Talk:Gezi Park protests

Turkish Spring

Turkish Spring redirects here, but nowhere does the article even mention that term, even though several refs do. Quite awkward. How about including a line such as "The protests have occasionally been labelled [or hailed as possibly prefiguring a] Turkish Spring in analogy to the Arab Spring, but [some reason why the analogy is not apt or the term not more widespread, or objections by named people]"? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Your question, somehow, contains the answer.

One of the biggest troubles of ‘Wikipedia’ [say for billions more aspects on earth, too!] is the perceptions of ‘majoritarianism’ and ‘pluralism’.

The main wiki pages cannot be changed through a result made in a talk/discussion page by only those who participated in. ‘The display’ and ‘the facts’ are not always the same.

My personal opinion or any wiki user’s opinion does not matter here now; because anybody, as an individual or as a coterie, do not have the infinite power to shape societies forever.

Therefore, I only can share my ‘observation’: A large majority of Turkish people [no matter what their political tendencies are] do not approach to label [or to make an analogy] the protests as ‘Turkish Spring’. Because:

1. They do not want to be mentioned with the Arab culture. [Again; not all of them.]

2. There is a massive stream that has already begun about 3 years ago called ‘the Arab Spring’. So it is so hard to replace the term after all. And from the sociological perspective, it is not necessary to replace at all.

Any ‘… Spring’ word make people recall ‘Arab Spring’ and this will result for Turkish society to be mentioned with Arabs. Because a vast majority of people around the world have an attitude that Turkish and Arab cultures are strictly intertwined. For some, “ Turko [or ‘Turco’] ” represents the entire middle-east including Arab culture. [To be clearer, there are still some people calling a huge part of Asia as ‘Chinese’ because of their eyes. And at the same time, a huge part of Asia perceive Europe, Russia, the Americas, a huge part of Africa, Australia, New Zealand and etc. the same.]

Re-writing here, the explanations above are not my definitive opinions [which are not the case for this discussion page at all] about the issue, these are only observations.

If you have more questions [as an individual or a wiki user] that “ Is there a genuine correlation between ‘the Arab Spring’ and ‘the Taksim Gezi Park protests’ ? ”, in ‘Archive 1’, there is a lengthy discussion about this specific subject.

Please visit.

Lastly, the discussion in archive 1 was not made to ‘decide!’ what to write in the main page about the issue. It may have been considered ‘a knowledge/opinion sharing’. --Toksoz (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• This is not about the issue of whether the term is correct/approriate or not; even if the reliable sources and the editors all might agree that the term is not, what is at issue here is completely independent of that. It is merely about a redirect term. Redirect terms should be mentioned in the article, at least more notable ones. And this one seems to be in significant use, enough to deserve mention, even if it mostly found in sources where the term is criticised. That the term is used is a fact and should not be ignored, omitted or censored (and neither should the idea, prediction or hope that the protests prefigure a revolution analogous to what happened in the Arab Spring, which lies behind the term). In fact, it is very useful to mention widespread incorrect or dubious terms or notions in Wikipedia in order to educate people. Wikipedia does it all the time. We don't simply omit incorrect things, unless they're not notable in the first place. But if the term were not notable, then there shouldn't be a redirect, either. Still, the fact that at least four of the cited sources mention it indicates that it is notable enough. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I was only trying to be helpful by making a suggestion. I do not have a horse in this game and do not care enough to edit the article myself. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Florian Blaschke; if you pay closer attention to the observations written above, the sentences do not aim to direct or re-direct about "the term is whether correct or not".

Your suggestion was noted not only by me also by a large majority of wikipedians visiting this talk/discussion page.

And anybody do not expect you to have horse but sincerely expect your care on "Wikipedia:Assume good faith" and "Wikipedia:Be bold". So do not hesitate to participate in. --Toksoz (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Plus, I also do think that the term must be written somewhere in the main page. --Toksoz (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• "and this will result for Turkish society to be mentioned with Arabs." That is completely besides the point. The mere fact that it would be called "Turkish spring" indicates that a separation is made. What matters is what the source say, not that Turks don't want to be associated with Arabs. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

fatalities

I think that this edit is questionnable. Here is an English version of the news. They state that Hasan Ferit Gedik was killed in Istanbul’s Gülsuyu neighborhood on early morning. Nothing suggests that this death is related to the protests. Or we'll add every death in Turkey that is in the news to the fatalites in this article? -- 37.17.113.123 (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I Agree Arved (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This is right, he died in an arguement (it was kind of a protest before) but against the local drug gangs in the area, nothing to do with government. BUT; then protests were held against "the government which is not taking care about the drug gangs in the city centres and not giving enough importance to these deaths, even trying to blacken the evidences". So death is not related but the protest that came afterwards are. Do as you wish. Berkaysnklf (talk), 7 October, 2013, 20:37 (UTC)

Graduations, Stadiums and the Latest Gezi; METU (ODTÜ) Resistance

I've added these titles about 20 hours ago and summarized them, not getting into the details and not adding enough sources. I was planning to do them today but seems like it will last a bit more as I am so busy these days with school and some flights and etc. So I really can use some help here, I believe you can find some English articles about stadium and graduation protests, and of course METU. You can check Ivan Watson and Laura Wells' articles (two journalist names that came up to my mind, who are related to the Turkish protests). Thanks in advance.. Berkaysnklf (talk), 7 October, 2013, 20:44 (UTC)

Gezi Park protest is over

Gezi Park protest is over why wikipedia says it is resuming? Fariztevfik (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Because protests are not over in other issues ?????? User:KazekageTR —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What are other issues? The last entry in protest timeline is in august Timeline_of_the_2013_protests_in_Turkey in English Wiki and 10 september https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Taksim_Gezi_Park%C4%B1_protestolar%C4%B1_zaman_%C3%A7izelgesi in Turkish Wiki. So if protests is resuming why there is nothing in timeline? I live in Turkey and there is nothing about Gezi Park for weeks. Fariztevfik (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

well there have been protests in Istanbul and Ankara just two days ago. http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/?hn=441180 ; so i don't think the protests are over. Arved (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

date of news is "14 Eylül 2013". It means "14 September 2013". We are now in 16 October 2013 (16 Ekim 2013 in Turkish). So it is not just two days ago, it is a month and a two days ago. So i think the protests are over. Fariztevfik (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

sorry i misread the date. So take this one [1] for example, it says 14.10. Arved (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately this protest is not related with Gezi Park. It is about mosque-cemevi complex construction in Tuzlucayir, Ankara. You can not associate every protests in Turkey with Gezi Park. Fariztevfik (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well the article's name "2013 protests in Turkey", so i think these protests belong here. Also there are certain characteristics that make the protests in Tuzlucayır a continuation of the original protests in Gezipark. Arved (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

2013 protests in Turkey continue as of today

http://www.bianet.org/english/youth/150753-11-detained-at-metu-solidarity-protest-in-istanbul

Though the recent protest and police crackdown are specifically in Ankara, these protests are still in 2013 and in Turkey. Events in Taksim Gezi Parki are but a minor expression of the world-wide protest against the imposition of "moderate sharia law" against the secularists.

I appreciate everyone's contribution to keeping this easy-to-use journal of what is happening in the 2013 protests in Turkey. Thanks to all! Rednblu (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Demands

The information under the heading "Demands" doesn't appear to match the information it cites. There are quotes in the article that aren't cited, and don't appear to correlate with the information that IS cited.