Template:Did you know nominations/2012 Istanbul Anti-Armenian protests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of 2012 Istanbul Anti-Armenian protests's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the WikiProject Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC).

2012 Istanbul rally to commemorate the Khojaly massacre[edit]

Created/expanded by Proudbolsahye (talk). Self nom at 00:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  • ALT1 ... that racist slogans towards Armenians were chanted during a rally in Istanbul?
  • This article is very badly written and is not compliant with WP:NPOV. It presents the event in negative light, while this sort of generalization is not acceptable, as not everyone involved shared the opinion of the extreme groups. In general, there's nothing unusual about this sort of events commemorating victims of mass murder, and notability of this particular rally for a stand alone article is also an issue. Grandmaster 05:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Your comments are much appreciated in the talk page, my friend. DYK nominaiton isn't quite the place to discuss neutrality.--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 06:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
This is exactly where we should discuss neutrality. According to the rules, the DYK article must be the one that is "Within policy – meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral". In this case, the lack of neutrality is a serious issue which does not make this article a good DYK nominee. Grandmaster 14:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
You are right, my dear friend. Neutrality should be taken into account when approving/disapproving the nomination, but not to be discussed here. If you do have any concerns, please list them on the talk page and let the reviewer know about them. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 18:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Everything you post here duplicates at talk of the article. Check the article's talk. Grandmaster 21:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • DYK requires nominations to be within policy, including that they are neutral. But I don't think Grandmaster's concerns are valid. First of all, any question of notability should be raised to AfD, which I don't think would succeed because of the 19 sources, most of them appearing to be reliable, that don't treat the topic trivially. And neutrality means writing an article to reflect the way that reliable sources treat it, and it's no surprise that mainstream media sources frown upon racist language. I would have NPOV concerns if the nominator proposed an article that whitewashed or defended such a rally. Here's my check:
  • It has 3318 characters of prose and created on December 22.
  • I'm concerned that the first hook "focus[es] unduly on negative aspects of living people". Therefore I prefer the alternate.
  • DYK requires that all quotes are directly supported by inline citations. I did a spot-check in the body and found that the two quotes "bastards of Hrant can not scare us" and "Let Armenia be gone" were not found in the LBC International and National Turk sources. Also, there was some distortion of "Today, Taksim, Tomorrow, Yerevan" to "Taksim Square today, Yerevan Tomorrow": you cannot modify direct quotes like this. The same slogans which I could not find in body are cited to different sources in the lead (many of which I cannot verify, since they are in Turkish), but there should be harmony. Please make a good-faith effort to fix-up the verifiability of the article, and then it can be approved for DYK. Shrigley (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg My concerns were addressed, and I copyedited alt1 hook for grammar. It's ready to go. Shrigley (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I would like to see another reviewer go over this article carefully with regard to neutrality. To my eye, as someone unacquainted with the issues involved, the article does raise WP:NPOV concerns. The sentence "The Interior Minister and the protest organizers have yet to issue a formal apology" jumped out at me in this regard, and there were places where the choice of words or order of ideas seemed less neutral than it could have been. I also wonder about the hook: the uninformative phrase "a rally" tamps down the potential interest in the hook and the underlying article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The big problem with this article is that it obscures the purpose of this rally. Even the title is misleading, and needs to be changed. This was not an anti-Armenian rally, the rally was to commemorate the massacre of Azerbaijani civilians by the Armenian military forces in the town of Khojaly in 1992. Even if there were anti-Armenian slogans at the rally, it does not mean that it was anti-Armenian in general, because protesting a crime committed by the Armenian forces does not mean attacking Armenian people in general. Criticizing the government of Armenia is not equal to being anti-Armenian. It is the same as to say that a rally to commemorate the Srebrenica massacre is anti-Serbian. Note that none of the sources quoted supports the claim that "However the commemoration turned into an Anti-Armenian demonstration containing hate speech and threats towards Armenia and Armenians". Also, the sources say for example [1]:

Some protesters, however, said they had no problems with Turkish-Armenians but added that they were marching to draw attention to the Khojaly Massacre, whom they blame on the Armenian state. “It is Armenia, not the Armenians, to blame for the massacre, not the Armenians,” said one Azerbaijani student who lives in Ankara.

But this sort of information is glaringly absent from the article. It exaggerates and blows out of proportion the extreme opinions, and makes no mention of moderate ones that actually prevailed. Obviously, the rallies like these always attract extremists, but implying that all 50,000 people who attended the rally were supporters of the extreme views is far from truth. Grandmaster 18:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, looking at the video and photos from the rally posted at the bottom of the article, for instance here: [2], I could see only one anti-Armenian banner by Nationalist Movement Party, while others are quite moderate. You can clearly see that most people carry slogans like "we are all Turks", "never forget Khojaly", etc. There's is also a couple of isolated extreme slogans in the crowd, but one such slogan is surrounded by dozens of moderate ones. So the article creates wrong impression of the rally. Grandmaster 18:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe this article itself makes a wrong interpretation of the rally, but the protestors and protest organizers themselves do. The original purpose of the rally is already clear in the first sentence of the article. If this Wikipedia article made a wrong interpretation of reality, then so did the Zaman, Hurriyet, National Turk, NtvMsnbc, and other (some even nationalist) credible Turkish sources who regard this as nothing but an Anti-Armenian rally (see titles of their articles). And these were only Turkish sources, not even taking the international and Armenian sources into account. The rally in almost all Turkish sources mention that it was a "rally turned wrong" or "racism in Taksim" and etc. Neutrality is writing an article to reflect the way the sources have already written it and regard the event. Therefore, if there is a problem with neutrality in this article, then I propose writing to all the newspapers throughout the world and in Turkey to revise their titles and POV of the events, then would your case of neutrality stand. This rally did not magically turn racist in tone, it was organized, planned, and executed with the printing of billboards, banners, signs, and the chanting of slogans which distorted the very nature of the protest of not only Istanbul but all around Turkey under the cover of a commemoration. Therefore the hate was planned, the slogans prepared, and this allowed readers, journalists, news sources, and other sources of information to make it hard to believe it was a peaceful commemoration otherwise. In fact, the very significance of the event was due to its racist tone. I highly doubt this rally would have been in the media this much if it weren't for the hateful messages and slogans of the protestors. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Check the slogans in your own links to pictures. There are very few that could be interpreted as nationalist. Most of the signs are "Hepimiz Türküz", i.e. we are all Turks, or "Hepimiz Hocalıyız", and there's nothing racist about those slogans. And Turkish liberal media talks about presence of nationalist slogans, but does not say that all or most of the slogans were racist. The article goes too far in sweeping generalizations, and thus violates NPOV. Grandmaster 21:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
And the title of the article should be something like "2012 Istanbul Khojaly massacre protests", because the purpose of the rally was not to protest against Armenians, but to protest against the massacre. Grandmaster 21:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Though I do agree with the title part, just like how Proudbolsahye and Shrigley mentioned above, the article itself reflects the sources provided. Zaman, Hurriyet, and other sources called it a commemoration TURN ugly/racist and etc. I don't think a protest organizer would openly claim that the intent of their protest is to hate or spread racism. Official purpose doesn't matter when it is regarded by numerous sources that it was an Anti-Armenian rally.--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 23:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Talks about the title of the article should be moved to the Talk page under a new subtitle. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
No. Title is one of the issues that should be addressed for this article to become a DYK. The present title of the article violates NPOV. Grandmaster 06:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Title shall remain since the placards, signs, slogans, and all other racist items used during the protest were preplanned thus signifying the protests Anti-Armenian intent and nature under the cover of a commemoration. Above all, the titles of the newspapers and sources do signify the Anti-Armenian nature of the protests as well. Signs held by the event organizers such as the MHP, MTP, and etc. contained Armenian hate speech implying that the organizers themselves had an Anti-Armenian intent. Why would you want such an event to be called "2012 Istanbul Khojaly massacre protests" anyways? Are you willing to lose the validity, credibility, and the innocence of the Taksim protest and the "Justice for Khojaly" movement in its entirety? Because the content will remain and in fact pictures will be added soon. I am speaking this out of good faith. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
A few nationalist slogans do not make the whole rally anti-Armenian. As I mentioned above, you can see even from the photos what kind of slogans prevailed. And here's an article from the same Zaman: [3] and another one from TRT: [4] They do not say that the extreme slogans prevailed. It looks like sources in the wiki article were picked selectively. Those not supporting the claim of racism are absent. Grandmaster 07:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I added a "POV title" tag to discuss the appropriateness of the title. I hope for larger involvement of wiki community into this discussion. Grandmaster 07:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Photographs are not sources and I am not saying all the protestors held "All Armenians are bastards!" signs. What I am saying is that the placards, slogans, banners, and chants did not just miraculously fall from the sky. It was organized and preplanned by the protest organizers themselves thus implying its Anti-Armenian purpose, intent, and nature. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Those slogans were held by individuals or small groups. There's no reason to suggest that organizers had anything to do with them. You can clearly see on the pictures that the extreme slogans were even signed, like that big banner brought by Nationalist Movement Party, that stated the name of the party at the bottom of the banner. But there's no reason to attribute this isolated view to the whole rally. Also, it seems that this event received no coverage in the Western media, so the event is of local importance. It was only reported in Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan. And while pictures are not sources, they give the idea what was going on at the rally. Grandmaster 09:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Whether organizers or not, the hateful and racist slogans and signs were planned and created in advance thus signifying the Anti-Armenian nature and intent of the protest. The Armenians are bastard signs were made for everybody's usage which makes it an Anti-Armenian protest on its own. In fact, Aris Nalci (acquaintance of mine) who present at the rally and was the interviewer in the first video said they ran out of those cards and if it weren't for them running out perhaps everyone there would've used them. Also, the Hepimiz Turkuz cards are of the same style thus signifying a broader type of organization. Anyways, both our points have been made clearly and am looking forward to what others have to say. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svgI do not believe that this article can be approved with its current title. It is neither neutral nor descriptive. As a neutral reader, completely new to the subject, I had to read deep beyond the title and introduction, following links, before I even understood what it was about. As per some of the comments above I believe that it should be titled something like 2012 Istanbul rally to commemorate the Khojaly massacre and the fact that it turned into an anti-Armenian protest should be in the lead para. (It is not unusual for a rally to change its nature and notoriety during the course of the event.) Chienlit (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I have completed a copyedit of the visible text to create a concise, grammatical, English article in what I believe to be a neutral voice. I have also moved it to a neutral but somewhat ponderous name. Ergo I now request that other editors review the article, the non-neutral banner, and suitability for DYK. I am unable to make a significant impact on the multi-language Tsunami technique used for referencing, so I rely on other editors to deem it acceptable or n not. (Everything seems to be referenced and referenced and referenced.) Chienlit (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svgThe current hook needs updating because the article name has changed (and may change again), and more importantly because it's tone / pov no longer matches the article. Regards. Chienlit (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you, you made a vast improvement of the article. The title is a lot more appropriate now. The problem that remains is that it is not possible to claim that the entire rally became anti-Armenian. The sources only say that anti-Armenian slogans were present, but it is hard to ascertain to what extent, and it is wrong to label the entire 20,000 rally as anti-Armenian, as it is quite obvious from photo and video reports that most of the slogans were not racist or nationalist. So I think the article should be free from any generalizations about the whole rally. It is only possible to say that some extreme groups held nationalistic slogans. But then most of slogans were the likes of what you see in the picture in this article: [5] The big slogan reads: "Bir millet, iki devlet, Hocalı'ya edalet", which translates as "one people, two nations, justice for Khojaly". The section "Chants and slogans" creates a wrong impression of slogans present at the rally, as it highlights only the extreme ones and fails to report the moderate ones. Grandmaster 17:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe that I have now fixed these issues, removing generalisations about the whole crowd, and adding "Bir millet, iki devlet, Hocalı'ya edalet" . But I have not addressed the hook. Chienlit (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "Violent threats" is also not the best choice of words. Some slogans were nationalist, and inflaming, but in general sources talk about presence of nationalist speech and banners at the rally. Grandmaster 12:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Billboards prepared that reads "From Yerevan to Taksim: We will descend upon you suddenly in the night" signifies a violent threat that was marred during a "peace" rally. The hook doesn't say all the protest contained those chants, but the rally itself was marred of them. Proudbolsahye (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • But it is the only one of its kind, plus it is directed towards the state of Armenia, not Armenians of Turkey or Armenian people in general. Other controversial slogans like calling sympathizers of Dink "bastards" were not violent, even though they were insulting. Therefore I think the hook needs further adjusting to reflect the general nature of controversial slogans. In any case, the article appears to be too controversial for DYK at this point, as it was submitted for AFD. Grandmaster 19:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Btw, "From Yerevan to Taksim: We will descend upon you suddenly in the night" is a wrong translation of the slogan. Thanks to other users for alerting us at talk of the article. The slogan actually says: Today Taksim, tomorrow Yerevan: we can come suddenly at night. I don't know why it was translated as "we will descend upon you". I would not trust any translation at Asbarez, it clearly mistranslated this slogan here: [6] I see no violence in this slogan, they just meant that they could have continued their march of protest from Taksim to Yerevan. Grandmaster 16:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article cannot be approved in its current state. The new expansion of unfocussed content, bad english, non-english, non-wikipedic, PoV editing on 8 January has corrupted an 'almost there' article. Chienlit (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This often happens to controversial articles, it takes time until they stabilize on a certain version. Grandmaster 16:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote4.png No longer at AFD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The article itself still has a number of POV issues; for example, repetition of the words "brutal" and "brutality" in Background section; unattributed claim of 613 killed; Armenian government denials omitted; no source for claim that quoted slogans were "main" slogans in rally - also editorial opinion appended to one of the alleged "main slogans". Also, the involved editors will need to come to an agreement on the "Racist slogans" section. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be reconsidered. Gatoclass (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Issues still present. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)