Talk:2017 Dutch–Turkish diplomatic incident

WP:NOTNEWS

We have a perfectly good article (Netherlands–Turkey relations) where this incident is briefly discussed. At the moment, that is appropriate. Whether this incident will have any long-term repercussions so that a separate encyclopedic article would be justified, is impossible to foresee at the moment, less than a day after it blew up. WP is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This incident (which has been building up for weeks) is such an oddity within Turkish-Dutch relations that this alone (in my opinion) merits its own article. It is true that the future cannot be foreseen (hence, the article does not try to do so) but it is clear the diplomatic repercussions will be of note in any case. AKAKIOS (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, no, we cannot foresee whether there will be any long-term diplomatic repercussions. The Dutch government is already saying that they want to repair relations with Turkey. Erdogan is still yelling, but he might calm down in the next few days, because long-term nobody needs a drawn-out struggle about such a (relatively) minor issue. So at this point, a mention in the existing main article is perhaps justified but a separate article certainly isn't. --Randykitty (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Please do not make it seem as if I made the claim that it is certain that there will be long-term diplomatic repercussions, I didn't. I said that whatever the outcome, the diplomatic repercussions will be of note in any case. The Netherlands and Turkey have had 400 years of generally cordial relationships, and whether this is a turning point or 'merely' an unintended escalation ... it's a remarkable incident nonetheless. In any case the Category:Diplomatic incidents shows that this article is fully in line with several current Wikipedia articles concerning similar 'low key' (internationally that is) events. As of now, this incident is making international headlines. It's an article on a current affair, give it some time. AKAKIOS (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

By creating this article, you claim lasting significance. A "remarkable incident" can be briefly discussed in the main article. And that category is full of articles about diplomatic incidents that, sometimes a century later, are still being discussed (although I don't exclude that there's another or even a few other forgettable indcidents hidden in there). Whether the current incident will still be discussed, say, two weeks from now, let alone years from now, is absolutely unpredictable. --Randykitty (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I just see that this is now covered in three different places: here, ans separate sections in Netherlands–Turkey relations and Turkish constitutional referendum, 2017#Diplomatic crisis with the Netherlands. No way that this is warranted at this point. --Randykitty (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

True, it's significance is ultimately unpredictable. But looking at the unprecedented ferocity of the international dialogue, the lack of similar incidents in the past and the two national elections/referendums that this incident is bound to influence ... anyone with even minor deductive skills would have to admit the odds of it being irrelevant are quite small. AKAKIOS (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess my "deductive skills" are wanting, because I don't see this. In any case, we don't build articles on "odds", whether good or bad. Anyway, it's at AfD now and we should continue this discussion there. --Randykitty (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Changing the name

2017 Dutch–Turkish diplomatic incident => 2017 Dutch–Turkish diplomatic crisis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernio48 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The article should not be moved while the AfD discussion is running. Maybe this can be discussed if it is kept. Mjroots2 (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ernio48: - OK, the AfD discussion has been closed. I've no objection to the move proposal, but it may be better to wait for a few day to see how this plays out. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

+1 for waiting --Joobo (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Multiple issues tag

IMHO, EVENT is met. The RECENT is irrelevant, which just leaves the RS issue to deal with. Mjroots2 (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Although referencing presentation can be improved, I'm not seeing any unreliable sources. Twitter is usable where there are no alternatives. Mjroots2 (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Twitter should only be used for information about the Twitter account or entity related to that account. This page does not qualify for WP:TWITTER. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda: - it shouldn't be too hard to reference the twitter stuff from mainstream sources. Mjroots (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Swap Map Colors?

Green for Holland and Orange for Turkey? Is that not exactly backwards?128.214.163.211 (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In this instance, Turkey should be in a blue or grey checkered pattern. ;) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

POV failure

The article in its current form is a rather strong fail of WP:NPOV. Claiming that the crisis was triggered by Dutch refusal to allow Turkish ministers to enter is the Turkish POV, the Dutch POV would be that the crisis was triggered by Turkish insistence that their ministers be allowed to hold rallies on Turkish soils. Likewise, repeating Erdogan's Nazi-accustations reflects the Turkish POV, especially as the strong condemnations of this rhetoric are missing.

In short, the current intro is a rather classic example of only reflecting one POV (the Turkish one) and throwing all NPOV concerns out the window. Jeppiz (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

As the main contributor I cannot but slightly take offense to the wording above. Though I consider it neutral, if I had to choose, I think this article is more pro-Dutch than pro-Turkish. Just look at the source material. If you don't mind I'm removing the bias-tag you've added until you be somewhat more specific in your accusations (and solutions). Greeting, AKAKIOS (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought I was perfectly specific, but to be even clearer: the intro should not state that any Dutch action triggered the crisis. The intro should not repeat bizarre accusations that have been universally condemned. And you should not remove tags, particularly not for content you created. Jeppiz (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: the Dutch POV would be that the crisis was triggered by Turkish insistence that their ministers be allowed to hold rallies on Turkish soil- Dutch soil, surely?

I'm not seeing any major NPOV failings in the article. Both sides positions are covered. Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The incident was triggered by the Dutch refusal to allow the Turkish foreign minister into their country (and the Turkish government subsequently sending another minister anyway); that's factual. The article explains very well the reasons the Dutch had for doing so as well as the nature of the Turkish responds; including ludicrous and non-factual accusations. Honestly, I think you're reading things that are not there. There is no way any objective reader is going to rally to the Turkish side based on the information in this article. AKAKIOS (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Appears fairly neutral to me. No mentioning as fact of violation of diplomatic status (Turkish POV), excessive police force (Turkish POV) or provocations by the Turks (Dutch POV). I do not see the failure of NPOV either. Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not see any POV either. I suggest that we remove the tag.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really an issue with POV here- to me. --Joobo (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the POV tag was a reactionary knee-jerk reaction, and unwarranted.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The actual article is perfectly fine, my comment was with the intro. Saying that the Dutch triggered the incident is POV. I'm fine with removing the POV tag, but has edited the intro to reflect the actions of both countries rather than just one. I thanks Mjroots, Arnoutf, Ymblanter and Joobo for their relevant contribution. HammerFilmFan could learn a lot from their example and perhaps one day start contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. Jeppiz (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been editing Wiki long, long before you have - if you don't like your drive-by tagging removed when you are on the wrong side of consensus, well, that's just too bad, son. 104.169.28.48 (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The "Turkish officials seeking to promote the upcoming Turkish constitutional referendum to Turkish citizens living in the Netherlands" in the lede does not look neutral or accurate. They were not promoting neutral knowledge about the existence of the referendum or how to vote in it - they were campaigning for Turkish citizens to vote YES in that referendum. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've edited the lede to reflect this. AFAIK, nobody was trying to hold a rally for the "no" vote. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Animals

Apparently, Turkey are now expelling Dutch cattle (in Dutch). Is this worth mentioning in the article? So far, there are no reports that the Dutch are expelling Turkish Van cats in retaliation. Mjroots (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If you believe everything you read then there is not much to be said. Zebralines (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a nonsensical response - was it reported in a Reliable Source? That's all that matters - one's personal opinion matters not a whit to Wiki guidelines. 104.169.28.48 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

De Telegraaf is a highly reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Quotes

Do we even need the internationl reactions section? It's an open question. We certainly don't need to have quotes there. --John (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've no objection to it. I don't think it is excessive as it is - three international organizations and five countries. Only the United States isn't closely affiliated with the row, so that could possibly be lost without detriment. Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Attack with dogs and mounted police

This discussion was started by sock puppet "Zebralines" of "Human like you" evading indef block.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reports and pictures of Dutch police attacking the unarmed protestors with dogs and mounted police can be included. Zebralines (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Holy wars

The Turkish Foreign minister just said this: “Now the election is over in the Netherlands...when you look at the many parties you see there is no difference between the social democrats and fascist Wilders." “All have the same mentality. Where will you go? Where are you taking Europe? You have begun to collapse Europe. You are dragging Europe into the abyss. Holy wars will soon begin in Europe.” source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dutch-elections-netherlands-geert-wilders-freedom-party-turkey-fascist-no-difference-rallies-islam-a7632571.html Should it be added to the Turkish reaction section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayco122 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Dutch general elections neglected

The clash (both in diplomacy and on the streets) happened on Saturday 11th, the Dutch general elections on Wednesday 15th. Yet no serious mention of this interaction in the 'Background', and nothing at all in the lede.

Still, the clash did play a major role in the Dutch elections, for example (but definitely) by politicians referring to the clash in their campaign speeches and outings, sometimes even during the event. Key players were both campaigning and acting (eg Rutte, both PM and campaigning for his VVD; mayor of Rotterdam Aboutaleb). The issue was embedded in the election campaign (Turkish-Dutch politics in combination with attitude towards Dutch-Turkish people in general were main campaign issues). There is not ground to assume that the choices made by Dutch govt were taken without an eye to the election. All this is well published. An encyclopedic description should not omit this relation. -DePiep (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Consider this an NPOV tag. Unfit for a main page mentioning, as it is. -DePiep (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You'll need a Reliable Source that states this - otherwise, WP:SYNTH.104.169.28.48 (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. (You could help by adding it yourself!) Mélencron (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

No, whether it is POV or NPOV does not depend on me (that would be cheap). Any editor should take note. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think there needs to be much more content than just a sentence, though I don't think the omission would justify a npov tag since it is not clear whose pov, if any, the omission serves. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Attack by dogs and mounted police

This discussion was started by sock puppet "Digitalpaper1" of "Human like you" evading indef block.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The unarmed crowd were not protestors but a gathering of patriotic people waiting for the minister in front of the Turkish Counsulate. The display of aggressive behaviour by the Dutch police through the use of dogs and mounted police was unwarranted. Oh, and the mayor ordered the police to fire on the crowd if needed! It's on the internet. This definitely needs to be mentioned in the article. Digitalpaper1 (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC) See WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Exceptional claims such as this need to be sourced from very reliable sources. Weblogs and forums are not admissable as sources. Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Amsterdam

There were also protests and arrests in Amsterdam, the day after the protests and arrests in Rotterdam. Maybe this can be added? – Editør (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why not, as long as it was reported by reliable sources, such as De Telegraaf. Mjroots (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Nazi definition

Does anyone has any idea what Erdogan means with "“Nazi” remarks for the Netherlands and Germany, saying that he uttered those words within the context of their definition". As far as I (and Wikipedia) knows Nazism is defined as following the ideals of the German nazi party. To apply that to the Dutch or German population in general is blatantly false. So the only definition Erdogan seems to use is that whomever I call Nazi is a Nazi. Or is there something less circular. Can someone please clarify for the 23 March statement? Arnoutf (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not really get what it is about here. What do you intend to change in this article? greets. --Joobo (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. It is about this sentence (in the Turkish reaction list) "On 23 March, 2017, Erdoğan said that he would call the European countries fascists as long as they continue to call him a dictator. Also, he clarified his “Nazi” remarks for the Netherlands and Germany, saying that he uttered those words within the context of their definition".

The phrase "within the context of their definition" quoted from Erdogan cannot be understood without knowing what definition Erdogan is referring to. Arnoutf (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand. Well i guess most people generally know what definition it is referred to. However, one can of course include a internal wikilink to the mainarticle of Nazism.--Joobo (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be my definition too. But that has exactly no link to whatever the Dutch or German governments do, so either Erdogan uses a different definition, or what he says makes no sense whatsoever. Arnoutf (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not on us to decide what makes senser or not, or what fits the definition or not. It is simply portrayed here what happened and were stated. That the Netherlands currently are not really a fascist or even nazi like nation is probably obvious to most people. --Joobo (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

That is exactly why I hesitate to wikilink the words "in the context of their definition" to Nazism as that implies Erdogan uses the same definition as we do. Perhaps add after the quote something like: "Erdogan did not clarify what this context of definition refers to" or similar? Arnoutf (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

But is it on us to decide what definition he means?(Since also actually there is only one correct one) I do not think so. So i do not see a problem with linking it. --Joobo (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

No need to overthink this. Erdogan is a street-thug racist speaking to appeal to the ill-educated masses who support him and who consider unthinking obedience to be more important than truthfulness. Historical accuracy is not something that audience will be bothered about. There is no requirement to have every term wikilinked, so why should the words Nazi or fascist, when used by Erdogan, be linked to articles about those names? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it the job of Wikipedians to find what Erdoğan means or discuss how bad Erdoğan is? Please just cite the sources, and say he said "Nazis". Kavas (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Which is what I said - don't attempt to interpret a logical meaning, don't even Wikilink the word, just say what he said as reported via sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You may discuss the education of AK Party voters in other articles. This is not the correct article for it. Thanks. Kavas (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring POV using bad grammar and speaking in Wikipedia's voice

The following two passages were removed:

They were met by Dutch riot police on horseback and using dogs.

and

To disperse protestors, Dutch police used excessive force, even unleashed dogs on protestors, and a Turkish resident was bitten on his calf. For better medical treatment, he was brough to Turkey on March, 22.

The grammar is bad. POV is even worse. How many times are we going to mention dogs? Also advertising Turkey's medical system using Wikipedia's voice is completely unacceptable. Dr. K. 08:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It gets even worse: One source claims

After both were examined by doctors, Kurt was released from the hospital with his brother.

while the Daily Sabah propaganda claims that the Turkish FM declared that the man was moved to Istanbul for quote: "better medical treatment". Adopting the POV of the Turkish FM and serving it in Wikipedia's voice is clearly not on. Dr. K. 08:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

References

How is stating an injured patient transfered to Turkey advertising Turkey's medical system? I urge you to add the material in a possible less "biased" way. But I know you won't, because your POV is that Turkey's medical system is bad. Kavas (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

But I know you won't, because your POV is that Turkey's medical system is bad. Leave the silly personal attacks out of this discussion. I don't think you understood anything that I wrote. Either that, or you don't like what I told you. But I'll play along, to a point obviously. You wrote:

To disperse protestors, Dutch police used excessive force, even unleashed dogs on protestors, and a Turkish resident was bitten on his calf. For better medical treatment, he was brough to Turkey on March, 22.

You wrote that Turkey has better medical care for dog bites (!) as if it were a fact. So, let me ask you: who said that Turkey has better medical care for dog bites? Dr. K. 11:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Dr.K's edit and reasoning regarding the medical treatment content - and anyway, the source is not RS but a rabid propaganda newspaper for the AKP. Content detailing that some of the Dutch riot police were on horseback or had dogs seems relevant content for a single mention somewhere. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Picture

MWAK, you restored the picture (with redacted caption) which had been uploaded and added to the article by the notorious pro-Erdogan pro-AKP POV pusher and sockpuppeteer "Human like you". I have some concerns, mostly because of the categorization of the file [1] . Using a picture of Dutch police classified as "Racism in Europe", "Anti-Turkism", "Islamophobia", "Fascism by country", "Nazism", "Fascism", "Racism by country", "Freedom of assembly" in the article could be understood as suggesting the Dutch and the Dutch police are Nazis, Fascists, ... (as the Turkish AKP propaganda purports). Thus I propose to remove this particular picture (no objections to replace it by an equivalent, but properly categorized one). 84.187.150.182 (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, do you have another picture of the events? If not, we might remove the spurious classifications. The motives of the uploader are irrelevant.--MWAK (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't have another picture. But I think we should remove this one until the issue with the categories is settled, and furthermore, the description in the summary for the file "Mounted Police charging unarmed citizens during a gathering in front of the Consulate of Turkey at Rotterdam, The Netherlands." is changed to a more neutral wording (as the picture caption for the use in this article was changed). Best solution would be to use another picture instead, if possible. 84.187.156.59 (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I changed the description to better reflect the undisputed facts. Also the "fascism" and "nazism" categories were removed as these seemed to be solely inspired by the rhetoric of the Turkish government. One could of course argue that the stance of the Dutch government reflected sentiments of racism, anti-Turkish feelings and islamophobia and anyone wanting to illustrate some of these subjects with this picture might conceivably benefit from the other categories.--MWAK (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, the picture seems more of a generic "mounted police at night" picture, as the exact location is not easily grasped from it. So the added value to the article (beyond the mere statement that there was mounted police) seems to extremely limited. Arnoutf (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

It has a certain authenticity. I invite anyone possessing better pictures to upload them :o).--MWAK (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't doubt it is authentic (that's why I left it in after toning down the caption). My concern is that its added value is very limited as it is so generic. (PS and looking at the pavement it does show evidence that the protestors were at least guilty of littering ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I referred to the authenticity of providing the reader a connection with the actual situation.--MWAK (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)