Talk:Turkish economic crisis (2018–current)

Please stay with the topic of the article

Dear User:Yosup1231, please do not add content which no serious source relates to the Turkish currency and debt crisis of 2018. While there may be many issues in Turkey after 15 years of Erdoganism, this article here has a particular topic. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear User:2A1ZA, everything that relates to the Turkish economy and has a significant burden on its credit rating, expenses or income is most definitely related to the this page. The sources and references that I use are credible as they are based on events or economic figures.

Not everything related to the Turkish economy has a significant relevance for this topic here, otherwise we could simply copy & paste the Economy of Turkey article. As far as your added content about Syria and Kurdish issues is concerned, the only sourced relation to our topic here that I am aware of is a remark by Moody's which gave the assault on Afrin as one (minor) reason for a rating downgrade. Might be a bullet point in the timeline, but certainly not a section of its own. Please do also keep in mind that this article has general sections on debt and on interest rates, and background content can and should be added there. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The Turkish military operation in Syria as a result of heightened security risks caused by the ypg issue has resulted in an increase of at least 8-12 billion USD in military expenditure and will likely add many more billions as it continues on. (Same as the war on terror did with USA' debt pile) That is just the direct cost that can be measured. Other indirect costs that result from a cooperation with Russia and a rift with the USA caused by a difference in the position of YPG will likely add even more costs. Yosup1231 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not about your or anybody else's opinion or argument. The Wikipedia is about sourced content. If you do not have a reliable source giving significance to an alleged cause for the Turkish currency and debt crisis of 2018, the content elaborating it must be removed, because it would be prohibited original research (see: WP:OR). And even if there would be a reliable source making the link to an alleged cause (which I do neither see nor think exists), it would have to be given due relative weight to those causes which apparently pretty much every reliable source give, namely excessive private forex debt and Erdogan interfering with the central bank (see: WP:DUE). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Concerning "Economist Sameh Abou Arayes"

Dear User:HorusCapital, you keep adding the sentence "Economist Sameh Abou Arayes was the first who forecast the crisis in 2011. He wrote several research papers forecasting the crisis in Turkish economy due to widening account deficit and increasing foreign debt." to the article, without any source for said claim, and it also is not discernible to me what the significance of this sentence is for this article. Might you be kind enough to explain why you think it should not be removed? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Ahval as a source

Please do not use Ahval as a source. I am not going to change anything (not willing to get into a pointless edit war) but that is an almost exclusively anti-Turkish propaganda outlet. It seriously undermines the credibility of the article and most of the substantive information can be found elsewhere. --2604:2000:E34B:AF00:A1C1:D9F5:6476:D3B9 (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ahval certainly is not "anti-Turkish". Its editorial team and authors generally consist of Turkish quality journalists who have been and are harassed or expelled under the regime of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. See here, too. Its editor-in-chief Yavuz Baydar is a hero of press freedom and an author for some of Europe's finest media, e.g. The Guardian. If you can read German, here is a fine piece on Ahval in one of Germany's quality media, Süddeutsche Zeitung. We are certainly going to use Ahval, because it is more reliable than any Turkey-based media outlet, including also used Hurriyet Daily News, can possibly be under the prevailing circumstances in Turkey. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You might want to read this article I just saw on Ahval, to understand the issue of "propaganda" in Turkish media and that Ahval is not the problem but part of the professional journalism solution. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

caused by

In the lead the article maintains that the cause lies, [no need for a quote, but consistent with orthodox economic thinking]. But that's only one approach, there are also those noted in the conspiracy theory section. They too should be alluded to in the lead as the article is not in a position to determine the cause, it only reflects perspectives, some of which happen to be conspiracy theories. Since orthodox theories have no exclusive claim to valudity and a position being a conspiracy theory does not make it necessarily invalid, the article lead ought to note both positions. 213.172.80.28 (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, so-called orthodox theories are so termed because they are based on facts and figures and evidence-based analysis, while conspiracy theories are just that, in most cases figments of imagination, highly colored by one's prejudices. They hardly have equal claim on validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.241.14.250 (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

in some cases hardly, in some cases easily. Orthodox theories are not always based on facts and evidence. Otherwise they would always be correct over non-orthodox ones, which is not the case. in the case of our article none have a precedence as both are positions by different parties, it is a current matter, we do not have evidence based analysis or studies as to ascertain the most valid cause or in case more than one cause, one with most impact.--213.172.80.28 (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a clear cut majority of scientists attributing the cause to the economic decisions made by RTE and his government, and what is basically a single source (since not independent from each other) furthering the "external influence" theory. Putting it in the lede would IMO conflict with WP:UNDUE, because while it is true that we have no empirically based explanations for this specific issue, since it is a one time occurence, the general principles of economic theory prevail, even if they aren't as strict as in the sciences of physics or chemistry. And they are also comprehensive enough to explain the issue without needing more explanation. It is of course prudent to include the opposing position, but there is no reason to treat them as equally viable. --131.169.89.168 (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

we don't have any consensus if the experts yet, as it is a developing issue, which precludes any such analysis. so, mentioning one position matter of factly, denoted by "caused by" while reducing opposing position to conspiracy theories section takes away the validity of the article itself. hence the need for a change. 94.20.42.6 (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)