Talk:Gezi Park protests

NPOV (Neutral Point of View) issues: PLEASE PAY ATTENTION!

PLEASE READ FIRST:

1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

2. Wikipedia:Citing sources

3. Wikipedia:Assume good faith

4. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

5. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

6. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning

7. Wikipedia:Be bold

Article title

I do not exactly like this name. It is not like this was the only protest in 2013 and 2013 is far from over. Calling it "Gezi park" protests may make sense but it is more significant than that now. Perhaps include the month in the name? Something like May-June 2013 protests in Turkey perhaps? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest 2013 Turkish protests. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, it is not the only protests in 2013. This suffers from the same problem. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing really wrong with 2013 Taksim Gezi Park protests - the protests in Ankara etc are/were all sparked by the Gezi issue, and there's no immediately better name to unite the disparate themes. (If there were any traction for "2013 chapulcu protests" that might work better, but there isn't.) Podiaebba (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

What's important is that we have no other article about "2013 protests in Turkey", so it is really irrelevant if there even were others. And the park is not what the protests are about any more, so having that name in the title would be misleading. FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, but again it suffers from the same problem. I am going to move it to May-June 2013 protests in Turkey unless there are objections to give it a more specific date. 2013 protests in Turkey would cover all of the protests in Turkey in 2013. More of a "list of" article, ie something like List of protests in Turkey in 2013. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 16:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Alternative title could be Gezi Park inspired protests as the protests neither are restricted to Turkey nor is "2013 protests in Turkey" a sufficiently descriptive title. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

But yet again, what other articles about 2013 Turkish protests do we have? If there are none, there is no point in being so specific. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

We have other articles on 2013 protests in Turkey. There have been quite a few. To name two May day and Post Reyhanlı where protests were large enough for tear gas to be used. There may be more protests this year in the future as well. Why do you not want the article to have a name beyond "protests"? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

But none of those are separate articles, so there are no conflicting titles. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That is not the rationale behind picking article titles. Article titles should always be as unambiguous as possible. "2013 protests in Turkey" should be a redirect to "List of protests in Turkey in 2013". For instance if this was called "2013 Anti-government protests in Turkey" and there wouldn't be much of a problem provided there aren't any other such protests in 2013. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

So no strong objections? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be a widely agreed upon alternative name before any move should be made. FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The current generic name is problematic. I haven't heard your suggestion yet. What would you propose? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the one proposing to move it. It is up to the supporters to make up an alternate title and find support for it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really, compromise can come from all sides of an argument. Care to try? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it should be moved. It seems few others want to move it as well. So I don't see the point of asking us to find another name. If you want to convince us, make up a good alternative. Otherwise, it just seems clear that this is the most fitting name, despite its shortcomings. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 Gezi Park protests or 2013 Gezi Park-inspired protests? A White Cat is right about the too-generic current title. Podiaebba (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You two are the only ones who seem to support a move, so I'm not sure how "right" it is. You need to both gather support for a move, and then gather support for a specific alternate title. And as I've stated before, "2013 Gezi Park protests" doesn't even begin to encompass the scope of these demonstrations. When someone thinks of Turkish protests in 2013, this is the ones, not some random ones before. FunkMonk (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not true. People will think of "Gezi Park" protests or "Anti-government protests". That is what the media and everyone calls it. Per WP:COMMONNAME it would be a non-controversial move. I have suggested several alternatives, you have outright ignored them. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Anti government protests would be more fitting. And can you demonstrate that anything but "protests" is a common name in mainstream sources at this point? FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Anti government protests is how I heard it on reports. Even Colbert Report described it as such (through ABC I think). After a quick search some sources (for anti government): jpost, al-monitor, reuters, Tribune, Independent. Sources called it "Gezi Park protests" initially (until the park was violently evicted) so it would be a redirect after the move. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 01:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I really don't like "anti-government protests" - it may be a common, lazy media short-hand for this kind of thing, but that doesn't make it helpful. The protests are not anarchist (against the concept of government), and nor are they insurrectionist (demanding the overthrow of the government) - not least because there's no obvious alternative (AKP would likely win fresh elections, and very few protestors wanted a military coup). Rather, they were protests against a wide range of specific government policies. This is an important difference. Podiaebba (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Anti-government doesn't mean anarchist or overthrowing the government. It means the protesters are against policies by the said government. It happens fairly often in the 21st century and Turkish protests (2013) is a part of it. 2010 French pension reform strikes was an anti-government protest as well even though no confrontation happened between the protesters and the police and the main demand wasn't the overthrowing of the government. I understand your concern but that is exactly what "anti-government protest" means. There were peaceful and violent phases of the protests so calling it either would be a problem. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So any remarks? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 06:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You make it sound like "anti-government" just means "directed at the government", as almost all protests are. That makes it rather redundant, and we should only specify the protest target if it's not the government. On which point we actually have the con-founding factor that a significant element of these protests is protests directed at private media, not the government! Podiaebba (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, "anti-government" more or less means "directed at the government". What you are describing (anarchy etc) is a riot not a protest. Is the target really the media? They protest against the media under heavy government control. Similarities towards McCarthyism is jarring. I suppose it could be something like "2013 Anti-government and anti-media censorship protests in Turkey". Beef of the demands as far as I know is the eroding of personal liberties over time. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 16:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments? Further objections? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point, you'd need support before implementing it. You should make a formal move request. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

All you need to do is state one or more of the alternative titles you feel would be sufficient. You have not even attempted to counter anything I have said. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter at this point, when so few have voiced support. You cannot just move the article, you need to make a formal move request.[1] FunkMonk (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am capable of moving the article in any way I wish. I am seeking consensus among us or at least a 3O. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 Gezi Park-inspired protests? This discussion seems to have ground to a halt though. Podiaebba (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Page rename discussions tend to be that way. We seem to have a growing trend of Pro Egypt MB protests in Turkey so I am leaning towards "Gezi Park-inspired" as well to distinguish the two. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 10:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

No, you can't move it to whatever you want, because your request is controversial. The best way is to make a formal request, that is common practice. That will also attract more editors to voice their opinion, because the thread will be visible on the central move page. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

At least some of us needs to agree on a title to propose. As far as I can tell you like the title as is an oppose a move of any kind regardless of the title. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with A Certain White Cat and I think a change is necessary; I think "2013 Anti-government censorship protests in Turkey" is fine. (I'm aware that this is an emended version of the one A Certain White Cat proposed, namely "2013 Anti-government and anti-media censorship protests in Turkey", but I think the media cencorship is another facet of the 'anti-government' element of the protests.) Honestly, I initially thought this page would list all the protests that happened in Turkey in 2013; I'm aware of the "List of <a>" naming template of list articles but nonetheless, I think a different name is necessary. Is it possible to have a poll or something equally democratic on this issue? - Luot (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There have been rallies in Istanbul the last 3 days and worldwide media has shown much more pictures of what is happening. Wikipedia has shown nothing

Please if you have any sources add what is happening in Istanbul in July because news are running fast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrusselsBelgique4 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to add them to the article. This is a community effort. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 06:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey I can't find time to contribute to the article, of course because of the protests, in last 3-4 days firstly Istanbul has seen a lot. Like detaintments of people playing with water guns. Like the court's decision to free the man who attacked and injured the protesters including women and tourists randomly with a butcher's knife. Like a man randomly fired his pistol in the middle of İstiklal. Like a man with a thick stick giving gas canisters to a police from his bag and saying them I'm with you. Like the 1.Gas Man Festival (1.Gazdan Adam Festivali) that hundreds of thousands gathered to protest in a carnival way. Like the re-opening of Gezi Park and re-closing of Gezi Park after 2 hours, 45 minutes with a intervention by police with gas bombs and water cannons. Like today, in the first evening of Ramadan, protestors' and people's feast on ground from Galatasaray High School in İstiklal to the Gezi Park (as long as reaches to the police barricade) and meanwhile AKP supporters' luxurious feast on high class tables in the Taksim square with private working waiters and waitresses. There is so much to write about but there is not enough time. So I'm telling these here if anyone could write about them, then I can complete or add when I have time. Thanks. Good evenings to all. Berkaysnklf (talk), 9 July, 2013, 17:50 (UTC)

And also there are lots of news articles for public park forums and there are lots of newspapers that publish the decisions being taken in the main ones. But you know it is impossible find a news article (or sth like those) for every park, so ParksAreOurs is the widest source that publishes all notes from every park. That's why I suggested that, saying "like an official represantative". It was not a good idea deleting them all I think. Maybe we could have move it into an another article. And meanwhile I could have find some sources other than the ParksAreOurs sources, when I have time between the protests. Thanks again.. Berkaysnklf (talk), 9 July, 2013, 18:00 (UTC)

Created NTV Tarih; its closure is probably worth a mention here. Podiaebba (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.yasarkenyazilantarih.com/ could be a very good source. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 04:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This and this should be added as well. Podiaebba (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/turkeys-standing-man-captured-attention-but-protest-doesnt-stand-still--it-forms-assemblies-8672456.html

The independent had an article talking about the forums which has links to even more sources.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 02:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to mention about NTV Tarih, so much going out in here. So the death of Ali İsmail Korkmaz (being beaten up by civilian polices and civilian AKP supporters), and the protests started after the death and the law decision that bans TMMOB (Union of Chambers of Turkish Architects and Engineers) to be against any construction decision. The protests mostly occur in Antakya, Istanbul, Eskişehir and Ankara these days. Antakya citizens doesn't let the police enter their neighborhood for almost 2 days (even throwing their armed cars water tanks and washing machines). These are the news, I have updated the injuries and timeline part, I have also updated the status section in the infobox but it caused a collapse on the infobox and I couldn't fix it. I will try it now. Thanks. Berkaysnklf (talk), 12 July, 2013, 23:50 (UTC)

Were you able to fix it? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 04:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"Disinformation"

Doesn't "disinformation" and "lying" mean the same thing? Lying is more direct and clearly explains that section more then "disinformation" does. Doesn't any government "lie" anymore? —SPESH531Other 01:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Does this relate to the article somehow? TippyGoomba (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a section in the article labeled "Disinformations". The content (all three lines) is a mix of speculation and clarifications of conflicting information. So unless the contributors are asserting actual lies (which is not clear from the text) I think they may just be using the word incorrectly, and the content could be incorporated into other parts of the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

removed section

Disinformations There have been some disinformations about the protests: It was reported that the Istanbul police chief had been fired. There was speculation that the orange-colored anti-riot chemical used by the Turkish government (nicknamed "Agent Orange") was the US Military's defoliate Agent Orange. In fact the two substances are different chemicals. It was reported that King Mohammad VI refused to meet Prime Minister Erdoğan during Erdoğan's visit to Morocco on June 3. In fact, the King was in France for treatment since May 10.

It's an oddly placed section with a silly name. I've removed it. The content should be integrated into other parts the article if it's important. Any ideas? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your bold edit, TippyGoomba.  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The section existed for about a month (until about 28 June) under the title "Misconceptions". I'm not sure who changed it, but obviously "disinformations" is not an acceptable title. Given the way rumours went through social media, I don't think it's wrong to document cases of rumours the media reported on. I think we should restore it under the old title. Podiaebba (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other. Podiaebba, if you believe the section has value and will be utilized, then you'll receive no objection from me. Its last incarnation seemed random and out of place. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree about adding them again under the "Misconceptions" title. Its really normal for misconceptions and rumours to spread amongst social media so the old title would be the best decision, I think. Berkaysnklf (talk), 12 July, 2013, 23:38 (UTC)

I would also support the addition of "Misconceptions". I would further suggest the misconceptions used by politicians such as the claims of people drinking alcohol in a mosque as well as others. Mind that we shouldn't act as a verifiablity check to twitter. We should only care about misconceptions covered by reputable sources. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 04:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

In any case, "disinformations" is ungrammatical. Since "information" is an uncountable noun, "disinformation" also can have no plural. Ikiayyas (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles on the Police

• "Turkish police: we're fighting inhuman work conditions, not protesters". The Guardian. 14 June 2013. Retrieved 14 July 2013.
• Arman, Ayşe (14 July 2013). "Canavarlaştırıldık, insanlıktan çıktık". Hürriyet (in Turkish). Retrieved 14 July 2013.

These may be instrumental in covering the content on the police. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 03:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be expanded up on under the section on the police? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Telekinesis remark

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0YiRP6gMUI
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/13/erdogan-turkey-protests-telekinesis-conspiracy-theories
• http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/telekinezi_dunyanin_dilinde_bu_bir_saka_degil-1141721

I am not sure how relevant this is but the telekinesis claim and rest of the video may be relevant. This is the same person that came up with the interest lobby theory and was recently promoted as the chief financial adviser to the Prime Minister. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yiğit Bulut seems to merit an article, at least, so I've just made one. Podiaebba (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Never mind the telekinesis: this is probably a greater factor in Bulut's appointment! Podiaebba (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

He comes up with a different theory every week. His latest claim is OTPOR (a Serbian organization) supported all protestors to start a civil disobedience. Berkaysnklf (talk), 14 July, 2013, 22:34 (UTC)

Move

Erdoğan claimed that three quarters of protest participants had voted for the main opposition CHP, and also accused CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu "of acting like the head of a terrorist organization by calling on the police not to obey orders." I think this part should be moved to another part in the text, since "three quarters of protest participants" is a valid information, not a conspiracy theory. For "of acting like the head of a terrorist organization by calling on the police", I think it's a baseless attack towards Kılıçdaroğlu. Conspiracy theories are absurd like "Telekinesis" idea.Kavas (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracies can be baseless. Are there credible sources contradicting this? The statement can be countered by that. We should not remove even "absurd" claims. I think such statements by Erdogan demonstrates his stance towards the protests and perhaps also towards the opposition party. The Guardian for instance lists a number of conspiracy theories based on comments by Erdogan and/or his advisers. Mind that we aren't trying write the truth, rather what is sourced. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

With respect, we're not discussing removing "Erdoğan claimed that three quarters of protest participants had voted for the main opposition CHP, and also accused CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu "of acting like the head of a terrorist organization by calling on the police not to obey orders.". We're discussing moving it into a different heading, since I think they don't belong to "Conspiracy theories". Besides, "Telekinesis" idea is a conspiracy theory, but I didn't remove it or suggest to remove to it, I used it as an example of a conspiracy theory.Kavas (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Did Erdogan not claimed this? Is it credible enough to be moved elsewhere? Where would you want to move it? I am having difficulty understanding the problem. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Did Erdogan not claim this? -Yes, he said it.

Is it credible enough to be moved elsewhere? - I didn't understand it.

Where would you want to move it? - anywhere except conspiracy theories

Kavas (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The claims are fine where they are. Erdogan is very clearly trying to imply that the protests were organised by the CHP, and not organic in the way people who've actually surveyed and talked to the protestors conclude. It is a conspiracy claim which goes very well with Erdogan's other conspiracy claims about the interest rate lobby etc. Podiaebba (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Find a source for "three quarters of protest participants had voted for the main opposition CHP," is a conspiracy theory! If you can't find the source, then you're inserting your POV to Wikipedia. Kavas (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, Kavas, go to the context and it's blindingly obvious that it's a claim that is part of a conspiracy claim. Here, from the source in the article:

[Erdogan] also said they would be inquiring into who was behind the Gezi protests, arguing that it was all a massive conspiracy, prepared very professionally in collaboration with social media, companies, the interest rate lobby, media and some “internal traitors and external collaborators.” He added that their true colors had now been revealed.

“It was prepared very professionally,” Erdoğan said. “Social media was prepared for this, made equipped. The strongest advertising companies of our country, certain capital groups, the interest rate lobby, organizations on the inside and outside, hubs, they were ready, equipped for this.”

Erdoğan slammed the opposition, saying they are hiding behind vandals’ backs since they fell short on opposing within Parliament. Amid particularly slamming the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), Erdoğan was harsh regarding the party’s leader, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, arguing that he was not worthy to fill the post. Erdoğan accused Kılıçdaroğlu of acting like the head of a terrorist organization by calling on the police not to obey orders.

“From the public poll we have conducted, we have seen that those involved in Gezi Park events voted for the CHP by 76 percent and are their followers; 16 percent are from the BDP [Peace and Democracy Party]; 1.2 percent are from the AKP and 1.2 percent are from the MHP [Nationalist Movement Party]. This is the picture,” Erdoğan said, adding the CHP was involved in the protests. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-prime-minister-vows-to-increase-police-force.aspx?pageID=238&nID=49006&NewsCatID=338

OK? Podiaebba (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Every accusation isn't a conspiracy theory. According to a different survey by KONDA, Gezi Park protesters voted for the CHP by 41%. So, 76% isn't unreasonable. Accusing CHP of supporting (or organizing) the protests isn't similar to saying "Twitter", "interest rate lobby", "the international Jewish lobby" is behind it.Kavas (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The facts of the claims Erdogan made are clear; it is a bunch of conspiracy claims, which includes the CHP. I don't know what you're playing at here. Do you just object to the word "conspiracy"? Conspiracies don't have to involve aliens you know... Part of the reason Erdogan so easily makes such claims is because Turkish history, including recent history, is rife with conspiracies (eg around coups and coup attempts), including conspiracies that look at least superficially similar to these protests. Podiaebba (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

PS CHP got 26% in the last election. Compare that to 41% or 76%? Very different implications. One is only slightly higher than a random cross-section of the electorate, the other is massively over-representing CHP. Podiaebba (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Kavas, conspiracy theories do not have to be factual. They can even be based on lies. We should use the KONDA survey you mentioned to counter the statement of Erdogan as required by WP:NPOV.

I agree that it is indeed not the same thing as the other conspiracy theories you have mentioned. The statement gives the feeling of 1950's United States with Joseph McCarthy around. I think keeping that feel is important when statements like this are common.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 05:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

See sources for surveys http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/gezidekiler_kim-1137540 (for KONDA), http://www.haberturk.com/gundem/haber/852023-gezi-anketinden-ilginc-sonuclar (for GENAR). Kavas (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a longer quote - it might make it clearer how the CHP claim fits into the general style of accusation. Podiaebba (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. What would you propose? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

"I agree that it is indeed not the same thing as the other conspiracy theories you have mentioned." good. So we should find a way to differentiate them in the text too. Cheers Kavas (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain exactly how it's different. Erdogan lumps all these claims together under "internal traitors and external collaborators" - what makes you so special that you can contradict him? Podiaebba (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, you think everything Erdogan says are for proving "internal traitors and external collaborators" conspiracy. But, the difference is this: "twitter is behind Gezi Park" is cited as a conspiracy theory, "76% of people protesting voted for CHP" isn't cited as a conspiracy theory and it's indeed the result of a survey. Kavas (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be obsessed with the idea that the 76% claim is in itself a conspiracy theory (as if the CHP were a secret society or something). The 76% claim is part of the conspiracy theorising. Podiaebba (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked the article text. It's tricky because we're only partially dealing with direct quotes... I think it's clearer now. Podiaebba (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Reyhanlı reference you used is in my opinion not in scope of this article. Maybe you should find a reference where Erdogan's connecting Reyhanlı to Gezi Events.Kavas (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Erdogan claims such a survey exists. We have no way to know what survey that is or if such a survey exists at all? It's nothing more than a conspiracy theory without such detail. We cannot just assume things. As far as I know an important majority of the people participating in the Gezi Park sit-in were apolitical. I could be wrong though. Statistical makeup of the participants could be a separate section. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Reyhanli accusation is extremely relevant, and not just because it was made on 29 May. It makes it very clear that Erdogan isn't being hyperbolic or metaphorical, he really does mean the CHP could be conspiring to organise the protests as a way to topple the government. Put all his speeches together (there are others we could draw on) and it's clear what he's saying. Podiaebba (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you use a reference in which Erdogan talks about Reyhanlı in the context of Gezi? See http://www.haber7.com/guncel/haber/1048819-basbakan-erdogandan-cozum-sureci-cevabi Kavas (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

CS Gas

There is repeated mention in the article of the use of "tear gas". This is a general non-specific term but the specific chemical fired by the police was "CS gas". Since not all "tear gas" is "CS gas", and "CS gas" is the more specific and the accurate term to use in this case, I suggest we change "tear gas" to "cs gas". Here is a source that notes that what was used was CS gas: http://www.todayszaman.com/columnistDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=318254 - there are other similar ones, plus of course the numerous photos of the spent canisters, all marked "CS Gas". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the remark in essence however I can't help but ask two questions. Would the reader know that CS gas means tear gas? Is the distinction really relevant? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't just adding a link to the Wikipedia CS gas article solve that? And if it true that many readers will not know that "tear gas" means "CS gas", then that is a further strong reason to be correct and refer to the substance by what it is actually called. Using CS gas on the battlefield is considered a use of chemical weapons and thus a war crime - so if CS gas is being used among civilians it is a serious matter. That should require calling it by what it actually is - CS gas - and not using a more vague and colloquial phrase like "tear gas" that could be seen to be disguising the truth of the CS gas useage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure I remember reading about a "more powerful tear gas" being used as well (presumably CN gas, maybe OC gas - OC_gas#Treatment sounds familiar), when people were starting to get used to the tear gas and be ready with counter-measures. We should try and be clear about this. (As for people not knowing what "CS gas" is - well isn't that what a wikilink is for?) Podiaebba (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think is matters more what sources commonly call it. If they mostly say "tear gas", we should too. Having an occasional source say it's "CS gas" is not enough, in my opinion. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yemeni Seizure of Turkish ship loaded with Turkish weapons

Here is something really interesting. Turkish media didn't show this so I learned this one now. It can be related with the protests and democratic acts in Turkey, as the weapons were probably destinated for Mursi supporters, or Free Syrian Army (which the Turkish protesters are also protesting against). Should we mention about this in the article ? Berkaysnklf (talk), 18 July, 2013, 22:49 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of this incident to this article unless there is a source linking it. It may very well exist but unless it does the inclusion would be original research on our part. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 07:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought so. Just wanted to get an advice if we should mention it in a sub-title if there is a link between. But no links for now, right. Thank you. Berkaysnklf (talk), 19 July, 2013, 22:06 (UTC)

Honestly I do not see the importance of that story. Nothing credible at the moment even establishes accountability let alone a target for the alleged weapons (if they exist at all). -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Detention vs Arrest

And by the way, the detainments need a real update as the number passed 100 already and increasing. I can't find a source talking about the total numbers but lots of partial sources talking about partial numbers. Berkaysnklf (talk), 18 July, 2013, 22:52 (UTC)

Wait, there is a certain misunderstanding here. What do we use arrest part and what do we use detaintment part for ? For example, there are 119 people sent into "a prison" and at least 4,900 to 5,000 people "taken in custody" and at least 66 people still being "held in custody". We need to organize these parts urgently as the Human Rights Watch and Turkey Human Rights Association updates their reports again and again in urgency, I guess. Berkaysnklf (talk), 18 July, 2013, 23:09 (UTC)

Arrest is a temporary thing by the police. Detainment is with a court order only. Distinction is necessary due to the massive amounts of arrests and comparatively smaller number of detainments. I think we should keep track of the detainment separately due to their potential length of several years until an indictment shows up. We should use reliable sources to keep track of it though. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 07:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I have the most reliable and latest source (for now) but before updating, I just wanted to ask. So according to the source that I am going to link in page now, there are only around some specific time period; here is the source, Human Rights Association (Turkey) Number of people being held in custody: 66. Number of people in prison: 119. So I'm updating the data now if there is any grammatical error about judiciary terms, you may fix it. Thanks. Berkaysnklf (talk), 19 July, 2013, 20:48 (UTC)

And actually the source has lots of content that needs to be mentioned like inside usage of gasbombs and water cannons and chemical substances in water cannons and lots more. But its really hard to update them all by myself. Berkaysnklf (talk), 19 July, 2013, 20:53 (UTC)

It is important to note how many detentions/arrests per city. Too much is going on at the same time. Perhaps the infobox can link to a section discussing the arrests and detentions. A day to day table would help a lot. This can lead to graphs. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It was easy at first when there are about 30-40 detentions and arrests. But now in the reports there is only the total number. The cities where 119 detentions were made is kinda mentioned in reports but not with numbers. The detentions made in cities Istanbul, Izmir, Ankara, Kocaeli, Antalya, Mersin, Adana, Antakya and Eskişehir (but its not clear if there is any in other cities.) Berkaysnklf (talk), 20 July, 2013, 20:28 (UTC)

Scientific journal on Police

• Science 19 July 2013: Vol. 341 no. 6143 p. 236 DOI: 10.1126/science.341.6143.236-a

  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6143/236.1.full

I think this could be a very interesting angle. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 09:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Erdogan's Policies in the Middle East worth mentioning in this article

Can we put up a section talking about Syria and the deceit of the AKP?

This article is a great example: http://rt.com/op-edge/israel-attack-syria-turkey-313/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.64.20 (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems too off topic to me. Seems more to do with AK party's long-term Islamist agenda, same with Erdogan's attitude over Egypt and the toppled Morsi. But I think Erdogan's rhetoric regarding internal ecomomic policies are rather more deserving of mention in this article.: http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action;jsessionid=025F0F13F5AE32536511E34259911B0A?newsId=321484&columnistId=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, off-topic. We'd also need sources covering it in the context of turkey. A blog on rt would not suffice for something like this. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not so sure. Claiming that there is no connection between Turkey and Egypt's current protests would be denying the elephant in the room. There have been support protests towards Egypt's MB in Turkey by what appears to be the same anti-Gezi park protest crowd. Consider it in the content of this article. That is not the only article making the connection. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 10:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Erdogan's islamisation policy is connected to his Syria policy. In any case, it doesn't need a section, just a mention, since some protesters have cited Syria as an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This page needs a large amount of work

I'm going to begin (actually I already have) cleaning out this page. I will be gutting entire sections that do not belong on the wiki entirely. I already removed the list of locations where protests are still going on, as we are not a meeting place for protests and it did not seem to include any useful encyclopedic information. Also, information needs one or two references. That's it. It does not need five references, or even three. Just one. Also, these references must be reliable. No source is better than an unreliable one, which means that 90% or more of the facebook, twitter, and youtube reference will be removed and replaced with citation needed templates.

Another note, I'm likely going to be removing large amounts of "Prominent individuals, political parties, and groups" section, possibly even the entire thing. If they have no relation to the actual protests (i.e. they aren't prominent Turkish political parties or groups) then they don't belong in the article, no matter how important they may be to your country or social group.

In summary, this page is in dire need of a prune, and I'm about to do it. Jeancey (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As an update, I also removed the list of people injured as we cannot and will not list all 4000+ and picking who gets listed and who doesn't is a POV issue (all the people listed were protesters, with zero mention of any security forces/police injured, which have happened). Also removed some duplicate text in other sections. Still not done, will update again later. Jeancey (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I finished for now. If anyone has any questions on reasons why a specific thing was removed, let me know. Jeancey (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Jeancey, you did a great job in reducing the size of the article. I wish there would also be a "Jeancey-person" on the German article as it amounts now to over 600 KB and is increasing on a daily basis. --Alfred Klose (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Which article? I could give it a look. This article gives me a headache, which is why I stopped. I actually think we could cut this article in half and still have more than enough relevant information. Jeancey (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It is this article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteste_in_der_T%C3%BCrkei_2013 and I already told them on the talk page that they should take you as an example how to handle things. --Alfred Klose (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I don't speak German, so I can't help directly. Hopefully they can learn from what I did here to help out there! Jeancey (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sure they can! *tumbsup* :-) --Alfred Klose (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the clean-up (injuries etc.), but I didn't find cleaning-up the list on demonstrations part all true. At least the minimum number could be 2,000 or 2,500. Also a free space occured, that doesn't look good this way. And the sources are reliable about protester numbers. So I think we can re-take the list.

And also, the Mediterranean Games part is fine this way as length. It doesn't need anymore clean-up, I think (except the grammar, ofcourse). Berkaysnklf (talk), 24 July, 2013, 22:16 (UTC)

The point was mainly that there were a very large number of protests AND an entire article devoted to them, so they didn't need to be listed here. In fact, we probably should remove that entire list and just link to the full article detailing those demonstrations. This is just supposed to be a summary after all. I had originally left 16 locations, and I assumed that each column would contain four of each, but that clearly didn't occur. Jeancey (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note, twitter is not a reliable source, and use of hashtags change frequently and thus is not something we usually cover, especially while the protest is ongoing. When the protest is finished and there is one or two hashtags that are used enough to cause reliable sources to talk about them, THEN they can be added. Jeancey (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Then a new article about protest locations and protester numbers is kind of needed. Berkaysnklf (talk), 24 July, 2013, 23:38 (UTC)

I see now that the page is for a list of solidarity rallies. Yes, a page describing the protest rallies would be useful, however, when some rallies have tens of thousands of people, rallies with simply thousands of people are not that notable. Jeancey (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I see now that the page is for a list of solidarity rallies. Yes, a page describing the protest rallies would be useful, however, when some rallies have tens of thousands of people, rallies with simply thousands of people are not that notable. Jeancey (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I can contribute if someone starts the page. I'm not very good at starting articles as I don't have so much time because of the protests and also as my native language is not English. Berkaysnklf (talk), 24 July, 2013, 23:55 (UTC)

I find it highly problematic when large amount of sourced information is mass removed without adequate discussion. I am going to restore the injuries section for example. I am also going to restore the table for the park forums but will comment it out since it had sourcing issues anyways. We are forced to stuff this article with content as the only break-away was quickly nominated for deletion. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 19:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If something is nominated for deletion and then passed, the answer is not to just shift the information to another article. If you want to keep the information for future reference, put it into a sandbox in your userspace. Listing specific names of people who were injured out of 4000+ injured is unreasonable and extremely POV. As I mentioned, not a single injured police officer or security member was mentioned. At all. All of the ones mentioned were done to elicit an emotional response from the reader against the government. This is not what wikipedia is for. I did not remove the entire injuries section, just the useless and POV list of specific people who were injured. The park forums were also completely unnecessary. Who the hell cares if 100 people protested in some city. That is NOTHING compared to the hundred thousand and million person rallies. We are NOT a completely 100% up to date source for ANYTHING let alone this. It is impossible for us to be and it is not the goal of Wikipedia in general to do this. As a compromise for the protests section, how about we combine the other protest numbers under 15k into a single number, essentially protests in other areas of the country. That way the information is there, but isn't so useless. Jeancey (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, Twitter, facebook, and youtube are not reliable sources and thus cannot be used in articles. This article is massively long and full of unneeded and excessive information. Jeancey (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Let's discuss. I think we should all of the sections you just readded for the reasons stated above. Why do you think they should stay, given that they are excessive, POV, and generally serve to real encyclopedic purpose (and happen to be poorly sourced.)? Jeancey (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lets keep content we are discussing on the page, comment out if you think something needs to be removed so that I can see it in source and perhaps improve it to something you may then find satisfactory. The article is in some parts in a cliff note format since there is a lot of information and very few of us editors. I'll talk about the sections I have restored below.

I have restored the content removed from the injuries section. The nature of injuries and its targets is very important in giving examples of the scope of the protests and the police action against it. We are not talking about paper cuts here but rather very severe injuries such as people in coma or permanent loss of eyes etc.

I have also restored the "Prominent individuals, political parties, and groups" section as its removal was unexplained. Similar articles have such sections though very rarely do protests get such vocal support.

I have restored and commented out the table on the park forums. Listing these have historic information but most information wasn't sourced in a satisfactory manner. The forums can be a break away article too.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube are reliable sources if and only if they are from official sources. Official YouTube videos of artists, official twitter accounts of politicians, official facebook account of known activists are notable and reliable to be used as sources when relevant.

I am also very distressed by the mass removal of many sources from the article. Why was this even done as those sources weren't even fully utilized.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll respond to some of your points:

The injuries name specific people, every single one of them opposition members. I know for a fact that members of the security forces have also been injured, but none of them are mentioned at all. This means that the mentioning of injuries is POV. The extent of the injuries was laid out perfectly fine in the prose of that section. The list of people was therefore unneeded and excessive.

The prominent individuals and parties was a list of people who some may think are notable, but all shared one thing in common: They are not turkish. They have zero relevance to the topic. If Justin Bieber commented on this, he would be just as relevant as the other people listed. There was no purpose to having them on the page and just served to bloat the length of the article.

Again, I have mentioned above why the forums should be limited to those above a certain number. Listing places where 100 people have protested is unneeded and just serves to bloat the article.

Twitter, facebook and youtube are ONLY reliable sources when they are used as a source about themselves. I.e. when listing information about the poster. These sources were used as references for ANOTHER topic, namely the protests. This puts them firmly in the unreliable source category. Please feel free to read up on it here.

I removed sources where there were excessive amounts of them. A single line does not need 5 sources on it when two will do. We do not need to utilize 100% of available sources. We can't and shouldn't be doing that.

The entire goal of my edits was to reduce the massive size of the page under general size cap of 200k bytes. The topic covered by this article really only needs 100k to cover everything, judging by the information provided here. Look at it this way. This article is currently larger than the entire Arab Spring article. That's just ridiculous considering the amount of information on that page and the small amount of actually, useful information here. I suggest you read up on points 1, 2, and 4 of the NPOV section on the top of the page to get a better idea of what is actually needed in an article like this. Jeancey (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The details of the injuries were important and shouldn't be removed; and if police injuries aren't detailed in sources, that's not Wikipedia's fault. Some of the less important info about prominent support can be moved to another article, like International reactions to the 2013 protests in Turkey. Podiaebba (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jeancey, you just mentioned you know that members of the security forces have also been injured. Can you please cite your sources here? I did not find any reliable information about that matter, not a single name, no data about the amount of seriously injured officers. Even no recent data of injuries at all. The only name I found is - of course - Mustafa Sari. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC) + --Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain I heard it on Al Jazeera. I don't have a specific source for it, but I'll look as soon as I have some free time. Jeancey (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I would appreciate very much. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"I've searched my conscience, and I can't for the life of me find any justification for this, and I simply cannot accept that there are on every story two equal and logical sides to an argument." - Edward R. Murrow

The injuries listed on the article (at least the ones I added) have been either analysed in relation to ECHR or were interviewed by a journalist. Ayşe Arman had a number of articles on injured and killed individuals. We report on what is sourced. She has also interviewed four police officers (none were injured) whom were complaining about the "inhumane work conditions" forced upon the riot police. I have not added this since I do not know how or where it would fit. I think I have posted it here but it was archived due to inactivity. Wikipedia isn't a memorial, the mentioned names are only mentioned because their stories are relevant to the content of the article in explaining the nature of the police action.

Prominent individuals and parties do not need to be Turkish. Since when do we have such a requirement? The non-Turkish Andrew Mango was publishing articles on Turkey in Political Quarterly in 1957 when Erdogan was 3 years old. Why Andrew Mango? Because he is among the signatories of the full page letter and may face legal action from Erdogan. Remarks of artists and politicians alike are notable. If the list gets too long, it could indeed be a breakaway article with the more notable names listed here and a link to the complete list. Only one individual in the Times letter is Turkish (Fazıl Say). Mind that there also is sciencemag.org letter.

The protest of one individual (Standing Man Erdem Gündüz) trended beyond Erdogan on Google trends. It has had numerous articles covering it. I do not see why you are dismissing protests strictly based on size. Police will not allow crowds to grow and as a result lots of small groups are spontaneously protesting. Indeed the protest of a single 100 person group isn't very noteworthy but if a number of groups of 100 are protesting spontaneously at the same time, that makes them notable. This was the case with Occupy movement, I do not see why it should be any different here.

My comment on Twitter, facebook and youtube is clear. I have explained it to you on your talk page and I have pointed you to a specific section on that very page. Unless you have problems with that I kind of do not see why you did that.

Having multiple sources is good practice particularly on articles such as this one furthermore multiple sources can be utilized to source different pieces of information making up the single sentence. Please restore the sources you have removed or at least post them on the talk page as a list (on the first section perhaps) so that we can go through them on a case by case basis.

This article is indeed bloated. The solution is breakaway articles (that don't get immediately nominated for deletion) not removal of sourced/mass amount of content.

At heart I do not oppose your edits (to reduce the bloated size) but I think it would be best if we take things slower and work on creating breakaway articles explaining the various details that are notable enough to be on wikipedia but not that vital to be present inside this article.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The details in the injuries section are undue and makes the article unnecessarily long. As a compromise, I suggest we split the entire Casualties section, and make a new article for that.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think properly sourced, relevant information should not be removed entirely, but moved to spin-off articles. FunkMonk (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Injuries section demonstrates the nature of the police action. I can agree for a shorter summary of the injury section with details being discussed in a breakaway article. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

UN Reports and Statements about Sledgehammer Case

Does the reports of U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions about the detentions of military leaders and officials and journalists and members of parliament, accused on Sledgehammer Case which is also related with another case named Ergenekon which led to lots of military detentions too, worth a mention here? The report and statements, state that the detentions are arbitrary and against human rights. Calling Turkey to do, what needs to be done about the releasing of the "arbitrary" detentions.

People widely demanded the releasing of the secularist and patriot military leaders and all the others, being prisoned for years in Silivri Prison, during these 2013 protests. This can worth a mention here because of those demands of the people. And also a massive protest is being organized on 5 August in Silivri for the releasings of the accuseds, informing and calling thousands of people around Turkey by different organizations and individuals. This started and spread after the statements of UN. A source which contains the statement of UN and which has other reports about the Sledgehammer Case. .. Berkaysnklf (talk), 24 July, 2013, 23:53 (UTC)

A protest being organized for the future does not get mentioned at all here. The UN report likely has its own page and should be mentioned there. Jeancey (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say let's mention about the future protest but this demand of the protesters that I've mentioned about and the statment of UN that came afterwards can worth a mention, of course after taking opinions of other users, working on the article. Berkaysnklf (talk), 25 July, 2013, 00:09 (UTC)

And by the way, I didn't undo your edit on Ankara Telfer Construction consciously. It was caused by an edit conflict, I guess. Just noticing. Berkaysnklf (talk), 25 July, 2013, 00:23 (UTC)

Ah. That makes more sense. Jeancey (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The report of UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is notable on its own right but I do not see the connection with it and the protests. That said during the Gazdanadam festival there were many invitations for people to how up at the Ergenekon trial. We aren't a crystal ball so until that happens there is no connection as far as we should care. but as you said it is a good idea to keep this in mind. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah the first big demand about the releasation of Ergenekon and Sledgehammer detainees were occured during the Gazdanadam Festival. And also lots of groups, organizations and individuals raised their voice about these during ongoing protests. And after the Gazdanadam and after the UN reports, this call for Silivri is being made widely (firstly on social media). So this is a summary. And yes, we should keep these in mind until August 5. Berkaysnklf (talk), 26 July, 2013, 21:56 (UTC)

That content should be added to Sledgehammer (coup plan) though. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Reyhanlı Bombings of El-Nusra (which Erdogan supports) and accusation of Soldier Utku Kali

And we can also mention about the Reyhanlı bombings and the accusation of Soldier Utku Kali which is now being judged for 25 years in prison for the allegations of leaking the documents showing the Syrian El-Nusra members (which Erdogan supports) are responsible for Reyhanlı bombings, to RedHack, under the Background title. He is also being allegated about being a member of RedHack while RedHack states they don't have any relations with Utku Kali except the documents. This happened 1 to 2 week before protests blazed and really increased the social tension (amongst 4+4+4 educational system, alcohol ban and Erdogan's speech sarcastically calling the first constitution makers and leaders of Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and İsmet İnönü as drunkards because of letting the usage of alcohol freely.)

I also suggest you to search for 'objective' news and reports about this situation. So, this can really worth a mention..Berkaysnklf (talk), 24 July, 2013, 23:59 (UTC)

I fail to see the connection with the protests. We need sources making the connections. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There are actually a lot. Especially after RedHack. I will share some sources and news when I have time. Berkaysnklf (talk), 26 July, 2013, 21:53 (UTC)

RedHack is not a reliable source. Anything from them wont go beyond a claim. The connection between that incident and Gezi park needs sources establishing such a connection. Content should be on the scope of 2013 protests in Turkey. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 06:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I meant, Reyhanlı bombing is a reflection of the bad foreign policies of Erdogan and we can mention about them in the background section objectively, saying that the foreign policies of Erdogan on Syria led to Reyhanlı bombings and these led people to uprise and protest against Erdogan and his policies. What I'm advicing is, that we should mention about these in the Background title, not directly linking the Gezi protests and the bombings, but linking the Reyhanlı and the protests in Reyhanlı to people being against Erdogan's foreign policies. Just like in the last paragraph. And also how this increased the social tension in the country just before the protests blazed.

Some example sources and news;

* About "Erdogan being the reason of the deaths in Reyhanlı"

* About "Erdogan's foreign policies led Turkey into the bloodiest foreign terror attack of the Republic history." This also tells about the Broadcast Ban that government put after the bombings and tells that this is a crime and this is fearful, and criticises the media's situation in Turkey harshly. Notice that these are about 20 days before the start of the protests.

* This describes the reason of Reyhanlı as Erdogan's foreign policies too and tells about this is just like Erdogan's foreign policies being the reason of Mavi Marmara incident and Turkish jet being hit by Syria/Russia near Mediterranean. And this also tells about the situation of people in the region, near Syrian border and how the tension increases after all these.

So we can summarize about the Reyhanlı that came after foreign policies on Syria and how it increased the social tension in Turkey (firstly in the region) in the background.

And these 1-Sol, 2-Etha, 3-Başka Haber tell about Utku Kali who revealed that El-Nusra which Erdogan supports, is responsible for Reyhanlı bombings. And it (1st source) criticises the judge about how it's being interested in the leaked document parts instead of the result of the documents that show the government-supported Al-Nusra, is responsible for the bombings.

I put these also for further information. As a summary, after foreign policies led to Reyhanlı and Reyhanlı led to social tension, Utku Kali was targeted as a result. And all these paved the way for the blaze of the protests.

Berkaysnklf (talk), 27 July, 2013, 21:41 (UTC)

The protests broke out due to a varying number of reasons. The protesters are not a homogeneous group in their political desires. This is very similar to Brazil. Certainly frustration with the foreign policy may have had an impact particularly for cities closer to Syria. My worry is to avoid trying to talk about events from before the protests too much. There is an over emphasis on the Mediterranean games for instance. That should be a separate article probably. Yes there were protests outside the stadium and yes tickets were probably sold in bulk to generate a pro government crowd (to avoid anti government chants from the crowd) but the actual doping scandal isn't that important. Mind that it is definitely worth a separate article on it. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are right about the doping part. But as this affected the protests (and not in just that area), we can mention about this in the background title and in the foreign policies part. Berkaysnklf (talk), 27 July, 2013, 19:59 (UTC)

Needed Update of Government Response title

The Government Response title needs an update as the decision to stop and cancel the construction plan on Gezi Park is now declined by the higher court after the midnight bag bill passed and gave the constructional permission authorities to Ministry of Culture from TMMOB (UCTEA).

I updated the status part on the infobox as the news arrived but I noticed now that the government response title is last updated about the cancellation of project. So the title needs an update. My updated on the status part can be based as it's too late here and I need some sleep. Thanks and good Wikis to all.. Berkaysnklf (talk), 24 July, 2013, 00:32 (UTC)

The poor infobox is having difficulty keeping up with the developments. Perhaps the status of the park and how things developed needs a section and infobox should link to it. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I advice the Timeline section if this is going to happen. Berkaysnklf (talk), 26 July, 2013, 21:45 (UTC)

And some news of death(s) coming from the protests against government's Syria policies, supporting the terrorist organization El-Nusra, in the border-town of Ceylanpınar. After the situation gets clear, about if the deaths are because of the police attack on the people protesting or because of the bullets coming from the clashes between El-Nusra and Kurdish militias in Syrian town Rasulayn, I am planning to update the article's deaths part and I can add a section for the protests in there if its needed (if the government gets involved in town and situation gets worse). Just noticing this. Berkaysnklf (talk), 24 July, 2013, 21:51 (UTC)

Deletion of Popular Culture Products

Finally, I don't find deleting the popular culture materials right, firstly; the song Eyvallah by Duman, Çapulcu Musun by Boğaziçi Jazz Choir and the Sound of Banging on Pots and Pans by Kardeş Türküler, as they were very symbolic for the protests, being played in every square. We can revert them or collect them in an other title but I don't think deletion was right especially the deletion of the 3 materials I've mentioned. Thanks and good night.. Berkaysnklf (talk), 24 July, 2013, 00:37 (UTC)

They may have been symbolic to you, but all the ones I deleted had only the youtube link as a source, which is not a reliable reference. If I left all the songs that had reliable news articles about them, which proved that they were at least somewhat notable. If you can find news sources that provide a reliable source for them, then you can add them back in. Otherwise it is original research. Jeancey (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:SECONDARY. The youtube links are primary sources and shouldn't be used for this purpose. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

For Duman's Eyvallah song that was composed and recorded in one night; 1-Sol, 2-Milliyet, 3-Akşam, 4-Yeşil
For Boğaziçi Jazz Choir's Çapulcu Musun Vay Vay song that was composed and first filmed in Istanbul metro; 1-Posta, 2-T24, 3-Sol, 4-Milliyet
For Kardeş Türküler's Tencere Tava Havası song that was in response for Erdogan's speech about cacerolazo protests; 1-Yurt, 2-Sözcü, 3-Sol, 4-TimeTurk
So this was why I was against the deletion. I didn't add them first so I didn't notice that the only sources were YouTube links. But now, I think these sources are enough for re-adding them again even there are more. Berkaysnklf (talk), 25 July, 2013, 17:10 (UTC)

Good. Please add them back with the new sources. Podiaebba (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Re-newed the popular culture part with the sources. Re-summarized the injuries part with important numbers and events needed to be mentioned including their sources. Berkaysnklf (talk), 25 July, 2013, 17:57 (UTC)

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/yazarlar/24401649.asp <- Interview with Ozbi/Onu Dursun. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 06:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiRMb4SVnjY <- DEV / Dans Et? What's the story behind this? Is it a parody? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The Times (Daily - London) Full Page Ad

Another full page ad, signed by lots of foreigner notable people including Turkish pianist Fazıl Say (being targeted by lots of Islamists). This also drew reaction of the Turkish AKP government. And Erdogan told that he is going to sue The Times too for this behaviour. The ad A news page before Erdogan's statement about he is going to sue the Times Berkaysnklf (talk), 27 July, 2013, 22:48 (UTC)

I thought I moved this to the relevant section where the content is discussed. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 23:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry I saw it there and thought I put it in wrong place. Sorry again. Berkaysnklf (talk), 31 July, 2013, 23:47 (UTC)