --RaffiKojian (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Your proposal is 5 paragraphs hidden under "RaffiKojian's proposed words" Trackinfo (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No actually, it's just two sentences, and it's not hidden - you have not even read through the discussion you are commenting on. These are my two sentences: "In 1991 Cenk Uygur wrote an opinion piece in The Daily Pennsylvanian stating that the massacres of Armenian during WWI era Ottoman Empire did not constitute genocide, a view he again expressed in a Salon letter to the editor in 1999. In April 2016, he distanced himself from that opinion, saying he was young at the time, adding that he doesn't know enough to form an opinion." Your own version was much longer, and included some POV issues unless you have some references to back up your assertion that his retraction was due to what he himself termed "internet trolling". --RaffiKojian (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

To add to what I wrote, since Trackinfo already agreed to my correct proposal in the form of Peregrine981's slightly expanded version - and since I agree to that as well, it seems regardless of Trackinfo's mixup on the proposals, we have consensus, PBS. Can we please move forward and put the agreed upon text into the article? It would be good to put this to rest. --RaffiKojian (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for not being more conversant with the Wiki process but I do have some points to make. I am being bold here since no one else seems to have synthesized the core of the encyclopedic issue from inside the political context of this debate (we can do that in talk, right?).

First off, for perspective on this debate, I excerpt text of Uygur's recent retraction in the link below pointing to TYT website:

"Today, I rescind the statements I made in my Daily Pennsylvanian article from 1991...I was a 21 year-old kid...Back then I had many political positions that were not well researched...I also rescind the statements I made in a letter to the editor I wrote in 1999 on the same issue...My mistake at the time was confusing myself for a scholar of history, which I most certainly am not...so I am going to refrain from commenting on the topic of the Armenian Genocide, which I do not know nearly enough about..."

Cenk admits to having twice expressed an uninformed opinion. His formal written retraction is also buttressed by numerous Turks videos where Cenk has informally and sweepingly retracted his prior political opinions (on every topic except fiscal conservatism) from before the turn of the millenium when he still identified as a Republican rather than an independent. Supporting statements by his associates are also entirely consistent. Encyclopedic article should represent the reality and the latest proposed text sounds fine to me, as far as it goes. I would recommend though that any additional videos where Cenk disavows his prior partisan opinions should be linked in the references also. I would add them but I took no note of them at the time I saw them. I reckon that TYT likewise took no note of such video either because to them this is totally a fake issue.

Second, if Cenk's misguided opinion is relevant, then the authoritative source that he relied upon is even more relevant. Otherwise one is left with the impression that Cenk just denied the evidence before his eyes like a raving bigot when in reality he was merely embracing the offical position of one influential side of a divided debate that is now historically settled more than two decades later. Any discussion of the evolution of Cenk's opinion that fails to include the evolution of academic history that he based his opinion on is disingenuous. Likewise, the geopolitics surrounding the failure to recognize the Armenian Genocide on the part of national governments (both then and now) should be mentioned, since Cenk developed his opinion as a youth while swimming in a sea of cynical Turkish, Israeli, and USA denial that likely included members of his own family. Without that context, neutrality cannot be preserved.

Third, consider that I have personally come to this web page looking for an encyclopedic answer on the question of Cenk's views on the Armenian Genocide, and had to plow through reams of bickering on this talk page to find information. All the foaming going on around him is justification enough to add a brief mention and a couple of links because anyone who is researching the man will stumble across this skeleton that a vocal minority is trying to breathe life into and loose upon TYT.

Fourth, consider the 'Young Turks' commonly accepted dictionary definition is of a progressive/liberal movement that defies authority in the pursuit of egalitarian reform, as professed on TYT web site itself. Either that, or Rod Stewart Young_Turks_(song) is also a dog-whistling double entendre genocide denier. If mention of the historical association between the name 'Young Turks' and the genocide undertaken by those who co-opted the political party must be included, it also needs the qualifier that it is just another fake meme spawned by Cenk's opponents.

Machiavellian Spam is certainly worthy of mention, thanks to the persistence of those that keep repeating the fake meme. I say give them the air they so ripely deserve but also include the fully referenced truth so everyone can see how full of garbage they are. That clarity is what I came here for in the first place.CherylJosie (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:CherylJosie brings up a lot of important points of context. However, what you are proposing is basically an essay and an argument. This is not really the role of wikipedia. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you would need to find a reliable secondary source making those arguments and making those connections in order to include them here. Otherwise we are basically conducting original research or synthesis. That doesn't make the argument wrong, but wikipedia is designed to reflect proportionately what the secondary sources are saying. As far as I know, there are no sources making arguments contextualising Cenk's opinions in either his own political development or in the political environment he grew up in with regard to the Armenian genocide. That's why I think we should stick to a very basic, factual formulation as described above. In the big scheme of things this is a very small part of what Cenk has commented on, so I don't think we need to spend much time on it in the article. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• What is the best source for the first sentence in proposals 3 and 4?
• I presume that the source for the second sentence (formatted up using https://tools.wmflabs.org/yadkard/) is:
  • Uygur, Cenk (22 April 2016). "Rescinding The Statements In My Daily Pennsylvanian Article". TYT Network. Retrieved 4 June 2016. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Editors do not need an administrator's to add any of these texts to the article. Providing that there is a local consensus and that consensus is within wider consensus as shown in Wikipeia polices and guidelines. However writing as a disinterested editor it seems to me that given the tone of comments by user:Trackinfo, CherylJosie and specifically by User:VictoriaGrayson "I oppose all mentions of Armenian genocide", the wording of Proposal 3 is the version most likely to be disliked by all, but accepted as a compromise. -- PBS (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The one factor I left out of my synthesis is the personal threat to him and his relatives from Turkey that Uygur faces if he formally acknowledges the Armenian Genocide, since that was not brought up here, but he faces a constant barrage of demands to do exactly that by these fake memers also. I am fine with any of your 2-line proposals, since none of them include any reference to the fake memes circulating on the Internet. Although I prefer to tell the whole story about them I also recognize the value in just burying them in silence, since no one really gives a horsee's rear except those promoting the fake memes anyway and for that reason alone their encyclopedic relevance should be considered approximately zero. I only posted the synthesis to illustrate what those promoting these memes are really up to, and how unnecessary and difficult if not ridiculous it is to counterbalance BS with facts in a living bio without that essay, so after that I hope this nail in the coffin can be the final one. Your 2-line proposals are concise, succinct, factual, encyclopedic, and we can let the memers fight it out amongst themselves. If anyone finds something of value in my suggestions that would be flattering if something was incorporated but it is definitely not holding you back. I say hold a vote on the 2-line winner of NPOV from any of your last 3? versions and consider mine a don't care, or just pick one that sounds grammatically pleasing and polish it for technical detail later if necessary, because when it boils down to the essentials there is really not much to discuss anyway now that the curtains have been drawn back and the great Oz is found to be just another windbag. Go for it.CherylJosie (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Since there are no further objections, I'm going to move forward with reinstating the Armenian Genocide denial section with one of the shortened proposals agreed upon. I believe Peregrine981's proposal clearly states Cenk's denial, retraction and claim at lack of knowledge. Let's separate this from any discussions regarding text about the show's name and it's connection to the Armenian Genocide perpetrator group. Urartu TH (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the beginning of both proposed versions "In 1991 Cenk Uygur wrote an opinion piece in The Daily Pennsylvanian" is unnecessary and redundant to the second sentence of the "Political views" section and does not belong in this section. This should be added in that section. "during WWI in the Ottoman Empire" is better and more specific English construction. " In April 2016, he rescinded the statements made in the earlier letters," is far more accurate than "distanced" but "saying he was young at the time, adding that he doesn't know enough to form an opinion." is more precise language. We also should wikilink the important terms. So:

OK for me with User:Trackinfo's revised version. To be clear, it should not have its own section, and should follow be placed somewhere in the political views section as a logical continuity of the discussion of the other political views that he has changed. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay with me but we should end the second sentence as "on the Armenian Genocide" as Peregrine981 had it. Urartu TH (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Silly me, I should have followed my own philosophy of using a quote. I note he was not as specific in that line, his specific reference to the Armenian Genocide was later when he said he would refrain from talking about the subject. Rewriting my own proposal:

Trackinfo (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The event in question which he denied--the Armenian Genocide--should be noted as such in the text. If we're going to use quotes, the second one is necessary to provide context on his current position. The following would be acceptable to me:

Urartu_TH (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not totally against this, but I don't think we need to quote him so extensively. Can't we just summarize what he said, as originally, by paraphrasing, "adding that he doesn't know enough to comment on the Armenian genocide."? Why do we need to know he doesn't want to repeat his mistakes? In general I think it best style for wikipedia to summarize rather than quote directly unless there's a serious chance of misinterpretation. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. I would prefer to summarize what he said, rather than extensive quoting. I was merely responding to Trackinfo's proposal. The following works for me as well:

Fine with the below, though in a very small point, think we should just say "the genocide" at the end (no wikilink) as it is pretty clear what is being discussed. Even smaller point, but just to be clear, WWI should be called "the First World War" as a matter of style. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Urartu TH (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

There we go. I hope we can use this as the final draft for inclusion. Urartu TH (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

As I expressed earlier and excluded my drafts; "in the Daily Pennsylvanian" is redundant. Place this at the end of that paragraph and group it with other opinions he has reversed himself on from those writings in that era. Trackinfo (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Can't do that. It's imperative to note the source of his original denials. Furthermore, he has not reversed himself here. He has taken some sort of neutral hands-off stance from his earlier Armenian Genocide denial stance. I stand by my latest proposal.Urartu TH (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

"He also wrote an opinion in the Daily Pennsylvanian that the Armenian Genocide during the First World War in the Ottoman Empire did not constitute genocide" did he really? Try this out: "He also wrote an opinion in the Daily Pennsylvanian that the Jello during the First World War in the Ottoman Empire did not constitute Jello". There is something off balance in this wording. CherylJosie (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

How so? Urartu TH (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The text should mention that the opinion piece was in the Daily Pennsylvanian and the year, like I had suggested and which everyone had agreed to. Otherwise it leaves those questions hanging in the air when you just say "he wrote an opinion piece". And it should say he did not consider the massacres a genocide, not that he did not consider the genocide a genocide. My suggestion - or Peregrine981's immediate followup were solid. All this back and forth as the wording gets worse and worse doesn't make any sense to me. --RaffiKojian (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you opposed to Proposal 9? If so, why? Urartu TH (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

That one is fine - it's almost my proposal - but the word "now" doesn't really make sense unless you add "he realizes" before the word "now". Or you could remove the word now and it's fine as well. --RaffiKojian (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Now the text has been added. I still disagree with the way this was done. You have placed this as a stand alone third paragraph drawing unnecessary attention to this. This belongs as the continuation of the first paragraph of the same section which will flow properly to the second paragraph. "Can't do this" is not an adequate explanation for being hard headed. Trackinfo (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No consensus and No secondary sources

@CT Cooper:Please extend the protection. There is no consensus and no secondary sources on the above Armenian genocide stuff.VictoriaGrayson 21:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There is consensus, as per Raffi's revisions; I suggest you pay attention to the discourse going on in the talk page rather than trying to commandeer facts away from the page. 2601:646:203:91C0:C01B:C14A:EFD1:32D6 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There is clear consensus on the text and it will be added when the protection expires. You will NOT be allowed to circumvent the process that we've strictly adhered to in getting to this point. Your concerns have been addressed in the discussion above. Please take a look. Thanks. Urartu TH (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The tests for inclusion I set out earlier was that there be consensus on whether and how the relevant material be included. I've noted that the discussion has recently become more productive and that things seem to be headed towards a compromise. I, however, don't yet see a clear consensus for a specific version of text – the discussion is still ongoing and new proposals are still being made. I'm therefore concerned that unprotection right now will lead to more edit warring over how the content should be presented. I'm therefore extending the protection for one further week to allow the discussion to continue. The situation can be re-assessed after this. CT Cooper · talk 19:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 June 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change political party to Democratic Party, since he registered as a Democrat before the California Democratic primaries 178.197.227.188 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

California primary allows one to register as 'unaffiliated' but if so one can still request a Democratic, Libertarian, or American Independent Party 'unaffiliated' ballot because those primaries are open in CA. I seem to recall that Cenk considers himself independent though I have no source for that other than memory.CherylJosie (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

One sentence likely not true

This unsourced sentence: The Young Turks claims to be the first Internet video news show and states that it is now the largest online news show in the world.

Obviously there are others such as Democracy Now. I am a casual reader of this page and have no opinions on the dispute. Skywriter (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if its the first, but it probably is the largest.VictoriaGrayson 13:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cenk Uygur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theyoungturks.com/info/podcasting

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Alex Jones confrontation

I don't oppose a sentence or two mentioning this, the current version is unacceptable though. It's sourced to Breitbart, the Daily Mail, and the Huffington Post, none of which are WP:RS; it's also WP:UNDUE and controversy sections are discouraged (WP:CSECTION). Any thoughts?LM2000 (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Went ahead and made note of the incident. Since Uygur is usually fairly relaxed during his show, it is meritorious to at least mention a seemingly out-of-character moment in which he comes close to physically attacking a reporter after his show was interrupted. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Cenk's height

Some clown keeps changing it to 5'11. Yeah maybe if he is wearing 5 inch lifts in his shoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canada15102050100 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source that backs what you are sayin? Coltsfan (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

What source is there for him being 5'11? the original source is him 5'7 which was changed for some reason. 174.117.4.183 (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 July 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change pronunciation to . /n/ turns into velar before velar /k, g, c, ɟ/ in Turkish. /ɲ/ is palatal - someone probably confused the two symbols. See Turkish phonology for source: "Before /c, ɟ, k, g/, /n/ is realized as velar .". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.144.127 (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Toggling for now. Do you have a source for this? Re-open here if you have one. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Cenk is not 5'11 lets be real here.

Canada15102050100 (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, and "being real" means providing a reliable source for that. And providing the correct height if you claim this is wrong. If you just want to throw in sentences like this, just do it without edit requests, or better don't do that at all. Besides, who cares about his height? Is it really necessary info in an encyclopedia?

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MediaKill13 (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed the height entirely, it's not something that is generally put into infoboxes where it's not germane to the article. Sir Joseph 15:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Turkey articles
• Low-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Radio articles
• Low-importance Radio articles
• WikiProject Radio articles
• C-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• C-Class University of Pennsylvania articles
• Low-importance University of Pennsylvania articles