Talk:Alevism

Pictures

The page lacks visuality. Here are some basic pictures that can be added to increase readibility. I cannot upload a file to that I am not an established user. Someone please upload them.

A popular portrait of Ali hangs on almost all Alevi family's wall:http://www.kocak.dk/images/HZ.%20ALI.jpg[1] Alevis performing cem ritual : http://www.dogushaber.com/dogus/resimler/semah.jpg[2] http://www.kenthaber.com/Resimler/2005/08/31/00012495.jpg[3]

For Alevi art: http://img20.yukle.tc/images/4945celalabbas1kh1.jpg[4]

Relations with other Muslim groups

Since Sufism came into existence by/during growing power of Turkic tribes(second hand Buddhist background) in Middle-Eastern cultures, Alevi-Alawi culture should have more direct connection with Mongolian people(second hand Buddhist background) considering reciprocal hatred between Turkish mainstream culture and Alevis-Alawis(Shah Ismail, Assad family and Ottoman experiences). I don't mean bloodline necessarily but cultural continuation.

The section is heavily biased towards the Alevi's viewpoint. It would be nice if you trim it off, and try to summarize the Alevi/Sunni dispute rather than siding witht the Alevi totally, dedicating only a few words for why the Sunnis see the Alevi as wrong, and two three paragraphs to why the Alevi sees the Sunnis as wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.220.156 (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Can you be more specific? What is incorrect in the article? By definition every sect or religion believes it is the only true one and all others are incorrect. We cannot go into too much detail on the differences without adding too many paragraphs. It needs to stay brief and neutral but you need to be more specific. Thanks BilgeHan1 (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This is still a very bias article from when I last checked it. One line inparticular: 'They are considered kafir by a vast majority of Sunni Scholars. Accordingly, Alevis suffered oppression and massacres at the hands of religious fanatics for centuries.' The term fanatic is a derogatory term and thus makes the line not neutral. I have edited that part out.--IsaKazimi (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The whole entry was unnecessary anyway. So it is a good thing you took it out. I am curious however. How is it a bias to call those who massacred Alevis in the name of religion as religious fanatics? Did you want to call them your average moderate believer? Joe5323 (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, however a degoratory term suggests bias and bias invalidates the article. In the same way we would not label Hitler as a 'psychopath' on his page, would we?--IsaKazimi (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We would if it were the scholarly consensus. A better comparison would be with Mormonism, which most other Christian denominations would reject as heresy. However, these same Christian denominations also disagree about one another--are we to add "considered heretical by other Christians" to the page on Roman Catholicism? (Surely not.) Does it depend solely upon numbers? (That seems unfair as well.)

On the other hand, it is important to note that the Alevi often do receive such labels from outside Muslim groups. In that case, we have to be careful to identify who has said what. "Islam" cannot have an opinion (at least not that we can neutrally identify), only people and books (or perhaps councils) can say anything.

Remember, though, that the Ayatollah Khomeini is reported to have said nice things about them! (I would like to see the exact quote.) Dawud (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Shi'a view

No, Shi'a do not believe that whoever says the Shahadah is a Muslim. Like the Ahl al-Sunnah, it depends on other believes of the group in question. For example, the Ahmadiyya say the Shahadah. They are not considered Muslims however because they believe in another prophet after Muhammed (s.a.w.) and the same goes for the Alevis. People who believe in a distortion in the Qur'an, amongst other things, are unlikely to be consider Muslims by any mainstream Muslim scholar. Ayatullah Khomeini doesn't represent all Shi'a aswell, so his fatwa is only true to those who follow him (which most do not at present). The most prominent Shi'a scholars of our time (e.g. Ali Sistani, Sadiq Shirazi, Jawad Tabrizi etc.) do not consider Alevis to be within the fold of Shi'a Islam or Islam in general for that matter.--IsaKazimi (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved that Paragraph to a Sub-Section

Since many Shi'as like yourself and many Alevis agree that Alevis should not be classified as Shi'as, I moved this paragraph to an existing sub-section. If you look at the section called "Relations with other Muslim Groups", it has a sub section called Relations with Shi'as.

But in general I would say it does not matter what others label Alevis (e.g. Muslim or Shi'a). What is important is what majority Alevis say about themselves. They consider themselves as true Muslims. No one has the authority (except God if there is one) to decide who is a true Muslim, or Christian, or Budhist, etc... Joe5323 (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the Aleviyyah are not unified in their identity. Some say they are Muslim, others say they are Alevi and some just identify themselves as Kurdish. I have also, removed the word 'traditional' in the line mentioning Khomeini's fatwa, because this is an incorrect interpretation of it. 'traditional' gives the impression of orthodoxy. Khomeini just meant that he considers the Aleviyyah to be technically Shi'a in terms of theology. The word 'traditional' did not appear in his edict though --IsaKazimi (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Overcrowding the Introduction with Islam Classification

Past and current governments in Turkey have denied the unique character of Alevis. The state collects taxes from all religious groups and then spends all that money on Sunni mosques, imams, education and etc... As a matter of fact, the budget of the Office of Religious Affairs is more than combined budget of many other ministries. They imply that Alevis like all Muslims should go to mosques instead of Cem Evi, and their children should learn Sunni version of Islam, and that Sunni trained imams should provide spiritual leadership to Alevis. Therefore this is a sensitive and controversial subject for all Alevis.

In the introductory paragraph, the second sentence states that Alevi is one of the many Islamic groups. Then there is plenty of information under the "Relations with Other Muslim Groups" that talks about Shia classification.

Ironically the people who are trying to overcrowd the introduction section with more than necessary references to Islam and Shia classification are the same people who criticize Alevis for not going to mosques and for not following the Namaz praying. There is only one possible explanation for this. They like to deny the unique nature of Alevi beliefs so Alevi identity can be denied and Alevis can be assimilated.

Here is a fact to ponder about: There are much more major differences between Shia's and Alevis, than there are between Shia's and Sunnis. Joe5323 (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i totally agree. I think the distinction between Alevi'ism and Shi'ism should be made more apparent. In my opinion, Alevi'ism is a cultural Kurdish religion that draws some influence from Shi'a and Sufi values. However, a entirely unique religion in itself. However, your description of the State enforcement of Sunni Islam is misleading. Only a year or so ago, the court ruled in favour of a Alevi family who challenged the system in schools of offically teaching the Sunni version of Islam as a compulsory subject.--IsaKazimi (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I have couple of corrections. Most Alevis are Turks and also many Alevis are Kurds (same with Sunnis). FYI. The court ruling you are talking about was not a Turkish court but the European Court of Human Rights (in 2007). The religious education is still compulsory. Nothing changed. This article is a great read on the subject.

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav102607aa.shtml

As a matter of fact, Alevis are organizing a mass demonstration in Istanbul on the 8'th of November to protest the widespread discrimination against Alevis by the state.

Joe5323 (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it was an interesting article. We also shouldn't forget the discrimination practicing Sunni Muslims can face in Turkey too. As a matter of interest, could you inform me as to how the Jaf'eri Twelver Shi'a are treated in Turkey? I know there are quite a few from the Azeri population.--IsaKazimi (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Women are not allowed to enter official buildings and universities with head scarves. Other than that I am not familiar with any obvious discrimination against Sunnis or Caferis. Any religious doctrine that is not in line with government's Office of Religious Affair's version of course is subject to lack of support from the immense budget and resources the government employs. However the Caferi Imams these days (unlike in the past) are also paid salaries by the Office of Religious Affairs. Caferi Mosques also enjoy the benefits of official sanction. Joe5323 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

LETS BE VERY CLEAR: As an Alevi myself, yes we do have unique customs and traditions distinct from Sunnis and Twelver Shi'a, but we are Shia nevertheless. We venerate Imam Ali and his lineage, more so than Twelvers and this is the reason why some Twelver (or Jafari as they are also called), tend to shy away from sayting we are orthodox. Within Islam, Alevi's have developed some practices that can be considered on the cusp, but as supporters of Imam Ali and also following the core teaching of Shia Islam, ver are very much Shia Muslims. We will celebrate Muharram with more fervor than in Iran, and though our stayle of prayer might be different, it is in line with praying to Allah. So please let's not play politics (since that won't change anything). Aleve's are Shia, though not the kind who are the majority in Iran, Iraq or Pakistan. Like the Bektashi or the Alawites in Syria, we are a unique community under the umbrella of those who love the Prophet's family. Thanks, Muhammad.

I doubt you are an Alevi. Either way, no one is saying Alevis should not be classifieds as Shi'as or Muslims. However insisting on doing it over and over in the introduction section is not necessary. In my opinion these actions themselves are politicaly motivated to de-emphasize the major differences in philosophy and customs. When Alevis demanded official recognition for their place of worship (Cem Evi) and for their religious leaders (dede), the response from the government was "if Alevism is to love Ali we are all Alevis". It is very interesting that you, in your above paragraph,are also trying to simplify Alevism as "those who love the Prophet's family". One sentence in the introduction is enough!

Please show me one Alevi WEB site where they emphasize the Shia classification. Here is the most traditional Alevi institution where they have an article called the "What are the Differences Between Alevism, Shi'ism and Sunnism" http://www.cemvakfi.org/blddetay3.asp?ID=145.

By the way, if you are an Alevi I hope to see you in Kadikoy demonstration on the 8'th :-) BilgeHan1 (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad: "Now you are doubting my religion! *L* ... Thanks friend. I will not be joining the demo on Nov 08, since I have certain views on that issue. I am a proud Alevi Shi'a Muslim. My Sunni brethren here in NY, as well as in Ankara refer to my beliefs the same way. Thanks again." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.141 (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if my doubt offended you. It is just that in my experience I never met an Alevi family that named their children as Muhammad. The name Alevis usually use is Mehmet. Also Turkish usage is a Muhammet or Muhammed, but not Muhammad. Also the way you described Alevism matches the Sunni politically correct explanation of Alevism. I apologize again if I offended you. BilgeHan1 (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad: "Not a problem. My family was settled in Dubai in the 70s, so my name is spelt this way (also in my passport!)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.110.144 (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever else we may say about the Alevis, at least we may be sure that they are a diverse group, who often disagree about what it means to be Alevi. Most see themselves as Muslims; a few do not (and propose a variety of alternative identities ranging from shamanism to socialism). Some say they are Shi'is, but even these are divided as to how similar they are with Iranian Shi'ism. Others say they are Sunnis, or neither Sunni nor Shi'i. Their relationship with Bektashi Order, Yazidism and the Ahl-i-Haqq, and/or the Alawi of Syria is equally confusing, admitting of no simple answer. Dawud (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

I think the 'key characteristics' segment in the introduction should be moved. That is too detailed according to Wikipedia standards. See WP:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings.--IsaKazimi (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have moved it to the 'beliefs' section because that is the most appropiate section in my opinion. However, people are free to modify it if they feel it belongs somewhere else. (except the introduction of course).--IsaKazimi (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I completely and strongly disagree. Key characteristics is essential part of the introduction that captures the humanist principles all Alevis proudly share. BilgeHan1 (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not denying that they are important. However, not suitable for an introduction i'm afraid. No introduction can contain a point that requires bullet points to outline it. That is way too detailed for an introductory point. In the same way that the Five Pillars of Islam would never be included in the introduction of the Islam page. Wikipedia defines the introduction as: 'Headings provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily'. Thus, the key characteristics is inappropiate for an introduction.--IsaKazimi (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, the humanistic aspect of Alevism has already been outlined in the introduction: 'Modern Alevi theology has been profoundly influenced by humanism and universalism.'--IsaKazimi (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I saws no such rules. You can see the article "About Wikipedia" (click on the left) and see the introduction is not that brief. I am afraid you are confusing the introduction with contents. The contents come after the introduction which is a quick summary of the subject. The key characteristics are essential part of introduction where the reader is given a quick glance of the philosopy behind Alevism. I think they are not only perfect of the introduction, they are the most important part of the introduction.BilgeHan1 (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh forgive me, i misread that quote. However, that does not change the fact that no introduction has outlined in bullet points, the key characteristics of the topic in question. The introduction is just supposed to give a brief summery of Alevism. As I have said, the humanistic aspect of Alevism is already stated. Readers can then scroll down to read an expansion on that point. If you feel it neccassary, you can make a separate subheading going into detail about the humanistic ideals of Alevism. However, as I have previously said, an introduction cannot contain a point that requires bullet points to outline it. This is the main problem.--IsaKazimi (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not think there is such rule as you can not have bullet points in introduction. The alternative would be a regular paragraph and it would not read as well as bullet points. This entry sets the stage very well to introduce the unique character of Alevism. Joe5323 (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let us go through this logically. Wikipedia standards state that :The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article . Before I go through each 'characteristic', is it possible for the quotes that follow each one to be referenced? Are these quotes from some official text? Or are they just made up by one of the editors?

1) Love and respect for all people (“The important thing is not religion, but being a human being”)

This is already covered by ' Modern Alevi theology has been profoundly influenced by humanism and universalism. '. Thus, this characteristic is no longer relevent to the introduction. If you wish, a seperate sub-heading can be made to focus on the humanism of Alevism.

2) Tolerance towards other religions and ethnic groups (“If you hurt another person, the ritual prayers you have done are counted as worthless”)

Same as the first point. Also, covered by the mentioning of secularism in the introduction which automatically connotates the idea of tolerance.

3) Respect for working people ("The greatest act of worship is to work”)

This could stand on a point by itself which possibly a little expansion. i.e. What type of work?

4) Equality of men and women, who pray side by side. Monogamy is practiced.

The feministic aspect of Alevism can be made into a broader point. The point about women and men praying together has already been made further down.--IsaKazimi (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a great article where you will have a better understanding of Alevism and also you can find above proverbs. http://www.alevibektasi.org/xalevis1.htm. Proverbs, songs (poems) are extremely important to Alevis in describing what they believe and who they are and this was the preferred method of transfering the belief system from one generation to the next. Keeping Alevi writings during Ottoman rule was extremely dangerous, hence the reason for oral tradition.

As far as the above points they illustrate the main point of Alevism: they see God in every human being. “The greatest holy book to be read is a human being.”

The 4'th point is redundant (I agree)and can be moved to another section. Please give me until the weekend to think about it and how to improve that part. Thanks

BilgeHan1 (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Take as long as you need.--IsaKazimi (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that these are distinctive enough to warrant mention in the introduction. However, we could get rid of the bullet points and the quotes, which are in any case unreferenced. (What ARE the sources for these? Does anyone remember?)

I am also worried about the tendency to over-generalize. For example, some aspects of Alevism suggest male-female equality, but others (such as the all-male leadership) do not. "Respect for working people" sounds like a modern formulation, possibly under socialist influence. (Historically, practically all Alevi would have been "working people," and would have assumed this to be the natural state of human affairs.) As for religious tolerance, surely this must be qualified in view of the frequent clashes between Alevi and others. When did this type of rhetoric begin to be emphasized? I suspect the 1960's. Dawud (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Equality?

I read that the dede doesn' permit marrying a divorced woman. So a divorced women cannot ever engage in sexual relations again. I am assuming that a divorced man can however. Also, if divorce isn't permitted, doesn't that mean a women is forbidden from leaving an abusive marriage? Alevism doesn't sound that equal to me.--IsaKazimi (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Divorcing one's spouse is also grounds for excommunication as well as marrying a divorced spouse. Both sexes are equally impacted by this rule. BilgeHan1 (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I see, the way it is said on the page places the onus on women. I will change it to make it gender-neutral.--IsaKazimi (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How are divorce and remarriage actually handled in real life, in Alevi communities today? Surely the couple are not really shunned or whatnot. Dawud (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Real Turks

The original point was that the prayers are done in the language of the people. This is in contrast to almost all other non-arabic speaking Muslim practitioners around the world (including Turkish or Kurdish Sunnis) who pray in Arabic. The comment about Alevis seeing themselves as real Turks might be true for some, but this is not true for Kurdish Alevis. Also most Turkish Alevis do not use their Turkishness to make this nationalistic point since the emphasis of Alevi philosophy regards the perfect human being as some one who treats all kinds of people/nations equally (yetmis iki millete ayni gözle bakar.)

For example many Alevis also like the say they are the true Muslims. However such statements tend to be a little strong and opinionated for the introduction section. It was already getting more and more sloppy after several consecutive edits, so I restored the first paragraph to the previous version. If one needs to discuss this further, I recommend he or she creates a sub section on the subject of Language and Nationality and expand it. Regards. BilgeHan1 (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Source for quotes in lead?

The text in quotes in the beginning (“The important thing is not religion, but being a human being”, “If you hurt another person...” etc.) is puzzling. Is it supposed to be a quote? Where from? This should be clarified. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

During Ottoman rule, having Alevi text in one's possession was extremely dangerous. The Alevi leaders mainly relied on poetry and proverbs for the survival of the religion from one generation to another. Studying these proverbs which are still in use among Alevis is essential in understanding their characteristics. Here you will see many such proverbs http://www.alevibektasi.org/xalevis1.htm.

Joe5323 (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So these are anonymous sayings and statements that this person collected. I think this should be clarified in the text as well, so that other readers can understand it as I do now.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would not say it quite like that :-) These sayings are unanimous and consistent in the collections of this person and of every other researcher. They are repeated in every single Alevi book, and WEB site. These sayings are universally accepted by all Alevis, and often cited as a way to teach the path to younger generations. These are not just random sayings by some Alevis. I wish we had one single original text we could quote from. But as I said the teachings were handed from generation to generation via sayings, poetry and songs and not so much via published text. Joe5323 (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

References, please. Statements such as 'these sayings are universally accepted by all-whoever' is not our standard- however true. The statement that these phrases are repeated in every single Alevi book and web site is plainly hyperbole and fallacious. Pull one of those referred to books off a shelf and cite from it.Mavigogun (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Haji Bektash Veli

He appears to have been born in Iran/Persia but besides the murkiness of his actual history, we have a reliable source that says he was born to a Turkish family. Our policy WP:VERIFY makes it clear that verifiability is what we are looking for, and whether we think there were Turks in this area centuries ago or not is irrelevant. I certainly have no idea and frankly don't care what he was, only that we follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies and don't get bogged down in nationalism. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

All the reliable, contemporary sources refer to him as Persian (he did, after all, speak in Persian, write in Persian, and was born in Persia!). Some Turkish nationalists have retrospectively claimed he had some Turkic connections, but this has never been proven (you keep conflating "Turkish" with Turkic, by the way). If you don't care, why are you edit-warring to insert information that contradicts the well sourced info that is already in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dohezarsersdah (talk • contribs) 20:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to maintain NPOV and the use of reliable sources. We have one that says he was born to a Turkish family, and so far as I know there are no sources that say he was born to any other family and if we do we should add that as well, so why you are removing this needs to be explained. You've also said that a recent source (this century) was antiquated but are using a 1909 source. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We have a reliable source saying he was Persian, please don't remove it again. Go to WP:RSN if you don't think it's a reliable source, but if you don't want to be blocked, it would be wise not to replace it without consensus. If RSN says it's not a reliable source, I certainly wouldn't want to use it. I'd suggest we drop 'Turkish family' but I'm not going to get into an edit war over that. Dohezarsersdah (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Very funny. I never said we didn't have reliable sources saying he was Persian, I just think it's best to avoid nationalistic wars over this (and as his family was Turkish, it's not exactly obvious what makes him Persian). However, I do object to your changing the bit about him being born into a Turkish family into 'his family was Turkic' because that is simply not what the source says, it says "Turkish family". You can change it or I will. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Are we quite sure that he existed? (The stories I remember are fabulous accounts in which he turns into a lion, etc.) If so, what are the major sources for his life? --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.188.188 (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Alevism or Aleviness

Aleviness should be preferred because the original Turkish term 'Alevilik' (Aleviness) to define broader Alevi phenomena rather than Alevism which is sounds more like a political ideology or a social movement. Nobody use 'Alevicilik' (Alevism) in original Turkish milieu from villagers to scholars. Please let me give an example to make it clear: as in 'Muslim-Islam-Islamism' terms, it should be 'Alevi-Aleviness-Alevism', but this is also wrong, because there is no such a thing like 'Alevism'. Thanks. Ongan (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Aleviness" is not a word. I have never seen it before today, despite having read many English-language writings on the Alevis. "Alevism" on the other hand is rather popular, whether you like it or not. The word does not suggest a political ideology, any more than "Buddhism" or "aneurism" do. (The distinction you made seems to be French.) Alevilik is also acceptable, though confined to specialist writings. A simple Google search will confirm my observations.

And another thing: Not all Alevis (by which I mean the Turkish and Kurdish Alevis, not the Syrian Alawi) are Bektashis; nor are all Bektashis, Alevis. "Alevi-Bektashi" is one of several Alevi identities, and should be discussed but not elevated over the others. We should not speak so much of "lineages" (silsila) as of family- and village-based folk traditions, which are now being urbanized and internationalized. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.188.188 (talk) 06:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Turkish TV presenters joke about Alevis

The episodes of jokes non-Alevi TV presenters have allowed themselves over the years to crack about Alevis should be inserted in the parts of the article dealing with Sunni-Alevi relations.
One famous incident was a Star TV presenter suggesting (implicitly) Alevis engaged in incest. As far as I know that took place in January 1995. This is how it was reported to me by a Turkish friend of mine. It was some sort of quizz show, and in some cases the answers were provided by phone callers. The TV presenter took a phone call from a female caller and in reaction to something the caller said (I don't know in what context) about a problem between her and her father, the presenter joked (implicitly suggesting a situation of incest) "You are not an Alevi by any chance?". The caller immediately hung up and within a couple of hours thousands of Alevi youth gathered outside the TV station demanding a retraction and an apology. The presenter was taken off air and both he and the TV station apologized. He was reinstated later but his show never regained its former success because the presenter became afraid of offending people and, as a result, his show became quite tame, whereas its original success was due in large measure to the irreverent risque humour that guy was famous for engaging in. What was the name of that presenter?
For the moment, as long as the name of the presenter has not been cited yet, I don't think this falls under the Biographies of Living Persons restrictions (WP:BLP). If and when someone provides the name of the presenter then the above will have to be removed I suppose (are talk pages also under these restrictions?), unless we can come up with a reliable reference. However this episode seems to be quite well known (it certainly is so among all my Turkish friends) so this should not be too hard to find.
Cheers
Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 10:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)