Talk:Mehmed Şevket Eygi

Proposed deletion issue

There has been a couple of attempts at deleting this article. The last one purports notability and POV issues. In addressing these issues please note that the said person - as the article states - was a respected journalist and intellectual whise writings and books are all over the internet. In addition, his funeral was attempted by numerous heads of state - again as stated in the article. If this does not make a person notable then what does?

With regards to POV allegations, please feel free to change the langauge to a more neutral one where you see fit. I translated the article from the Turkish Wikipedia and added more information with as many reliable me sources as possible.

There are plenty of more articles deserving of deletion but for some reason some editors have a problem with this person in perticular.

The article also exists in versions over languages on Wikipedia. If anyone has an issue, you may address them here on Talk or better yet contribute to improving the article and being constructive rather than being destructive. 786wave (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

More sources

I took the time to add more sources, and would appreciate it if others did some research online and contributed to the article. 786wave (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Which means the article is credible since it has got so many reliable sources user:MrsSnoozyTurtle. 786wave (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Hello 786wave. Your Edit Summary states "See Talk page" as the reasoning for your reverts, however there does not seem to be any relevant discussion here? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, there is a relevant discussion. You - with all due respect - fail to see it. Kind regards, 786wave (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I see that your response is a cut-and-paste from the Talk Page of another article. Could you please engage properly in the discussion, instead of insta-reverting the changes yet again? MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read the above discussions carefully regarding your concerns. Thanks. 786wave (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Again I ask if you could please engage properly instead of insta-reverting the changes? There is no obvious discussion above that applies, so could you please be specific? MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a topic by the name of “Proposed deletion issue”. It refers to your tag. It’s not like there are dozens of topics discussed above. Your failing to see it only makes me think you’re insisting to add the tab in bad faith.

I’ve also answered your allegation that the article was written from a POV perspective. Far from it. I translated it from the original Turkish.

I put in the time and effort and I’m not going to let it be tagged inappropriately. Hope that makes sense. 786wave (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for finally being specific. On the other hand, accusing me of acting in bad faith is quite un-WP:CIVIL.

  Regarding your last paragraph, yes it does make sense. However you do not have authority to make unilateral judgements like this on Wikipedia, and I disagree that it is inappropriate. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

You’re welcome. Now maybe you can discuss the subject at hand instead of wining about how you’re supposed to and not supposed to be treated. You’re the last person to give me lessons on civility since you’re trolling me. As discussed before, no need to delete a perfectly good article just because you “feel” you don’t like me. 786wave (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• I am not trolling you, could you please retract that false accusation? Likewise, I never said that the article should be deleted because of any alleged feelings towards you. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Is that why you’re also reverting my contributions in another article? 786wave (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Users are allowed to request that certain other people stay off their personal Talk Pages, so that is what I am doing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Deleting unsourced claims

Mrs Snoozy, How about you do some work and find the sources instead of deleting whole sections? Your actions are on the verge of vandalism. Please be more constructive. 786wave (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hello 786wave. Please refer to WP:V. Also, please educate yourself about the meaning of vandalism on Wikipedia before throwing around these accusations towards other editors. Lastly, please see WP:5P4. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• It is very disappointing that you reverted my edit again. Please read the policies I linked above. Then, instead of edit warring, could you please provide references to support the claims that you are adding to the article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, could you please read the policies and discuss the issues here, instead of repeatedly reverting? MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

And again... could you please stop reverting and join the discussion here? MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Your actions are a clear violation of the rules you supposedly espouse. 786wave (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Anti-semitism slander

Oh so that was SleazyTurtoise’s goal all along! To slander this intellectual with anti-Semitism. I should’ve known all along. Well, take your POV editing to some other article. He did write and warn about Turkish Sabataist Jews. That is not even close to anti-Semitism. Moreover, you might just be an anti-Muslim Islamophobe… 786wave (talk)| — Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here as an example of him "warning" about Turkish jews. People can decide on their own if it's anti-Semitic or not. "The Sabbateans have a monopoly over Turkish society. The Turks themselves live like the subject population of British India. Secular measures are always the will of Sabbateans because a real Turk, even an atheist Turk, would never do so much harm to Turkey." Just a little tiny little point to end my comment on though, replace all the instances of "Sabbateans" with "Muslims" and change out Turkey for a secular country, and I can almost guarantee you'd call it anti-Muslim Islamophobia. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

What’s wrong with warning people of the wrongdoings of anybody? He’s a writer. Is he not supposed to write about what he believes in, with his proofs? Is there no freedom of thought and speech? The problem with our societies today is we jump on the anti-Semitism wagon without a second thought. We’re not allowed to criticize Zionists or some Jews. We’re not allowed to discuss what some do and in fact did in the past. There is a double standard here when it comes to Muslims and Islam. We can all slander them and blame them with anything and everything and it’s alright!

No, I would not do what you claimed in your last sentence. Such logic is problematic. I do not know why you would think so, but I believe people in general assume others think much like themselves. 786wave (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

There is overwhelming evidence that Eygi was a conspiracy theroist, and that he was an antisemite. This is manipulation of Wikipedia and WP:POV editing. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

No there isn’t. You may say he wrote extensively on conspiracies and that it was his belief but he supported them with evidence. He was also critical of some Turkish Jews. Name calling is plain slander and is contrary to NPOV rules too. 786wave (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, please stop deleting entire sentences supported by reliable sources like you did here. 786wave (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No, Eygi did not write extensively on conspiracies, he spreaded them. He also had no evidence for his claims. The sources clearly outline that Eygi was both an antisemite and conspiracy theorist. They go even beyond that, one source argues that Eygi is one of those who established post WWII antisemitism in Turkey. I mean it is quite obvious – Eygi claimed that Jews were responsible for the Armenian genocide, and that is falsification of history. Sadly, this was not the only conspiracy theory Eygi spreaded. I wonder whether he denied the Holocaust. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Do the sources you speak about know or understand the Turkish language? I doubt it. So can they even be considered reliable? Where do they get their info from? Who made such claims? Not Eygi.

Can someone who wrote for a pseudo-newspaper that has only a few thousand subscribers be so effective in spreading propaganda? Sounds like a joke. Please do some more independent research before slandering a dead person. I happen to read Turkish sources. Last but not least, no I did not read anything about him denying the Holocaust. However, your rhetoric and assumptions are definitely problematic. I suggest you do not approach Wikipedia in such a biased manner. Thank you, 786wave (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the famous excerpts I added prove beyond doubt he was not an antisemite. Please refrain from deleting it as you have done a second time here. 786wave (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

You shall stop removing referenced content. There is overwhelming evidence that Eygi was not only an antisemite, but a person who was responsible for spreading antisemitism. There is overwhelming evidence that Eygi was a conspiracy theorist. And the Eygi quote is nothing but derision. See, quoting Eygi directly is hardly sufficient to describe his views without an interpretation. In this case, it's you who's done the interpretation, and that's contrary to Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy – therefore, the Eygi quote should not be contained within the article. That Eygi – who has got a reputation for spreading conspiracy theories about "Jews, Sabbateans, etc." – asks "Muslims" to "do scientific research" on these subjects has a very simple reason: It has been proven that all conspiracy theories that have anything to do with Jews are nothing but bs (they are conspiracy theories after all). There is simply no need to do any research. Asking "Muslims" to "do scientific research" implies that the conspiracy theories are not necessarily false (because this allows the possibilty of proving these conspircy theories). This is a typical behavioural pattern of conspiracy theorists ("I'm not saying that [the conspiracy theory] is true, but we should do research on it"). In this case, the sources argue that Eygi had been using this pattern, too. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not remember removing referenced content but you, sir, have done so on many occasions. Your reasoning is flawed and certainly against WP:POV rules. You’re assuming the references you provided are reliable. I can argue the opposite. After all, few sites on the internet today are impartial. The sources you’re referring to are definitely hostile to the poor dead man, not because they understand him or what he wrote, but because they assume he’s an Islamist since he was openly claiming his Muslim faith and defending the rights of Muslims in a majority Muslim country run by anti-Muslim corporate elite. So yes, Islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment exists and is well and kicking. Anywah, we have clear differences in thought and I recommend we work it out by finding middle ground. Otherwise, I’m afraid it will only escalate. Thank you, 786wave (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Source analysis

I feel that it is a good idea to have a very close look at the sources provided in this article:

• Biyografya is a mixed/low quality source ("He went abroad in 1971 for his newspaper was closed", "He started to journalism and publishing", "Millions of people prayed at mornings with crowds those who did respond his call that he make in the newspaper Bugün", "preacher or imam used to told people", "He contributed to the arrangement of the historical places and surroundings at Çamlıca hill by municipality", etc.). It doesn't seem to be ridiculously biased though and I deem it acceptable.
• aHaber is a mouthpiece of the Turkish government, so I'd argue that it is not a reliable source required per the general notability guideline.
• Takvim is a right-wing populist newspaper known for its fake interview with Christiane Amanpour. It is also closely related to A Haber as it is also part of the Turkuvaz Media Group. Sources that make up content are definitely unreliable per WP:RS.
• Sözcü seems to be a decent, and reliable source. However, the Sözcü article doesn't seem to provide a lot of information; as far as I can understand it, it tells the reader about Eygi's elementary school and grammar school education – that is something that can be done about virtually anybody. The only hint Sözcü gives us is the following: "MEHMET ŞEVKET EYGİ KİMDİR? Gazeteci-yazar." Who is Mehmed Şevket Eygi? A journalist. Who would have thought. The Sözcü article fails to explain why Eygi is such an important person and thus doesn't indicate why Wikipedia should have an article about him.
• Millî Gazete seems like a source that has a Millî Görüş (Islamist) WP:BIAS, so it can be used, but only in a context with other sources to illustrate certain points of their beliefs. However, I find that source problematic because it is not independent of the subject (Eygi was one of Millî Gazete's editors), and because it literally says "Eygi, (...) Sabetaycılık konusunu da işledi." My understanding of the Turkish language is limited, but I wonder whether konu in this context refers to something with a negative connotation. Either way, Jews aren't people that have to be "dealt with" or "discussed". Any such mindsets are unacceptable, especially considering that Jews have fallen victim to the most disastrous genocide in history, The Holocaust. I suggest explaining what the Millî Gazete is when citing it, for instance: "The Islamist Millî Görüş newspaper Millî Gaztte describes Eygi's views as ..."
• Timeturk is an invalid source.
• AA doesn't seem to be a very reliable source. Note the CV – there is a huge gap between 1995 and 2019. How come? Several imprisonments because of openly inciting people to hatred and enmity are worth noting, and omitting that speaks for itself. Admittedly, the article mentions Eygi's imprisonments in prose, albeit in a way that makes them seem unjustified. I would only cite that source with some caution.
• İslam Ansiklopedisi seems to be more about the Bugün newspaper than about Eygi. I cannot find any reasons though why it should be an unreliable source.
• Yet again Millî Gazete; well, the things said above also apply to this article. I'd consider it acceptable to cite it for the fact that Eygi has donated 45,000 books to Erdoğan's library.
• Another instance of AA. This is virtually a collection of Twitter "tweets" of people who wish to express how much they condole with Eygi. I can hardly see why this is worth citing, especially for an almost trivial piece of information (date and time of death). Nonetheless, I don't think that this source (for what it is used) is bad, it is just not necessary to use it.
• Sabah is a right-wing newspaper that belongs to the Turkuvaz Media Group and I doubt that it is a reliable source. I think that it would be inappropriate to cite it for all the claims made, but again, for a trivial fact such as "Eygi passed away" it is acceptable unless no better source can be found.
• Haber7 is some sort of mediocre quality taboid press and thus not a reliable source. However, citing it for trivial facts is still better than having no sources at all.
• The third instance of the Millî Gazete. The article is a list of all persons who attended Eygi's funeral.
• AA again. Also just a list of all the people who attended Eygi's funeral; I suppose that's citable.

This Wikipedia article is definitely not written from a neutral point of view. This is quite obvious as almost all sources cited are right-wing, Turkish Nationalist, Pro Eygi sources. I find it very concerning that there is no mentioning whatsoever about the fact that Eygi was sentenced to 20 months in prison for openly inciting people to hatred and enmity: "Gazeteci-yazar Mehmet Şevket Eygi, Milli Gazete'de yayınlanan Din düşmanlığı terörü başlıklı yazısında Halkı din ve mezhep farklılığı gözeterek kin ve düşmanlığa açıkça tahrik ettiği gerekçesiyle 1 yıl 8 ay ağır hapis cezasına çarptırıldı." In fact, Eygi has commited this crime multiple times, and he was again sentenced to 12 months in prision! In order for this article to be neutral, several non-right-wing sources are needed. The lead section needs neutralisation, and it should read something like this: "Mehmed Şevket Eygi (February 7, 1933, Ereğli – July 12, 2019, Istanbul) was a Turkish journalist, author, intellectual, and demagogue." There are several (Turkish language(!)) sources that are not limited to positive facets of Eygi, they need to be cited. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Good idea indeed. As I told some other editors before, feel free to add whatever reliable sources you can find. Just don’t do it with double standards and confirmation bias please. It seems you have done so with the “Views” section. 786wave (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

He was not an Islamist

Eygi denied being an Islamist in his writings. Just because a writer for the pseudo-newspaper Sozcu called him an Islamist one time does not make him so either. 786wave (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)