Wikipedia

Talk:Recep Tayyip Erdoğan/Archive 4

< Talk:Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
Latest comment: 3 years ago by WikiTyrcaen in topic Origin?
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Main photo

Latest comment: 8 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion

2 questions:
1) Why such a bad photo? (face emotion)
2) Why not can edit page? (to change photo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl dili (talk • contribs) 00:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gl dili: Please read WP:IUP. If you have a better image that can be used, please upload it and link to it here; if other editors agree with you that it's better it will be used. “WarKosign” 13:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank. I think it should be located on the background of the government symbols or government symbol shall be clearly visible, facial emotions be not negative. For example Barack Obama or Putin. I offer 2 photo or 3: https://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Tayyip_Erdo%C4%9Fan.JPG or https://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/0/08/President_Erdogan_%28cropped%29.jpg and if somebody will upload this image I will be very grateful https://www.tccb.gov.tr/assets/resim/genel/receptayyiperdogan-bio.jpg Gl dili (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Did anyone answer? Gl dili (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Any problems? Why did not anyone help? Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or not? Why can not I edit an article and not anyone help? Gl dili (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not change the photo of Erdogan

2 reasons
1. Emotion Erdogan's face (on the previous photo, it https://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/5/54/RecepTayyipErdo%C4%9Fan_%28cropped%29.jpg) are not confidential, you agree? I'll explain: Erdogan too tense face is visible to the naked eye
2. On the previous photo Turkey badge on a suit is not color flag of Turkey, it is much darker, respectively Erdogan on this photo is not the symbol of the goverment because the color does not match, it is very important, as there are flags country which consist only of color Gl dili (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Selecting a lead image

 
A (4 February 2016)
 
B (14 May 2010)
 
C (June 2015)

Which do you prefer?

Photo A is not Turkey symbol, icon much darker colors of national flag of Turkey, burgundy instead of red. Now, regarding the term of the photo, I propose to download a more modern image, the discussion here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Recep_Tayyip_Erdogan.jpg but no one is responsible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl dili (talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Turkey symbol? The main element that we care about in the image is Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. That is what matters. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
You know. I'm amazed at what wikipedia still weak. Rather than load a new, normal, fresh image, you are ready to write mile texts to prove that photography A with a frowning face of Erdogan - normal. But we all understand perfectly well that it is not so! He even another country icon, repeat: icon in the photo A is not flag of Turkey! Flag of Turkey other color. On photo B flag of Turkey, red color! Compare https://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Flag_of_Turkey.svg/250px-Flag_of_Turkey.svg.png. Color is very very important. For example: it Luxembourg https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Flag_of_Luxembourg and that Netherlands https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Flag_of_the_Netherlands. If no hue these flags can not be distinguished! Gl dili (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
These are all the images we have. If you want to find another one, you have to make sure the copyright status is acceptable. And are you talking about that tiny pin he has on his jacket? Is that what this is about? If so, I really don't think it matters. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
How about C? Nice haircut. No frown. Handsome and stately. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
And the frown is not so bad in A. To me, A says "Maybe I should have the shrimp salad." while B says "That was a pretty good lunch." and C says "I should not have had the shimp salad." But these expressions are slight. I still think recent is better and all three look good. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Let's not rush things, there is a photo I uploaded D but her why it was removed. We are still discussing this, but your editors can not say no one intelligible argument. Read for yourself: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Recep_Tayyip_Erdogan.jpg your editors say wrong! I think you do it on purpose. Do you have some sort of responsibility lie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl dili (talk • contribs) 21:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Gl dili. The link for the undeletion request over at Commons is now this. Please understand that Commons is a different place from Wikipedia. The people there know very well what is allowed or not. That is their job. They are not lying or doing anything wrong. Please assume good faith. Anyhow, the C image is now in place and I like it the best. Apparently Nick.mon does too. It is a good choice. How about this: Let's leave C in place until or unless you get a better one uploaded. Of the choices we have now, C is good. You don't like the frowning one, and the other choice discussed here is very old. There are no better ones at Commmons from what I can see. I hope this is all okay. Best wishes and please do not be upset. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


Well, finally, and the year has not passed! However, you have removed the discussion download images D, why? And the second! What's in the Arabic Wikipedia page on Erdogan made Putin and Medvedev? Yes, and in such poses as if he was their errand? Remove Putin or Medvedev! One president of a country is enough, add the president of another country. And I will upload photos D again be discussed in the near futureGl dili (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry Gl dili, I really do not understand what you are asking. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I have duplicates in the Russian language, too. I'm going to download the official photo Erdogan again, you have removed the discussion without giving more than one argument. Your editors lie, there is no such law in which you can not download photos from the official Turkish goverment websites. They are licensed CC Share Alike.

Rus: Я собираюсь загрузить официальную фотографию Эрдогана снова, вы удалили обсуждение не приведя не одного аргумента. Ваши редакторы врут, не существует такого закона при котором нельзя загружать фотографии с официальных турецких сайтов. Они имеют лицензию CC Share Alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl dili (talk • contribs) 16:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I uploaded the photo again. I look forward to the discussion. BUT PLEASE, ATTENTION! DO NOT REMOVE THE DISCUSSION BEFORE I ANSWER!!!

thumb|Photo Erdogan from official sourse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl dili (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. Talk undelete is not removed, go to the archive. I returned to the previous photo. As agreed Gl dili (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

2003-2016 Press Freedom

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is recorded in several indices that during the reign of Prime Minister and President Erdogan, from 2003 until 2016, the freedom of press has diminished severely in Turkey. Please review the wikipedia article regarding the Press Freedom Index, Turkey has slided away from place 99 in the world to the 151th place of 180 countries recorded, situated right now in between Congo and Tajikistan. Question to the contributors: should this be mentioned in the article (section 5.6)? Another reference regarding press freedom in Turkey is available from [freedom house] NGO. There are more reports of official organisations (UN, OESO) and others that signaled the same decline in this period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.148.4.171 (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Issues with the article

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Even with a very cursory glance, I can identify a number of issues with this article, many aspects being potentially not compliant with WP:BLP:

  • Firstly, the article goes into too much detail with some aspects (four sentences on a now-obscure exchange between Kılıçdaroğlu and Erdoğan in 2014, a statement by Laçiner, Mehmet Aksoy lawsuit and even the Armenian Genocide - whilst it should certainly be mentioned in the article, it is given more weight than the Kurdish issue or education or infrastructure or health care or justice, which is just absurd) whilst not being sufficiently up-to-date or going into the necessary detail with others (especially the 2016 purges and press crackdown, conflict with Gülenists since 2013 that immediately attracted my attention).
  • I was disturbed by how the narrative in the lead was integrated in a framework of criticism, which was at points speculative (talking about Erdoğan allegedly staging the coup in the lead is a major BLP issue IMHO), rather than appropriately integrating criticism into the narrative. I have tried to ameliorate it, but it still persists.
  • The sourcing seems to be poor. The references in the electoral fraud section, for example, are individual news articles, some from obscure websites. It is obvious that for us to be able to give due weight to issues over 14 years and identify important episodes to mention in the article, individual news articles about a specific event are not great sources. What we need, which will greatly increase the reliability and also erase doubts about BLP compliance, is academic literature on the subject, of which, as far as I am aware, there is a considerable volume out there.
  • Overall, I think it is clear that this article needs to be divided into articles and summarised with a long-term perspective, perhaps with a structure revamp (maybe along the lines of the article for Vladimir Putin). --GGT (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The link https://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Recep_Tayyip_Erdogan%2C_Turkish_pronunciation.ogg opens a new window showing a media player. No sound happens. It thinks that it's playing-- it shows a Pause button instead of a Play button. I opened in three different browsers and the link does nothing. I used a media downloader add-on and the file downloaded does not play, I tried three different media players. What's worse, the text-based pronunciation key is vague on how to pronounce Tayyip Erdogan's name. Phonetically it would sound out similar to "tie up cardigan" but the key's description of the Turkish pronunciation is vague and it does not actually sound out the sound for you to hear. The key is as useful as trying to describe a sound to a deaf person-- it is nonsensical. So if the link to the pronunciation audio file could be fixed it would be very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.45.146.101 (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Coup d'Etat

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The claim that it was a 'false flag' by the government should be removed because it does not conforms to neutrality rules, and represents bias. If not, the statements of government officials should be included to offer a balanced overview. --Reollun (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree. SaintAviator lets talk 02:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree as well, furthermore it currently sourced from a tabloid article. The lead already contains more than enough criticism to warrant delving into conspiracy theories. --Varavour (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Again, I think that this section: ...which among other factors raised the suspicion of a false flag event staged by the government itself. should be removed. The claim resembles a conspiracy theory and is pure conjecture. It doesn't have place on Wikipedia. Otherwise, we would be including all sorts of conspiracy theories in biographical articles of such importance.--Reollun (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it could instead be mentioned after Gulen is named quoting him from the guardian "There is a possibility that it could be a staged coup and it could be meant for further accusations"[1], if not then surely Suleyman Soylu's accusation against the US should also be removed for the same reasoning? Lalichii (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a better solution from what we have now.

--Reollun (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Erdoğan, not Erdogan

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On a separate note, can all the editors please exercise care, especially if they are editing the lead section, to standardise the spelling? --GGT (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I have standardised that throughout the article :) AlphaBetaGammaDeltaEpsilonZeta 05:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Nazi assault against Netherland and Germany

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Erdo recently called (after Germany) now also Netherlands to by Nazis because they would not let in their AKP politicians. Regarding this, it is not allowew in turkish law, to make propaganda in other counteries, and it is not even allowed to start common election arguments earlier than 10 days before election in turkish law. Erdo is violating turkish law. Also the EU court decided, that countries are not in charge to allow foreign politians to operate as politians in their country. Only private activity is allowed. Erdo claims rights, he must not and cannot get and though complaints. This appears to be strategy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.178.119.70 (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't know anything about Turkish law, this topic is not relevant to Turkish law. He called them Nazis because they didn't let in Turkish ministers, if you want to know other parties in Turkey think same. President Erdoğan is not member of AKP. Lots of EU countries let other political parties to do their propaganda and even terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.111.124 (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You should inform yourself about turkish law: The turkish election law from 2008 Article 94/A together with Article 10 disallows to make propaganda in other countries and in diplomatic missions. Schily (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Faked diploma

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
  • The diploma is from 1981, but the university has been founded in 1982
  • The Dekan that claimed to sign the diploma was not a dekan before 1982
  • The font used to print the document was not available in 1981.
  • in 1981, Erdogan was a full time employee of the public transportation in istanbul.

See: http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/studium/recep-tayyip-erdogan-hat-er-sein-diplom-gefaelscht-a-1098259.html In other words, there is much more than doubt Schily (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Western lies as always :D Marmara University was founded in 1883, what a huge lie. Nobody has dignity in Europe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.111.128 (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

User talk:212.253.111.128 the dictator worshipper has obviously no dignity since he's defending a fraud

Marmara University has roots that go back to 1883, but it was only formally established in 1982 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.141.71.242 (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The name marmara university did not exist before 1982, how can a dimploma using the name marmara university exist that claims to be printed and signed before 1982? Schily (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

http://dosya.marmara.edu.tr/www/duyuru/2016/HAZ%C4%B0RAN16/KAMUOYUNA_DUYURU-SN._CUMHURBA_KANIMIZIN_D_PLOMASI_HK..pdf https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=tr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=tr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdosya.marmara.edu.tr%2Fwww%2Fduyuru%2F2016%2FHAZ%25C4%25B0RAN16%2FKAMUOYUNA_DUYURU-SN._CUMHURBA_KANIMIZIN_D_PLOMASI_HK..pdf&edit-text= "Our President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan accused unfairly with baseless claims." He clearly took his diploma after its name changed to Marmara University, he use Temporary Certificate of Graduation before 01.11.1991. I didn't vote him once but, your hatred made me love my president like so much other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.111.124 (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter whether there was a "marama university" before. The institute that is claimed to sign the "Diploma" was not part of that university in 1981. So the institute could not grant a diploma at that time. Schily (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Remove "his excellency" title Choldax (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  Question: Can you specify why? DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
If you like to confirm that Erdogan suffers from inferiority complexes, keep the title ;-) Schily (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Political Party

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Political Party part "Justice and Development Party (2001–present)" statement should be changed to "Justice and Development Party (2001–2014)".

According to Turkish Constitution " Madde 101 4ncü paragraf: Cumhurbaşkanı seçilenin, varsa partisi ile ilişiği kesilir ve Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi üyeliği sona erer." Can be translated to: "..all political ties between elected president and his/her political party ends, also Turkish Grand National Assembly membership ends." TC Anayasası Madde 101. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.240.97.129 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested lock

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

This page has been subject to abuse ever since the 2017 constitutional referendum I request a lock on this page to prevent such abuse further on. Editorguy123098 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This has just been done by admin Fuzheado — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 20:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I thank you in updating me and I thank Fuzheado for locking it. Thanks! Editorguy123098 (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to let you know if you don't already, Editorguy123098: if you wish to request a page to be protected because of frequent persistent vandalism, the easiest and quickest way is to add a report to the page WP:RFPP (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection). It is watched by many admins and a request is far more likely to be actioned if reported there, instead of on an article's talk page. Best regards, — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 20:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks talk for telling me this. I am still getting to grips with this wonderful site and I am new. Thank you for your assistance. Editorguy123098 (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem, Editorguy123098. If you need any more help don't hesitate to ask :) — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 17:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

2017 constitutional referendum

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, many people keep changing President Erdogan's office title to a "dictator" he is democratically elected and so is the government. This referendum does not change his views and as President is doing what he thinks is right for the Republic of Turkey. Stop changing his title please. Thank you Editorguy123098 (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Nor is the Wiki Talk Pages a place for soapboxing for one's fave-rave politicians. This is a controversial matter and involved editors will be making some bold edits. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia banned from Turks by Turkish government, Wikipedians described as "supporting terrorism"

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Due to the contents of both this article, and of the Turkey article, Wikipedia has now been blocked from the Internet in Turkey, and Jimbo Wales has been asked to remove "negative" information from these two articles. Jimbo naturally refused, thus apparently now making Wikipedia a "criminal organization," in the eyes of Erdogan. For more details on all of this, you can also see the Turkey: Talk page discussion on this.

In the discussion above, one user described his belief that Wikipedia is not supposed to contain any "negative" information. Wikipedia is not supposed to contain any unverified or uncited information, but the world unfortunately still seems to have much strife, harm, and negativity in it, and Wikipedia makes no effort to pretend otherwise. If Erdogan jails more journalists than North Korea, then Wikipedia is not going to pretend otherwise, just for the sake of Mr. Erdogan's comfort. Wikipedia upholds the rights of the Turkish people to freedom of information, and not the rights of the powerful to suppress such information. Scott P. (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead too long

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Folks, the lead of this article is out of control. MOS suggests four paragraphs: this is five, all of which are very long. Of these, the last has the least information, being more appropriate to an image section in the body; it can be easily condensed to a couple of sentences. If no objections are raised, I will do this soon. Vanamonde (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I would have to say that information that may be the most pivotal and informative as to which general direction Erdogan is apparently leading Turkey (away from being a functional democracy) needs to remain in a prominent place in the lead. If you can think of a way to keep its fundamental import and prominence, while condensing it, by all means please do. Scott P. (talk) 06:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Nonsensical note in the second paragraph?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In the following sentence:

>"He was stripped and banned from office and imprisoned for four months for the recitation of a poem in a political speech in 1998[7] after which he abandoned openly Islamist politics and established the moderate conservative AKP in 2001."

Citation 7 says this:

> However, weaknesses of qualitative research is linked to the small sample size, this can create a strong element of selection bias such as in the case of MSSD or MDSD studies in comparative politics if the author selects two countries which are similar say Brazil and Argentina they may infer about causes of corruption but it could be that this is just caused by a common shared history and so this may be an omitted variable bias. Likewise, selection bias may emerge so that an independent variable such as political actors may not have been controlled for. [insert evidence, explain details here]. (beginning of evaluation and linking of cases) Qualitative research can still be useful, but the extent to which it is useful depends on the level of justification given by academics in their selection cases and explanation of how they have tried to reduce the impact of omitted variable or selection biases in their qualitative methods.

What is the relevance of this paragraph here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.241.78 (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Whatever that gobbledeegook is, it has no place in this bio article. Remove it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
A simple "please," or "thankyou" might be helpful somewhere around here my friend Mr. Hammer.... But, yes, thank you 65.95.... for pointing this out. Apparently the cite was vandalized, and I have now fixed it. Scott P. (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Help Me

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Erdogan has been Declaired sultan since 15 July 2016 http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/asia/turkey/16-01-2017/136625-erdogan_sultan-0/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.176.31 (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, if you wish a change to be made to this article, please use put the text {{edit semi-protected}} above any request, making sure you clearly explain what should be changed. Also, please make sure there are good quality sources for any changes. Thank you.  Seagull123  Φ  22:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Pravda, not necessarily a reputable source.Scott P. (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Splitting the article

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What about merging some of the longer foreign policy sections into the main article (since there is already a separate article) - this seems to have worked pretty well on the George W. Bush article. Also, I am not sure how - but the Bush article doesn't display the sub-subheadings in the TOC and this seems to have improved the manageability of the TOC, maybe this would be a better option? Seraphim System (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The Erdogan topic has already apparently morphed/ split into at least 20 different sub articles, as per the "Erdogan Template." If trying to "winnow down" this page, I would ask: 1. Which topics do a significant number of the page's readers probably hope to read on the "main" Erdogan page? 2. How well do the current page topics meet those needs? 3. Which topics, if any on this page, might most page readers find to be "excessively detailed," and therefore essentially "boring" or "in their way," making it harder to find whatever they may be looking for? Personally, it seems to me to be a fairly well indexed, organized, and written article, and not boring or excessively detailed. Scott P. (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Who said that?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"His political agenda and ideals are often referred to as Erdoğanism.[6]" living in Turkey, not a once heard such a term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.111.124 (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Living in a censored bubble country, you may not hear a few things said outside of the bubble. Scott P. (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Majoritarian-NPOV vs: Dual-argument-NPOV

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I'm sort of inventing new terms here. I hope you will forgive me, but these concepts may be somewhat 'unstated' but implied before now. For the sake of this discussion, I will make the following two definitions:

  1. Majoritarian-NPOV is "Always taking the side of the majority of the sources when editing an article."
  2. Dual-argument-NPOV is "In the case of an 'unsettled argument,' allowing both sides to be clearly and respectfully stated, and then letting only the reader make the final determination as to whichever argument may be the most 'persuasive.' "

So I hope you might bear with my perhaps clumsy attempt here at communicating a somewhat different view of WP: NPOV. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:Lunatic charlatans. What you wrote about NPOV is just wrong. The mission here is to communicate "accepted knowledge", not to do Fox News "fair and balanced". NPOV in WP is much harder than you make it out to be. This entire thread is inappropriate in any case and should be hatted Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Before 2008, the word "weight" had not yet become commonly used to really mean "tilt" in WP:NPOV policy. Case in point. Calm and polite logic is also usually recommended here, and mutual respect, as the best way to persuade one's friends and "admirers." Good to see you JYT, really. Scott P. (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, the "Lunatic charlatan" page documents JW's response to people who wanted WP to give "fair and balanced" voice to people advocating pseudoscience. We don't do that. Likewise, we don't give dictators-in-the-making (as described in most independent RS) "fair and balanced" voice, with those multiple independent RS. Sure we can and should document what Erdogan is saying. But like all primary sources we contextualize that with the interpretations provided by high quality independent RS. This is all hard to do in WP especially with ""hot" recent events where we (humanity) don't have the distance that allows good history to be done by anybody. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that helpful clarification. You are certainly correct with what I will call the "settled argument" model. In the case of say a conspiracy theorist, where only a relatively small (though sometimes surprisingly large) group of people are relying on clearly faulty logic, it is always fair to prefer genuine logic in your reasoning rather than faulty reasoning. But even there, to make the best argument (which our press has obviously somehow mysteriously failed in) it seems to me that such an article needs to still consider how the audience will be "thinking." So let's focus on the Erdogan article. Yes, Erdogan, by all Western standards, and in most Western minds, has already crossed the boundary between democrat and dictator. Granted (though possibly not in the fair mind of the current illustrious leader of the home of the "free and the brave.") So which audience should this article be written for?
Should the article merely preach to the minds of the Western choir, as majoritarian-NPOV would have it do, or should it be written in a manner that is most likely to actually convince an audience which may still be open to persuasion? Will, say a Turk, who is living under coercion, who is hearing genuine "fake news" daily, and who finally somehow gets a "smuggled copy" of Wikipedia, first hear an editorial voice that pedagogically tells him he is a fool for following a charlatan? Or should he first hear an editorial voice that respects him for the obvious mental anguish he must be in, and both "hears" him, yet which also states the Western view concisely? Which voice will he be most likely to actually "hear?"
You see, the second voice does not in any way "betray" the Western view, but neither does it "betray" Erdogan's view. Why does it not betray the Erdogan view? Because it allows Erdogan to respectfully say what he says, without openly and explicitly dismissing him as a Charlatan, but please note how it still allows the reader himself to make his own decision on this, if he should so choose, without explicitly insulting anyone. Here is an example of this:
You see, I'm pretty sure I was the one who started this whole Turkey thing when on April 20, I finally got up the guts to significantly rewrite the Erdogan article lead to conclude with the last sentence:
"Detractors have claimed that Erdoğan's unceasing efforts at broadening his executive powers while also minimizing his executive accountability may amount to the "fall of Turkish democracy,"[26] and the "birth of a dictator."[27]
I made this insertion during this set of edits. In that same set of edits, I also concluded the "Presidency" section with two new sections whose titles were worded with obviously "unflattering language" about Erdogan's presidency. Now in retrospect, I will say my edits were not exactly the purest of NPOV, but they did clearly start to "tilt" an article whose lead had previously described Erdogan with a mostly pro-Erdogan tilt, (clearly pro-Erdogan POV), into an article that would eventually be more of what I now consider to be dual-argument-NPOV. When I did these edits, I knew that it was only a matter of time before "all Hell would break loose" over this article, and it did.
Since I had essentially tilted the article, in true "majoritarian POV" style towards the opposite end of the opinion scale, I had brought the article more in line with our newer majoritarian-NPOV policy, but now the article had become "probably" offensive towards many Turks, as it was now essentially outright explicitly calling Erdogan a dictator, in a sort of a "rude" way.
Now one week later, all Hell did indeed break loose. Turkey excommunicated WP, and essentially declared that we were now a "terrorist organization." But in the days since, I believe that the article has fortunately finally been restored to the older style of WP:NPOV, what I am calling a dual-argument-NPOV wording of the very same facts. I've rewritten what some might consider to be the most important sentence in an "unsettled argument" article, the last sentence of the lead, to actually, and respectfully, conclude with the very words that the Turkish government would probably use to describe its own self.
But how did I "get away with" the majoritarian-NPOV crime of actually allowing Erdogan to more or less speak for/ defend his own position? I blunted his faulty logic with a well cited (but respectfully imbedded) counter-argument. I "respectfully imbedded" the counter-argument in both the word disputed in the last sentence, and in that sentence's supporting cite about how bogus the elections really were. A quick read of this sentence will not find the actual editorial language of that sentence to be offensive towards Erdogan, but the concise reasoning against his legitimacy is still quite present for a serious reader to still find. Here is how the last sentence in the article lead stands today (May 3, 2017):
Erdogan supporters contend that Turkey remains as a majoritarian democracy, claiming that the government's disputed April 2017 elections were fair, and are the legitimate source of the government's authority.[19][20][21][22][23]
With ref [23] here fleshing out to this:
[23]: What Turkey's Election Observers Saw The Atlantic. By Diego Cupolo. April 21, 2017. Downloaded May 2, 2017.
Which closing lead sentence is the more NPOV? The one from April 20 that I first left (see indent way above), or today's closing lead sentence (just stated)? Which closing lead sentence is most likely to be more persuasive to the people who need to be persuaded the most? Which closing lead sentence refrains from attempting to "silence" either side? Is it WP's job to silence people, or to reason with them? To be continued. Scott P. (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Which closing lead sentence is most likely to be more persuasive to the people who need to be persuaded the most? Here, on Wikipedia, we are not in the business of "persuading" anyone. We are not "persuaders", we're just editors going by WP policies and WP:RS. I think your understanding of the WP:NPOV is not the one that is accepted by local consensus, as Jytdog mentioned above. I would advise that in case you get reverted, do not revert back until discussion and consensus has emerged favouring your version. Dr. K. 22:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
As I thought I already noted on your talk page, your reversion of my work was fully accepted by me, with not one complaint. Scott P. (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the present revert. I was talking about the future. Dr. K. 00:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Mayor of Istanbul (1994–98)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As it currently stands, this section should be removed or primary references need to be added. Reference 40, cited under this section, is not a legitimate primary reference source. It is a biography from a Columbia University "World Leaders Forum" link, associated with Mr. Erdoğan's 2008 keynote address. This presumably was written by Mr. Erdoğan's or Turkish government staff and contains the purported facts stated in the Wiki article, but in any case it lacks primary references.

At least some of the purported facts are dubious or incorrectly stated: "He paid back a major portion of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality's two billion dollar debt and invested four billion dollars in the city." I presume Mr. Erdoğan did not personally pay back and invest six billion dollars; perhaps his policies led to the government's ability to accomplish these feats. This should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkepticT (talk • contribs) 12:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Elections and controversies

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As with the foreign policy section, where I've done a major prune/merge, the elections and controversies sections should be merged into the sections about the relevant administrations. Unless serious objections are raised here in the next few days, I will proceed with these mergers. Some pruning may also be necessary. Once that is done, we can split off content into an article about his presidency; or, preferably, a single article about his administrations that can contain stuff too detailed for his bio. Vanamonde (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Sacramental phrase Lord Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To NATO meetings in Brussels: "If they continue to do so, none of Europeans will feel safe." ("Spiegel" Magasin ) In framework preparatory measures, the MIT people have applied methylmercury to a Wikipedia user. Allerdiengs, in an order. What is related to these self-financing in connection. (The speech was also about Cesium Sälze.)2A02:A03F:16ED:B500:31FE:2276:131F:4BB7 (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Archives

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The archives weren't showing on my page, so I added the template "{{Archives|search=no}}". I see that the existing Talk-header template includes "archive = Talk:Recep Tayyip Erdoğan/Archive %(counter)d" as well as "noarchives=yes", so maybe I did something wrong, but I think easy access to the archives is important. If anyone knows a more elegant or WP-conform way of making the archives reappear again, please do so, and sorry for being so illiterate regarding templates. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Origin?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Turkic or Georgian? WikiTyrcaen (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recep_Tayyip_Erdoğan/Archive_4&oldid=1149962218"